City Council - Regular Meeting

get settled in. We will do a quick roll call across the dis. I got Joel, I got Seth, I got Rick, Victoria, Eric, Indra, Kathleen, Rob. We got a full house and we got a packed schedule today. So, I would advise um everybody on council as well as myself. I hopefully that you guys did digest the uh agenda a little bit beforehand. So, you know, um please since we do have a packed agenda today, be concise and to the point with your questions and bantering so we can actually get out of here before midnight. With that, I will hand it over to the guy that just fell behind the podium,

Mr. Aaron. Thank you. I had to tie my shoe. Oh, I thought you were pretending to be a garden. With so much movement around here on the podium, I might do. I wanted to make sure I wouldn't trip on my shoelace. So, did you stretch first?

Yes. Uh, good morning, Mayor Council. Uh, today is budget day for you. I mean, we got a lot of numbers that we're going to go over. Uh we've provided all of council members with slide rules so you can keep up with us and I don't know if anybody knows what a slide rule is anymore but yeah. Okay. So moving forward here uh we'll be talking about uh today from my perspective some staff changes that uh we're needing some policy direction on from council and providing you with some information on what we're needing moving forward to put into the budget. So local budget law in Oregon uh provides standards and budget parameters which are established by the governing body which is you and the budget officer is supposed to come to you as as the uh governing body to get policy direction. So that's what I'm trying to do today is to make sure that we're getting general guidelines for budget development so we can prepare a budget which reflects your policies. Couple things that are going to be in the budget this year that we're bringing forward is uh one is on September 3rd, council did authorize 12 additional FTE. So 12 additional FTE will be presented in the budget this year which represents six new uh firefighters and six new police officers. There's an item here that I wanted to just highlight for you and this is a an item again on how the budget will be presented to you. Uh a reallocation from downtown development to police. We're not looking at any change in costs, but what we're looking at is just a better uh snapshot of expenses and services provided. The justification in in this is currently a

downtown development does pay for a a cso, but technically the cso is works in the downtown area, but works works elsewhere. And it really is the police's mission to support a safe and vibrant downtown in general. Downtown revenues do not support the community service officer, and the program does require some general fund support in excess of the officer. So it makes much more sense from a budget perspective that we go ahead and allocate the cost with the program itself which is public safety. It wishes police department. So again this is not going to be a change in cost. You'll just see a for instance fiscal year 26 budget. You'll see a reduction uh in the upcoming budget for fiscal year 27 in downtown services. And that reduction is just changing the cost of a cso from downtown to the police department. No change in service, no change in costs, just a reallocation to a different department. From an engineering perspective, this is something I wanted to bring up that we would like to make sure we put forward in the budget, and that is replacing one engineering tech with an engineering supervisor. This would be an increase, unlike the the previous position change that I just mentioned, of approximately $20,000 per year. We have some justification for needing the engineering supervisor position versus an engineering tech position for multiple purposes both organizational purposes and also service level perspectives. With an engineering supervisor, it provides an opportunity for us to be more uh direct on day-to-day supervision to our engineering staff. As you are aware, our public works

director and our assistant public works director have a large span of control. By providing an engineering supervisor, it helps reduce some of that and it helps increase some of the uh supervisory roles that we can see as a need in the upcoming years when it comes to the engineering department. It does reduce the dependency on the contracted engineer for development reviews which would result in better service and reduce costs. So instead of when it comes to a development reviews, we we send those out to our contract engineer with our engineering supervisor, we're going to have an opportunity to do some of that in-house which is going to provide for quicker turnaround time and better service to our constituents. The position would be able to provide better overall project management of any capital city capital projects, coordinating design, public outreach, and permitting, having the additional responsibilities fall on our engineering supervisor. And it would also enhance career paths for our engineering staff. For those reasons, we're wanting to include an engineering supervisor in the budget this year uh in place of an engineering tech. We're not asking for an additional FTE with this change. We're just asking for a reclassification. You're familiar with some rec classifications. We've done that in the past. You just did two a couple months ago. We're asking for this one to be included. Also, again, the increase would be approximately $20,000 to the engineering department. Facilities maintenance is another item we're wanting to include in the budget this year and get council um consent on. So, additional facility staff will focus on four police uh and fire facilities. What we have currently right now is we have our police station and we have our fire stations and we technically do not have facility maintenance associated with the service to that to those buildings. This would be an increase of

$112,000 per year build directly to police and fire budgets. The justification for this position is is twofold. It would provide skilled facility staff trained in facility operations maintenance to help ensure maximum life of those crucial city assets and allows police and fire staff to focus on their missions. Currently, right now, we may have a a police lieutenant going on top of the roof of the of the police station to clean out the gutters. It's not appropriate use of of time and effort for a lieutenant or sergeant or someone from the police department that is a sworn police officer to be doing maintenance on a building. We've known that we've needed this for some time. We've been working towards building this into the budget. And at this point right now, we have sworn officers. We have firefighters that are doing maintenance to the buildings where they should be focusing on their core mission. And we are looking at wanting to have one FTE that are focused just on those four buildings. And it would require one FTE in order to do so. This would provide an opportunity for us to make sure that the the our our my colleagues are focused on their core mission and what their job duties are and focused on good customer service and provide an opportunity also for us to better maintain the infrastructure that we have in place right now to serve our police and fire departments. There is one more change that we're looking at putting into the budget this year and it's pertaining to our urban forester and trail coordinator. We're looking at changing some do job duties that we have for our urban forester. We uh are looking at a funding allocation change of an additional $54,000 per year to the general fund. So that would be an increase in to the general fund of $54,000. The justification is a couple couple reasons. To date, the urban forcer

position has been split 50/50 between public works streets and community development and parks. And we'd be looking at changing that 0.5 FTE from public works streets and send it in to the general fund. The reason for that is public works and streets job duties are shifting to contractual services. They're not seeing the full need to have the dedicated urban forester at that 5050% split as they see they can do a lot of the work uh that they're looking for uh through contractual services. The addition of dollar mountain trail system of approximately 12 miles and managing our tree inventory for our public park system requires one FTE within community development parks to maintain the current level of service. We just received a m multiple $100,000 grant for tree inventory within the city. We are a Tree City USA. Uh and for the reasons of our infrastructure that we have in place, the urban forcer/trail coordinator, which would provide some additional services with regards to Dollar Mountain and making sure that we have a safe and and and a long-standing good long range planning for our trails and trees in that area are well served. We're needing to change the urban forester to a urban forester trail coordinator and moving that 50-50 split to more of a general full general fund obligation. Your call to action today is uh to move these items to council action or consent or we can have additional workshops. If council concurs with the changes, what we would do is we would draft a resolution for you at a future business meeting either under consent or council action for you to approve, which provides us with full direction from a budget perspective on what we should be putting in the budget and provides that clarity based on our recommendations on what we need to service the community based on your council goals. And with

that, I pause turn it over to mayor counsel uh to ask any questions. I also have with me today the department directors that can provide additional information with regards to specific requests in their departments and divisions.

Uh thank you Erin. Any council questions? Anybody have any questions from council? Anybody have any questions? Uh Rob, uh I got Eric, Seth, Joel, and Rick. So Rob first. Thanks. So, uh, Erin, there's no, uh, there's no number on the slide, but engineering supervisor. Um, you said that this would allow, uh, some of what we now farm out to a contracted city engineer. Uh, you said some of that in house. So, um, first, typically in a typical year, how much do we spend on a contract city engineer? I'm going to guesstimate. I want to say it's about 170,000. A little higher. JC is telling me probably closer to 200,000.

Apparently over 200,000. Over 200,000. Yeah. Okay. So, when you say uh changing the or replacing an engineering tech with an upgrade to an engineering supervisor, some of that work that's now farmed out could be done in house. So, um I would imagine that you've uh scrutinized those figures. So, how much are we going to save on the contracted engineer by doing some of that in house?

The work that we're bringing back in is going to be the staff reporting. That's probably a smaller portion of the work that the engineering the the our outside engineering support is doing. So, maybe $50 $60,000 of savings. Um, but what they're still doing for us is all of our design work and project. Um, they have to sign off on all of our water and wastewater projects to the state. So, it's that larger engineering piece that will still need to be contracted out. So we see this as a potential expense neutral if not a a a savings for us but also to be able to provide additional services to our internal customers and our external customers because there is going to be an additional cost of $20,000 for that change in title and job description. But we do anticipate some savings in the contract aspect.

And if I could, one of the things that really didn't come across in the presentation and that's probably my fault. One of the things we've heard from the development community is that we don't have the managers out in the field talking to some of the contractors. Um, I mean, face it, Wade and I are both just incredibly busy with all of the meetings. It's hard for us to get out into the field regularly to meet with the developers on their projects and look at some of their constraints. We're really envisioning that this engineering supervisor is going to be able to do that. um which should provide better service to them and help us really understand some of the stuff that they're bringing back as complaints for the department.

Yeah, thank you. I have actually heard from contractors that they are they feel that uh it could be time well spent to have someone from uh public works actually on a job site uh occasionally. That that's what we've been hearing. Um so I've uh on the facility maintenance tech. So where where what is the limit on what that person would be doing? Would they be doing paint? Would they be mowing the lawns? Would they be doing light plumbing and electric? Or what types of maintenance would they be doing?

Uh almost all of the same stuff that you see here. They would be managing all of the contracts that are currently being managed by police and fire staff for for their um building maintenance stuff, the the landscaping. As you say, we don't mow very many lawns. Um they would be doing all of the physical checking of the HVAC and the systems and then hiring third party contractors to fill in uh to do the major repair work. Okay. I guess when it says uh facility maintenance tech it just sounds like somebody who's going to do some of the work to me but

they will they'll be doing a lot of those inspections the but they don't actually do some of the the more technical things without an electrical license you can't open up an electrical panel and do that work without certain specialized tools you can't open up an HVAC unit and do that work but they can diagnose and troubleshoot those items but then they have to bring in the proper people at the right time thank Uh any further questions? I had uh and if I missed somebody, I apologize. I had Eric, Joel, Seth, Rick, and Victoria. So, I'll start with Eric.

My question goes back to the uh facilities maintenance tech. What uh Rob was talking about there specifically? What What are we doing now? Uh, in terms of I mean does does the uh city have um do they have any uh facilities maintenance techs? Are there multiple or how how is it working?

We actually currently don't have a facilities maintenance tech. We have facilities workers. Um and we have a facility supervisor. Uh we have had this position. It's been filled I want to say twice before. um but we've just not been able to keep it filled. The addition of this position though is specifically um even if we end up underfilling not maybe not with a tech but with a municipal worker with the skill set that we're looking for, it will be specifically to work on police and fires buildings. Thank you.

Uh further questions, I got uh Joel, Seth, Rick, and Victoria. Joel, um, thank you for the presentation and thank you for looking at the needs and and anticipating the future. Um, on the downtown budget, what was the ending balance last year? Was it positive, negative, and what's it anticipated to be this year? The ending balance of that fund. So, downtown isn't a fund. Okay. Um, but if you go back a few slides, Erin, please for me. So the revenue that comes in that you referred to goes into several funds I take it. Then where is it? Uh the cso slide.

The cso slide. Yeah. So currently it only brings in $169ish,000 and it spends 644. So it needs more money from the general fund than it's actually bringing in. And so that's not going to change with this movement either. All right. But it's going to draw even larger upon the general fund. Is that correct? So moving this customer service or sorry community service officer to police. It's going to be the same draw on the general fund no matter what. It's just going to be coming out of a different program which is directly into police now. Okay. So they're both funded by the general fund. Correct. There's no change in cost associated with this. Is just changing changing it to the police department.

Right. But the downtown revenues you have up there. The downtown revenues do not support the community service officer, but the general fund does. That would in infer a switch in revenue that funds it. No. So the downtown So it doesn't So the downtown revenues still don't support it, but and and it comes out of the general fund in either case. That's correct. Okay. Okay. That was somewhat confusing to me. I did when I look at that. Yeah. That's why it doesn't make sense for us to keep a cso in the downtown program because it the revenues itself don't pay for it.

Yeah, I understand. Okay. So then um the next one, the engineering tech and Jason, I sure respect your management ability and your ability to look at the budget. Um what what is the present span of control? Um without that position, how many people have been supervised by wait by the assistant director? Uh whoever is the supervisor that this person is going to be intermediate between the employees and the supervisor. Uh give me like 30 seconds to boot up my computer and get there. I I don't have the number off the top of my head, but I want to say that it's nine. It's It's on the high side. It's not excessively high, but it's in the nine

range currently. This will lower it by four or it will. So the current span of control is nine employees and then it goes down to five or four. I want to go look it up, but it's in that range. It would go down to five. Yeah. In in that range. Okay. Thank you. And then um the facility maintenance um seems like uh that's a common service for all parts of the city. Yes. Not just police and fire. And so do we uh like for example um the administrative part, do we have a facility maintenance person for that?

We have a coordinated effort here for these structures. We just do not have anything set up and we hadn't had anything set up. We talked about needing it when we first built the public the police station. Okay.

And we've noticed in in fire 2 what what's happening is they're taking care of their own and it's a really inefficient way of doing it. You don't have the bandwidth within our current system that handles the infrastructure already to include those without an additional FTE. So the only question I have is uh that is uh across all it's a common service you know for all all services uh and it's not specific to the fire and police and it needs to be integrated across all services and um in terms of uh contract administration in terms of I'm uh who so like it it leads me to question and out of ignorance my ignorance not out of your your u inability to perform. I'm not inferring that at all, but uh for example, the contract that cleans this building there, somebody administers that. Um and what you're saying is you need another person to administer the contract because it's in fire and and uh police. Um but it seems to me like the question at least needs to be asked of the integration of this service across all city operations, not just police and fire. So can I take a stab at that? So currently um most departments but not all pay our facilities groups to do exactly as you're talking about.

Sure. So um the parks I think is the exception. We take care of two of their facilities. They maintain the rest of them. Mhm.

Um, one of the things that came up in the last PAVE audit related to the facilities was that we needed to be more proactive on care of the public safety facilities. We were originally staffed for three maintenance uh facilities maintenance workers, the MC the maintenance tech, uh the municipal lead, I'm getting these titles wrong, but the maintenance tech, the municipal lead, and a municipal service worker. Um, we believe with those same three people, we can take care of all of the facilities. What this does is helps to spread that cost back to police and fire who are then taking advantage of those services. They would be paying a different rate. However, they're only paying for the person whereas everybody in the other facilities pays a square footage rate. Um, basically rent for the facilities and we maintain all of them. We had to structure it a little bit different to kind of roll it in over time. Um, otherwise that cost would have been much higher. So, let me make sure I understand because I'm getting old. So, I'll I'll repeat back what I think I heard. I said uh what you said. Um you want to make sure police pays their fair share.

Yes. And to do that, you have to hire another person. We cannot take care of those four extra buildings with the three staff members that we currently have, which is a supervisor and a municipal lead and a municipal service worker without the addition of an additional staff member. We can't bring on those other four buildings. So, but you do have contract administrators already in maintenance, correct? Yeah. Yes. but nobody to physically go do all the the physical inspections of those facilities and do all of the minor maintenance work.

So, one of the advantages of sharing a a uh uh integrated operation is that those skills you you only need one or two people with that and they can serve everybody and you can contract the rest of it out on for the contracting portions. That is correct. But you still need a body to get to all of those sites to inspect to inspect.

Yeah. And prepare the contracts and uh and you need and you need that in other areas as well. So So instead of having a police and fire person do that, I mean it'd be great if we could do that for every department. It seems like it needs to be an integrated uh effort across all city and and and an integrated workload rather than a functional. Well, I guess my perception is it that it is. Yes, police and fire are paying to add one additional body, but it's it um it may not be the same person that's servicing their equipment every time. It might be one of our current employees, but we need to bring on one extra body to have the additional hours in the day to be able to get to all of those facilities and do the work that's required. We can't do it with the staff that's there.

I think we're talking the same language. I think we are we're just saying it differently. It is an integrated approach. It it is and that that body resides within the facilities group doing the work that the facilities group does so well. Um but we just need the extra hours to be able to get that work accomplished correctly. It's not like the body resides in the police and fire budget um at all. So, right now, if I understand you correctly, um, the city cleaners, for lack of a better word, there's a more professional word for it. Janitorial staff or our maintenance crew, maintenance,

our maintenance crew. Um, not only a crew, but um the contracting administrator um um doesn't get paid by police and fire, and rather they just do the work themselves. That is correct. They have their own contract employees that do those services. So they've they got their own contract. So then so it's all contracted out except for occasions when you need a uh the roof cleaned out cuz the gutters are overflowing or something. I'm getting too detailed here, but I I'm trying to understand what's going on.

You're right. It is. and the and both the both chiefs are sort of responsible for doing those and making sure and looking at and assessing from a building infrastructure what contracts they need when they need it, what kind of service level they they have. And that's not really the wheelhouse of of the police department or the fire department. And like Jason is saying, we were needing one additional FTE to try to take on those additional four structures in an integrated approach, which would require then the ability for us that would would provide the bandwidth for us to service those buildings, but it would require an additional service charge to police and fire and approximately $112,000 for that FTE service.

Yeah. Which I understand, but it seems like anytime we get get new facilities, we don't stovepipe the maintenance from now on. we uh we have it integrated. That's what we're trying to do is integrate that cost through this through this process because that's that that does that's hard on people and uh you already got the expertise in another part of the city that can do it for you cheaply. That's what we're trying to do. Yeah. Erin, if I just comment to maybe give some just general how a day-to-day thing goes. So, for example, um our generator or our HVAC or our landscape, you know, who would have known there's like 60 filters that have to go into that HVAC system.

I do my best and our team will do our best, but we're not the experts. So, we want to bring in the experts so they can manage these kind of projects. Yeah, that should be taken care of from the beginning, not not 10 years later. Okay, you good? Um, cuz you got a lot on your plate there. I'm just making sure cuz unless you want to take a break and we'll go to somebody else. Well, yeah, I it's a comment, so I'll Okay, sounds good. Um, I got further questions. I had Seth, Rick, and Victoria. Seth opt out Rick and then Indra after that.

Thank you, Aaron. So in the maintenance tech was the aspect of a private hire looked for that position. Uh no and there no we did not look at a private hire like you're talking about contracting out the work. We did. Would that would that be difficult to do?

I don't know if it would be difficult. there may be some contractual um issues and then also you know to keep consistent people generally we would want it done with the city staff because we also have to get them sieges certified to be able to go into all of the places they'll need to go uh within the public safety facility which is another big deal. Okay, that's understandable. Thank you. Uh further questions I got uh Victoria and then Indra and Kathleen. Victoria

um yes my I have one on the facilities maintenance tech as well. The 112,000 um roughly a does this reflect uh the anticipated contracting out to like an electrician or or is that reflected in that? It's basically the fully loaded salary of the employee plus a little bit of overhead for the facilities division to help manage that person and the the work that they'll be doing.

Oh, okay. And then uh my second question about this one and either um um either Chief could could answer or both. How much time is spent now doing this? And with the additional six uh full-time employees that are going to be added, would that lessen the load?

Well, for my team, we have what we like to call collateral duties. So what they're on top of all their training, on top of responding to calls, our firefighters, for instance, are taking 3 to four hours uh especially with Hillrest in particular, having to plan with everything from the bay doors that are breaking down with regular maintenance to our HVAC system that we regularly have issues with that parkway ever since it's been installed because it goes underground in the parking lot to um plumbing issues that we're having, foundation issues at Hillrest. So, it's it's three on average when they're on shift and we can't expect them to do it off of shift because then we'd have to pay them overtime as well as with our deputy chiefs as well jumping on this. So, it's actually it's an extensive amount of time that they're spending weekly just to maintain these buildings with the advent of the issues we're having with some of the older facilities. So,

thank you. No problem. Yeah. Yeah. Council, if I'm tracking your question correctly, on the PD side, it makes no difference. We're hiring cops to go out in the field. So we don't need him in the office. Thank you. Um and then my next question was about the urban forester and trail coordinator. Um is this given person for it seems like it's mostly for baller mountain. Was is this mainly do you think for maintenance for that uh trail system or supervision or

uh yes counselor to be on your first point we when you say primarily dollar mountain yes that is a kind of a new piece of it but still the majority of their job would be doing urban forestry work in the park system. So right now that that position historically being split between public works and community development has been 50% working um on you know if if a property owner calls us and says hey there's a there's a street tree that we think is you know a hazard they'll go out and look at it or if there's some you know encroachment into the sidewalk um they'll go out you know and say take a look at it. um that that piece of it would be going away um where public works and the streets division would uh take that contractually as as as the city manager stated the but there's still a lot of urban forestry work that that would need to be done. We added the trails piece because yes, Dollar Mountain uh particularly as it becomes more heavily utilized, we're anticipating, you know, needing somebody to make sure that there was those are updated uh or maintained in a correct manner. So, um you know, there and we do of course have other trails that are not Dollar Mountain. currently our our municipal service worker that works for parks handles that position. Um as but there's either you know there's still some trails that are existing that um you know are kind of hurting for a little bit of maintenance. Um and so this can this position can also kind of help that individual

to spot the maintenance that is needed and then right and be a be a little bit more proactive um on the trails you know such as um well you know we have we have several that are that are citymaintained trails like the Allen Creek Trail and others um that there's uh people call in and say well there's a an encroachment a tree fell or the pavement is buck clean or whatever. So they they can be more proactive on that piece of it as well.

Okay. And then just to be uh a little bit more clear maybe uh I think I think you answered it, but is Dollar Mountain that extra trail system just it's so big that adding that extra one it it really there is a need for um this increase here because of Dollar Mountain. And was it uh when Dollar Mountain was put in, was that anticipated then uh the need for the increased um super uh coordinator?

Well, we certainly knew that, you know, 12 new miles of trail was going to be adding some level of work. Um, now to be clear, the Rogue Valley Mountain Bike Association, um, a volunteer group, a user group, um, is willing to work with us and have volunteers that can help to identify hazards or, you know, report issues and go out and help to do some repair work. Um, but that is unknown exactly how much how many hours that would involve uh through RVMA. Um, so we want to ensure that, you know, the facility is is is wellmaintained and safe. Um, so yeah, that that really is the trigger. Um, but again, we're not certainly not anticipating, you know, a half FTE just for Vault Dollar. It would be it would be caring for the grant for the next three years um that we have. That's about, you know, a $600,000 grant. That's a lot additional urban forestry work that is just within the parks. Okay, thank you so much.

Further questions. I got uh Indra, Kathleen, and Joel. Indra,

hi. Thank you. Um, would I be able to get an organizational chart for facilities like we're adding, you're asking to add additional facilities, staff? I don't even know what that staff looks like. So, and I'm very visual, so I would like to see a chart with the staff of who we have. and then also what you're recommending so I can compare with that. I think I would need to have that to make a decision and also the engineering um department as well or whoever is in there. I would like to see an organizational chart so I can get a handle on uh how many employees and supervisors and techs are all working in there. Would that be possible?

Yeah, we could even put that up. Yes, we can even put that up on online and grab it and I pretty much put it up online today if you'd like. Okay. And then um I'm just wondering because we've been talking about the bargaining and non-bargaining salaries. So the increase of 20,000 per year, moving from a tech to a supervisor, is that bargaining to non-bargaining? And does that 20,000 um is that part of did you get that from the current salary schedule or that' be placing proposed one?

So yes, that would move someone to non-bargaining and that's placing them in our current salary structure that we have it that we're working off of right now, not any proposed salary structure. Okay. Thank you. Further questions? I got uh Kathleen and Joel. Kathleen. Yeah. So uh also I'd like to know uh with the engineering tech supervision, you're saying that would be a net increase of 20,000. Um yes. What what is what is it? What is the 20,000 in addition to? So that's just adding 20,000. What in addition to

So that what it is is again from an engineering tech perspective, we're not adding an FTE. We're just reclassifying a current position to the supervisor and that's what that extra is. So currently right now there there are certain bandwidth in the salary structure as as a bargaining individual and as a non going into non-bargain as a supervisor they're moving up a couple of steps in the salary structure and that's what that $20,000 is paying for. Right. But what is underneath that? I mean what are we adding the 20,000 to for that position? I mean, what additional what what additional responsibilities? Is that what you're asking for? Pay dollar amount. Yeah. Dollar amount. Okay. Jason will pull that up for you.

Okay. And then I also It sounded like we were going to be saving to to have this position instead of contracting. Sounded like contractually it'd be like 200,000 a year. But I want to compare that to the salary. That's where I'm headed with this. So I think both Jason and I are working on some at the same time here. Uh so yes, we do anticipate some savings in the contractual aspect of it because we will be able to do some of that work inhouse. Uh as Jason mentioned earlier, maybe $50,000 savings in the contractual aspect. This will add $20,000. So we see this as not necessarily when you look at the overall scheme of things in total an increase in costs. It could be maybe a savings or a break even. But with that what we're getting is we're getting additional services to the contractors. We're getting additional services inhouse to our system. Uh so we're making things better at really no cost or maybe even some savings. And the engineering tech salary uh tops out at at 699. That's without benefits and all the other stuff, but that's the salary range.

So adding 20,000 to that roughly for the supervisory position. Y for the questions I got to Joel and Indra. Joel.

Um, one of the things I I'd like to see before we made a decision was um you we got the effect for each individual decision, but I'd like to see the cumulative effect by funds and how it portrays and how you feel about it in terms of the existing budget constraints for carryover and that kind of thing. Um because it's it's easy to um uh put say well yeah that makes sense. Yeah, that makes sense. Yeah, that makes sense. But if you look at the whole package, and this is a relatively small package, but just to reaffirm that, yeah, it still makes sense cumulatively, and we're not not uh not uh losing the pie because I really like this one piece.

So, thank you, councelor. We would not be making this recommendation to council if we didn't think it was something that was either necessary or it makes sense. uh we're bringing these things forward and and for instance like the um maintenance facility tech. We've known for a few years that this is needed. It's gotten to a point where it definitely is needed. We've been very conservative with regards to trying to bring this forward to council recognizing that there would be a general additional draw on the general fund. But in order to provide the services and really take a look at maintaining our infrastructure, there's there's infrastructure underneath the ground. There's infrastructure on on top of the ground and there's millions and millions of dollars that we've invested and we want to make sure we take the best care of those th that investment and it's not likely that we bring forward in additional FTE. Many of what you've seen today is not additional FTE. It's just a change in the way we're utilizing our current FTE infrastructure. And Erin, everything you say is true and um the cumulative impact on the budget um is a very easy thing to do and needs to be done so that there is awareness on the part of the people establishing the policy so that we don't um in the in the sake of trying to make sense of it with your good recommendations um have a hard time fitting within the budget that at least we're aware of that before we make that decision. Well, the cumulative I think will actually follow through with maybe the presentations that JC is going to be providing later on also.

Yeah, if if you want to to get a better idea of what you mean by cumulative, but we can get some numbers up to you with regards to how that Yeah, it's a it's a pretty easy task to do. I see it I see it individually. I don't see it cumulatively.

Yeah. And that's part of how we are financially broken up, too, right? So, these aren't all going to hit the same pot of money. So, sorry. So, this is your biggest effect, the the 12 people added to the general fund as far as public safety. It's going to be about $1.8 million. And so, in front of you, there's a uh some color sheets that we'll go over in the next presentation, too. And that is why we wanted to present these FTE ads first, because in your pink handout, there is the proposed new fund balance policies. And with these uh all these additions um and/or changes that gets us to an 18.5% fund balance policy as well as establishing all of the fund balances for all these other funds. So as we go through obviously this has the largest impact drawing a fund balance policy of currently general fund of 25% down to 18.5 which is the proposal. Now the community service officer that doesn't change anything that's currently a service level that is provided. So that is within the general fund financial policy. The engineering supervisor is in its own fund. It's off to the side. Uh this $20,000 will be minimal impact to that fund. Same with the facilities maintenance tech. They've done a very good job of maintaining the facilities and this addition obviously yes we'll charge the general fund out but as far as the whole as the facilities maintenance fund and program that uh this FTU will be utilized in uh that program has done very well as far as maintaining its fund balance and it does have its own call out in the fund balance policy because it is an internal service fund and I believe that's at 12 a.5%. urban forester and trail coordinator. So again like uh Jason said or sorry what Aaron said 50% of this uh was already paid out of the general fund. The impact is that 54,000 uh into the general fund which is again

all encompassed in the proposal that would be potentially the estimation of that 18.5% in the general fund. And does that answer your accumulative effect on the city's budget? So again, let me repeat back what I heard you say that might be gerine to the decision. Um there was two two of them. One is the urban forester because that pertains to the general fund and the other one is maintenance

facility maintenance that because that also pertains to the general fund if I understood you correctly. Um and that then accumulatively along with the six officers of each uh public safety thing takes us down to 18.5% in your calculations. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Um yeah, it's uh so the the basic question is can we afford to do it and keep a sound policy? That's the basic question I'm trying to answer. I think that depends on you guys as a policy board of what the policy will be. Now Thank you. Uh further questions I got Indra and then Rob. Indra.

Yes. I had one more question on the engineering piece. So the tech um cannot go out in the field. Is that right? No, they're out in the field all the time.

So you said that you need an engineering supervisor to be able to go out in the field. It would replace a tech. not replace it would be kind of in addition to it would provide somebody who is in authority I think maybe with a bigger skill set than some of the techs some of the techs are very new to being inspectors and I think that the developers and the contractors would like somebody there with more authority sometimes um to help to listen see what's going on understand what they're up against. So this first line where it says replacing one engineering tech, is that incorrect?

Well, um, when it says replacing, you're basically taking the engineering tech and saying you're now an engineering, not that we have one, we have a vacant position. So before we fill that vacant position, we want to make sure where we're at with what personnel. We would eliminate one of the engineering techs, which were currently um allocated three, that would become, I want to say, two, and we would have an engineering supervisor. in addition to and you would not replace that position. Okay,

further questions I got Rob. Yeah, so I'm not exactly sure where this fits into this discussion and I don't want it to be overlooked, so I'd rather bring it up earlier rather than miss the opportunity. But when we're talking about the community service officer, you know, and reallocating that from downtown services dollars to police dollars, you know, that I understand um the uh the arithmetic makes sense there or the the accounting makes sense. Um I'm more concerned with the fact that um from a service perspective, our cso presence in downtown at currently is virtually zero. It's done nothing but go down for the last four or five years. And for a period of time, you know, I um uh didn't bring this up much because it seemed as though we had a tremendous um additional workload due to our homeless camps and so forth. But at this point, um do I have the floor?

Okay. Hey, Rob. Joel, can you keep it down a little bit? Yeah. Rob's trying to talk here. You guys got to keep your chatter down a little bit. Thank you. Go ahead, Rob. Sorry.

So, you know, it would seem as though, okay, now we're officially moving the funding from downtown development to police. It almost seems like the downtown portion now is even easier to overlook because it has been very much um understaffed downtown. in addition on the same sub or a similar subject and I you know I've spoken with uh both spoken and emailed the chief the police chief uh several times over the last couple of years about the um the um deficiency I believe extreme deficiency on parking enforcement and I could go on at length about that but more recently you know when I uh the chief and I had emailed back and forth and um you know he was under the impression that the parking enforcement was doing pretty well this year or compared to what it did last year and so forth. And then when I emailed uh JC on the same subject as far as certainly on collecting uh on tickets and things like that, our collection was actually down by 50%. The chief told me that he thought things were going well, but our collection on these fines was down by 50% in the last uh year-over-year. And if I remember correctly and I I'm probably fairly accurate if we go back three or four years on the number of tickets we were giving it was another it basically was another 50% higher than that. So our ticketing has done nothing. We'll put this way our ticketing has has gone down for for certain our revenue from the ticketing has gone down. I believe that's probably because the ticketing has gone down which which the main reason is because we don't really have much presence of anybody walking around giving tickets and we have very little presence of cso if any and now we're officially moving this money out of the downtown we'll say budget to the police which I think brings us even further away from potentially actually getting presence the appropriate presence

downtown that we had we'll say 5 years ago which we clearly do not have now. So, I'm concerned with this and I'd rather bring it up sooner rather than miss a chance to to uh bring this up. I'm happy to make a few comments if you'd like. Uh I'd love to hear it.

Yeah, I hear what you're saying, counselor, and I appreciate your opinion and um I might disagree slightly. Um I think the beginning of the story goes back to community service officer versus parking enforcement officer. So, a few years ago, we decided not to go with a contract and we decided to go with a parking enforcement officer and that's who is downtown, a parking enforcement officer. CSOS are running around all over the city doing a variety of other things to include supporting downtown initiatives. There's a lot of things people don't see in the we hours of the morning to include uh the work of the patrol officer that's out there uh hustling 24/7 uh helping people make good decisions in the we hours of the morning. and uh that wasn't discussed either. So uh we I am committed to not just the downtown but the entire city and we'll try continue to do our very very best. Can we get better at everything? Well, of course. Uh we're never going to be perfect and if there's areas to improve upon, we will. And I'm sure I've shared that with you before. Uh good examples when we're dealing with this unhoused homeless transient uh issue we've been dealing with for many many years. Um our parking enforcement officer to include our community service officers, to include our community response team and police officers work as a cohesive team to clean out these campsites all the time. There's only enough time in the day. Now go back to the very beginning. Can we do better? you can always do better every single day. Uh so we'll continue to look at that. So I I don't necessarily have the same analogy uh or when you provided your analysis of how things are going on downtown. I think we're doing quite a good job. We're catching a lot of criminals. We're sending a lot of people to jail. Um writing tickets doesn't necessarily change behavior as you probably saw from the report. Uh there

are a lot of people that just don't pay the bill. And uh we've talked about uh reintroducing the boot, which I'd rather not reintroduce the boot, frankly. But if we have to reintroduce the boot to gain compliance and get folks to pay their bill, so be it. We'll give it a go. Um I'm always happy to conversation and uh feedback and criticism. I take criticism quite well. Um but I can assure you our guys are doing a heck of a job and will continue to do a heck of a job. Um, but I'll I'll end with this and I'll say it again. Nobody's perfect and uh we'll continue to strive forward and and do our best.

Okay. Thank you. And I I just like to clarify that some of what I said is not opinion. Some of it is mathematical fact, figures on a page. How much how much ticketing revenue that we've been collecting, how that's looked over the last couple years, how it has gone down by roughly 50% the last few years. And I believe it was 50% before that's not opinion. And um what that what is an opinion potentially is is what effect does that have on downtown businesses which we haven't discussed at all and I think that's very easy to overlook especially from someone's office you know city hall office. Um the fact is is that uh you know our customers need to know that there's a good chance that they're going to find parking reasonably close to where they're going. And the best way that we can do that is to make sure that the parking turns over. As you know and I know there are people who will park all day downtown and it's usually business owners, some business owners that continual continually do it and some business employees will continually do it if they know there's no enforcement. And the fact is there is very little enforcement now and you can't there's no there's no data that proves that there is good enforcement. There is data that proves that that the enforcement has gone down. So that actually effect on what it's having to downtown businesses. It cannot be positive and it needs to improve. And as far as you know, we we've this is now what was it? January we're talking about the boot or whatever whatever it is to get uh repeated scoff laws to actually pay attention needs to be done and we don't need to ring our hands and you and I don't need to discuss this three three more times at three more meetings to make it happen because it's not happening now. And that's not opinion that you can look at the math on that.

Before JC wants to make a comment, I I do think I have to make a comment to that. Um, I think presence in and of itself is a deterrence whether you write a ticket or not. Uh, we do a heck of a lot of traffic enforcement. We don't write a lot of tickets either, but we also gain compliance. So, there's a lot that you have to look at when you're looking at enforcement. Uh, it's not just our parking enforcement officer that writes parking tickets. It's also our cadetses, and that's another program that we developed when I came on board to put more boots on the ground downtown to provide a presence to include our CSOS, to include our police officers that write tickets. So, if you break it all down, there is still work going on. But I I will not disagree or or belabor a point. If we need to write more tickets, we'll do our best to write more tickets. Um, but I also want to make it crystal clear that I feel that our officers, our csos, our parking enforcement, our cadetses are doing their job to the very best of their ability and we'll continue to manage them and hold them accountable to to do that.

Okay. I'm just going to say one last thing and I I I'm I'm I'm reasonably sure uh or put it this way. I'd like to believe that our CSOS and our officers and so forth are doing the job to their best their ability. The question comes down to priorities set by management, meaning you and others that are high ranking. I'm not I'm not um disparaging the job that the people on the ground are doing. What I am saying is that the management needs to uh be adjusted. And I tell you that you'll have a hard time finding downtown daytime business owners. Now, things can be happening at 2 in the morning that benefit our downtown. You're going to have a hard time finding business owners downtown who actually would agree that we have uh adequate cso presence, that we have adequate uh police officer presence or adequate cadet presence or anything close to what we had 10 years ago. So that that would be an opinion piece and I and but you're going to have a hard time finding anyone that agrees with that opinion on you as far as adequate downtown presence. And as far as writing tickets, we've talked about yes, writing tickets is part of it, but we have to figure out a way to enforce them. And uh because right now, as we know, there's people who have $1,000 of outstanding tickets and they continue to park illegally all day every day, which is in front of other people's businesses, not their own, which is amazing. that needs to be cleaned up and and I don't have the ability to clean it up as a city councelor. You have the ability to clean that up as a police chief.

So I I do want to mention that we started off councelor Pel mentioned that he understands the the accounting aspect of why we're trying to make this change. That's all we're trying to do. And today the discussion is we're not discussing level of service. It sounds like there may be at least the desire of one council member to start to have a discussion about level of service in the downtown area, which we'd be more than happy to discuss so we can get the data, we can have a good conversation. From today's perspective, I'm not we're not talking about changing whether it's good enough or not good enough or it's too much. We're just I'm wanting to make at least in this in this specific community service officer discussion, no change in cost, no change in level of service. We're just wanting to allocate the resources appropriately. So what we're talking about now is level of service and how it is either perceived or reality what we're doing right now specifically with the downtown which I think would be a great discussion for a future workshop if council wanted to but the discussion is much broader right now that we're discussing specifically we're just talking about an accounting issue changing the accounting from one location to another. Aaron, I appreciate that and I I I get what you're saying. My point was is that as we move that funding out of the out of the downtown uh services budget and and remove it even further from even mention of downtown, my concern is that we're going to have even a greater reduction of service than we've seen in the last few years. So, we've been paying the same, but service has actually been reduced. So, I'm not talking about increasing service over what it really should have been or has been. I'm talking about the fact that it continues to go down and as we move that funding further away from the downtown that source I'm concerned that it's going to go down even further and it's just that's not acceptable.

No, I get that from an optics perspective counselor. Uh and I'm more than happy and I think it'd be great to facilitate a discussion on that. But this is just an accounting move. It's not a level service move. If if I may just one more point, Erin, just to kind of finish the conversation, and I appreciate what you're saying, counselor, and I always hear what all council members say, but just as a reminder, instead of asking for six police officers, I asked for five police officers and one community service officer because I understand the value as do you as well. So, I just wanted to close with that. All right, further questions? I got uh Kathleen and then Joel. Kathleen.

So, I don't know if I'm stating the obvious, but if this is a uh cost issue, will the change from the uh cso to a police officer increase this so that we have the extra money to afford it? No, this this today is not changing anything from any the only thing it is it's an accounting. It's accounting. We're taking the cost that's currently allocated to downtown and putting it back in police uh for the cost of one cso. We're not changing FTEEs. We're not changing positions or titles. It's just an example.

I'm just saying fixing the budget issue because it seems like we're not bringing in enough revenue as Rob is saying to meet the expenditures. And is that change going to help this? Well, that's going to be a future discussion that JC is going to be bringing up with regards to our costs associated with the additional FTEES and and changes and revenues and expenditures and reserve fund balance. Um, so I think that is a good question for potentially later on this today.

Further questions? I got Joel and then Indra. Joel. Well, my question and and a real e JC, it's an easy question and you already know the answer to it and it's a little bit about what Aaron just referred to. Um, we talked about the cumulative effect of the of the costs and and the budget constraints. The other part of that is the revenue and uh the revenue of the general fund has increased uh at least according to the figures you gave us about $1.5 million this year over last year. And do you anticipate that same increase this next year? And and if you do, um do the uh positions to the uh police and fire and these incremental decisions plus the increase in salaries uh uh exceed that incrementally from year to year. So plainly, yes.

Okay. Right. Adding 12 FTE is $1.8 million into a budget where we were just hitting the baseline of the 25% fun of the 1.5 and and what this would add to it as well. That is correct. Okay. And so we didn't add any new revenue source and so you would think just logically that we would be behind the current revenue source. Well, the revenue is is still going up without the change but it's about 1.5 million a year and we've seen larger increases through inflation for all the other things. Right. Right. Okay. Thank you. That's uh that's a an important point when looking at this subject. Okay. Thank you. Uh further questions I got Indra.

Uh yes, JC, you said um downtown revenues there. There's not a fund. Is that just a line item in a fund? What where and what are the downtown revenues specifically? Like where does that revenue come from? Uh it's mainly from TLT. So in your your other packet, you have something that looks like this. Yes. that is in your budget and it is on page Oh, thank you. Let me get there. Page 160. Thank you.

The top portion are your revenues. You can see the large majority of those revenues come from lodging tax and there's some other stuff in there. And then below are the expenditures. Thank you. Any further questions? I know we've had a lot of debate embroiled in our questions and we've got a little bit broad on our topic, but I think it was um ample to go into those territories so you guys could make an ample decision or a true decision. Any further questions? I don't see any questions.

Thank you, mayor. uh moving forward to conclude this looking for uh some direction from council on the requests that you have here that we've discussed. Do we have the ability to go ahead and move forward either to council action or council consent at a future business meeting on those uh about four positions that we're talking about?

So what's the sentiment of a council so far? Do you feel that you've that that staff has answered enough questions to proceed this to uh next business meeting or any other suggestion? Indra? Yes. Um, since this increases our cost somewhat, I'm I really need to see the structure of the staff and the organizational chart and see what we have going already before I could make a decision on spending more money um on staff. So, also I'd really like to be able to study the budget more and where this would go in before making a decision on increasing staff costs. Thank you. Except except the public safety. Like my priority really is public safety and so I'm okay, you know, with the we did the new officers um the cso. So that's where my focus is. So the engineering and the tech things and the tree while great that would not be my priority. Thank you.

Uh thank you. Um so we are looking for uh staff's going to be looking for some direction and we have further comments. Uh Rob and then Victoria. Rob.

Um this is something I asked for last year and staff did uh follow through on it. I found it helpful. Um, it actually probably would have made sense to uh have members of the budget committee here today, but last year I know that we sent out um u an email to members of the budget committee and several of them did actually email back very thoughtful um analysis and suggestions on a matter that was something like this. And I actually would like uh to put this in the form of a question to email to the members of the budget committee. And there may be some of them that would have something thoughtful and helpful to uh uh to council. Uh you know, they may they may respond back, but um last year we did that and I I again I don't know if anybody else looked at it, but I found it helpful and I would find that helpful again this year.

Victoria,

it seems like people had a lot of questions on the other two. um increases for the facilities maintenance tech and the engineering supervisor. I think that were that was uh oh and the urban I'm sorry the urban forest or trail coordinator and the facilities maintenance tech. However, we decided quite some time ago to add the six uh uh fire and police and I think that's important to go forward with. So, I would just like to go ahead and make a motion to move that to uh council action. Oh, I mean council consent agenda for the six uh police and fire. And just for those two, it sounds like people are needing more information about the other two positions. So, I would like to make that motion to go forward to the consent agenda with just the six fire and police. Yeah, th those two bit th that action has already been approved. So that's okay. We don't need to take further action from council on that one.

That's last year on the six and six. Oh, I thought you were asking us because it's in the packet. Well, I mentioned that it was Yeah, I wanted to be clear on the changes from last year to this year on the FTE. Okay. Well, if it doesn't, so it will go to a consent. Police and fire has already been approved by council. It's That's what I thought. Okay. All right. I was a little worried about that. I I'm not sure. Okay. Thank you. That's good. Uh further discussion. I got Kathleen and then Seth. Kathleen.

So, I just want to say that in view of being a good steward um of our budget and um what we have available this year um leading into next year and the next year. Um I don't parks is our most spendy department of 3 million and I just can't see hiring um more in that department right now. I see the necessity for a maintenance tech uh for our police and fire and I think um and if we're just changing the um FTE to police from a cso worker but I think that's a great suggestion from um Rob that we run it by the budget committee and get some feedback from them as well. So I would be in favor of that.

Mayor further can I add a comment? Yes, absolutely. So, the proposed fun financial policies are the exact same as last year. The exact same feedback probably by the bud budget committee is probably relevant. Um, I did send that out in February of this year as far as those previous comments by the previous budget committee. Um, I did not elect to do that this year because there wasn't any changes to that financial policy that is being proposed as far as the pink handout that you have in front of you. Um, if you would like that same response, I can forward that uh response as far as what the budget committee had to say last year. Further comments? I had uh Seth, right?

Yeah. I was just going to say I mean I could see I mean moving forward with the community community service officer, you know, reallocating that um but with an understanding that we would discuss downtown here shortly. Um, and then potentially the engineering supervisor just because that could be u, you know, we could actually make some money on that and it wouldn't cost as much and I think it's important to have someone out in the field um, talking directly with developers. So anyways, take that.

Okay. Any further discussion? I don't know if we have full direction here. So I got Joel and then Victoria. um being short and succinct. Is that the right word? Is that the right word? Anyway, um I would favor uh a general discussion going forward to our um our uh Wednesday night meeting for a decision. Um what that decision would be right now, I I don't think it's it's uh uh self-evident to me, but I think we need to discuss it further. there was some information and requests for additional information which I'm sure JC he provided some here on the fly and so did Aaron and did their best to cover that. Um but it would be nice like the organizational charts and those type of things. One of the things that strikes me is um there's no change in level of service, but the but the money goes up. Um and uh it it would it would make it easier on on the city employees, I'm sure, like going from a a span of control of eight to a span of control of four. That might even pay for itself in terms of less contracting versus versus contracting out. Um uh whatever. But uh when I look at it there there's an increase in expense and there's no change in service. Um and uh that bothers me a little bit. But anyway, we need I I would I would favor going forth to a discussion and uh and then we have to make a decision.

Okay, further discussion. I got Victoria and then Indra. Victoria. Um that's okay. I think Joel kind of covered a little bit what I was going to say. Thank you. Oh, awesome. Thank you, Victoria. Uh, Indra, anything else to add and then I'll try to sum this up.

Uh, yes. I guess I would just say in principle the one now I I forgot we're bringing inhouse instead of contracting just in general. I am against uh growing government and bringing things in house because generally the government services are not as efficient as what we contract out in general. Um, so that I'm really hesitant to do that. I do think we need to make a decision. I don't I don't want to move this to a full workshop and hash it out again. I think we if we get the information we asked for, we should be able to make a decision on Wednesday and go forward. So, I would be for that.

Oh, Rick got something to add. I'm going to try to sum it up after that. I would also be in favor of moving this forward to Wednesday night. It'll give us the opportunity to get additional input and hopefully we can come to a resolution that time. Thank you. Um okay, so I'm going to try to sum this up. It looks like we have um some favoritism to push this through for approval on the next Wednesday evening. Um but there are some additional information that I heard that was asked for. one being an organizational chart of um the FTEES the staff and I'm going to be looking over to you guys to verify this. Um I had wrote down an overall increase in FTE funding. Was that what was looking for? in like an uh if the Joel's question was if the evolving budget was could accommodate and how long was there anything that I missed was there anything that I missed

I think that's that was those are notes that I was getting in in my head from the discussion something else Indra input from budget committee I mean I I guess we could just ask them to look and email us before Wednesday so if you ask for input from budget committee. You're going to delay this past the previous or the next Wednesday which is in two days. Anything else you want to add, Victoria?

Yeah. Uh Joel mentioned something about level of service. Was that kind of inherent in what you summed up somewhere? I didn't think it was, so that's why I'm asking. There was questions and and discussion in regards to level of service, but this request is not I know it's affected of level and service or perceived level of service, but that wasn't necessarily um part of this ask. So I think that's

that would kind of be expanding the the premise a little bit. It would but it might be nice to know from uh department heads about expected increase of level of service if they it so maybe do add that because I think it might help people to make the decision. So it was brought up that it might help make counselors make decision if there was a perceived expectation of increase of level of service by these FTEEs. Is that kind of how I'm framing it correctly? That sounds good to me. Does that make sense on this side?

Yes. Some of those some of the items that are requesting them to change are just from an accounting perspective. Some would change level service and or slash increase level of service. So I think what I'm hearing is highlight what those level of service changes are. That's what I Okay. So with that, do you have understand what what was need to be provided for more additional information for Wednesday night? We do. And so then we would we would add this to Wednesday night's agenda for your consideration under council action. It sounds like because there's going to be further discussion.

So sentiment from councilors to add this to Wednesday night's um uh for council action during Wednesday night's meeting with additional information to be provided. Thumbs up, please. Looks like um we have full consent from council and you are good with direction. Thank you, mayor, council.

Thank you. Okay, so since we took C to A, we're doing A now. Reaffir reaffirm budget policy and future financial. Look, did I do I have the wrong thing one here? Okay, so it looks like JC is going to take over. I just wanted

got to turn on the mic. Uh I just wanted to point out uh page 88 of our budget online uh there is a snapshot of the organizational chart and the two specific programs that you have been talking about which is engineering is on page 260 and facilities management is on 264. before, but each one of the program areas has a listing of their FTE in those programs. Just wanted to point that out before I start the next one because that could be potential other questions that we have coming down uh through the the next couple slides. So today I have more of a a physical demonstration. I know we talk a lot of numbers. We say a lot of things and percentages and dollar amounts and budgets and expenditures and revenues and I wanted to make sure I did more of a physical demonstration so you could kind of see and relate uh how those numbers play out as far as being a visual aid. Um I do still have the financial management goals and policies review and update. So there is some set there is some background that I've presented before. Uh there are no material changes uh to what is being proposed. I have a packet of goodies here. Um, which I printed them out in colors to help us stay on the same page as far as when somebody has a question, I'm going to refer to color this and page that hopefully. Uh, and I'm sorry, uh, Council Riker, if some of these colors are indistinguishable. Um, so the first thing, the yellow page or the yellow handout, that is going to be our current financial policies. Uh, normally, and I've made mention of this before, normally we would do attract

changes. Uh, however, the Get me one of those. I didn't get that. The yellow one. Whatever.

Sorry. Uh, they are the current uh financial policies. Normally, we do attract changes when we do uh a change to financial policies and any other policies. However, it's a complete new rewrite. And so, that is why there is a a separate handout that is your pink. That is the proposed financial policies. And specifically when we've been talking about those percentages on page six, those are the percentages we're talking about. With the full implementation of the previous, you're looking at about 18.5% as the ending fund balance policy. The next one, and I forgive for the order in which you may have some of these, the blue sheet, that is page 83 of our 2025 audited financial report. And that shows you the ending fund balance of the general fund as well as well as a snapshot of the 2025 year as far as revenues and expenditures. The next piece of paper, which is the green piece of paper, that is the December of 2024 quarterly report. And so, in comparison to where we are financially reporting today, which we just published the quarterly report for 2025 of December, which is going to be your purple sheet, you can compare and contrast the two years. The main thing I want you to to take a look at is on the green sheet uh where we are ending potentially at the end of December in 2024 and then on the purple sheet where we are ending in 2025 which is about $600,000 less even though the fund balance is 300,000 more to begin each fiscal year. Another thing to point out, um, there

were no FTE ads between the 2024 and 2025 budget, but you can see that even though we are underspending those potential those budgets, uh, the costs of each one of those program areas have gone up. The very last is this giant packet of papers. This is out of your uh budget document uh pages 122 and 169. This gives the uh description of all the general fund programs um and what they do, the revenues associated with those um and the expenditures and FTE associated with those as well. Um, I'm going to talk in kind of high level, but some of the answers probably to really specific questions that you may have for a program or or an area probably within these pages here. So, we'll probably refer back to those, but you'll see that I'll get kind of high level with this demonstration. So, this demonstration is supposed to hopefully answer these three questions uh going through strategic planning. I think uh these are the the main three questions that I think council was interested in answering. Um it makes sense to me because I'm a numbers person. So some of these reports I can read them and see them and I understand what's going on. But again, I wanted to give kind of a a a physical demonstration and hopefully answer all three of these questions. So just give me one second. We'll move this mic and I'm going to come sit here and I'm going to put up a and I'm sorry to say it's clunky. Um, but it'll hopefully be a good representation as far as uh visually of how this all works uh for the general fund. So, I'm going to sit down here and I'm

going to kind of pull up some some props. uh every inch on any one of these um construction cutouts so to speak uh represents a million dollars. So this is going to actually be 100% to scale for the general fund. So as far as public safety if you look at police support crisis and sorry center you're looking at for the 2025 budget $25.61 61 million. When we add fires operation, you're adding another $10.27 million. When we look at the revenues that we associate with both of these programs, you're really looking at mainly at property taxes. Correct? So when you look at our permanent rate which is 4.1335 that is only $15.89 million. And next if you bring in the levy at 1.79 that is only another $7.3 million. So as you can see the property taxes that we charge do not pay for these two programs. Even if I were to move this to completely go towards fire and this one completely goes to uh police and support, they do not add up to the total of the of the budget. So what we did in 2024, we added a public safety utility fee. That was about $3.86 million. As you can see, it still doesn't pay for the totality of the service. There are some other dedicated revenues in uh public safety, police and fire. So we have some IGAs with the school district with the 911 agency grants forfeiture um and other things that come

in miscellaneously to public safety. This is their dedicated revenue and as you can see it does not measure up in total to the total expenditures for these two programs. So, it requires general fund support. That general fund support is about $5.6 million in 2026 budget. Now, we just added 12 FTE. So, we're going to have to add potentially more general support because we did not change the revenue source. And so, if you add those FTE of about $.9 million for each one of these six FTE ads, you're looking at 1.8 $8 million on top of this. So, as far as where public safety is coming from, to answer your question that you kind of asked before, yes, we're already going to be behind where we currently started as far as the outlook as of public safety, what revenues we have to our expenditures. So, I'm going to take these back just to keep everything the same throughout the city. And hopefully that answers the first question on the board. So, let's do the rest of the general fund. Parks and recreation is about $3.6 million. Planning is about $1.6 million. Economic developments about $400,000. Downtown currently is about 600,000 and our resting sites and general support for the general fund is about half a million dollars.

The dedicated revenue for these rest of these programs is just over a million dollars. Most of this makes up as far as lodging tax dollars, but you do have some of your uh parks and recreation fees, things of that nature that go into these programs. So, the rest of these programs, they need general fund support, too. you're looking at about $5.25 million of general support that the rest of these operations need to keep their level of service. So when you look at it, there are a requirement about $10 million in general fund money that is needed to fill the budget of all the programs in the general fund. So, I'm just going to move this over really quick and tell you, well, we don't really have $10 million coming in every year. We have about $7.3 million. So, we have a gap. And how do we fund that gap? We backfill this with about $4 million of beginning balance. The other $10 million of beginning balance makes up our contingency and that is how we balance the budget. Now again we've added expenditures for police and fire. We haven't added any new revenue service. So when we're looking at a projection of

where we are with the current staffing, current level of service, adding the 12, and then the potential minor adjustments of about 160,000 in FTE to the general fund, we're coming up with approximately 18.5%. Which is the recommended fund balance policy before you with no uh changes. Uh again, this is kind of where we sit financially as far as the entirety of the general fund. People do mention, and this is the last question on here, where is the $5 million coming from? I don't know. Uh the $5 million potentially is what you're looking at in beginning balance. And so if you look at what we actually spend in any given year, we've broken even. And that's on that blue sheet. You can kind of see there's only a $300,000 net gain. So visually, if you want to see where the actuals kind of hit as far as spend to revenue, we kind of break even right around this beginning balance line.

So JC, can I ask a question? Yeah. And I'm I'm actually done with these three questions. If you guys want to stop here and ask him questions of this, I just thought it was a good way to visually show the representation. Well, let me uh the mayor is facilitating so whatever he wants to do.

Are you ready? Awesome. I I commend you. I I honestly that that it's it such a visually impactual reference. Thank you very much. Questions, Joel. So, um those white sheets on income, we have um both for 25 and and 24 um the income revenues listed and I'm having a hard time um making the cross from your white sheets to what you've given us here on revenue. Uh and I'm sure that that there is one. So, could you go over those white sheets and where I see this on the sheet?

Yeah, I might have missed this. This is going to be your franchise fees mainly and other taxes, not the property taxes on that blue sheet. I think that is so that's licenses and permits. Uh, no interest, miscellaneous, total revenues. Uh we got taxes, licenses and permits, intergovernmental charges for services, fines and forfeitures, interest, miscellaneous. It's going to be rolled up inside that taxes number. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Next one. Those white So on all those white sheets, are they all rolled up into the taxes? Sorry, Joel. These two white sheets. Yeah.

Over here are going to be your beginning balance. Okay. Beginning balance. Okay. Gotcha. Okay. Any further questions? So, that's consistent with what I see here on the sheet, I assume. Okay. I I'll have some more questions later. Perfect. Thank you. Any further questions from counselors at this moment in time? Rick and then Joel Rick.

So JC on the beginning balance basically that's our reserve and that's our theoretical 25% although it's being coming in higher than that each year just because of unfulfilled positions. Uh which sheet would you like me to reference this so everybody's on the same page. I'm on the green one.

On the green one. Okay. So year-to- date actual is 15 million plus five. Yeah. So your beginning balance is 15.5 million. That is actually well above the contingency. And so you're actually looking at that beginning balance is probably closer to 36 37 38%. And so budgetarily in this year we are set up to spend more. as you can see that the contingency is below the actual beginning balance. That gets us back down to that 25%. Okay, thank you.

For the questions, I got Joel. Um, so the sheets I'm looking at in front of me for the fiscal year ended January June 30th, 2025 and then I got the uh 2024. Um, so that's for the full year, correct? So yes, your blue sheet is going to be for uh the full year of 2025 and those are audited figures.

Okay. The green sheet is just to help facilitate the conversation of where we are currently in fiscal year 26. So through December of 2024, we were here on the green sheet and then on the purple sheet. It's so you can easily compare where we're at today of 2025 of December 31st. So my specific question is um what part of the year uh fiscal year goes through December 31st? 50%. 50% 50%. Okay. Any further questions or are you done? Joel, you have more? Um, I got some more, but I I think JC is probably going to cover it anyway. Okay.

If if you don't, I'll ask you. Okay. Any further questions in the Eric? JC, thank you for the uh display there. Maybe I misunderstood you, but the green the green one on the bottom it says 2024, but you said 2026. It was that um

you're good. I just clarify. So the green is December of 2024, which is halfway through fiscal year 2025. And so it's relatable to the blue sheet of this is 50% of the blue sheet. The blue sheet is the finality through June 30th of 2025. The purple sheet is 2026, but it does say December 31st of 2025, which is halfway through fiscal year 2026. Thank you for the clarification. Any further questions at this time? Do you have more? Uh, no. But if they have other questions regarding how this all works, I think this is a good opportunity to

get any clarification that anybody may may need cuz then we're going to move into the financial policy edits. Okay. Oh, okay. Okay. So, let's uh Does anybody else have any further questions in regards to how actually your general fund lays out and where our shortfalls are and anything else? Joel.

Um, so JC, I'm I'm going to walk through this real slow. I It's important, I think, that we that I understand it. Um, I'm looking at uh it applies to both uh the quarter ending in 2024 and 2025. The green and the purple. Geez, I like your your presentation. You do a great job. Um, when I look at the ending funding balance, this is for 2025. At the end of December, which is halfway through the quarter or halfway through the year, we end up with an ending funding balance of 20 approximately $24 million. Correct. Yeah. 20 24.4. But

Yep. That does not include any of the contingency because we don't know if we're going to spend any of it. Yeah. We never spend contingency actually. Uh what we end up doing is reallocating contingency. uh continues contingency you can consider potentially part of your savings account. So at a at the lower end our uh expenditures are 18,000 at the upper end there um uh or I'm sorry our carryover is is 24,000 at the at the um lower end and at the upper end it would be 34 million if you added all the contingency in and we didn't spend any. Is that correct?

No. Well, so the lower amount of the ending funding balance is what's shown possibility because we don't know what the next six months are going to play. That would be you have it shown here as our ending funding balance of $24 million. Correct. So I think I I know where your question is going. You do not add the contingency into that $24.4 million. It's already included because it's a zero expense amount. So, we're really taking all the total revenues up top, which including the beginning bun fund balance on your purple sheet equals about $42.6 million. So, under expenditures, there's $18 million.

Under contingency, it has $10.9 million. That is correct. But we don't spend it. Under year-to-date actuals, it's zero. Correct. That is correct. But yet, that still does not apply to carryover. It's in the $24 million, Joel. It's right here. So, if I added up the total, this is deceptive. Then, if I added up, to me, it is the year-to- date actuals, you have the expenditures of $18 million. Is that correct? That is correct.

Okay. And that $18 million then would result in a carryover balance of $24 million. Correct. That is correct.

And then for your uh policy, you take uh the 24 million uh or you you take the um total amount of uh expenditures and you divide it into your ending fund balance. Correct. So you divide your total expenditures or your fund balance needs to be divided by the budgeted expenditures less the contingency. So you don't double count the contingency. Okay. So where is the contingency under the revenue then? I don't see it up above.

It's in your beginning balance. That's why I had to do this this way to show you guys is your contingency really does make up $15 million which is part of your beginning balance. We only allocate about $10.89 million in that contingency which is the last line on the expenditures. So you really have $15 million of carryover $15.8 million of carryover which allows for this imbalance of expenditure uh to revenue. So then do you include your beginning balance into your next year's carryover?

Yeah, they're one in the same thing. So when I end the year uh and I'll do it a different way, not fiscal year. When you end the year December 31st and your bank account says 500, you start January 1 with 500. You don't restart. Correct. Correct. So they're one in the same thing.

Right. And if I have a an emergency savings fund of $5,000, which we all should have, um, and that counts towards my carryover, and I I wouldn't count that at at the beginning of the year if if it was a budget item for that year. It's still in the same account. So even though you may have put a personal limitation as your bottom level is $5,000, right? But you have $5,500 in your bank account. Mhm. Does that make sense? It's still there. You just are opting not to spend it by policy.

Well, I don't see it reflected here, JC. And maybe I need to spend time one-on-one with you here cuz uh in terms of the revenue, we got $42 million worth of revenue. We got $18 million worth of uh expenditures. That does not include the $10 million of contingency. And that ends up with $24 million of ending fund balance. And when I look at the revenue, I don't see contingency listed anywhere. It's one and the same with beginning balance. So the beginning balance isn't listed on this sheet. Then it it it's at the top.

Oh, the beginning balance right there. So that lists the contingency. That is where we ended the fiscal year. So if you go back to your blue sheet, the double line all the way at the bottom is 15.861 million. Okay. The beginning balance of the purple sheet is the exact same dollar amount. Um I'm sorry to to be so laborious. So okay, let's got to get everybody on the same page to make

That's good for me. I didn't realize that. and and I should have I should have realized that when I looked at it. So then I look at the ending balance of 244 and I look at the total expenditures. Uh let's see let's go back to my green sheet or the um no let's go with the purple sheet. My expenditures then total 18 million. Right. That's correct. And the ending fund balance is 24. But the total expenditures then are the 53. Correct?

Uh that is the total expenditures inclusive of the contingency. Okay. So if you take 18 divided by 53 halfway through the year, you'll come up with the percentage of what we have. Correct. I wouldn't do it that way, but you're not wrong.

I wouldn't do that way because again, you don't plan on spending the contingency. So, you want to take the $53 million in that column in that revised budget, which is the orange column, and you want to subtract out that almost $11 million. That is the true amount that council has authorized each one of those programs in the general fund. So, it' be 18 / 42. Um, and then you have the contingency that adds to the carryover. It's it's inclusive in the carryover, not adding to. Yeah. So, um so our expend our expenditures then are 1842. And what you're saying is you don't count the the contingency as as the um part of the um expenditures. Let me see the bottom line.

Correct. because you do not ever really plan to spend the contingency. It is your fund balance policy. That is what your contingency is. It's for emergencies just in case. I think that leads to a it skews the number rather drastically. Uh from my perspective, it balances the budget, right? Well, if you look at all the total revenues, they are that same $53 million. I'm going to have to spend a little more time on it, but um

uh I I think having that contingency as u part of the carryover, which is good. We need to count them as part of the carryover and part of the percentage as we move forward. They are. And let me say this just a different way and hopefully uh okay hopefully it'll make sense. The 10 million or 10.89 million is our contingency for fiscal year 26. And and what percentage is that by itself of our total expenditures in the general fund? It's a little over 25% like 25.34%. So at a minimum we're going to have 25%. Can you use your mic? Oh, at a minimum we're going to have 25% just counting the contingency carryover.

And that is based on the current fund balance policy which is in the yellow sheets that you have. However, like I've displayed here, we don't technically end up spending 100% of the budget. And so, yes, we have been doing very well as far as returning monies back to the general fund. And so, again, even though our contingency is $10.8 8 million. We started the year well above the 25% at $15.8 million. Sure.

So, and so that's about 37 38%. So, if I understood you correctly, and correct me if I'm wrong, cuz I'm a a newbie, okay? Uh you take the contingency gives us 25% of our expenditures as carryover. Why would we change our policy down to 18? Because the ad that we've done with no increase in revenues forces us to budgetarily move that target. You have now decided those those three small items to spend more of your contingency the next year. So if I haven't added any new revenue on this side,

I'm going to have to take some of the contingency on this side. It doesn't seem to me though based on the numbers you gave me that geez uh we're we're over 30%. Correct. But if you remember uh the 2026 budget which is your purple year we didn't authorize the 12 new FTE until after this budget was already set in stone. So the expenditures are not really reflected in the budgetary amounts and what and so a percent of carryover is how much money. Uh rephrase that question for me please. We're getting into the nitty-gritty too much here.

How much does a percent mean for carryover? What does that equal? Okay. So in the 2027 uh budget you're looking at $464,000 equals 1%. Mhm. And so we're at 30% or greater. Excuse me. Um I'm not sure. I have to go back and calculate it. Um and and we each one of those percent equal how much? About a little over $400,000.

$400,000. And you're talking about with those uh positions, how much money? So the 12ft FT that you've already authorized is going to be about $1.8 million. 1.8. So that's uh it's almost 5%. So, if you already budgeted to spend all the way down to 25%, we're going to have to potentially be at least 5% lower, right? 20. And then you take the normal inflationary and bargaining unit increases, and that's where we get to the 18 and.5.

Well, I I don't I don't doubt your math, but I I look at what we're looking at here and um just looking at the amount of carryover and contingency percentage. What was the contingency carryover just by itself? So by policy it was 25%. You can always carry over that was that's the total carryover the the contingency part of the carryover. Correct. But you always budget the baseline. You're authorizing to spend all the way to the baseline which is your contingency. I understand that

we've gotten to a point where yes, we've been at 37 38% when we end any fiscal year to start the next one, which has helped with the imbalance. So, as you'll see even on the purple sheet, the beginning balance was budgeted around $15 million and then the contingency was budgeted around 10.8. We're set up to spend over $4 million more than we're actually bringing in in revenues. And that's going to exacerbate by adding some of these FTE, which is why it's moving down to 18.5%. And so what you're going to look at is closer to a 6 or 7 million draw in the fiscal year 27 budget potentially.

So what I heard you say was uh it's going down because we're spending more than we're bringing in. Basically, that's what I heard you say. You as a policy board have given the authority to spend more, but if you look at the blue sheet again, we have never just spent all of 100% of everybody's budget. Mhm.

We've basically broke even with the current budget because we have savings in other areas and we try and do our due diligence as staff as not just spending it because we have it. So looking at what our carryover was last year, what is our carryover last year? I hope I'm using carryover correctly. The beginning balance of fiscal year 25 was about $15.5 million. The beginning balance of of fiscal year 26 is about $15.8 million. So 50 and and what percentage did you say that was? It's going to be about 38 3940.

Get it changes per the year. uh councelor King uh because the expenditures are less than previous years and so that percentage even though yes we are going up in fund balance we're actually losing ground in percentage because the expenses are going up. So with my simple mind if you add 12 positions in the amount they cost and what percentage that takes off of your carryover and you start at 38% and you subtract that you end up with a lot larger number than you do with 18%. So, I think you're mixing and matching certain terms in there. I'm going to try and hopefully say this a different way. Okay.

The $15.8 million beginning balance is about 38%. The $4 million that is less in the contingency is over a 10point swing to get you back down to the the 25%. is over a 10point swing to get me back down to 25%. Correct. Because that's not 18%.

Correct. But we're going to need to lower it because we haven't gained as much ground as far as the carryover is what you're talking about. And so the 37 38% is going to come in slightly less than that. And then the expenditure budgets are going to be increasing which again projecting fully staffed. um and what the each program potentially needs budgetarily, it's going to put us at an estimation of about 18.5%. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, next year is not going to the actual balance is not going to be 18%. It's going to be higher than that, but but the trend over time is what you're concerned with.

Thank you. Yes. And so uh this year we were at 38% um in a uh in the real world knowing that uh the expenses are going up faster than the u revenue in 5 years we'll be down to say estimated 5 years down to 18%. Next year we'll still be probably over 30%. Correct? But we also budget for 100% staffing, what the current level is. And we are currently in balance. And so if expenditures continue to outpace revenue, that 18.5% potentially may have to come down if nothing changes or all other variables are held equal. So then um different question. If you change the policy down to 18% because in 5 years we have the possibility of reaching that. Um what does that do to our bond rating and borrowing for the water treatment plant? Uh so two things um the 18.5% is based on the the authority given to the programs in the general fund. Not that we would end up potentially at that fund balance, but budgetarily I have to balance the budget and show the 100% spend. Even though yes, I understand we only spend 94% maybe in any given year. But we don't budget to spend 94% of everybody's budget. We budget to give 100% authority of those dollars authorized. The golden rule of the second part of your question is 25% is normally the golden rule for a good rating for bonds. However, it's only part of the rating. So, the answer to your question is I don't know the answer. I just know part of the equation and to score the maximum amount of points in one piece of the equation

25%. Uh, do they look at the real or the uh budget? They look at a lot of things. They look at your financial policies. They look at where you're actually uh ending. They look at your uh your financial reportings. Uh are you in good standing with your auditors? There's a lot that goes into it. Well, thank you. Um you've answered some questions cuz when I look at next year, it it's not going to be anywhere near 18%. So, and that I didn't you were looking at several years out with the policy. Okay. I'm looking at next year's fiscal year 27 estimation of what we potentially would bring in front of the budget committee and then approved and adopted by council

because in order for us to submit to you a balanced budget we have to assume that all expenses will be spent and if they were then it would be at 18 and that's the way we're able to balance it. Now the reality is you're correct there will be items that will not be spent and we will end higher. we will end higher. But however, from a budget policy perspective, we have to balance the budget according to state law, which requires full expenditure, which would if and if if if that was it, we would get to the 18%.

You are saying and you are correct, that's not the reality. JC said that's not the reality. But in order for us to balance the budget, we're have we're going to have to ask council unless we get a new revenue change level of service to reduce the fund balance in that perspective. Now, you know that we will likely not come in at 18% at the end of fiscal year 27. But to balance the budget for the books, we need to ask for that policy change or we need to look at level of service reductions or additional revenues.

Yeah. Well, the thing I was concerned about was the effect of us doing that on the rating. Um, and uh, given that it's not going to happen, um, it led me to a conclusion that why would I approve that? Um, so I just asked the question. Further questions? I have Kathleen. So, uh, JC, how many years out are you securing the budget? Like, I've heard I've read different places that you project 3 years out or 5 years out. Are you doing that with this 18%.

Um, specifically for the 18%. No. All things that hold equal in all variables, it will have to go down each year. We're already positioned in balance, right? And so the imbalance is going to continue if there isn't another correction. Now, will we end there like we've been talking about? Probably not. And so we can see the trend that we've lost a few points, but there is a day potentially that will hit here. And we always talk about as executive staff of by golly, everybody is actually filled. There is no vacancies in all of these departments which has created the savings which is why we've rolled over these these balances and funds.

Further questions I have Indra. So, keeping expenses the same and going forward, are you um does it count the expected revenue increases percentage from property tax that's based in there? Thank you. Yes, it is.

As well as all the other revenues. So, we do a deep dive uh because the general fund is very important. Um, it houses, I think, the the services that you all know to be very vital to the community. And so, we take the revenue projections in that fund pretty seriously. And I think, uh, if you go back through history, um, our property tax revenue projections, uh, we do very well as a city. Uh, anywhere from 101 to 103%. So, you're talking about less than a 3% error. Um and we go through line by line and project all the other things too like franchise fees um planning fees and all the other things that are associated with the general fund.

So there am I okay? So there are other funds that we've moved are from general fund to like the caveman pool 1.5 million. Is that still recorded in the general fund or all those that have moved out are not part of that?

Yes. So, we used to have some restricted fund balances in the general fund. We've moved the tourism program into its own tourism fund. Uh we've also moved building because it is restricted in use um out of the general fund and put it um into its own fund as well. uh the $1.5 million that you're talking about is for the capital aspect of the caveman pool and we'll talk about that in LB. That is not general fund money. That's often a entirely different area and the funding source comes from the UR. But we do use general fund monies sometimes for projects. If if we don't have enough in the fund, we might pull general fund monies to complete projects. Correct. Uh, it is since I've gotten here four years ago, it's rare that the general fund contributes direct dollars to a capital project

that it could happen. If council would like that to happen, sure, we'll figure out a way for that to happen. Further questions? I got Victoria. Uh hopefully I'm not repeating something then, but uh the difference between the 18% and the 25% contingency, how many uh what's the unit? What's the dollar amount just generally?

Uh I think estimated wise if 464,000 is a percent. So if you're talking like $3 million.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. And uh there are several positions that we have that we budget for that aren't filled right now. Um do you have This is This would might take a little bit longer, so that's fine. But I would love to know what how much that would make up for if we were to budget for not filling those right now.

So I think it's it's the same thing that you just authorized which is the 12 FTE. So you've given authorization, you've given the allowability for staff to hire and put somebody in the seat. We're never going to know who comes and who goes. Um, is it safe to say that we probably will always have vacancies? Sure. But I can't tell you I can't predict the future with a crystal ball of who's going to sit in what seat and at what level and for how long. Yeah. So, oh, thank you so much. I wasn't talking about the new six uh fire and six police. I was actually talking about different position. Are there other positions that we do not I I was under the impression we have some other positions that are budgeted that are not filled right now that have nothing to do with fire and police. Is that out of a different budget and so it's not a part of this discussion?

Uh I don't know them all off the top of my head. Um but I believe there is one call taker in support uh the urban forester which is 50/50 right now. Um I want to say there is a planning tech that is either beer hired today. Is that right? Or is it next week? Next week. So there are minimal um vacancies in some of the other departments. Um so right now is there minimal? That's that's probably answers the question then. Yeah, it comes and goes in waves though.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Any further questions? Last chance. Okay. Thank you very much.

Oh man, you're so sensitive to that.

One fail swoop, one bad to win and we're done. rough crowd up here. Uh so the rest of the presentation is to kind of go over the uh the proposed recommended changes to the financial policies. Um and this will hopefully be a refresher because I think I've done this uh a couple other times before with council. So um the last major edit uh to these fund balance policies was really done in 2011. uh we had a minor adjustment um in April 17 of 2024 which was to move the general fund fund balance from 25 or from 30% down to a 25%. Um and just as a reminder again we presented these on March 17th, 2025 and April 14th and they were tabled for future consideration. So in some of these section edits um and again I apologize normally we do track changes but we started there and there was it was basically a complete rewrite. So uh I chose to kind of give you clean version so you could uh read both of the old and the new. Uh we did compare the financial policies to other jur jurisdictions in size regionality and examples around the state. So we're looking at Ashlin because it's a regionality bend uh because they had some language in there that I liked because it specifically addressed uh the URA uh Corvalis which is a similar size and we do have some other ones that I plucked uh some of their language from or or leveraged as far as the examples. So you have Medford, Albany, uh Lake Asiggo, Florence, Redmond, Clamoth Falls, Eugene, Salem, Wilsonville, and Springfield are some of the other policies that I look through throughout the state. Again, there's no city like us um but can kind of take the best of all of the policies around the state hopefully and what I have presented

before you. So, the revisions and additions were aimed to consolidate and state current practices within one document to aid public understanding of local government performances. Uh specifically, you'll see more examples of OS callouts as to the reasons why this should be in the policy because it's already uh required by state statute. So, we might as well let the public know that this is the reason why the city practices financial um good practices because it's kind of required by us as far as a municipality and ORS. Uh the revisions and additions were aimed to be more direct and understandable. So, with current policy, there are discussion areas that are describing why the statement should be in your policy. Uh, I don't believe that that is a good policy draft. If you're having to explain why you're doing it, it's probably not a great language as far as policy to begin with. Um, anybody who reads a line and has a question about a line in the new policy draft, uh, there are reasons as to why I put that in there. And so, if you have questions regarding any of the lines, I can go through it at that point. But hopefully all the statements are clear and direct as to what this policy is trying to address. So in the purpose area uh which is new and I have it kind of highlighted in some of these uh I gave more robust explanations of the reasoning for financial policies and consolidating auditing standards within again trying to put all this information in one document versus pointing you in several different areas. The revenue uh I added a lot of current practices for public clarity. The budget section uh I connected the strategic plan uh budgetary practices in Oregon law capital improvement I updated with the best practices and include current project management practices. The expenditures area is new. It's

publicizing purchasing policies and practices practiced throughout the city. the fund balance and reserves I updated with further purpose and I'm also publicizing all operating funds or programs and giving more robust standards for each area. So what I found um in reviewing our financials when I got here and over the the course of the years of there weren't actual constraints put on some of our other operating areas. So we are holding public funds. We we do have purposes and programs throughout the the city and I think we need to be more aware to how we are holding those funds and what the appropriate level of funds or fund reserves or balances is because if we're just holding funds to hold funds that's not appropriate for the community. The next is financial planning. So revised verbiage there. Uh debt management updating policy with uh with included legal guideline requirements. Economic development is a new section. So, we added uh value and direction of the council priorities. The financial management policies, added more robust terms and definitions for transparency. I added a new section of pension and retirement. It's just outlining our current practice and the legal obligation associated with those. The investments adding more explanations of current practices aligned with the current investment policy. And with that, if we have any questions, I'm more than happy to answer them.

Any questions of Indra? Yes, the URA funds. I had a discussion with Aaron about that and I know we grow those monies by moving, but not all cities have URRA funds and we take a portion of that from the general fund. Right. Is that right? Kind of sort of. There are other overlapping jurisdictions that also contribute to those URA funds. So what so the portions that we take from the general fund that could go into the general fund, if we didn't have the URRA, what would that look like?

I don't have the exact number in front of me. Uh I want to say it's it's 800,000 umish. I don't think it fills the entire void um when you're talking about dropping the fund balance policy from 25 to 18.5. And what other funds does that come from? So the uh it's the school board or the school districts rather. Um I'm drawing blanks off the top of my head.

Library library. No, I mean, so it comes from someplace, but it goes, you said it doesn't all go to the general fund. Where else does it go? If it if it didn't go to UR, where would it go? It would go back to those jurisdictions.

And so the jurisdictions are actually they're in partnership with us for the URA because what they're ultimately doing is the same thing we're doing. They're investing in us to utilize the URA dollars to where they get a return at the end of the 30-year life cycle of the URRA, which would elevate the property tax values and they would be getting a higher property tax payout uh at the end or completion of the URA. Okay. So, that grows quite a bit and we would only generate eight less than a million more in general fund. I'd have to look at it and I know it's in our uh URRA report.

Okay. But I could easily find that after this meeting. Yeah, approximate is fine. Thank you. Any further questions? I got Joel.

Um, so the biggest question going in my mind right now, JC, we're going to be abiding by our present policy for several years into the future. and then it's going to go down and you you you had the inflection point of 18% which I don't doubt given no change. Um do we monitor the budget every year? I I know the answer and you do too. Yes, we do.

Yes. Um, if we risk the city's credit rating by making this change that you have suggested when we're abiding by our present policy for the next three or four years or whatever it is and we're monitoring it, why would we do that? We we need to know what what reality is and what predictions are going to be and what the worst case outcome is. But why would we do that if we monitor it every year? We don't have to make the change today because it's going to affect the credit rating of the water plant and we're not going to be down to where the budget policy uh we're not we're not going to uh we're going to be okay for the next couple years as we monitor it. Why would we do that now? Because budgetarily you are going to be set up to spend more than the 25% to get you down to the 18.5%. We do not budget for 94% of people. We budget for 100% to where if somebody were to be hired, we have the full value budgetarily. Now, will that happen? Probably not. And we could end up above 25% still at the ending. But your policy is what you are authorizing to spend in those program areas. And so if you want your true policy to still be 25%, we have a major service level reduction to talk about or an addition of new revenues. I just see you're thinking, so I'm just making sure that you're digesting properly and that you you don't want to

we'll let you ponder on that for a while. So, um, further questions. I got Rob and then Victoria. Rob. So, JC, the, uh, city's credit rating, is that is that based on our policy or is that based on our actual?

It's both. So if our policy was to uh have an ending balance of of less um okay then yet and yet our ending balance remained at you know 25 or more percent. Um does that affect our our credit rating negatively or not? I don't know the exact answer to your question, but how I can answer it is it is a piece of the overall valuation of the score. It's not the entirety of the score. And so if I could assure you maximum points, 25% on a policy would be the maximum points for that tiny section that they grade. And so that's why we've kept it there is to ensure maximum points because it's something that we can control. Now again, if we change that, that doesn't necessarily mean that the credit rating of the entirety of the city would drop. Again, it may just not get the maximum score for that area. So, is there anyone who's maybe more well-versed in that part of finance than you are that has a more definitive answer on that question or

So, me and Jason did ask this of our financial adviserss that are doing the water um the water revenue bonds and they gave me the exact same answer I'm giving you. There's a document that I could share that they sent me as to all the criteria that they go through for scoring. Thank you. Further questions I have Victoria and then Joel. Victoria please.

That was actually my question as well is what is the credit rating based on actual or or budgeted but but you did say in the answer that there are other factors? Um can you are we good in the other factors? I mean uh or are we um maybe do we need to be looking at those things too? What are the other factors? Can we gauge how that is would help our credit rating?

No, I think all the other areas as far as financial policies are concerned and practices um address a lot of it. Again, I I don't keep track of the entirety of the credit rating uh what is it called? The the scoring guide. Um but that's something I could easily forward to you guys to take a look through if I remember right. Um, having sound financial policies is is a major area of of that scoring. Okay. Thank you. Further questions? I got Oh, I I would love to have that, by the way. Yeah. Thank you.

I'll refer to Go ahead. She didn't raise her hand yet. I'm waiting for her to raise her hand. I can see her. She's over there sheepishly doing it. I'm just teasing you. Um, I got uh further questions. I got Joel and Indra, but Indra will go first. Yes. Um, so we have some major housing developments being built and theoretically that should bring in additional property tax revenue. Is that calculated into our revenues?

It's a good question. So yes, we do look at um the actual permit values that uh we have in the system. So the community development department does have some of that data and we utilize that to project the future data of property taxes and those revenues. So in these pages we have it is projected in there now. So yes, when we go through and project a budget for property taxes, that is one of the criteria we look at as far as what we're seeing as far as permit values. Um Andre Erin had uh some insight. He wanted to get on a for the previous question you had. Sorry,

previous question you had with regards to tax increment financing in the urban renewal agency. Um approximately $2.6 million comes into the urban renewal agency for last year's budget. Uh with uh 1 million coming basically from the city of Grants Pass. The other million coming from Grants Pass School District 7. Again, that's not taking from school district 7. That's money coming directly from the state. So we're not taking money away from the local schools. and the remaining um say about $400,000 comes from smaller taxing districts within the count within the county. Uh further questions I got Joel and Eric. You ready Joel? Yes.

Um so we have projections in revenue increases. We have uh projections and costs. We have um a history that we could project in terms of what we program for salaries and what we actually spend and we could have a projection there that would actually reflect reality more and then we got time to monitor it. So we got projections in all these other areas except with employment, city employment, we go 100% to the worst case scenario knowing that it's not going to happen and we don't project the savings. Um to me that given the the time span we have to monitor and make adjustments if we need to. If for some reason all of all of a sudden everybody's staying here and there city forester hopefully saves more than two years um uh we got time to make adjustments and the projection would be wrong. If the projection's right, we're right on and we don't have to lower our bond rating. Uh, all due respect, a financial projection and a budget, even though you utilize similar numbers, are not one and the same thing.

Further questions? I have Eric. I'm not sure how that answers my question. Anyway, we we'll talk about it. Let it sink in. Eric. Okay. Are there any other revenues that you can think of that we haven't discussed? uh any possible future ones or possibly any kind of

state revenues that we don't we are unaware of because of possibly uh forcing the the city into uh doing these uh temporary resting sites and uh complying with HP3115. Are there any anything any contingencies there that we can ask from the state to possibly help out uh with the conundrum we're under? I mean, I wouldn't say operational funding. Um the answer to that question, I think, is more in your grant funding. Can we be more proactive in finding grant funding for certain areas to help pay for these things or subsidize these things? Uh sure. But that comes in waves from the state, comes and goes. And normally it's a one-time funding source. It's not an ongoing. If it was an ongoing funding source that other people had, I would have probably already gone down that path of requesting it for the city of Grants Pass if we didn't already have it. Um, part of the other funding sources that we've brought up before are legitimately new things, whether it's for Grants Pass or for the state of Oregon. So, you're talking about a potential local sales tax or a food and beverage tax or a an excise tax on big box business potentially. And those have been brought in front of council and have not been agreed upon to go down that path because there's going to be some effect that it has on the community and or the community members in which that would directly come back to. Thank you. Any further questions?

Good rice.

I haven't cut your mic off yet. Good. You got more questions or this is the time. Okay. I don't see that anybody has any more questions for you, JC. Thank you. Is there any direction you'd like to give me or provide me as to how we proceed? Do we stay with the old financial policies? Do we go with the new? That would be the question I have of the council.

So JC has fielded lots of questions from you. I think we have actually imparted some discussion in regards to that as well. Um but staff does definitely need some direction. Joel Well, you don't have to agree with me, but I would stay with our existing one. Um, a couple reasons. One is uh the other uh scenario that uh JC accurately represented at this time given the projections which uh may or may not be all accurate going down both on revenue and costs. Um maybe even worse, hopefully they're better. Um but but we got time to monitor that and we got uh um our city's credit rating to consider in the short term. So um I I would not make any adjustments at this time.

So you can disagree with me. That's and that's fine. A response to that I would need to cut about $2.3 million out of the current projection budget to stay at 25%.

I I would do that differently. I would project uh the vacant positions and that we've had for the last 20 years uh that has occurred every year and is true in reality and um if somebody wants to take us to court on that that's fine. So again we budget to spend 100%. A financial projection can make those assumptions that we're only spending 93 94% of the budget which would then keep us above the 25%. But budgetarily I sit there and spend we have the the availability and the authority to spend 100% of the budget and it's not a financial projection at that point. That is the that is the authority that the the council policy board is making to give to spend which should align in my opinion with your policy

and put an asterisk by it and and underneath explain why that I could definitely if that's how you guys want to address this policy um I can make that revision but I'm just letting you know that when we present to the budget committee it's going to be less than 25%. Will it end up there? probably not because of a potential financial vacancies and things like that that we don't spend. But authoritywise, we have to have the authority from this policy board to go underneath the 25%. And I can I can do that with an asterisk to the policy. But that does weaken the policy itself because it's more of a a guideline and not a policy.

Further discussion, Victoria. So I I just want to make sure I understood uh Joel what you were saying. First you said to keep it the same and that is the 25% contingency but then you said no we want to budget all of the projected which would bring it down. So I I guess I'm I'm just not I don't know which one you are directing staff for that 25% or 18%.

So um Victoria, good good point. Thank you. Um I would stay with the 25%. I would put an asterisk by it and saying if uh we are at full employment for the whole year uh we would be below the 25%. We have never done that in the past. In fact, our most recent projection has been over 30 for this year. Um, and uh, we did hire some some additional staff. We'll continue to monitor it and make adjustments if needed. And for budget budgetary issues and laws and everything, can we do that 25% with an asterisk to go down to 18? I mean, is is that a possibility? Yeah, there's no legality that says what your fund balance policy has to be or what it has to say. What I would say though is putting an asterisk and saying it's kind of a guideline. It doesn't necessarily strengthen the position of your financial policies.

I Oh, I do understand that. But it Okay. But it it seems to me like it kind of it we're doing a little bit of each thing that we want to do if it so it might be a good suggestion. Would I normally recommend that? Absolutely not. So, but if that is the position of the policy board,

so to get clarity on what I'm hearing you saying and what city council say, some of the council members are saying is we would have an asterisk 25% which is our goal target. However, to balance the budget, it would actually show an 18%. I just want to be clear with that that the budget that we bal we have to balance the budget. We're going to project full expenditure. It's going to be below 25%. There's nothing by state law that says we have to have 25%. There's nothing by state law that says we have to keep it there. We have to, as budget officers of of the city, provide you a balanced budget. the balanced budget we will provide you will be outside your parameter as long as you're okay with that. We will present that budget to you

and as long as it's documented why we're doing that and and our past history of performance and where the where the ending balance has been for the last five years given the same policies. So, I do want to bring up a point because I I asked Aaron, I'm like, "Ah, God, I thought we had already talked about this in circles and I thought that you guys had already made a decision." Well, you guys did make a decision um back when we when you approved to fund six police and six fires. there was an in-depth conversation in regards to changing the contingency which was brought forth by JC um and he was very clear and my synopsis or summary of those discussions were that the majority of council was on board to accomplish their priority to shore up police and fire public safety um with the I with the full well knowledge that that contingent agency would have to be lowered. So, I just want to bring that to you guys, but you guys have had, you know, in-depth conversation in regards to that. So, I just wanted to bring that information to the table as I remember it. Further discussion, I have uh Victoria, Kathleen, and Indra. Victoria,

yes, I I thank you, mayor. Uh it's important to make sure that we maintain those extra positions for fire and police. I do remember and it just might be Jaci uh the difference between what we thought it was going to be and what it actually is going to be. Obviously that's kind of what you're telling us today. But I it seems to me I remember that we when we did this we were voting to bring the contingency down to 25 and uh uh from 30. That that was my memory. So I guess that's that just wasn't correct. It's 25 and

yeah. So the 30 to 25 that actually happened uh back in 2024. Oh, gotcha.

And so that was uh a few years back. Um I believe we talked about and we gave initial um projections of around 12%. Um with the additions of what we were looking at. Uh luckily we're we're well into the budget process and so we're able to see some of the um amounts that potentially are going to be requested both in FTE and new new projections based on the latest information uh for staffing um and associated costs uh with those programs. And where we think we're going to end is approximately around 18.5%. We're still doing work on the budget process, but the numbers that we have today, uh, that would be what I would present and recommend.

Thank you so much. Uh, further discussion, we have Kathleen and then Indra. Kathleen, um, thank you, JC. I know this is long and drawn out, but thank you for your patience. Um, I just, uh, feel like we along the lines of what Joel was discussing is that the 18% isn't going to show up tomorrow. that we have time to figure this out. And so if we stay with our 25% now, we can change the policy next year or the year after that. Um, and it's not a legal issue.

You can change the policy annually, which is what I would recommend actually from this point forward is we bring the policy in front of the of the council and make sure that there is a reaffirmation year in year as to where you want to be. I guess the example I would use is if I give you $100 and you put it in your pocket, you have the ability to spend $100, not $90.

Further discussion, I have Indra.

Yes, I just wanted to comment. I agree with Joel. Um, I think we should go forward as as is and and monitor. I think that's smart. But also, we're we're going into budget committee meetings with some citizens smarter than I am. So, I mean, at that time, we can adjust or make changes to the budget as well. So, I'm I'm kind of for just going forward and and if we get in the room and say, "Oh my gosh, this is terrible." We can make changes to that. Right. Well, I would say that Aaron and I are prepared to submit a very reasonable budget. There is not a lot of room. We've had basically hold the line mentality the last 3 four years since I've been here. So, I wouldn't say that there's anything in access uh that have the service levels that we're already providing to the community today. I have no doubt you've done an excellent job, but there's a reason there's a budget committee, too. Thank you.

And we need you.

So, my interpretation of what JC just said is you're going to see a budget that is squeaky tight and there's no wiggle room. So, further discussion um is still open and we are looking for to give uh staff full direction. There has been an idea floated to stay with the same 25% contingency and the same policy as previous. Um clarification from JC was is basically saying is if we stay with the status quo at 25% and not change any thing as he's presented today that there will need to be budget cuts. So, as a further clarification,

potentially, I think what I heard is you want to go with the newer pink with the language, but you want me to asterisk the general fund on page six and create a comment as far as giving council more flexibility with the general fund. and that when we present the budget, it will not match up as an any fund balance with the with the adopted 25%. It will be below that. That's that's I just wanted to make sure that's clear from council that we're still provide given that direction to go fall outside the parameter when it comes to full expenditures.

I would um change that. I would say on the pink sheet it needs to say 25%. Because that reflects the reality of what we're doing. It's not what what uh fully funded would do and put an asterisk that to that effect. We're we're we're dealing in reality here, not in uh uh numbers forecasting and budget forecasting. We're dealing in reality of of how the city performs and the a and the empty positions that don't spend the money. That's reality. That's the truth. Um and so the the policy needs to stay the same and if we go below 25% because we have done that in our monitoring then we need to make adjustments. Can I get clarification on the

I'm I'm confused as heck because basically you're just saying that you you as a as a budget policy you want to say that they you have that the city needs to maintain a 25% contingency but reality I want a re I want an asterisk that says I can do whatever I want. No no that's a that's a I I'm being very simplistic in terms and I'm not being disparaging. So let me use different words. Okay, mayor. Um, with respect, um, the projection for revenue is what it is. The projection for expenses is what it is.

The projection for expenses for employees are always coming in below full employment. That's the truth.

That's reality. And so you plan uh for 16% or whatever uh you wanted to have based upon that paper numbers rather than reality to me is um not appropriate. um we we need to deal with reality and the reality is you um especially these days with what we've heard uh from staff on retention and what I've heard from the chief on uh police officers trying to maintain full staffing. Um it has never happened. Um and so why would I establish my budget policy on that? Now, I understand JC, it makes him a little queasy cuz it could happen. And that's why we monitor cuz if it happens, we'll change or as it goes through, if all of a sudden we're getting close, then we don't fill three of the positions or whatever when they leave. Uh cuz we're going to have people leaving. So, it's it's a fluid situation. Um uh so I I would not change it. I would keep it the same policy. It's a good policy. It keeps the city's credit rating and I would monitor reality uh as it pertains to our projections. I fully understand what you're trying to say, which is outside the actual realm of what government budgets actually do. That's more on the private side. Um so staff does have the uncertainty if they do end up with a full FT FT if a full if they have full employment then we will be in a situation where we we will be scrambling.

Okay. So since there is eight counselors up here which is the governing body we will need full compliance or full not compliance full agreement in order to go forward. So realistically and you can do you have any other things to add here

I do. Uh, so I think maybe to make this a little easier, uh, are we going in general language with the yellow, which is the current policy, or the pink as a baseline, which has some of the other items that I've addressed as far as city operations. Go ahead, Joel. I would go with the pink, but I would have Make sure your mic's on, sir. I'm not really hearing you. Okay. Thank you. I'm getting there, counselor. I'm getting there.

And and feel free to disagree with me because I don't have a wealth of knowledge. Uh got some experience. Um I would go with the pink with the exception of the uh general fund uh 25% of expenditures. Okay. So in summary, I'm looking at a suggestion from a counselor to proceed forward with all financial management goals and policy changes as stated on the salmon colored pink handout with the exception that the consent contingency stays at the current level of 25%

for the general fund. for the general fund. Adding notations within that in your language that you can be properly that that there would be that the city or the city and the city council can monitor that contingency level ongoing as needed. You fill in the proper nomenclature please. Okay. So, does all counselors fully understand what we are looking for agreement or non-aggreement on? Rick.

So on the pink sheet, page six, item four, it lists the individual funds and the percentages. And at this point, it lists the general fund at 18.5%. But many of the other funds are anywhere from 12 to 25%. So I'm just looking for clarification. Joel, then what you're saying then on we would be 25%.

Requiring 25% of the general fund. Um, that's correct. And I didn't spend any time at all on the other ones cuz I I wasn't quite sure if they were ripe or if they were the same. I I should have checked that out, but I didn't. So, I don't know if there JC, are you concerned about any of the other? No, I can I can go through the reasoning behind each one the dollar amounts. Are they the same as what is this year or are they different?

Uh so there are there are updates, there are revisions, there are additions, uh there are new program areas that we've never called out in policy before. Um and so this is a quite a bit of a change as far as where we were. Um yeah, and I think people are pointing you to the other page. It's on page two. That was the only previous call outs on your yellow sheet as far as the true percentages budgetarily in those other program areas. So if you want me to go through each line by line as to why I chose the dollar amounts and percentages as what I chose them for, I'd be more than happy to do that. So it looks like you um uh lowered the minimum balance in most of them, if not all of them.

Yes.

And and why did you do that? Uh let's go let's go through it line by line. So general fund you now have a asterisk 25%. Um property taxes don't come in until November. And so the previous 25 30% was seemed to cover those first few months of the fiscal year. Um we've added money through the public safety utility fee to where we are not seeing necessarily that drop of maybe 20 25%. We do see a a sizable drop between the beginning of July of the fiscal year all the way to the November time period of property taxes, but it's probably not as severe as needing 30%. Uh the next one down is the transportation fund. That is a uh a utility um and gas tax base fee. And so having 90 days of reserves seems to be if something were to interrupt those revenue streams, uh we can continue those um operations for 90 days. And that's the same for storm water, water, and wastewater. Solid of Waste is a little bit of a different fund. Uh we're looking at potentially housing 500,000 um as far as an overall gen general dollar amount that we want to keep in reserve. And I believe Jason can probably go into more about that which is that is uh having to do with the landfill and keeping in reserve to be able to take care of those duties. Uh the next is administrative services fund and that's at 12.5% or 45 days. That is an internal service fund. So we charge that is your HR, IT, city manager's office finance. We charge each department on a monthly basis for those revenues. So that should be a sufficient amount of dollars to keep in reserve for those in the event that something were to interrupt and that is the same for community development management, public works administration and GIS. engineering is is still an internal service fund, but it is dependent on some of the constructions done in the

city of Grants Pass. And so we've decided to recommend a 25% to give a little bit more flexibility in the sense that we see less construction come through and it engineering department gets less of those revenues. The next is facility management that is an internal service and IT and garage. The next is workers comp insurance at 25%. So, we used to be self-insured and then we went to a safe policy that is external. And so, 25% gives us a little bit of a cushion to where if we do see large swings in fund balance, I think 90 days approximately is a good estimation of what we should keep in reserve to help combat some of those increases. The next is general insurance and benefits administration. Same thing. Those are kind of all either insurance based or related to employee benefits administration. The next is the building fund. That's at 2.0 years. So, this is the only one in there that is done in years. And there's a reason for that. I think a couple months ago, I came in and talked about how revenues were born and the fee structure. And if you remember in that conversation, building used to have 7ft FTE. We went through the recessionary period of 2008 and they actually had to take a loan to keep their operations going as well as reducing their staff to 4ft which they haven't come back from. So the availability of about 2 years of revenues should be able to mitigate if we need to another recessionary period. The next is the tourism promotion of 90 days or 25%. that revenue comes in quarterly and so we thought it'd be best to match the the fund balance reserve uh in that same kind of um capacity. The next is the industrial and downtown loan fund at $500,000. We're a little bit less than that right now, but moving

forward, uh the plan is to kind of keep this $500,000 as kind of like a trust balance and any interest earnings off that $500,000 can go back to programs that um this serves, which is currently like the facade and I think the security cam um uh program. The next is the agency fund. The agency fund is where we keep uh the dollars that aren't necessarily city funds yet. There's where our developer uh what is it called? DDAS I'm forgetting the acronym deferred development. Um and so based on the municipal code we give those pots of money interest and we have other funds that are either forfeite opioid that haven't necessarily been recognized by the city yet. We do keep them those balances earn interest and so keeping a minimal fund balance in that fund. Um, is the plan moving forward at a minimum of $50,000? And if there's any specific questions, I'd be happy to go through it.

Specific questions. I got uh Eric, Rick, and Joel. Eric, thank you. Uh, I'm looking at these two lists, the yellow and the pink. Um, I think I understand why you we have less amount of items here for the fund name versus the fund or program on the pink one because we're drilling down. You're you're wanting to drill down on these specific areas to be able to make that 25%. Is that correct?

And show that hopefully transparently to the community. So, it looks like you've done a lot of work here to try to figure out how we can maintain this 25% for the in the general fund and that seems like something that is um more beneficial or kind of a better way to go. Is that what you're Is that what we're trying to is that what what I'm picking up? No, I think I to kind of say I think where you're going just slightly different. Um the pink iteration in section four is to hopefully be more transparent in all operating areas of the city versus just a select handful that is in the yellow.

So in your professional opinion, you're thinking that the yellow is is would be a better way to go? Uh I think the yellow is outdated. I think the revisions I'm suggesting aren't necessarily out of the current practice. Um, they are a little bit more transparent actually into how we truly practice today so people know how this all kind of works and how it comes together. So there isn't necessarily sections called out in the yellow that I've added into the pink that hopefully will be more clear for the community to understand how we financially practice sound decisions.

Thank you. Uh further questions I had uh Rick and Joel and then it looks like uh Victoria as well. So Rick first. So I just need some clarification. And so again on the pink sheet item four general fund if we put 25% in there with an aster then we have 25% as a target but with the aster we're indicating that we will not achieve that this year budgetarily budgetarily

it is allowable for staff to propose underneath that 25% is how more or less I'm going to write that but obviously in and better nomenclature. But also, while it the piece of paper is a budget, in reality, we still have the cash in our pocket. More than likely, yes. But again, there have been years where budgets um spend close to 100% of their authority.

But in the past, I haven't really seen grants pass having to go there. So, we're fortunate. We are fortunate. Again, I think staff does a really good job of managing the the true needs of of the community and what they have available to spend. Uh we I think we we hold ourselves in high regard saying that we're not just going to spend it just because we have it. Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you. All right. Further discussion or questions? I have Victoria. Oh, sorry. Joel and then Victoria. Joel. Okay. Victoria and then Joel. Thank you, Joel.

So, uh, between section four on the pink and the green, I just want to make sure I have a clear in my mind is the yellow section 4 uh, and the yellow on the pink and the yellow are they equal 100% or are there new expenditure items that are added in under the pink? And if so, what are they? Um so in the pink that section for expenditures is completely brand new and additional to what is in the yellow and it the yellow does not address any um purchasing policies and practices.

Okay. So um all right that answered my question. Thank you. Yeah. So the yellow again is the older one that I think there's some there's some gaps. Um and the pink is trying to be a little bit more transparent as to current practices. And so we weren't really uh under the yellow there. We were spending money that wasn't reflected or were adding programs. We're add expenditures.

That's a good question. So we always potentially had some of these other programs going. there just wasn't a measuring stick as to what that fund balance reserve should be for those programs. And so the pink is trying to be more transparent with the public and ensure that we carry the appropriate amount of dollars and we don't just make money to make money. Gotcha. Okay, now it's clear. Thank you. All right, Joel and then Indra. Joel,

well, first off, I appreciate you, JC. you know, there's lumpers and splitters and and you need to be a splitter and you are, which I appreciate. Um, so, uh, anything here on the pink sheet that's going to lower our bond rating? I mean, I I can't for sure tell you if the asterisk how it would be valued to a credit rating agency. Sure. How about the other measures that we haven't discussed in detail? the other major areas I would say address a lot of what a fund balance policy should be for a municipality

and and so with that does my original question on those other areas reducing the carryover is it going to affect our bond rating I don't know the answer to the question there is a possibility again it's just a a portion of the score it's not the entirety of the score

yeah so I yeah I was wondering like for example on the Um, oh, water fund, wastewater fund. Um, I I would guess those weren't either utility funds was 25 to 35. So, we we're the same there. So, we're Okay. Okay. I I just didn't want artificially to uh increase our bond rating if we don't have to. Indra,

so the 25% and you're and then you keep saying budgetarily the it would look different. Wouldn't you take um the budget for the personnel and look in the past and see how much we overestimate and make those actual expenditures less so that our expenditures are less so that the contingency is 25% or thereabouts.

I would not recommend that um because you don't know what the future holds. So we normally budget 100%. And so what you're really asking me to do potentially is doing the let's guess and make it that this is going to be vacant for 3 months, but we're in March right now and the fiscal year starts in July. So there's 3 months of potential recruitment and filling those positions. And so if you are setting up to do like I just said, right, and a police officer comes in on July 1st, but you only budgeted to have them for nine months out of the year, we're writing pink slips potentially in March of the next year,

unless we increase the budget for that. I I guess what I would submit is that a lot of budget items are guessing and that we do go over in many and we make adjustments for that. And so why can't we do that in this case as well?

So you can always underbudget. Um but again, I would not recommend that because you're still going to have to touch the contingency balance and move that into an appropriation level, which is inherently going to lower the fund balance because you're now getting the same authority to spend. So, we just start off at the maximum and then we only bring council through supplemental budget the little things that we did not prepare for or see coming through um the fiscal year.

I understand that. I don't see a difference between putting 25% like budgeting to maximum capacity but then putting 25% which doesn't match up with an asterisk saying why it doesn't match up. I don't feel that it's underbudgeting. Joel talked at length about this. If that's really what our actual is year-over-year, I don't I don't look at that as under budgeting. So, I would I think that might be a better way to go, but whatever you think is best is fine. I think we you know, I agree just to move forward.

Okay. Any further discussion? Okay. So just to reiterate and clarify council or when counselor suggested that we proceed forward and it was clarified that we use uh financial management goals and policies from the salmon colored packet with the caveat that we keep the general fund contingency amount to 25% including verbiage. says if we need to deal with it, we deal with it in the moment. Anybody need any more further clarification on what I need some what I want you to vote on?

We're we're we're we're going with direction on staff. So, realistically, I'm just trying to get everybody's buy in on it. Yes. Rick, did you have a comment question? So dealing with the moment would be the asterid. Correct. Which allows us to go below the 25. That's Yep. That's the way I'm understanding it. I'm And and that's in absolute 1,000 ft level uh generalized terms. JC will provide full nomenclature that is proper and true to the to the fact. But that's kind of what way I dumbed it down.

Joel, comment, question. Well, I I would just add to that that u the paper budget uh which is just that paper budget uh may reflect less than 25% but the actual needs to not exceed uh uh or not be below 25%. The actual that we spend is is not going to be below 25%. the budget and the paper. Um, and the reason the difference between the two is because historically we have um never had full employment and that has reduc that has resulted in budget savings plus we've had good management. Um, and uh and so we're trying to reflect reality here. Um but it we're going to monitor it and if it gets below 25% then we're I expect it to come before for us and we will make changes.

Yes. And and I'm saying the asterisk at the 25% contingency for the general fund will be in proper nomenclature to allow us to address any shortfalls in that percentage in the moment without the diet tribe of the full history. And I think we fully understand that part. Okay. Any further questions or comments, Rick? Again, just clarification. So, that allows us to then proceed forward with going below the 25%. Correct. On paper.

On paper. Yeah. But I'm understanding you're putting a benchmark in that policy in the goals and policies that if that if there's a shortfall in that benchmark then a red flag will come up immediately and it will be brought to forward to council to address. That's the way I'm understanding. But also right now the proposal before us is below that benchmark. Correct. So how do we approve our motion when we already know we're going there.

We're not going there next year. We're going to be there supposedly JC said in the next 5 to 10 years. That's why we're monitoring it. It's not next year

and we have not been presented with the full budget yet. So to answer your question a little bit clearer and anybody can stop and stop me as I do this and correct me if I say something wrong but way I'm understanding it is the budget that was presented to you the numbers that are presented to you today are not the fast and final numbers that during budget committee you will be presented with other budgets because now city has presented this to you right now to make sure that they are fully understanding the financial management goals and policies as per the way you as eight counselors want them to be done. So yes, the numbers don't line up today. The numbers should line up closer by the time budget committee is presented the numbers, but we if they are not, then you have to deal with it at that moment in time. It's been strongly expressed that you as a council wants to keep this 25% contingency for the general fund and Aaron wants to add in on that hopefully correcting me.

No, thank you, mayor. I think it's right on. I just wanted to sort of add to where I think Rick was going with his inquiry and comments. Um, and I think it if you take it to the next step where I think Rick was going with this is council would be adopting a policy at 25%. But we'll be accepting a budget with total expenditures of less than 25%. Because it's paper versus reality like councelor King was talking about. One caveat with with regards to that is if you look at the um purpose of the budget committee, the purpose of the budget committee is technically to try to make sure that the allocated resources are true to accomplishing council's policies and goals. By adopting a goal of 25% but submitting a budget of 18%. That creates for sure a discussion point and a rub where council's not following the policy that they've adopted and the budget committee as their role looking at appropriations and making sure appropriations match the goals creates a conflict that may be discussed during the budget committee process because it it doesn't match up. So I think that was sort of where council Riker was going with that inquiry. At least that's what sparked that concept in my mind with his inquiries. It's on paper, not in reality.

Victoria, so Rick, let me see if I understand. Uh, you are all right with the 25%, but you wanted the asterric the line item to reflect also reflect that it can go down to 18. Was is that correct? I just want to make sure I heard you correctly. That's correct. Thank you. Okay. So, yes. And would that be better clarification for the budget committee if we did it that way, Erin?

Um, if you were trying to do a range of 18 to 25% on the bud on the or I wasn't quite sure that because technically the budget committee could say, okay, we would like to have you stick to 25 because that's your policy you've adopted. So, where's the 2 million cuts going to come from? Or something along those lines. But um uh but with the asterk would they have clearer um yeah the asterk would provide clear I think it would go to what Joel councelor King was trying to explain the actual versus reality

we do have to submit a balanced budget which will require us to to submit that below the 25%. Yeah, and due to the length of this conversation even, I think it'll be a point um in our budget message in other facets that we'll probably have to make note of it. That way, not only uh the budget committee is aware, but uh the rest of the public is aware as well.

All right, everybody's nodding heads. Okay, any further clarification? Okay. So, I would be looking um for acceptance by counselors to proceed forward with financial management goals and policies with as written in the salmon colored packet with the caveat of keeping the general fund at 25% with nomenclature provided by asterric nomenclature provided by JC that allows you to deal with any shortcomings at the time in the moment. Thumbs up, please, if you agree to go forward and direct staff in this direction. Looks like you have unanimous. And I'm sorry to drag that on, but I wanted to make sure that everybody was fully clear and fully conscious on what they were doing and going forward so there would be no questions at a later date. Staff, do you have full direction? Thank you very much. Okay, so at this point, we're going to continue on very quickly with our workshop agenda. And next is lands and buildings projects discussions.

Sorry, I'm back. Um, so each year since I've been here, we've brought forward the lands and buildings capital projects both for review and potential allocation um to specific projects. Um, the last few years, council has decided not to allocate to projects. And so what you're really going to see here is this year staff coming forward with more of a proposal as well as yes, we have I think some of your counselors have noticed that we've had certain LB0000 monies available to spend and that's really because we've been earning interest on the dollars we are holding as well as being able to allocate uh partial funding to things like Elk Island and that is have come out through council directives. So, I just want to So, part of those balances or where we're able to find that money, quote unquote, has just been the lack of direction we've had for the LB projects in general. So, as part of the uh staff proposal, um every year we're trying to make an improvement financially and being financially more sound and prepared for what is to come. Um, so staff is looking to recommend a $357,000 uh of unrestricted funds out of LB0000, which is our interest earnings to initiate an IT equipment replacement. So in practice, we think this number is a little low, but there's about $6.7 million in IT equipment replacement liabilities out there. And this first year, we'd like to start funding this so it would work kind of like our vehicle equipment replacement to where we don't put in all the money when we need to buy it. We put a little bit of money each year and then at the end of when we need to replace it, all the funds are sitting there in order to replace it. So it does curb the operating swings and spikes. And so rather than it being a $5,000 or $6,000 computer uh purchase, we're doing a $1,000 contribution a year for certain program areas.

So again, hopefully this will uh smooth out the operating costs over time. Uh the first year, because it's coming from LB, the remaining years will have to come from those program areas, we think we're going to save the general fund about $161,000. Um and then the additional savings of about $151,000 from the internal service departments that charge the general fund. So that would be like IT, um finance, HR, uh legal, so on and so forth. The next proposal is to utilize another $150,000 of unrestricted funds to contribute to LB6396, which is fire equipment replacement for life packs. And a life pack is a series of vital sign monitors and external cardiac defibrills. Uh from my understanding, uh these are really old and we need to replace them. And then the final proposal or recommendation that we have is utilizing another $50,000 from LB0000, those same unrestricted funds to LB6455, the River Vista House Demolition. So, the home has begun to exhibit signs of deterioration, including mold problems that necessitate costly remediation. The home does not offer significant advantages to the parks and recreation facilities at R at Reinhardt Volunteer Park. Um, I believe we are still looking into uh the facility as a training opportunity for police and fire if this were the case. Um, and I'm guessing both of the the chiefs and um, uh, Jason facilities can kind of talk about that or sorry, Brad uh, can talk about that. So, I'm going to end here, but we are prepared to flip through in your binder project by project if you want to ask questions or if you want a further detailed explanation as to who, what, when, where, why, and what.

And with that, mayor, I'll turn over to you. Anybody have any general questions at this moment in time? Okay. Would you as a council like to proceed forward with each individual fund or summarize and go forward? Who wants to go forward with each and and go line by line with each individual fund? Thumbs up. Okay, let's do that. So, I'll leave it to you JC to lead off. I guess I'll just say we'll just kind of do an open mic. Yeah, we'll do open mic night. Uh

that's if if it's cool with everybody, let's just go. It's efficient that way, you know. So, LB0000 uh this is more or less uh the holding project for um interest earnings for the fund as well as it holds a small amount. We like to keep $300,000 so we can close projects out that just need a little bit more funding. Would you like me to? Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. You guys just go I think it's just going to Let's go quicker that way. Just go for it. Throw out the question.

So, thank you JC. On the interest, I want to applaud you for um being able to achieve that. Um is that through the consultant or person that helps you with that or I know you have Okay. So, that's how we we're now observing that. Yeah. And so, uh, when I came on, that was the one contract that I was adamant that we added was the investment advisor. Um, we've had some really good, uh, returns since adding that as a contract. Um, it serves all of the funds, uh, throughout the city. And so, what you're seeing just in this one piece is just a piece of the overall um, pie is what we have been earning as far as the totality of the city.

I want to applaud you for doing that. Thank you. Indra. Yes. Why on the URA special payment does that go way down in 27 and again in 28?

It's a good question. So budgetarily I don't know if you remember the URRA budget. Uh we don't necessarily have 100% of the dollars allocated to 100% of the projects to give maximum spending authority from the URRA into projects. We match that line item to come in here so it can go to any project that council deems fit at a future later date. And so it goes down because we potentially quote unquote spend all those dollars or give the authority to send all those dollars to the city. And then the remaining amount in 28 is just the what's left over for the next projected budget year as far as the maximum contribution made back to the city. Any further questions in regards to this one? LB0000 general. Nope. Go ahead. Go ahead.

LB5067, public and park tree programs. Any questions? LB5067. Go ahead. LB6105 PEG fund projects. JC on miscellaneous. What does that typically represent? Uh I believe those are the restricted dollars that we get from uh is it the states for PEG funds for the public broadcasting? It's from our franchise agreement. Our franchise agreement. Yes.

Okay. Thank you, Indra. So on the presentation, we're putting a lot of money for IT equipment. So in this one, the PEG fund, we have um improvements to video and sound. Is that not it things that wouldn't be included with that money?

It's specific to because we do get this from from our Comcast from our uh charter franchise. It's specific to advertising and airing and equipment associated with such as these council meetings and that equipment. So it could be things that will help RVTV air public meetings. It's so it's not it's not it necessarily. It's associated with engagement with the public and getting getting the meetings out there and available to people. And what what is the studio? Do we have a studio?

It's right there where the the man behind the green curtain looks and says thumbs up, ready to go. Oh, that's what we call. We do have a full sound soundboard back there and and monitors and stuff like that to make it happen. Behind the door, the mirrored door. Mirrored window door. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any further questions? All right. Next, LB 6315 Beacon Hill Park Development. Go ahead. Oh, sorry, Victoria. Go ahead. Oh, so if I don't acknowledge you, please go ahead. I'm trying to pay attention.

Oh, okay. All right. So, is um this is something that's currently allocated, money is allocated in the budget? Uh, yes. So, reflected in in the pink budget that we're Yeah. the new Yes. Um kind of sort of. Uh what you're seeing in this project is actually money that's been contributed from several different areas.

Um whether it's lodging tax, bikeway fund, lands, and and general fund policy legislation into this project. And so this happened in previous years. And so it's just holding a balance of $576,000ish dollars for when we do uh potential have a Beacon Hill Park. Can this be can those monies that are currently there be put anywhere else? Uh what what I'm going for is is this something that we could put off for a while so that um our we don't have to worry about the contingency as much. I mean I I know we've been talking about putting a park there, but you know that might be something that that we don't need to think about within the budget right now. But maybe it's not possible to uh reallocate those funds anywhere else.

So yes, this is a good question and you'll see this throughout the rest of these pages too. We have call outs here as to where the funding came from. Yes. And so some of those fundings are more restrictive than others. And so I would have to send those funds particularly back to their respective areas and they couldn't be just utilized for anything. So specifically for this one, that's going to be your lodging tax and your bikeways fund.

I also I also think to note that these funds would be one-time funds. So I don't think you want to match match apples and apples. And so if you want to utilize these funds, the good thing would be I want to utilize these funds for another capital project, not for operations or to help contingency to help with the operations of the program. Okay. All right. Well, I kind of do have a question about this one then. And so I don't know if we could flag this one to talk about a little bit more. Maybe we could look at putting those funds somewhere else. Is that the time to do that right now? So we we do have on the future council meeting uh agenda, we have Beacon Hill as a future discussion item. So it's it's there. Thank you.

Yeah. So that you could you could uh dive deep into that one during that uh during that workshop. Uh any further questions in regards to this one? Nope. Okay. Next. If if if I feel if you guys feel that I'm pressuring you to go too fast, just let me know. I'm just trying to be efficient here. Uh LB6318, parking lot art.

Any questions about parking lot art fund? All right, go ahead. LB 6343 parkland acquisition, Rick, JC, at this point, we have an applicant proceeding with development of that property. Is that correct? and it's just not showing up in here because it's still in the drawing board. And maybe that's Brad question. Yes. You're talking referring to the Allenwood property. The Yes.

Yeah. Yeah. So, there's a development agreement that's been drafted. Um the developer, you know, has secured the majority of the funding. I think like 98% of the funding. Um so, but they're still in the entitlement process to do all the engineering and things like that. and then there will be the development agreement brought to the council to kind of show you the status. But but yeah, we're still in process. Thank you. That answers my question. Thank you. Sure, Joel. Just a quick followup to that, Brad. So, um that that was brought with u uh park acquisition funds, correct? Yes, there was park SDC's. Yes.

And so it goes back in. Does it have to be then used as part of the SDC's for acquisition of land in another part of the city or can it go into development? That's a good question. I We don't have to answer. You don't have to answer it tonight. Yeah. SDC's, but um can it alternate between acquisition or development, capital investment? Right. Right. Yeah. I' I'd have to look into that.

Okay. Thank you, Rob. So when it says um uh in order to provide an overall park standard of 9.9 acres per thousand residents to meet recreation needs, how uh how tightly are we attempting to adhere to that standard? I mean that's probably in the parks master plan. Would that be correct? Yes. Yes, it is coming from both the national um uh parks and recreation u association kind of a national standard but also our own comprehensive plan. Yeah.

Okay. So, um I'm I'm going to imagine that it doesn't seem as though we're going to be pushing forward with this funding this anytime soon, but um you know, on the 9.9 acres per thousand residents, um I'm going to assume that that doesn't does not include the parks that actually abut the city um such as Schroeder or or Tom Pierce or Cathedral Hills because if we included those, I mean, we're way above the 9.9 acres. So, again, it doesn't it doesn't appear as if we're pushing forward right now with uh but um I'm just wondering how how uh are we locked into trying to trying to attain that that standard of of acreage per per thousand because I I believe we have already exceeded it by a lot. If we look at the abuing parks I just mentioned,

we are not locked in if that's your question. And there there is not an OS or any firm state or federal standard that that mandates that. No. Okay. Thank you. Any further questions? All right. Go ahead. Next. LB6344 business innovation hub. Any questions on business innovation hub fund Indra?

So would this be a time to say because we did give money away for that this we have leftover funds in that fund? Is that correct? So we can um if we don't if we want to move those funds out would this be the time to say that or not? Uh, you could totally give us that feedback. Um, it's URRA money, so I would think it goes back to the URA. Yeah, personally, I would like to see this money go back into URA for other projects.

So, that might be a topic to bring up in an agenda setting atmosphere in regards to putting it on a workshop for discussion. Or you could make a recommendation now and get a couple people behind you. Your choice. Well, I would propose moving this money out uh to another URRA project. So, be a counselor that's put a suggestion to take this fund and start discussion on relocating it back to the URA fund.

And that's because we've already given money away for an innovation hub. And to clarify that, it would just go back to the URA fund itself. That's we don't technically appropriate anymore to specific items in advance. We just have it for council flexibility in one pot. Thank you. Yes. Yeah. Just going to further clarify um we may do a swap to stay URA to URRA if there's already an LB project that hasn't received the full URRA funding and send it from this LB project to the uh another LB project that's already there. that is already going to get some allocation of URA dollars. Any further questions or discussion on that? Uh Rick,

so I just wanted further clarification. The incubator has already been awarded the money. Yeah. So part of the funding is in that uh estimated um fiscal year 26 or part of the expense rather of that 80,000 that's at where that 655 comes in. And so we would just leave the remainder of the full award of the $80,000 still within the project and then move the remainder. So what if we move forward with Indra's recommendation? What impact would it be upon current projects and proposed projects?

About 100 grand of those already in application. All right. So you'll see them as they're coming up. There's some URA money potentially going to like the pool or the all projects that we could move those dollars to those just do a swap out. And I'm not concerned about that when I'm concerned. Does this take money away from people that already have applications in? So this only accounts for the award that you've given.

Yeah, we just had one. We've had this we've had this LB project for a number of years. We we did have someone come forward to request a grant. council did award the grant. There are no other uh individuals that we are aware of that are online to apply for any additional dollars for an incubator program. Okay. Thank you. Any further questions or discussion? So, you have one counselor that has Rob, you want me to restate first?

I would I would support um uh swapping that out or transferring that to other urra projects. Um, I mean it's it's in its inception. I mean this this was originally I think created for you know um actual job training, welding, mechanics, things of that nature um collaborative efforts with RCC for workforce um training, but that doesn't seem to be where it's so far headed at least with the first 80,000. So, um it's and it's been there for so long and we've never really gotten any um of the um we'll say some of the um training in the trades and other things that this I think was originally intended for. Um so, as a result, I I would definitely support moving it out of here and uh putting it somewhere else where we might be actually make make it more productive.

Okay. So, you have uh two counselors advocating to take this funding and push it back to the URRA. Anybody else have any questions or comments in regards to that? Uh counselors, how do you feel about transitioning this money back to the UR? Thumbs up or thumbs down? I got one, two, three, four, five thumbs up. and a couple people and a thumbs down. And so it looks like majority of the council says, "Can you please take this and move it back to the UR?" Yep.

Okay. Thank you. Uh next, LB 6348 Reinhardt Park pedestrian bridge rehabilitation. Rick JC, I'm not sure it's a question for you or for Brad. It was my impression uh last year for the fiscal year we approved the money for upgrade on the bridge and so forth and I thought the project would would have been completed by the end of the fiscal year and yet I'm seeing additional $116,000 for 2027.

Yeah, this this is actually more of a public worksoriented project because of the sewer main that's mounted underneath the bridge. So, I'll let Jason kind of

I was going to let Brad take it. No. Um, the project is going a little bit longer. The work is probably going to be a little bit more expensive, but now we have to replace that sewer line. Remember, we came to you with an emergency sewer bypass for that. Um, we've now completed the work. The the line in its entirety has to be replaced underneath the bridge. So, at the same time that we do that work is when this work will be the most opportune. We're essentially going to do the projects as a joint package hopefully. Um or that's our intention at this point. We don't know. We're going to try hopefully we get the right contractor that can do both types of work because the cosmetic stuff that needs to be done to the bridge is a lot different than hanging the pipe underneath. But the equipment to go on top of the bridge deck and do the work underneath is very highly specialized. So we think it's the best approach. Um kill two birds, one stone, and get the work done at the same time. Thank you. That answers my question. Any further questions, Eric?

Going back to the prior one there, uh if if it's so if it's so desired that uh there is something for LB 6344, can that money be transferred back in there then? So if you have a need for a for more incubation innovation hub, you're saying if does council have the ability to go back at a later date? I would say I want to say it's in the amended plan to have certain number of dollars correct in that kind of area.

Yeah, the adopted URA plan does target a certain dollar amount, but again, I mean that's also under council's perview or so. Thank you. All right. Um, any further questions about Reinhardt Park pedestrian bridge rehabitation? Joel. So, um, Jason, I was just wondering, um, uh, it has to do with the sewer line, but the funding is multifunded, including bike money. So, the the sewer part of the project isn't in the lbs. It's in the SE projects. Okay.

This part of the project is just road deck, railings, bridge cosmetics. Um Okay. So, thank you. All right. Any further questions? All right. Go ahead, Jaci. LB6352 Reinhardt Park Sports Complex turf replacement. Any questions? All right. Go ahead. LB 6364, Josephine County Child Seat Safety Coalition.

Not seeing any questions. Go ahead. LB 6370 Dollar Mountain Rick. So, JC, uh, it says an interfund loan of $1 million. And if I remember right, when we sold the property on Lower River Road, it was $3 million and of which a million dollars went into this. So why do we have to do a loan? Uh we not we're just showing that that was part of the history of this project. Okay. So it never was utilized. It was utilized, but it was paid back shortly thereafter. Okay. Thank you.

Any further questions, Indra? So, looks like we're using uh the lodging tax money around 150, and then 127. Is this a standard we think for maintenance or this includes building trails or we're just putting a certain little amount aside every year for whatever it needs?

Um, I would say all the above. Yeah, there's there's um you know there've been discussions with the Bureau of Land Management um who owns the adjacent you know 800 plus acres to what the city has. Um there's been some flagging work done there um and there's also some even even on the city own piece some some potential for other trail buildings. So it it is potential for that um but also maintenance. So, do we expect this amount to be ongoing forever? Is there an end to the trail building and this would be maintenance at some point? And what would that maintenance be after the restrooms built and the trails are finished?

Yeah. Well, no. Well, certainly there's an end to the trail building. Um, and some of that also depends on on the um partnerships that we have with, you know, with other nonprofits who may participate. Like I mentioned before, um, we're going to have a much better more more accurate number to be able to to project for future budgets once we have a couple of years under our belt, you know, of operating it. This is this is what we think for the next year or two. Any further questions? All right, moving on. LB 6378 downtown alley activation and beautifification.

Not seeing anybody jump up. We'll go ahead and move on.

I'll be 6379 DUI impact panel. Not seeing any other questions. Go ahead. LB6381 commercial infrastructure in incentive. Not seeing any questions. Moving on. LB 6388 surplus property sales. Kathleen. So, uh, JC, which properties are the surplus?

Uh, they are in that last sentence of the first paragraph, but they're actively Well, Ramsay, Nebraska, that's not where it currently was built. It's a different property there. Is your mic on? I can hardly hear you. Sorry. What was that? Um, I'm just saying we just built something at Ramsey, Nebraska. They're Ramsey, Nebraska, right? Which I think explains part of the fiscal year 26 amounts. And then you have Sunset Starlight Place and Beacon Hill, which I think are the future ones that we're looking at. So, not Ramsey, Nebraska. I think,

yeah, there you're right. It's it's almost all completed. the agreement that the city has with Chrisman Development um you know does provide for a a future repayment, but it it's a long-term loan um that is basically a a um a no a no payment, no fee loan. It just it's it's essentially treated like a forgivable loan almost. Um but that's really not figured in. We probably could take that to be honest with you. We could probably take that one out because it is it just hasn't received its occupancy permit yet. There's still a few months out from that. Oh, I see. Um I think we left it in there because it is technically, you know, still active.

Okay. Thank you. Any further questions, Rick? So, Brad, that long-term loan, was that the actual payment we were anticipating to come from them? We received 50% upfront and then 50% was this loan piece. Okay. So should that 50% be portrayed in here or JC what how does that handled? Uh we could it's so far out and like you said it's forgivable so it's kind of do you represent it and over represent it or do you under represent it and when it comes due potentially put those in the project when they're when they're actually realized.

So did that 50% come in fiscal year 2026? Uh, no. The the payment came in in uh I believe 25. They might have even been 24. Um, because they're they're about a year and a half into this deal. Okay. All right. Thank you. Yeah. Any further questions? Indra, this might be a dumb question, but so the sale of assets 110,000 then 400. Is that for the sale of the properties? What?

Yeah. So, currently right now uh by resolution uh any um excess properties uh are to be the proceeds from those are to go into this project. And so that's the proceeds the 110. Yeah. We've sold some small properties here and there. Okay. And the expenditures adopted 700,000. What are the expenditures? and then it drops to 227374. What are the expenditures? They take money away

those those are the that's the SDC program that we have that this this fund. So this you've determined that property sales goes to SDC incentives to incentivize housing development. Oh, so we gave 700,000 back. Yes. And 227 this year and 374. you've incentivized housing by over by by that amount that we you show as an expenditure. Thank you. Any further questions, Rob?

Yeah. Where it says uh the city intends to publish the second RFP for affordable housing fund in the range 350 to 500. So is that actually from this fund or is that from CCT fund? CCT is a different LB project coming up later. So this is yeah there's two different grants that are used to incentivize housing and this is right that's something they're both in the same ballpark of dollar amount I guess because the CT is about half a million I think or whatever it is up there. Okay. Thank you. Last call questions.

All right. Thank you. Moving on. LB 6391 blighted building removal or replacement. So what you'll notice here actually is that movement of removing the URA funds. Uh we've never utilized it. It from the onset of the URA. This was one of those where council allocated several dollar amounts to several different projects and we've never utilized this. So we're just potentially going to transfer this money out to other URRA projects. Kathleen, is there not the possibility to put some fire under some uh properties that are blighted that are just sit there and sit there and sit there?

Literally fire. We do have another I mean some movement. We need to strike that from the record, please. There is another project coming up that does have other uh blight removal and and abatement too. Oh, there's a second fund. That one is very specific to solid waste handling though because it's funded exclusively from the solid waste agency. Yeah, this one particularly is but this one is particular to the URRA too. So it could only handle blight removment in the URA.

So is there any kind of way to talk to people that have blighted properties and not doing anything with them? We we have codes that we enforce when it comes to the condition that they have their properties. And if they fall outside of that, then we help incentivize them getting back into compliance,

not necessarily using it for something that helps the community. We have urban renewal dollars that help with like this type of project where you have an active participant that wants to change their blighted building to something that's that's adding community value. Um and usually you partner with that 25% urban renewal agency 75% private investment or you have a catalyst project like we have on the northstar project where we are doing a major incentivization uh project. So those are the two type of

and that's a good example too because there's a very blighted one on that corner uh just next to the Midland project. So, is that going to cause some movement there? That could all come out in further discussions through the development of our opportunities plan and what may occur there. Okay, Rick, I mean, sorry, I looked right at you, Eric, and I said Rick. It's Eric. Sorry.

Yeah, thank you. Uh so back to what Kathleen was asking for uh Aaron is is this something that um for the blighted properties do does the city actively go and uh talk to them instead of uh instead of going to um incentivize them when when something comes up? Is is it kind of proactive or kind of reactive? Would you say?

Uh I would say the latter. Um, as as Aaron mentioned, the the building codes when it comes to um abating nuisances or abating public risk are quite restrictive. Um, I mean, you have to have a a a very very evident risk to the public in order for us to use that code. So now if I understand the nature of your question though counselor is more can we just sort of you know go talk to people and say hey you know this incent this program is here maybe you didn't know about it um and we we have um we have not done that we could certainly do that I think it comes down to sort of making a a little bit of a judgment call on blight um the state's definition of blight is extremely broad um it can even re you know get to things like perceived D uh disinvestment. Um so but you know we could just do a a sort of a URA wide mailing that would just simply inform them of the fact that the city has these funds. Um there is some risk in that as well though because you know there's only so much funds and uh to incentivize a lot of times you need um a certain dollar amount to help a property owner decide okay you know I was going to spend 30,000 on my building you're going to give me 25% of that. Um if my project is as 800,000 it's really not enough to bring me over the edge that okay yeah I do want to go for that money. So, it's that's why we've kind of left it up to the property owners to drive this program. Um, if they have a real need, they're they're already motivated. They've already talked to uh, you know, lenders, maybe they have their own capital. Um, and they're just looking to the URRA just for, you know, that extra little bump to kind of push them over. So, um, but, you know, we're certainly

open. I don't Yeah. And council has made some uh modifications throughout the years of our renewal agency to broaden the use or change the use of of how those dollars are done. Say for instance, there are some uh vacant buildings with broken windows. We are now going to have a program where they can get their windows fixed to help with the blighted issue uh to make it look more more ready for for lease or rent or purchase. So there's small things that can be done that council has done, but it does really like Bradley say sometimes take the spark of the developer or the property owner. Indra,

I would just add there's a healthy investment community in the private sector that look for blighted buildings and homes to in buy, invest in, and then redevelop and remodel. So I know um properties that are in sad shape often get uh offers for sale. So it does there so that happens in the private sector too which might be more efficient than the city. Any further questions?

All right. Next. LB6392 lot plaza. Go ahead. You got a question? Me? Yeah. Your finger on the button. Is that Is that your the big red to confirm that it's going well? I hope in progress. From what I've heard, that is correct. Any further questions? I bought bricks. Nice. I hope everyone else does.

All right. Next. OB 6393. Restore place caveman pool.

All right. See no questions. Go ahead. LB6395 Riverside Park Improvements. Seeing no questions. Go ahead. Oh, sorry. Indra's got a question.

So, this is on the horizon for the maintenance yard and the driveway, but but that this is dependent on what happens with the house, right? Like we're waiting for that to see. I I would say in part because um as the council's last workshop resulted it, you know, you're looking for a significant private investment on the cottage. Um you know, that's that's the ongoing discussions there. So, um, now there would there is still some city investment because, um, the way that that RFP was put out, um, the city would contribute certain to, uh, certain, um, improvements like the foundation or the roof or other exterior things, but the majority of the costs are expected to come from, you know, from the private partner. Um, so the so our intent would be that the majority of this is still for the maintenance yard um or other types of improvements there

because I think park said they would like to just tear it down. So that's that's still up for debate, I guess. Correct. There was a survey that went active on Friday. Um, so going to be open for two weeks. So uh we'll report back on the results of that. Further questions? All right. Next,

LB 6396, fire equipment replacement. And just wanted to note the $150,000 contribution. Not seeing any questions. Moving on. LB 6397, police equipment and facilities. Next, LB 6398 refurbish Hillrest Public Safety Station.

Rick, so there's been some indication we're trying to make an application for a whole new fire station. If that were the case, would this move forward or this would just be a bridge for the interim? So, you are correct, counselor. We are we have been seeking funding for replacement of the fire station. Um, and this as of right now, you can see the total resources. They remain unless something changed, then I'm not saying it's the same printout, right? It's the same. Yeah. Be zero. Yeah. So, it's zero. Okay. Thank you.

All right. Next. Oh, sorry. One more question. Sorry. Go ahead. Yeah. Um I'm sorry. I just need to go back one page. Page 21. And um police equipment and facilities. And we got a picture, I guess, of a drone here. And and I'm just wondering, we we while we increased the penalties, we really didn't increase the way of actually enforcing anything on Dollar Mountain. And I'm just wondering if uh a uh a fleet of drones and operators would be a really good way to basically protect our investment uh in Dollar Mountain. And I'm just wondering if uh any of that's ever been considered for that that uh that purpose.

Yeah, there's only certain things you can use drone enforcement for. there's specific OS, but we're definitely going to look into um a strategy on how to um take care of the ordinance um on Dollar Mountain. So, we'll come up with a plan. Um we actually did use our drone a couple weeks ago. We thought somebody was hurt up there, so uh we ended up uh making contact with somebody who were probably illegally using their vehicles up there, but ultimately we were able to make contact using their drone. All of that to say is we're going to take everything into consideration as we move forward into the new year. Thank you.

I think we'll continue on LB 6403 property abatement and blight cleanup. Kindra, will the the expenditures go down as when this camp closes? Is this camp part of this expenditure for cleanup?

So, there are some expenses from the camps in this cleanup, but it's also uh the the camps that get cleaned up that aren't sanctioned. It's also private properties that are under um judicial orders to be cleaned up. Any further questions? Okay, moving on. LB6408, housing studies pass through.

All right, seeing no questions, move on. LB6417 American Rescue Plan Act.

Go ahead, Rob. So, is isn't this all water under the bridge? Why why is this even still here? What It's a really good question. Uh, it's just remaining here. We do have some contracts outstanding which is the remainder of that 978,000 that were uh the two um construction projects that council gave large sums out there for those projects. Uh we haven't had the 100% closure of those projects and reimbursement. So there there's some dollars there and I will say there probably will be some money quote unquote left over. It's going to be small dollars in the grand scheme of thing but just kind of trying to track all those appropriately.

Thank you. Any further questions? Seeing none, move on. LB6420 training facility equipment and props. Seeing no questions. Moving on. LB6428, facilities, maintenance, fire. Seeing no further questions. Moving on. LB6429 residential construction excise tax program. Indra,

so it's affordable housing. Can you what's the definition for this specific um program for affordable housing?

Um the the CCT is regulated by an OS that was adopted I think in 2019. Um I'm uh pretty certain, not 100% that it's 120% of area meeting income for this particular um one. Um the council did adopt a resolution that set the guidelines and the parameters for how the CCT uh grants would work. Um, and there may have been a a drop in that and we could certainly look that up and send you the resolution, but uh I think we're at I think that this particular program that works at 120% of area median income.

Does that mean it's subsidized housing then? Well, it's I guess if if you if you define subsidize as as the use of CCT dollars um benefiting the developer, then yes. Um it doesn't it doesn't mean that all housing that is at 120% or lower is subsidized. Um there is there are some developments that are that that don't receive federal HUD money um or other types of you know state subsidy um that still hit the target um that would potentially be eligible for for this money. But there typically does need to be some way to monitor the income on an annual basis so that we can be sure that the housing that is being built with the money is going to be resided in by people that meet the you know the maximum income. Um so yeah the the two we have only gone through one round of CCT funding to date. Um, and there was two projects that the council approved for that money and both of them are subsidized projects. They were already receiving federal money. So, but it it I guess my point is it wouldn't it would it's not a requirement that they be subsidized in order to be eligible.

Any further questions? So, was that your question? You want to know if on a monthly basis each tenant is subsidized? I know. Oh, I'm I'm I'm waiting for you because I I see you you're still not If you're not satisfied, keep going. So Rob wants to ask. No.

So I got this friend. I'm asking for somebody else. I mean, well, to me, you answered it because you said they have to check the um the income of the people, which means they're mostly on the state role and receiving uh income that way. But so, that was the question. Are they receiving not the builders, but the tenants, are they um receiving monthly help? And I think you said not necessarily. They might not be. Right.

Right. That's correct. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. this the and these monies um you know have have cannot be used for operations of any kind or monitoring of any kind. It is it is truly construction. So it is for the development of new housing. Um so that that is specific. So it it it it is going to benefit who whoever is building and constructing these new units is the is who gets the money. Okay. And I I just asked because I'm sure you know neighborhoods and people do get concerned when low in lowincome housing is coming into their area because they don't know quite what to expect.

Okay. Any further questions? All right. Next one. LB6430 commercial industrial construction excise tax program.

Not seeing any questions. Moving on. LB6431 large parks play structure replacement. Not seeing any questions. U moving on. OB 6437 small parks playground replacements and development. Not seeing any questions. Moving on. LB 6439 Small Park Improvement and Repairs.

Not seeing any questions. Go ahead and move on. LB 6440, Large Park Improvements and Repairs. I'm sorry. Oh, okay. From page 3, I got a question. Sorry,

you're flying. You're flying past me. So, I'm just on on uh on the small park improvement and repairs. It talks about the uh Gilbert Creek softball field. And I don't go there much in the evening, but I mean, many years ago, there was softball there all the time. And then for many years there was nothing like it that's that that field was never used. And I'm just wondering like what's the state of uh what's the scheduling like for that field? I'm not sure why we would be um funding potential softball field improvements there because for many years there's been no softball unless it started up again. It is a it is a good observation counselor. Um there have been some conversations between our uh rec staff and uh a couple of the leagues um in terms of utilizing this field more. Uh you know they certainly prefer to go to Reinhardt. Um I think and part of that preference I think is because of the the the lower quality. Um and there's that that uh outfield area at Gilbert Creek is has really become pretty pretty wet. Um uh and so this project um would put in some perforated pipes and would help to drain that off and so that it would be u much more predictably uh a suitable surface for for that. Um we are we are still our preference would be to get a more firm commitment from a user group so that before the city goes in and and puts this investment in. Um you know we have some commitment there. Um and I think honestly until we get that we probably won't spend that money at the Gilbert Creek facility. Um but and and the other piece of that as you know is that the city doesn't own this. Um you know this is a owned by the school district. Um so there's that policy

piece too that maybe would need to be discussed in the future. Yeah, there's a point at which it may be in the fairly near future that we might want to empty this account out if we can't get any commitment because not only is the uh because in the in the summer at ba uh you know baseball season u that field is not particularly wet but it is extremely irregular bumpy sprained sprained ankle waiting to happen. Um and that to me would be uh probably a pretty big expense. It's a pretty big area to smooth out. So, if we can't if we can't come up with an actual viable plan for that and a and a um and a demand, uh we may want to move those funds elsewhere, but that would be that would depend on whether or not the city actually thinks you can come up with any answers to whether or not someone actually wants to use it. Right now, it's pretty it's pretty bumpy.

Yeah. I just make a comment. So, this is all small parks uh the improvements and repairs, not just that ones. I know it's listing that, but that's just for the potential plan of fiscal year 27. And so I would think you'd want to keep those dollars in there uh for other maintenance at other small parks. Any further questions? All right, moving on. We had more you one more question. Sorry, little slow in the draw.

Oh, Rob went back large the large park I'm looking at. So I'm just curious. So the lodging tax really went up in 2026 to 456 and then it goes down to 200,000. Was there a but we didn't use any of it. Was there a reason for that? Was there a project in mind?

Yeah. So they only get uh so much lodging tax per year and so they're trying to really allocate this to this large park improvement and repairs. And you'll see the very last sentence here. There's the lighting LED upgrades to support courts and fields. our priority due to the changes in state law. So, they're trying to put as much money as possible to do that swap out of that project uh all at once. If I remember right, Brad,

is there a reason it would go way down the next year? It seems like it I mean, do we try to keep that account around a million? Because the large parks probably cost a lot when there's a project to do. And so, do we try to keep it around a million? And why aren't we keeping lodging tax solid across the board, I guess, is what I'm asking.

It's a really good question. So, we keep lodging tax off to the side and then those dollars get allocated interest just like other pots of money. And so, it behooves parks to keep that money there for as long as possible until they truly allocate it to a project. So, the million dollars that you're seeing just in this project is truly to do the one large replacement of the LED lights, not for all um large park improvements and repairs. So, we don't keep money in there regularly?

No. It behooves parks to keep it in there before because then they earn interest on their own money. So that interest earned in the the kind of holding spot stays with the the lodging tax specifically meant for parks improvements. Okay. So then as they need it for a project, it comes over. That is correct. Thank you,

Eric. For the LED upgrades, I know some uh places I've worked before, they have uh uh discount programs and such. My question I guess is uh does the city have that where they offered that to to do the the LED discount program? Uh yes. Yes, there is a um a priority being put on that right now as you know and uh there is a fairly um uh targeted grant fund that is just opening up uh I don't know maybe last week or this week um for this purposes. So that's that's why you see that particular project this year and we we have already started looking at the application form and we'll be submitting for that. So

is that going to affect the bottom the the uh the table down there the funding? Well, if if we're successful in securing the grant um then that'll be reflected um at that time. We we typically don't you know forecast those kind of things. Perfect. Thank you so much. Yra, so I just want to clarify the lodging tax a certain amount does come to the parks annually.

Yeah. So that's a good question and that's why these projects or are separated from small parks to large parks. uh part of the OS uh we feel like the large parks qualify for tourism related facilities for the civic grants pass where potentially our small parks do not uh fit that definition which is why we we've separate them to make that delineation of these are our large parks improvements. Okay. And is there a certain percentage that comes in? How how do you determine how much of lodging tax money comes in?

That is a really good question. It is a it is a set by MUN code um percentage distribution that goes into that area. I don't know it off the top of my head, but we could I think it's like 12% something of every dollar. Okay. So, are you talking about how much goes into parks? Yep. Right. What percentage lodging tax?

So, we basically have a lodging tax of 12%. And it's broken up three different ways because we've implemented lodging tax in three different three different time frames. um 7% uh parks maintenance. 25% of the 7% goes to parks maintenance. Um which is a total of the total 12% of 14.58% of the 12% goes to park maintenance. Uh there's also some that goes to land acquisition, tourism related facilities, and that's 11.67%. So you add that to the 14.5 if you're considering it also going to parks. Oh, I see. Okay, there's the actual number. So there you go.

Uh this is page 289 of your budget document as well. And so yes, there but this is all by MUN code and the OS that uh separated these seven two and 3% allocations. Any further questions? All right, moving on. LB6441 special events. Eric, is this uh being taken over with by the Main Street program? So, is that going to be null and void or is it are we going to continue to have it?

Uh, councelor, I guess at this point, the short answer is no. I mean, this the city is still intending through, as you can see, as shown here, to to to fund these these projects as it's proposed. So, there's a lot of discussion. I think maybe the city manager can add more to that. I think that we're planning lots of ongoing community conversations about to transition some of these. Uh there has been not conversation about Art Along the Rogue, but the Fourth of July and and the tree event, yes, there have been, you know, some conversations about how to transition those. We actually do plan to transition the Fourth of July this year. Um, but the procurement of the fireworks themselves is, you know, by far the largest percentage of the budget. Um, you know, that's I think around $18,000 to give you 15 minutes of fireworks. Um so uh at this point because you know this and and of course this is sort of because Fourth of July happens right at the fiscal year timing. You know you're working with monies that were already allocated. So yeah and to further clarify that we've got the three signature events that we do are along the road really hasn't been discussed as someone really taking over but that's not you know out of the discussion point. the Fourth of July and the Christmas tree. There's been discussions of individ of groups taking those over, but the question is and some of the comments have been we'll take over the organization in the running as long as the city still contributes the cost associated with it. So that's a discussion point in the future. If a if a group came and said we would like to do the Christmas tree, great, but we would also like the city continue to contribute what they're contributing to the Christmas tree now. we'll just run it. What that would do is it'd have some savings on staff time internally, but potentially not from a budget perspective on an LB project, but that would be for future council discussion.

Rick, so in the colored column for proposed fiscal year 27, it shows resources. So, the $20,000 for the Fourth of July fireworks, is that coming out of tourism or where does that what's the resource? Uh, that's the general fund. Okay. So,

so you'll notice another $20,000 for GF- Art Along the Road. That's general fund. And then GF- Tree, that's the $10,000 general fund. So, a total of $50,000 annually has been contributed from the general fund to this project. But for instance on the vendor fees for 18,600 that would be from the vendors themselves. Correct. So we put the revenues uh back into this project that they get for those events. Okay. And then I appreciate the fact it shows that the resources are larger than the expenditures. They've been doing a very good job as of late.

Okay. So that also gives us the opportunity to readjust the allocation of what we're spending. Thank you. Any further questions, Indra?

So, I think you might have just answered it because the numbers are all over the board. Um 310 and estimated 26 and then 3,000 and 27. It's quite a difference. And then the 23 to 18, I think you said you're putting more money into it. And then the art on the rogue 26 3710 and then up to 6,000 for vendor fees. There's there's just a lot of um large shifts.

Yeah, that's a good question. Uh Brad could probably elaborate more. I know some of the details I think they've done with the revisions to our comprehensive fee schedule, they've done a better job of aligning um what to charge vendors and the amount of participation we are getting from the vendor community at those events. And so they're being uh more realistic at what they think they potentially can get because they have been growing these events. Um, the other is sometimes with like sponsorships and things like that, we'll reduce those sometimes just to not overextend ourselves and make a bigger event than we can actually afford. So, we we kind of play the the game as being respectful of what we have been seeing recently as well as not extending too far and being conservative with those estimates.

Who are they? Who are they? You said they Sorry, that's going to be Dana and Brad and his we. You're part of the team, right? That's in internal our internal.

Right. Right. Okay. And uh sponsorships holiday tree adopted 3,400 estimated 10,000 and proposed for 276,000. So we expect sponsorships to go down a lot. Again, it's not overextending the event, um, but also being kind of aware of we don't know what Main Street may take over and so it's kind of a a limboish area as well. Okay, thank you.

Any further questions? All right, moving on. LB 6443 customer service capital Equipment. Seeing no questions. Moving on. LB 6448 Downtown Redwood parking lot renovation. Seeing no questions. Moving on. LB645. Hold on. Sorry. I'm sorry. I'm a little slow.

No, you're so we have a estimated for 26 and then nothing 30,000. So, are we expecting to do 30,000 worth of work there and then we're done?

Uh, no. Uh, yeah. No, the this is strictly the engineering money to have our engineer design and look at options for that that parking lot that that would be you know a complete um uh removal of the existing asphalt and going all the way down or we just you know but it is if you you know we know that there's a lot of need a lot of buckling you know some actual pedestrian hazards that are kind of forming out there so we really needed to be taken care of. This budget, as you just pointed out, does not have any construction money in it. We would anticipate after the engineering is done coming back and starting to uh to fund the project. So that, you know, that's something that is is fully expected. We do not have a a firm number until we have the engineering estimate.

Any further questions? All right, moving on. LB 6450 Northwest Washington Boulevard lots. Seeing none, no questions. Uh, moving on. LB6453 Dollar Mountain radio tower.

Rick, so we allocated to proceed forward with this last fiscal year. What is the status on the tower at this point? Hey counselor, that's a great question. Um, we run into some issues with a um change in ownership. Uh, so there's a landlord tenant uh agreements in the process. So once they get that squared away, uh then we expect to move forward with the project. The last thing we wanted to do was to uh work with a uh a new landlord without going through the appropriate process, but we are expecting to actually hear back in a couple weeks. It's been a quite a process of staying engaged with this new group, but we're getting there.

And do you have an antip anticipation date when the to new tower may be there with the equipment? I don't but I don't think it's going to be that difficult of a project and that is because we already have a tower in place and we already have a shed an equipment shed up there. So the idea is to piggy back off of equipment and um and land that's already there. So it would be a matter of adding our equipment to the shed connecting to the tower and hope I I probably oversimplified this. It's not my job but um hopefully it doesn't take that long. Thank you. Any further questions? All right, CNN moving on. LB6454 surveillance camera system.

So, I'm I'm just looking at the picture which is like the camera out there. So, I'm wondering when that camp is this all it's for and when that camp is gone, uh we won't be needing this anymore.

Hi, counselor. Another great question. No, this is just a picture we used. Uh the idea is to uh upgrade our um surveillance footprint along the city. There are a significant amount of uh cameras within our park system and around town and it is time to upgrade. Any further questions? All right, moving on. It'll be 6455 River Vista House Demolition.

I saw you moving, so I was giving you the bandwidth to go for it. Indra, how can we help? You're reading my body language. I I was I was trying. I'm trying. Um, so this seems like a low priority. I mean, is nothing in it? Do we use it for storage or anything? It's just sitting there and what are we thinking with this?

No, that that's correct. Um, I mean, again, this is part of why we do this every year to, you know, sort of have this prioritization conversation. Um but it it historically you know people could rent it for weddings and um other kinds of events. We we have not seen that. Um it has deteriorated um as as JC's earlier slide pointed out. Um and we think that there you just some higher and better uses for that that location within the park um to to meet some of the recreational needs. Um but uh you know can it continue to sit there? Yes. Um the storage piece is really in the garage, not you know in the house itself. The house itself does have some furniture. Um but um you know this was just a a we we think there's some some higher and better uses for that piece of property inside the park.

Okay. Do people still use it for weddings or No, we do. We have not seen it uh leased out for for several years. Any further questions? Eric, doesn't the fire department, excuse me, the fire department also use it for practicing occasionally? Did I remember something like that from last year or is that No. Uh we did not use it for practicing. But however, I think what you're referencing is when I first got here, I was paying rent to live in there for the a short time beforehand. So, I will say everything he is saying is 100% correct

with seeing the skunks and the mold in the floor that was found and everything. So, perfect. Thank you for your dedication and your par and your patience to to hang on and and and and wait for a better situation. We appreciate you being here. That's all I wanted to say. Uh, any other questions? Oh, moving on. OB6457, Council Directives.

Intro. This sounds like just a slush fund, right? No, it's not. Um, these these are all kinds of miscellaneous stuff. Correct. So, these are one-time items that council has directed staff that they just want to have done. And so, they don't necessarily fit in any other project. So, so we can track the expenses and the revenues accordingly. Um, I created this project to make sure that we house those correctly and can track those um if there ever to be a question. Is there a reason it's so much?

Uh, you approved a lot. So we just put it in there as we approve it. I mean or it go Oh. So as soon as you sign that or approve that resolution, we move the money into this project and allow for those expenditures to draw down on it. Oh, we need to stop approving stuff. I would I would implore you to read the project needs in full in its entirety.

Yeah. because basically that's one reason why that money was moved is I think is there's a couple good statements in there that shows where it's going. Um any further questions on this? Okay, moving on. We're almost to the end 8580 bandshell. Rick, is that on schedule for dedication this June? Yes, it is. Thank you.

Seeing no further questions, moving on. LB6327, technology life cycle management. Uh, we are closing this out, but part of the proposal would be to create that IT equipment replacement fund. So, this would just be moved with those funds. Seeing no questions, moving on. LB6418 ERP replacement. Uh, this is one and the same as well. Uh, there's a large dollar amount to replace our software that we utilize at the city. Um, and this will go with the IT equipment replacement funds as well. Indra.

So the last one and this one are additional funds to the IT funds that you have here. No, they've just traditionally been held in the LB projects because there was no other good spot to put them. And so now upon the proposal of creating an IT equipment centricbased program, uh these two projects are IT in nature. And so it makes sense to better house those with the other IT stuff. So this million dollars from both will be housed together with it a new fund

potentially. Any further questions? All right. See you then. We'll move on.

LB6442 city hall renovations. Uh similar kind ofish deal with this project as well. We do have a facilities replacement fund um that all the tenants in this area pay towards. Um and so we're going to close this fund and move that over to the city hall centric uh facilities replacement funds. Any questions? Okay, so that looks like that's our last fund. Any generalized questions that came to your mind in going through this that you need to go back for one last call. Okay, thank you very much.

Uh counselor or sorry, excuse me, mayor. Sorry. Wow. You're going to get the merit for that one, right? No, just kidding. Go ahead. You're good. I don't have anything to throw, so I'm okay. He's not that important. Yeah, exactly. I'm not. That's what my wife keeps telling me. I'm not that important. if you if you would can we get a general consensus that the the proposal that we've brought here today uh should be what we bring forward to the budget committee.

So JC's looking for some confirmation that you don't have any major changes to the LB programs um and C or capital projects and that they can present as she's been presented to you today. Anybody all in favor of that? Thumbs up or thumbs down? Indra, I know we talked about the IT equipment $6.6 million. That's what we're looking to build over time.

That's a good question. Uh, not no, not over time. That is the total liability if you were to try and replace all of our IT equipment in the city as of today. That's an estimation. But what we're trying to do is get better at holding a a good majority of those funds uh to make sure that we can replace those things as they are required to replace. Now I will say the large majority of that $6.7 million is going to be our Munis software replacement. um we are not contributing even close to enough to potentially replace the entirety of the system, but we are trying to identify that we know we have a giant liability out there and that potential for that replacement may come due.

So there's no timeline right now for this?

No, we're trying to be respectful. Uh it's a good question again. Uh you know, normal IT computers are about a 5year life cycle. Um, we've got some MDTs and other um, computer equipment that are more police and fire centric that are a little bit more expensive. And again, we try and weigh how long it takes to replace those things and be appropriate with the operational contribution. And so, just as an example, um, it gives us a list of all the computers to replace. And so, we have a list of what it takes to replace all of Patrol's uh, computers. And what we see is in maybe 27 they only need $30,000 worth of replacement. And then in 28 that number is going to spike up to 70,000 based on how they've kind of staggered their replacement. So rather than making a 30 and then 70, we're going to try and smooth that out to a $50,000 contribution each year. So that way that operational uh draw on the general fund is more even and balanced from year to year. So what's the 357? Is that to a start this year or because you mentioned 50,000 then every year. So what's is the 357 upfront so to speak?

Yeah, that's the overall starting place uh for the entirety of the city for the first year to make that contribution and and remove that out of the operating budgets. And so what it does is it really helps the general fund out and meeting that 18.5 or 25% uh fund balance, however you want to look at it. Um and so moving forward though, uh those contributions will come out of the operating areas that are associated with them much like we do any vehicle replacement. Thank you,

Rick. continuation of that. I know Windows 11 has caused some computers to be obsolete. Has that affected finance and it or is everything on schedule? And I realize there was an extension until the end of this calendar year to be able to still use Windows 10.

You know, I'm not probably the appropriate person to answer this. Um, and that would be Ken, uh, who's our IT director. Um but he'd probably tell you, "Yeah, it's probably come faster to replace some of those things sooner than than we thought." Um and we're gonna have to just like any other um thing that comes our way, we're going have to pivot and do what's best uh for us as far as operations and financially. Okay. Thank you. All right. So, we still had a pretty unanimous I think I got the thumb

direction going forward. So, thank you. And that takes care of the majority of our workshop. Um, we are hitting 4:00 p.m. here. So, let's really go fast into agenda review. Um, we have a tourism advisory committee motion.

Yeah, I forgot to print that. Sorry. It's a simple motion. Um it's a motion made uh to approve the addition of a main street liaison position to the uh tourism advisory committee. So you have a um a tourism advisory committee motion to appoint a liaison for for from Main Street represent from Main Street. Are you guys good with that? Any discussion or just good? That's not the motion at hand. Yeah, I know you're you're stay on topic, mister. You use your mic.

Two two two different committees, my friend. Well, I I understand that. I just um just was wondering. Um so are is your question is there a we need to bring it forward for a vote to a to a workshop I think that or to a um uh a meeting. You want to push this to a meeting? Yeah. Yeah. You have a counselor that is requesting to push this tourism advisory committee motion to the next meeting for discussion. Tendra, you good with that? Okay. Get out of respect for the committee.

So, can we go ahead and move this forward as a business? You're going to change the makeup of your task of your uh committee. So, you need to do that by resolution. We were going to put it on a resolution at a future business meeting probably under consent adding this one membership. If you're wanting to have discussion about that, then it you would want to move it to a council action item. Is that your intention? I say move it to a council action item to make sure it's delivered and that's what we want to do. Okay. So, your disagree with that. Your your council recommendation is to move it to a council action item in the in the upcoming Wednesday meeting.

Well, at a future meeting or a future. Do we have bandwidth this Wednesday? Probably not, huh? Well, we're already specially adding the um recommendation with regards to personnel and the budget on Wednesday. So, we'll go with a date with a with an upcoming meeting that we can pencil in. Is that good with you?

Okay. So there is a recommendation by councelor to push this tourism ad tour tourism advisory committee motion to an upcoming Wednesday public meeting as a council action item not this Wednesday but an upcoming one statement question is there a reason we need to discuss this in length Joel can answer that well I just want to know what the committee's rationale was why that and not the chamber of commerce or some other other group and uh what's the synergy and and what what are the results? Um do they have community

because there's a lot of community groups that uh contribute to tourism. Karen, can you verify if they already have chamber representation?

Go ahead, Indra. I just think if a someone a counselor's concerned, I mean, it's worth a discussion. I don't think it would hurt to have a discussion over it. Yep. No, no, we're in full conversation about having a discussion with it. Yeah. Nobody's nobody's poo pooing his ID. I don't think so. So, we're just getting clarification cuz if you already have chamber My question is if tourism advisory board already has chamber representation, then it's kind of a mute point, right? So just simply asking the question, Karen's looking it up.

So the committee will include preferably two members representing lodging properties within the city of Grants Pass, others representing river guides, area attractions, realators, restaurants, the media, marketing, and citizens at large. So I didn't hear a definition of chamber representation there. So but Terry Hopkins is the vice chair. Oh, but Terry Hopkins is the vice chair of the committee. So with that knowledge, Joel, do you want to proceed? I think it's transparent.

Okay. So it's been advised by or it's been asked by one council member as well as the second council member to have a full discussion in a council action item in the in an upcoming Wednesday meeting. Please present your thumbs up or thumbs down for your consent or denial. Okay, I got three to three.

Oh, sorry. I didn't see that. So, I got four to three. So, um I don't think you have council majority council to go forward. So, then again, you that puts it back on the table. You have a motion from the tourism advisory committee to appoint somebody as a liazison from Main Street. So, it's still up in the air. If council's desire to appoint that and if there's no objections, we again, like I mentioned, would move it forward based on the current council action. We'd move it forward at a future business meeting under consent. If council's okay with that, I'll move forward with that direction.

So, do you want to go move forward with council put it on a consent agenda? Thumbs up or thumbs down? Okay. It's the same four to three. So obviously it will go forward on the consent agenda for an upcoming council public meeting. Okay. Thank you very much. Um agenda review for upcoming Wednesday night. You guys have had your packet for has been available for 7 days. Um hopefully you've digested it. It is pretty big. Is there anybody want anything to be changed or discussed for the upcoming Wednesday meeting in two days? Does it pertain to the Wednesday meeting? That's what I'm just asking. Like I'm I'm just trying to head off the people contacting me when the meeting starts and wants to change things so staff has full full ability to change things in the next two days for the next meeting. So, we're really trying to push that you guys engage yourself because these are published seven days ahead of time. And so, I'm kind of really asking you guys to do your homework and come to this workshop. If you have changes, then we can give staff ample time to change it before we go into meeting. I don't see anybody jumping up and down. So, anything for the upcoming calendar Joel? So on the back based on the discussion we had today, we need to have for uh council action um monitoring of the general fund on a quarterly basis. So to bring it to a workshop to discuss how that works

just to look at the um um u expenditures and where we're at and uh is our balance at the year end going to be uh below 25% or is it going to be 18%. Uh and then we can monitor that as we move along. Okay. And I think um JC would like to uh get clarification or weigh in on that. No, I just want to say that even in your packet that is for Wednesday, there is a quarterly report and we publish those which has a definite snapshot of the general fund as well as some other information regarding

right so there there won't be any additional work required on your part but I want to highlight it as an independent item just for council's awareness because it because it is important there is a percentage now that is reflected next to the financial statements ments as to where that fund balance sits in regards to the 25%.

Right? And you know, I've been looking at it, but I'm not sure all of us have or and we certainly haven't had a discussion. And if it does cross uh the 25% threshold, we need to look at it and take other action. So, I want to be very clear in our September quarterly report, we could be below 25% because property taxes haven't come in. But I wouldn't constitute that as an emergency. Yeah, I wouldn't either. So, I'm not sure what what what I'm being asked to do.

So, we're asking It's real simple, JC. Um, I look at my budget on a monthly basis, and I say, "Well, this one's out of budget. This one's not out of budget." Um, we said in reality that we weren't going to go below 25% for the year, not for the quarter. There might be circumstances where within the quarter you're going to be below 25% and that's fine if we got a rationale as to why it's going to go there and and we'll be okay because we haven't had the full savings for the year. But we have that discussion um because as you said in in four years or 5 years if if we're down to 16% we need to find that out way ahead of time and take appropriate action. So based on council's uh councelor King's comments, I think what he's asking for is an agenda item under during a workshop for quarterly reports. So quarterly we would provide a report on where we are with the contingency fund and our percentage. And I would like to further point out on your purple sheet again, if you look at the bottom, there is a percentage that is listed of where we currently sit as of December 31st, 2025 in relationship to the targeted fund balance policy. That's correct.

So it shouldn't be it shouldn't take long. It won't take any additional work on your part. I wrote it good. So, I I understand what you're what you're asking for. You're asking for me to put this on the back of the agenda so we can actually have a regularly scheduled, hey, we got to set aside five minutes to actually have everybody digest this quarterly report, blah blah blah. I've I think I interpret that correctly. I'll work it into agenda setting. Okay.

Yeah. So, I don't think you have to do anything. He's asking me to basically put it on the agenda so we can work it into, you know, the agenda at at a at the proper time to say, "Hey, take five minutes. You guys look at this blah blah blah blah." I don't think it's more giving you any more work. No, I just want to remind um everybody on the council that it is in the consent agenda and if you feel like you want to star that at any point, you potentially could do that. or if you want me to bring that in a different manner forward moving forward, I can always have it be brought as part of the closing of a workshop or in another facet.

Okay, thank you for the extra information. Um, so any other coun items? Okay, so we do have executive session. Do you wanted something else? Go ahead.

Yes. Um, so I have an ask. I've um have a little issue. So I've been trying to get financial information um from the city and I'm having trouble doing that. I just asked for um bank statements and ledgers to look so I could understand the statements because as counselors we have a fiduciary duty to know and oversight legally and ethically. We represent our constituents out there and it's our duty to make sure that everything's good. I made clear I met with JC and Aaron making clear I'm not looking for gotcha things. I'm not I just want to understand it more and I asked for um one well there was a misunderstanding. They thought it was lots of months, but I asked for one month of bank statement and corresponding information so you can understand it and read it. And so you all got that too. You got one bank statement. You you can't read it because there's no information with it. So a check and an amount doesn't tell you anything where that money went to. And so I'm asking I was requesting for either check copies or ledgers which a lot of it is just digital information now a click of the mouse sure some things might have to be redacted but I don't think it's going to be very timeconsuming um but they have refused to give that to me and so because based on time and you can you can answer for yourself Aaron but um I I don't think it's going to be that time consuming for one month for things. So you can see specifically what I asked for and now I have to come which I don't think I should have to come get support. I'm a

elected official. I represent constituents but I'm coming to ask for support. So I need two other counselors to support me so that they will have direction to give me the information. And I will say I was quite insulted um when I was asked to perhaps file a foyer request and pay money to get the information. So um I don't think that's right. And so I would ask for counselors to support me in this request, please.

Okay. So, I I really appreciate you bringing this up, Indra, but I really do not have the you're not going to have my support because you're framing this as being a victim, and you were not a victim in this. You brought the request. I helped facilitate a meeting to actually explain exactly to get what you wanted. It was explained. It was never ever told to you that you couldn't have the information. It was never told to you that it was or discouraged to have the information. The one thing I brought up in that meeting was that we that I felt that if you were asking for this financial information, it should be it should be available to all counselors. A memo was then hence put out to all counselors to ask if they would want the same information. JC will explain it a little bit better if he wants to, but he brought it up that the specific items that you were asking for were not going to give you the information you wanted. So, we actually tried to facilitate a meeting to get clarity on what you were looking for. I have a problem with you framing this as you were a victim because you were not there. There staff did not discourage you. Staff did not not give you the information. So, I really have a problem with yet because you're basically framing it as the staff was completely against your request, which they were not because I was involved with that. The request is for some financial information. You guys have all received a memo and that financial information will be provided. But as JC explained, if there was more detailed information than than what was already readily available, it would take staff time and his oversight because of the financial aspects of of it. And if it was deemed that it would be a lot of time for staff to do it, then it would have to go

through an official public records request, which would actually have a fee to it. So basically taking and compensating there for their time to actually go through pull up the information and redact it as as such. Um, so with that being said, Aaron had something to say as well.

Well, I think thank you, mayor. I was just going to talk about the characterization a little bit. Um, but yes, there's two ways that uh the counselor can get this information and like the mayor mentioned. Um, we could do it through public records request or we could do it through council requesting the information because it is going to take time for us to gather the information um that is ultimately going to want to be requested and and us handling that. because of the amount of time I I think the counselor has determined that she'd like to see if all of council would like to have this information and we'd be more than happy to give you that information. Now JC and I have talked about this. He has a general idea of what it would take and what type of information that is being requested. So I'm going to turn it over to him so you can get a better picture of what type of information is requested and the process that we need to go through in order to make sure to get you that information.

Thank you Aaron. Uh so in doing some rough estimates and calculations I estimate before a legal andor a further financial review uh for one month the all these numbers are for one month uh I'm looking at between 45 and 50 hours of staff time. So you're looking at copies of 550 AP checks for one month approximately 750 copies of payroll checks for one month. 300 to 500 PECARD transactions. Pecards are are credit cards at the city. You have about 600 deposits and within those 600 deposits uh you have 14,000 individual customer information that I would need to go through and make sure to redact and or hide any uh personal information uh as part of our legal obligation for liability. We also have some uh deposits out there for police planning, building parks um etc and etc. So, there's a large volume of work here. Um, I know it seems as easy as just downloading it or downloading it and it's a PDF. Um, but I got to go through each individual thing and remove the information. We did some tests and in part of the PDF process of how it kicks out of the system, it actually creates a box that overly redacts it. So, what I have to do then is print out some of this information and then hand redact it and then scan it back in. So, just like Aaron said, we are more than happy to do this work. I just know it's going to take a lot of work to complete the request.

JC, can you talk a little bit about what our auditor's responsibilities are when it comes to the budget and our numbers?

So, yeah, the auditors are responsible for testing these exact same things. So, they go through, they test our our general ledger, our checks, our um invoices, PE cards. um they go through and they have a team of five to six people uh that come here and they are here three weeks out of the year to do an annual audit. That annual audit is part of our um annual requirement per state or us. And so we have meet met those standards and have exceeded those as we have not had any um uh reports as far as our audit findings. And so again, I've forwarded other copies of those uh letters from the auditors to the council and the board uh as well as some of the other information that is within our uh annual comprehensive financial report which shows uh the the series of things that they test and monitor whether it's internal controls policies and or overall federal reporting. So again, we're more than happy to supply the information. I just know it is a it would be a large ask of staff time to do that.

Um, Indra,

so I I would just like to address you Clint. I am not acting as a victim, but I do have a opinion. I respect your opinion of how the meeting went down and I don't think I attacked you with it, but I have an opinion of how the meeting went down as well. And I did feel um very discouraged from getting the information that I talked about. Um I'm glad to have Ji's information. I I'm stunned actually that it would take that long. I don't know uh accounting wise why there wouldn't be a ledger that could just be printed out. I don't need a thousand pages of copies of things. And so maybe we could uh pair it down. So I'm just I felt I did feel discouraged from getting the information and I I don't know why. And I guess if it's it's just a matter of work time. So anyway, um that's what I'm asking for counsel. I'm happy to try to pair it down. I do I don't want 2,000 copies of pages of things, but I would just like basic information so that I can actually read the bank statement and understand what it's saying. And I don't I don't understand why that would take 2,000 copies of pages.

Uh Rick

JC, I was wondering um would it be possible for Indra to talk directly with the auditors and possibly gain that information through her conversation and that would be an easier way to address the subject she's concerned about? That's a very uh good suggestion. Um, counselor, actually, I would almost suggest because they're under contract that they could come and address the board in a public meeting, whether it be a workshop or at a Wednesday night business meeting. I understand what auditors do. I'm not looking for a full year's audit of information and that I'm just looking for a month of information of where do our checks go, what comes in, just basic one month. So, I got a question. Um, please correct me if I say something wrong. I don't use the right terminology, but obviously you do reporting throughout this the year for the city. The information that's provided in I'm going to say is it quarterly reports? What type of information is readily available and published to the city council? So yeah,

in general terms,

yeah, in general terms, your budget to actuals, uh, where the expenditures are coming out, where the revenues are going in are within the quarterly reports. Um, we try and highlight certain areas, uh, whether it's gas tax or lodging tax or um, water utility billings and and receipts uh, in their um, respective areas. So again, I think the we're more than happy to give whatever information. I just don't know what the information I'm trying to be asked to provide because the bank statement itself is complicated because it touches 100% of the city's operations and so it touches all of those. So one deposit may not match one actual transaction in the system as you may see it in data. And so I think it's a little bit more complicated than just sharing data. And I think that the overall request will continue to add to the request and add to the request to prove those amounts. Any further Andrew? I uh yes, I would just like to start somewhere like somewhere and I don't think that I don't know if other counselors even want that information. So I don't think it's like you have to print that out for everybody unless somebody else requests it too. So

we've always practiced to where if one counselor gets piece of information that all of the council gets that same information. Okay. So I I think what might help the discussion too Indra is which you actually tried to fully explain in in this previous meeting that we had. Um what is the intention of what you're trying to get what questions you're trying to answer? I mean if you can maybe because I see a little bit of dumbfounded look on everybody's faces on when I'm looking across the aisle to Well, I don't I want an over trying to help the conversation.

I mean I don't know that I have to say what exactly I'm looking to get. like I'm just looking for an overview. I'm not looking like to get something or looking at something specific. And specifically, I asked for um I asked for a list of the accounts. I mean, this should be simple. I didn't even get a list of the accounts. He said there were I don't know 15, seven, just a list and what each account is for and the signitories of each account. I I don't think that takes a lot of time. I I can't get that. Um I asked for a just a a general ledger or monthly financial report or a check register, something that allows me to see um what where they're actually going, what they're to. Um and then the AC detail, more details on the AC, and maybe that's the most time consuming. I don't know. Um, and I don't know your accounting program, but I've worked with accounting programs and and it's easy to write have reports that give that information digitally. And I get that there may be some redaction, but that's why I'm I'm just um confused about why that would take so long. But if we could start somewhere, I think that would be great. I don't think we have to um go on and on. I would just like to know if I have council support. Thank you.

So Indra's posed a question to the rest of the council. If if there is any um interest I I'm I'm interpreted. Please correct me if I if I misstate it. Indra um she's looking for support because she's looking to get some financial information on the city's operations as as she's just explained. Um, so she's asking the rest of the council if they have it have the same interest. I need two other counselors, correct, to move forward.

Well, we've already put the request out to all of the counselors. This this has already been able to been digested by counselors already because it's already been out with a memo and and emails. So, um, any further discussion? Joel, Rob, Joel, first. Um, so Andra, um, what I what I heard you say was you want a list of accounts, um, like like in a small business where you have a list of accounts report and you report it in QuickBooks. Um and then the the other thing is you wanted some kind of um summary report of expenses and who got what money and uh and then income what what what money came from what source which is also one report in QuickBooks. Um, I don't know with the city if cuz it's a little more complex than a small business. Um, how that's going to be um well, my first thought is how that's going to be useful because it's going to be uh it's going to be hard to to look at it. Um, one of the things I was thinking is um, it would be nice when the I would guess there's an exit interview by the accountant by who does the audit and I would guess he uh, he or the city has access to those three reports and um, we could have a designated council rep that would sit in on the exit interview and um, ask questions and and and get a u a copy of the report. I I would say not probably not to keep it, but just to um monitor what the accountant said uh what the uh

um results of the audit were and I would like you to be part of that. I I I independently I I don't know if those three QuickBook reports that I I relate to that you requested um even exist with the complexity of the city budget. I don't know. But and and if I did get it, I'm not sure what I'd be looking at. So, I do want to uh bring up something. On March 4th, I did send an email that has the listing of all the accounts that the city holds to the entirety of mayor and council. I also uh resent the letter of those charged with governance which is the letter that summarized the findings uh from the auditor. Okay. So you got so basically I would be looking for um if if you guys want to pursue this conversation um and and have the same um uh feeling of this request with uh with with Indra cuz she she's looking for backup to she wants this information. We we we've kind of parsed out already trying to figure out what what what kind of information specifically we're looking at. We've we've heard from from staff that it does take time to do this. There is there's a lot of hours in reference to it. There's also been stated that the a lot of information can be can be parsed out of the quarterly reports. Um Indra's request is pretty specific as she's asked for it. So I would just look across council and one second. I would be asking for councel to see if you who else would had the same interest as in as Indra in this and you wanted more discussion Indra and I I apologize. I'm gonna actually have to

bail. I'm going to hand it over to Rob because I've got a engagement I got to get going for. I was just I you know I don't want staff to spend a 40 hours on this like I that is not my intention but I think some of these things I'm asking for are not that timeconsuming and I yes you can get financial statements but you're not seeing um where checks are written to like you're not getting a full picture and and or where a things are going and so I'm looking for a a little more detailed than what a financial statement could get. But certainly I'm willing to work with JC. I mean, if to not go 40 hours, I I don't I don't I don't understand how it's that much, but maybe it is. Um so that's all. So, the comment that um that I was going to make, I've um um I certainly have a hard time imagining like all of us probably do that would be 40 hours of of staff time for what uh appears to be when Indra talks about it a relatively small amount of work. So, you know, I certainly support a a some some amount of time for Indra and JC to be able to work this out. uh I don't support a 40-hour effort uh without into having really specific specific concepts of what she's looking for. So, um I I again would be willing to support her and uh JC sitting down and JC maybe getting a better idea and maybe putting in uh you know an hour's worth of time and seeing um if that's if that's um uh realistic as far as being able to get because it sounds like quite frankly what what she's looking for is fairly simple. So, um, to me, I I'd be

willing to support, uh, uh, you know, her sitting down with, uh, JC for an hour and seeing if that was going to be enough for her. And, um, that's what I'd be willing to willing to support is about an hour's worth of, uh, an hour's worth of time from our our, um, finance department to try to explain to her or demonstrate to her um, what she needs to see. So, if um, I guess at this point, and Rick, did you want to say something? Yeah,

again, as I stated before, I'd be supportive of Indra talking with the accountants and doing an initial conversation there and see they can satisfy um a lot of our questions before it goes to a next step if necessary. I'd just like to add the data to pull out is relatively easy and it was less than an hour. All of the supporting documentation to prove the data is what's going to take the time because a a dollar amount is not necessarily pro proving potentially where it's coming from or the purpose.

Do you not have ledgers that when you write checks that have I don't know we'll talk. No. Yeah. I I just general ledger is a little bit slightly different. We have over 10,000 lines throughout the city and so there's a numerous places that we track all these things. If you're talking about just like a check register report, that's easy for us to supply. But if you want to go further and ask for the copies of the checks and the invoices and the supporting documentation for all that stuff, that's where the time starts really building up. I asked for copies of checks or check register.

It was it was unclear because part of your recommendation does say other supporting data. So what what is the clarification of supporting data? It was where I was a little unsure. Okay. Well, I talked to you because copies of checks are the same as I mean it's easier to look at check register than a than copies of check. So, I'm happy to talk with you. That's why I didn't understand how that would take so long. So, the check register won't say what fund the check is written out of. Okay.

So, that's where the it kind of spirals into uh how how far do we need to go to support what that check is for which again it starts adding up in time to explain those kinds of things. So, as we talked about at the meeting, um, if we could just start with the simple stuff and as I had questions, I could come to you and ask them and I probably don't need all that super detailed stuff. So we why don't we conclude this with if this is okay with Aaron and JC that Indra will meet with JC one more time and see what meeting of the minds they can come up with and see if that satisfies uh what she's looking for is that is that reasonable Indra and she'll meet with her one more meet with JC one more time and

does that sound right? Okay sounds great counselor thank you I can get something Okay. So, where where are we in this meeting? We are now we are now moving Good question. It's it's almost fine. We are now to um uh moving forward to executive session. Unless what? Unless you want to push it to Wednesday. Um I I I would prefer to push this to Wednesday, but I I'll stay if the majority of the council wants to stay. Now, how long what's the uh e what's the time do you think for the two executive sessions?

So it might be extensive the first one could be mine and the second one's pretty quick. Yeah. Oh, maybe we just want to do one then now the other We could do my quick one really quick. kicks and maybe kick yours to Wednesday. I don't know. I mean, what does council want to do? Quick the uh the one the shorter one tonight today. Thumbs up for anyone. Okay. All right. We'll get on it. Something I got to read to moveive session. Yes. We just need a few minutes to shut everything down. Oh, okay. We don't need to read an admonishment that we're going to executive session. Okay. We do. Of course we do.

I know. Where is Oh, here it is. Is this it? Nope. That's script for land use. Land use. Oh, here it is. Just find the one.

There you go. The council will now meet in executive session for the purpose of discussing those subjects previously noted for this executive session. This executive session is held pursuant to RS 192.660 and more specifically under the subsections of that statute which have been publicly noticed for this meeting. Representatives of the news media and designated staff shall be allowed to attend the executive session. All other members of the audience are asked to leave the room. Representatives of the news media are specifically directed not to report on any of the deliberations during the executive session except to state the general subject of the session as previously announced. No decision may be made in executive session. At the end of the executive session, we will return to open session and welcome the audience back in the room.