Town Council - Regular Meeting

Well, good afternoon, everybody. Good afternoon. The meeting is now called to order with the clerk. Please call the roll. Mayor Stanton.

Here. Vice Mayor LaBelle. Council Member Andine Keller.

Here.

Council Member Liebman.

Here.

Council Member Moore. Here. Council Member Pace.

Here.

Councilmember Thomason?

Here.

We have a quorum. Thank you. As a reminder, this meeting is being streamed live on the internet and will be archived on the town's website for future viewing. The first item on the agenda is the study session. These items are scheduled for discussion among the council, staff, or their designees. Votes will not be taken on any of these items at this time, but they may be scheduled for a final action later in the meeting or at a future meeting. Members of the public are asked to hold their comments until call to the public scheduled to begin shortly after 6 p.m. Public comments will be invited when the agenda topic is placed on a future agenda for action. There are two items on the study session agenda this evening. The first is a discussion of the FY26 Community Services Funding Recommendation, and it will be presented by Management Analyst Amy Rebinar. Welcome, Ms. Rebinar.

Thank you, Mayor, members of council. We are coming back in front of you today to review the community services funding recommendations for fiscal year 2026. We will be going over a very brief history of the charitable giving process here in Paradise Valley, the process we utilized for this fiscal year, and seeking council direction on the funding recommendations as presented. A very brief historical timeline for those in the room and online. The town has been supporting community service agencies since 1985. So we have a long and well-established history of community services funding as a community. Approximately 40 different agencies have received funding over the years. Some of those have been award recipients many years over, while others were a one-time award recipient. Back in May of 2014, the council approved Resolution 1304, which created the new community services funding policy. In that policy, there were two options for assigning or assessing, rather, the needs for community services and processing who those awards would be going to. Those options included a needs assessment and directed awards by the council or utilizing the application process. This policy did also allow for us to utilize a hybrid process. And when we came in front of this council in December, it was December 11th of last year, we were directed to utilize a hybrid process, which included a needs assessment as well as a grant application. So a quick snapshot of the last five years of funding is on your screen now. These are the last five years of awards that were made to community services and homeless response partners. In fiscal years 23, 24, and 25, there was an increase in the amount spent on homeless initiatives. That amount was increased to $200,000 and directed through a RFP process through the Maricopa Association of Governments. As I mentioned earlier, in December of 2025, we had presented to Council And the direction we received at that time was to move forward with an internal staff needs assessment and the utilization of a grant application for an open and competitive process to receive grant applications from those providing services to address community needs. In May of 2025, we came back to you. That was the last meeting, May 14th. That was when we came back to you with our initial community services funding recommendations. In March, at the end of March, we had distributed the Notice of Funding Opportunity, or the RFP. We collected applications all through the month of April. At the end of April, we closed that application acceptance period. And the first week of May, we met with the review committee, which was comprised of town manager Andrew Ching, myself, Our CRO from the police department, our Marvin Andrews fellow, Aaron Sweeney, and then two members of council as directed by the mayor, which included council member, and vice mayor, Christine LaBelle. The committee presented those recommendations to council at the last meeting on the 14th and based on the feedback we received from the council at that time, we reconvened the application review committee to have some further discussion on how to revise the recommendations being brought forward to this group. That brings us to tonight where we will be presenting our revised funding recommendations to the council. As you can see, we have sorted for quick reference two different categories, one being homelessness and one being community services. You can see the associated funding awards. Previously, when we came to you in March, Early May, we had a $50,000 award amount assigned to each of the organizations in the homelessness services category. We have revised those award amounts in accordance with feedback we got from the council. These amounts are now reflective of the original asks in the applications, except for the first recipient there, the Aris Foundation, they had requested a higher dollar amount, and we had brought them down to $50,000, and they had revised their scope to fit that award amount. In the community services funding category, you can see that those amounts are also significantly reduced, and now we have a total $75,000 savings from the original recommendations that were originally put forward to the council on May 14th. In this table here, you can see what the funding request on the applications were and our current recommendations. Our current funding recommendations are for a total of $190,000, which is, again, a $75,000 reduction from the $265,000 that were initially recommended for funding at the last meeting. At this time, staff is seeking council direction on these funding recommendations for allocation of these fiscal year 2026 community service fundings dollars.

All right. So I presume we're open for questions or comments. I would begin by I received an email from the vice mayor, and she asked me to add this into the discussion. She said, I'd like to note that Amy... And Aaron previously explained the metrics to the council, the council member Leitman and myself clearly and coherently. The multi-point scoring system correctly prioritized Paradise Valley as a significant factor while maintaining our commitment to being a good neighbor. The original intent behind the $200,000 allocation was homelessness. For example, many of the selected charities regarding homelessness support services and families of Paradise Valley residents or our former public school students. While these specific data points may not be public information, I'm confident that they exist based on personal and anecdotal evidence. Applications constrained our choices, as we did consider organizations we donated to in the past, but without an application, it didn't make much sense to process accordingly. So with that, I would ask if Council Member Lehman, do you have anything you want to start off with, with comment or question?

Thank you, Mayor. I think that report summed up pretty much the background and status. I do want to remind people that not only did we send applications out to prior recipients of our grants, but I understand that you made multiple calls and reached out individually to some of the larger ones. So I was surprised that we couldn't give money to CAS, for example. But if they don't apply, we can't do it. So other than that, I stand behind these recommendations. I think the process was thorough. And sure, we can always tweak it, but I think these are good recommendations, and I stand behind them.

Thank you, Councilmember. And go ahead, Councilman Anden Keller.

Thank you, Mayor. I'm wondering, can you go back one in the, or I think near the beginning of the, to show the history of our, yeah, right there. Okay, so in fiscal year 22, 60,000 was given Is that right? Yeah, $60,000 was given for our community services funding. In fiscal year 23, the $200,000 for MAG and the McCormick-Stillman Ranch Railroad Park of $50,000 were two offline initiatives that we funded not through the community services funding, but through the one was a request from our mayor from attending MAG, I believe, and the second one was a personal request from one of our former police volunteers, Russ Mosser, who was very active with McCormick-Stillman Ranch Railroad Park to fund their renovations. So those were two offline things. They weren't included in the community services funding because it's always been $65,000. In fact, in fiscal year 21, it was what, 25,000. So then we've done the 200,000 now for one, two, three years. We have no data to support whether that was successful or not. And so now we're considering to giving more money. It's not savings of $75,000. It's that we're just not giving money at the level that we were before. So that's how I look at it. As far as The Aris Foundation, where are they located?

So the Aris Foundation is, their home office is based out of the East Valley, but they do provide services across the region. The program that they've specifically sought funding for would work in the Paradise Valley Scottsdale Corridor.

And so if our officers who normally take a and transport homeless or unhoused individuals to CAS or CBI that we learned in the last study session will no longer be taking them to CAS and CBI, is that correct? And they'll be taking them to this ARIS?

The police department will have various options. This is simply an extra tool in their tool belt. They can use this as a referral partner who they know is going to accept the referral because we would have an agreement with them. As it stands, we do not have a guaranteed acceptance agreement with CBI or CAS.

Right, but that was through MAG, was the CBI agreement. was why they were transporting unhoused to CBI.

Yes, and I would like to notify the council. We did finally receive the reports that we had requested from CBI. They just came in this morning, so we did not have time to include them in the council packet. Ahead of time, we can certainly make those available to the council ahead of the June 11th meeting, but we did not have time to get those out in front of council prior to the distribution of this packet because the reports came in late.

And so it says that the ARIS Foundation provides short-term stabilization options and they will service approximately 115 families annually. That doesn't seem like a lot for $50,000.

That is just the population that will be served by that $50,000, not their total service population.

And they place them in motels?

They do a temporary multi-night stay while they connect them with other resources, including shelter navigation.

And then the Phoenix Children's Hospital is for the unsheltered youth. Do we have a lot of unsheltered youth in the town of Paradise Valley that we've encountered?

Not to my knowledge. I think this one was more of a regional partnership effort.

Unless, Officer Lee, do you have anything that you can... No, I concur with Amy Rebner as far as that goes. Everything's consistent with what you're saying.

Have we ever given to Phoenix Children's Hospital for their unsheltered youth program?

We have not. Of the eight organizations recommended for funding, only one is a prior recipient of funding in Paradise Valley, and that's Duet. The others would all be new partners.

Okay. And then the Phoenix Rescue Mission, is that another one that our officers would refer their unhoused or transport unhoused individuals to?

Yes, we would be able to work directly with the Phoenix Rescue Mission. And they have a very strong program for individuals experiencing substance abuse. Substance abuse is one of the factors that can be a prohibitor to getting into certain shelters that require sobriety. So this would allow them access to those recovery programs. They have residential recovery programs that they can be sent to.

OK. I had one other question. Where is it? The UMOM, I guess my question is, why are we splitting all of this up into so many different entities?

Each entity serves a slightly different population. But also, these were all organizations that the application review committee thought were upstanding and really worthy of receiving the funds that they had requested. So we didn't feel it was appropriate to only award one over the other when they all scored quite highly.

And we have no data to support that they're effective or that they, we have no data whatsoever on the 200,000 that we've donated for the homeless initiative in the past, right?

That's the report that just came in that we did not have time to distribute to council. I barely had time to look at it because it just came in. So that was for last year's funding. I have not seen the reporting from prior years, which was part of the issue with the RFP process we were utilizing prior to this fiscal year.

And have we ever looked at the homeless management information system that's provided through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development?

I don't know the history of the council's involvement with HMIS. I am personally familiar, having worked in the MAG Human Services Department many years ago and working in this arena, as well as other people who are on the Application Review Committee. HMIS is the leading federal system that is being utilized.

And would that be somewhere that could provide us some data?

Yes.

And so we've been asking for data. I know I've been asking for data for years. and I've never received anything. So wouldn't that be a resource for us to maybe take a look at to see that what we're doing for the homeless is working?

We can utilize their data. It is all aggregate data, so we would not be able to extrapolate out what our dollars specifically went to. Their data is going to have that all intermingled with those organizations' remaining data points.

Friends of the Scottsdale Public Library, have we ever given to the Scottsdale Public Library before?

No. The only prior recipient that has been put forward for funding is Duet. We did pull some interesting data regarding the number of PD residents or 85253 zip code individuals who are members of the Scottsdale Public Library, and it's just shy of 20% of our population holds a Scottsdale Public Library card.

Interesting, because I was wondering who actually has library cards these days. I used to love going to the Scottsdale Public Library as a kid, but that was back in the 70s and 80s.

They really ramped up their electronic resources.

So if only 20% of our population is using the Scottsdale Public Library, wouldn't we want to be funding something else that utilizes more of our residents?

If we had received a competing application that had a demonstrable service area in Paradise Valley that was greater, then that may have been a funding consideration. But based on the applications that we received, we made these recommendations. And we do feel very strongly that this was an appropriate recommendation for funding.

The Hushabye Nursery, I believe that that needs to be taken out because we can use that for the opioid funds. Is that correct?

They would be an eligible entity to apply for the opioid funds. We did not think it was fair to exclude an organization that ranked quite highly and was, in fact, many individuals on the review committee's number one choice to receive funding simply because they would be eligible for a second pot of money that has not yet been made available by the town.

And why haven't we made that available from the town?

because previously we did not have a means of expending those funds. We only recently became aware of Hushabye Nursery, and that is an organization that would be eligible. Through this FY26 community service funding process, we have discussed internally what's worked, what hasn't worked, as well as taken council feedback, and we're using that to modify this for a new process that we can put forward for those opiate dollars and get those spent.

But couldn't we take this out and then use the opioid funds that we have? We have almost $300,000 for opioid funds, so why are we putting it under our community service funding?

because they had applied under the community services funding. And based on the application scoring, it didn't make sense to remove them simply because we could, at a future date, make available a new pot of funds that they would also be eligible for. And that is going to be put forward in a competitive process. So we would be essentially denying a high scoring application and telling them, try again next time when you're going to be competing in a new pot of funds and you have to apply again. That wasn't something that the application review committee felt was appropriate to do.

And then the Valley Youth Theater, which I love and I've been on the board of before, we have a very active arts program already. I really don't think we need to be supporting any arts organizations given the level of artistic activity We have in the town of Paradise Valley with our arts board. I mean they're doing significant programs So I don't I think that is taken care of through our arts board. So I love value theater. I support them I was on their board, but I don't think we need to be supporting any more arts organizations if we're already supporting the arts through our arts board and

This was specifically for their governor's office recognized literacy program that they are running. Yes, it is through the Valley Youth Theater, but we were looking at it as a literacy program rather than an arts program. That said, if it is the recommendation of council and it is your consensus, these funding recommendations are all up to council consensus. So whatever direction we receive from the council is what we will take forward to the June 11th meetings.

Yeah, I really think that we need to get back to where we were when we started, and that was $65,000 for community service funding and find metrics and data that support our homeless initiatives so that we can fund it more aggressively going forward. But I don't know any of these organizations, and I'm not sure that our officers would, but, I mean, are they going to, Are our officers going to be transporting these people to these organizations, or they're just going to transport them anywhere that they want now, not to CAS or CBI?

The PD would not be transporting to just any organization. But we do have guaranteed acceptance in our memorandums of understanding. So their funding agreements would include a mandatory acceptance. So we do not have that with CAS or CDI. So we run the risk of, if an officer attempted to transport to CDI, them not having space.

And then my next question is, how far away are these organizations? wouldn't want to take our officers out of their beat for hours on end.

We did also have history where these organizations would come and pick up the individuals who were being referred to them. So that's all something that we can structure in our funding agreements, whether they'll be transported to or picked up.

Yeah, my recommendation is to get back to the $65,000 and get a better handle on what we're doing with the homeless initiative. We were supporting CAS for years at $35,000. That was in our $65,000. So we were essentially sending $235,000 for homeless, and we don't have any data around it, except for what's been emailed this morning. I yield from there because I've taken up a lot of time. Sorry about that.

No, no, very fair. Let's go. Let's go to the virtual colleagues that are here. Council Member Moore.

Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, you know, and I appreciate all those comments from Council Member and Dina Keller. So I think we're getting way off track here. You know, when When we first started doing this a few years ago, looking at the MAG homeless initiative, we put some money towards that. That was based on a court ruling, which I don't really want to get into unless we go into executive session. But since then, there was a Ninth Circuit ruling that kind of changed things again. So I mean, I think there was a reason for that back in the day. Otherwise, I mean, we're kind of getting way off base here. We're certainly not a, I mean, these are all good causes and I'm sure there's a bunch of 501c charitable organizations out there that contribute and do good work within our community, but We've always been focused really on the homeless efforts in the area and in the state. And I'm still a supporter of that, getting to a place where we can help contribute something. But since the matrix really doesn't provide and make it difficult, it makes it difficult to determine which agencies best help us with this homeless population thing. It's obvious we've been trying to figure it out and there's really not good data on it. So, you know, I'd really like to hear from our mayor. I know that we had the MAG initiative and it didn't sound like it was supportive, but one of the roles of the mayor is to, you know, he sits on the MAG council. And so, you know, I just think that I'd like to hear what he has to say about this, but I'm supportive of getting back to where we were. I think the courts have determined that the cases that were affecting us and some of the reasons for putting some additional money forward. I see this as taxpayer money that we're being generous with. All of these things that are listed on here that the mayor and the council appointees that the mayor put on this, you know, they're all good causes and stuff, but it isn't anywhere within what I remember in the resolution saying that this uh, community service funding should be dedicated towards. So, you know, I'd like to hear from the mayor and see what his efforts are with the mag council on the homelessness. And I'm, I'm supportive of getting back to where we were somewhere in the 50 to $65,000 range. And, um, And really tie it to homelessness. I think that's a statewide effort that we certainly can be a good partner and continue doing our part for that cause. But, you know, some of these other ones, I really think they're better placed through 501C charitable organizations and not a town council. So kind of give us your thoughts on that.

mad council and and where you know uh things stand with the homeless population and conversations you have that would be great to hear and some of your suggestions certainly and i will i will do that council member as soon as we get done going around the room but i yes i will address that uh if that's anything else council member more no thanks mayor okay thank you uh council member pace

Yes, hi, good evening. Thank you for the efforts of everybody in putting information together. I do echo my peer. doing anything on homeless until we get the data that came in today. I think we need to get our arms around, you know, what is our goal, and how do we want to spend it, and what data do we have three years that we can learn from to figure out the goals that we set. And I believe that when we checked the records, our goals were trying to get people out of the cycle of homelessness to permanent housing and also having a component. I remember Council Member LaBelle being a big advocate of that, that it had to do with substance abuse. We're not there to recycle people that are alcoholics or have addiction issues back in and out of two night stays. And that was a focus I recall that we were all focused on. We do need the emergency temporary shelters that we were getting who works well with our police department. We've never acted. And then we did the CBI with the initiative, which does show from the records we got from the police department that they were both, they were utilizing our PV police departments, utilizing both those So, you know, I have a concern about funding Eris out of Gilbert. That's a long ways away. And it's not any harm. You know, we all agree everyone is a good service for the communities. But I appreciate Amy's, you know, research today to send back to my question some of the answers we get. you know, not one person, as you indicated, not one of these groups have ever served PV before except Duet. And I would argue Scottsdale, I like that you finally gave us a metric on Scottsdale, the library. That helps us to know 20% of our population uses or has a library card. That is more what we want. Part of this happened, as we mentioned last time, because our questionnaire did not ask for the metrics like it had previously. So that's why I think there's a little bit of concern by myself about how is their tie to PV, you know, and how do we serve them? I am concerned that I didn't get the list of who we sent to, but I would have liked to have help if there was a problem with that. I did reach out to Save the Family who does emergency housing, but they get 85% that come through their system go to permanent housing and the support systems, 85%. New Mom, I researched them. So they actually do the things our council said we wanted, was getting people off the homeless cycle and into permanent housing and off. So those two statistics were there. YMCA does service our residents. They weren't here. I just have to say there's a deficiency that whatever list was sent at the beginning, which I appreciate Amy finding it was 30 days actually in April, was not sufficient. And people... I would have been happy to roll up my sleeves and sit down there and call and get all to make sure people that we used were even aware of this. I did call some of you all. They never got a thing from the town of Paradise Valley. And they were repeat customers in the past. So somehow we had a glitch in the system that didn't get an email out to the right people. And it means we just have to roll up our sleeves and do the homework to find them all again. Some of the things. Now, when I looked at Duet, they're the only one on the list today that actually services with metrics pv residents and can you go to the page of what the recommendations were because i don't think there we go oh yeah here we go thank you on on the um duet they're only at five thousand we funded them at ten thousand in the past and i do think with a little advertising uh more of our residents would probably use them But they're the only one on the list just to make the point that have done anything. With having Hushabye Nursery in here at all, I think we're going to be giving them a chunk of money. We have $300,000 for opioid money and have needed to find a place that actually services that we can support. I'm not saying there's not going to be others, but we have $300,000 to spend. Um, that is a is we've reached out to Hushabye. Those of us in the Women's Club know Hushabye. It's a good group to use for that, but not for community service funding. That should come off the list, in my opinion, with a high priority, and we're all going to be making these decisions. So it's going to be. But to me, their number is a much higher number than 25, and it'll be from the opioid funds. I mean, I'd fund them at 100,000 or more, depending on what we get on competitive bidding. But this is the wrong place to put them, and they would understand that because they would be looking for a bigger chunk, and I would support a bigger chunk out of that 300 grand that we've got. I don't think that we should be doing it there. The arts issue, we all love Valley Youth Theater. We loved a lot of the arts groups in the past that applied. Most of the time in the past, we had made a decision not to support arts. And I do think Council Member Thomas made a good point last time, if she still agrees today, that we shouldn't have that category on the list. That's something we need to talk about because there's so many other needs. side and we might be confusing the arts community when we do this because we've had a bunch of them seek it and ask and put together work and then not get them. I don't think we just give money out of guilt just because somebody applies. That's not the plan here. We want to have a direction as public policy officials to what are we trying to solve? What are we trying to help? And how does it service our residents as well? I'm a bit concerned about switching out CAS and CBI without any kind of understanding from our police department, without any understanding of how these groups would function. You know, we've never had anyone. I'm not sure that we're in the right place. Maybe Phoenix Rescue feels that need. I don't know if they pick up. Don't have any stats. It's very hard to ask Council to spend money, in my opinion. What's the travel rate if someone has someone from Phoenix Rescue? What's the travel rate from Aris and Gilbert? That's an hour drive. What's been the travel rate or delays from CAS? What's been the travel rate from CBI? How is it helpful to our We need information. We do not have information here. And that's part of the problem. And I would have liked to have seen, even if it was late today, just copying and scanning us the stuff from CBI would have been helpful. I can support Gottsdale Public Library. I support Duet at 10,000. I would suggest Hushabye off the list. i think you know if we want to do as a courtesy value theater i'm not opposed to doing that today but i do think we need to revisit the arts or take it off because i think our focus was homelessness the phoenix children's hospital foundation i can get behind that from you know unsheltered youth in a regional effort i think that sounds very noble they have a good reputation um you know that it's not something they've serviced our residents you know, in the overall scheme of trying to prevent homelessness and getting kids a good start and who are sheltered world, that has some hope. And I also like UMOM when I researched, I would rather give more money. I don't understand this tie that the committee had to ERIS. I just don't get it at all. You know, Gilbert too far away, maybe give them 10,000. But Umam, totally different. Umam was like Save the Family. They actually change homelessness. They actually move people at 80% and Save the Family was 85%. That's the kind of thing our council was directing. Programs that's addictions, programs... Housing that helped them with doing the checkbook with getting a job, keeping them off the streets. So to me, I don't know why they're scored low when our council directed high on those kind of goals. So that to me, if we're going to do 50,000, that's a 50,000, not a 20. So it just seems like the whole thing is off a little bit on our policy. Um, but I can get, you know, emotion together and do something if we want to spend that much. But I'm not sure I'm hearing from, you know. Council that everybody wants to do that. Um, I do ask. Um, I'm happy to roll up my sleeves. I'm happy to give you the applications. Ask for metrics from PV. next year so we make this go smoother i know it caught all of us by surprise we had hard-working people on the team who did it and interviewed and did all their hard work and then we've got us on the outside looking at it now um i'd be happy to help with that and i'd be happy to sit down and call and get all the right emails and contact information for all the agencies that we used to fund that we know are active in our community so i have no problem in devoting the time to do that i wish someone Around because I'm a big supporter of these items, but not just to throw money. Someone applied and it's not the right money in the right fit for the goals. The only other thing. Oh, I had a question for, I guess. Either or town attorney, but are we allowed. As counsel. to take to obviously I know we can choose not to fund programs tonight we cannot award monies and all that but are we'll find some programs tonight and go ahead as a council and agree to take money separately in a separate action to donate to CAS and CBI if we so choose with a different agenda sized public meeting

Mr. Mayor, Council Member Pace, it's definitely not something on the agenda for tonight. So if you want to have a separate item on that, you're free to suggest that as one of the items in the meeting when the mayor requests.

I'm not asking that question, Town Attorney. I'm asking you, is it legally possible to do that?

You're cutting out, so it's kind of hard to hear what you're asking, to be honest.

Okay, I'll make it very clear to the town attorney. Are we as a council legally able to fund a program, CBI, at this point in time at a different meeting?

Mr. Mayor, Councilmember, my answer was yes, at a different meeting when it's on the agenda, but it's not on tonight's agenda. You are free to do that.

That's what we need to know. We don't have to go through a full RFP process. We can make a choice as council to direct community service funding or just funding from our general fund.

Mr. Mayor, Council Member, as you all know, the policy you all adopt for this process is your council policy. If the council as a whole decides to throw its policy aside and do something else, you get to do that. That is your prerogative as the elected body that created the policy in the first place.

Okay, thank you. That helps a lot. So I'm going to support doing that side, except that I would support monies for the Hospital Foundation and UMOM in the homelessness side. I'd like to remove Hushabye Nursery, and I'd like to increase Duet and increase UMOM, and then do some deep dive on the rest of the homelessness monies when it's available. But I'm one person. But anyway, I'll yield with that. Thank you for letting me ask the questions, and thank you for the advice.

Thank you, Councilmember Thomason.

Thank you, Mayor. I am in agreement with pretty much all of the comments that have been made so far. Councilmember Andeen Keller, I deeply appreciate your deep research and thoughts. You really dove into it. Thank you. Two things. I think Anything we fund out of community services funding should have a clear nexus to PV. And there should be very clear ROI data, as many of you have said. And I think that is missing in some of these applications. I'd like to suggest for the future that we actually flip the process. So right now we send out our RFPs and who's ever opening their mail that week and paying attention might respond. Whereas I think as we sit here today, we probably know the 10 or 12 agencies that would be a good fit with Paradise Valley. Because as I understand it, the purpose of the community services fund is not a charitable gift at all. but it is to fund services that we don't provide because we are a residential only limited government community. And I think the library is a great example of a great thing for us to fund because we don't have a library. And frankly, if we have 20% of our residents that use any service, I think that's a very high service. So that makes a lot of sense. The other thing, without making things more complicated, I'm looking at our policy, which was written 12 years ago in 2014. And I'd like to suggest for consideration that we review that policy in the next year and just make sure it's what we need for today and tighten it up. Relative to the specific recommendations, I don't have strong feelings on any of them. I'd love to see Hushabye Nursery funded, but I think the bigger win might be through the opioid settlement crisis. And other than that, I'm not going to comment on individual gifts. They're within the range, but I think the background and process that got to this point needs a little work.

All right, so a couple things. First of all, the Committee, thank you. Councilmember Liebman?

Thank you, Mayor. I think you started off with me.

I did.

But after hearing all of these comments and sitting on the committee, I'm feeling somewhat torn because I tend to agree with a lot of the comments. And I do think in the future, it would really be a good idea to look at what the needs are, especially the needs that we don't fund and identify specific organizations that fulfill those needs, such as the library, To me the railroad park which so many families in the town uses as well as of course homeless services, but I'm also torn because right now we approved this process this year and Followed the process this year and this is where we are So that's why I still stand behind this I could remove heiress because That's the only one that I really don't understand. The Nexus and other groups cover the same thing. But other than that, I do agree in the future next year we should refine the process as Councilmember Thomason suggested. But this year we're up at the end of the year and I really don't want to not fund anything. So I think we need to find a way forward today. That's the end of my comments. Thank you.

Very good. Any other comments before we wrap up here? First question I've got is for the town manager. So where are we in this process and what are the next steps?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. After today's direction that council gives the staff, the next step would be to place whatever groups get funded or recommended for funding based upon the recommendations you just saw on the June 11th regular council meeting for approval. If I may, just kind of deviating from your questions a little bit, just to kind of add my own sort of thoughts and context to what Councilmember Liepman just said. I think a lot of the, most of the comments that I heard from Council are well taken. There's always room for process improvement. I went back and looked at the minutes of the December 11, 2025 Council meeting. what you see in front of you is a direct result of the direction we got from council. And at that time, we made it very clear that there were these two sources of dollars, $200,000 for homeless initiatives. The concern that was raised at the time, which is still a valid concern, and was sort of accentuated by what Ms. Rebinar said on May 14th, is by giving money to MAG in a process where we sort of lose a little bit of control as to how that money gets spent, we know that those $200,000 awards went to homeless initiatives. What we also don't know is that we have never gotten back from them really good, strong sort of metrics as to how that may or may not have impacted people experiencing homelessness in Paradise Valley. And I say that on two levels. One, as I think all of you know, there's an annual point in time count that's coordinated as part of HUD's requirements nationally, and it's done throughout Maricopa County and it's coordinated by MAG. Every single valley municipality does a point in time count, including Paradise Valley. Over the last seven years, the cumulative number of homeless people who have been identified in that count is two. And that was all in one year. I want to say it was 2023. My point in bringing this up is that Officer V and the police department encounter people from time to time during the course of a year who are experiencing homelessness, but they're not people who are necessarily sheltered in or residing within Paradise Valley. They're usually people who are transitory and who, when we stop and ask them the right types of questions, which are community service-oriented officers will do. They find out that they may be in need of or requesting services. They may also say, I'm fine, and they're just waiting there to catch a bus or something. But for those that do, we have a palette of options that we have offered in the past. For instance, the MAG dollars a couple years ago went to fund a cash shelter, and in that funding agreement it said that we were guaranteed a bed if and when a homeless person was referred by our police department. Similar types of funding agreement language would be included in any of the groups that the council directs that we should fund for this year. But again, just the contextual part of all this is our concern about MAG was sort of twofold. They're a great organization. They are clearly downsizing their internal human services staffing and outreach. It made a lot of sense for the town to sort of take the wheel and do what we did this time. 100% pursuant to the direction of council, which is what has resulted in what you've seen today and what you saw on May 14th. But again, I think that every council member who's spoken and raised concerns has provided an opportunity for next year's cycle to really sort of shape a program that meets council's expectations much more so going forward, which is what we do. It's an iterative process. We follow direction. We bring you back. In this instance, my recommendation as town manager would be that As between what you see here, if there's some that you think, based upon what you saw, sort of rise to the level of being funded, great. These are just recommendations, as Ms. Rebinar said. If there are others that don't, that's fine. To the point that was made about whether or not this process could be completely circumvented, certainly if we get that kind of direction, we can run with that as well. The process could be terminated and some other decision could be made. But if the process will move forward and does move forward for June 11th, I would ask that we, you know, kind of take the kind of minutes and notes that we do and that we utilize the feedback we have here to be a great starting point for a wider and more fulsome discussion for the 2027 process so we can shape it exactly the way that this council wants so that next year's process will be much more sort of satisfactory to the intent of council at this time. Thank you.

Mayor, can I ask a question based on what Town Manager Chang just said? Certainly. It's a process question to our Town Attorney, McGuire. When we approved the budget back and looking back on this, we approved the placeholder, correct? We didn't approve that we would spend all of that money or where all that money would go. Is that correct?

Mr. Mayor, Councilmember, that's correct. Your budget is an annual allocation of things you may spend throughout the year. It's not a commitment to spend.

So I keep hearing it's too late. We've already done this. It's time to approve. And so far, great comments from all of my colleagues, but I don't see any council consensus yet. And isn't the next process? I mean, we're in work study. We're not in action items. So this is going to have to come before us for an action item and how much is going to be spent and to who. Is that correct? Yeah.

Yes, that's what I said, Council Member Moore. I didn't say it was too late. My suggestion was that some of the sort of deeper process questions of how we got to today would be a great place to start so that next year's process can be more closely refined to Council's direction. I was purely basing it upon the direction that we got on December 11, 2025, which is reflected in the process that you see in front of you. But in the end, it results in recommendations. And you're correct. Study session is the time for Council to evaluate those recommendations and give us consensus direction on which should move forward as recommended, which should not, which might be modified in terms of dollars today. So you're exactly correct. We still are awaiting to hear Council consensus direction as to the funding recommendations, if any, that you want to see move forward to the June 11th meeting. That is absolutely correct.

Okay, I appreciate that. And I just want to remind you that a few of us have been here for over a decade and have been through this process. So we do understand the process that's been has taken place year after year. And then this one is a little off from what we've done in the past.

Thank you, Councilmember. So for my wrap-up comments, a couple of thoughts. One is MAG has been a champion for addressing homelessness issues, and I have served on the Council and served on this being appointed to this committee before. I do know that that still remains a priority to MAG, and we talk about it pretty frequently at the MAG meetings, and there's different discussion points. to the earlier comments, MAG has definitely downsized their staffing and they have not been as available to us as we would like. But I do think that in the spirit of what MAG initially intends is to try to build that fact that we're all in this issue together and there's not a hard and fast solution to be had but there are efforts that different municipalities can and should consider to help address the issue of homelessness and I know that that has been something that we have discussed and done in several of these cycles and I fully support that I still support that moving forward that homelessness is an issue that faces the entire county and the whole state and in fact the country but I think our contribution should be defined and should be made based on the fact that we are all in this issue together. So I'm fully supportive of how MAG looks at this. I look at this process and I commend the team. I thank Aaron and Amy and Officer Vee and Council Member Leitman and the Vice Mayor for doing exactly as we had asked them to do and coming forth with a plan that could be considered by this council and potentially would be voted on then at the meeting on the 11th in an action step. I do feel there is a, and I won't go line by line with it, I support every one of these causes. I don't think there's anything that I've seen or heard or read since this first came forward that I can't see the great merit in for the greater community and in some cases directly, obviously, with Paradise Valley. I do think I heard things tonight that there are some good questions. Some of the, for example, the idea that you've got some metrics now that could help shed some light in the bigger picture. And I know that we have this set for an action item on the 11th, but I would encourage that to be distributed and to potentially for the committee to respond to some of these comments that were made today because I think they're very valid. For example, how we spend the opioid funds. I think that's come up a couple different times, and I think that's a very valid concern of how we're using those funds and if they're applicable for where we are to potentially move something off this list. There again, I look at the other points like, for example, the library. I concur. Twenty percent of our residents use a library card. Good on them. Good on the fact that they're reading. Good on the fact that they want to read. I think it's tremendous. I think it's a good thing, and I do know that this program that we're looking at, all of these elements have a good reason to be on this list. So I'm fully supportive in moving forward to the action step coming up on the 11th. That said, I would not be opposed, and I don't see consensus because not everybody's in the room, so I can't really see if there's a twinkle in the eye or a nod or anything along those lines, but I'm not opposed to consideration of having a follow-up study session On the 11th if that is appropriate if staff thinks that would be helpful To go through final review before we took a vote on it I do understand that the vote needs to be taken because we're looking at the fiscal year funding so I'm fully supportive I would ask feedback from staff about if there think that there's any And it doesn't have to come tonight. We're going to have agenda setting next week. So if there's something there that staff feels that they would consider, if they think a follow up study session to this is appropriate, then I would certainly support that. That also said, I think that I do hear there are different concerns. The process is not right. I've been in this process for several years with several of my colleagues over the years. And I've watched it evolve. And I've watched it bump its head a few times. And I've watched it reach. great support and very strong criticism from different council members over the years. I still stand fast on the fact that I think it's a good program. I think there are definitely ways that we can get involved, not as a as a funding mechanism for all these organizations, but I think responding to some of the needs that our residents have. And I do support the idea that, and that's always been consideration of this process, how does it touch Paradise Valley? How does it work with our residents? What will our residents see from this? And I go back to when we had the ask for the McCormick-Stillman Railroad Park, and that came out of nowhere, nowhere. I mean, that's near and dear to our hearts. I mean, I know a member of several of my colleagues talking about how important the railroad park was, but a very random scenario. But it came forward, and we vetted it through. We talked to the McCormick-Stillman Railroad Park Mechanical Society. They made a presentation to us, and we discussed it, we deliberated it, and then ultimately the council at that time took action. I fully support what we did. I think that makes me proud. That's definitely touching our residents, even though The McCormick-Stillman Railroad Park is not in Paradise Valley. And so I think that's an example of some of the ways we have evolved and looked at helping the community in different ways. I do think this is a great program. And I think, again, I've watched it. pump its head a few times. I've watched it be well received by many that have received funding and appreciated. I think that we've got a lot of good feedback on how we do this moving forward. So how do we look forward when we reconvene after the summer break and put this on a look back review of this process and how we look at it and look for best practices because it has evolved over the years and it will continue to evolve. And unless and until the council decides they don't want to do it at all, I think we need to look at a way that can improve it to its best capacity, helping staff and the committee make those decisions. But I fully support the idea that we should move forward. This year, to everyone's point, the The arrow is over the falls. We're already there. And so how we move forward, one, in good conscience that we as a collective body decided that we wanted to do this in December, we gave direction to the staff to go and do this, and they did just that. And again, kudos. It was an excellent job. Appreciate the deep dive on some of these programs. Yeah, there were some... Some organizations that didn't respond or didn't weigh in, and I know the committee made efforts to reach out. It sounds like some of my colleagues reached out to some as well, but I do look at it this way. If it wasn't applied for, we shouldn't be designating funds to it. If they participate in the process, I fully support. Let's evaluate and see how we move forward. But I wouldn't be supportive of adding any different from what the committee has come forward in this year. So if we want to change this process, that's fully in our scope and our understanding, with feedback from the staff as well. I think they've done an eloquent job, but I think taking their feedback as well. So I would look forward to putting that discussion to revisit the process on a future study session in more detail. But I obviously, again, I don't see consensus. I don't really hear consensus. I've heard some one-offs and some opinions, but I'd ask Town Manager if that is a space where we would go to another study session before the 11th, or are you thinking that there is enough that you can work with to come back with answers and be ready to move it to an action item?

I thought I heard someone say something on that.

When there's a moment, thank you for all the great comments. And when it's convenient, I have a proposal that maybe my peers will agree with as a consensus item that would help staff. So we can, as you said, we're over the waterfall right now in the barrel. And I could put that to the table to help if that's possible, because I didn't have enough to give staff enough direction, but a proposal that maybe people can sign off on to a certain degree. if this is convenient. If you don't want me to do it, that's fine.

Well, I have to say that the process is, Councilmember, kind of where it is right now. For us to change or realign would be taking that step back that I don't think would be appropriate at this point, but I think looking at the next cycle, Whatever the proposal may be, I think that would make sense. I think what we have to, again, we're not making a vote tonight, but we will all have a vote on the 11th to decide if we want to move forward with the funding proposal that's been brought forward by the committee. And at that point, we can weigh in on a vote. to the positive or to the affirmative or to the negative in if we want to go forward with this funding proposal the way it is. But I am reticent at best to say let's look at a new proposal at this point, at this juncture, knowing that we are one meeting away, not even a full meeting away from. So I appreciate the idea of a proposal, but I don't think it's appropriate at this time.

I think it would have consensus but let's if the town manager has a better idea because right now I don't think there's consensus to approve this and I'm trying to find a way to have an idea that might but I don't hear four votes you know four consensus on it so and town manager if you I thank you mayor for letting me speak but I just think I have people to get around but let's see what the town manager has if he has a better idea.

Thank you. I would just say a couple of things. In terms of whether or not another study session is needed, I think what I heard during the discussion was a concern about not receiving the community bridges reports, their metrics of what they've done. I would just say that that is good information to have. It's not directly relevant necessarily to these particular applications that are the ones that are put forward for recommendation because CBI is not an applicant. As the recommendation from staff and from the committee stands, we want to get that information to council, and we will. We just got it today. But it has not a direct bearing, I would say, on this. Now, regards to Councilmember Pace and what you just said, you said two things. And I think I would take them, and I'm summarizing what you said in kind of two big groups. One is you had some sort of line-by-line recommendations on the list that we have up here on the screen, slide seven, that shows the eight recommended funded agencies and the amounts, okay? And you had some that you had put forward that said, I would do this, I would do that. That's certainly, I think, within the realm of that consensus. You also mentioned that perhaps outside of this process, there could be a separate discussion about directly funding. And assuming that's with the same pot of money, By my way of thinking, of course, I would always defer to town attorney. That would be a deeper discussion that would be more difficult to obtain consensus about because it's not on the agenda. So whatever comments that you have based upon what you heard, I'm happy. Well, all I was going to say, and it really sort of dovetails perhaps into your recommendation, I hope, is we have the slide up. This is the universe of recommendations. If we can obtain consensus, even if it is agency by agency, it would give us the opportunity to make the funding recommendation for council consideration and vote on June 11th. We collect the feedback and we go back for the 27 process and we have a deeper dive into that. So if that meets with council's approval, we can go line by line here with these agencies and we can get consensus on each one. And the ones we don't kick consensus on don't move forward. The ones that we do, do. Yes?

Is that fair? Question. Just a moment, Council Member Pace. So if I'm hearing this correctly, the idea then to the town manager would be for us to, at this meeting, where we're at, to go line by line and look for potential consensus, but not a vote, on where these elements are in the next steps. Is that what I'm hearing your suggestion?

That was my suggestion, yeah.

And staff, Amy, you feel that would be? Yeah. Okay, and Council Member Thomason.

I don't object to that. I just wanted to throw out one other idea, which is to first ask if there's consensus for the slate as presented before we need to go line by line. There might be consensus for the slate as presented. I don't know.

That's a fair question. And I would say from a consensus standpoint, I know that, so looking around the room, if there are heads nodding, there are three heads nodding in the room and I'm going to presume that the Vice Mayor who gave me her head nod, if she will, with the email and her participation on the committee would mean that we do have a consensus of majority to move the slate forward as is. Is that accurate?

Mayor, I'm not in the room. Can you tell me who's doing the head nods?

Certainly. It would be Council Member Leitman, Council Member Thomason, myself and the discussion about the vice mayor and her support for the process. With my math, that counts to four.

Town Manager McGuire, does a person that's not attending the meeting have a vote in this?

Mr. Mayor, Council Member, the town manager has indicated that I've been demoted. I think that's inaccurate. If I was the town manager, that would be...

I'm sorry, Town Attorney McGuire.

I felt like it might be kind of a voodoo doll curse. I apologize.

Sorry about that.

Um, no, that, The town manager had the exact same question you had about 30 seconds before you asked it. The same answer for him as to you and the group now, because we're not getting consensus and voting in the room, the direction to staff is just us reading the room, figuring out where we are, and then coming back with the recommendation for the vote for our next meeting. It's not truly taking a vote, but understanding where we believe we are. And then if the staff's read of the room is wrong, we'll find out in two weeks.

Okay, so can I now, Mayor, can I come in? Go ahead. Okay, thank you. So I do think I have something that maybe, maybe people could give some consensus around. So going through this slide, what I think I'm, let me just lay it out. I would say, mark it this way, 10,000 for the school library, that would stay the same. duet from 5000 to 10,000 because they service our community, so we make the school library. duet the only two that do. is equal. I would remove eras because they're in Gilbert and they haven't serviced our our group I remove hush by because we're going to be spending a lot of money with them on the opioid. I would suggest Phoenix Children's Hospital at $25,000, the reason being we need to revisit, as we said, for the next process how we're really going to deal with it. It's more tied to our goals, but I think we ought to honor with the youth, so $25,000. The UMOM, I would do $25,000, and the Phoenix Rescue, $20,000, and the Valley Youth. That gets us to $95,000. So that's dropping the $265,000 to $95,000 so we can get consensus maybe on the financial from my peers. It shows our two agencies that do service that we are dealing with the homeless issue, but that we also, I agree with the mayor's comments and everybody's that we don't try to fund others this year. It's too much in the time allowed. And we really take a deep dive on what do we want to do with homelessness money. So if there's any support for that, that gets us to $95,000 for this year. It's not the $65,000 that some people suggested. It's not what people suggested. But I think maybe if we can get our arms around that, that would give, if there's consensus staff direction, and then we could get to the vote and action next meeting so that we don't lose the opportunity. Because if we start from the beginning, we're not going to be able to fund things. And that's a concern. So just throwing it out for everybody's comments. So thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Keller. Mayor, in the essence of... Just a minute. Council Member Moore, Council Member Andy Keller had raised her hand first.

Thank you, Mayor. I was going to propose what I... Well, not propose, but just say what I am behind, and that is Duet, and I'm okay with the $10,000. The Scottsdale Public Library, I'm also okay with the $10,000. And UMOM, I was okay at the $20,000. And I yield.

Council Member Moore?

Yeah, I could get behind both Council Member Pace's and Council Member and Dean Keller's recommendations more so than I can with the slate that here, only because I don't believe we were provided enough information. And I don't see where it's within the goals and what we've done in the past.

Thank you. And then I would say to staff reading the room without taking votes, is there enough information to work with, or do we need to delve further?

I think it's OK. I think we're ready to move forward based on what I've heard.

I'm sorry I didn't hear you, Town Manager Chang, and I'd like to hear you restate what you think you're reading in the room.

Okay. There are two things, well, three. Council, the mayor summarized a sense of council of four council members, one who's not physically present in the room, but that... The town attorney said that since we're trying to get sense and direction, it's sufficient. And of those four, that would be the slate. So there's that. At the same time, I heard from Council Member Pace a recommendation to not move, of the eight that are on the slate, Council Member Pace said that she would not support funding Eris or Hushabye for different reasons. She requested or supported increasing the duet amount from 5,000 to 10,000. She was supportive of the Friends of the Scottsdale Public Library remaining at 10,000. She was supportive of reducing Phoenix Children's Hospital Foundation from 50,000 to 25,000. She was supportive of increasing UMOM from 20 to 25,000. She was supportive of reducing Phoenix Rescue Mission from 25,000 to 20,000 and keeping Valley Youth Theater at 5,000. And that would be, that's the slate of, the revised slate that she put forward. You, Councilmember Moore, indicated that you could support that. Councilmember Andine Keller was okay with that, with the exception, I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, Councilmember Andine Keller, I think you said that you would support the original Phoenix rescue mission at 25, but otherwise support it.

I don't support, the only organizations I support are Duet, Scottsdale Public Library, UMOM, and that's it.

Okay, Duet, Scottsdale Public Library, UMOM, but UMOM at 25 or 20? At 20?

At 20.

Okay. Okay. And then Phoenix, I'm sorry, you said Phoenix Children's Hospital? No, just those three. Just those three. UMOM, wait. Okay. So based upon that, that's my consensus, which is if I'm kind of getting a sense of the majority of council, the majority sense I have in the room is to put forward the slate as it's written in slide seven. Now, of course, in doing so, that doesn't mean that, you know, that...

Council members can't take this item and make motions Pursuant to what I just recited on June 11th But that's that what will be in the packet based upon what I'm hearing here is what is reflected on slide number seven Town attorney, please and only one point of clarification that I want to make sure that we're clear on are we when we typically do this and maybe this is just a question offline, but I A lot of times the council wants to see the agreements that we're bringing forward. Because we're not certain what the list will be when the vote is done, we can prepare one for all of these folks at the amounts recommended. Or we can just prepare the list with authorization to the town manager to execute under those amounts. It seems like the more efficient route. Is everybody OK with that? Number two. Okay, good. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure we weren't coming up short in what you wanted to see in the packet next time.

Thank you. All right. Well, thank you again to all the good questions and my colleagues for looking at this and taking it seriously, and no more so than the wonderful committee that has done exactly as this council asked you to do. Kudos. Not an easy task. Obviously, this is important on multiple levels. Financially, obviously, that's the... the question to hand, but also from a municipal standpoint of where we fit in helping the better cause for our community. So I applaud you again. And with that, I will say we'll conclude this study session.

Mayor, just one last statement, if I may.

You're there. Go ahead, Councilmember.

Thank you. I just want to get clarification from our town manager that in the next go around that he plans on putting what he just reiterated into our presentation. So we have that for the next meeting.

If I understand correctly, what you're asking is that the individual or collective recommendations as they've been recorded here would be recorded as part of the June 11th packet? Yes, please, thank you. Yeah, I think that's, I'll work with the town clerk, but that should be reflected in his minutes. His minutes will be for approval on June 11th, and we can certainly cross-reference that. Is that okay?

Yes, thank you.

Got it, thank you. All right, again, thank you to staff. Thanks for the presentation, and we'll take it to the next step on June the 11th, so appreciate that. We have one more study session item tonight, and that's item 26-164, and that's discussion of the town hall fascia restoration options that will be presented by Robert Deserano about what we look for for the fascia presentation and suggestions from staff. And this is slated for 45 minutes.

Mayor Stanton and members of the Kent Town Council, thank you for the opportunity to present this informational presentation for the restoration of the town hall fascia. The town hall reflects the pride and the standards and the heritage of Paradise Valley since it has been constructed. As a part of the town's ongoing facility maintenance, The purpose of the presentation is to provide council information on the current condition of the Town Hall fascia, provide council with alternative architectural renderings for restoration, and provide council restoration cost alternatives. A little bit of the town history, I'm sure all of you know. Town Council approved funding of Town Hall back in 1972. Architect Michael Goodwin was hired in 1972. Groundbreaking of the new town hall began in 1973, and town hall was completed in 1974. And at that time, the council felt the need to have a new facility constructed rather than leasing to be able to house town meetings, town functions, and so forth. As you can see here, a little bit of town history here, the plans on the left here of what the original architectural rendering, town report reported as a successful groundbreaking with existing town council at that time. The town was very eager and happy to have a place to be able to call home and continue operations for the town. There have been town Recommendations in past of town improvement, as you can see here, the town hall used to have a ceramic tile rooftop on it. And due to Mother Nature and the elements, it did have to be replaced at some point because of structural issues. The town hall facial overview has been damaged over time. from natural elements causing severe deterioration and damage presenting unpleasing and aesthetic public appearance. Preservation efforts have been made to repair with regular maintenance the damaged areas which have not resolved the underlying issue of water intrusion to the exposed portions of wood. Now, here are some pictures of the existing fascia that are on Town Hall. As you can see here, there is some serious damage that has been done over the years. Continued maintenance costs are rising to be able to maintain this, and it is going to be costly in the future as we continue. Here, I will give you examples. There has been restoration in the past here. You can see these metal plates have been Installed pieces cut from the trusses back to the supporting foundation here, which is inherently close on both sides. We still have water intrusion here. We still have water intrusion here. This type of fix has not resolved the issue of water intrusion at all, and maintenance is still costly to keep maintaining it in this type of fashion. As you can see here, this is the back employee break room patio. As you can see here, it's already coming off the foundation itself. It is old. It's deteriorating. This is starting to become a very safety concern here, which we would like to get this restored as well. Facial restoration options. The next few slides are going to be alternatives while maintaining the architectural structure and heritage of Town Hall. I know it's very important that we keep that, and that was taken into consideration when looking at all aspects of the next slide. So please keep that in mind. This is the base bid. This is going to be a like-for-like restoration of the town hall with what you see on existing now. This would include replacing the outer fascia, the block supports, and the inner fascia here, and replacing the damaged trusses that are hanging, overhanging, with the bracket supports here, all bringing back to original. Please keep in mind this area here, because of the damage that has been Noticed and observed this will give a checkerboard effect look it's not going to be symmetrically even So it's going to look a little bit off Alternate one this is to remove the outer fascia here Remove this replace this the blocks here remove this truss back to the damaged areas of the trusses itself and the result here putting a fascia, keeping it back to the original fascia of the structure, cutting the truss back to this fascia here with a two-inch drip edge to hopefully mitigate some of the water intrusion area to keep it from further damage. Mind you, this will also, this choice here will increase maintenance cost over the years. Alternate number two is demoing and removing the fascia here. Original fascia, cutting the truss back, as you can see in this slide here, and putting a complete drip edge on it to cover both the fascia and the truss itself, eliminating the water intrusion that would wick back up into, this would be the supporting structural wall here. That would be, all this here would be protected here. Now, proposed alternate costs. Full replacement for like for like, as you've seen in the very first slide, as what we have existing now, will cost around $147,000. Please keep in mind, These costs will also, when we get into the project, we don't know what we're getting into until we take it out and start replacing it. There could be further damage, which we have not seen, that's behind and so forth. I just gave you pictures of stuff that was obviously evident to the appearance. Alternate number two, demoing back the fascia, cut back beams to the original fascia, remove and replace the original fascia with a small drip age, 107,000. Again, these are approximate estimates only until we start digging into the project itself. Alternate two, cut the beams back to original fascia and remove original fascia and adding that 10 to 12 inch metal plate fascia with the drip edge, protecting both the fascia and the truss itself by eliminating and reducing the water intrusion that will protect the fascia itself. Now, these three options you see here are for the fascia only. The back patio is not included. I had an extra cost onto that because it's becoming a safety issue, as you've seen in the photos before. It is starting to detach from the structure, causing a very big concern for that. This cost of $19,000, nearly $20,000, would be cost to replace the back patio, like for like, as it is now. Staff recommendation is to remove the outer fascia and reduce the overhanging trusses and install metal panel with the drip edge, mitigating the water intrusion, as you can see here, and replace the patio canopy for structural safety concerns. This will be, in my opinion and the recommendation, the best option to minimize future maintenance costs while still keeping the integrity and the heritage of the town facilities itself. Any questions?

Thank you. Very good presentation. I would start with our colleagues on Zoom. Council Member Moore. Council Member Moore, are you still with us?

Mayor, if you could just come back to me in a second, thank you.

Sure, no problem. Council Member Pace.

can you go back please to a good presentation but can you go back to the drawings of the alternatives i just want there yeah this is good so i want to make sure that i'm understanding so when we look at the base bid would like for like we would keep the overhang in this one is that correct with the way it comes out that is correct this trust would be all this is the original here the trust is everything here is would be replaced like for like

Now, please, again, understand that the metal brackets, the trusses will be cut back to the damaged area. The metal plates installed. Again, this is a good fix, but it would not be ideal because we're still going to have water intrusion. And the brackets here, you're going to get a checkerboard fence. It's not going to be symmetrically even. It's going to look off.

Right. And this is the only option that actually keeps the overhang coming out in its present profile. Is that right?

That is correct.

Okay. So I just had to do this in the village at Kennelbeck for my mom's house and had the board approve. They like the wood, keep it what it is, but the same wood rotting was happening from that DMV project from the 70s. And what I did was propose aluminum and a pure replacement. It's more expensive, but it keeps the profile. And they like to keep the profile there. They're very much about the aesthetic and the profile. And that is going to solve it without the continued wood rotting. And it looks perfect and looks exactly like the profile and the match with the paint and all the color. Did you give any consideration? I know it's expensive. It was expensive for me to do it over there. But did you give any consideration of keeping the profile by using steel, you know, having a steel manufacturer and do the same profile so we keep the look the same? Because that eliminates the water in the future. It eliminates the checkerboard pattern. It keeps the profile for the the town hall because I cutting it back. It looks too different. But did you have a thought about was it just too cost prohibitive? That's why you didn't look at that alternative? Because it is expensive.

Thank you, Council Member. Let me just recap what you're talking about so I understand, have a better understanding. You're talking about we're keeping this original FACIA plan here and you're talking about we will be putting aluminum on pretty much everything from this point over. Is that correct?

No. No, what I did was when they got so bad and we kept cutting, this is the same exact profile they use over at DMV's project at the Countback, West Street and Countback. But what I did and got approval from the landscape community, I mean the architecture community, which included Mark Candelaria and Hank Ahrens and a bunch of architects, is to take out completely the board and replace it with aluminum with the proper paint so you can't even tell and it eliminated the whole wood rotting for decades right and otherwise because that's what kept the profile So it's either, to me, it's either do like for like with the wood or come up with the alternative, which is a replacement of that. It's just going to keep cutting and you're going to keep cutting it back and it's already changing the profile every time you cut. So I just wondered if you thought about that and just replaced the tails, whatever you want to call them, instead of sticking out with that profile completely with a metal solution. They look great. I mean, I read that, you know, they look beautiful now, but, um, and you can't tell, but out of that, or was it just too cost prohibitive to do that? Because that solved the maintenance problem and keep the profile council member.

Are you talking about wrapping? So I've been on it. Are you talking about wrapping this here with aluminum or cutting it back and replacing it from here out this area from here out with aluminum? Is that correct?

Yeah, whichever way to keep, whatever works is an idea. I mean, you guys are the experts. Whatever profile, I'm not a big fan of just cutting that rafter tail down to that and having it look blocked. I mean, it keeps the look that way. And I don't know if that means the whole section. Yeah, right from where it's broke coming out. I mean, I'm just seeing the wood. I didn't go look at it. But is that an option?

I definitely can get with the contractor to see if that is an option. Just keep in mind, to your point of that would be very costly to replace that with a steel beam and or with aluminum wrap with that. And you're going to still have these here of, Being connected to each other, whether this is steel, whether this is aluminum, you're still going to have this uneven patch here and uneven look throughout the town hall.

Okay. And how many, how many rafters, I just call them rafter tails because it's easier for me to think. How many do we have on the building? How many are we talking that need to be?

I honestly, I do not have that number, but I can definitely get that for you. There are quite a bit, because if you can go up to the center of here, that's pretty much in the town hall here on the mezzanine, the dais. Those trusses go all the way outside.

More than 20?

Oh, yes, definitely.

Okay, so I replaced six or 9,000. So that's why I'm just wondering. It was very expensive, custom done, aluminum, replaced the rafter completely and painted. So I'm just trying to get an idea of cost on it. Okay, I'll yield. I'll see what others have to say. Thank you.

Thank you very kindly. I appreciate it. Also, to your point of that, please keep in mind that that a structural engineer is going to have to be called in and referred because you're talking a significant weight difference on that area here. If you're replacing it with an I-beam or whatever it is, aluminum, you're talking a huge difference in weight, and we'd have to see if these load-bearing walls would be able to take that structural integrity.

Yeah, and I can send you the information and the contractor. Anyway, thank you. We'll see if anyone's interested.

That would be great.

Thanks. I'll send you all.

Thank you, Council Member. Other questions or comments? Council Member Liebman.

Thank you, Mayor. First of all, I appreciate this. Second of all, I very much appreciate the wonderful reports we've received from the historic advisory committee and their concerns, especially I would like to do everything we can to keep this building so it can be designated as a historic facility, a historic property in Paradise Valley. On the other hand, that truss right there and that color and that wood looks exactly like what I've had on my house for almost, well, it was 50 years ago it was built. And we have had nothing but trouble with water damage. We've tried cutting them back. We've tried replacing them. So I understand the frustration. In fact, we have slats too. I'm wondering if maybe it's historic. But so I'm really torn. And I would love the idea of doing like for like, and maybe we could do something like trex instead of the real wood for the entire because i don't want to cut them back um you know what trex is it's composite that doesn't mold or and it's it's lighter weight um yes ma'am uh that also was looked into your point and thank you very much for that the composite material is a composite of

recycled plastic and wood fibers that will also still give the appearance of the natural wood, which could be also an option. I would also have to get with a structural engineer to see if this here would be a candidate to be able to hold that weight and the durability of that composite mixed with the natural wood. Again, you still would have the checkered effect that goes along that would look different as you walk down the sides because the damaged wood is going to be different along the whole thing. Different sections are not as bad as others. So just please keep that in mind.

I guess if we're asking for opinions, I appreciate all of that, and I'm glad you looked into it. And I would prefer to have the checkered look than have the boards cut back. Thank you.

Thank you. Other questions or comments for staff? Mayor, you'd like me to go now? Yes, please. Go ahead, Councilmember.

Thank you. Yeah, so I appreciate the conversation so far. All due respect, I'm surprised that we don't have a commercial architect involved or a structural engineer involved. You know, this is a massive change to what we have to the building. I appreciate the comments from our historical society. The recommendation to remove all the wood beams and add a metal drip edge, you know, that appears to create a massive and disproportionate facial detail to the building. And I'm not sure that's the answer. I mean, not to mention the historic design changes. change that'll be occur forever I mean it's I'm kind of surprised we don't have any AI renderings that kind of show the building the way it is today and what it would look like because if you're doing that drip edge all the way from the top to the bottom since there's no measurements on here I'm only guessing since I don't know the structural detail of the roof plan and I am a licensed general commercial and residential contract so I understand how to build it help to understand that because this could be the beams, the wood beams, rafters underneath could be cosmetic and the structure is the roof above. But still, when you create that metal drip edge, to me, I think that that would measure out somewhere around 18 to 20 inches, 24 inches. And that would put that roof overhang about four feet from the ground. It's going to look really disproportionate. So, again, my recommendations is to go back to an architect, have them look at this. My support is to keep it original to its original historic design. um i understand wood does deteriorate over time it's it's shocking to see how little paint and maintenance has been involved in the beams that are there right now i mean as long as they stay painted and everything else they've already last 50 years most of them so i think that's a long time um And so I don't think the wear and tear is as critical as the maintenance is. So, I mean, I would just like to see, since you're making a recommendation, and our town manager and our mayor has this in their agenda to do this recommendation to the metal drip edge, do you have a rendering that shows what that'll look like?

No, I do not. But just to your point of a structural engineer was hired through the vendor to take to ensure that the trusses could take the facial replacement, also to ensure that the trusses were not damaged that would affect the inner part of the truss hanging to the supporting wall. But I certainly can get you some renderings if that is the direction.

Yeah, I think some AI renderings would take just a few seconds of your proposals and then bring it back and show that to us again. But my support is to keep the original look to the building. I think it's historic. I think what you're proposing drastically changes the way the building will look. And a simple AI rendering will show that. so we can have better and more information. But again, you said you've already hired a structural engineer, and this is his details that he's drawn here?

We got this estimate, received this estimate from Core Construction, which is the vendor who Core Construction, in order to provide these, hired a structural engineer to ensure that we were going to be structurally capable to do any of these choices.

Right, and you don't show whether or not those beams underneath are structural or not. Did the structural engineer come out and look at it?

That is correct. The structural engineer was on site, walked the entire property, and gave us renderings here of the type of alternates that we can have or the options here for town council to choose from.

I know there are options that you can do aluminum clad over the top of the beam if you want to cover it so it's protected from rain. That is a potential possibility. Before I can make any decisions, I'd like to see further designs and suggestions by an architect, not just a contractor, on what they feel would be appropriate to maintain the the historic character of the building, I yield.

Thank you, Mr. Moore, Council Member Moore, that is great. We did, the reason for the, just to add to your point, the reason for the structural engineer, again, was to ensure that the foundation walls were still intact and no damage was done to the foundation itself, and then how far back we could go to this option here. without compromising any integrity of the roof decking and door structure of the facility itself. So yes, I can definitely get your AIAs and have the renderings done. Again, this is a choice. Again, we can do a full restoration. There's options here. It would be up to the council's direction on which way to go. Just so you know, the cost for wrapping in an aluminum, OK, that will be an additional cost for that. We kept in mind of the town heritage and the original building Mr. Goodwin did and all that. And it's very important that we keep that and the direction that you want to go to. And we're ready to go. I'll get you the renderings, and we can move forward from there on whatever direction and option the council decides. In other words, full like for like is going to,

Oh, I'm sorry. So Council Member Moore, is there anything else at this point regarding questions for staff? You've clearly given him some good direction on what next steps could be. Anything else you want to add?

No, my understanding is we're going to look at these two details and have AI renderings of both and they'll show side elevations that put it in perspective of what's existing today so everybody can get a really good look at what the changes would be. Is that correct? I think the town manager has something to add.

I would just say Mr. De Serrano has already indicated he can do that. What I don't have is, you know, we haven't heard from all the council to have good consensus direction. So far what I'm hearing is from those who have spoken a preference to maintain the fascia with the beam, you know, kind of coming out from the drip line. And if that is the consensus of council, what we'll do is We'll take that and we can do exactly if that's a consensus. What Council Mayor Moore said is that if that's the basis, then we know that options two and three are off the table. The option one, well, this one, the one that we have here on slide 12, that we can do that. And we can also, to what Council Member Pace said, is to also examine different materials because whatever we do, I think we want to make sure that it's durable, but also to the point that was made by Council Member Moore that it's maintained. Clearly there's some combination of just the passage of time plus maintenance that we can look at, learn from, and make sure that we... You know, do better. This is not the one. I'm sorry. This one actually. Yeah, no, this is not. This is not the one. It's the first one. I'm sorry. Yeah, let's go back to 11. I was looking only at the left hand. Yeah, this is the one. So that what we call base bid. I guess I would ask Mr. Mayor that if there's council consensus for us to to focus only on alternatives that that maintain that look. If that's council's consensus, then that's good direction for us to come back, because I don't think there's any reason why we don't have to do this immediately. It's certainly something I think we're trying to be proactive about. You know, it's been in place now for 53 years. I think we could take a few more months, come back, do some homework over the hiatus, and come back to council with the richer sort of exploration of the base bid. Because the base bid made a number of assumptions, including that it's wood and not a composite material. It didn't look at the wrap, potentially, of metal. or something that's all metal, and we certainly don't yet have the architect on board because that would be an additional cost potentially, but that we could also have some additional renderings and some elevations looking at the building all around with how it could look before and after construction. I think, Council Member Moore, did I capture all of what your request was?

Yes, thank you.

Okay. So let's continue with council questions or feedback. Council Member Andeen Keller.

Thank you, Mayor. I support what you just summarized, Mr. Town Manager. Also, I think that if the back patio is a safety concern, that we should work on that as soon as possible. Thank you. It looks like it's not hard to replace. Am I correct with that? Yes.

That would be done at the same time this project would be done because they all tie in together with the fascia and the patio itself because they work together.

Okay. So fortunately, since it's summer, nobody's going to be sitting out there.

Correct. Yeah. It's lightly used at best now.

Okay. All right. Very good. I just wanted to make sure about that if it is a safety concern. And I support what Council Member Moore was suggesting.

Thank you. Council Member Thomason.

Thank you, Mayor. I agree with my colleagues. I think keeping the current profile is very important. Our building is very special and very much represents who we are. And I think hanging on to those aesthetic lines are really important. And I appreciate Councilmember and Dean Keller bringing up the patio. It does look like it's a safety hazard. So sooner rather than later on that. But I certainly respect it's all part of the same project. So thank you.

Absolutely. And I would thank you for the presentation, and I concur with my colleagues. I think that the discussion that we had, and Council Member Moore, your expertise weighing in certainly gives good insight into the next steps, and I do concur that I think the historical look of the building, that's a priority, and we've heard that that's very important. We believe that, and I think consensus is to do that. I do want to go back to the staff area, the patio area, and obviously it ties in with the bigger picture of this, but if there's something that you need to suggest to triage that so that if this doesn't get moving until September or sometime thereafter in short order, that that is at least, we can have peace of mind that it will not collapse or cause any injuries to the staff.

Yes, we definitely can look into ways to modify it temporarily until we can get this entire project going at one time, just to make it safe for our customers and our patients as well.

Very good. And does that provide enough direction, Mr. Town Manager? No, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for the presentation. Greatly appreciate it, and we'll look forward to seeing the next steps. With that, that will conclude our study session items for Today we are going to start our business meeting at 6 p.m., so we have a little bit of a stop in the broadcast, and we'll be coming back live and in Technicolor at 6 p.m. And so for those watching on the home edition, please understand this will be a break from the study, and we will go into the business meeting at 6 p.m. And thank you to staff and my colleagues. Appreciate it. That concludes study. Well, good afternoon, everybody. The town council meeting for May 28, 2026 is now called to order. Would the clerk please call the roll?

Mayor Stanton? Here. Vice Mayor LaBelle? Council Member Andeen Keller?

Here.

Council Member Liebman?

Here.

Council Member Moore? Here. Council Member Pace? Here. Here. Councilmember Thomason.

Here.

We have a quorum. Thank you, Mr. Town Clerk. Next on the agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance, and I would like to invite Ed Lowry and Patsy Lowry to come forward to the podium and lead us in the pledge. Thank you. And I've got a thank you pledge. All right. Thanks very much for that. Appreciate it. And we're going to be coming back to the Lowry's in just a few minutes. But there are no presentations this evening. So we'll move on to call to the public. Call to the public is an opportunity for residents to address the council on matters not on the agenda and come from and Conformance with the open meeting laws, the council may not discuss or take action on any items that are raised. However, the council may respond to criticism after all public comments have been made, ask staff to review the matter, or ask to be placed on a future agenda. Speakers are asked if they can state if they're a town resident, and also ask them to limit their comments to three minutes. If anyone in the audience would like to address the council, please fill out a speaker request form. They are located right at the entrance to the council chambers on the lector, and once completed, please hand them to our very esteemed town clerk, Duncan Miller. And I would ask, are there any calls to the public? Mr. Mayor, we have not received any requests. All right, not seeing any requests for the call to the public, we'll move on to the consent agenda. Items on the consent agenda are considered by the council to be routine and are normally enacted in a single motion. If a member of the council or the public would like to discuss an item, it will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. Would the town manager please summarize tonight's consent agenda? Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

The following items are on the consent agenda tonight. First item, 26-155, approval of the minutes of the Town Council meeting of May 14th, 2026. Item 26-161, discussion and possible action to approve the Historical Advisory Committee's recommendation to honor Edward F. Lowry with a memorial plaque. item twenty six dash one six seven discussion impossible action to adopt resolution twenty six twenty twenty six dash zero seven approving the annual public safety personal retirement system p s p r s pension funding policy for fiscal year twenty twenty seven item twenty six dash one six six discussion impossible action to adopt resolution twenty twenty six dash zero eight proving the financial management policies item twenty six dash one six five discussion of possible action to adopt resolution twenty twenty six dash zero nine designating the town's CFO as filing agent for the annual arizona expenditure limitation report or AELR for the fiscal year twenty twenty seven Item twenty six dash one six nine discussion in action authorizing a contract amendment to S and C communications also known as Katari and C slack Inc for public communication services extending the term of the contract to June thirtieth twenty twenty seven. Also, item 26-171, discussion and possible action to approve a contract extension with High Ground Inc. for legislative services on behalf of the town of Paradise Valley.

Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for that summary. Would any council member like to remove an item from the consent agenda?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would like to remove item number 26-161, Discussion and Possible Action to Approve the Historical Advisory Committee's Recommendation to Honor Edward F. Lowery with a Memorial Plaque.

Thank you. Council Member Thomason.

Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to remove item 26-171, the item regarding contract extension for high ground.

Very good. Council Member Pace or Council Member Moore? Nothing further, Mayor. Thank you.

Anything to remove? Thank you.

All right. So I would ask if I could have a motion to approve the consent agenda holding back item number 26161 and 26171. So moved. Second. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right, consent agenda passes. And with that, I would turn to Councilmember Ann Dean Keller regarding item 26161.

Thank you, Mayor, and I'm going to turn it back to you and ask you if you could read the recommendation from the Historical Committee for the memoriam plaque for Edward F. Lowery.

And thank you for that, and I would ask if Catherine Kaufman would come up to the podium, and if you would do a quick recap of where we are for this process, and then I'll read the language on the plaque.

Okay. Edward F. Lowry was a distinguished public servant and a longtime resident of the town of Paradise Valley, a proud and devoted member of the community for more than 60 years. Mr. Lowry served in numerous civic capacities, including as town magistrate and as an elected member of the town council, serving as mayor from 1998 to 2004. Although he was an attorney by profession, his enduring commitment to public service and responsible community stewardship remains a defining part of his legacy in Paradise Valley. During his tenure as mayor, Mr. Lowry guided the town through a period of meaningful advancements and improvements and improvement. Among his notable accomplishments were strengthening the intergovernmental relationships with the city of Scottsdale and resolving sanitary waste service issues, overseeing significant infrastructure improvements such as the undergrounding of the utilities along the major roadways, enhancing flood control along Doubletree Road, and helping establish the Berry and Goldwater Memorial. He has also led Paradise Valley in becoming the first community in Arizona to utilize the rubberized asphalt, an innovation that significantly reduced noise pollution. for residents. Throughout the years of his service, he remained steadfastly committed to the founding vision of Paradise Valley as a residential community characterized by low density zoning and the preservation of its remarkable desert and mountain vistas. Throughout the years of public service, he was supported by his wife, Patsy, whose partnership contributed meaningfully to the town and its residents. Mr. Lowry will be remembered for his spirit of collaboration he brought to the local government and for his steadfast dedication to mentoring newly elected council members whom he guided with generosity, wisdom, and grace. His service to Paradise Valley extended well beyond his official tenure and continued in ways that enriched the cultural life of the community. Through 53 consecutive Colorado River rafting trips with friends and family, Ed Lowery developed a profound appreciation for the natural beauty of the Grand Canyon and transformed that passion into a lasting artistic legacy. In recognition of his contribution, he was honored as the town's artist in residence from 2018 to 2019, and his photography was exhibited at Town Hall. As Mayor Mark Stanton stated, his steady leadership, sound judgment, and positive spirit earned him the respect and appreciation of colleagues and residents alike, and his contributions helped shape the values and direction of the community he loved.

Thank you. Thank you. And thank you for chairing the Historical Advisory Commission. And now, if you wouldn't mind, if you wouldn't stay put for a minute, I invite Ed and Patsy to come up to the podium. I'm going to read the copy that will be proposed to be on the plaque, and then I'd like to ask my colleagues to step forward, and we'll do a photo, if that works. So thank you again, Ed and Patsy, for being here.

Thank you. That was wonderful.

So the plaque reads, in memory of Edward Ed Lowry. Ed Lowry served as the town of Paradise Valley for decades as magistrate, mayor from 1998 to 2004, and community member. He remained devoted to the town the town's founding vision of a residential community defined by low-density zoning and beautiful desert and mountain vistas, a legacy that will endure for a generation. So we will bring the group back together when we get the plaque finalized, and we're going to actually place it in the garden.

And I would like to thank the council and the mayor and all the people that have made Paradise Valley so wonderful and continue to make Paradise Valley wonderful.

Thank you, Patsy, and thank you, Ed. So if my colleagues will join me, we'll do a photo. Oh, what am I thinking? Let's take a vote. That's outstanding. Item 26.161, I entertain a motion.

Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve item number 26-161, discussion and possible action to approve the Historical Advisory Committee's recommendation to honor Edward F. Lowery with a memorial plaque. Second.

It's been moved and seconded. I'd ask all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Congratulations. So we'll do the photo and then we'll come back to the second.

Good, thank you.

All right, moving on to the other consent agenda item that was asked to be removed for discussion. I would ask if Council Member Thomason could give us her thoughts on item 26171.

Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to call out the work of High Ground, specifically Doug Cole. Our work with the state legislature is very important, and we have an unbelievably skilled team to help us navigate the legislative sausage making. And it's the entire High Ground team and Doug Cole. And I just wanted to publicly say how excited I am that we're able to continue our longstanding relationship with him. He makes a huge difference for our town.

Thank you, Council Member. Well said, well said. With that, I would ask if there is a motion regarding item 26171.

Move we approve and authorize the town manager to execute the first amendment to the services agreement with High Ground for legislative services extending the contract due to June 30, 2027 in the amount of $78,000.

Just got a motion. Seconded by Council Member Andy Keller. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. With that, we will move on to we have one public hearing tonight regarding the intermediate special use permit for Phoenix Country Day School. It will be presented by our senior planner, George Burton.

Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. So this has been seen several times by Council, so I'm just going to briefly go over the scope of the work and the proposed actions and the draft ordinance. So today's goal is to review and take action on the SEP MMH renovate the existing baseball field, add a new wellness center building next to that baseball field, and add two additional information signs located in each of the two parking lots. And this was reviewed by Commission on April 7th and they did forward approval of this unanimous approval subject to the stipulations in the draft ordinance. And this is a layout or slide showing the existing field on the left and the proposed field on the right. As you can see the layout is remaining the same. The primary differences between the two is that the applicants can add an asphalt surface to the fire lane. They're going to add a third canopy and bleachers between the two existing. And they're also going to add two 20-foot tall foul ball poles on either end of the diamond. And these are collapsible, so when the field's not in use, those will go down. The next part of the request is a new wellness building, which will be placed just east of the baseball field. And this is compliant with all the requirements. It's only 22 feet tall, set back more than 300 feet away from the nearest property line, and it will be there to serve existing staff and faculty used for education events, dance classes. They'll also have a concession stand for sporting events and also house the lockers for the home team and for the weigh teams. The lighting is also compliant. It's hooded and shielded and directed downwards. The last part of the request is the two new digital information signs. So they will display static images every two to five minutes to provide parents with information during drop-off and pickup. And they will be located in each of the two parking lots set back 200 feet away from each of the adjoining property lines. Below are just photos showing what those will look like. They're about 12 feet tall with a screen on it. And they did provide a photometric plan in accordance with the statement of direction. They have an output of .03 foot-candles of property line. Our code recommends a maximum output of .75, so they're well below that limit. And the ordinance is comprised of 19 stipulations regarding these improvements. And some basically identifies all the improvements have to be in compliance with the submitted plans and documents. It can use the existing PA system for the baseball fields, and it has to comply with the noise requirements. The baseball fields should not be illuminated. They must maintain all the landscaping that's going to be installed around the wellness building. And the digital information sign cannot be used for advertising purposes. And if the town does receive a complaint about it being too bright, the community development director can assess the sign and ask the school to reduce the brightness or change the hours of operation. And lastly, all existing stipulations shall remain in effect. Staff is supportive of this request and recommends approval, so there's three potential actions for tonight. Approve the request subject to the stipulations in the ordinance, deny the request, or continue for further review. And I'd be happy to answer any questions, plus the applicant is available as well for questions.

Thank you, Mr. Burton, and I'd ask if there are any questions from Council for Mr. Burton, and I'd begin with our friends, our colleagues online there. Council Member Moore?

No, Mayor, no further questions other than just appreciate all the hard work our planning commissioners and our staff and our applicant has put into this project. Thank you.

Thank you. Council Member Pace?

No, I agree. They've worked really hard, and we were all up to speed on this, and they've kept us up to speed and listened to the comments and appreciate the work from everybody. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from Council? Thank you. With that, I'd ask if there is a report from the Planning Commission. I don't know if our Planning Commissioner would like to give us any updates on this. Pamela George-Ellis.

Hello, Mr. Mayor, council members. Thank you so much for having me here today. We had the opportunity to review this application and took our time. It's a growing school that is looking better and better. This was more of a refresh project in terms of the baseball field and the addition of the wellness center. all of the signage on the property has gone to this digital signage, but we're always mindful of our dark skies requirement and really wanted to give them the opportunity to work with the technology, but also maintain our dark skies. So that is the reason for having additional protections in place and a time where it's turned off as well. This area is very busy traffic-wise in the high peak areas, but we don't think that anything having to do with this new SQP will affect that or add to the traffic. We were happy to hear that they're going to continue to have the same type of PA system so that it's not going to increase any kind of the traveling of sound and therefore disturb other people in the neighborhood. All in all, I think the only other issue was how they were going to handle construction, and I think that they have enough protections in place as well. will be addressing that at the later stage. So we voted unanimously to recommend, and I think that's about all I have to say on the matter.

Well, thank you, Chair George Ellis, and please thank your fellow commissioners for the work they continue to do and appreciate it very much. Thank you. I'd also invite the applicant if they'd like to address the council.

Mayor Stanton, members of the council, nice to see you. Tom Galvin with Rose Law Group on behalf of the applicant. Frankly, I don't think I could say it any better than what you heard tonight from staff, which was a very thorough and technical presentation. But also I want to express appreciation and thanks to Chair George Alice, who also gave a very thorough overview of all of the, basically the big issues that had to be worked over. But also having been at those planning commission meetings, I can let you know that that the entire Planning Commission was very diligent, very careful, very thorough in everything, but especially Chair Georgalis. I think she asked really good, interesting, and pertinent questions, especially regarding the internal sign, the digital sign, as well as the construction plan. Also, in terms of the applicant, I think they did a very good job of listening to feedback from not only the neighbors, but from staff. And I want to say there's appreciation to staff for all of their technical input, but also as well, the comments and questions from the planning commission members and especially Chair George Alice. And I just want to highlight The internal sign, I think staff did a really good job of explaining that tonight of how that will work and operate. And obviously we are very happy and we'll be okay with the 19 stipulation. So I do have a presentation, but frankly, they're just an overview of what you've already heard tonight.

Thank you, Mr. Yellen. Appreciate it. Thank you. All right. If there are any questions for the applicant. All right. Thank you. Now would be opening the public hearing. Public hearing is now open. Anybody in the audience would like to speak on this item? Not seeing anybody. The hearing is now closed. Is there any further discussion amongst council? I would just like to thank the applicant again for their due diligence and their very engaging and very collaborative work with our staff. Very much appreciate that work and working with the Planning Commission that speaks volumes about the partnership that we look for with our stakeholders and Phoenix Country Day School is definitely an important stakeholder. So thanks to the applicant for their due diligence. And with that, I'd ask if there is a motion.

Mr. Mayor, I move that we adopt ordinance number 20, 26, Oh one approving an intermediate special use permit amendment for Phoenix country day school. Second.

All right. It's been moved by council member Liebman seconded by council member Moore. Um, I would ask if there's any further, uh, discussion, uh, with that, I would, uh, and I believe the, the ordinance is number 20, 26 dash zero one. Is that correct? Okay, very good. There's motion to second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion passes. Congratulations. Next item under action items, we have two action items tonight. The first is approval for a job order contract with B&F Contracting for sanitary sewer rehabilitation that will be presented by our CIP manager, Mr. Sam Kayat. I believe Mr. Kayyad is available. He'd be right up.

I apologize, Mr. Mayor. He and Char were in deep discussion about engineering issues.

That's good to hear. Thank you. Appreciate that. Thank you, Sam. Mr. Kaye, thanks for being here. We're glad you're here. Good to see you. And looking forward to your presentation.

Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and Council. I will be presenting the Fiscal 26 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Contract. An overview of the presentation today. We will do an overview of the town's sewer assessment and rehab plan. We move to propose sanitary sewer rehab contract. Then cost versus budget. Then we'll move to the recommended council action. So the sanitary sewer assessment program is part of an IGA between the town and the City of Scottsdale. The assessment was conducted over five years from 2016 to 2021. So what is in this IGIE? Basically, it covers PV sanitary sewer system that outfalls in Scottsdale's wastewater system. PV is required to repair and rehab based on the assessment program. PV is also required to reassess the system every five years. Scottsdale provides maintenance, including cleaning, deodorizing, and pest control. So our rehab and repair plan is basically a five-year rehab that's put in the CIP. It does include 200 manholes that were identified in the assessment and that were in need of repair. It does include 74 sewer pipe segments that are in need of repair and pipelining. The repairs are more... So this year's rehab contract, we have selected BNF contracting as the contractor to perform the work. The contract is basically a linking agreement for cooperative purchase for our JOC services using the contract that BNF has with JOC, a JOC contract that BNF has with the City of Scottsdale. It does include the rehab of three manholes and four pipeline segments totaling 1,100 linear foot. The total contract amount is $279,922. We see here an overview of the location of the repairs. This map covers the entire five-year program, color-coded. The one that are identified for this fiscal year are the one that have arrows pointing to them. We see three manholes and four pipe segments. Photos of the pipe lining process. We notify residents by door hangers or in person and sometimes by mail. The way residents are affected, there will be a temporary low flow hours that will be communicated and coordinated with the residents. Project budget and schedule, the town's fiscal 26 budget For sewer repair is $525,000. This project cost is $279,922. The repair will commence early June. In fact, the second week of June, crews are already scheduled. The estimated duration, it's 20 to 30 days. This evening, we asked the council to authorize the town manager to execute construction agreement with BNF Contracting in the amount not to exceed $279,922 for sanitary sewer rehabilitation. Thank you. If you have any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Kayyatt. Appreciate that. I'd open it up for questions from my colleagues for Mr. Kayyatt. Council Member Randine Keller.

Thank you, Mayor. I think I'm misunderstanding something. You said 200 manholes need to be replaced or repaired or rehabbed. OK, and so we're only doing three.

The 200 is the for five years. So we began early on and there were that one that are really damaged and they were repaired. And right now we have three to do this year and actually only three left for next year.

Oh, okay. That's interesting because it says 200. But were we able to find all the manuals?

Okay, that's a very interesting story too. As you remember, we had a presentation. We talked about the missing manholes. So we've concluded the search. We had phase one, phase two, actually phase zero, which was the town staff that went out and found ourselves with a shovel and a simple metal detector. We found about 50 of them. Then we hired a consultant to go out and find the rest. In phase one, they found about 25. And in phase two, we used the more advanced robots, and they were able to find all the missing manholes, plus additional ones that were never in the system. So it was a very successful program, yes.

Okay, that's good to hear. I guess I'm confused about just six and two years if there's 200, but I guess you have it all figured out, so I don't... need to be confused.

Yes. A lot of them were. We are in year four of this program. So a lot of them were repaired earlier.

Okay. All right. Okay. That answers my question. All right. Okay. That's all the questions I have.

Thank you. Other questions from my colleagues? Council Member Thomason.

quick comment and a question. So my comment is thank you for coming in so far under budget. We had a budget of $525,000 and contract request tonight opposed to $280,000. So I appreciate that difference in staff's diligence to get this work done at the most favorable cost. So thank you for that. Yes, thank you.

We try to do that. As you notice, we've delayed it to summer months where we can have the lowest possible flow, which would allow us to avoid paying for a bypass, which is almost $100,000. So that's saving there. Plus, we always have contingencies for emergencies, for sewer repair, which didn't happen this year. We have some for next year. We also, sometimes we put money in the budget for landscape restoration, which in this contract, we didn't have any issue with restoring any landscape. So we came way under budget. That was good.

Thank you. The only thing better than saving money is saving money with an explanation. So thank you, Mr. Koenig. So just last point of confirmation, this whole project will wrap up at the end of next fiscal year because we have three we're doing this year and then two or three more and then the project is all done?

We will conclude the five-year CIP plan based on the previous assessment. We are required to redo the assessment every five years or so. So we will start over. In 27, we will do our last repair for the previous assessment. Then we'll do a new assessment, which will produce a new list of the infrastructure or the sewers that will require rehab. Now, it's likely going to be much less than before because we already addressed the critical items and we found all the damage and we did them first. This is a redo, so we are... highly unlikely to find critical things to fix, the budget for the year after will be much less for this kind of work.

Thank you, and as I'm looking at your notes, this project started with an assessment that took five years that started in 2016. So I think we should have cake and ice cream for the 10-year anniversary of this project when it's almost done. But seriously, it's a very big and important project for the town, and I thank you for bringing it to conclusion over the next 12, 18 months. Thank you.

Other comments from council, council member Moore?

Yeah, thank you, Mayor. I think it's, yeah, absolutely worth mentioning that appreciate staff's diligence in coming in and under budget. That's great news to hear. And it's also great news to hear that they found all the manholes. Sam, can you tell me, did you guys do as-builts and then did you electronically file those so that we don't have an issue down the road?

So part of the scope for finding the manholes was also to create a GIS or update our GIS map and coordinates. So every manhole they find, they have a surveyor that will take a shot that will record the coordinates, and those coordinates were transferred into a GIS file. And this file right now is under review and they will be passed on to our IT staff so they can incorporate that with the existing GIS and have a one updated and modified GIS that will describe exactly where all the manholes are.

Thank you. We'll be handing out that file so that it becomes part of a set of plans in the future and Is recorded all the work that's being done in the area and all the newfound manholes and stuff? That'll be all taken care of?

It will be in a digital format in the GIS system. So anybody who wants to look at where a manhole is, you'll need to go to that GIS system and click on it, and it will give them the coordinates and all the information available about that manhole. We don't have a paper record produced for this.

Okay. And you don't have electronic gas belts that you plan on handing out to contractors, so you'll have to cross-reference that as a staff to make sure that they stay identified in all future improvement plans. Is that correct? That's correct.

Thank you. No further questions, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Moore. Council Member Pace.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Sam, for the report tonight. This started in 2016, Warren Iron Council and Mayor Stanton, and it was an important project for infrastructure, and I had been for a very long time to figure this out because of the issues it can cause. And we had some inhibitors on them that was causing some problems for residents. So to find those, we should make a big deal about finding those goals. That has been going on and asked for a decade. Dedication of this goal is finally realized because it has been 10 years talking about it. We've had reports for years. able to find these manholes. And now you guys have which is amazing. So thanks to the whole team who did that. It was like a treasure hunt. And now we have them. So do we have any left to find or? Oh, there's no more and you found extras anyway.

Right, we find we found all the ones that we were looking for. And a couple of extras. Yes.

That's, yeah, that's extraordinary. It's been 10 years. So thank you for that dedication. And thanks for focusing on infrastructure. So much appreciated with the report, and the hard work for you.

Thank you, Councilmember Pace. Appreciate that. And I echo my colleagues' comments as well. And Sam, it's great to have you here. Good to see you. And thanks to you and your team. This has been a long effort to get to this point. And searching for the manhole covers, I concur with Councilmember Thomason. Maybe we will have a celebration when we're all wrapped up. I just want to say again, this is so important. And obviously, it's an important part of infrastructure, an important part of our quality of life. And I know that your team prioritized and made this happen. And I just want to say most of all, thanks for not showing any photos this time. That was appreciated that because in the past, we have had to sit through that. So with that, I would ask if anybody in the audience would like to speak on this item. Not seeing anyone, I'd ask if there's any further discussion. If not, I'd ask if there is a motion.

Mayor, I move we approve I'm just making sure I'm reading the right one, and authorized the town manager to sign a job order contract with BNF Contracting for Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation in an amount not to exceed $279, $279, 922. Second.

All right, it's been moved by Councilmember Liebman and seconded by Councilmember Andeen Keller. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. I would ask all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? The ayes have it. Congratulations. Thank you, Mr. Kyatt. All right. Next item is 26, number 158, discussion and possible action to approve construction service contracts for the Salt River Project Underground Utility Conversion Project on Rose Lane. And I believe that Sam is going to present this as well.

Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Kyatt.

Thank you, man. So the SRP underground in conversion. This is Rose Lane construction contract. Will go with the go. This is an overview of the presentation. Talk about the SRP municipal aesthetic program. Move to the remaining districts. And our project description. Project financials project timelines and will wrap with the recommended action. So the SRP Municipal Aesthetic Program was implemented in 1989 to encourage effective partnerships with local municipalities. The town of Paradise Valley receives an annual allotment of $200,000 in SRP funding. Remaining district, we still have four districts, including today's project, the Rose Lane, the 40th Street District, the 38th Street District, and the Denton Lane District. Our project description, it's located at the southwest corner of Rose Lane that includes the removal of three utility poles and overhead wires and will underground these wires and install new pads and transformers. Project financials, the total project cost $450,900. SRP Aesthetics funding will contribute $225,450. The remaining balance to be split between the town and the residents is $225,450. The town will contribute two-thirds of that, 66.7%. This is $150,375. And the residents are required to contribute 33%, 33.3%, which is one-third. That is $75,700. The split is in accordance with the town resolutions 813 and 577. Project timeline. So town SRP design agreement was executed back in May 2024. SRP started the design in August of 2024. The initial SRP construction contract was submitted to town in June of 2025. Resident outreach and cost sharing discussions with the residents started in June of 2025. That contract was revised and the final SRP construction contract was submitted to town March of this year. We anticipate town council contract approval May 2026, hopefully this evening. Anticipated construction start is in June of 2026. Estimated construction duration, two to four weeks. So we ask that the town council authorize the town manager to execute SRP construction services contract number 422-7754 in an amount not to exceed $218,700 and SRP contract services contract number 422-7757 in an amount not to exceed $6,700 for the Rose Lane Electric Utility

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kayyatt. I'd open this up for questions from the council. Council Member Liebman.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you for that presentation. It was brief and answered all my questions except for one. And by the way, it's very good to see you here. How many residents or households split the $75,000? Six residents. Thank you. Council Member Thomason.

Thank you. I have a small, annoying question. This is probably from our town manager. On the council future agenda items, we have a future agenda item listed as contract for SRP undergrounding for Rose Lane. I'm assuming that's this contract and there's no follow-on contractor work needed.

That's right. The future is now.

The future is now.

That was an oversight. We should have taken that one off, but yes.

Quite okay, thank you.

Council Member Moore?

Yeah, thank you, Merrick. It's great to see this moving forward as with all the other projects. Just a couple questions, though. It says that we receive an annual allotment of $200,000 in SRP funding, but they're contributing um 225 450 and then the contract is for not to exceed 218 700 i'm not sure all these numbers jive just kind of curious can you explain that to me so if you back back up just a couple more slides Right there, says allotment of, we receive an annual allotment of 200,000?

Yes, this is annual allotment given to us. We can accumulate it or we can use it. And it's not exactly related to the cost of the project. That answer the first question.

No. So are you saying that they're going to contribute $25,450 more than they allot us for the year? Or how does that work?

There was some details about why we're using this amount. There's an amount that was at risk of losing, and we had to use it, and I think it was about $25,000 or so. So there was an amount that if we do not commit it to a project by a certain date, we will lose it completely. So that's kind of added the money to the $200,000.

So, just maybe a better question is to clarify everything, because it doesn't say in here. Has everything been fully funded the 75,000. And 75 dollars from the residents do we are those funds in now and then. You have the remaining funds, you have all of the funds from and then our contributions. 150,375 is that. What you're asking out of us tonight, I'm not sure on this presentation how we get to the 218.

Yeah, there are two contracts, the 218 plus the 6700. SRP breaks it into two separate contracts instead of one, one for removal and one for undergrounding. This is their standard contracting, and that is the 225,000.

Maybe Chad can jump in and tell us how it's being funded.

Mayor, Council Member, so the amount that you're approving potentially tonight is the entirety of the town and the resident portion. So we do not have this money sitting in a bank from residents. We go out to them and let them know the project's actually happening. This is kind of a negotiated solution. They're volunteering this money. The town hasn't compelled them per se. We're kind of basing the way we do these projects now off one previous historical example that was very successful, so we're trying to replicate that here. We anticipate that we will end up with that amount, but for now, the town has to take that on to get this project done.

So how much is the town being... How much are you asking out of the council tonight to fund from general funds? The $218,700?

Plus the $6,700, both of those amounts.

Those amounts are coming from us. So the previous... Graph is not accurate and. Typically, I just out of fairness of all of the residents have contributed to this in the past. Are we holding this until we this job until we get the contributions from the residents? Or how does that work?

Mayor council member that wasn't that was not the intent at this point. The timeline that we've had on this project has been significant already. We would. RECOMMEND WE GO AHEAD AND EXPEND THE FUNDS AND DO THE PROJECT ON THE TIMELINE HAS BEEN MENTIONED. IF WE WISH TO START HOLDING THESE PROJECTS UNTIL RESIDENT FUNDS ARE IN HAND, WE COULD CERTAINLY DO THAT.

Councilmember Moore, we lost your audio.

Sorry, Mayor. I just asked a question. I said, how has it been handled in the past?

Well, again, perhaps Sam can answer more specifically. The one undergrounding project that this entire system was kind of built on was a rather unique example, frankly, that had a group of very engaged residents that were very willing and drove the thing forward, frankly. That cost breakdown that was agreed to at that point is the one we're reflecting here. We have not run into any groups of residents quite that engaged, and so we've been working with them in earnest since last June, as Mr. Kayak mentioned, when we started sharing the breakdown costs. We have been in touch with them throughout that time and would intend upon approval to go back to them and let them know that this project is happening, and we would like to have those monies shared with the town.

So, let's go back to the contract amount. On the next slide. Yeah, right there the 218. So you're saying that number, which doesn't add up to what our contribution. And the residents contribution would be that those. It's more than that number. So. How, if this is what we're authorizing, how are you making up the difference?

Mayor, council member, that number is essentially, I don't know.

The 150, 375 and the 75075?

Right, so the 225, the 225,000 number is the number that's reflected here. It's not, you have to look at the 218 and the 6700. Hopefully that math is good.

Okay.

Thank you. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Pace.

Kudos for getting this down the road. We love seeing this undergrounding and there's only a few left to do in the town of Paradise Valley. It started years ago by section, so it'd be nice. We can finally get that all finished off one day. You know, big thanks to SRP and also APS for providing funding and encouraging residents to do that. It's a safety risk, you know. So it's actually very helpful to underground utilities for safety and fire issues, but it also for our residents gives an aesthetic benefit and really helps when you look out in the valley at Paraguay. no you know tall poles you see no underground or no electrical lines again it's just really great so i commend the residents for coming together on this it takes work and it takes you pulling monies to fund and it's a nice match um with srp in the town to work together so i love that this is going forward and it just improves another area of our beautiful community

you council member anything else from council any other comments i would just echo again all the very salient points and sam thank you very much for your presentation this is a point of pride for our town we have really we have really exceeded the the goal and i was i think it's with great poetic irony that we would recognize mayor lowry tonight and talk about his commemoration when He was such a driving force to the undergrounding of our utilities years ago. This is not an easy task, so I applaud the efforts of staff and SRP. They've been great partners to us, and this is certainly a great example of that. And also the residents. I think that their standing up and being willing to contribute is important. And I recall when we did the work with APS and we were out at Vista and this is another good example of that. I'm wishing them all the best. One question I do have is the construction timeline. So we approve this. It's approved. You're saying that's two to four weeks they can get this done?

That is correct. It's a very small project. They can do it in two to four weeks. Disruption to residents, four to six hours. They usually do it at night, so there will be minimal disruption for the power outage.

Thank you, Sam. Thank you very much. I'd ask if there's anybody in the audience who would like to speak on this item. Not seeing anybody, I ask there's any further discussion. If not, I entertain a motion.

Mayor, I move we approve and authorize the town manager to execute SRP Construction Services Contract Number 1 in an amount not to exceed $218,700 and SRP Construction Services Contract Number 2 in an amount not to exceed $6,700 for the Rose Lane Underground Utility Conversion Project. Second.

It has been moved and seconded. I appreciate that. Is there any further discussion on the motion? All right, then moved by Council Member Thomason and seconded by Council Member Andine Keller. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, motion passes. All right. Thank you very much for that. That completes our action items. And now we're going to move on to future agenda items. And I'd ask if the town's agenda is obviously subject to change, but I'd ask if you want to find them. They're always on www.paradisevalleyaz.gov and click on meetings and agendas. I'd ask if there are any items on the upcoming agendas that our town manager would like to note at this time.

Thank you. Mr. Mayor, members of council, our next council meeting is June 11th. Okay. Exactly. Hopefully.

Sorry.

No, it's okay. We all had the same sign.

It's 3 a.m. I'm sorry. I'm tired.

It's good because what I was going to say is among the many items that we're going to have on that meeting, one of them is to potentially cancel the second meeting in June. So that always gets a bit of a sigh of relief as well. So we have a number of items coming up in that June 11th meeting, including an update about the PV youth group and their activities. There will be a legislative update from the aforementioned high ground, Mr. Cole, and a number of contracts that we want to renew and to initiate going into the next fiscal year, including pavement preservation, photo enforcement, and the subject of our discussion earlier in the study session, the community services funding agreements. That will also be a general item. So thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Mr. Town Manager. I'd ask, are there any questions or clarifications that any council members would like from the town manager? All right. Does any council member wish to make a motion to add an item to the future agenda? All right, not seeing any, then we will move on to Mayor, Council, Manager comments, and I would open it up to my colleagues, and I'll start online. Council Member Moore, if you have any reports? Mr. Moore left the meeting, Mr. Mayor. All right. I would thank Mr. Moore, but I would just say that he, ACOPS, will have coffee with a cop next week, and we're looking forward to that. So put that on your agenda to meet us in the police department conference room for coffee with a cop. And with that, I would turn to Council Member Pace.

No report tonight since it's a little bit hard to hear, but thank you.

All right, thank you. We're going right through it here. Any other reports? Council Member Thomason.

I don't have a report. I just wanted to shout out to Council Member Andine Keller and all of my colleagues for our work tonight on the community services funding. Council Member Andine Keller really dove into the details and I appreciated it. I said that earlier, it bears repeating. And I just wanted to thank all my colleagues for their very thoughtful and heartfelt analysis. It's not a huge amount of dollars. All dollars are important, but I was just very proud to sit there and appreciate the thoughtfulness and the care that this council rendered and that the committee went through ahead of time. So I just wanted to give us all a shout out and a thank you.

Well noted. I don't have really any reports from the mayor's chair other than it's getting warm out, really warm, so be extra careful if you're going to go out hiking or going for walks, make sure you hydrate. you have an option and that's right you can go on your nine o'clock walk at night make sure your neighborhood's safe and secure and your house is all buttoned up and if you see anything unusual don't be afraid to call our very capable police department and and they will be happy to look into that for you with that i would ask if the town manager has any reports no reports thank you All right, the next regular meeting is scheduled for June 11th, Cy, 2026, and I would ask if there is a motion to adjourn. It's been moved. Second. And seconded. All those in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

No, sorry.

All right, the meeting's adjourned. Thanks, everybody.

Good night. We almost lost her.