City Council - workshop

Okay, good afternoon. It is Thursday, September 17th. We are going to kick off a study session. This study session today will be on the 2027 proposed budget personnel initiatives and capital projects. And we're going to have Mr. Kirk Johnson from the Finance Department walk us through that.

So, Mr. Johnson, I'll go ahead and turn it over to you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council. So, before we get started, there's a couple things that Council asked to come back with just, you know, for some explanations and additional detail. So I wanted to go over that first and then we'll get into the capital initiatives and projects. So first one was legal expense. You had asked for a little bit more information on that from the difference from 2026 to 2027. So you have a 8 1⁄2 by 11 sheet there that kind of gives some information. What we did is we did some comparisons to when it was a contract position and as a full-time position, and then also kind of looked at the hours this year just to give kind of a snapshot look, and then what the city attorney is doing as far as helping each department and the different projects working on So just quick summary, 24 and 25, the hourly rate was $275 and $300 an hour. We had just over 400 hours in 24 and about 333 in 2025. With the full-time position, we get over 2,000 hours. The rate works out in 2026, fully loaded to 128.42, and in 2027, 154.95. That's with the additional training, certifications, things like that, that type of budget added in, as well as the personnel changes as well. So if you look at the budget, in 2026, if we had used 2,080 hours at the contract rate from 25, it would have been 624,000 compared to our expected year end amount of 267,000 this year. and the budgeted $322,000 fully loaded again with everything in that department at 322. So I know that's a lot of information in a short time. There's also a couple of graphs that were prepared by the city attorney just kind of showing the different areas. Every single department has been touched and helped with additional work. There's also a list of different things that she's taken over since coming in. There are things just for some snapshots. City manager used to do development agreements. She's taken that over. There's a lot of work in community development and finance with contracting, different work for development review and stuff like that on the legal side that the department heads used to do, which none of us are attorneys, but we used to do that to limit how much billable hours we were using. that all has been able to be sent to the attorney so that we're making sure we're mitigating our risk in those areas. So that's a big part of what we're doing.

Any questions? We have a lot to cover, so we don't want to go too deep on every page or we'll never get there.

Councillor Davis.

yeah thanks um are there going to be scenarios that pop up that would be outside of her scope that we would still have to contract for an attorney that we're accounting for there are a few things yes one that i could show is the city water rights that we're looking for we are using a specific water rights attorney for that and then some of the lawsuits specifically related to the splash pad we're using an outside litigation attorney to help with that We have always had budget in there. That is in the budget going forward as well. So I didn't include that fully loaded cost because that's something that's carried over every year and we've had that same amount in the budget each year. That's for specialized attorney work.

Other questions? Real quick just for me on this too. So the picture this paints here is to say that in 26 and going forward in 27 of the available full-time like FTE hours are 20, 80. and then you assign a rate to that. But my understanding was is that there was a 62% increase in the legal department for the coming year proposed.

So the difference from 26 to 27 is related to when we did our estimate before any negotiations had begun or an offer had been made to bring the attorney on as full time, we did not get a correct rate comparable to other city attorneys at other jurisdictions. As the negotiations started, we started to look at rates at other areas, and she provided us with lists of what salaries are for attorneys at different cities, and so that's where the negotiations went. So we're comparing the initial budget to what the budget is in 2027, we did not address the disparity in the legal cost for salary at the supplemental where we did training and things like that earlier this year. So that's where the big difference is. It was the fact that we just didn't estimate properly.

So this is all, okay, so this is all, the increase between 26 and 27 is really about It's really about FTE compensation, not necessarily about departmental expenses. Correct. Okay.

So departmental expenses in the framework of trainings and certifications, it is part of that. Because trainings and certifications came in higher as well because certainly there are risk management trainings and certifications that were necessary to take on the former deputy city manager's roles in that area that cost money. And the associated costs with that are now built into this fully loaded position and they were not before. And same thing with some of the other training certifications, getting a better sense of what are those, how much those costs go into the fully loaded and were part of the increase. Okay.

Okay. Other questions, council? Well, I mean, I guess my curiosity is, like I understand mistakes and we missed, but it was a big miss. And I guess my question going forward is how, what can we do to safeguard against that? Because that was a noticeable difference. And, um, I mean, yeah, it came in at one thing. It was like the thing we sort of made an exception. Like we see the value and then it turned out to be, I don't know what, 50% more than what was, we were told. So it's like, how are we going to avoid that? Do we have any, the conversation about how we can avoid that moving forward?

So we do look at a lot of different comparables with other cities. We use AWC as a resource because a lot of cities report what their salaries are there. So we'll do a better job on going out and looking at comparables. When we're bringing in a new position that we've never had, that's where it's a little bit more difficult to estimate that, whereas if it's something that has already been at the city, it's a little bit easier to compare there.

Len, one of the other things is when we're looking at a professional certified position like an attorney, Something that we can, one of the lessons learned in moving forward is a lot of the employees we bring in don't require the kinds of certifications that a city attorney would, but saying the higher level of the position and the more certifications that are required, making sure we know what those are and we know the costs associated with them and that we build that in up front.

And I'll just clarify, too, before we move on. I think there's another question. There is no doubt to me that this is a worthwhile position to bring in-house compared to what we've done in previous years. And it looks like, if you look at the duties, we're getting a lot more. for it you know at an arguably way better rate um it's just you know like when we came to 26 it was a pretty considerable expense in a down budget year and then going into this year going to a 60 something percent increase year over year doesn't feel sustainable so i just want to make sure that as we look at this and we look at a new position that the go forward like next year where we're a lot closer to i guess a marginal increase than you know, a giant increase like we've had this year, the last two years.

Yeah, and to add on to that, if you compare year-end salary forecast for that position and then the 2027 projected budget, it's in that same range of every other department between the six and nine percent, depending on the area and the position itself for personnel increases. Okay. So it's no different than anything else. It's just that beginning budget we missed on. Sure.

Okay. No other questions at this point? Okay, we're good to move on, I think, on this one. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.

So one of the next ones that you asked for more information on was the reductions we did last year. That's this, and I'm sorry it's kind of small type. I'm having a hard time reading it, too, but I don't want to go over the whole thing. I just want to give kind of the highlights of that.

And we'll send you an electronic copy of it so you don't have to go. We won't go through all of them.

Yeah. So what you had asked is with... The areas that we did make some reductions, did we either restore those or what did we look at? The reductions that we made weren't in, for the most part, were not in areas that we were using the budget in past years. So what we had asked all the different departments to do was go back and look at a 5% reduction but look at the line items that you have not been using over the last few years. So that was the majority of what was reduced. The areas that were things that we had been using but we've also made a conscious effort to reduce is overtime. And then also we reduced in general fund the participation transfer for the equipment replacement fund. So we did replace that back this year. We also increased overtime in a couple of the funds, but not all of them because we're making a conscious effort to try not to have to use overtime unless there's an emergency. Bottom line is what we did is we met with all of the different department directors and their supervisors. We looked at their budgets. If that particular line item had been reduced and it needed to be increased, we would. Most of the areas that they asked for increases and we did were other areas that were line items that are used every year for providing the service level. So we really, most of these ones that we reduced, they just were ones we had not been using so they actually, we were over budgeting in those areas. So we kept those where they were for the most part and then we increased in other areas where they did see the need. And that was strictly working with all the department heads to make sure that their budgets would be able to give them the resources so they could provide the service level that they want to provide. Any questions on that? OK. So I think. So impact fee credit, can you go to slide 19 real quick? I didn't print that one out. But we've had a lot of discussion about impact fee credits. And there were some questions about when things expire. So OK. So if you look at that bottom table, that kind of breaks everything out for the 10 years. When we issue impact fee credits or system development credits, they have 10 years to use them. The only exception was the Union Ridge East, which they had 15 years, but they've already been significant. They're going to expire in 2030. So this kind of gives you an idea of the money that's out there. there's a difference in the bottom amount from the top amount because the top amount also is looking at outstanding issuance in development agreements that we have outstanding with credits that will be issued or the estimate for how much will be issued. That's why there's a different bottom line number. But this kind of gives you that information. But again, if you look at what's on the right-hand side, it shows all of the stuff we've got and all the infrastructure, the parkland, things like that. The reality is, as fast as we've grown, when council made that decision to go to the impact fee credit model and get the developers to build the stuff, that was in 2018, 2019 timeline, we would not have gotten all this stuff built if they would have just paid the money into the impact fee credits and we would have done the projects. We would not have had the capacity, nor would we have been able to do it cost-wise because it is cheaper for the developers to build it.

The 2036, that's a big bubble for both TIF and PIF. I mean, it's a ways out, but what kind of prep would we be looking at for hedging for those having to be...

Clarify what you mean by hedging for that.

Well, just in terms of, because these are credits out, which means.

Those are just when they expire. Yeah. Correct.

Yeah.

So you're going to have more that are going to expire down the road than you are immediately because they're. We won't be paying out cash.

I know we wouldn't be paying out cash, but in terms of providing credit for work, I guess, would we be getting a deficit? would we be facing any sort of deficit for expecting work? I know I'm not making sense on that.

Well, my forecast is we're not going to get a lot of cash payments. That's where the difference is. You're either going to issue credits and have the work done, or you're going to have the cash come in and we're going to do the work and pay maybe as a match for a grant, but we kind of look at it as that's a cash payment for a project. So what this means is there's a lot of credits out there that the developers that hold the credits are actively selling them for the most part. We see credits coming in. I initially forecast 30%. Well, last year I forecast starting 40% this year, bumped it down to 30, then to 20, because we're just not seeing the cash payments coming in. So what I see here is that we're gonna see a lot of stuff coming on. All the houses that hopefully eventually we'll build and or businesses, they're gonna use the TIF credits for that and then PIF will go for the homes and we're gonna see continued credit usage for quite some time.

I think what you were saying is if they weren't using credits, they'd be giving us cash, right? So you're saying how can we do without that cash if they're using credit?

That's what I mean. Thank you for clarifying.

So the offset to that is they're building the stuff that we would have built. So as long as we're getting the infrastructure now, we want to make sure it's along your goals and your priorities of what we're getting. So that's part of the negotiation process when we're doing a development agreement, making sure that we're getting what we want.

And we're getting it done cheaper than we would do it, the city would do it. they don't have to pay a prevailing wage.

Yeah. I mean, there's a lot of advantages to it. I guess the flexibility piece where when somebody uses credits, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's going to be in the development that they are actively working. So it's going to be like PIF credits. Not necessarily. Not necessarily. Correct. So if they're activating PIF credits, it wouldn't be in the form of... using it to build a park in that development?

So credits, except for the Union Ridge East credits, can be sold anywhere in the impact fee jurisdiction, which is the entire city limits. So let's say you're looking at Tavener Ridge. Let's say somebody up there still held credits, and they sell it to someone on the east side of the freeway. They can do that, and whatever work's being done over there, then they're using it for that project. But they've built... a project up, you know, a park or a trail or whatever it might be up in Kavanagh. And that can happen all over the city.

I get that. I guess it, by doing credit, it's like localized to that, to those projects that, right? Compared to being able, if we got the cash and it's PIF and we wanted to do a big community park, we wouldn't have that cash on hand because we can't use their credits to go towards that.

That's what I'm after. PIV credits can only be generated if a park is on our system plan, so there's already an unmet need in the area. So we've already identified an unmet need, and the acreage has to be large enough that it isn't a neighborhood, that it's a community park. Is it neighborhood and community, or is it just community? I can't remember. Community. Is it just community? So it has a certain acreage limitation on that. So you're not going to see neighborhood parks, like pocket parks, things like that getting in. Same thing with roads. So TIFs credits are only generated if it is collector level or above, and it's already on our CFP. So we've already identified the need for both the park or the trails and the roadways in our overall system plan. So yes, it's a localized improvement, but if it only satisfied a local need for that neighborhood, they couldn't get credits. Okay.

I guess that's the clarification that that's useful for me.

They only get credits for the public share piece of a park or a road. Okay. Okay. That helps clarify it. I appreciate it.

Kurt, I would like to have a microphone, sir. It's on. Okay. Curt, I'd like to have what we have received in cash payments for the last five years. Okay. I know we're projected for around $207,027, $260,000, something like that. Is that for both TIF and PIF?

Yes. Okay. Yeah, we can do that. Any questions on that? I think we're good. Okay. So let's go ahead and jump into the materials that we have. So there's a couple resources, and I'm sorry there's a lot of data and tables and stuff. I know sometimes it's hard to read, but we have multiple funds so there's a lot of stuff to go through and we with our legal requirements we want to make sure that we're getting it at that fund level for each different fund plus the department so that each function is covered.

That said, if there are specific aspects of what you're, we're not going to go deep on the tables, but again, we'll be here all night. Um, but as we're going into the information, if there are highlights of it, if there are pieces that you would like to see pulled out, um, those are things that we can create visualizations for. We've already received some feedback from council about how we might better present. the information so that it's more easy to digest for you all and ultimately to your constituents, let us know. Because those are things that we can work on between now and kind of the next round.

As we get into it, a reminder that we do have that digital budget book. A lot of that has the graphs and things like that for visualization as well. I've shown that to you in the past. We don't have it built yet for the 2027 budget because that comes as we start to get things approved. That has to be released by November 1st, but we'll be working on that over the next month and a half or so. So anyway, in this sheet, Just for reminders, we have the budget information for operations, and then we have the fund balance availability for the operating funds, and then the special revenue and capital service funds, just so that you know. But there is also a... Unfortunately, I didn't print that. Julia, real quick, that one that... Julia, if you go to, I think, two more right there, This is on the second page of the initiatives, the top one. If you can print that out for everyone so they can have it in front of them. I failed to print that one. That one kind of shows you the progression through from carry forward all the way to what the available fund balance if everything was approved at the end of the year. So I've got this in two places in the presentation, but I meant to print it out so you had it in front of you as well. But let's go through the items, and I'm gonna kind of bundle them together so that we, and we tried to pull things out and bundle it a little bit different than what we did at Budget Advisory Committee. So things that are together, like there's multiple pieces to Royal Road, there's multiple pieces to the TBD, Things like that, they're all kind of grouped together. So I'm not going to go through every one of the carry forward projects. I'm going to basically look at that as one group because these carry forward are projects that council approved in 2026 and or 2025, but they've been multi-year projects. So there are things that we're carrying forward to go ahead and complete those and or this is another phase in the full process. What I've done is tried to put the 2027 ask, what is 2026 requests if there's new money being added, which there are new money being added in some cases because the phase may be changing from design to construction or something similar. And then near the end, there's also the estimated quarter of completion for these projects. So you'll see some of them are 2027 all the way up through, I think, 2029. Some of these are multi-year going that long. But bottom line is we have $52,580,000 for carry forward for the stuff that's kind of not grouped together. The majority of that is being paid over $49 million with either debt service or private partner with the community and recreation center and or grants. The total estimated project expense for those is over $67 million, almost $68 million. So there will be future phases we'll be asking for additional funding.

Big dollar amount, top two lines are the biggest. You look at those top two and you add those up, that's the vast majority of it.

So the next carry forward section is Royal Road. And this one I do want to highlight, one, because we're stepping from one phase to the next. That's page two down at the bottom. There's a group of four for Royal Road projects. And this is the Hillhurst to Hayfield. This is the next phase. So we're in, it's kind of funny Steve put it, we're in the third phase, but we have three phases in the third phase. We have one of those phases that's going to construction and we had to phase it that way because of funding requirements and or timing for when we'll get the funding. So that's why you're gonna see three additional phases and not from 19th all the way to Hillhurst. Thank you. So why I wanted to highlight this one is we're going to construction next year. Estimated completion date is second quarter of 2028. This one is estimated at 5.8 million for the road and storm water portion of the project and 575,000 for the water line portion of the project. That's the second one down. And we will get 3.5 million from TIB to help offset the road and storm water portion of that project. The rest of that, we have 2.35 million that is estimated as our match coming from, right now, TIF. At this point, we committed $2 million in TIF. I don't think we're going to have the other $350,000. So I'm going to need council direction on where you would like that to come from. Most likely, that would be a TBD expense. But right now, the forecast, I don't believe we're going to have enough TIF to cover the additional $350,000. The water system development charges will pay fully for the water line portion of that, which is also part of our match to this project. Any questions on?

So I guess just to clarify, we are funded and ready to go basically from the top of the hill almost to where the culvert would go. Is that right?

Yeah. I see shaking heads behind you, so yes. Just wanted to double check. Construction funded. You said we're construction funded? Yeah. Okay. Yeah, construction funded, and that will get the water line, too, for resiliency, which is something we've needed for quite some time now.

But we still need to do design for the culvert or no?

Yes. We're still working on design for the culvert. We do have funds that we're going to have to look for to finish that particular project. So we are actively looking for grants for that one.

I would imagine that's sizable, which would probably mean that it's probably going to soften the dip there.

Yes.

You know what I think?

Yeah. The idea of it is that you do a fish culvert that is similar to what you saw in North Main. so when we did the flap grant on north main that's a fish culvert and if you remember it used to be a big dip there and the stream would actually go over the top of it very similar is that you're going to raise it up it's going to be a bigger kind of it looks like it's kind of rocks at the bottom and just a culvert above it and it'll raise the roadway up a significant amount

And then the other piece to that is 19 to Water's Edge. We do already have a grant for that, and that will be paying for the design to get construction ready as we go out and look for additional funding to finish construction there.

So is Royal going to be a two-stage widening? Three. So we will first do Royal to Hayfield? Yes. Hill Hillhurst to or I mean Hillhurst to a field.

Yes, then a field to the culvert. So we will do a field to Hillhurst as the first phase and that will be constructed next year. Then we'll do the culvert. And then after that, we should have the 19th to Waters Edge. And depending on how that breaks out, because that's the most complicated portion with a lot of walls and some really steep slopes happening, that may have to get broken into two phases depending on funding availability.

Thank you.

Okay. Any questions on that part?

I have a question. Okay. All I was going to say is have we figured out the traffic plan yet, what we're going to do with the traffic? Not yet. Not yet.

Going back to the TIF fund, when I was seeing that we had roughly $2 million in expenses, is that what we're holding for Royal, or is that something different?

No, the council had already committed that, so I showed that in there as a commitment for this particular project.

Thank you.

Okay, so let's go on to the next slide. So I just wanted to show kind of in the next couple of slides, this is our estimated reserves for next year compared to our 2026 policy reserves. So that's kind of where we're at. Just a reminder that right now our estimated ending fund balance in stormwater will be below what our policy reserves would require, but I've talked to budget advisory committee and we'll talk about that again here. And then building and permitting, we do have a project, Steve and I have met with a consultant that has done our past fee studies in there and we're talking to them about a proposal to do a more in-depth fee study from what we did last year to make sure that we're getting to that full cost recovery. But back to stormwater, we've been doing a lot of work with the stormwater team to figure out what the requirements are, what the costs are, and a good portion of their day-to-day work. So they estimate 20% of their labor costs are related to repair and replacement to meet the requirements of the permit. And then there's multiple line items in there that are repair and replacement line items. The majority of our reserves are repair and replacement reserves. So we have about 957,000 of that 1.2 million is actually repair and replacement reserves or capital reserves. So that's what council set that reserve up for was to do that type of work. There's also a couple of requests in here for repair and replacement items in the initiative request. So what I'm bringing to council as an option is to do, not to change the financial policy with the reserves, We're growing fast. Stormwater is growing faster because of the permit. And to reduce the requirement from that $1.2 million by $500,000 for the next three years. So each year, whatever we would calculate, it would be $500,000 less. Using those repair and replacement reserves to do that work as we're building up the fund And the other piece to what Steve and I talked with a consultant about is doing a refresh on the stormwater rate model to come to council and kind of talk to you about that. Because in 2023, that was before we were subject to the permit requirements. Now we are subject. We know what it takes. We've got a long-term plan set up. You have presentations on that long-term plan. And we know the compliance steps that we have to take to get there. So it makes sense to do a refresh. When we did the rate model back then, we were guessing. And I hate to say guessing. We did the best... educated guests we could do at the time because we had not been through that. We didn't have a person on staff that had been through that. We now have two people that are running that program that have been there, have run those programs, and are able to contribute into that refresh of the stormwater rate model. So we make sure that we look at that a lot more comprehensively. But because $957,000 of that reserve balance, instead of just letting it sit there, making it work to help us get to that requirement, that's what I'm bringing as an option. We don't need a decision tonight. We just need direction on that, and then I bring it in with the budget proposal and ask for authority at that time.

Just to clarify, so are the key assumptions here, is the assumption we're making is if all of the initiatives are funded, this is what we're looking at, the projected balances are, or is this before that?

This is before that because it's based on operating.

Okay.

So, and to add to the reserve for the stormwater, we're still going to be over what national standards are for reserves in that fund. It's just taking that money and using it for what it's set aside for.

How do we know what the minimum amount for each of those funds needs to be? What is the policy that we've set?

I didn't put that in this. presentation. In the last presentation I had a slide on what GFOA, that's the Government Finance Officers Association, suggests for what you should have. It's about, it's between 13 and 17 percent depending on the fund. We're still going to be, I believe it'll still be in about the 30% range for that particular fund. We won't touch the operating portion of it. We'll only be touching the capital repair and replacement capital portion of that.

So then what I'm hearing is that we've got ample funds to take care of it, and it's just using the ones that we set aside to do that.

That's what the suggestion is to consider. Okay, so these are what we've already handed out to you. So it's just in there for anyone online and then for you to take a look at because it is electronic and it was sent to you previously. Now the one online is updated because there were a couple of changes and I'll go over those when we get to them. Just a couple of different initiatives were changed. So let's go on to the next slide. So now we're on to initiative requests and personnel requests. So our first one is personnel, just kind of a background. We always look at efficiencies first. We look at, is our process efficient? Have we gone through Kaizens to make sure that we're not wasting steps in the process? We look at seasonal and temporary positions, and then we do what's called a project position, which is, what it is is like a sunset position. We have one that expires this year that we're asking to move forward, But what that does is we hire someone on a two-year agreement that that position is there for two years. We prove the need for that position, and then we come back and we ask you to make that a full-time position. So that's kind of the steps that we go through. Efficiency, temporary, project, and then we ask for full-time positions. So that's kind of how we go through so that we make sure that we're always, if we're asking for a position, that's a long-term commitment. we're wanting to make sure that we have shown the need for that position. Any questions on that before we move on? Okay, so let's jump to the next. So this just shows our FTE count comparison from 24 to the estimated of 27. If council approved, there's two positions being asked for, two full-time positions. we would go up to 92.75 if council approved those when the budget's finalized. So let's move on. This is a comparison to other cities. So this, again, it's online for you to take a look at. It just kind of looks at the authorized FTEs, but where it's comparable apples to apples is FTE per 1,000 population. So Ridgefield is 5.40. If you're looking at... say Vancouver at 6.32, Woodland 6.32. The only two that are below us are Battleground and Washougal, which are local, 4.45 and 4.71. So that's the comparables. Then down at the bottom is Ridge Hill Trend. We've averaged between 5.06 to 5.33 through 2025, and then we got additional officers and positions in... so we've jumped up to 5.4. So let's go to the next slide, unless there's questions. If the two positions were approved, we would go back down to 5.32 per thousand, and this is kind of our comparison since 2020. Okay, so let's jump to, and so that's on page three of seven in your packet. So I mentioned the sunset position just a minute ago. The first request is we have a sunset position in the water fund that would expire as of December 31st. Hiring that position has allowed us to be very proactive in what we're doing for maintenance. One of the things that our public works director mentioned is we're on to the point where we're exercising valves and we're going out where we, looking at hydrants and we're able to get through things a lot quicker so that position has allowed us to be proactive instead of waiting until something breaks and then go and fix it so that's the first one that we'll be asking for there is in here you don't see any additional budget request that's because that's already included in the operating budget which was taking today's status and what would it cost to do it next year so no new money asked for there So the next three positions I'm going to do together, two of them are seasonal positions in stormwater. The initial request from stormwater was one seasonal and one full-time position. After we got to talking about it at the management level and then came back to budget advisory committee, it came back from the staff, the supervisors within storm that The initial suggestion was we take the parks position, which is the third one in the storm, and we combine them as one FTE, and they work 50% in each area. The supervisors in both areas said, you know, actually it would be better because they're different skill sets. If we could have a seasonal position, that would be better for us. There's no benefits, so it's also more cost effective. Then the other one was that park seasonal. The final position was a school resource officer. This one would be paid for with a combination. We've applied for a grant. We haven't heard about it. We're supposed to hear about it middle of October. And then also funding from the school district. They have not gotten back to me yet what their budget was for this school year and what they're proposing going forward. So right now I've got it fully funded, half from the school district, half from the grant. I don't know, it could change, but that's that, and what we put that as a suggestion is grant contention.

How long ago was that request submitted to the school district?

We've been talking to them for about three months now, total.

And so what would be, so their budget, like what is the intended use that they have, like why we want to know what their budget is for this?

Because they, when we first talked to them, they offered to pay for the position, for the personnel cost.

Okay. Have they given you an indication on if there was a, if we were to provide an SRO? And what would happen to their current security staff? Because I think that they're in-house employees still, right?

Are they going to keep those in addition to? Part of the security staff would go away, and they would keep just a few at some of the other schools where the SRO would be expected to visit all the schools, but mainly be at the high school from what my understanding was. Okay. So, and then they're asked to us was to pay for the vehicle, all the equipment and the upfitting and the training, um, because they would be an RPD employee. Right. And we would do that ongoing.

And this is just like the whole year? This isn't working out any sort of split between school hours and non-school time? Potentially during the summer, they would have hours to work for RPD. OK.

So there's an MOU that our staff has been working on operationalizing an SRO using models from different jurisdictions, primarily starting with CAMAS and their model for an SRO. but that's a negotiation between the city and the school district that has not been completed. There also is an MOU that's necessary for our guild to make sure that we have worked out the details of operationalizing an SRO for when they're not at the school, what are they doing? What are the expectations? So there are a lot of unanswered questions, which is why this is contingent upon both the grant and the funding from the school district and also the agreements between us and them.

Gotcha. Okay. And just to be clear, we're labeling this grant contingent, right? Yes. Okay.

And of note, I know that this has been a challenge to get that information. I know this is particularly important to the school board, so if that's something that I need to reach out to, I'm happy to do so.

Thank you, Counselor. I have a meeting with the superintendent next week, and I plan to make sure I walk away with that number in my hot little hand.

Okay, any other questions on personnel? So the other thing that we're asking now that we're into new requests for 2027 is if council wants to put something above the line or below the line, and we have actually two things that the advisory committee put below the line in the next section. do you wanna move those up or do you wanna agree and then those would not be requested in the 2027 budget? So is there anything on the personnel request that council does not think should move forward?

Okay, I don't have an opposition with what is being requested. My concern is that we are at about $4.3 million, and then after all the initiatives in the general fund reserve policy, and then after all the initiative and capital projects are incorporated, we're left with a negative balance. And how we're going to fill that, what is the plan, is that sustainable? That's the thing that jumped out to me the most.

I prepared a kind of a flow of all the things that were being asked for from the general fund and the impact in no particular order and of course I didn't print it. So that was to show you so that we kind of, I'll go back to what S&P when we did our credit rating said is one of their concerns was if we continue to dip into reserves that they would have concerns and we do have to go back to them in December. So that is a good point, and I appreciate you bringing that up. So that is something with some of the general fund items that we do need to consider.

That was something we brought up at budget advisory as well, and having some sort of tool to be able to balance it out. Because it was, what, to the tune of 450K-ish?

286 is what we would be negative all in if we put all the capital on initiatives.

I think we should probably keep discussing the other initiatives. Yeah, she's going to bring the general fund. We can come back to that. looking at what came out of budget advisory was being able to say, okay, here's all of these initiatives. Here's what we have for reserve. These are going to dip into reserves. I want to know how much, and then maybe even explore some different scenarios on which like we fund some, not others or whatever was sustainable. I don't know if it's sustainable, like feasible to do every single initiative that's being proposed, but I just want to have a clear picture of that so we can decide how much we're dipping into reserves, knowing that we have to go through the ratings process again and wanting to show up really well for that and make sure the city stays in, That's excellent reading, so yeah.

Okay. So let's jump on to technology initiatives. We have above the line and below the line for this from budget advisory committee. Now, one thing on that, I'm going to back up to the personnel. There is one other position that's asked for is the package with the work transition. We'll talk about that here in a little bit, so. So the technology, the first one is a GIS, and I want to highlight that one specifically because there was another personnel request for a technician to come in and handle putting all of our assets into a GIS system for tracking on the general side, which is streets, parks, trails, things like that. The recommendation was made to not hire a person to do that, but to go through the AWC GIS consortium. Our water and storm team did that over a few year period. and got help from them with the process that they can do there to get it into the system using existing staff, and that eliminated the need for full personnel cost. The cost is 40,000 with the AWC consortium, but we can get all of those assets tracked over a couple year period and get that in the system at a much reduced cost. So that was the recommendation to change that particular request The next one was an AI search engine. And I know at the budget advisory committee, you guys did bring up, is that an external search with a chat bot? Yes, it is. So that's what we would be looking for, to put it on our website so people can go in there, do a search for city documents, and be able to find that a lot easier than phishing through the website. And then finally, a drone purchase to update our drone system because currently our drones are from China and they're no longer supported. And this is grant contingent where the grant will pay 100% of that pending we get the grant. We should find out before the end of the year. And it would buy all new drones. Plus, we have multiple different officers that are trained to run drones, and that would give each one of them the ability to have at least a portion of their drones in their vehicles so that they could respond much quicker.

So follow up on that, too, from budget advisory, because I know that The lieutenant is still here, so maybe he can speak to this. But that is grant contingent. Correct. But my understanding is that the drones that we have existing will be defunct or obsolete before too long. So if we do not get the grant, where does this still fall within the priorities? And are we going to be OK for 27, or do we have a longer runway to do the replacement if we need to?

I defer where we stand with the current drones to the lieutenant. As far as what we would do, we would continue to look for grant funding to cover that.

Yeah, so I guess to answer your question, we do have a longer runway for the current inventory we have. like her saying, the problem we have with our current drones is that they are no longer maintained. So we can buy current drones that we have now, but any drones that are made since about, I think it was last year, January 1st of 2020, last year, we can't buy any new current drones. And then the second issue that we're running into is that any parts replacements, we can't get those parts. Most agencies are kind of holding tight right now because the problem, the The rules within the federal government are still kind of in limbo. They haven't made a decision yet, but we see where it's going. So currently our inventory is still good. The hours are still good on them. It's just knock on wood if they were to crash or have issues, parts and replacement is going to be impossible with the next year or so. So that's kind of where we're struggling at right now.

Other questions on these initiatives, council? So then the two that were below the line, so we want direction on that, is the first one was Placer AI software. The way that it was presented was this was software to help track who's visiting our parks and kind of get an idea of how we can do that. Now, we did a little bit more research into it, including talking to one of the local business developers. who's looking at the same software, it does a lot more than just tracking for parks. It tracks for businesses. It tracks who's coming to the city, who's going away. This would provide data that we could use in grant applications. On federal grants, we get asked a lot of specific data of who is coming in, different income types and things like that. This will provide some of that. It also provides economic development abilities yes so there's things that we can do to help track where you know the types of businesses we may want to get who's leaving the city and where are they going to shop you know are those the different types of businesses we want to bring here so people aren't leaving and shopping elsewhere so we can look at that type of stuff comment was made advisory that it's a little creepy but we're, you know, this is happening. That information is out there anyway. Do we want to use it to help with that? Especially for economic development, you know, and it could help with our parks knowing who visits what, you know, so we can kind of set up our replacement and maintenance schedules accordingly. And it could be used for events and things like that.

What exactly is it tracking? Where is it being stored? What, It's invasive sounding.

It's cell phone data.

Okay. I personally think we could live without that. Let people live their life. We could find out where people are shopping by the tax income that we're generating. That sounds really invasive, but I have other people here who may feel differently. Okay.

Well, just on that note, I just wanted to clarify something you said because I understand that it tracks what's happening in here, but it's not like following someone out where we would know that you went to Target instead of whatever, like how much tracking is happening.

You can say somebody that lives in Ridgefield went and shopped at a different store because, yeah, it does track that.

It tracks the store they went to or it just tracks that they left Ridgefield?

The location that they go to.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, it doesn't get granular down to they don't actually give us information because there are data privacy rules in place. They're not great, but there are data privacy rules that make it so that I wouldn't know it was you that was specifically going that way. They do aggregate the information, but yeah, they do aggregate information. to the level of knowing where someone came from, went to, how much they spent, and how much time they spent. So there is a lot of that information, and I will tell you, retailers use it all the time. Whether you all want to use it in what we're doing, that is a whole different question, because there are a lot of data privacy issues that are being dealt with right now at a lot of different governmental levels of have we allowed too much. But that's policies, that's ultimately for you to decide.

And to that point, I think that's like Mr. Scherer said, it's still data that's being collected and tracked by other groups, businesses, other organizations. It's just whether or not we want to get on that game. I'm with you. I don't know if I want to do that or not, but it's not like it's like we're acquiring new data. We're using existing data that is already widely used across the board.

I think that what makes Ridgefield stand out sometimes is that we don't do what everybody else is doing.

And I guess I'm just curious what exactly, like what is the end result we're hoping for, right? Like are we, it's for business recruitment or it's for? What's another benefit that we're looking to analyze?

I could see, because this is a parks request, I could see it as, and I'm not debating you at all, but my understanding of it is that it would help us optimize what does our park visitorship look like and at what time of year and which parks should we be prioritizing based off of user activity, how many cars are going there, how big do we make the parking lots and bigger and newer parks, things like that. I think there's a lot of information you can glean from that, but again, I'm a little unsettled by how data is acquired and used.

So for the purposes, and again, this is not the final decision on this, but it is something we want to know where you kind of want to head. And just to be clear on this, because the question is like, what's above the line, what's below the line, how the negative dollar amount. And just in talking with Mr. Johnson briefly, just to be crisp on this, we're expecting, you know, in spreadsheets, it says we have about $420,000 worth of new ongoing revenue in general fund. the ongoing requests, the ongoing requests for new personnel, all those, the ongoing is $425,000. So there's a $5,000 delta between those two. The difference is in the one times. So when you're looking at the one times and you're looking at like, how would we not go into, you know, go 300,000 plus into the negative, it's the one times. So when you're talking about, for the place for the AI stuff, that's an ongoing. So if you took that out, now you're 20,000 to the positive on your ongoing.

Just a clarification though, the two that are below the line are not included.

Okay, so then ultimately if you included that, then you would go $30,000 negative on ongoing. But the big ticket item here is the one times. Are there things within the one times, whether they're carry forwards or otherwise, that you would say, okay, maybe we shouldn't do that. Maybe that's something that we could take out, then we're level.

Okay. The second one that's below the line is the car equipment upgrade. That would be adding a two-camera system, one on the dais and one on the public comment and then the computer system and software to run that. This is something, initially it was $50,000 for a four-camera system. We asked them to revise that. It's $42,000 is the quote. The school district has indicated they would not be able to participate in that and don't want to. So this is something that came from council as a maybe. Should we consider that or not?

Yeah, can I speak to that really quick too? This largely came at my request. So coming out of WAVE, one of the things that was included in the original WAVE initiative was to make audio vision improvements and how we conduct public meetings. And so this last year, staff did go and look at, got a couple different estimates. I think they were pushing, some of them were, like Mr. Johnson was saying, some of them were pushing for 50,000. I think the most competitive one was about 42,000. One of the things I've seen over the past few months, even this year, is we have a single camera system, which is fine because it captures everyone in the dais. It doesn't do a close up. But what we don't get is we don't get the back, the look at staff, who's talking from staff, or who's even giving public comments. So having an additional camera or two I think there's a lot of benefit in order to provide that level of transparency in who's speaking and we can see what the public comment is, especially because we've had a lot of public comment. I don't think I want to spend $42,000 on this, but I would like council to consider maybe an amount that would be doable that makes our meetings appear more accessible in that regard.

For the sake of finances have we looked into how an owl could be compatible and move around the room as people are talking so that we're not installing other cameras and why is the school district not interested when they also host meetings here and is there something contractual about that that we should look at the feedback that we received from the school district was that they that they believed the system was adequate

And there's nothing contractual that would require them to upgrade that system. They upgraded the system through the microphones a little bit. They did add a little bit on the camera a while ago. What we heard back is that it was not a priority.

The other thing I was going to throw in there too, and I don't know if this proposal includes that, but originally my thought was about the lighting in here. I know that we all sit on the dais. If there was improved lighting to That's kind of more of an ergonomic thing to me. Sometimes it's a little heavy the way it's positioned. But ultimately, to me, it was about having the cameras and pointing the cameras where we need to see who's speaking in an adequate way. My request would be to move this above the line, not at 42K, but maybe like at 25K.

I guess, what would that get us? What would 25K get us?

Right. We don't know. We don't know. I think we would say we have 25K. What can we get with that? And is that adequate? Did you get a bid for 42K? We already have a bid for, we have two bids, right? One for like 30 something and one for 42. We received a couple of bids and yeah, the

there are somewhere between $40,000 and $50,000 for the three bids that ultimately, because we had two bids, and then we got a third bid from one of the two vendors that we looked at.

Now, just for options, the other thing that we could do is you could direct us to start looking and see what else is out there, and we could come back at supplemental and discuss it at that time.

Yes. You don't want to do that? I said I'm warmer. Oh, yeah, warmer to that.

I'm warm to that as well. Okay, good. And so place or keep that?

The owls are really incredible. It stands on its own. A lot of entities use them. We use them. But the camera moves to where the sound is coming from. So when some, it moves around the room. So I'm thinking if we had it up on the dais, there's public comment. It would stay on public comment. When staff are speaking, it would move. um to where staff are speaking and it works online as well so um maybe we could even do like a trial run where we could borrow somebody's owl during the meeting and see if it works before maybe we invest in our own and significantly lower cost and so last direction for the place your ai stay below the line go above the line we got one below

The Placer AI, the tracking software.

You're going to be tracked everywhere but Ridgefield. You are now.

Is this information?

Not that I'm for it at all, but it happens. You go into a store, you connect, you walk out, you sit down in your car, And you get an ad from them.

And you didn't buy anything or anything else. You were just there. Is this information available anywhere other than we buying this equipment?

If we needed it?

Yeah, it's available from a lot of different vendors, the same as the place or AI. We actually had it at one time through Buxton when we were doing the... research on different businesses and we offered it to the downtown well all the businesses and unfortunately they're a little lukewarm to it are there other municipalities that use it right now uh we could find out i i don't know for sure i would assume so yeah i mean

I'm not saying I agree with it. I mean, it makes sense like during active recruitment of, you know, grocery store, the first grocery store. I mean, to me that had a targeted intention that maybe makes it more palatable, but I just – I'm not sure that juice is worth the squeeze. I mean, I get that it's out there, and Councilor Wells, you're absolutely right. It's creepy sometimes, but I don't know. It just seems like, how are we going to benefit from, is it just to have data for data's sake, or are we trying to really choose something specific?

So unless we heard otherwise, we can leave it below. We can certainly leave it below the line for now, get additional, like get any additional information about who else is using it, and give a little bit more on the potential benefits, but just leave it where it lies for right now, unless I'm not hearing otherwise. Okay.

Okay. All right, let's jump to the next. So a couple different things. Um, yeah, it's at the bottom right side, very small page four of seven. So, um, operating initiatives, um, city facilities. Um, first one is a clean building standard investment grade audit. This gets us compliant with clean building standards for the public works operation center. Second phase of the study that we're finishing up right now. And we have to have this done no later than 2030, but this gives us the ability to look at projects out there and go get grant funding as well. Similar to what we did with Wellband, that they did not do an audit that we were happy with, but this is at a significantly lower cost and targets really just a few things that we want. Have we identified a vendor for this? Yes. OK. It's not Wellband?

No.

OK. City facility, the Public Works ops yard wash rack retrofit. I'm sorry for that title. Initially with budget advisory, this was much higher at $268,000. We got a new estimate today, so it's down to $232,000. Ecology will pay 85% of that. This looks at our wash system for vehicles and equipment. and also meet some of the storm requirements we have out there as well. Otherwise, we can't use this system because the system has failed currently and everything would run off right now. So our take on that is just 34, almost 35,000. Correct. That's our investment. And half of that from general fund and then 25% from water and storm. Okay. And that would get us where we need to go. But then we're going to have to construct it after that. Fleet, we have one pickup. We were looking at getting you more information on the full cost at 95.7. Latest 350 that we purchased was in 2023, and that was 72,000 roughly, and then we would need to put a box on it as well. So with inflation, that's why we're estimating 95.7. We bought a 250 earlier this year. I don't think we put a box on that one, and that one was 75,000. Go ahead, sir.

I'm just, I mean, obviously that's a big dollar amount, and it's not a secret that vehicles are more expensive these days. I guess I'm curious, I mean, so it's an F-350 that's got an upfit. Correct. So it's like a chassis with a box on the back. Mm-hmm. is that something that we'd be able to procure via a lease agreement with something like Penske or Enterprise Truck Rental? It seems like... I'm just seeing it from an opportunity to have some relief as a one-time expense, even for a year or two.

It is possible to do a lease-to-own type. We are looking at that for the... the lift that we are purchasing that council approved in 2026, and then we've done that for our back truck and our sweeper. But typically when you do that, it's usually approaching 200,000 or more that you're doing that, because the cost can be pretty high. With this, the money is already set aside in the Equipment Replacement Fund, and it is replacing a vehicle that we're having significant maintenance issues right now. And we do need the towing capability. That's the reason for the...

I mean, I guess I'm not arguing that the replacement, just maybe the method that it's replaced.

So we've looked at vehicle lease programs, like lease programs in the past. We can bring you the information on that because that is something that we've looked into. in the not-too-distant past that we can get you more on?

It'd be good to know just, again, because if it could provide a flexible option that gets the job done and gives us that one-time expense relief, then maybe, I don't know, maybe it's an option.

How long do we keep a vehicle? This vehicle would be listed at 12 years. And then when we get to that 12-year time period, we start looking at do we have significant miles and or maintenance issues. If we don't, then we extend that out longer. Thank you. Final one on this page is... Lighting replacement for the route jurisdiction transfer. This is the lights at the junction that were supposed to be transferred over to us when they transferred the road. We are packaging this with the pit because they still have to transfer that to us. So we're still working through some information on that. But this is the estimate for getting those lights over onto the city side versus WSDOT. It's running off of their network right now, so it has to be rewired and wired into the city system. We would come back to you, yes.

I'll ask it just because it was mentioned before too. Is this something that because we don't know, instead of budgeting for it now, would this be something that we'd want to consider as a supplemental if and when it did happen next year?

That's a possibility. We were asked by WASDOT to include this in the 2026 budget. At that time, we told them we didn't have the funding to do that, so they allowed us to move it a year. So again, that's part of the discussions we're already having with them and the rest of the transition.

We've also asked them to finalize the surveying work and so that we can get the pit that has to be transferred as well and that work is apparently started but we have no certainty as to when or if that will occur as well. And there's an appraisal necessary on that. They have given us no estimate of when that will occur, what the appraised value of the pit would be. So there's still significant negotiating points beyond what they have asked us.

Okay. Obviously some give and take there. I'm just thinking of other ways that, you know, like I'm, again, highly cognizant of the impact to our reserve balance and a way to like looking at strategies for how we kind of like can work around this. And I'm also wondering, is this something that some of these jurisdictional transfers that would still have to occur, like the cost for the appraisal and all of that stuff, is that something that we could also include as a request to the legislature next year? I understand that that would compete with maybe other legislative priorities we have, but throwing it out there for consideration as well. Yeah.

Okay, that's all. So leave it? Yeah, I just leave it, yeah. Okay. So next one is packaging all of the transportation benefit district. And then I do have the Hall and Elm, the final pieces to that, because there's a significant portion of Hall and Elm being funded by the TBD. So the top three are that million dollars that council directed us to put into pavement preservation. So it's a pavement preservation program, Sargent Street, and then Union Ridge Parkway design. Those two projects specifically were already budgeted to come out of what initially was a $600,000 amount, and then council asked us to increase that to a million. So that's why it's kind of broken out the way that it is. We wanted to show a couple of those projects because they're also carry over projects that have been on council's radar for a while. And then we have the sidewalk preservation for the ongoing work that council asked us to increase that to 100,000, and then a one-time request for the downtown sidewalk replacement, which will come to you, I believe it's in October, correct, Ryan? To make a final decision on that, but that's setting aside a separate pool of one-time money to get that done so we still have money for other sidewalk repairs as needed.

So, again, $200,000 would be budgeted one time, $100,000 one time, $100,000 ongoing for sidewalks next year. And does that, what does that, how far does that get us?

That will come back to you in October.

Okay. Yeah.

Okay. So, and then the final one of the TBD is the Hall and Elm road improvements, and I'll cover that with everything below as well. About $668,000 is the road improvements. portion of that that will be paid from TBD. That'll include some part of the storm. And then the CDBG grant will be a little over $232,000 for storm and then some water improvements for $200,000. But that shows that your TBD funding is working for just under $1.9 million total for next year. Any questions on any of that? And then on to our park and trail. The first one is the project we heard about with the RCO grant earlier this year. Council's aware that we got $500,000 dedicated from RCO now. This is the first phase of the Abrams Park renovations for just over $507,000. The estimate for the grant portion of that in 2027 is just under 150,000 with the rest of that coming from general fund. But that's also money that had been set aside for some Horns Corner work and Hayden Park work that we reallocated to this project once we got the grant, because those other two were all grant contingent. So the full project expense over the two years is 1.3 million. And then park and trail signage, this is replacing parks and trails phase one in community parks, estimate is $84,000, of which we're putting this as a revenue contingent. So we would need to get revenue donations to cover those signs. Otherwise, the project does not occur. So it's not coming from general fund. It says general fund, but it's just flowing through general fund. But we would have to get revenue to make this one work. Horns Corner Inclusive Design Playground. You're all aware that we've applied for an RCO grant for this one. Then also we have a potential in-kind equipment donation to do a presentation of the inclusive playground at Horns Corner. And then it would take an additional $62,440 next year from General Fund. And it is grant contingent to get the RCO grant and make sure that everything's signed and agreed to with the playground donation.

And then... Before you leave that, we won't know that, by the way, the grant contingency on that, we won't know until after the legislative session because it's contingent upon the funding levels that the legislature employs for the RCO program.

So this is similar to how we did the two projects last year where you said it's grant contingent, grants don't come in, we just don't do the projects.

What is the in-kind value of that structure?

Do either of you know? 200. Was it 200,000? Okay. Oh, I had that in there, okay. So the final one is the recreation and community center pre-opening services estimated, and this comes from an estimate from the facility operator that we're negotiating with, 1.7 million. This would come from general fund and donations. We're putting this as $1.3 million is contingent on getting donations. Basically, that's the amount of the fixtures, furniture, and equipment. And we would have to get donations to pay for that. Otherwise, we'll bump that to the following year and work on donations for that then. $400,000 would cover the services that the facility operator would start as part of the pre-opening to help us get to opening for the facility. And then finally, work transition. So a couple good things that came out of this after the Budget Advisory Committee is we looked at the revenue potential here. The initial revenue projection was based on what we've seen the school district bring in over the last couple of years, and the average, which was 185,000, So we started to look at, okay, if we do transition and we accept doing this, what would the priority user fees for the school district be? Because as a priority transition, they wouldn't be responsible for 40% of the expense, but they would have a revenue that they would have to pay, an expense they'd have to pay and rent the fields. So we estimated that out at a conservative using a priority user fee structure at $42,000 for them. And then we looked at how much does a field availability come out with them not blanket approving or reserving the fields. And we estimated that out, but we took a really conservative about 50% of what we estimated could come at $18,000. with that the transition actually pencils revenue covers the full cost of running that we're estimating 300 000 to run that this is where that other position comes in it would be a full-time parks maintenance worker that would be dedicated to the rorke i know the school district has 1.5 currently but they have never When I see the numbers that they send to us, they have never used a full one time, even a full FTE out there. So we would dedicate and then for the times like preparing for seasons and things like that, operations has talked about they could, reallocate some of the other staff there for a day or two just to get things up, and then the other person could manage that during their schedule. That would include the purchase, a one-time purchase of a pickup for that particular person at 55,000, so some of that cost would come down. And then ongoing operations, and again, this is based on what we've seen charged to us and what the pro forma shows that the school district gives us and what we're estimating the cost would be at 140,000 for operations. But we would actually see a benefit when you take into account we already had 75,000 in the budget for maintenance if we just kept work

as is where the school district ran it we paid our 60 percent we would actually cover all costs and see a benefit to us go ahead when we talk about full cost recovery does that include future capital replacement major repairs equipment or is this just talking about the day-to-day operation currently it's just day-to-day and then we would have to work on a model

Again, that's something that we're looking at. What we want to do is set a benchmarking of what our fees are comparable to other facilities that are the same. And we've talked to the firm that Steve and I talked to earlier this week about looking at that. And then after running it for a year, then set up a fee schedule for that based on usage and things like that with the idea that we're also looking at that repair and replacement and starting to set aside money every year for that.

So the school district would go from essentially like a part owner of the RORC to just being another priority user. Is that essentially what it's going to happen? So we're going to start. So like that 60-40 split we've had for O&M cost before, we're going to take 100% of that. But they don't pay for usage fees right now, but they will have to pay for their usage fees, correct? Correct. OK. Seems like a good deal to me for them.

Okay, so onto the, no other questions? Okay, so onto the last couple of the utility requests. The first one is the refuge park test well, estimated at 1.7 million. This would be to design and construct the test water well at the refuge park site to see viability. That would be estimated to be completed fourth quarter of 2028. Then the final two storm projects in both of these fit within that reserve option that I gave you for being repair and replacement. The first one is South 13 Circle Stormwater Design, better known as Garrison Ridge. $270,000, $228,000 of that's coming from a grant we got from Ecology to repair that existing stormwater facility. Um, and then finally annual stormwater facility rehabilitations. This is setting up a proactive line item. That's always there. Doesn't mean the 75,000 they're asking for is ongoing. It doesn't mean that they're going to use it every year. It just means it's available. so that they can go in and start to fix things well ahead of them failing. This is similar to what we started to set up probably in the last four to five years in the water fund where we set up wellhead maintenance, we set up telemetry maintenance, different things like that. This is part of that stormwater plan that they set aside to make sure that we're staying compliant with the permit, but getting ahead of things before the cost goes up. So, That's everything there. So I guess now the question is back to general fund. You did get handed out finding, thank you, Julietta, for getting that. um these are kind of the items i didn't put them in any particular order it just kind of flowed with what was on the spreadsheet so i'm not saying they're priorities or not priorities but if you want to try to get that that amount in general fund back to a positive balance this is hopefully a tool that can help And then just finally on the next study session we have, October 17th I believe it is, that's when I'll have the final revenue projection. So if there's any significant changes, we'll know at that time before we actually publish the budget what the revenues are. With some of the changes in the economy over the last couple days, there could be some forecasted changes there.

I don't know how to best do this because, again, what I was hoping to see was, okay, here's what our fund balances are, here's what the initiatives are if we take these out, and you say we fund these ones but maybe not these ones or kind of figure out how to get that general fund closer to zero.

So let me explain how I tried to do this. I've got the ongoing expense in one column, one-time expense, and then any revenue that may come with that particular request, and then the available fund balance at the very top, And then as each of these hit, if they're approved, what the fund balance would be at that point.

OK, that's helpful.

But I thought that the drone purchase was all grant. So I mean, does that help us much? from like avoiding if it's all grant?

No, I just put everything that was related to the general fund in there. We do have a few things that are neutral because we get funding in from external that covers the entire cost.

I mean, the one that immediately solves the problem is some sort of adjustment to the Abrams Park renovation project. And I mean, I don't, we got grant money and I don't like, I'm not saying to like turn down the grant, but is there a way we can scale that project so that, We can take full advantage of the grant opportunity, but maybe not tip as much into general. Just trying to think outside the box.

So unfortunately, with that particular grant, we are not allowed to change the scope at all from when we put in the application.

But we can talk about the timing of it.

Yeah, we can. the grant, I believe, has two years to use it. So we could scale some of that back to 2028 and then see how we're going. And we can look for other funding sources to match that as well.

So, yeah, we asked as far as, like, can we change the scope on that one? The answer was no, but it is a two-year cycle, and it is something we can look at the timing on and look at, like, what we're doing in this first year versus in the second year of it as well. So, yeah, there is something we could look at for you and show you. We'd have to bring it back, but we can show you something.

OK. I mean, again, this is just me. So I don't necessarily want to ask staff if nobody else is in support. But I feel like that maybe has the best opportunity with flexibility to maybe help get us back to neutral.

I mean. Just kind of putting it out there for you guys, there's a few that actually can do that, right? If you look at it, there are some of them that bring revenue with them. So, for example, Abrams has a grant that's associated with it, so you have to balance out how do we make sure we don't lose that money in what we're doing. So we can look at that and bring that back to you to lower the overall outlay on that. Same thing with the... the the horns corner inclusive playground horns corner inclusive playground outlay only exists if we get the rco grant right now it's an if uh we don't know if we're at a funding level that we're kind of on the cusp so we may we may not know that until we get to the supplemental which is something that we could then bring it back to you and say okay well we found out about it because it's a full I'm trying to think, is it a full budget year this next year? Yeah, so it's a full budget year. They're not even gonna be done with their budget at the state level until we get to supplemental. So, I mean, that can be pulled because you're not gonna, you need it until supplemental. The rec pre-opening services. The FF&E doesn't have to happen next year. It's one of the conversations we've had is that opening for the community recreation center isn't slated until November of 2028. So do you need the furniture and all those things in the FF&E in 2027? No, you don't. Is that something you can take down? Same thing with the pre-opening services. Is that something that we can negotiate with the operator? Yes, that's something that we can negotiate out with the operator. All of these things can be put into play. Even the downtown lighting and those aspects of it, we can say, all right, well, we got a grant on that. We can do some of the work on that, but maybe we don't finish all of it, and we stretch that timeline as far as our spending. It really is just you looking at it and saying, all right, well, where do you want us to find flexibility? Where do you want us to tighten our belts in this that can provide the best potential outcome?

Okay, thank you. Yeah, I was just looking at the pre-opening for the RCRC. I do think we should push that. Personally, I think that if we're not opening until later, Or I just need a better picture on what revenue contingent means and how we're finding said revenue.

I share those same sentiments. I think Abrams Park has been on the map for a really long time. I think we can do away with that. Oh, no, we already took that off. Never mind. that's a pretty hefty amount of money to look at for a 2027 budget when that's not coming to fruition until 2028. So that makes the most sense to find some flexibility there.

I would just wait the rest of the council.

I would, I would agree. I guess the one caveat I would want to make sure especially with the startup stuff, I don't want to ask them to push so far that they don't have enough runway to make it successful upon opening. So I'd really want to know, ask those questions like, okay, what does this look like? And maybe it's just digging in on how much time they need. I agree that I think that is a source to be flexible, absolutely. I think the furniture piece especially, when you talk about the firm that's going to be opening it in that, I want to make sure they're set up for success. I'm not saying we can't push back on a little bit of that, but that's one that I'm maybe more hesitant on because I want to make sure they've got the runway so that they're ready to go on day one and we haven't shorted them on the time they need.

We literally had a meeting today talking about what are the next steps in the conversation with the potential operator. You know, through the ratings review process, we've selected one that we believe would be a good fit. We are now entering into kind of the scoping for contract negotiations. And then that contract would then come to you. Now, as part of that, like, those questions, the questions that you had asked about like, all right, what do we really need in 2027? What does revenue contingent mean? Because we've already had some preliminary conversations with the potential operator about how they help get that FF&E for, especially for the health equipment, the fitness equipment, and how they actually work partnerships and sponsorships for that. But that's ongoing. So we can absolutely get you more information on that. We can also get information on how are we doing it in a way that assures success. So yeah, both of those things we can get information on. And yes, there's definitely flex within that. Anytime you get a number that big and it's that early in the process, yes, absolutely, we can dig in on that for you. What other items on there that you have general fund impacts would you like us to kind of dig in on a little bit? Because you don't have to say yes or no, it's more about like where do you want us to get to dig in and see where we can find some flex, get a little tighter. And then we'll show you what that numbers look like once we get to that.

I think I would just echo what Councillor Fevella said earlier about the ROARC and just understanding the longer term costs associated with something that popped up in my head as well.

Well and I'll be honest with you that exists regardless of whether we take on this transition or not because the contractual obligations for the city and the school district are to share in those replacement costs for major capital pieces like turf. So it is a great question and one that regardless of what we do with the transition has to get answered. I think our perspective has been we have a better shot at actually us having control over getting the sinking fund setup and putting money into it, if we are in control of that, historically, the school districts take on how they would manage that for their part of any capital would be that they would use some sort of capital levy or other funding source to be able to get that. Now, whether that is this administration's priority, I would say I would be doubtful of that.

You bring up a good point, though, because you bring up turf. We know that the turf is going to have to be figured out definitely really soon. So we take this on and then, well, on the baseball field, it's got anyway. Um, we need to figure out those costs so that we're not taking this on and then you guys are coming back later on and saying, oh, now we need this next astronomical amount of money to get all these things replaced when we didn't talk about it before.

So we do have, there is a good capital replacement schedule for the turf because it is the largest piece of it. They've done two different analyses on it. We can bring those to you of like, The only reason I shrug about the near term is that, yes, the baseball field has had hotspot needs, and there are a couple of hotspots on the other fields, but the analysis from the turf manufacturer and installer is that you have 10 to 15 years on most of the turf still, that they have that amount of life in it. So we'll bring all of that to you, though.

The RORC is, the way I see it, is sort of like a three-part conversation. The part that we're discussing today really is about the budget impacts for 2027. And so that's what I think staff has outlined here. But that doesn't tell the whole story because I think there's the other part of it is like what is all of the details of that transfer agreement and who takes on what and how does that balance out? And we have a whole number here, but I don't think we have additional context. And then we have the O&M piece that you're talking about where we are going to have to make those investments going on. That's going to surpass 2027, so we want to know that too. Trying to be mindful of that this is a budget conversation. I think initially I'm good with this, but I do have a lot of questions pertaining to those details as they come to us. I think we're going to need to get two down the road, and it sounds like we will before we ratify the budget anyways, right?

From my perspective, we need to. I think having those questions answered for you before you start putting money to it makes really good sense. And also, again, this is just the budgetary component. If there is no transfer agreement that gets signed between the school district and the city, then none of this would actually get spent. We'd be status quo in this coming forward. And that may be the case that there may be a runway, kind of an off ramp, on ramp for that, where it does change when money would get spent because when the actual services changed hands, like scheduling, maybe scheduling doesn't happen on January 1, that it changes to the city. Maybe it takes time for that. We don't know that yet, but those are definitely, from my perspective, questions we need to bring to you to get answered prior to budget adoption.

I do appreciate that, Mayor, because that was something that I pointed out is making sure that we're considering the ongoing and operating and maintenance costs of each project, whether it's a trail, a new facility, or whatever it is, that we're accounting for the cost of maintaining the assets that we're bringing in and making sure that we can visibly see what that looks like down the line. And then, Mr. Johnson, just going back, I know we talked about this last time, but I just want to bring it up one more time. The building and permitting fund, we really need to have a plan on that structural issue and how we're going to figure that out.

Yeah. And that's what I had mentioned earlier with talking with the consultant. So what we're going to do is they're, preparing a proposal to have to us within a month to look at that as the priority. So it's a multi-pronged discussion. So we're gonna look at that, the stormwater rate model, then we're gonna look at indirect cost plan and long-term financial projections, which could include sinking funds and things like that. But in that order, priority is building and planning. That is something I've talked with Mr. Stewart. really good progress on reducing their expense so far so we bought down that delta from where we were going to be there's still work to do and we will have to come to you part of that there's options that we can do and we'll show those to you later but the the fee part of it will not be resolved this year that the timeframe to do a good quality analysis is four to six months.

So our goal is going to be by the middle of next year that we have implemented changes that have been brought to council for your review and deliberation that whatever those changes are that they're taking into account and start taking effect by the middle of the year. So that by the time we get to the end of next year, we're seeing that the deficit coming down.

Other questions at this point, council? Any comments or thoughts as to what's been presented so far? OK.

So what I've heard so far on this is not necessarily moving anything below the line, but coming with maybe some options for phasing Abrams Park, which is a little bit more beneficial to moving it back to 2028. And then also the pre-opening services, looking at how we can phase that, mainly for the pre-opening for the operator part of it, because the other part we had already made revenue contingent. But looking at that and seeing, you know, where can we go and what's the timing so that we can come back to you. Is that correct?

Is that something that you will be bringing back to us as far as like how to get that that closer to zero out, then you're gonna explore the Abrams Park and some of these other initiatives about how to make them so we don't go so far into the policy reserves? That's the question.

So the question is the research exercises. So there's two different things. One, we can work on specific aspects of it, but two, are we trying to get to zero? Are we trying to zero out and not dip into reserves? Is that our goal?

I mean, I keep thinking that we have to go through rating again. And so to me, I don't want to go into reserves because I don't want to hurt our rating. But if you're saying we can go and there's a certain threshold we could go into reserve for some of those things that are necessary, I'm open to that conversation. I just don't know.

So the two things that I understand they're going to ask us, since we've already been through a recent rating, So they're going to ask us what's our budget to actual for this year and then what's our budget that council approved for next year. So they're going to look at how do we finish the year out, which we're going to finish out okay. I mean, I've already shown that we are going to have a positive amount this year, mainly because, you know, they don't need to know it was because of unfilled positions and there's a couple of projects we didn't do. And the staff have done a really good job of holding the line on expense. They're only buying things if they need it. So we've done our job, but they're also going to look at 2027 and say, okay, again, you're budgeting to get into reserves. So that's a consideration we have to make.

I'm of the mindset I think the goal should be to zero out. I'm not saying that that's like – be all end all but i want to go and see what that looks like i i would love to see that i see what that looks like for sure yeah and then maybe we start from there like zero and then we can say what we'd want to dip into from there yeah i guess what our comfort zone is to to inch back up but i i want to see what it takes to get to zero so and then if council

Looking to you guys, is that satisfactory to you?

Yes, I think it's very, very important that we do what we've done in the past, which is be conservative and on point and to your point. Go to zero if we can do it. I do not want to see our credit ratings suffer because we're overspending or not paying attention to what we always have.

I also want to be mindful that we're not going to take things out of the budget now just to make sure we can get a good bond rating and then have to go and we're worse off 2027 going into 2028 because now we put ourself behind because we took all these things out of budget just to get a good bond rating. So I think we need to look at the future, what we're going out to bond for, all the projects that we do have in the future and stop taking things off the table to make it good for right now. And we need to do what's good for five, 10 years down the line so that we're not putting ourselves in a bigger hole every single year.

I would agree with that. I think I just want to be my, like this council has been, I think what I would consider, um, very conservative with its, with its fiscal policy, um, in the past to make sure we are really well funded reserves. I think we have good reason for that. I think that this generation of this council has carried that forward. So I'm not interested in breaking that precedent, but I also want to make sure that we adequately fund, the priorities that we have, and if that means going into reserves. I want to see it zeroed out, but I also want to see what the different options are for how far low we... How do we stay as close to zero as possible, essentially?

Yeah, I mean... Yeah, I don't think that mine was necessarily... against that. It's just knowing what it looks like. What does it look like? Because they might show us a picture where we're still making the investments. It tweaks something here and there, and it makes it so we zero out, but we're still taking care of the future, and we're good with that. Maybe we're not good with that, and we're like, okay, let's consciously add back. That's the plan that I think makes the most sense.

Okay. Other questions or comments at this point, counsel? OK. You might do this, but before we wrap up, I'd love to just see what's next. What is the next touch that we have here, and what are we discussing?

So good segue. So in October, we have the budget advisory committee meeting on 10-6. I'll do an updated revenue forecast at that time, and then also bring that to the council study session on the 17th. at that point we should have all of this kind of tied together and we'll bring back those couple things and try to look with the goal to zero but make sure that we're being strategic. Now the one thing kind of to add to that conversation is We've used reserves in the past, and what we did in the ratings presentations is we really talked about why are we using them and what strategic reason we're using them. So if we dip into reserves, that's the focus we need to do is how are these a strategic use of the reserves? And that's a message that we carry through. Is it not the 17th? You don't want to come on a Saturday? 4 p.m. on a Saturday to do budget conversation?

You don't want to do that? What's your commitment?

We will change that.

So, and this is a question kind of preceding that and looking ahead, but you don't have to answer it now, but we talked about new revenue options in the spring. Looking ahead to the revenue forecast, the updated revenue forecast, will it include some of those new revenue options as scenarios, or is that gonna be a?

We can come to council with options, but until council gives direction to move forward on new revenue options, no, it won't include them. We can include revenue options with potential projections, and then we can add that in if we get the direction, yeah.

What would be the appropriate point for us to consider new revenue options in this cycle? Now? Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. Probably coming to council sometime in October. I know the second meeting in October is pretty light currently, so maybe that's the appropriate one to come to you.

We can even include it in the study session on the 17th.

Yeah.

Yeah. I just recall talking about it in May and want to make sure that we had a chance to consider that. Cause I know that there were some different options, but I'm not keen on like adding more taxes or fees, but, um, if it kind of helps with some of this stuff, I'm open to the discussion. Yeah. Yeah.

And we, and you did give us direction. Council gave us direction to do research on those we have. So we have information that we can provide and certainly we can, think strategically about how we present it and what we're presenting it for because we're not doing it to balance the budget, you're balancing the budget. That's clear in what you've already directed us and we're already pretty much there. So what are the strategic investments that would be prioritized by any new revenue? So is that kind of the angle, like the avenue that we would want to be pursuing is kind of thinking of those longer term investments and thinking more strategically about how are we funding those longer term larger

Yeah, I think so.

Okay. We'll look at that and we'll talk about it in briefings to make sure we're hitting the marks. Okay.

So for the good of the order, unless you have more, I'm assuming you don't have any more. Okay. No. Lee.

I've been through my order in the water. I use that cliche all the time, but I think we need to see with a conservative view. I've been talking to a lot of the contractors and they're all pretty busy right now, but they have nothing in their pipelines for next year. And so I don't know whether that's an indicator of what things are going to be doing, but it's not normal for this time of year that they're not getting something and everybody's getting nothing. They're doing really good. The weather's cooperated with them And they're doing good, but once the rains start, they're going to be tightening their belt or eliminating employees right and left.

Which the irony of that is it's also the best time to invest then.

That's the irony.

It's because on the public sector side, the time when we get the most work done is when that occurs because then the bids come in better. So it's sort of macabre, but it also, on the other side of it, it keeps people employed. It keeps those contractors working. And so all those private employers that might be laying people off, if you strategically invest... and infrastructure for the public side, you end up actually keeping people working, and you build the infrastructure people need.

But then a lot of our residents in the community are paying $7 for diesel. Fair enough. $6 for gas, or almost.

The good news is the sales tax is coming from all those people that don't even live in Ridgefield.

Right, well, yeah, but... Everybody's tightening their belts. We'll track them, yeah. Eating tough ramen for dinner.

Well, luckily the people that are working for the contractors would actually still be employed and actually could afford to keep their families fed.

Yeah.

Okay. Any other remaining questions or comments, council? All right, I think we're good. Thank you, Mr. Johnson, to you and your staff for the hard work so far. And we're going to adjourn this study session. We'll be coming back to council meeting next week. Thank you very much.