[0:16] >>We are calling this wonderful

[0:18] meeting to order. It's a great

[0:20] day. If anyone wishes

[0:21] to address the city council

[0:22] on any item considered

[0:23] at this meeting before or

[0:24] during council's consideration

[0:26] of that item,

[0:28] please enter your name

[0:29] in the electronic kiosk located

[0:30] in the lobby. The City council

[0:32] will allocate up to a maximum

[0:33] of 3 minutes per speaker

[0:34] for each agenda item. Staff

[0:35] reports are available online

[0:37] at the city's website,

[0:39] cityofredding.gov and in the

[0:40] public view binder located

[0:42] on the podium

[0:43] at the north side

[0:44] of the chamber. How many

[0:49] speakers yet? Now we got one.

[0:54] There was no reportable action

[0:59] for closed session. Yep, yep.

[1:01] We are going. Pledge

[1:05] of allegiance. Then Patrick

[1:06] Blewett will give us the

[1:08] invocation.

[1:09] >>Ready?

[1:15] >>I pledge allegiance to the

[1:16] Flag of the United States of

[1:17] America and to the Republic

[1:19] for which it stands, one

[1:21] Nation under God, indivisible,

[1:22] with liberty and justice for

[1:25] all.

[1:33] >>Let's pray as we prepare

[1:35] for this city council meeting.

[1:37] Lord, we ask for your comfort

[1:39] and your wisdom. First, we ask

[1:40] for your comfort and care as

[1:43] many grieve the Charlie Kirk

[1:45] tragedy and prepare

[1:47] for his funeral on Saturday.

[1:49] We acknowledge,

[1:52] like the governor of Utah said,

[1:54] many people love Charlie and

[1:56] what he stood for and many

[1:57] people hated him and what he

[2:01] stood for. That polarization

[2:04] grieves us and it grieves you

[2:07] too. Lord, we acknowledge that

[2:10] part of the fabric of America

[2:13] has been torn. Please forgive

[2:15] us and mend us together as your

[2:19] one people. Oh Lord, give us

[2:21] the grace to allow people

[2:23] to respond and grieve different

[2:26] in different ways. Give us the

[2:28] strength to hold our tongues

[2:30] and be gracious when people

[2:31] view the situation differently

[2:34] than us. Give us the courage to

[2:36] speak our own minds when

[2:38] appropriate. Give us the

[2:39] ability to hear each other

[2:42] with our hearts,

[2:43] not just our ears. I would ask,

[2:46] Lord, that you guide us past

[2:51] the grief borne language

[2:52] of we are Charlie and

[2:54] into a chorus

[2:55] of distinct voices

[2:57] in mourning. You have made us

[2:58] each different and you have

[3:01] made us neighbors. We all

[3:04] desire your blessing

[3:06] to be free from fear,

[3:09] to flourish as a community and

[3:11] to know your peace, O Lord.

[3:13] Lord, we ask that you make us

[3:16] peacemakers

[3:17] in this angry world. Second, we

[3:20] humbly ask

[3:22] for wisdom as members

[3:23] of the community. Give us

[3:25] creativity to dream

[3:26] about what reading can become.

[3:28] Give us patience with one

[3:30] another and give us freedom

[3:32] to dream together. Lord, we ask

[3:34] that you give this council

[3:36] wisdom as they make decisions

[3:38] that affect this community now

[3:40] and for years to come. Give

[3:42] them ears to hear each other

[3:43] and give them ears

[3:45] to hear the people of Redding

[3:49] so We invoke your blessing now

[3:51] on these proceedings. And we

[3:52] ask this in the name of Jesus

[3:54] and God's people said, Amen.

[3:55] All right,

[3:56] let's sit down.

[4:01] >>All right,

[4:03] we got two speakers. Nick,

[4:07] you're up first. Oh, what?

[4:09] Okay, sorry. Roll call.

[4:10] >>[ ROLL CALL ]

[4:28] >>Thank you. Now, public

[4:32] speakers. Nick, you can be

[4:33] first. Steve, you're up second.

[4:40] >>Well, Barry's retiring,

[4:41] and I wanted to go over some

[4:42] of the accomplishments he's

[4:43] made since he's been our city

[4:45] manager. You know,

[4:48] since he took over, Redding's

[4:49] starting to look

[4:51] like a banana republic. The

[4:52] homeless population has

[4:54] exploded. And, you know, out

[4:55] of the area,

[4:59] parolees have been welcomed

[5:01] to our community. And I know

[5:04] that Barry and a lot

[5:07] of other people are aware

[5:08] of it,

[5:10] but they keep denying it.

[5:11] But it's gotten

[5:12] to the point even the out of

[5:13] town parolees are getting

[5:14] angry. You're letting so many

[5:16] enter our community. It seems

[5:19] to me that he did keep the

[5:22] local economy moving because.

[5:25] Especially if you're in the

[5:27] glass replacement business,

[5:28] because of all the homeless and

[5:29] the vagrants throwing rocks

[5:31] through our glasses. And the

[5:32] guys that build fences, iron

[5:34] fences, around our businesses

[5:35] to protect them,

[5:36] they've done awfully well,

[5:39] too. They've kept the police

[5:40] busy hurting the homeless

[5:42] around. And the fire

[5:43] department, you know,

[5:45] two thirds of their calls are

[5:46] for warming fires

[5:47] by the homeless. It doesn't

[5:49] seem like anybody wants

[5:50] to address that. I ran

[5:52] into a police officer at

[5:54] Costco right around Christmas

[5:56] time,

[5:58] and I asked him what percentage

[5:59] of the calls would he credit

[6:01] to homelessness? The homeless

[6:05] people? I said 50%. He said,

[6:06] no way. More than that. Seems

[6:08] to me a city manager would get

[6:09] on top of that problem and

[6:11] protect their citizens

[6:12] from the problems they create.

[6:14] You know, our sports park went

[6:17] to hell during Barry's tenure

[6:22] as city manager. And. But, you

[6:25] know, one part of our economy

[6:29] that really blossomed is the

[6:31] need for private security. And

[6:33] then I. I wonder about the

[6:36] public private partnerships

[6:38] that seem to come into vogue

[6:41] with Barry. The one that comes

[6:42] to mind to me is Block 7, where

[6:44] two blocks in City of Redding

[6:46] was more or less given away

[6:48] for just a penance. And it was

[6:50] developed by a couple

[6:52] of private entities, and Barry

[6:55] referred to it as a public

[6:58] private partnership.

[7:01] But the city of Redding's name

[7:02] isn't on any deeds,

[7:04] and they're not getting any

[7:05] of the profits or any

[7:06] of the rents or anything. And I

[7:08] wonder whose idea it was to

[7:10] Make Redding a bicycle town. I

[7:12] haven't found anybody that is

[7:14] really in favor of it. And then

[7:16] we've got rebates on bikes,

[7:18] actually giving bikes away and

[7:21] cars away. And now they want an

[7:23] increase

[7:25] in electricity costs. And

[7:27] on top of that,

[7:28] we had the sports park,

[7:31] the soccer loan for about three

[7:34] and a half million dollars,

[7:35] I think it was, didn't pay

[7:36] back,

[7:37] but now they want an increase.

[7:38] And on top of that,

[7:40] he did do well

[7:41] with the government employees.

[7:42] $20 million worth of raises

[7:43] in the last two or three years.

[7:44] Thank you.

[8:00] >>Good morning, council staff,

[8:05] community members. Nick, I'm

[8:06] sorry, but Barry doesn't make

[8:07] any of those decisions. Those

[8:08] are all city council decisions.

[8:09] So anyway,

[8:11] about eight years ago,

[8:12] seeing all the crime that was

[8:13] in the streets at that time,

[8:14] I started coming

[8:15] to these meetings. And so I

[8:18] decided to figure out what was

[8:19] going on. I figured I had

[8:20] to come to these meetings.

[8:23] What were the causes

[8:25] of the huge amount of crime?

[8:26] This was not the city

[8:27] in the county I grew up in.

[8:29] This was something closer to

[8:35] larger cities and areas that

[8:37] are crime infested. So that I

[8:39] could learn more

[8:40] about the situation, I came

[8:41] to the council meetings,

[8:42] and while

[8:43] at the council meetings,

[8:44] I met people like Nick Gardner

[8:45] and was learning that were,

[8:46] you know, instrumental

[8:47] in speaking and involved

[8:48] in the city and speaking

[8:49] to some of them.

[8:51] In those discussions, I found

[8:52] out it was this easy problem

[8:54] that. That basically the devil

[8:56] incarnate was our City manager,

[8:57] Barry Tiffin, that he was the

[9:00] problem in all this. So that

[9:01] being the case, I decided

[9:03] to confront Barry about some

[9:06] of the problems that existed.

[9:08] Now,

[9:13] to say that the city manager,

[9:15] you know, creates all these

[9:16] problems is kind of ridiculous

[9:17] because he simply presents

[9:18] information

[9:19] to the city councils, and the

[9:20] city council basically makes

[9:23] all the decisions that Nick

[9:24] Gardner just mentioned. So

[9:30] shoot. So anyway, I asked him

[9:36] about some of the different

[9:37] problems that I saw, and Barry

[9:38] always had a good explanation

[9:40] and he always had a good

[9:42] rationale as to why those

[9:43] decisions were made. I came

[9:45] to respect his decisions, and I

[9:46] found that usually when I

[9:47] disregard disagreed with him,

[9:49] I hadn't taken into

[9:51] consideration everything. I've

[9:52] come over time to respect

[9:57] Barry as city manager

[9:59] to the greatest extent. The

[10:01] city Council changes as time

[10:02] goes on,

[10:03] but the city manager remains

[10:05] in his position. It was one

[10:07] of Barry's responsibilities to

[10:08] help the new city council

[10:10] adjust to their jobs

[10:12] without making bad decisions

[10:13] before they could be fully

[10:14] informed. I think he's been

[10:16] very successful at doing that.

[10:17] I think that he has saved the

[10:19] city millions of dollars

[10:20] over the years being able

[10:22] to explain to the council

[10:24] members and other people the

[10:26] ramifications of hasty

[10:27] decisions. I don't believe you

[10:30] can find an individual that has

[10:31] greater knowledge of the City

[10:32] of Reading than Barry Tippen.

[10:34] With that knowledge,

[10:36] he has served the City of

[10:37] Redding very well. Barry, I

[10:38] personally want to thank you

[10:41] for all that you've done

[10:42] for the city. And I want

[10:45] to thank you for your service.

[10:48] I wish you good fortune

[10:49] on your next adventure.

[10:51] Anyway, thank you very much.

[10:56] >>Thanks, Steve. All right,

[11:00] let's get rolling.

[11:04] Presentations 2A. Pardon me.

[11:08] >>There should be more public

[11:09] comment. I know I signed up on

[11:11] the kiosk.

[11:18] >>I don't have it down.

[11:21] >>Here we go.

[11:24] >>Adopt resolution honoring

[11:26] Barry Tippen

[11:27] for his distinguished service

[11:28] to the City of Reading and

[11:29] associated presentations. I get

[11:54] more than three minutes,

[11:55] don't I? Good evening,

[11:59] everyone. Tonight we come

[12:00] together to celebrate and honor

[12:01] someone who has left an

[12:02] extraordinary mark on the City

[12:03] of Reading. Our City Manager,

[12:05] Barry Tippen, who is retiring

[12:06] after 21 years

[12:07] of dedicated service. It's hard

[12:09] to capture a career like this

[12:12] in just a few words, so I'll

[12:14] share a few highlights that

[12:15] speak to the impact Barry has

[12:16] had on our city. Under Barry's

[12:18] leadership, Reading became one

[12:19] of the first cities in

[12:20] California to launch a crisis

[12:21] intervention response team,

[12:22] pairing police with mental

[12:24] health professionals. Barry

[12:27] also worked to modernize the

[12:30] fire department,

[12:32] moving three firefighters per

[12:33] engine, acquiring new fire

[12:35] engines, a ladder truck, and

[12:36] improving the fire department's

[12:39] technology, which keeps both

[12:42] firefighters and our community

[12:43] safer. And when our community

[12:44] faced some

[12:45] of its toughest challenges,

[12:46] the Carr Fire, Snowmageddon and

[12:48] COVID 19 pandemic, Barry guided

[12:49] our response and recovery

[12:50] with steadiness,

[12:51] compassion and determination.

[12:52] One of Barry's most valuable

[12:53] legacies is the transformation

[12:55] of downtown Reading.

[12:57] From opening Market street and

[12:58] creating the Market Street

[12:59] Promenade to the Pine Street

[13:01] Lofts Block 7, Whistle Stop

[13:04] Park, Barry helped bring new

[13:06] energy to the heart

[13:07] of our city. And all while he

[13:10] never lost sight

[13:11] of the importance of housing.

[13:12] From the Woodlands Apartments

[13:14] to the Lawrence Hotel, from

[13:16] Kinetic Court to East Street

[13:17] Senior Apartments, and through

[13:20] multiple micro shelter

[13:21] projects, Barry made sure that

[13:23] more

[13:24] of our residents had a place

[13:25] to call home.

[13:27] Behind the scenes, Barry pushed

[13:28] forward many substantial

[13:29] infrastructure investments,

[13:31] including major upgrades to our

[13:32] wastewater treatment plant,

[13:34] the expansion of Cypress

[13:35] Street Bridge, the development

[13:36] of Stillwater Business park,

[13:38] which now houses employers

[13:40] like Amazon and Frito Lay. He

[13:42] also helped bring more jobs and

[13:44] opportunities through projects

[13:45] like the redevelopment of

[13:46] Mount Shasta Mall, the

[13:48] relocation of Costco, and

[13:50] expanded air service to the

[13:52] Reading Regional Airport,

[13:53] giving our residents direct

[13:55] flights to San Francisco, Los

[13:57] Angeles, Denver and Seattle.

[13:58] Inside City Hall, Barry is just

[14:01] as impactful. He's created the

[14:03] city's communication team who

[14:04] are all responsible for all

[14:06] of our press releases,

[14:08] our social media channels,

[14:10] podcasts, the city's website,

[14:12] the city newsletter,

[14:13] basically.

[14:15] >> Anything and everything that

[14:16] should be shared

[14:17] with the public.

[14:19] >> Barry has represented

[14:20] Reading regionally statewide

[14:21] and we testified before

[14:22] Congress. As director of REU,

[14:23] he has served as the director

[14:27] of chairman of Shascom. You

[14:28] may know them as 911

[14:31] dispatchers, TANIC,

[14:34] otherwise known as

[14:36] Transmission Agency of

[14:38] Northern California and I guess

[14:41] Banic Also known as Balancing

[14:43] agency of Northern

[14:44] California. Agencies you and I

[14:46] don't necessarily know about

[14:47] because we have good people who

[14:49] handle these things. Speaking

[14:51] of good people, Barry has

[14:53] assembled a highly effective,

[14:54] well rounded leadership team.

[14:55] The majority of whom have been

[14:56] in their positions

[14:58] for just a couple of years.

[14:59] But well beyond the titles and

[15:00] the projects, Barry has brought

[15:01] vision, steady leadership, and

[15:02] a collaborative spirit that has

[15:03] made Redding stronger.

[15:04] On behalf

[15:05] of the city council, I want

[15:06] to say thank you. Thank you.

[15:07] Thank you. Thank you, Barry,

[15:14] for your leadership, your

[15:16] service and your unwavering

[15:18] commitment to the people of

[15:20] Redding. You leave

[15:21] behind not just a list

[15:22] of accomplishments, but a

[15:23] legacy that will shape this

[15:24] city for generations. Thank

[15:27] you. So apparently we don't

[15:37] have a clock or anything

[15:38] for you. Anybody want

[15:40] to say anything? Mr. Littal?

[15:45] Yeah, I do. I've been here

[15:47] for just under a year, but I

[15:50] firmly believe that the city is

[15:53] better today than what it was

[15:54] when he took over. And

[15:56] from the moment I met Barry, I

[15:58] just felt trusted

[16:00] with this information,

[16:01] his guidance. He's able

[16:03] to answer all my questions.

[16:04] And we're just incredibly

[16:07] grateful for your leadership

[16:09] and guiding us

[16:10] through difficulty

[16:11] over the many, many years

[16:12] in the past

[16:13] before my time when I was here.

[16:16] But I'm just eternally

[16:17] grateful. And I don't think we

[16:18] know what we're going to lose

[16:19] until you're gone and you're

[16:20] going to be very difficult

[16:21] to replace. And I'm grateful

[16:23] for everything you've given

[16:24] to the city of Redding. Thank

[16:25] you.

[16:30] >> Anybody else, I would like

[16:33] to say thank you. Barry is

[16:35] aware of this now because I

[16:36] told him pretty soon when I

[16:37] came onto council that I was

[16:38] pretty judgmental of his choice

[16:40] when he was chosen as the city

[16:42] manager, that I felt like we

[16:43] were rubber stamping someone

[16:45] who would simply moved up the

[16:47] ranks. And I have been

[16:50] thoroughly impressed

[16:53] by your knowledge, by the way

[16:56] in which that you have no

[16:58] problem with me disagreeing

[16:59] with you or agreeing

[17:02] with you. I really, really have

[17:03] valued just your insight and

[17:06] the ability

[17:09] to really have knowledge of

[17:11] virtually every single

[17:13] department. So merely replacing

[17:15] your knowledge and your input

[17:19] is gonna be a large shoes

[17:21] to fill. Thank you for your

[17:24] honesty and your candor.

[17:25] >> Always.

[17:30] >> Well, personally I would say

[17:31] we've met many, many, many,

[17:33] many times. I'm grateful

[17:34] for all that you've done. You

[17:36] guided us.

[17:38] But you've never tried

[17:39] to persuade me in my decisions

[17:40] like Aaron when we agreed. We

[17:43] have had several disagreements

[17:44] and we still have

[17:45] disagreements. But I'm very

[17:48] respectful and honored

[17:49] to know you and grateful to

[17:51] have met you and know you and I

[17:53] Hope that we can be. I know

[17:55] I'll be your friend when we

[17:57] leave. And I'm sure you won't

[17:59] answer all my calls

[18:00] after then, but you know, I'm

[18:02] thankful that you answered most

[18:03] of them now. So anyway,

[18:04] thank you very much, Very much.

[18:08] All right. Are we going

[18:09] to get a picture maybe?

[18:10] >> Oh, yeah.

[18:11] >> What you think so?

[18:12] >> We also need a motion

[18:13] on the.

[18:15] >> Resolution before we do

[18:16] pictures.

[18:17] >> I'll make a motion that we

[18:20] accept the resolution. I'm

[18:21] sorry, what was that? I'm just

[18:23] making a motion that we accept

[18:25] the resolution as stated. I'll

[18:26] second that. All in favor?

[18:27] Aye.

[18:28] >> Aye.

[18:32] >> Aye. Second pass unanimously

[18:35] or was there photo? Anybody?

[18:36] Yeah.

[18:37] >> Yep.

[18:38] [ PICTURE TAKING ]

[20:02] >>Mr. Mayor, would you mind?

[20:03] >> Yes, please.

[20:04] >> Thank you.

[20:05] >> I do not mind.

[20:06] >> First, you know, I want

[20:08] to thank Nick for all the

[20:09] amazing powers he thinks I

[20:10] have. So I appreciate that.

[20:12] >> And.

[20:14] >> And you love the city so

[20:15] much, I think you should move

[20:16] into the limits so you can vote

[20:17] for council, so

[20:19] to say the least. You know,

[20:21] I never really expected

[20:22] to end my career

[20:24] under these circumstances. You

[20:26] know, I've always planned

[20:27] to retire in 2025, and that's

[20:29] been long known, you know,

[20:30] to move on

[20:31] to my next phase.

[20:32] >> Reality.

[20:33] >> I was going to retire about

[20:34] seven years ago and decided

[20:36] to stick around. But I never

[20:38] thought I'd finish my career

[20:39] with a bit

[20:41] of character assassination

[20:42] by a council member. It's

[20:44] pretty disheartening,

[20:45] especially when these

[20:47] allegations and accusations are

[20:49] baseless and completely false,

[20:50] seem designed to serve some

[20:52] unknown political agenda and

[20:54] harm our city. And

[20:55] unfortunately, revisionist

[20:57] history is something that seems

[20:59] to be the go to move

[21:01] for some politicians

[21:03] to wipe away what we all know

[21:04] to be true. I know for certain

[21:07] that we own our individual

[21:09] integrity as individuals. Only

[21:12] we can give it away. What I

[21:13] know for certain is my

[21:15] integrity is fully intact.

[21:18] But I cannot say with certainty

[21:20] that it's the same

[21:22] for my accuser. That said,

[21:24] tonight's not about anger.

[21:26] It's not about bitterness.

[21:27] It's about celebration and

[21:28] gratitude and none

[21:31] of what I've been able

[21:32] to accomplish. Whether you

[21:33] believe it or not,

[21:35] it's possible

[21:36] without my wife, Joanne,

[21:38] sitting in the back

[21:40] of my family with my son Zach

[21:43] and daughter in law

[21:45] Gabrielle. You know,

[21:47] they've let me be through these

[21:51] long nights and all the endless

[21:52] meetings and crises that seem

[21:53] to never end. You know,

[21:54] they've been my support system.

[21:55] They're my anchor. And I thank

[21:56] them from the bottom of my

[21:57] heart. I thank the council

[21:58] members as well. Through my

[21:59] eight years as city manager and

[22:00] before, you've supported me

[22:02] while I support you. You've

[22:03] helped me be successful,

[22:05] and I hope I've done the same

[22:06] for you. And, of course,

[22:07] I have to acknowledge

[22:09] Camille. Camille just

[22:11] extraordinarily manages the

[22:13] office of the city manager,

[22:15] and she's our rock. She's our

[22:16] stability. She takes care

[22:17] of everything. She protects us.

[22:19] She's awesome. Thank you,

[22:21] Camille. When I look

[22:23] at my time as city manager,

[22:26] I'm proud of how together,

[22:28] we've navigated

[22:29] through many things. Some

[22:30] of them were mentioned, you

[22:32] know, the car fire in as

[22:33] Firenado, Snowmageddon. What

[22:35] wasn't mentioned was the

[22:37] pension tsunami when I first

[22:38] took over.

[22:39] At least that's what I call it.

[22:41] And of course,

[22:42] the global pandemic. And each

[22:43] of these events tested our

[22:44] community in ways that could

[22:46] have broken us, really,

[22:48] but it didn't. You know,

[22:49] it revealed our resilience,

[22:50] our strength, and our ability

[22:51] to adapt.

[22:53] >> And.

[22:54] >> And I think our community is

[22:55] better for it. And I think we

[22:57] have shown some amazing

[22:58] aptitude as a community. But if

[23:00] you ask me what I consider my

[23:01] greatest accomplishment,

[23:02] it isn't surviving disasters.

[23:03] It's building the executive

[23:04] team that now leads the city.

[23:05] They're talented, dedicated,

[23:07] and deeply committed

[23:09] to serving Reading

[23:10] with integrity. They are,

[23:11] without question, the best team

[23:12] I could have ever hoped

[23:13] to work alongside. And our

[23:14] city's future is secure

[23:15] under their guidance. So, yes,

[23:16] it's been an honor

[23:17] to serve the city, an honor

[23:19] to work with so many good

[23:21] people who care deeply

[23:23] about this community as I do.

[23:24] It's an honor

[23:25] to have played my part in

[23:26] shaping its present and

[23:27] preparing for the future. So

[23:28] thank you

[23:30] for the trust you've given me.

[23:31] Despite the noise

[23:32] of politics,

[23:33] which is deafening at times,

[23:34] I leave my post with pride in

[23:36] what we've accomplished

[23:37] together, and confidence

[23:38] in the people who will carry

[23:39] on in the future.

[23:40] >> Thank you.

[23:41] >> Thank you very.

[23:43] >> Much.

[24:10] >> All right, moving on

[24:11] to be presentation by Danny

[24:13] Orloff. Visit Redding's tourism

[24:15] marketing director, providing

[24:16] quarterly report regarding

[24:18] tourism marketing and

[24:20] promotional efforts

[24:22] for the city of Reading.

[24:24] Danny, thank you. You guys kind

[24:34] of set a vibe

[24:35] with the lights dim real quick.

[24:36] When I came up here,

[24:37] it was really cool to see.

[24:40] Just right before the

[24:41] presentation came up,

[24:42] you guys got to see the slide

[24:44] of the beautiful area that we

[24:45] live in. No, you don't have

[24:46] to go back. It's the Sundial

[24:48] Bridge with Shasta Bali and the

[24:51] river just running

[24:52] through the town. It's an honor

[24:54] to be up here to be able to

[24:56] represent our our city and our

[24:58] community. And I'm excited

[25:00] to highlight some of the things

[25:01] that we've been able

[25:02] to accomplish this past.

[25:04] Overall, you guys have gotten

[25:19] the annual report from us.

[25:20] Once the Chamber of Commerce

[25:21] took

[25:23] on the visit writing contract,

[25:24] there's been a $2 million lift

[25:26] that's been able to stabilize

[25:28] for TOT. Talking amongst my

[25:29] peers

[25:32] in the tourism industry, a lot

[25:33] of them have maintained flat

[25:35] since 2019. So seeing that

[25:37] effort being able to increase

[25:38] and sustain has been awesome.

[25:39] It would be detrimental

[25:41] to anything for happen

[25:43] for the marketing budget

[25:45] for us. We truly understand

[25:46] that marketing advertising is

[25:48] the fuel for sales and we

[25:49] understand that we are the

[25:51] megaphone for Reading and we're

[25:52] that positive light to be able

[25:54] to showcase everybody,

[25:55] everything that we have

[25:56] to offer in this city. As you

[25:58] guys see Here, with the TOT

[26:00] stabilized website,

[26:01] visitors went up by 14% and

[26:03] impressions how many times our

[26:05] ads were seen was up by 25%.

[26:07] In this last year, we got

[26:09] to see positive KPIs

[26:12] from the average length

[26:16] of stay going up by 12%,

[26:17] average night stays going up by

[26:19] 2% and seeing more repeat

[26:20] guests come to our area being

[26:22] up 10% versus the previous

[26:24] year. We are very strategic

[26:25] with our marketing dollars and

[26:28] want to market

[26:29] to those who are coming

[26:31] to our area. We're seeing more

[26:32] visitation from Sacramento,

[26:33] from Eureka, from Reno, from

[26:35] those areas that are small

[26:37] drive distances to us

[26:38] in comparison to in the past

[26:40] where it was longer distances

[26:41] such as la, Seattle, Portland

[26:42] and other areas. We're excited

[26:46] to be able to use that data

[26:47] to be able to make the

[26:48] strategic decisions so we can

[26:49] have our money last longer and

[26:50] get a stronger return

[26:53] on investment. For the

[26:54] investment that you guys put

[26:56] in to visit Reading, we're able

[26:58] to see increase in visitation

[26:59] for hotel occupancy. Today's

[27:01] been a great day overall.

[27:02] Started off the day with State

[27:04] of the City, hearing the impact

[27:06] from Turtle Bay and how that

[27:07] makes our visitors feel as well

[27:09] as our locals. Being able

[27:10] to see that Sundial bridge and

[27:11] knowing that that is our icon

[27:13] for our area and people love

[27:14] to see that. They are thrilled

[27:15] to be able to come to our area

[27:17] to witness a piece

[27:18] of architecture that spans

[27:20] across the river. We also went

[27:21] to my place. It shows people

[27:23] are investing in our area from

[27:25] a hotel occupancy and it's the

[27:27] first hotel in California

[27:28] from my place. So it shows

[27:32] people are investing

[27:33] from outside of our area

[27:36] because they see the power of

[27:37] tourism and they see the power

[27:40] that people want to be able

[27:41] to be invigorated when they

[27:42] come to our area. The speeches

[27:43] that they said they could have

[27:44] picked anywhere in

[27:45] California,

[27:46] but they chose here. We saw

[27:47] increase in revenue

[27:48] from hotel stays. We did see a

[27:49] fluctuation

[27:51] in short term rentals and a lot

[27:52] of that's based

[27:53] on the consumer mindset being

[27:54] in post Covid and they want

[27:55] to stay in hotels, they want

[27:56] to be able

[27:57] to have their beds made instead

[27:58] of going

[27:59] to a place where they feel

[28:01] like is at home and live

[28:02] like a, like a resident

[28:03] in that area,

[28:06] they're just shifting

[28:07] into hotels. So we're watching

[28:09] trends overall and seeing that.

[28:10] Sorry for the voice inflection

[28:12] as you see here. You can see

[28:15] our visitor snapshot for some

[28:16] of the data that we have.

[28:17] Sacramento is our number one

[28:18] market. San Francisco as well.

[28:19] And California is a big,

[28:21] a big.

[28:22] >> Market for us overall.

[28:24] >> On here you're seeing the

[28:33] numbers and based

[28:34] on credit card data we look

[28:35] at multiple different things

[28:36] from analytics

[28:37] from our website,

[28:38] from geofencing

[28:39] from the cell phones, but also

[28:40] credit card data and who's

[28:41] spending it and where they're

[28:42] spending it. Visit California

[28:44] came out with a, a study and it

[28:45] shows every dollar

[28:46] in marketing spent relates back

[28:48] to $21 in visitor spend. We

[28:49] understand that having a very

[28:51] fruitful economy is important

[28:52] to us. Outside of tot, we're

[28:56] on the cutting edge. We

[28:58] understand that influencers

[29:02] have a stronger voice now than

[29:04] they ever have had in the past

[29:06] with different forms

[29:07] of advertising. We were able

[29:09] to bring

[29:10] in seven different influencers,

[29:11] increase our social media

[29:12] presence by up 13%. Being able

[29:14] to get a 25,000 follower

[29:15] followership on Instagram and

[29:17] being able to reach more than

[29:18] 6,000 people throughout that

[29:20] platform as well as nearly

[29:21] 40,000 people on Facebook. We

[29:23] understand that they're

[29:24] different markets and we

[29:25] understand we need to market

[29:27] to people differently

[29:28] across different platforms.

[29:29] Overall, we understand what the

[29:32] consumer wants. These were our

[29:33] top posts. The drag strip.

[29:34] People want to know those aha

[29:38] moments and those historical

[29:39] pieces from our area the

[29:40] previous year and it was

[29:42] about the Geosphere on i5.

[29:43] This last year is about the,

[29:45] about the racetrack. We also

[29:50] know that people want those

[29:51] authentic moments that are

[29:53] uniquely found in reading such

[29:54] as the rodeo which you see

[29:56] through the 48,000 views and

[29:57] reaching over 33,000 people

[29:58] organically. Our top

[30:01] collaboration posts. We

[30:02] understand that we love our

[30:03] area and we want to be able

[30:05] to bring optimism

[30:06] to our area and people

[30:07] to feel invigorated after they

[30:08] leave and so they can come back

[30:10] and support us time and time

[30:12] again, you see that with the

[30:14] 63,000 people who are watching

[30:15] the mural that was donated

[30:16] to our town to showcase that

[30:18] positive message through

[30:20] Steffi Lynn. And this is all

[30:21] relationship building. She

[30:23] could pick anywhere

[30:25] in the world where she wanted

[30:26] to donate a mural to.

[30:29] But picking Reading

[30:30] California. It shows something

[30:33] about our area. We're able to

[30:35] have cornerstone campaigns such

[30:37] as Perfect Vacation, funded

[30:40] by Choose Reading Lodging. And

[30:41] it showcased that we're more

[30:43] than just a pit stop on i5.

[30:44] We're a place that you can stay

[30:45] in multiple days and you can

[30:46] come back to and do multiple

[30:48] things once you come back as

[30:49] well. There's no other place

[30:50] like this. Shasta Lake

[30:51] Whiskeytown, the caverns, the

[30:52] dam, the river, the Sacramento

[30:53] river and rail trail,

[30:54] our downtown. We have it all

[30:56] here. We're also able

[30:57] to promote local events such as

[30:59] Glowing Wild, Garden of

[31:00] Lights, the rodeo,

[31:01] and you can see those through

[31:02] the different impressions

[31:04] below. We also understand the

[31:06] power of other people's voices

[31:07] and their stronger platforms

[31:09] outside of influencers. Public

[31:10] relations is huge for us. We

[31:12] brought in and hosted over 20

[31:13] writers articles were published

[31:16] more than 57 times

[31:19] with an audience reach of

[31:20] over 27 million people. These

[31:22] are numbers that our team is

[31:25] extremely proud of and we

[31:26] couldn't do it alone. I want

[31:28] to compliment my colleague,

[31:29] Jennifer. She's amazing. I feel

[31:31] like I'm getting emotional

[31:33] because it's not just me up

[31:34] here,

[31:35] like it's a whole team effort.

[31:36] But you see that throughout

[31:38] here with the Garden of lights

[31:39] with adventure.com and Men's

[31:40] Journal. These are publications

[31:41] that you don't just get you

[31:43] their relationship.

[31:44] Relationship build. Having a

[31:47] strong connection

[31:49] with the city is awesome.

[31:50] By turning the new scope

[31:51] from tasks

[31:52] into goals and being able to

[31:53] see those goals and

[31:54] strategically go after them.

[31:55] We did have to adjust from

[31:57] losing PR that slide that we

[31:58] just saw based

[32:00] on those budget cuts. And we

[32:01] want to make sure we can put

[32:03] Redding in the most positive

[32:04] light we possibly can

[32:06] from a marketing agency switch.

[32:09] We also had to do that by

[32:10] losing our optimizer and going

[32:13] into more of a tourism agency

[32:14] marketing agency. We're

[32:16] diversifying our platforms and

[32:20] we want to be

[32:21] on the cutting edge of this

[32:23] with AI and. And

[32:24] with those geo fencing. So like

[32:26] checking people's cell phones

[32:28] and knowing if they've came

[32:29] to the area, if they visited,

[32:30] how they've utilized our

[32:32] content and being able to make

[32:34] sure that we're getting more

[32:36] views from different areas. So

[32:38] that's where you see the road

[32:40] trippers icon, Azira click

[32:41] Trips, Google and etc.

[32:44] Overall, we can't do this

[32:48] alone. We want to be that

[32:49] positive light and positive

[32:50] megaphone. So you see things

[32:51] like the partnership with Ru,

[32:53] being able

[32:54] to paint the boxes downtown.

[32:55] Thank you, Nick. And your team

[32:57] able to host networking events

[32:58] not only to help us, but also

[33:00] help others create better

[33:03] content from pulling

[33:04] in attractions,

[33:05] creators and accommodations all

[33:06] in one area so they can thrive

[33:07] together. Being able

[33:08] to team up with the

[33:10] Historical Society for cultural

[33:11] sustainability and showcasing

[33:12] things like the Red and

[33:14] Regatta. Also teaming up and

[33:15] showing beautification

[33:17] in our town with influencers

[33:19] painting a mural right across

[33:21] from Whistle Stop park to

[33:23] highlight all the beautiful

[33:24] things

[33:25] in our area as a great backdrop

[33:26] for photos and to be able

[33:27] to highlight our history. Also

[33:29] working with the city and

[33:31] Multiple partners on Celebrate

[33:32] 20 from the sundial Bridge. So

[33:34] ultimately, lake and that

[33:37] bridge looked pretty darn cool.

[33:39] And then as you guys know

[33:40] from the collaboration,

[33:43] as mentioned earlier

[33:45] in the slide, I'm here

[33:46] for any questions, comments,

[33:48] concerns, but I just want

[33:49] to thank you guys

[33:50] for giving me the opportunity

[33:51] to speak today. Thank you,

[33:54] Danny. No problem. Any

[33:55] questions? Just got one

[33:57] question. I know we cut your

[33:58] budget, which is painful

[33:59] to do being in business. I know

[34:01] the impact that when you cut

[34:03] money from marketing, sometimes

[34:05] you don't see the impact

[34:06] of that for a long time. But

[34:07] have we seen a downward trend

[34:09] in or are we just not quite at

[34:11] the point where we'll see the

[34:12] impacts of spending less money

[34:14] on marketing? Yeah, we've seen

[34:15] a slight downward trend right

[34:17] now. To answer your question,

[34:19] we are seeing a slight downward

[34:21] trend. A lot of this is going

[34:22] to be longer term. I mean,

[34:23] with cutting PR,

[34:25] that's a huge megaphone. You

[34:27] saw Men's Journal,

[34:28] adventure.com, uSA Today.

[34:29] Those are articles that they

[34:32] cost money to be able

[34:33] to bring the people in

[34:35] to witness things firsthand.

[34:37] So marketing is the fuel

[34:39] for advertising. Sorry,

[34:41] marketing. Advertising is the

[34:42] fuel for sales. And we're

[34:44] selling our area. So the less

[34:45] money that we're putting

[34:46] into our gas tank, essentially

[34:48] we're not going as far. So

[34:49] being able to, I would say,

[34:52] double down on helping us

[34:54] market because we can control

[34:56] the narrative on how we're

[34:57] showcasing our city and

[34:59] enticing more people

[35:00] to come here. So. So I think

[35:03] marketing is extremely

[35:04] important.

[35:06] >> To answer your question.

[35:12] >> No problem. Anybody else?

[35:14] All right, thank you. Thank

[35:15] you, Danny. Thank you, guys.

[35:16] Thank you, Danny. All right.

[35:21] Tusi presentation by

[35:23] Christian Church Homes

[35:25] providing an update on past,

[35:27] present and future projects and

[35:28] activities in the city of

[35:29] Reading.

[35:30] >> Good evening.

[35:43] >> Thank you

[35:45] for the opportunity

[35:47] for me.

[35:48] >> To tell you about CCH

[35:49] Christian Church Homes.

[35:50] >> We've been around for 64

[35:51] years.

[35:54] >> We have low income housing

[35:55] in seven.

[35:56] >> States, managing or owning

[35:57] 46 properties with.

[35:58] >> 3,700 residents living

[35:59] at those properties.

[36:01] >> Our residents have an

[36:02] average income of.

[36:03] >> 17,000 a year for 29

[36:04] of those years or of the for

[36:08] 29 of the 64 years. We have

[36:11] been in partners with the City

[36:13] of Reading. We started our

[36:16] first Property back in 1996

[36:17] when we took over the Lorenz

[36:20] Hotel.

[36:22] >> And I'm going to see if I.

[36:24] >> Can do this now because I've

[36:27] been given instructions.

[36:35] >> Well, there I did it.

[36:37] >> The Lorenz hotel built in

[36:38] 191901. 100 room hotel with 78

[36:40] one bedroom and studios.

[36:41] >> We converted that over to

[36:43] 78 apartments for low income.

[36:45] The city gave us some home

[36:48] funds with that.

[36:49] >> That project was 13.5

[36:52] million. We also made sure that

[36:54] the Lorenz was placed on the

[36:56] National Historical register.

[36:58] Our next venture was the

[37:01] Treehouse. We built a 62 unit

[37:04] low income senior apartment

[37:06] complex in 1997. That apartment

[37:07] building, the cost was about 4

[37:09] million. Again with the City

[37:10] of Reading home funds. Next we

[37:18] took over the Hotel Reading. I

[37:25] was approached by the city

[37:26] Reading Police Department back

[37:28] in those days and that was the

[37:30] Hotel Reading was built in

[37:33] 1921. A hold old hotel with

[37:36] 100 units.

[37:39] >> They came to me in 1999 and

[37:43] said look,

[37:45] we're having a lot of.

[37:46] >> Police calls, a lot

[37:51] of criminal activity.

[37:52] >> Do you think CCH would come

[37:56] and.

[37:57] >> Help us with that?

[37:59] >> I said absolutely. We took

[38:00] it over in 1999.

[38:01] >> By 2002 we opened our doors

[38:02] for.

[38:03] >> 50 low income residents

[38:04] at a cost of 7.4 million.

[38:05] >> We operate the two oldest

[38:06] hotels in the City of Reading

[38:07] by offering low income housing

[38:08] in those buildings as well as

[38:09] 12 commercial spaces that are

[38:10] for local businesses.

[38:14] >> Our latest venture is our

[38:17] newest crown.

[38:19] >> In jewel there, that's

[38:21] Piper Way. We just opened that

[38:23] with 50 seniors.

[38:25] >> We worked in conjunction

[38:26] with the First.

[38:27] >> Christian Church, the City

[38:29] of Reading Voucher program,

[38:31] Shasta County HHSA providing

[38:33] homes

[38:35] for six homeless individuals.

[38:38] The California Department for

[38:39] Developmentally Service, DDS,

[38:40] Far Northern Regional. We

[38:42] provided homes for nine

[38:44] developmentally disabled.

[38:46] >> Seniors at a cost of about

[38:48] 33.8 million. Our average

[38:50] income there is $1,300 a.

[38:54] >> Month

[38:56] for our residents.

[38:58] >> They age average 70 to 81

[39:00] years old. We wanted

[39:03] to share this information

[39:06] with the city council to let

[39:07] you know how much we appreciate

[39:09] the partnering you have done

[39:10] with us throughout these 29

[39:12] years.

[39:14] >> We have been able to house

[39:15] 232.

[39:18] >> Low income housing students

[39:20] or Residents, sorry.

[39:22] >> Seniors that wouldn't have a

[39:24] home without that. We wanted

[39:25] to thank you for that.

[39:27] >> We wanted

[39:29] to let you know that.

[39:31] >> Without our partnership and

[39:33] providing the senior homes

[39:34] throughout this trip that we've

[39:36] made. Here's our balcony. We

[39:40] would not have been able

[39:42] to do this.

[39:44] >> We've added to the economy

[39:46] coming into.

[39:47] >> Reading by hiring local

[39:49] construction people.

[39:50] >> We've added to the economy

[39:52] by our.

[39:55] >> Seniors shopping in the

[39:57] local stores.

[39:58] >> So we encourage you

[39:59] to check out our website.

[40:00] >> We are CCH.org and

[40:01] to learn more.

[40:02] >> About the seven states that

[40:03] we have.

[40:05] >> The other facilities we have

[40:07] in the seven states. And I want

[40:08] to take an opportunity to also

[40:11] introduce the president and CEO

[40:14] of Christian Church Homes,

[40:16] Cynthia Alvarez. She drove up

[40:17] from the Bay Area.

[40:18] >> Tonight just to be able

[40:19] to meet.

[40:20] >> The city council and

[40:21] to show you our presence here.

[40:23] We have an open house on

[40:25] October 1st and we'd like

[40:29] to extend an invitation

[40:30] to have you come to the.

[40:32] >> Open house and see just

[40:33] exactly what.

[40:35] >> Our dollars have done

[40:36] in working

[40:37] with the city already. And my

[40:40] last slide,

[40:43] do you have any questions

[40:44] at all?

[40:45] >> What time is the open house?

[40:46] Is it 9:30 or 10?

[40:47] >> It is 10. It's October 1,

[40:48] 10 to 12.

[40:49] >> Okay, I'll be there.

[40:50] >> Our address is 3294 Piper

[40:51] Way.

[40:53] >> And we encourage you to come

[40:54] see what your dollars have

[40:56] done.

[40:57] >> Meet our seniors and hear

[40:59] some of their stories.

[41:01] >> They're incredible.

[41:02] >> Do you have any more

[41:04] projects in sight?

[41:05] >> We're hoping to in

[41:07] Reading,

[41:08] but we have other projects.

[41:09] We're working on projects in

[41:10] Hayward right now.

[41:11] >> Chico, Tennessee.

[41:13] >> Sacramento.

[41:22] >> Yes, but Redding is my pride

[41:23] and.

[41:25] >> Joy because I live in

[41:26] Redding and I was fortunate

[41:27] enough to take the Lorenz.

[41:28] >> I'm going to tell you a

[41:31] quick brief story. I won't take

[41:33] up all your time.

[41:34] >> I walked into the Lorenz,

[41:36] quit a.

[41:39] >> Really high paying job

[41:41] down south, moved.

[41:42] >> Up here to Redding because

[41:46] it's so gorgeous.

[41:47] >> Walked into the Lorenz, they

[41:49] were looking.

[41:50] >> For an assistant community

[41:51] manager.

[41:52] >> I went to work for 18,000 a

[41:53] year 29 years ago,

[41:54] fell completely in.

[41:55] >> Love with the Lorenz and the

[41:56] city.

[41:58] >> Of Redding and said this is

[42:00] my place, this is where I

[42:02] belong. I was fortunate enough

[42:03] to be able to work

[42:05] with a company that allowed me

[42:07] to expand us here in the city

[42:08] of Reading with four sites. I

[42:10] like to do five and six or

[42:11] whatever.

[42:12] >> We need low income housing

[42:14] for seniors.

[42:16] >> Steve worked on my project

[42:17] at the hotel Reading as a very

[42:19] young man for the city of

[42:20] Reading.

[42:21] >> He was the hard hat guy

[42:22] that.

[42:23] >> Came around and checked to

[42:25] make sure that we were doing

[42:26] prevailing wages with his

[42:27] clipboard and his hard hat.

[42:30] >> We have a long history

[42:32] with the city of Redding and I

[42:33] just wanted

[42:34] to thank the city council

[42:36] for always being there

[42:37] for us and the city.

[42:39] >> Of Redding for helping us

[42:42] with the fundings.

[42:44] >> Thank you. You're welcome.

[42:45] >> Thank you. Any other

[42:46] questions? No, Paul. I'll be

[42:47] there, though.

[42:48] >> Thank you so much.

[42:49] >> Thank you. All right,

[42:56] our last presentation

[42:57] of the evening. Ryan

[42:58] Richardson, executive director,

[42:59] Superior California Economic

[43:01] Development, providing an

[43:02] annual update on activities.

[43:04] Bye, Camille. Have a good day.

[43:09] >> Hello, my name is Ryan

[43:18] Richardson. I'm the executive

[43:20] director of Superior

[43:21] California Economic

[43:22] Development. First,

[43:23] before we get into any

[43:25] of the updates, I want to talk

[43:27] about why collaboration

[43:28] matters. What do we do

[43:29] for an economy to be healthy

[43:32] in our area? And this is

[43:36] anywhere you need people,

[43:38] obviously that's our workforce.

[43:39] You need to have a community.

[43:40] That's the housing,

[43:41] that's the place making.

[43:43] That's what we were hearing

[43:45] about earlier,

[43:46] all these great things. And we

[43:48] need to have jobs. That's where

[43:49] economic development comes

[43:51] into play as well. So these

[43:53] items, they have to be

[43:54] in balance. If you're out

[43:55] of balance, if you have a lot

[43:56] of jobs and no housing,

[43:57] that creates an issue. If you

[43:58] have a lot of people

[43:59] with good housing, no jobs,

[44:02] that creates an issue as well.

[44:03] So that gets back

[44:05] to why we were created. So

[44:11] knowing that economic

[44:13] challenges don't stop

[44:14] at the city or county lines,

[44:16] the four counties, along with

[44:19] Reading, Anderson and Shasta

[44:21] Lake, created sced

[44:22] to become an Economic

[44:23] Development administration

[44:24] economic development district

[44:25] in 1979. So we're managed

[44:27] by a 17 member board

[44:29] of directors and we have a

[44:31] staff of four. And Steve's one

[44:32] of our boards of directors.

[44:34] He's on the board. Some

[44:36] of the things when I go present

[44:39] at different conferences or

[44:40] different webinars,

[44:41] people don't know where

[44:43] Northern California is. So

[44:44] usually toss in a couple

[44:45] of pictures, show a lake,

[44:47] show some mountains. So we're

[44:48] not Southern California. One of

[44:50] the really things people don't

[44:52] understand is the scope of,

[44:54] of how big our area is. So the

[44:55] four counties that I covered,

[44:56] basically the same size as

[44:57] New Hampshire and Vermont

[44:58] combined with a population of

[44:59] 250,000 people. And most

[45:01] everybody lives

[45:03] along the i5 corridor. So I

[45:05] tell if you go either east or

[45:06] west, you're going

[45:08] to get very rural very fast.

[45:10] So it's very fun to. And that's

[45:12] one of the benefits

[45:13] of my job, is I get

[45:14] to travel a lot and see a lot

[45:15] of beautiful places.

[45:21] With that backdrop, here are

[45:22] the four priorities that guide

[45:23] everything we do at sced.

[45:25] That's kind

[45:26] of fancy language. So I'm going

[45:27] to keep it a little bit more

[45:28] simple. We make loans

[45:29] to small businesses. That's our

[45:30] most forward facing thing that

[45:31] we have with the public. We

[45:33] write and update the

[45:34] Comprehensive Economic

[45:35] Development Strategy

[45:36] for the region. That's a

[45:38] strategy that the Economic

[45:41] Development Administration has.

[45:43] You need to have that in order

[45:44] to get EDA funds. We find

[45:45] grants to do projects that

[45:47] support the SEDs. So that's a

[45:49] part

[45:51] of my job too where I'll go

[45:52] out and we have to figure out

[45:54] where can we get different

[45:55] grants, whether it be federal

[45:56] grants, be it

[45:57] from our state partner,

[45:58] will it be

[45:59] from private as well? And then

[46:00] we have internal metrics as

[46:01] well. How are we doing as an

[46:02] organization? Can we be

[46:03] sustainable? That's one

[46:05] of the nice things

[46:06] about our nonprofit, our

[46:08] organization is that we do

[46:10] generate unrestricted funds as

[46:12] well. So it gives us a little

[46:14] more stability than what we see

[46:15] in some

[46:16] of our other agencies. This

[46:18] question comes up a lot.

[46:22] Aren't you the chassis EDC

[46:24] doesn't come up as much now

[46:25] that Todd's not there because

[46:27] you know, we were both guys.

[46:29] He's much younger. So my hair

[46:31] is much darker, but it used

[46:33] to be much grayer. It must be

[46:35] the old days. I was a little

[46:36] nicer hair. But that happens.

[46:37] But if you look

[46:39] at the service area,

[46:41] I never get to use a point.

[46:42] Oh, wow. That's cool. What?

[46:44] Oh. Now how do I get rid

[46:52] of it? All right,

[46:55] so we're gonna leave that there

[46:56] for a while. So on the SCED

[46:58] for our regional. We're a

[47:00] region. We cover four different

[47:02] counties and then we're also a

[47:06] statewide certified development

[47:10] company. So we can make certain

[47:11] SBA loans throughout all of

[47:12] California. The Shasta edc,

[47:13] they focus on a local Shasta

[47:14] County. We have different

[47:15] functions. We also have

[47:16] different funding areas. So the

[47:17] International Economic

[47:18] Development Council says There

[47:19] are basically 10 different

[47:20] pillars

[47:21] of economic development. Very

[47:22] few organizations do all 10

[47:24] of them. It just doesn't work

[47:25] that way because you have

[47:27] to specialize. We do a couple.

[47:28] The Shasta EDC does a couple.

[47:29] We're not in competition where

[47:30] we are collaboration. We do

[47:31] have different areas. We're

[47:32] complementary. What we've done

[47:33] a lot recently. We're starting

[47:34] to really collaborate and

[47:37] that's one

[47:39] of the things we've seen in

[47:40] economic development throughout

[47:41] the last couple of years. It's

[47:42] been our trend

[47:43] of collaboration. So we've been

[47:45] able to collaborate

[47:46] on projects that align with our

[47:47] SIDS and the chassis EDCs

[47:48] expansion and attraction plans.

[47:50] So we're looking

[47:53] at infrastructure projects in

[47:54] south county as well as the BDO

[47:55] zone application. Of course,

[47:57] none

[47:58] of this work is done alone.

[48:03] Each

[48:04] of our partners fills a role.

[48:06] So again, I toss the logos

[48:08] on there to show how many

[48:10] things we have going on. We're

[48:11] able to work with a bunch

[48:13] of different agencies. So

[48:14] on the planning side, EDA and

[48:16] local jurisdictions help fund

[48:17] that. On the lending side,

[48:19] the Economic Development

[48:21] Administration, the Small

[48:23] Business Administration, the

[48:24] USDA and private funds help us

[48:26] with make loans or give us

[48:29] funds for loans. And then

[48:31] on grant projects, again, same

[48:32] of the usual suspects. Eda,

[48:34] usda. We received state funds

[48:36] through the California Jobs

[48:38] First. We're excited

[48:40] about them getting

[48:42] into economic development.

[48:43] Wells Fargo and US bank have

[48:45] also been big supporters

[48:46] on our grant side. And then our

[48:47] bank partners,

[48:51] we can't forget them. They're

[48:52] where we get our referrals

[48:53] from

[48:54] for our lending program. 60%

[48:56] of all of our revenue

[48:57] at SCED is

[48:58] from our lending programs. So

[49:00] it's really exciting. I want

[49:01] to make sure they get a shout

[49:02] out and how much we appreciate

[49:04] their work as well.

[49:05] Through the California

[49:07] Reinvestment act,

[49:08] they also give unrestricted

[49:09] contributions, which

[49:10] for a nonprofit,

[49:12] those help a lot. And Wells

[49:13] Fargo and U.S. bank or Wells

[49:15] Fargo is also really good

[49:17] about giving us grants

[49:18] for a purpose. So the

[49:19] restricted grants. So we

[49:21] actually do so once again

[49:25] to review three things. So

[49:27] number one,

[49:28] we put together the

[49:30] Comprehensive Economic

[49:32] Development Strategy. That's

[49:33] the main thing that we do

[49:35] with our Economic Development

[49:36] Administration Partnership

[49:38] Planning Grant. We do small

[49:40] business lending that is huge

[49:43] for us. We're able

[49:44] to help a lot

[49:46] of different businesses. We

[49:47] help with gap financing, so

[49:48] rarely are we making the

[49:49] investment ourselves. We're

[49:52] usually working with a bank

[49:53] where the business owner isn't

[49:54] quite ready

[49:55] to get totally financed

[49:56] by the bank. We can step

[49:57] in there. We're

[49:58] like miracle grow. We help.

[49:59] They're going

[50:00] to get there eventually. We

[50:02] just help them get there a

[50:03] little bit faster through that

[50:04] lending project and then the

[50:06] economic development projects.

[50:07] This is something we've really

[50:08] got into the last three years

[50:10] since I took

[50:11] over the executive director,

[50:12] finding different ways

[50:13] to push the goals that are

[50:16] in our Comprehensive Economic

[50:18] Development Strategy. EDA gives

[50:19] us funds

[50:21] to create the strategy,

[50:22] but no money

[50:24] for implementation. So you have

[50:25] to work with your partners,

[50:26] you have to be creative,

[50:27] find different ways

[50:28] to get those projects rolling.

[50:31] So more than just a plan, our

[50:33] SEDS actually delivers results.

[50:34] So again, in order

[50:36] to get EDA funds, you have

[50:37] to have a roadmap there. And

[50:38] that's what the SEDS document

[50:41] does. So here are a couple

[50:42] of projects that were sent

[50:43] for application. Hopefully you

[50:45] recognize both of them. One was

[50:47] for the Stillwater Business

[50:48] park extension. Steve and

[50:50] Jason did a great job

[50:51] on putting that together.

[50:53] Your City of Reading staff are

[50:54] amazing at doing that work.

[50:56] And then Simpson University as

[50:58] well applied for a project.

[51:00] And that was kind

[51:01] of fun because every time I

[51:03] talk to somebody, they go, do

[51:04] you think EDA funds could do

[51:05] this? And I'm like,

[51:06] I don't know. So we call our

[51:08] EDA rep and he goes, oh, sure,

[51:09] we can do that. Like, really?

[51:10] Because I didn't think some

[51:11] of the projects we work

[51:12] on are eligible.

[51:13] But it does work, and it's

[51:14] pretty exciting when it does.

[51:16] So long time planning. One of

[51:22] the most visible ways we make

[51:24] an impact is supporting small

[51:25] business with access

[51:26] to capital. So you can see

[51:28] we've made a lot

[51:29] of loans. I've been with SKED

[51:30] for 20 years. 17 years as the

[51:32] loan program manager, three

[51:36] years as executive director.

[51:37] So a lot of those 580 loans

[51:38] made were mine. So I take a lot

[51:40] of pride

[51:42] in what we've been able to do

[51:43] in the area. My poor kids,

[51:44] when they were little,

[51:45] we'd drive around town or we'd

[51:47] be going somewhere. I'm like,

[51:49] hey, that's one

[51:50] of our things. That was a

[51:51] project we did. That was a

[51:52] project we did. I like

[51:53] to say my son's one of the best

[51:54] economic developers. He's in

[51:55] Korea right now in the Air

[51:57] Force. But after listening

[51:58] to me on so many road trips

[52:00] for soccer, he learned a lot

[52:02] about what we're doing as well.

[52:04] Last year, we made 1.9 million

[52:06] in loans. 1.1 million

[52:08] of that was in Reading. And

[52:11] with those Reading loans,

[52:14] we leveraged an additional 3.3

[52:15] million. So that impact is 4.4

[52:16] million on there. Last year,

[52:18] the city invested $27,000

[52:21] with us. So that return

[52:23] on investment on just that

[52:26] piece is pretty huge. You toss

[52:27] in what we're looking at

[52:28] for those EDA grants. It's even

[52:29] larger this year because EDA

[52:31] changed the grant requirement.

[52:33] It actually went down to

[52:37] 18,000. So it's quite a bit of

[52:39] a savings that the city will be

[52:40] seeing there. And one thing,

[52:41] I'll try this again.

[52:42] >> Because it's really cool.

[52:47] >> We don't create. Darn it,

[52:51] again,

[52:52] we don't create the jobs. The

[52:53] entrepreneurs create the jobs.

[52:54] So these are all people that

[52:55] have received loans from us.

[52:56] You can see, hopefully maybe a

[52:58] face or two that you recognize.

[52:59] Those are the people that

[53:01] actually making the impact. So

[53:03] it's fun to see them succeed.

[53:04] And beyond our daily work,

[53:09] we're also launching

[53:10] initiatives that build upon our

[53:12] region's unique strengths. So

[53:14] Outdoor Recreation was one

[53:17] of the California Jobs First

[53:18] Catalyst Fund grants that we

[53:20] received. We're partnering

[53:21] with siskiyec on that. So we

[53:23] have a micro loan component.

[53:25] Siskiyou EDC is handling an

[53:27] educational component. And this

[53:29] is for our whole district, all

[53:31] four counties that we cover.

[53:32] The MODOC meet again,

[53:34] that was another California

[53:37] jumps first. We were able

[53:38] to get money from that. That's

[53:41] a Modoc county specific

[53:42] project.

[53:43] But anything that we do in

[53:44] these other counties really

[53:45] benefits Shasta county

[53:46] specifically writing because

[53:48] this is the hub for economic

[53:49] development activity. And so

[53:51] what we look at

[53:52] for that we're trying to market

[53:54] processing plant up there. We

[53:56] got a USDA grant a couple years

[54:01] ago that said, yeah,

[54:02] it's feasible. And now we're

[54:03] trying to find someone

[54:05] to pick that up and

[54:06] to do a processing plant. The

[54:08] BDO zone, that's a biofuel

[54:10] development opportunity zone.

[54:12] And this was really cool

[54:13] because Rebecca from Chassis

[54:15] EDC came over and said, hey,

[54:17] I want to do this. It fits

[54:19] into our plan with biomass.

[54:22] And I think this is a good

[54:24] opportunity. But we don't have

[54:25] grant capacity because most of

[54:26] the people that get these

[54:28] grants get it through usda.

[54:30] That's what we do all day long.

[54:31] We're able

[54:32] to merge or collaborate

[54:34] on this. I was able

[54:35] to help her. This is a project

[54:37] that we'll be working on

[54:38] in the fall. And then the

[54:40] Wells Fargo projects. We just

[54:41] put the application in

[54:43] for this and we talk

[54:44] about how we do regional. And

[54:46] this is actually a super

[54:48] regional project because we

[54:50] work with other economic

[54:51] development districts in far

[54:52] Northern California. That's the

[54:54] California Finance

[54:55] Consortium. And we're going to

[54:56] do a rural downtown

[54:58] revitalization playbook. Right

[54:59] now, a lot of our rural

[55:01] communities are struggling.

[55:02] They're transitioning

[55:04] from resource distraction

[55:06] to what's next

[55:09] in the economy. We all like

[55:10] to say our areas are beautiful,

[55:11] but so are a lot

[55:13] of other places. How do we.

[55:14] What's going to go

[55:16] into these empty buildings?

[55:17] What are going on? These

[55:18] storefronts? That's what we're

[55:20] looking for with this.

[55:22] In addition, that grant also

[55:24] covers a collaboration that

[55:26] we're doing with Shasta

[55:28] College

[55:29] on entrepreneurial boot camps.

[55:32] We'll do one in each

[55:33] of the four counties. It's

[55:34] replicating a project they did

[55:36] down to Tehama county is

[55:38] extremely successful. We're

[55:40] going to bring it up here and

[55:41] then we have loan readiness

[55:42] Technical assistance that will

[55:44] also be funded

[55:50] through that grant. So

[55:51] hopefully in the next few weeks

[55:55] we'll get that one approved.

[55:56] Of course,

[55:57] every opportunity comes

[55:58] with challenges,

[55:59] and here are some that, you

[56:00] know, we're watching for us.

[56:01] Since we're funded

[56:02] through the Economic

[56:03] Development Administration, we

[56:04] get some USDA funds, the

[56:05] Small Business

[56:06] Administration, those are all

[56:07] federal programs. And the

[56:08] federal programs have been

[56:09] in flux this year. It's been a

[56:10] challenging environment trying

[56:11] to figure out what's going

[56:13] to be available, what's not.

[56:14] So we're looking forward

[56:15] to the budget coming

[56:16] out and figuring out, okay,

[56:20] this is exactly what we're

[56:23] going to do. As I talked about,

[56:25] rural communities are

[56:27] struggling, trying to figure

[56:30] out what can we do

[56:33] to help them, what's available,

[56:36] what, what business can we get

[56:39] to go in there? That's going to

[56:41] be a challenge that we're going

[56:42] to look at in the next couple

[56:43] of years. But

[56:45] on the opportunity side, the

[56:46] continued collaboration has

[56:47] been nice. I'm the kind

[56:48] of person, it's much easier

[56:49] to do it by yourself. And so

[56:50] now working with different

[56:51] organization has been really

[56:52] interesting, working

[56:53] on my skill set.

[56:54] But we're starting

[56:55] to see how it pays dividends.

[56:56] So we're not replicating

[56:57] anything. We're enhancing each

[56:58] other. And that's been kind

[57:01] of fun to work on as well.

[57:02] On the lending side,

[57:04] we're going to EDA

[57:05] for more money. We have a 92%

[57:07] utilization rate,

[57:08] which means the $9 million I

[57:09] have

[57:12] in revolving loan funds is out

[57:13] in the community. There's no.

[57:14] It doesn't replicate

[57:15] until I get paid back. So we're

[57:16] trying to. We could loan

[57:17] out as much as we have. That's

[57:18] one

[57:19] of the issues that we're trying

[57:20] to get more money so we can

[57:21] help more entrepreneurs. And

[57:22] then, probably most excitingly,

[57:23] is the opportunity for our

[57:24] comprehensive economic

[57:25] development strategy update.

[57:26] So it updates every five years?

[57:27] Well, we do a full rewrite

[57:28] every five years. Annually we

[57:30] update it. So the next new one

[57:34] will be 2027. So we start

[57:36] writing it next year. Very

[57:39] exciting. Will be the first one

[57:41] that I'm the executive director

[57:42] on where we get

[57:43] to put my stamp on it. It's

[57:45] changed. Ed has changed

[57:47] requirements

[57:48] over the last few years. It

[57:49] went from this big old thick

[57:51] document that nobody read.

[57:52] They show them as doorstops

[57:53] on some of our trainings. Now

[57:54] it's a much more interactive

[57:56] document where we're using it.

[57:58] That's one of the goals,

[57:59] is try

[58:00] to make sure everybody knows

[58:01] about it, how we can use it and

[58:02] how it can bring additional

[58:05] funds into the area. And that's

[58:06] why SCED exists. You know,

[58:07] we're here to help reading

[58:08] in the region, navigate

[58:09] challenges and seize

[58:11] opportunities on the economic

[58:12] development side. Any

[58:14] questions?

[58:21] >> Have to read the thing

[58:25] first. Oh, this item. Okay.

[58:31] All right. Nick Garner. I

[58:34] didn't intend to comment on

[58:36] this.

[58:38] >> I pushed the wrong button.

[58:41] >> Okay. All right,

[58:42] thank you. All right,

[58:44] moving on. Public comment. The

[58:51] city council will allocate up

[58:52] to a maximum of 3 minutes per

[58:53] speaker for 30 minutes total

[58:55] at the beginning

[58:57] of the meeting

[58:58] for public comment

[58:59] for non agendized matters

[59:00] within the city's jurisdiction,

[59:01] the mayor will determine the

[59:03] order of speakers. If 30

[59:04] minutes is not adequate

[59:05] to accommodate all of the

[59:06] individuals who have submitted

[59:07] their name

[59:08] through the electronic kiosk,

[59:10] the council will trail this

[59:11] item to the end

[59:13] of the open session agenda.

[59:14] The remaining speakers will

[59:15] address the city council

[59:17] at that time. All right,

[59:20] Steve, you're up. Leslie, you

[59:21] can be next.

[59:49] >> Good evening again,

[59:50] Councilwoman Adet. You're a

[59:52] very skilled individual.

[59:54] >> I believe you have a degree

[59:55] in political science. Don't

[59:56] you? Or didn't you teach

[59:59] political science at Bethel?

[1:00:00] But your skills are being used

[1:00:02] in a horrible way. You are

[1:00:03] manipulating people with

[1:00:06] partial information and

[1:00:08] misinformation in order

[1:00:09] to capitalize on. On the

[1:00:11] feeling that so many people

[1:00:12] have that government is

[1:00:14] corrupt, that we pay too much

[1:00:16] in taxes,

[1:00:17] that government employees are

[1:00:18] out for themselves and not out

[1:00:19] for the people. This is a

[1:00:21] common belief to start with.

[1:00:23] But you are harvesting that

[1:00:24] belief. You are undermining our

[1:00:27] city government and our city

[1:00:29] employees,

[1:00:31] supposedly because you suspect,

[1:00:33] because you think something's

[1:00:34] wrong, not because you have

[1:00:36] facts that you can throw up

[1:00:37] here and say there is

[1:00:39] corruption. No, it's your

[1:00:41] feelings. It's what you think

[1:00:43] might be happening.

[1:00:45] >> You've been making

[1:00:47] implications that employees

[1:00:48] are.

[1:00:49] >> Hiding things from you or

[1:00:50] not giving you the information

[1:00:51] that you want. You've been

[1:00:53] given the information and you

[1:00:54] simply don't believe it or

[1:00:57] ignore it. I don't know for

[1:00:58] sure why you're doing what

[1:01:00] you're doing,

[1:01:01] but I suspect it has to do

[1:01:03] with you running

[1:01:04] for some state office. With the

[1:01:05] videos you've been posting

[1:01:07] on social media,

[1:01:09] it's clear you're trying

[1:01:10] to position yourself for

[1:01:11] further political ambitions.

[1:01:13] Perhaps state board

[1:01:14] of equalization or something.

[1:01:16] But what you are doing is not

[1:01:17] in the best interest

[1:01:19] of the city of Reading. You

[1:01:21] even stated with a smirk

[1:01:24] on your face that

[1:01:25] after the first of the year,

[1:01:27] if this sales tax does not

[1:01:28] pass, many things are going

[1:01:30] to be hurt drastically. That is

[1:01:32] true. By undermining this sales

[1:01:35] tax you are going

[1:01:37] to cause many negative impacts

[1:01:38] to the city of Reading.

[1:01:40] Without extra money, I believe

[1:01:42] our civic auditorium will

[1:01:43] close. The ball field will end

[1:01:45] up continuing to deteriorate. I

[1:01:47] doubt the soccer field will be

[1:01:48] able to continue to stay open

[1:01:50] for any length of time. Our

[1:01:51] roads will continue to

[1:01:53] deteriorate and they have

[1:01:54] nothing to do with the

[1:01:56] allegations you're making. The

[1:01:58] roads would receive 30% of the

[1:01:59] tax revenues and the other

[1:02:01] monies come

[1:02:02] from the road tax.

[1:02:04] >> The city of Reading is only

[1:02:06] >> Pass through entity when it

[1:02:07] comes to roads. There is no way

[1:02:09] the city of.

[1:02:10] >> Reading can move that

[1:02:12] spending elsewhere. Yet you're

[1:02:13] doing.

[1:02:15] >> You're undermining the set

[1:02:16] by undermining the sales tax.

[1:02:17] You will guarantee that our

[1:02:19] roads continue to deteriorate

[1:02:20] because the state doesn't give

[1:02:21] us enough money

[1:02:23] to maintain them properly.

[1:02:24] Yes, Adet, you are the

[1:02:25] destroyer

[1:02:27] of cities. I'll leave it at

[1:02:29] that. I've got a lot more. I

[1:02:31] will continue

[1:02:33] on the next time. All right,

[1:02:36] thanks, Steve. Leslie, Lance

[1:02:37] Law, you're on deck. Have my

[1:02:47] shadow with me today.

[1:02:48] >> Oh, you want to stand

[1:02:51] on there? I feel 112% opposite

[1:02:56] of everything Steve just said.

[1:02:59] >> Thank you for standing

[1:03:01] on principle.

[1:03:04] >> Thank you for every time you

[1:03:05] sat.

[1:03:07] >> In here and tried to ask a.

[1:03:09] >> Question and Mayor Mutton

[1:03:11] shut you down.

[1:03:12] >> Because he wants this

[1:03:14] meeting to only.

[1:03:15] >> Last an hour or the rest of.

[1:03:16] >> The council shut you down

[1:03:18] because they love the facts

[1:03:20] that they've been managed.

[1:03:25] >> By this table over here. I

[1:03:27] am really hoping you are not a

[1:03:28] continuance of that.

[1:03:32] >> So far we've had positive

[1:03:35] interactions. I hope that

[1:03:37] continues. But this council,

[1:03:38] the previous council was

[1:03:39] managed by the city manager and

[1:03:40] that is not how this works.

[1:03:41] >> So thank you for standing

[1:03:42] on principle.

[1:03:44] >> Thank you again. I've said

[1:03:45] it

[1:03:46] before and I will say it again.

[1:03:47] Thank you for coming forward

[1:03:49] and apologizing for the times

[1:03:51] that you were wrong and

[1:03:54] standing up and taking that.

[1:03:56] Everything you have done would

[1:03:57] hurt any political aspiration

[1:03:59] that you have. Yet you have

[1:04:01] stuck your head out.

[1:04:03] >> And your neck out

[1:04:04] for us because.

[1:04:06] >> You are doing the right

[1:04:07] thing and standing

[1:04:09] on principle. Sorry, you were

[1:04:12] right.

[1:04:13] >> I did not put in for that

[1:04:15] first comment because I thought

[1:04:16] if there is nothing nice

[1:04:19] to say, it's better not

[1:04:21] to say anything at all. So I

[1:04:23] only put him

[1:04:26] for public comment.

[1:04:27] >> What I will say is when

[1:04:29] somebody shows you who they

[1:04:30] are, believe it.

[1:04:32] >> Tanessa sat there,

[1:04:34] had nothing nice to.

[1:04:37] >> Say, so she didn't say

[1:04:38] anything at all.

[1:04:39] >> Barry, however, gave a very

[1:04:41] disgusting display.

[1:04:43] >> Of who he is.

[1:04:45] >> So thank you

[1:04:46] for having class. Thank you

[1:04:47] for having our backs,

[1:04:48] and thank you for standing up

[1:04:49] when no one else will.

[1:04:50] >> Lance Law and Janet

[1:04:51] Chapman, you're

[1:05:01] after him.

[1:05:02] >> Hi.

[1:05:03] >> I live in Crown Estates and

[1:05:04] have Clear Creek

[1:05:05] along the back

[1:05:07] of my property. There's a

[1:05:08] neighborhood there, and there's

[1:05:09] probably a dozen houses that

[1:05:10] line the creek. We're

[1:05:12] on the south side

[1:05:14] of the creek,

[1:05:15] on the north side, or, excuse

[1:05:16] me, we're on the north side

[1:05:17] of the creek,

[1:05:18] on the south side

[1:05:19] of the creek. It's pretty

[1:05:21] common for homeless people

[1:05:23] to be camped back there.

[1:05:24] There's kind

[1:05:27] of a typical cycle. They get

[1:05:28] in there, they camp.

[1:05:30] In the wintertime, the creek

[1:05:31] floods, it floods

[1:05:33] out the camp, sort

[1:05:36] of washes all the debris

[1:05:41] from the camps

[1:05:43] into the creek and eventually

[1:05:47] into the river. It makes a

[1:05:50] pretty big mess. It's something

[1:05:52] we've kind of

[1:05:55] in the neighborhood been able

[1:05:57] to handle. Right now there is.

[1:05:58] It's gone from camp

[1:05:59] to compound. These guys aren't

[1:06:00] afraid to build a cabin,

[1:06:01] use a chainsaw. When it flooded

[1:06:02] last spring, I went back there,

[1:06:03] took a look at it, and they had

[1:06:04] actually built it up

[1:06:05] on elevated platform. They had

[1:06:06] a wood stove in there. They

[1:06:08] have solar panels. They have

[1:06:10] batteries that store the

[1:06:11] electricity for the solar.

[1:06:12] They have a mini fridge that

[1:06:15] floated

[1:06:17] down the creek and kind

[1:06:19] of got stuck in a log jam.

[1:06:23] This spring, when,

[1:06:24] before all the trees budded,

[1:06:29] I could literally see the camp

[1:06:31] from my dining room. If I were

[1:06:32] to walk out the back

[1:06:33] of my gate, walk

[1:06:34] down the trail, swim

[1:06:36] across the creek, I could be

[1:06:37] in the camp

[1:06:39] in maybe one minute. There's

[1:06:41] constant dog barking, fighting,

[1:06:43] all the carrying on that kind

[1:06:44] of goes on with that sort

[1:06:47] of thing. And there's been

[1:06:48] something that's been pretty

[1:06:51] weird. You know,

[1:06:52] in the wintertime, people

[1:06:53] actually put their windows

[1:06:54] open. And every now and then

[1:06:55] I'll wake up and it's just

[1:06:57] like, my God, what's this toxic

[1:06:58] plume? You know,

[1:06:59] it just smells

[1:07:00] like something just crazy is

[1:07:01] on fire. And I've spoke

[1:07:03] with a few of my neighbors,

[1:07:05] and it's kind of been sort

[1:07:06] of a weird, ongoing thing that

[1:07:08] we've all noticed. You know,

[1:07:09] I've talked to some

[1:07:10] of my neighbors. Yeah, what are

[1:07:12] they burning? Trash. What

[1:07:13] happened when their tents catch

[1:07:15] on fire? Can't really figure it

[1:07:18] out. So anyway, you know,

[1:07:19] in the past, I've gone

[1:07:20] into the camps

[1:07:21] before and tried

[1:07:23] to have conversations

[1:07:24] with the. With the residents

[1:07:26] of the camps. So Sunday, went

[1:07:28] across the creek, went

[1:07:30] into the camp. Everybody kind

[1:07:32] of scattered except

[1:07:34] for the pack of dogs. And I

[1:07:36] started looking Around.

[1:07:38] There's stoves,

[1:07:41] there's pots and pans,

[1:07:42] empty solvent jugs. There's a

[1:07:43] meth lab. And so maybe I've

[1:07:45] reported it to RPD a bunch

[1:07:46] of times,

[1:07:47] but maybe you guys can help us

[1:07:48] out and direct some more

[1:07:49] resources to this. Basically,

[1:07:52] it's a meth lab. All right,

[1:07:56] thanks. Thank you.

[1:07:57] >> Where was this property

[1:07:59] again?

[1:08:02] >> Crown Estates.

[1:08:04] >> Crown Estates subdivision.

[1:08:09] It's on the south side of

[1:08:15] Clear Creek and it's probably a

[1:08:17] block down from the 273 bridge.

[1:08:20] They've kind

[1:08:21] of worked their way

[1:08:24] through that forest. And, you

[1:08:26] know, RPD has been aware of it.

[1:08:28] I've actually had conversations

[1:08:33] with patrolmen. I've reported

[1:08:36] it with to Fish and Wildlife

[1:08:37] blm, Shasta County. You know,

[1:08:39] it's like everybody kind

[1:08:42] of has been aware of it. I've

[1:08:43] been pretty vocal and it's been

[1:08:44] an ongoing thing,

[1:08:45] but typically it's, you know,

[1:08:46] a handful of camps. The weather

[1:08:47] chases them out

[1:08:48] of there and it takes a while

[1:08:49] for them to come back.

[1:08:50] But do you guys remember, like,

[1:08:51] what was going on at Nor Pond

[1:08:52] before it got developed

[1:08:53] into a recreation area? There

[1:08:55] is an astronomical amount

[1:08:59] of debris in this.

[1:09:00] In this area now.

[1:09:05] >> And the chief of police is

[1:09:06] over here,

[1:09:08] so we're gonna have you talk

[1:09:09] to him after you're done.

[1:09:10] >> Yeah, I've got some

[1:09:12] pictures.

[1:09:14] >> He would love that. Well,

[1:09:15] yeah, and then we'll. And then,

[1:09:16] and then we'll follow up. Have

[1:09:17] you emailed or given us any

[1:09:18] of your contact info?

[1:09:20] >> You know,

[1:09:21] I've submitted a bunch

[1:09:25] of stuff to the rpd. You know,

[1:09:28] the online submission. Yeah.

[1:09:29] So there's a long record.

[1:09:30] >> Can you just follow? We're

[1:09:31] going to follow up with him,

[1:09:32] but will you also follow up

[1:09:33] with us either

[1:09:34] by email or come to the next

[1:09:35] meeting and we'll make sure

[1:09:36] that something's been done?

[1:09:38] >> Yes. Thank you.

[1:09:39] >> Thank you.

[1:09:40] >> Thank you. Janet Chapman,

[1:09:42] you're up next. Nick Garner,

[1:09:44] you're on deck.

[1:09:55] >> Greetings, council members.

[1:09:56] I'm Reverend Janet Chapman

[1:09:57] from First Christian Church,

[1:09:58] and we are deeply humbled. We

[1:10:00] just celebrated our 60th

[1:10:02] anniversary here.

[1:10:03] >> In Reading, and we are

[1:10:05] grateful that.

[1:10:07] >> You were able to hear

[1:10:08] about Christian church homes.

[1:10:09] >> We have been in partnership

[1:10:12] with them in the 60 years we've

[1:10:13] been here in Reading. And it's

[1:10:14] wonderful to see their success

[1:10:17] not just here in Reading,

[1:10:19] but nationwide in housing. Low

[1:10:20] income seniors in beautiful,

[1:10:22] sustainable apartments. You

[1:10:24] should go check

[1:10:26] out these apartments. They're

[1:10:27] gorgeous.

[1:10:29] But that didn't start

[1:10:30] off that way. 69 years ago,

[1:10:32] it took time for.

[1:10:34] >> Christian church homes

[1:10:35] to build.

[1:10:36] >> Up, to adapt, to revise,

[1:10:38] to adjust,

[1:10:39] to navigate grant options,

[1:10:40] to consider housing and how to

[1:10:42] finance those housing options.

[1:10:44] It wasn't an overnight process.

[1:10:47] And so I'm sharing from,

[1:10:49] I'm so.

[1:10:51] >> Grateful Cynthia from the

[1:10:53] Bay Area could.

[1:10:55] >> Come and be

[1:10:56] with us. I'm sharing from the

[1:10:58] way back when when we were just

[1:11:00] learning how to do this. And I

[1:11:01] would like to remind you that

[1:11:02] that also applies

[1:11:04] to situations

[1:11:06] like creating micro shelters.

[1:11:08] We are a big advocate

[1:11:10] for the micro shelters here

[1:11:13] in Reading. It is not an

[1:11:15] overnight process. Whereas we

[1:11:19] have been working

[1:11:22] with the micro shelter

[1:11:23] for a couple years in South

[1:11:25] Market, the one the United Way

[1:11:26] has been undergirding. They now

[1:11:28] have 30 people who are

[1:11:30] out working in the community

[1:11:33] in their own apartments, their

[1:11:35] own housing and they are

[1:11:36] employed. I also want to

[1:11:38] acknowledge this would not have

[1:11:40] happened without the support

[1:11:41] of Barry Tippen and Steve Baid

[1:11:43] and Kristin Schrader. And we

[1:11:45] are deeply grateful

[1:11:47] for that support. But this is

[1:11:48] not an overnight process. This

[1:11:50] takes time and patience. And I

[1:11:52] know it's hard to be patient.

[1:11:55] And I know when you're looking

[1:11:57] at the bottom line, you want

[1:11:59] to see, well, I want

[1:12:00] to get these people out. Let's

[1:12:01] get them out right away. If we

[1:12:02] had done that 69 years ago in

[1:12:04] Christian church homes,

[1:12:06] I guarantee to you the Lorenz

[1:12:07] Hotel, Reading Treehouse and

[1:12:09] Piper Way would be vacant.

[1:12:11] They would not exist. Caring

[1:12:14] for the vulnerable takes time.

[1:12:17] It takes effort. And if

[1:12:19] Christian church homes had

[1:12:22] given up and city of Reading

[1:12:23] had said you're not operating

[1:12:25] fast enough, then the 230

[1:12:27] people who have homes right now

[1:12:29] with CCH would not be so lucky.

[1:12:30] Please, friends, consider the

[1:12:32] process and recognize this is

[1:12:35] not an overnight. It's not even

[1:12:37] a one year process or a two

[1:12:41] year process. This involves all

[1:12:46] of us working together

[1:12:48] on the long haul. Thank you.

[1:12:50] >> Thank you. Nick, you're up

[1:12:56] then. Todd Jones.

[1:12:57] >> I've got a radio show.

[1:13:03] >> Poke the Hornet's nest.

[1:13:05] It's on kcnr1460.com I would

[1:13:07] encourage everybody to go

[1:13:08] to the show. This last Sunday

[1:13:10] we had Christine and Mike

[1:13:12] Robinson on. They own a

[1:13:14] property at the middle.

[1:13:18] >> Of Middle Creek Road and

[1:13:22] they were.

[1:13:24] >> Burned out with the car

[1:13:25] fire.

[1:13:28] >> And the city of Reading

[1:13:30] in conjunction.

[1:13:33] >> And mostly with the Shasta

[1:13:36] county code enforcement have

[1:13:39] done everything

[1:13:41] to steal their property

[1:13:42] from them.

[1:13:43] >> They put every roadblock up

[1:13:45] they could.

[1:13:46] >> Possibly put up to where

[1:13:47] they can't rebuild and they've

[1:13:49] spent a ton of money,

[1:13:52] I mean hundreds of thousands of

[1:13:53] dollars defending themselves.

[1:13:55] And at the end

[1:13:57] of the day they Got a hold

[1:13:59] of a map.

[1:14:02] >> That showed that the city

[1:14:03] of Reading.

[1:14:05] >> Wanted to put a trailhead

[1:14:07] with a 15 car parking lot

[1:14:09] on their property. And that was

[1:14:11] what the big push was.

[1:14:12] >> And this is something

[1:14:13] Barry Tippen should.

[1:14:14] >> Have been aware

[1:14:16] of if he wasn't. This is a

[1:14:18] travesty

[1:14:19] of justice trying.

[1:14:23] >> To steal these people's

[1:14:25] property the way they did.

[1:14:27] >> So I would encourage

[1:14:29] everybody to go listen

[1:14:31] to that kcnr1460.com and listen

[1:14:37] to how the government can steal

[1:14:41] your property,

[1:14:45] how things are manipulated.

[1:14:47] Now, Mark Mazano said that all

[1:14:48] the decisions were made

[1:14:49] by the supervisors up there.

[1:14:50] And like Leslie said,

[1:14:51] they make their decisions

[1:14:52] with the information Barry gets

[1:14:53] them. But I'd like to ask

[1:14:54] Mark, did you vote

[1:14:55] on letting our sports park go

[1:14:56] to hell? Did you vote

[1:14:57] on letting all the parolees

[1:14:58] from out of the area be parole

[1:14:59] directing? I've got information

[1:15:00] that can, can back that up.

[1:15:01] And you know, our town's gone

[1:15:02] to hell. I don't know where you

[1:15:03] guys get the rosy picture that

[1:15:04] everything's hunky dory.

[1:15:05] >> Because I don't see.

[1:15:06] >> All right, Todd Jones,

[1:15:07] you're up. Hello, Mr. Mayor,

[1:15:12] council and staff, thank you

[1:15:13] for having me here today. I

[1:15:14] wanted to kind of touch on a

[1:15:15] few things. I think the first

[1:15:18] one really that kind

[1:15:20] of encompasses all of it is

[1:15:23] collaboration. I just want

[1:15:24] to thank the staff.

[1:15:26] >> Of the City of Reading

[1:15:27] for partnering.

[1:15:29] >> With us and collaborating

[1:15:31] with us for Visit Reading and

[1:15:32] supporting the work that we do

[1:15:33] at Visit Reading to really,

[1:15:34] like Danny said, highlight and

[1:15:35] be that bright light and

[1:15:36] showcase what Reading has

[1:15:37] to offer. And I think we've

[1:15:39] seen that over the last several

[1:15:40] years and the tot increase that

[1:15:43] we've seen since the Chamber

[1:15:44] has taken on that. And it's

[1:15:47] been great to work with Travis

[1:15:49] and Steve and the whole team

[1:15:50] there.

[1:15:52] But the big thing that I wanted

[1:15:53] to talk about is really Barry

[1:15:54] tonight. And I know I didn't. I

[1:15:55] didn't know you could actually

[1:15:56] present on those presentations

[1:15:57] at the beginning,

[1:15:58] but I really wanted to thank

[1:15:59] Barry between my time

[1:16:00] at the EDC and now at the

[1:16:01] Chamber. When I was

[1:16:02] at the edc, we were

[1:16:03] in dozens and dozens

[1:16:04] of meetings

[1:16:05] on different projects. Some of

[1:16:06] them were a little bit crazy.

[1:16:07] So thank you for humoring me

[1:16:08] with some

[1:16:09] of these people that came

[1:16:10] to town.

[1:16:11] But I think my big takeaway

[1:16:12] from every single meeting I've

[1:16:13] ever had with Barry

[1:16:14] on these ideas at Stillwater or

[1:16:15] other big investments in

[1:16:16] Redding is he always found a

[1:16:17] way and he always had a

[1:16:18] positive attitude. And he said,

[1:16:19] we'll, we'll Figure it out.

[1:16:20] We'll get it done. And I think

[1:16:21] everybody that came into those

[1:16:22] meetings that walked away

[1:16:23] always felt, I know

[1:16:24] for a fact, they always felt

[1:16:25] confident that the city of

[1:16:26] Reading could do it, take care

[1:16:27] of them, and see the project

[1:16:28] through to fruition. And a lot

[1:16:29] of that came from Barry's

[1:16:30] leadership at City hall

[1:16:31] over the last several years.

[1:16:32] And I really want to thank you

[1:16:33] for all of the work that you've

[1:16:34] done and the visionary

[1:16:36] leadership and the way that

[1:16:37] you've been able to stand up

[1:16:38] and do what you think needs

[1:16:39] to be done

[1:16:40] to see progress happen

[1:16:41] in our city. So thank you so

[1:16:43] much and we're gonna miss you.

[1:16:45] Appreciate it, Barry. Thanks,

[1:16:46] Todd. All right, moving on

[1:16:51] to consent calendar. The

[1:16:53] consent calendar king's items

[1:16:54] continue routine and or which

[1:16:56] have been individually

[1:16:57] scrutinized by city council

[1:16:58] members and are anticipated to

[1:16:59] require no further

[1:17:00] deliberation. A member

[1:17:02] of the public wishes

[1:17:03] to address the item

[1:17:04] on a consent calendar. Please

[1:17:05] enter your name the electronic

[1:17:06] kiosk in the lobby before the

[1:17:08] consent calendar is considered.

[1:17:09] Yes, it shall be the

[1:17:11] prerogative

[1:17:14] of any city council member

[1:17:15] before the consent calendar is

[1:17:16] acted upon to one, comment

[1:17:17] on an item two, respond

[1:17:18] to any public comment

[1:17:20] on an item Three, request the

[1:17:22] record reflect an abstention or

[1:17:24] >> Nay vote on an item number

[1:17:25] four.

[1:17:27] >> Remove an item and place it

[1:17:29] on the regular portion

[1:17:30] of the agenda for delivery of a

[1:17:32] staff report and or extended

[1:17:34] discussion deliberation. Do we

[1:17:35] have any of those today?

[1:17:38] >> All right, obtain a motion.

[1:17:40] >> I'll make a motion

[1:17:41] to approve consent.

[1:17:43] >> All right, I'll. A second.

[1:17:44] All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye.

[1:17:45] All right.

[1:17:47] >> Well,

[1:17:52] >> That was nice. All right,

[1:17:54] moving on. 9.10. Mr.

[1:17:56] Robinette, consider the city

[1:18:00] of readings, year end budget

[1:18:01] review, associated resolution

[1:18:03] for fiscal year ending 2025.

[1:18:07] It's all yours. Good evening,

[1:18:09] mayor, council. Mr. Orloff said

[1:18:10] something that I think kind

[1:18:12] of spoke to me. It's an honor

[1:18:14] to be up here presenting this

[1:18:15] information and working hard

[1:18:17] for our community. Community. I

[1:18:18] don't. I know I don't say it

[1:18:21] enough and so I just wanted

[1:18:22] to express that,

[1:18:23] that I really take great pride

[1:18:26] in the work that we do

[1:18:27] in our department. And

[1:18:28] with that, I'll get started.

[1:18:30] This update, I think this is

[1:18:32] the fourth time I've given. It

[1:18:33] can always be a little

[1:18:36] challenging because we just

[1:18:38] adopted a new budget,

[1:18:39] a new ten year plan,

[1:18:41] but yet here we are talking

[1:18:42] about the old ten year plan one

[1:18:43] last time. And so that in and

[1:18:44] of itself can be a little

[1:18:45] confusing. I'll do my Best

[1:18:47] throughout the presentation to

[1:18:48] connect those pieces where

[1:18:49] appropriate from kind of how

[1:18:52] the new ten year plan was

[1:18:54] created

[1:18:55] with the information present

[1:18:56] in this document. The primary

[1:18:59] two connection points, just

[1:19:00] to point out off the start is

[1:19:02] the beginning cash number for

[1:19:04] the new ten year plan has some

[1:19:05] loose relationship,

[1:19:07] not a direct correlation

[1:19:08] to the ending cash of the old

[1:19:09] 10 year plan as of 6-30-25 will

[1:19:15] be our beginning cash

[1:19:16] for 7-1-25. And then the other

[1:19:19] part where there's a loose

[1:19:20] connection is

[1:19:21] with our revenue forecasts. We

[1:19:22] have to actually,

[1:19:24] when we're doing the budget,

[1:19:25] it's early spring and we are

[1:19:26] having to forecast the rest

[1:19:29] of 2425. So I will do my best

[1:19:30] to explain the revenue

[1:19:33] projections we use as part

[1:19:34] of the budget for 2425 and try

[1:19:35] to contextualize where we

[1:19:38] landed relative

[1:19:39] to not just the old budget, but

[1:19:40] the new budget as well as we

[1:19:41] kind of launch off into the new

[1:19:42] budget that we're already two

[1:19:43] and a half months into. Okay,

[1:19:45] Steve. Okay, so starting

[1:19:52] with the first slide here,

[1:20:00] this is a kind of our. Our

[1:20:01] general fund cash balance

[1:20:03] provides a history of each

[1:20:05] quarter ending actual cash

[1:20:06] reserves. The beginning cash,

[1:20:08] 6-30-24 is the cash used

[1:20:11] in our general fund 10 year

[1:20:13] plan. As council may remember,

[1:20:15] the cash actually in our

[1:20:17] audited general fund financial

[1:20:19] statements was much higher than

[1:20:21] that. We lower it for various

[1:20:24] encumbrances and carryovers

[1:20:26] that are carried over

[1:20:28] to the next year. In this

[1:20:30] fiscal year that was quite

[1:20:32] large between encumbrances and

[1:20:34] carryovers, we had about a $10

[1:20:37] million reduction to cash

[1:20:42] from the audited cash to the

[1:20:46] beginning cash that was used

[1:20:48] by the ten year plan. This V

[1:20:50] pattern

[1:20:51] of cash is pretty normal. And

[1:20:53] then the actual cash

[1:20:55] for 6-30-25 is about 10.2

[1:20:57] million right now. I also like

[1:20:59] to point out as part

[1:21:00] of this presentation,

[1:21:01] we are not done

[1:21:03] with our audit. We're

[1:21:04] about four to six weeks away

[1:21:06] from the completion

[1:21:07] of our audit. So there still

[1:21:08] will be adjustments, incoming

[1:21:09] on cash and various expenses.

[1:21:10] It shouldn't be a lot

[1:21:11] at this point, but I do think

[1:21:12] it's an important context

[1:21:13] to know we are not done

[1:21:14] with our audit. So these

[1:21:15] numbers are subject

[1:21:16] to change. The current ten year

[1:21:17] plan, or I call it the old ten

[1:21:18] year plan at this point would

[1:21:19] project that we would have

[1:21:20] about a 6% reserve, $6.8

[1:21:21] million. The new 10 year plan

[1:21:22] is that we actually forecasted

[1:21:23] a $9 million number. I went

[1:21:24] through some detail

[1:21:25] in the staff report

[1:21:26] to explain kind

[1:21:27] of the difference between those

[1:21:28] two numbers and why I still

[1:21:29] believe the 9 million is a good

[1:21:30] estimation. And over the next

[1:21:31] couple slides I'll get

[1:21:32] into those details

[1:21:33] of the revenues. Yes, they were

[1:21:34] short. There's some context

[1:21:35] around those revenues and

[1:21:36] expenses. There was a great

[1:21:37] deal of savings in the general

[1:21:38] fund that we can count as

[1:21:40] savings towards the beginning,

[1:21:41] cash. So this first slide is

[1:21:44] just a high level overview.

[1:21:46] Revenues are on the left.

[1:21:49] Typically in a perfect world

[1:21:50] you would want actuals

[1:21:51] to be above, so the dark blue

[1:21:52] to be above the light blue.

[1:21:53] Just that way you know you're

[1:21:55] increasing your revenue

[1:21:56] over what you forecasted.

[1:21:58] In this case, we're $3.7

[1:22:00] million under projections. The

[1:22:02] next couple slides I'll break

[1:22:03] down what those details are.

[1:22:04] And then on the right set

[1:22:06] of graphs there,

[1:22:08] you always want actual to be

[1:22:11] below budget. And while we do

[1:22:12] have some budget requests

[1:22:15] included in the staff report,

[1:22:16] that's kind of the second half

[1:22:18] of the presentation. That is

[1:22:20] primarily not a result of lack

[1:22:21] of savings, as you'll see

[1:22:23] in a few slides, but savings

[1:22:25] in the right categories

[1:22:27] for those departments. So

[1:22:28] overall they saved money. But

[1:22:29] in the specific categories that

[1:22:31] we manage the budget to, they

[1:22:32] needed some additional funds.

[1:22:33] Not a lot,

[1:22:34] but some additional funds. So

[1:22:35] first, this is our kind

[1:22:38] of our revenue chart

[1:22:40] for the audience's benefit.

[1:22:41] Although council has heard me

[1:22:43] present this a few times, I

[1:22:44] still think it can be slightly

[1:22:45] confusing. If every bar was

[1:22:48] exactly on that line,

[1:22:49] you didn't see a bar. That

[1:22:51] means we hit the projection.

[1:22:52] Exactly. That's pretty hard

[1:22:53] to do. So I don't think. I

[1:22:54] hardly ever see anything. You

[1:22:55] know, some

[1:22:56] of those are very close

[1:22:58] to the line,

[1:23:00] which is encouraging. As you

[1:23:01] can see here, sales tax for

[1:23:03] 2425 was $1.3 million

[1:23:05] under projection for 2425.

[1:23:07] In a few slides I'll talk about

[1:23:09] when we built the new budget.

[1:23:10] What did we assume

[1:23:12] for 2425? I can kind of

[1:23:13] forecast it was lower than the

[1:23:16] number that we had in the

[1:23:18] budget that was previously

[1:23:21] approved by council. Property

[1:23:23] tax is over by $500,000.

[1:23:25] Transiting occupancy tax

[1:23:27] below projection by 300,000.

[1:23:29] Cannabis tax and other taxes.

[1:23:31] Combine those together, about

[1:23:32] 300,000 below. Building related

[1:23:35] fees, about 238,000 below.

[1:23:36] Internal departments, we

[1:23:38] haven't finished what's called

[1:23:40] the street report or the gas

[1:23:41] tax. True up, but that's the

[1:23:42] primary difference between the

[1:23:44] internal departments. Transfer

[1:23:45] is due

[1:23:47] to the streets still working

[1:23:49] on finishing some projects. We

[1:23:50] don't make a transfer

[1:23:51] to the general fund until that

[1:23:53] money is spent and so there

[1:23:54] were some projects that are

[1:23:56] kind of lagging

[1:23:58] behind that we expect

[1:23:59] over the next year we'll be

[1:24:00] able to transfer that money

[1:24:01] from the streets department

[1:24:02] to the general or

[1:24:03] from the gas tax funds

[1:24:04] to the general fund. Another

[1:24:05] big item

[1:24:07] on this slide that I wanted

[1:24:09] to point out is the revenue

[1:24:10] from other governments. The

[1:24:12] fire department has been

[1:24:13] working pretty hard

[1:24:15] with the federal government,

[1:24:16] FEMA,

[1:24:17] to bill our SAFER grant. We're

[1:24:18] owed about $2.2 million

[1:24:19] through the end of the fiscal

[1:24:21] year and that would mostly make

[1:24:22] up for the reduction there.

[1:24:23] The reason there's an issue,

[1:24:25] it's a little nuanced, but the

[1:24:27] federal government has told us

[1:24:28] to start switching over

[1:24:29] to a singular UEI number. It's

[1:24:30] basically a grant number that

[1:24:32] we're allowed to have. They no

[1:24:33] longer want us

[1:24:35] to have multiples. Our city did

[1:24:36] have multiples

[1:24:38] for a long time. So there was a

[1:24:39] UEI number used

[1:24:40] on the application that now,

[1:24:42] since then we've got rid

[1:24:45] of that UEI number. We've

[1:24:47] consolidated in the singular

[1:24:49] city UEI number. And so we're

[1:24:50] having some issues

[1:24:52] in their system that we have

[1:24:53] to bill through actually

[1:24:55] getting that UEI number

[1:24:57] updated. Just saw another email

[1:25:00] from us, fema. It's called

[1:25:02] fema. Go where they were.

[1:25:04] It's Tier three, which I guess

[1:25:05] is their highest level

[1:25:08] of support. And we're trying to

[1:25:09] get that issue rectified so we

[1:25:11] can bill them

[1:25:12] for our incurred costs. But

[1:25:14] that's just a good example

[1:25:16] where we're going

[1:25:18] to receive that money

[1:25:19] in the next three

[1:25:20] to six months, most likely, and

[1:25:21] then we'll have a revenue next

[1:25:23] year that we weren't accounting

[1:25:24] for. That would actually bring

[1:25:25] this graph up more to equal.

[1:25:27] This is a history

[1:25:28] of tax revenues. As you can

[1:25:29] see, sales tax over the past

[1:25:30] three years has been mostly

[1:25:31] flat. Property tax continues

[1:25:32] to grow year over year. I'll

[1:25:33] get the next slides. We'll

[1:25:34] actually get into some details

[1:25:35] of historical growth and the

[1:25:36] growth we've seen

[1:25:37] over the past few years.

[1:25:39] But this just kind

[1:25:41] of gives a snapshot

[1:25:42] of the last three years. And

[1:25:43] this is actually through

[1:25:44] June. So property tax continues

[1:25:46] to be a strength, but all the

[1:25:47] other revenues are mostly flat.

[1:25:49] The tax revenues are mostly

[1:25:50] flat. So I felt

[1:25:55] like it would be good to talk

[1:25:58] about more than three years

[1:25:59] of actuals, talk

[1:26:01] about where our forecast exists

[1:26:03] in the new budget,

[1:26:05] and also walk through kind

[1:26:07] of the previously 2325 adopted

[1:26:08] budget and amended budget. So

[1:26:09] first up is sales tax. As you

[1:26:12] can see on the graph,

[1:26:13] we had basically 10 years of.

[1:26:16] If you average it all out,

[1:26:19] it's growth, but over the past

[1:26:20] five years it has pretty much

[1:26:22] been flat. Four years it's been

[1:26:25] flat. So if you average 10

[1:26:26] years, sales taxes increased

[1:26:27] by 3.4% over those 10 years

[1:26:29] on average. And then from 2015

[1:26:32] to 2020 it was 3.2% all told. I

[1:26:34] think what's important is what

[1:26:38] did we do in the budget? So

[1:26:39] with the adopted budget is the

[1:26:40] darker blue line. In September

[1:26:43] of last year,

[1:26:44] we amended the budget down to

[1:26:46] the green line and as you can

[1:26:47] see for last year,

[1:26:49] the revenue continued to kind

[1:26:50] of stay flat. And we built the

[1:26:53] new budget assuming 2425 was

[1:26:55] going to be flat from 2324. It

[1:26:57] did slightly come in

[1:27:00] below that by about $500,000.

[1:27:02] So we're already starting

[1:27:03] off kind of on a bad foot. And

[1:27:05] then we assume 2% growth

[1:27:07] for the first two years of the

[1:27:08] budget and then 2.5%

[1:27:10] thereafter. I think

[1:27:11] with the historical information

[1:27:13] of 3.4% growth for 10 years, I

[1:27:14] think our assumptions are

[1:27:17] pretty conservative.

[1:27:18] But also, you know,

[1:27:19] to be honest, I don't think

[1:27:20] I've ever seen a situation

[1:27:22] where besides that little

[1:27:23] bubble, you know,

[1:27:24] mostly if you look

[1:27:25] across those four years,

[1:27:27] we're flat. You know, there's a

[1:27:28] bubble there and then we've

[1:27:29] been flat for four years

[1:27:30] besides that bubble. So that's

[1:27:33] our forecast

[1:27:34] for the new budget and it is

[1:27:35] below the even amended budget

[1:27:38] or the last adopted budget.

[1:27:39] And we, you know, we're kind

[1:27:40] of chasing it

[1:27:41] down as it continues

[1:27:42] to go flat. We assume it's

[1:27:44] going to increase at some point

[1:27:45] and I'm hopeful that at some

[1:27:46] point it'll catch up and start

[1:27:48] meeting or beating our

[1:27:49] assumptions. A little added

[1:27:53] context here, I think. I

[1:27:54] started presenting these

[1:27:55] updates as a finance officer

[1:27:56] in around 2019, and from 2019

[1:27:57] to 2022, I would always come to

[1:28:01] council and tell them how good

[1:28:02] sales tax is doing. It's always

[1:28:04] beating our projections. And

[1:28:05] then in 2022, 2023 is,

[1:28:06] was when I felt like I was, er,

[1:28:09] all the time, because it

[1:28:12] continually, you know,

[1:28:13] we're trying to, trying

[1:28:14] to find the bottom, so

[1:28:16] to speak, with assumptions that

[1:28:17] assume growth. And so I would

[1:28:19] always come in and say, yeah,

[1:28:21] sales tax isn't meeting our

[1:28:23] expectations or meeting our

[1:28:26] forecast. So I remain hopeful

[1:28:29] that this year will be the

[1:28:30] year.

[1:28:31] But it is a key component of

[1:28:33] our budget that we're gonna

[1:28:36] have to watch. The next one up

[1:28:37] is property tax. Again,

[1:28:38] for kind of context. Again, the

[1:28:41] dark blue is our original

[1:28:42] adopted budget

[1:28:44] for fiscal year 24 and 25, we

[1:28:46] amended it last September

[1:28:48] to the green, the green bar.

[1:28:50] And then we have the purple

[1:28:52] bar, which is the new budget.

[1:28:53] Those are pretty close

[1:28:54] to each other. So

[1:28:56] for historical context,

[1:29:00] our average revenue increases

[1:29:01] for the last 10 years

[1:29:02] in this category was 6.24%.

[1:29:05] And if you look

[1:29:06] over the past five years,

[1:29:07] it was 6.89%. And

[1:29:08] in the budget,

[1:29:09] we assumed a 4.5% increase

[1:29:12] from 2324 to 2425, and then

[1:29:13] thereafter we assumed a 3%

[1:29:16] increase. So pretty

[1:29:18] conservative revenue assumption

[1:29:19] if you base it off the last 10

[1:29:21] years of actual performance,

[1:29:23] which could be continue to be

[1:29:25] an area where it helps offset

[1:29:27] maybe some

[1:29:29] of the negative performance

[1:29:30] with sales tax. And I will say,

[1:29:33] as a finance guy, I am happy to

[1:29:34] see that our property tax is

[1:29:36] nearly catching up

[1:29:37] to our sales tax.

[1:29:39] Unfortunately, it's bad

[1:29:41] circumstances, but in, you

[1:29:43] know, a perfect world, that's a

[1:29:45] good thing because this is a

[1:29:47] lot more stable revenue than

[1:29:49] sales tax. And it,

[1:29:51] and you can kind of count on it

[1:29:52] maintaining even if things

[1:29:53] start to go bad,

[1:29:54] it takes a couple years

[1:29:55] for you to start to see some

[1:29:56] of those bad outcomes

[1:29:57] in the property tax. Next up is

[1:29:59] tot. This is a lot smaller

[1:30:00] revenue than the previous two.

[1:30:02] And as you can see there,

[1:30:03] there's some volatility that is

[1:30:05] introduced

[1:30:06] in this revenue potentially

[1:30:07] with those major spikes. I'll

[1:30:09] just context each of the spikes

[1:30:10] and what I think contributed

[1:30:12] to them. In 2019 area there we

[1:30:14] had the car fire and we had the

[1:30:16] campfire in paradise. That

[1:30:19] brought a lot of fire crews

[1:30:20] to our area, staying

[1:30:22] in our hotels,

[1:30:25] terrible tragedy. But in terms

[1:30:27] of our tot,

[1:30:29] it did help quite a bit. And

[1:30:31] then in 2022, I always tell

[1:30:33] people, I think at some point

[1:30:35] people figured out, oh, up in

[1:30:36] Northern California, they're

[1:30:37] not shut down,

[1:30:38] let's go vacation up there.

[1:30:41] And so I think they came

[1:30:42] to our community

[1:30:44] at that time. So I think we're

[1:30:45] starting

[1:30:46] to see this revenue kind

[1:30:47] of normalize again. You see,

[1:30:49] the,

[1:30:50] the blue line was the adopted

[1:30:51] budget, previous budget,

[1:30:52] we amended it last September

[1:30:53] to the green line. And then the

[1:30:54] adopted budget for 2527 is

[1:30:55] right there. And the

[1:30:56] assumptions we used were flat

[1:30:57] from 2324 to 2425. That pretty

[1:30:58] much came true. And then 4%

[1:31:00] thereafter,

[1:31:02] this revenue has averaged

[1:31:04] over the past 10 years a 6.55%

[1:31:05] increase. And then the past

[1:31:06] five years, it's actually

[1:31:08] averaged a 7.43% increase. But

[1:31:10] for 2025, it was off 0.28%

[1:31:12] lower than the previous year.

[1:31:13] So with a lot of hot air spent

[1:31:16] on revenue, I will now kind

[1:31:21] of transition to budget. This

[1:31:23] was the previously kind

[1:31:25] of alluded to savings that

[1:31:27] we've experienced

[1:31:29] in the general fund in each

[1:31:30] of our major budgets. As you

[1:31:31] can see there, almost all

[1:31:33] of the budgets have savings.

[1:31:34] Some of those will have

[1:31:36] carryovers. I, I did look,

[1:31:39] we have about 1.4, $1.5 million

[1:31:42] of unspent ARPA money that will

[1:31:45] be carried over

[1:31:47] for next year. Most of that is

[1:31:48] in the police department

[1:31:49] for the park rangers program

[1:31:50] in the public works. Most of

[1:31:51] that savings is actually going

[1:31:54] to be carried over because it's

[1:31:56] streets money. Streets doesn't

[1:31:57] necessarily impact the general

[1:31:59] fund negatively when we carry

[1:32:01] the money over because they

[1:32:02] have a funding source that's

[1:32:03] available. And Michael will get

[1:32:05] into that during his

[1:32:06] presentation I believe to talk

[1:32:07] about where their funds are and

[1:32:08] how they plan to spend them

[1:32:10] over the coming years,

[1:32:11] including carryovers.

[1:32:12] But all told,

[1:32:14] this is very good news for the

[1:32:15] general fund. I think this is

[1:32:17] emblematic of the calls to all

[1:32:18] of our departments

[1:32:21] to save money. And a lot of

[1:32:23] these are real savings that we

[1:32:25] can count on, which is part of

[1:32:27] the why we will have a balance

[1:32:29] right around $9 million instead

[1:32:32] of the old 10 year plan

[1:32:33] forecasted $6.8 million. So I

[1:32:35] also wanted to talk again

[1:32:41] in context of the new ten year

[1:32:42] plan and relative

[1:32:43] to the old ten year plan. So

[1:32:46] the,

[1:32:47] the light blue is the adopted

[1:32:48] FY 24 and 25, but 10 year plan

[1:32:50] expenditures and then the dark

[1:32:52] blue is the amendment that is

[1:32:55] in there right now. The

[1:32:58] basically the up

[1:32:59] to date amendment. And then the

[1:33:00] green is actually what the new

[1:33:01] ten year plan looks like. And

[1:33:03] so you know, we've talked

[1:33:04] about a lot of cuts in that 10

[1:33:05] year plan. In the first,

[1:33:07] in FY26,

[1:33:09] which is the first year

[1:33:10] of the new adopted 10 year

[1:33:11] plan, there's about $6.8

[1:33:13] million

[1:33:14] of cuts and then roughly about

[1:33:15] four or five million dollars

[1:33:17] thereafter. And as council

[1:33:19] knows and I mentioned

[1:33:20] in the staff report, you know,

[1:33:21] we have a full breakdown with

[1:33:22] our adopted budget and there

[1:33:23] was actually some revenue

[1:33:24] increases as well where we're

[1:33:25] going to charge more for our

[1:33:26] recreation fees and our

[1:33:27] development services fees which

[1:33:29] will help offset not cost, but

[1:33:30] offset the costs that we're

[1:33:32] incurring. And we used

[1:33:34] to subsidize those programs

[1:33:35] to a greater degree. We'll now

[1:33:38] subsidize them

[1:33:39] to a lesser degree

[1:33:40] through increased fees. And

[1:33:41] then I wanted

[1:33:42] to present the actual 10 year

[1:33:47] plans in relationship to each

[1:33:48] other because I think this is

[1:33:50] Important. So the light blue

[1:33:52] line was our adopted 2325

[1:33:53] ending cash percentage. As

[1:33:55] council knows,

[1:33:56] we have a 10% required reserve.

[1:33:57] And then the blue was actually

[1:33:59] our amended 2325 cash. And if

[1:34:00] we continued

[1:34:02] on that trajectory, we would

[1:34:04] have been bankrupt effectively.

[1:34:06] But through the course

[1:34:07] of the budget,

[1:34:09] we've made some cuts. Not

[1:34:11] to say we're not going to have

[1:34:12] to monitor the progress

[1:34:13] of our budget. I continue

[1:34:14] to emphasize that to council.

[1:34:15] It's going

[1:34:16] to be very important to watch

[1:34:17] how our revenues are coming in,

[1:34:18] how our expenses coming

[1:34:20] in relative to the forecasts.

[1:34:22] You know,

[1:34:25] our departments have a lot

[1:34:26] of work in front of them

[1:34:28] to meet their operational needs

[1:34:29] with significant cuts

[1:34:31] to their budgets. So to kind

[1:34:32] of conclude the presentation,

[1:34:35] city budget request, starting

[1:34:36] with the general fund Police is

[1:34:39] requesting $631,000 for

[1:34:41] retirement cash outs and then

[1:34:43] fires has a $773,000 request

[1:34:44] for retirements and negotiated

[1:34:45] increases engineering. This

[1:34:47] one's a little unique. It has

[1:34:48] about a $285,000 request.

[1:34:49] Basically, the budget was built

[1:34:50] with a higher overhead rate

[1:34:51] than we were allowed

[1:34:53] to use due to the Caltrans

[1:34:54] calculation. So basically a

[1:34:57] little bit of offset there that

[1:34:59] we didn't get

[1:35:00] to incur the advantage of. But

[1:35:01] I will say if you follow that

[1:35:03] overhead rate

[1:35:04] over a long enough period

[1:35:06] of time, the goal of the

[1:35:09] Caltrans calculation is

[1:35:11] effectively to make it zero.

[1:35:13] But we've had years where we've

[1:35:14] actually kind of made money

[1:35:15] off the overhead rate. That was

[1:35:18] the late teens, early 20s. And

[1:35:20] then now it's kind of flipping

[1:35:22] back the other way as it kind

[1:35:23] of works to normalize itself

[1:35:25] over a long period of time.

[1:35:26] And then $437,000 for

[1:35:29] engineering and land

[1:35:30] development, those have

[1:35:32] associated revenues that you

[1:35:33] will see

[1:35:34] in the budget resolution. And

[1:35:35] then parking,

[1:35:36] where we have a loan

[1:35:38] to parking at this time for

[1:35:39] $232,000, effectively, our

[1:35:40] belief is parking will be able

[1:35:42] to pay this back in the long

[1:35:44] term as we hopefully see more

[1:35:45] usage

[1:35:47] of the parking downtown. So

[1:35:49] increased revenues. And also we

[1:35:51] will see there they have a loan

[1:35:52] to, for the actual system, the

[1:35:54] parking pay stations that will

[1:35:55] be paid off

[1:35:57] in the next couple years. And

[1:36:00] so we're hoping as those things

[1:36:01] come together and they also can

[1:36:03] start to move away from some

[1:36:04] of their paid leases

[1:36:06] on parking areas. And so we're

[1:36:08] hoping the revenue cuts and the

[1:36:09] or the revenue increases in the

[1:36:11] expenditure cuts will kind

[1:36:12] of work towards them putting

[1:36:13] in a being

[1:36:15] in a cash positive situation.

[1:36:16] They can pay this loan back

[1:36:18] in the future. Moving on,

[1:36:20] the enterprise Funds. The

[1:36:22] airport has a variety

[1:36:24] of requests there. The largest

[1:36:25] of which is increases for

[1:36:26] utilities that were not

[1:36:28] budgeted for. With the original

[1:36:29] budget reading. Electric

[1:36:31] utility has about $4.7 million,

[1:36:32] the largest of which is

[1:36:34] personnel increases due

[1:36:38] to negotiations that occurred

[1:36:40] in 2023. I will say talking

[1:36:41] with their financial team,

[1:36:43] they have built these

[1:36:44] into their financial plans. So

[1:36:45] this number is actually lower

[1:36:47] than the amounts that they had

[1:36:48] built

[1:36:49] into their financial plans.

[1:36:50] They had built in about $6

[1:36:51] million and this came in at

[1:36:53] 4.3. And then solid waste has

[1:36:54] $30,000

[1:36:56] for utility increases. Very

[1:36:57] small up there. So I apologize.

[1:36:58] We have some internal service

[1:36:59] fund requests. These all have

[1:37:03] adequate cash reserves to pay

[1:37:04] for these requests. GIS has

[1:37:07] about $40,000 due to personnel

[1:37:11] costs increasing due to

[1:37:13] negotiations. ET has retirement

[1:37:15] cash outs for 44,000 and

[1:37:18] about 22,000

[1:37:20] for various O&M costs. Fleet

[1:37:22] has $12,000 due to overtime.

[1:37:24] And then that large adjustment

[1:37:25] for vehicle repairs and

[1:37:26] maintenance,

[1:37:28] which is mostly due to

[1:37:29] inventory timing adjustments.

[1:37:30] So it's not actual cash.

[1:37:31] Instead it's a recognition of

[1:37:33] when do you recognize that

[1:37:34] expense due to how much

[1:37:35] inventory do you have on the

[1:37:37] shelf versus the expenditures

[1:37:38] that you paid that year. So

[1:37:41] there's no need

[1:37:42] for an actual cash increase

[1:37:43] to their department. And then

[1:37:44] as as previously mentioned,

[1:37:46] Parking is receiving a loan

[1:37:47] from the general fund for

[1:37:48] $232,000. And with that,

[1:37:50] I wish I brought my water in,

[1:37:53] but I am available

[1:37:55] for any questions.

[1:37:56] >> Hi. So I'll start

[1:38:08] with the new reports. The. So

[1:38:10] we'll go

[1:38:13] over expenses and revenue,

[1:38:16] which you have

[1:38:17] in the staff report,

[1:38:19] but I'll go over it through the

[1:38:21] new reports that you have. So I

[1:38:22] think the most glaring issue I

[1:38:24] have with these new reports is

[1:38:26] that they don't actually have a

[1:38:28] column for our budget.

[1:38:29] >> So the budget is

[1:38:32] on the very left

[1:38:38] of the expenditure reports.

[1:38:39] >> The year

[1:38:40] to date projection.

[1:38:41] >> Yeah, that's correct.

[1:38:42] >> Is that what you're calling.

[1:38:43] So we have amended and adopted

[1:38:44] budgets, and that's neither

[1:38:45] of those. So our amended budget

[1:38:46] was 113 million

[1:38:47] for the expenditures,

[1:38:49] and that's not included

[1:38:51] at all. So you have this year

[1:38:54] to date projection that has

[1:38:55] encumbrances and whatever it's

[1:38:59] including 130 is not the budget

[1:39:01] we adopted or amended.

[1:39:02] >> So that would include

[1:39:04] carryovers and encumbrances.

[1:39:06] >> Right. So there's no column

[1:39:07] in here for the actual amended

[1:39:09] or adopted budget.

[1:39:12] >> The column is only the

[1:39:13] amended budget. Are you saying

[1:39:15] you would like

[1:39:17] to see a column that includes.

[1:39:18] Includes carryovers as a

[1:39:20] separate column?

[1:39:21] >> Yeah. So in Our previous

[1:39:22] reports, there's always a

[1:39:23] separate column.

[1:39:25] >> So just those.

[1:39:26] >> You'd have to know what the

[1:39:27] actual budget was. So we,

[1:39:29] we passed a budget. The budget

[1:39:30] for this year is 113 million.

[1:39:32] It's not reflected anywhere.

[1:39:33] So this 130 million is not the

[1:39:36] budget that we actually passed.

[1:39:37] So that includes carryovers

[1:39:38] that. I know, I was not aware

[1:39:39] of what those carryovers were.

[1:39:40] Had been asking about what

[1:39:41] those carryovers are. There's

[1:39:42] another report that says

[1:39:43] there's 6 million,

[1:39:44] but this looks like there are

[1:39:45] 17.6 million

[1:39:46] in carryovers.

[1:39:47] >> Yeah. So the,

[1:39:48] the numbers would include

[1:39:50] carryovers, any amendments to

[1:39:51] the budget that have been

[1:39:53] performed

[1:39:54] over the past two years. So

[1:39:55] it's not just inclusive

[1:39:57] of carryovers. And the previous

[1:39:58] reports didn't have the adopted

[1:39:59] budget, it would be amended

[1:40:00] budget plus carryovers and

[1:40:02] encumbrances.

[1:40:03] >> Correct.

[1:40:04] >> So amended budget is always

[1:40:05] a hard number to get to, you

[1:40:06] know, because,

[1:40:07] because there's. You would have

[1:40:08] to go through all the staff

[1:40:09] reports that have gone

[1:40:11] to council for the two years

[1:40:13] to calculate that number. But

[1:40:15] this number does include those

[1:40:16] items. It's not that it doesn't

[1:40:18] include it,

[1:40:19] it's just that it's

[1:40:20] in one number now. And some of

[1:40:21] that is because the system is

[1:40:22] drastically different. We used

[1:40:23] to, the way carryovers were

[1:40:24] done, there was a separate

[1:40:26] like line in our budget

[1:40:28] for it that no longer exists.

[1:40:30] It's just different systems so

[1:40:33] different reports. So it would

[1:40:35] be a great deal

[1:40:37] of manual effort,

[1:40:38] to be frank, to calculate the

[1:40:40] amendments. I can certainly

[1:40:42] give you a number,

[1:40:43] but it's not going to be. It's

[1:40:44] going to look different than I

[1:40:48] think you're expecting it to

[1:40:50] look. I could give you just a

[1:40:51] column that has budget

[1:40:52] amendments, but that would be

[1:40:53] all budget amendments,

[1:40:55] including carryovers, including

[1:40:56] the amendments that happen

[1:40:57] from council. So I could

[1:40:58] certainly give that to council

[1:40:59] but I can't give it the same

[1:41:00] way that it's always been

[1:41:01] presented.

[1:41:02] >> So we have a budget that we

[1:41:03] passed. So this, this is Q4.

[1:41:04] So this is the wrapping up,

[1:41:05] it's the accounting. It should

[1:41:07] be the end

[1:41:08] of the fiscal year. So we have

[1:41:09] had three months to reconcile

[1:41:11] whatever outstanding things are

[1:41:13] coming. I've. I've been looking

[1:41:16] at. We haven't had three months

[1:41:17] for a very long time.

[1:41:18] >> So I have

[1:41:19] to have this staff report done

[1:41:20] about two weeks ago. So, you

[1:41:21] know, never has it been the

[1:41:22] final numbers. We actually,

[1:41:25] in the past, in as 400 land we

[1:41:26] would do four closes. The first

[1:41:30] close was done in late July and

[1:41:31] then we would do three more

[1:41:33] subsequent Closes. The reports

[1:41:36] that came to council were the

[1:41:37] first close. So I just want to

[1:41:38] make it clear that this has

[1:41:40] never been the same numbers

[1:41:42] that would be in the audit.

[1:41:45] And so that hasn't changed.

[1:41:48] >> Sure. They're not the same

[1:41:49] numbers that are

[1:41:50] in the audit. I know that

[1:41:51] for sure. But the issue for us

[1:41:52] is we have a budget that we

[1:41:53] pass and we have

[1:41:54] to track that budget. And so

[1:41:55] when I'm looking at my Q1, Q2,

[1:41:57] Q3, Q4, I want to see how we're

[1:42:01] tracking according

[1:42:02] to the budget. And you don't

[1:42:03] include the budget here. So you

[1:42:04] would think, if I'm a

[1:42:05] constituent,

[1:42:07] that the budget is 130 million.

[1:42:10] But I know I didn't approve

[1:42:12] of $130 million of spending.

[1:42:13] And when you call it savings, I

[1:42:15] know because last year I heard

[1:42:16] the word savings and thought

[1:42:18] that meant I was

[1:42:20] below my budget, but I wasn't

[1:42:22] because that included the

[1:42:23] carryovers.

[1:42:25] >> When you say

[1:42:27] below your budget,

[1:42:28] you were not

[1:42:29] below your adopted budget.

[1:42:30] >> Is what you're saying

[1:42:31] adopted or amended? Because the

[1:42:32] amended does not include

[1:42:33] carryovers. The carryovers are

[1:42:34] the carryovers,

[1:42:35] which I've had an issue with,

[1:42:36] of understanding. Exactly. Can

[1:42:37] you let us know what the

[1:42:39] carryovers are? So this report

[1:42:40] that you have that it's 6

[1:42:41] million,

[1:42:43] can you tell me why that says

[1:42:44] 6 million? When this budget

[1:42:46] says that it's a.

[1:42:47] >> 17.6 million

[1:42:48] in carryovers,

[1:42:50] it's not saying it's 17.6

[1:42:51] million. I'm not prepared to

[1:42:53] give you the exact

[1:42:54] reconciliation

[1:42:55] between the adopted budget, the

[1:42:56] amended budget and the

[1:42:57] carryovers. I certainly can

[1:42:58] provide that to you,

[1:42:59] and I'll work on it tomorrow.

[1:43:00] And I'll give it to you

[1:43:02] off agenda tomorrow.

[1:43:03] But I think there's a little

[1:43:06] bit of hazing

[1:43:08] of the waters right now

[1:43:09] between what is authorized

[1:43:12] from council. So I just want

[1:43:13] to be clear. Carryovers are an

[1:43:16] authorized mechanism

[1:43:17] of council

[1:43:19] through a council policy. 409.

[1:43:22] So those are not, I don't want

[1:43:24] to call them discretionary,

[1:43:26] but they're discretionary

[1:43:28] to some degree. Oftentimes they

[1:43:30] are things that we just have to

[1:43:33] finish using ARPA as an

[1:43:34] example. That's the biggest

[1:43:36] contributor

[1:43:38] to our carryovers.

[1:43:39] >> Which is a grant. Our

[1:43:40] carryovers are carryovers,

[1:43:41] usually grants

[1:43:42] in the general fund.

[1:43:43] >> Typically carryovers are

[1:43:44] grants.

[1:43:45] >> And are they typically

[1:43:46] capital for capital, typically

[1:43:47] for personnel?

[1:43:48] >> Yeah, typically they are

[1:43:49] for. Well, let me,

[1:43:50] let me rephrase that. Just

[1:43:51] because I think there's been

[1:43:52] some confusion over the years.

[1:43:53] >> I'm not trying to get you.

[1:43:54] I'm legitimately trying to

[1:43:55] understand this new report

[1:43:56] court, if it's really going

[1:43:57] to work, because I,

[1:43:58] I still don't have a budget.

[1:43:59] So like in Q1, if we got this,

[1:44:00] it would not show the budget

[1:44:01] that we just passed of 100 and

[1:44:02] whatever it is, $108 million

[1:44:03] of our budget. It would show a

[1:44:04] different number, but it would

[1:44:06] only show a fraction of it. So

[1:44:07] I'm not going to know until Q4

[1:44:08] that the budget is way higher

[1:44:09] because I don't know what the

[1:44:10] carryovers are,

[1:44:11] certainly.

[1:44:12] >> So the request I hear right

[1:44:14] now, and I guess I'm kind

[1:44:15] of looking

[1:44:16] at every council member, is to

[1:44:17] have a column that's adopted

[1:44:18] budget,

[1:44:19] and then one that or.

[1:44:20] >> And.

[1:44:21] >> Or amended.

[1:44:22] >> Yeah, this is amended

[1:44:23] with carryovers.

[1:44:24] >> So I know because I've

[1:44:25] looked at every single

[1:44:27] amendment that I could find and

[1:44:28] did this tedious work that

[1:44:30] you're talking

[1:44:31] about that I did not vote

[1:44:32] for this level of carryover.

[1:44:33] So the best that I can assess

[1:44:36] is that years and years ago

[1:44:37] there was spending that was

[1:44:40] made and it just keeps carrying

[1:44:42] over and we're still going. So

[1:44:44] I know I didn't approve it and

[1:44:45] I don't even know what it is

[1:44:47] because it's the first time

[1:44:49] at least I've gotten this.

[1:44:50] But even still,

[1:44:51] I don't know the adjustment

[1:44:52] from what I voted for,

[1:44:53] what was a carryover. And so

[1:44:54] what the budget is that we're

[1:44:56] talking about. So when you say

[1:44:57] on here that we have 12 million

[1:44:59] of savings, I'm like, well,

[1:45:01] is it. How much of that is

[1:45:02] actually discretionary and how

[1:45:05] much of that is actually just

[1:45:07] like a grant? Because if you're

[1:45:09] asking me for money

[1:45:10] for police, well,

[1:45:11] they have got $900,000 in

[1:45:12] savings use that I'm not going

[1:45:13] to approve a budget.

[1:45:14] >> Certainly a fair question.

[1:45:15] One, there's so many points I

[1:45:16] could answer off of that.

[1:45:18] But one thing I wanted

[1:45:19] to say is I kind of alluded

[1:45:20] to it, but when we ask

[1:45:21] for budget,

[1:45:22] it's because they're

[1:45:23] over budget in certain

[1:45:25] categories and we're taking

[1:45:27] into account use ARPA

[1:45:28] in the case of pd. Right. And

[1:45:29] this will get into one

[1:45:30] of your questions. Is that

[1:45:32] typically capital or is it

[1:45:33] personnel? And so what we

[1:45:35] usually do

[1:45:36] with grants is we put them in

[1:45:37] like a special tracking account

[1:45:38] that historically speaking,

[1:45:40] when you adopted the budget,

[1:45:41] it would say capital. And

[1:45:42] to be honest with you, it was

[1:45:43] not right all the time because

[1:45:45] it would include, I call them,

[1:45:47] these specialty accounts that

[1:45:49] aren't really capital. They're

[1:45:50] never going to be capitalized.

[1:45:51] But it was a tracking

[1:45:53] mechanism. That our team would

[1:45:54] use. We still have those

[1:45:56] accounts. That's the accounts

[1:45:57] ARPA lives in. So it could be a

[1:45:58] hybrid of personnel costs, but

[1:46:00] it was kind of. I call it

[1:46:02] specialty tracking accounts

[1:46:03] for the purposes

[1:46:04] of tracking some type

[1:46:05] of specific project. Use ARPA

[1:46:07] as a great example where we

[1:46:09] need to report that out

[1:46:10] to the federal government. So

[1:46:11] we need a quick place to go,

[1:46:12] capture the expense and review

[1:46:13] the expense. You also asked a

[1:46:15] question about the kind

[1:46:16] of why are we asking for money

[1:46:18] if they have net savings?

[1:46:20] >> No, what I'm saying is. So I

[1:46:22] would like to know. We are

[1:46:23] passing an amended. We're

[1:46:24] passing an adopted budget

[1:46:26] by Q2. You're going

[1:46:27] to amend that. That happens

[1:46:29] every year. We're going

[1:46:30] to amend it by Q2. Then it's an

[1:46:32] amended budget. I have asked in

[1:46:34] the ten year plan that you

[1:46:35] start showing those adjustments

[1:46:37] again because you can't tell

[1:46:38] where things have changed and

[1:46:40] if it's changed,

[1:46:42] it's not readily obvious

[1:46:44] to you. You have

[1:46:46] to go back and find the rest

[1:46:47] of your paper anyways. So

[1:46:48] that's not included. This also

[1:46:49] does not include the

[1:46:50] adjustments because these

[1:46:51] carryovers are an adjustment or

[1:46:52] it's a.

[1:46:53] >> Previously it includes it

[1:46:54] in the number. Right.

[1:46:55] >> So that the number doesn't

[1:46:57] actually help.

[1:46:58] >> But it doesn't help you

[1:46:59] delineate.

[1:47:00] >> And it doesn't help me

[1:47:01] to delineate if I'm actually

[1:47:02] under budget. Because

[1:47:03] like you said, if I'm

[1:47:04] under budget for police,

[1:47:05] which is what you're saying

[1:47:06] to me, but I'm actually not

[1:47:07] because that money is

[1:47:08] designated. It's encumbered

[1:47:09] funds

[1:47:10] for something specific.

[1:47:11] >> Yeah.

[1:47:12] >> And so that creates a lot

[1:47:13] of muddiness in the water. To

[1:47:14] understand what are we talking

[1:47:15] about when you say we're

[1:47:16] under budget? We're not

[1:47:17] actually under budget in a way

[1:47:18] that we actually have

[1:47:19] discretionary funds

[1:47:21] to cover it.

[1:47:22] >> Yeah, we, we are

[1:47:23] under budget in the sense of

[1:47:24] Council has given staff an

[1:47:25] adopted budget. We've made

[1:47:26] amendments and there are

[1:47:29] certain tools as,

[1:47:30] as we're talking. I'm thinking

[1:47:32] about rolling stock is another

[1:47:33] example

[1:47:34] of a tool that is discretionary

[1:47:35] to staff that council has given

[1:47:37] us to be able to move money

[1:47:39] from our rolling stock

[1:47:40] into our budget

[1:47:42] without council approval,

[1:47:44] so.

[1:47:45] >> Oh, I didn't know that.

[1:47:47] >> Yeah, Rolling stock and

[1:47:48] equipment replacement,

[1:47:49] they can be pretty large.

[1:47:50] Right. So there's another area

[1:47:51] where staff is amending budget

[1:47:52] that we've been given the

[1:47:53] authority

[1:47:54] through council policy

[1:47:55] to make those amendments.

[1:47:56] Carryovers is much the same.

[1:47:57] So again,

[1:47:58] I hear what you're asking

[1:48:00] for and I Because I'm not

[1:48:01] prepared to answer that exact

[1:48:02] question. I would like

[1:48:05] to give it

[1:48:06] to you and see if what I'm able

[1:48:07] to generate is what you're

[1:48:09] looking for or not.

[1:48:11] >> Yes. And I think

[1:48:12] for the next report,

[1:48:13] getting as close

[1:48:15] to how we are able to look at

[1:48:16] what actually we're tracking.

[1:48:17] So if we're tracking the budget

[1:48:18] really tight and this is

[1:48:19] including carryovers,

[1:48:21] we're not tracking it tight

[1:48:22] at all. We're actually not even

[1:48:23] sure what that budget is.

[1:48:25] Because why exactly are we

[1:48:26] amending or adopting a budget

[1:48:28] if you've already decided it's

[1:48:30] going to include 13 million or

[1:48:32] 17 million? So

[1:48:33] like what are the carryovers?

[1:48:35] Because we're going

[1:48:36] to get a budget, we're going

[1:48:39] to get Q1 in November. And

[1:48:40] what's it going

[1:48:42] to show up as? Are you going

[1:48:43] to add?

[1:48:44] >> The carryovers this time are

[1:48:45] going to be a lot smaller

[1:48:47] because we've spent most

[1:48:48] of that ARPA funding. We don't

[1:48:50] have a lot

[1:48:51] of grants outstanding. So the

[1:48:52] carriers are going

[1:48:54] to be a lot smaller.

[1:48:55] >> Do you know what they are?

[1:48:57] >> I don't know right now

[1:48:58] because we're working

[1:48:59] on generating the list for

[1:49:00] Barry's approval with staff. I

[1:49:01] do know how much we have in

[1:49:02] encumbrances and I usually talk

[1:49:03] about this. Streets is part

[1:49:05] of the general fund,

[1:49:07] but I remove Streets because

[1:49:09] they have a funding source

[1:49:12] that's actually going to come

[1:49:14] in to offset their carryovers.

[1:49:16] I think we have about $1

[1:49:18] million in encumbrances. I'm

[1:49:19] actually going

[1:49:20] through the list

[1:49:21] to see if there's anything in

[1:49:22] there that can be released or

[1:49:23] we don't need anymore. So

[1:49:24] there's about $1 million there.

[1:49:25] And then I believe the

[1:49:26] carryovers will be somewhere

[1:49:28] around 1.5 million to 2

[1:49:29] million, no more than that. So

[1:49:31] between those two you would

[1:49:32] have about $3 million

[1:49:33] at most. I will also add, I

[1:49:35] think this is an important

[1:49:36] comment is when, when we look

[1:49:37] at the ten year plan, right.

[1:49:39] It's never matched the amended

[1:49:40] budget that's in this,

[1:49:41] the total amended budget that's

[1:49:42] in these reports ever.

[1:49:44] But just one point

[1:49:45] of clarification. Sorry. And

[1:49:46] then I'll let you ask your

[1:49:48] question. What we do and what

[1:49:50] we've always done is we say,

[1:49:51] hey,

[1:49:52] here's my audited cash number

[1:49:53] from the auditors. In the case

[1:49:54] of last year, it was 23

[1:49:55] million. I knew we had

[1:49:57] encumbrances. I want

[1:49:58] to say it was 3 million ish.

[1:50:00] And then we had these

[1:50:01] carryovers of 6. So I actually

[1:50:03] lowered our cash

[1:50:05] by those encumbrances

[1:50:06] in the general fund 10 year

[1:50:07] plan. So I didn't use 23

[1:50:09] million, which was the number

[1:50:11] that you would have taken off

[1:50:12] the act for. I used a lower

[1:50:13] number because I actually go

[1:50:14] in and say, okay,

[1:50:15] I'm not going to go amend my

[1:50:16] 10 year plan,

[1:50:17] my financial planning tool

[1:50:18] by this. I'm instead going to

[1:50:19] lower my cash because it's

[1:50:20] spoken for, so to speak, right

[1:50:22] through the encumbrances. So I

[1:50:23] do want to put,

[1:50:25] just put some context

[1:50:26] around that

[1:50:27] to help better understand some

[1:50:28] of those movements.

[1:50:30] >> Not only do I understand

[1:50:31] that I'm counting on that

[1:50:32] because obviously if the money

[1:50:33] is spoken for, it is not our

[1:50:34] actual reserve discretionary

[1:50:35] funding, which is what our cash

[1:50:37] reserves are. So those are

[1:50:39] different things. So I don't

[1:50:41] want them muddied in all mixed

[1:50:42] in together. There has

[1:50:43] to be some delineation. So if

[1:50:46] you're going to like. I would

[1:50:47] like to go back to how it used

[1:50:48] to be reported before 23:24,

[1:50:49] like previous to that, all of

[1:50:52] the reports that we had going

[1:50:56] back to 2017, 2016, like the

[1:50:58] way that these reports were

[1:51:00] being given to us in multiple

[1:51:02] different explanations because

[1:51:05] of that reason, because a

[1:51:06] budget that I passed that it's

[1:51:07] 108 million of expenditures,

[1:51:09] but you have five typically

[1:51:11] carryovers were like 3 million,

[1:51:14] 2 million, 5 million. But then

[1:51:16] after 2022 we're up to.

[1:51:18] >> 30 million and that was

[1:51:19] mostly because of ARPA.

[1:51:20] >> Right. And that was just

[1:51:22] quite large.

[1:51:23] But being not here,

[1:51:26] I didn't know that. So when

[1:51:27] you're reporting

[1:51:29] to us that we're

[1:51:30] below budget,

[1:51:31] we're not actually

[1:51:32] below our actual budget, our

[1:51:33] 10 year budget, we're below

[1:51:35] this large huge carryover

[1:51:36] budget. So what I hear you

[1:51:37] saying is we don't have those

[1:51:38] carryovers because ARPA money

[1:51:41] is going to be gone now. And so

[1:51:42] we're going to get back.

[1:51:43] >> To a more normal 2 to 3

[1:51:44] million.

[1:51:46] >> 2 to 3 million of carryovers

[1:51:47] are not going

[1:51:49] to be such a huge factor.

[1:51:53] But I do think again for

[1:51:54] transparency purposes and so

[1:51:56] that we actually know apples

[1:51:57] to apples, that we're

[1:51:59] comparing, having the amended

[1:52:00] or the adopted budget has

[1:52:01] to be included

[1:52:02] in the expenditures.

[1:52:03] >> Certainly I want

[1:52:05] to take a stab at it

[1:52:06] with what would be, I'm going

[1:52:08] to say easy from Oracle and see

[1:52:09] if that meets your needs and

[1:52:10] then we can have a discussion

[1:52:12] around what Oracle doesn't give

[1:52:14] me, that I used to get out

[1:52:15] of the AS 400 very easily. And

[1:52:17] so let me try it first and see

[1:52:18] if you're happy

[1:52:20] with what I'm able to generate

[1:52:22] or if it just creates more

[1:52:23] questions. But I would look at

[1:52:25] this process as semi iterative.

[1:52:27] Right. So hey, here's the

[1:52:29] reports as I thought that they

[1:52:31] would be useful for council.

[1:52:32] Does council want to see

[1:52:34] something different? I

[1:52:36] certainly hear your request.

[1:52:37] It makes sense

[1:52:38] to me. I think I'll be able

[1:52:40] to give you something. It might

[1:52:41] not be exactly what you're

[1:52:42] after.

[1:52:43] >> Well, the previous staff

[1:52:44] reports

[1:52:45] in the staff report would talk

[1:52:46] about basically the budgeted

[1:52:48] items. It would tell you that

[1:52:49] you made, you know,

[1:52:51] like what is considered

[1:52:52] in the revenue,

[1:52:53] not including the transfers you

[1:52:55] made, you know, 98 million or

[1:52:56] 99 million. It would give you

[1:52:58] that information that would

[1:52:59] look like what it's going

[1:53:01] to look like on the ten year.

[1:53:03] But then when you got into the

[1:53:05] budget explanations and you got

[1:53:06] into the reports,

[1:53:07] that's talking

[1:53:08] about everything. So you saw

[1:53:09] the budget line, but you also

[1:53:10] saw the encumbrances,

[1:53:11] you saw the carryovers,

[1:53:12] you saw previously approved

[1:53:13] monies, which are typically

[1:53:14] grants, all of that. So as long

[1:53:15] as it's all being presented

[1:53:16] to us, we can parse

[1:53:17] out which is which. But when

[1:53:18] those numbers are not included,

[1:53:19] which they're not included

[1:53:20] in here, it's very hard to

[1:53:21] distinguish which is which

[1:53:22] because I know I didn't approve

[1:53:23] on $130 million budget. I know

[1:53:24] they didn't and they were here

[1:53:25] for half that time. They didn't

[1:53:26] approve those either. So

[1:53:27] clearly those came

[1:53:28] from something else. So this

[1:53:29] 12 million that's left,

[1:53:30] that's not going

[1:53:31] to continue forward.

[1:53:32] >> Only a small piece

[1:53:34] of it will continue forward.

[1:53:36] As I said,

[1:53:38] my guess right now is about $3

[1:53:39] million of it.

[1:53:40] >> So the rest just goes away.

[1:53:41] >> Well, that's not entirely

[1:53:42] true. And you also have streets

[1:53:43] in there that has their

[1:53:44] carryovers, so.

[1:53:46] >> Which you didn't include.

[1:53:47] But so if I, if you include

[1:53:49] streets, we're up to another

[1:53:50] 10 or 11 again.

[1:53:51] >> 10 or 11? Yeah.

[1:53:53] >> So we're up to 10. So it's

[1:53:55] about that 12 million is what

[1:53:57] is going to be the carryover.

[1:53:58] >> I don't expect it

[1:53:59] to be that large,

[1:54:03] but it could be that large. But

[1:54:04] we also have revenues that

[1:54:05] obviously are coming in next

[1:54:07] year that we weren't accounting

[1:54:10] for without having done that

[1:54:11] work. I don't want to give an

[1:54:14] exact number because we're

[1:54:15] still in the process of. I

[1:54:16] literally think my team right

[1:54:17] now this week is closing all

[1:54:18] the grants out, making sure all

[1:54:19] the expenses that are in the

[1:54:20] grant accounts are accurately

[1:54:22] accounted for and our capital

[1:54:23] accounts and all of These

[1:54:24] things that we have to do

[1:54:26] for year end, as they finish

[1:54:28] that, it really tells us how

[1:54:29] much money is available

[1:54:31] from a budgetary standpoint

[1:54:33] for potential carryovers. And

[1:54:35] so I'd really like to. I would

[1:54:37] like to finish that process

[1:54:38] before I try to commit

[1:54:39] to a number.

[1:54:40] >> Okay. The reason I bring

[1:54:41] that up is because you put it

[1:54:42] on the slide as savings.

[1:54:43] >> Understood. So it's savings

[1:54:48] that could be carried over

[1:54:49] at the approval

[1:54:51] of the city manager, but

[1:54:52] at this point,

[1:54:53] it is truly savings.

[1:54:54] >> Right.

[1:54:55] >> So there's a potential that

[1:54:57] it gets carried over if there's

[1:54:58] projects that warrant it. But.

[1:54:59] But at this point right now,

[1:55:01] it's not encumbered. So the.

[1:55:02] >> The streets money's not

[1:55:03] encumbered.

[1:55:05] >> The street's money is

[1:55:06] unencumbered at this point. It

[1:55:07] might be allocated

[1:55:08] to a project, but they haven't

[1:55:10] issued a contract yet.

[1:55:11] >> But it's for streets.

[1:55:13] >> It's for streets.

[1:55:14] >> It's for streets. So we

[1:55:15] didn't. Our general fund

[1:55:16] doesn't have $12 million.

[1:55:17] >> No.

[1:55:18] >> And.

[1:55:19] >> And if you read my

[1:55:20] breakdown, I don't. I'm not

[1:55:21] suggesting that the difference

[1:55:22] is $12 million. I actually kind

[1:55:23] of break it down to, you know,

[1:55:24] maybe we have four or five

[1:55:26] million dollars

[1:55:27] of real savings. When you.

[1:55:28] When you net off the. I'd have

[1:55:29] to give you a full breakdown. I

[1:55:31] have it written down somewhere

[1:55:32] in here. When you net

[1:55:33] off the carryovers,

[1:55:34] I think we're looking at

[1:55:35] like one, maybe $2 million of

[1:55:36] savings that are true savings.

[1:55:38] And then we have revenues that

[1:55:41] would be below. But then we

[1:55:42] also have revenues that we know

[1:55:43] are coming in.

[1:55:44] In future years,

[1:55:45] but that would.

[1:55:47] >> Future year revenue wouldn't

[1:55:48] be talking about the closing.

[1:55:49] End of last year's budget,

[1:55:50] but it's.

[1:55:51] >> Talking about what we can

[1:55:52] expect in.

[1:55:53] >> Terms of cash

[1:55:54] for next year.

[1:55:56] >> For next year.

[1:55:57] >> Right, but this is. We're

[1:55:58] talking about closing it out.

[1:55:59] So cash has

[1:56:01] to be already done by. By June

[1:56:02] 30th. So we're not talking.

[1:56:03] This is.

[1:56:04] >> But as I said, we adjust

[1:56:05] cash for a variety

[1:56:06] of factors. Right.

[1:56:07] >> Namely getting cash should

[1:56:09] be what's. Based

[1:56:10] on what we have

[1:56:12] for cash now.

[1:56:13] >> It is based on that.

[1:56:15] >> Right. So it wouldn't be

[1:56:16] affected by revenue that comes

[1:56:17] in later that we can use

[1:56:18] in next year's budget.

[1:56:20] >> Well, you're

[1:56:22] in the future,

[1:56:24] so that would be end.

[1:56:26] >> End cash.

[1:56:27] >> We're gonna. We're gonna see

[1:56:28] revenues next year that we can

[1:56:29] count on for $2.3 million as an

[1:56:30] example for safer that 2.2.

[1:56:31] >> Sorry, but you expended that

[1:56:33] this year.

[1:56:34] >> We expended it this year.

[1:56:35] >> And you're gonna let it go

[1:56:36] and then use it

[1:56:38] in the next.

[1:56:39] >> We will receive the revenue

[1:56:40] in the next year. So. So.

[1:56:41] Meaning we won't budget

[1:56:43] for that revenue,

[1:56:44] but we're going to get it.

[1:56:45] Right.

[1:56:46] >> So reimburse yourself.

[1:56:49] >> We're. Yeah, we're going

[1:56:50] to get reimbursed

[1:56:52] by the federal government.

[1:56:53] >> Okay. So that. And that. So

[1:56:55] that. Let's talk about the,

[1:56:57] the general fund reserves. Can

[1:56:58] I ask a clarifying

[1:56:59] for a minute? Can I ask a

[1:57:00] clarifying question? Just.

[1:57:02] Yeah, absolutely. Were you

[1:57:03] suggest. Were you requesting.

[1:57:05] >> Just so that I am clear on.

[1:57:06] >> What it was that. That you

[1:57:08] were asking because we have

[1:57:10] amended budget actuals over or

[1:57:11] under in the percentage.

[1:57:12] You're also asking

[1:57:13] for one more so

[1:57:16] on the expenditures

[1:57:18] on the actual revenue compared

[1:57:19] to cash flow estimates year

[1:57:20] to date. Yeah. So the two

[1:57:21] expenditure ones don't include

[1:57:22] the actual budget. I'm just

[1:57:23] asking, are you wanting one

[1:57:25] more line that essentially is

[1:57:27] sort of like a red line,

[1:57:28] although you would use red

[1:57:29] in finance. But no, no, the

[1:57:31] first line should be your

[1:57:32] actual budget. So we're

[1:57:34] talking. It's a budget

[1:57:36] document. So we're talking

[1:57:37] about the budget that we

[1:57:38] passed. So the first line would

[1:57:39] be your adopted or your amended

[1:57:41] budget.

[1:57:43] >> It's our amended.

[1:57:44] >> Yeah, it's your amended. I

[1:57:46] am asking. The thing you were

[1:57:47] asking Mr. Robinette

[1:57:49] for is that you would like

[1:57:51] another column that gives you

[1:57:53] what it was that we approved

[1:57:56] and then an amended so that you

[1:57:57] can compare the two. Well,

[1:57:59] for two of those. Is that what

[1:58:00] you were asking him to do? I

[1:58:01] understand the confusion

[1:58:02] because I was talking

[1:58:04] about this.

[1:58:05] But then also what we're going

[1:58:07] to get in November. So for

[1:58:09] that's probably why I'm using

[1:58:11] two different words.

[1:58:14] >> Can I add a little bit

[1:58:15] of context?

[1:58:16] >> It would be an amended. It

[1:58:17] would be the amended budget.

[1:58:18] The amended budget is not 130

[1:58:19] million. The amended budget

[1:58:20] would be what's on the 10 year.

[1:58:21] And then you would have

[1:58:22] whatever the previous ones

[1:58:23] on the next one, November 1st,

[1:58:24] which is the Q1 that's going

[1:58:26] to be our adopted budget.

[1:58:28] Yeah, I, yeah, that's. What is

[1:58:30] that? Does that clarify it?

[1:58:31] Sure. No.

[1:58:35] >> I just wanted to say some of

[1:58:38] these reports will look

[1:58:39] slightly different when it's

[1:58:40] not the year end and they all

[1:58:42] look very similar because some

[1:58:45] of the reports do cash flow

[1:58:48] versus actual and then some

[1:58:49] bring in, you know,

[1:58:51] the total budget. And so that

[1:58:53] I'm trying

[1:58:55] to replicate as best I can.

[1:58:57] It's going to be impossible

[1:58:58] to replicate what we Used

[1:59:00] to have. And that's the one

[1:59:01] thing I just want

[1:59:02] to make clear. I'll do my best,

[1:59:04] but just the tool is different,

[1:59:05] so I can't get the information

[1:59:09] out of it. The exact same. And

[1:59:10] frankly, this is part

[1:59:12] of why currently I'm doing it

[1:59:14] with data extracts and

[1:59:15] presenting the information so

[1:59:17] that we can come

[1:59:18] to a general consensus

[1:59:19] of what this Council wants

[1:59:20] to see from these reports,

[1:59:21] what's useful to them relative

[1:59:23] to what we're actually able

[1:59:25] to even provide

[1:59:26] with relative ease.

[1:59:29] >> Does that. Yeah. So

[1:59:32] for this one, obviously,

[1:59:33] if you could. But that would

[1:59:36] actually have to. Then these

[1:59:38] would be the carryover. You

[1:59:39] have to put the carryovers

[1:59:40] in there. And now for this one

[1:59:42] is different because usually

[1:59:43] you have the month in there.

[1:59:44] This doesn't include the actual

[1:59:45] month.

[1:59:46] >> So that's a question I

[1:59:47] actually had for council. We

[1:59:48] used to include month,

[1:59:49] because these reports, many,

[1:59:50] many, many years ago used

[1:59:51] to come to Council monthly. I

[1:59:53] personally find the monthly

[1:59:54] information to be, for a

[1:59:55] Council member, not super

[1:59:56] useful,

[1:59:57] but I can certainly add it.

[1:59:58] Just the more information we

[2:00:00] add, you know,

[2:00:01] the wider the reports get and

[2:00:03] so on and so forth. But I can

[2:00:05] certainly add the monthly

[2:00:07] information. That's not hard

[2:00:09] to do. It's just a question

[2:00:10] of whether Council finds it

[2:00:11] pertinent, especially

[2:00:13] considering we now do quarterly

[2:00:14] updates instead

[2:00:15] of monthly updates, like we're

[2:00:16] done when those reports were

[2:00:18] originally generated. So I'll

[2:00:19] look to Council. We want the

[2:00:21] monthly information.

[2:00:22] >> I've used the quarterly

[2:00:23] reports usually have that last

[2:00:24] month. It's just good to see,

[2:00:25] like a trend,

[2:00:26] because sometimes you started

[2:00:27] off really good, the beginning,

[2:00:28] and so the numbers are higher,

[2:00:29] but you can just see a trend.

[2:00:31] So that's what I've used the

[2:00:32] monthly for, is to. To see if

[2:00:33] there's trends that are

[2:00:35] happening. Because sometimes,

[2:00:36] you know, the beginning of that

[2:00:37] quarter was better than the end

[2:00:38] of that quarter and you're

[2:00:40] trying to figure out what's,

[2:00:42] you know, which direction

[2:00:43] you're trending. So that was

[2:00:45] the usefulness that I found

[2:00:46] with the monthly

[2:00:47] for the cash flow. But you see

[2:00:49] that it's only three months.

[2:00:53] So you see what you begin and

[2:00:54] what you end the quarter,

[2:00:56] because it's only 12 weeks or

[2:00:57] so at. I mean,

[2:00:58] you see that trend. Yeah,

[2:00:59] that's what I'm saying. That's

[2:01:01] that. That is the usefulness

[2:01:03] to me is to see how we're

[2:01:04] trending and it's every

[2:01:05] quarter. So you see that

[2:01:06] at least the last month. It's

[2:01:07] sort of like the budget,

[2:01:08] where you only get

[2:01:10] to see the actuals

[2:01:11] for the one year, but

[2:01:13] at least it's something. So are

[2:01:14] you saying you want the monthly

[2:01:15] or you want the quarterly?

[2:01:16] Because what you just said.

[2:01:17] No, no,

[2:01:18] it's a quarterly report. It's a

[2:01:19] quarterly report is when he

[2:01:20] brings it. And in that

[2:01:21] quarterly report is just.

[2:01:22] It's. That's. This report

[2:01:23] typically has.

[2:01:24] >> What I'm hearing is she

[2:01:26] would like to see. See,

[2:01:27] in addition to this,

[2:01:28] which used to be present

[2:01:29] on the previous reports, which

[2:01:32] would be. I guess it's three

[2:01:33] more columns,

[2:01:35] it would be your monthly

[2:01:36] budget, which in most cases in

[2:01:40] the expense categories was just

[2:01:42] our budget divided by 12

[2:01:43] relative. And so that has its

[2:01:45] own set of potential noise.

[2:01:47] And then it would be your

[2:01:49] actuals for that month and then

[2:01:51] your variance.

[2:01:52] >> I never saw an average. I

[2:01:53] never saw an average.

[2:01:54] >> I don't think. I didn't say

[2:01:56] average. Yeah, I don't think

[2:01:57] there's. What I'm saying is the

[2:01:59] budget on the monthly column

[2:02:01] was the average of the 12

[2:02:03] months of budget put

[2:02:04] in that budget monthly column.

[2:02:06] Does that make sense?

[2:02:08] >> You mean

[2:02:10] like the far right where it

[2:02:11] has. Like the far left?

[2:02:12] >> Yeah, I don't think there's

[2:02:13] a lot of.

[2:02:14] >> I like having it. I

[2:02:15] like having a quarterly.

[2:02:16] >> I like the quarterly. So

[2:02:17] that's. With no monthly,

[2:02:18] without monthly. Okay. Did you

[2:02:19] want the monthly yourself?

[2:02:20] No, no. I mean,

[2:02:22] the quarterly is easier for me

[2:02:23] to follow.

[2:02:27] >> So I think that if there.

[2:02:28] >> There have been times

[2:02:30] in the past in which that there

[2:02:32] has been some sort

[2:02:33] of anomaly or some sort of.

[2:02:34] >> Quarter that felt a little

[2:02:35] funky.

[2:02:37] >> And in those cases, when

[2:02:39] there is something that needs

[2:02:40] to be further explained or that

[2:02:41] the math feels confusing.

[2:02:43] >> That sounds great.

[2:02:44] >> I would love a thorough

[2:02:45] report and those sort

[2:02:47] of charts. However, I believe

[2:02:49] that you said this or extra

[2:02:50] noise that can come.

[2:02:53] >> Because, because especially

[2:02:56] in the expenditure category,

[2:02:58] we, you know, we,

[2:03:01] we take a great deal

[2:03:03] of effort. On the revenue side.

[2:03:06] I always use property tax as

[2:03:07] the best example to try

[2:03:11] to meet our cash flow forecast

[2:03:12] in the month that we expect

[2:03:13] to receive the revenue. So we,

[2:03:15] we do a lot

[2:03:16] of looking back and saying,

[2:03:17] okay, when did we receive

[2:03:19] property tax? Okay, 90%

[2:03:20] of property tax comes in in

[2:03:23] January and May. And then we,

[2:03:25] you know, there's some little

[2:03:27] amounts that come in in June

[2:03:29] and a little bit that comes in

[2:03:30] in September and October. And

[2:03:32] so we, we try to actually

[2:03:33] replicate the cash forecast

[2:03:35] with that. In instances

[2:03:37] like that. In the case

[2:03:39] of our budget expenses, there

[2:03:40] are very few where people go

[2:03:46] through the effort to go

[2:03:47] in and say,

[2:03:48] I think my cash is going

[2:03:49] to come out this this month

[2:03:50] versus next month. The best

[2:03:52] example where I could think

[2:03:53] of that we might want to

[2:03:54] consider it and I always use

[2:03:55] this example in the first and

[2:03:56] second quarter and even third

[2:03:58] quarter updates

[2:03:59] with council is, you know,

[2:04:00] fire overtime. There's a

[2:04:02] seasonality to it so maybe we

[2:04:03] should front load that. And

[2:04:05] July, August, September,

[2:04:06] October, because that's when

[2:04:08] most of their overtime is being

[2:04:09] spent. But we currently don't

[2:04:11] do that as an example. So

[2:04:12] that's an example of I

[2:04:13] untechnically call it noise

[2:04:16] that you would see in the

[2:04:17] report because we all kind

[2:04:19] of know that's going to happen

[2:04:20] with fire. But it would be,

[2:04:22] it would be present in those

[2:04:24] monthly numbers because we just

[2:04:25] take it and divide by 12.

[2:04:27] >> All right. So

[2:04:29] for the revenue side. So I'm

[2:04:31] struggling to find. Well

[2:04:32] there's, it's like a bunch

[2:04:34] of different numbers. So this

[2:04:36] says that the total was 105.

[2:04:38] The 10 year budget has it at

[2:04:39] 106.

[2:04:42] >> Yeah. So you want a

[2:04:43] reconciliation

[2:04:44] between the two.

[2:04:46] >> Yeah. What is that from?

[2:04:48] >> Well, I'd have

[2:04:49] to provide it but I don't have

[2:04:50] that handy right now. The exact

[2:04:51] reconciliation

[2:04:52] from what the ten year plan

[2:04:53] says

[2:04:55] to what these reports say.

[2:04:56] >> Well, it's been amended. So

[2:05:00] the Q3,

[2:05:02] the report that we got then was

[2:05:04] from December and as far as a

[2:05:06] 10 year plan and it was at

[2:05:08] 105, 203 or no, 105, I think

[2:05:11] 7. 105.7. But now it's at

[2:05:12] 106, 826. So why the,

[2:05:14] what's the increase

[2:05:15] of revenue? I didn't see.

[2:05:16] >> Well, one

[2:05:18] of the increases would be

[2:05:19] in the resolution. The

[2:05:20] engineering land development

[2:05:23] has associated revenue so I

[2:05:24] increased the revenue

[2:05:26] for that. I would need to go

[2:05:27] through the whole.

[2:05:29] >> Where is that?

[2:05:30] >> It's in your budget

[2:05:31] resolution. You'll see an

[2:05:32] increased revenue for

[2:05:33] engineering land development

[2:05:35] and the budget resolution.

[2:05:37] >> Engineering and design.

[2:05:38] >> Yeah. So they will bill

[2:05:42] developers for those costs they

[2:05:43] incurred and so the amount that

[2:05:45] they're over budget,

[2:05:47] they'll be able

[2:05:48] to bill the developers

[2:05:49] for those costs.

[2:05:50] >> So they're over budget but

[2:05:51] they have.

[2:05:52] >> A revenue that will come in.

[2:05:54] >> But it's a bill, it's a

[2:05:55] billable, it will be billed and

[2:05:57] that's where the 99 goes. So

[2:05:58] that's where the revenue piece

[2:05:59] goes up or the transfers are

[2:06:00] going up because both have gone

[2:06:01] up on this.

[2:06:03] >> So I can't speak

[2:06:04] to the transfers off top

[2:06:05] of my head. I would,

[2:06:06] I would need to dig into that a

[2:06:07] little more and I want to give

[2:06:08] you accurate information so so

[2:06:09] let me get back to you

[2:06:10] on the transfer piece.

[2:06:12] >> It's not, it's got to be

[2:06:14] in the report though.

[2:06:17] >> The details of it though I

[2:06:18] don't have a reconciliation

[2:06:19] right in front

[2:06:20] of me. I certainly agree with

[2:06:21] the premise that the numbers

[2:06:22] are in the report,

[2:06:23] therefore it must be

[2:06:24] in the report. I don't disagree

[2:06:25] with that. What I'm saying is I

[2:06:26] do not have the ability to

[2:06:27] recall every change that's been

[2:06:28] made off the top of my head.

[2:06:30] But I certainly will provide.

[2:06:32] >> You know it would be great

[2:06:33] for that is if you put the

[2:06:35] adjustments into the tenure

[2:06:36] then we would know.

[2:06:38] >> It would just look

[2:06:39] like a lump of adjustments and

[2:06:40] then I'd be having to still off

[2:06:41] a memory recall remember what

[2:06:42] all the adjustments were,

[2:06:43] which is challenging

[2:06:44] to do sometimes. So I apologize

[2:06:45] but I'll get you that

[2:06:46] information.

[2:06:47] >> But this revenue increase,

[2:06:48] it just, it had said in the

[2:06:49] report that you're not changing

[2:06:50] the revenue increases. But it

[2:06:51] does change the revenue.

[2:06:53] >> There, there's one

[2:06:54] Exception is the 437,000 and

[2:06:57] the transfer. Well the loan

[2:06:58] given

[2:06:59] to parking increases the,

[2:07:02] this revenue. We're not

[2:07:04] changing our major revenue

[2:07:05] sources. Right? We're not

[2:07:06] making any changes to our major

[2:07:07] revenue sources.

[2:07:08] >> So the revenue went up

[2:07:13] from it's you said we ended

[2:07:15] at 105 to 105.2, but it's at

[2:07:16] 106.8. So that's a lot more

[2:07:18] than the 400,000.

[2:07:19] >> I will certainly provide you

[2:07:20] a reconciliation

[2:07:21] between those two numbers

[2:07:22] to explain it.

[2:07:23] >> Okay.

[2:07:28] >> And then where did this 108

[2:07:29] come from?

[2:07:31] >> When you.

[2:07:32] >> So the budget that we passed

[2:07:33] in the 10 year and the last

[2:07:34] amended was at 105. So I don't

[2:07:36] understand when was this

[2:07:37] amended?

[2:07:38] By what authority?

[2:07:39] >> Well some of those would be

[2:07:40] rolling stock is just one

[2:07:41] example off top of my head

[2:07:42] where we amend the budget for

[2:07:45] rolling stock and we don't put

[2:07:46] those adjustments into,

[2:07:47] into the actual 10 year plan

[2:07:48] because it's,

[2:07:52] it has a funding source

[2:07:53] in the large scheme

[2:07:56] of things it's a net wash.

[2:07:57] And.

[2:07:58] >> So we don't, we don't

[2:07:59] authorize that.

[2:08:00] >> It's authorized by council

[2:08:01] policy. I can't remember

[2:08:02] off the top

[2:08:03] of my head. I'm looking at

[2:08:04] Barry to see if he knows the

[2:08:05] rolling stock council policy.

[2:08:06] So you have rolling stock,

[2:08:07] you have equipment replacement,

[2:08:10] you have if somebody donates

[2:08:11] to us to say somebody passes

[2:08:13] away and they want

[2:08:14] to build a bench,

[2:08:15] sometimes they'll donate money

[2:08:16] to us, but.

[2:08:17] >> We don't have to approve

[2:08:18] that or receive it as a

[2:08:19] council. You Just put that

[2:08:20] into revenue

[2:08:21] without administrative knowing

[2:08:22] about it. It's administrative.

[2:08:23] >> It's council policy 416.

[2:08:24] And so those are all council

[2:08:27] policies. Clearly the council

[2:08:28] body can change those

[2:08:30] at any time you wish.

[2:08:31] >> Another, another adjustment

[2:08:32] to revenues that happens is we

[2:08:34] do re budgeting for grants that

[2:08:35] are reimbursement grants. So if

[2:08:38] we know next year use SAFER as

[2:08:42] an example,

[2:08:44] although we built that

[2:08:45] into our budget,

[2:08:48] if we knew we had a carryover

[2:08:49] for some SAFER amount,

[2:08:51] SAFER grant amount, we would

[2:08:52] actually rebudget the revenues

[2:08:54] associated

[2:08:55] to that because we know, we

[2:08:57] expect, given the carryover

[2:08:58] of safer, that we would

[2:09:00] actually see increased revenues

[2:09:01] next year as well. So that

[2:09:02] could explain some

[2:09:03] of the difference. Again, I

[2:09:04] would much prefer to provide

[2:09:06] you a full reconciliation than

[2:09:07] to sit here and spitball every

[2:09:08] potential scenario

[2:09:10] of what could be different

[2:09:11] between the report and the

[2:09:13] Ten Year Plan, which I think is

[2:09:15] your question.

[2:09:17] >> Well, I mean that's what

[2:09:18] we're approving is if they

[2:09:19] match up and if.

[2:09:20] >> The effort, I don't think

[2:09:21] council's approving that the

[2:09:24] revenues match the report. I

[2:09:26] think council's approving the

[2:09:27] budget resolution. And I just,

[2:09:28] you know, historically

[2:09:31] speaking,

[2:09:33] we do not make a reconciliation

[2:09:35] from these reports to the ten

[2:09:37] Year Plan. That certainly can

[2:09:39] be done. It's just a lot of

[2:09:41] effort because there's so many

[2:09:43] moving pieces administratively

[2:09:45] that are getting appropriated

[2:09:47] all the time. So if council

[2:09:48] cert wants that information, I

[2:09:50] could certainly provide that

[2:09:51] information. It's just more

[2:09:53] work. My staff's pretty

[2:09:54] strapped how it is and so.

[2:09:56] >> So you're saying we

[2:09:57] shouldn't expect to have the

[2:09:58] numbers be reconciled to the

[2:10:00] 10 year report as things are

[2:10:01] amended and decided here.

[2:10:03] >> Who's amendments,

[2:10:04] Amendments that are finance

[2:10:05] amendments that. How would we

[2:10:07] know that amendments that are

[2:10:08] approved

[2:10:09] by this board always go

[2:10:11] into the amended 10 year plan?

[2:10:12] I'm telling you,

[2:10:13] all the administrative

[2:10:14] amendments, I do not go in and

[2:10:15] go every single administrator.

[2:10:17] It would be a ton,

[2:10:18] I mean a ton of work to explain

[2:10:19] every single administrative

[2:10:21] amendment and then put it

[2:10:22] into the ten Year Plan. I would

[2:10:23] amend it if it was something.

[2:10:24] And this,

[2:10:26] we could never do this. If it

[2:10:28] was something that was net

[2:10:29] going to be a draw

[2:10:30] on the general fund,

[2:10:31] I would always amend it.

[2:10:32] Right. But most

[2:10:33] of these things are net neutral

[2:10:34] to the general fund. And so

[2:10:35] think about the ten Year Plan

[2:10:36] as a planning tool. And so it's

[2:10:39] designed

[2:10:40] to help us make decisions

[2:10:41] in the future. It will always

[2:10:43] reconcile when we adopt the

[2:10:44] budget

[2:10:45] to the approved expenditures.

[2:10:48] After that they start

[2:10:50] to diverge because of all these

[2:10:53] administrative items. And

[2:10:54] Things of that nature.

[2:10:56] >> So administrative. Oh, yeah,

[2:10:58] yeah.

[2:10:59] >> Did she meet with you

[2:11:00] before this meeting to go

[2:11:01] over all these questions?

[2:11:02] Sir? Did she meet with you

[2:11:03] over all these questions

[2:11:04] before the meeting or no? No,

[2:11:05] sir.

[2:11:06] >> It's in the report and I

[2:11:07] want the public to be able

[2:11:08] to hear.

[2:11:09] >> Yeah, I feel like we're

[2:11:10] losing the audience.

[2:11:11] But you've got

[2:11:12] about a zillion questions

[2:11:13] out here and like,

[2:11:14] it looks unprepared. It looks

[2:11:15] like you could go to him

[2:11:16] before this meeting,

[2:11:17] answer all these questions in

[2:11:18] the whole world and come back

[2:11:20] and we can report these and

[2:11:21] clarifying.

[2:11:22] But we're just talking

[2:11:23] in circles here. You've got

[2:11:24] about 100 questions and we

[2:11:25] could be here all night.

[2:11:27] >> But did you have a question?

[2:11:28] >> You have the access to go

[2:11:29] to him

[2:11:30] before this meeting?

[2:11:31] >> That doesn't help the

[2:11:32] public.

[2:11:33] >> It does help the public.

[2:11:34] When you come back

[2:11:35] with this information, explain

[2:11:36] things, but you just talk

[2:11:37] in circles, question

[2:11:38] over question over question.

[2:11:39] But you're not prepared. My

[2:11:40] God, you're not going to him

[2:11:41] before this meeting and doing

[2:11:42] your due diligence. We have

[2:11:44] access to directors. We can go

[2:11:45] to directors anytime. That is

[2:11:47] your job as a person

[2:11:48] to go.

[2:11:50] >> It's to actually let the

[2:11:51] public know what's happening

[2:11:52] with their finances.

[2:11:53] >> You look very unprepared

[2:11:54] being here. That's all I got

[2:11:55] to say. You're not going

[2:11:56] to think that asking.

[2:11:57] >> Questions means you're

[2:11:58] unprepared. You have no idea

[2:11:59] the job.

[2:12:00] >> You need to go meet

[2:12:01] with them

[2:12:02] before these meetings,

[2:12:03] before it helps so much

[2:12:04] for you. Because you look very

[2:12:05] confused up here and you're

[2:12:06] talking in circles. Just asking

[2:12:07] zillion.

[2:12:08] >> You would hope so. But

[2:12:09] that's not actually what.

[2:12:10] >> Meet

[2:12:11] with your directors before.

[2:12:12] >> That's not actually what it

[2:12:13] is in the future.

[2:12:14] >> Just meet

[2:12:15] with your directors,

[2:12:16] ask all these questions.

[2:12:18] >> Are you all done? I hope

[2:12:20] you're all done. Okay, that's

[2:12:22] great. So getting back

[2:12:24] to this. In this report,

[2:12:25] as far as our cash reserves,

[2:12:26] you mentioned that it is going

[2:12:28] to be offset

[2:12:30] by the gas tax funds. Could you

[2:12:32] tell us what amount it would be

[2:12:33] offset by for gas tax?

[2:12:34] >> Again, we're not done

[2:12:36] closing the year, so I can't

[2:12:37] give you the range.

[2:12:38] >> 2 million, 1 million.

[2:12:39] >> So we. We trans. We

[2:12:42] estimated the transfer to be

[2:12:44] about 8 million when we

[2:12:45] produced this report. So I'm

[2:12:46] unsure your exact question or

[2:12:48] where you're leading your

[2:12:51] question.

[2:12:52] >> It says in here that the gas

[2:12:53] tax funds to offset eligible

[2:12:54] costs incurred and paid

[2:12:56] from the general fund. And I

[2:12:57] just wanted to know what that

[2:12:59] amount would be.

[2:13:00] >> It was about $8 million.

[2:13:01] >> About 8. Because

[2:13:02] in our.

[2:13:03] >> In the budget, I think it

[2:13:04] says there. Somewhere

[2:13:05] near there,

[2:13:06] if not right there is. Says the

[2:13:07] $8 million.

[2:13:08] >> Yeah. In the budget report,

[2:13:09] it said that it was. The actual

[2:13:10] amount was 9 million. So you're

[2:13:11] saying in addition to that 9

[2:13:12] million?

[2:13:13] >> No, no, no addition. So. So

[2:13:14] the actual expenditure is

[2:13:15] reduced by certain items that

[2:13:17] the general fund actually has

[2:13:19] to pay for legally. We get some

[2:13:20] transfers from solid waste,

[2:13:22] wastewater and water due

[2:13:25] to the damages they do

[2:13:27] to the roads. Those monies are

[2:13:28] then kind of pay

[2:13:29] for the first, let's call it

[2:13:31] the general fund required

[2:13:32] maintenance. So there's about a

[2:13:33] million dollars roughly that is

[2:13:35] paid for out

[2:13:36] of those funds. I think

[2:13:37] Michael's actually going

[2:13:39] to talk about it a little bit

[2:13:40] in his presentation. But. So

[2:13:41] that's why that number is

[2:13:43] actually lower than the actual

[2:13:44] expenses is because

[2:13:46] of some items that are kind

[2:13:48] of paid for

[2:13:50] with general fund monies,

[2:13:51] which are the transfers

[2:13:52] from the utilities

[2:13:53] for the damages they do

[2:13:54] to our streets.

[2:13:56] >> So on the actual revenue

[2:13:58] document that you gave to us,

[2:13:59] one of the new reports,

[2:14:00] it says that the budget,

[2:14:02] the amended budget, was 11.6

[2:14:03] million for the fund transfers

[2:14:05] and then that.

[2:14:07] But we expended nine. That was

[2:14:09] the actual.

[2:14:10] >> The largest difference there

[2:14:11] is the forecasted streets

[2:14:12] transfer.

[2:14:14] >> Oh, yeah, yeah. No, my

[2:14:15] question was, is that 9 million

[2:14:16] already been accounted for? So

[2:14:17] it's another 8 million.

[2:14:18] >> No, it's already been

[2:14:20] accounted for. We accounted

[2:14:21] for the eight that we expect

[2:14:22] to receive from gas tax. That

[2:14:24] number could change slightly as

[2:14:25] we close it out

[2:14:31] over the next few weeks.

[2:14:33] But we have accounted for what

[2:14:34] we believe is our best estimate

[2:14:35] at this time.

[2:14:36] >> So for the reports that have

[2:14:37] the.

[2:14:38] >> It.

[2:14:39] >> So the revenue was 9 million

[2:14:40] that we actually got

[2:14:41] for gas tax. And then the

[2:14:42] expenditure is. Looks

[2:14:43] like it's roughly 9.4.

[2:14:44] >> I would have to do the math.

[2:14:46] I don't have that math handy. I

[2:14:48] certainly could do it real

[2:14:49] quick if you want

[2:14:50] to give me a second.

[2:14:51] >> No, no,

[2:14:52] I'm just saying this is. This

[2:14:53] is what the actual. So that's

[2:14:54] my question. So if the money.

[2:14:55] The money.

[2:14:56] >> So we're effectively streets

[2:14:57] between the transfers that the

[2:14:58] general fund makes

[2:14:59] from solid waste, wastewater

[2:15:01] and water that get transferred

[2:15:03] in the general fund. And then

[2:15:04] we give to streets

[2:15:05] for the damages to the streets

[2:15:06] and then the gas tax transfers,

[2:15:07] streets is made completely

[2:15:11] whole

[2:15:12] between those two sources.

[2:15:14] >> And so for our general fund

[2:15:15] cash balance, we're

[2:15:16] anticipating that that gas tax

[2:15:17] fund is going

[2:15:18] to be reimbursed an amount of

[2:15:19] about 8 to 9 million. Now or

[2:15:22] because it says up here it says

[2:15:25] that this 10 million, it has an

[2:15:26] estimated cash transfer. Is it

[2:15:28] including that transfer or it's

[2:15:29] going to be added?

[2:15:30] >> I'm a little confused

[2:15:32] by your question. I continue

[2:15:33] to want to read it

[2:15:34] to you.

[2:15:35] >> The general fund cash

[2:15:36] balance was 10.2. This was

[2:15:37] adjusted

[2:15:38] for estimated cash transfers

[2:15:39] from the gas tax funds to

[2:15:40] offset eligible costs incurred.

[2:15:41] So that's the 10 million

[2:15:42] includes the gas tax. And I was

[2:15:43] just asking what's that amount

[2:15:44] of that gas tax? Is it 8

[2:15:50] million, 9 million?

[2:15:51] >> I think I've answered the

[2:15:52] question. We are transferring

[2:15:53] about $8 million includes the

[2:15:54] 8 million. Yes.

[2:15:56] >> So it's already included.

[2:16:08] >> Let me look at the report.

[2:16:09] What page are you on?

[2:16:10] >> 2, paragraph 1 under

[2:16:11] General Fund reserves. The

[2:16:12] first sentence.

[2:16:13] >> Yeah, so. So that the cash

[2:16:14] balance in the general fund on

[2:16:15] the cash report that was

[2:16:16] included includes the estimated

[2:16:17] at this time estimated. We will

[2:16:19] know by the end of the month.

[2:16:20] Yeah, about approximately $8

[2:16:21] million transferred

[2:16:23] from gas tax.

[2:16:24] >> Okay. And then what is the

[2:16:26] estimate? It says also will be

[2:16:28] adjusted based

[2:16:29] on these other items. So the

[2:16:31] American rescue plan is.

[2:16:32] >> So, so what I'm outlining

[2:16:33] there, and this is not a

[2:16:35] perfect outline because I don't

[2:16:37] have all these numbers

[2:16:39] finalized yet. What I'm

[2:16:40] attempting to outline is

[2:16:42] basically explaining the

[2:16:44] council,

[2:16:46] there will be adjustments

[2:16:47] to that 10.2 million, some

[2:16:48] down, some up.

[2:16:49] >> Okay.

[2:16:50] >> And I believe with all those

[2:16:51] adjustments I think I end up

[2:16:52] surmising or arriving

[2:16:53] at that. Our $9 million

[2:16:54] projection is good at this

[2:16:55] time. I don't see any reason

[2:16:57] for that to change

[2:16:59] with the new ten year plan. So

[2:17:00] why I explained that is because

[2:17:02] there is this crossover

[2:17:03] from the old 10 year plan

[2:17:04] ending cash which would say

[2:17:05] 6.8 million. And I think

[2:17:07] there's a logical question

[2:17:09] to say, well, why does the new

[2:17:10] 10 year plan say 9 million?

[2:17:12] And that was my attempt to try

[2:17:13] to explain that crosswalk

[2:17:14] from three different sources

[2:17:15] of information. Actually the

[2:17:16] actual cash that's sitting

[2:17:17] in our general fund, the old

[2:17:19] ten year plan and the new ten

[2:17:21] year plan. So I was attempting

[2:17:23] again, it's super complicated.

[2:17:25] I was attempting to kind

[2:17:26] of explain

[2:17:28] to council it's not going

[2:17:29] to be 10.3 million,

[2:17:30] it's not going to be 6.8

[2:17:32] million. I still believe it's

[2:17:33] going

[2:17:34] to arrive somewhere right

[2:17:35] around 9 million.

[2:17:38] >> Yeah, I have a real, I can't

[2:17:40] find any accounting practices

[2:17:41] that end cash is not the

[2:17:42] beginning cash. And if you do

[2:17:44] are going to change it,

[2:17:45] you have

[2:17:46] to get very specific.

[2:17:47] >> To be abundantly clear,

[2:17:48] we do use ending Cash audited.

[2:17:50] Once our audit is complete,

[2:17:52] we come back to this board in

[2:17:53] February and we say here is our

[2:17:55] adjusted cash number based

[2:17:56] on the actuals adjusted

[2:17:58] for these items.

[2:17:59] >> Yeah, I'm aware of the

[2:18:02] practice that you're doing.

[2:18:03] It's just not a practice I can

[2:18:04] find anywhere else,

[2:18:05] nor does it align with any of

[2:18:06] the GASB stuff that I have

[2:18:07] found. And, and they said when

[2:18:09] and if that were to happen

[2:18:10] in all

[2:18:11] of the literature that I read

[2:18:13] in the, and calling the League

[2:18:15] of Cities and asking, they said

[2:18:16] if they can itemize exactly

[2:18:18] what that is. So I'm looking

[2:18:20] for this itemization of why you

[2:18:21] think that the cash is going

[2:18:22] to change in nine months

[2:18:23] from when it ends. Not the

[2:18:24] at Q4 which is the end of,

[2:18:26] of that fiscal year, which is

[2:18:29] September, three months after.

[2:18:31] >> I guess I'm confused.

[2:18:33] >> As far as the beginning

[2:18:35] cash, most of them said that

[2:18:37] would change end cash. So if

[2:18:38] something was adjusted,

[2:18:40] the end cash would change in

[2:18:41] February

[2:18:42] but not the beginning cash. So

[2:18:43] that's what I'm trying

[2:18:44] to figure out.

[2:18:45] >> Okay, so. So let's be

[2:18:46] abundantly clear. Yeah, you

[2:18:47] just use two terms and terms

[2:18:48] are important. You said

[2:18:49] beginning and ending cash

[2:18:50] like they're different. So let

[2:18:51] me be clear. The ending cash

[2:18:53] of June 30, 2025 is the

[2:18:54] beginning cash 7125

[2:18:57] of our new 10 year plan.

[2:18:59] >> Correct.

[2:19:01] >> At this time it is a

[2:19:02] forecasted number. We

[2:19:03] forecasted it to be 9 million.

[2:19:04] We are completing our audit.

[2:19:08] We have 10.2, 10.3 million

[2:19:10] in there right now. We will

[2:19:12] take that actual number

[2:19:14] after the completion

[2:19:15] of the audit. We will adjust it

[2:19:16] for encumbrances and things

[2:19:17] that we have carried over and

[2:19:18] we will then bring a number

[2:19:21] to council. At this time,

[2:19:24] I believe it'll be close to 9

[2:19:26] million. I cannot promise you

[2:19:27] that because we're still

[2:19:29] forecasting. I don't have the

[2:19:30] actual audited cash number.

[2:19:32] To your point, I agree with you

[2:19:33] is very important that we use

[2:19:34] an audited cash number that

[2:19:35] then set our beginning cash

[2:19:36] number for this 10 year,

[2:19:39] the new 10 year plan.

[2:19:42] >> Yeah, we don't agree because

[2:19:43] I'm not saying that. So I'm

[2:19:44] saying when I said the word

[2:19:48] ending cash,

[2:19:49] what I meant was the end

[2:19:50] of the 26. So if, if in

[2:19:51] February of 2026 you want

[2:19:52] to make an adjustment

[2:19:54] to cash, you admit if there

[2:19:57] more money came

[2:19:58] in or something,

[2:20:00] you could make that adjustment

[2:20:01] to the end of that year. But,

[2:20:02] but that, that should,

[2:20:03] that ship has been sailed. So

[2:20:04] cash is cash. The idea that you

[2:20:05] have audited cash is also I

[2:20:06] can't really find that

[2:20:07] in any standard as well. So I

[2:20:08] don't know why our ending cash

[2:20:10] for this last year Q4.

[2:20:11] >> So you just want to use

[2:20:15] 10.3 million? Is that your

[2:20:16] suggestion? I guess I'm

[2:20:17] confused.

[2:20:18] >> No, because 10.2, the 10.2

[2:20:19] figure that you have would have

[2:20:21] encumbrances would have other

[2:20:22] things that are involved which

[2:20:23] is why the end cash balance is

[2:20:24] actually 6.8.

[2:20:26] >> So what would make no 6.8 is

[2:20:27] in the forecasting tool which

[2:20:28] does not account

[2:20:29] for every piece of savings or

[2:20:30] every revenue performance.

[2:20:31] Correct? Correct. The ten year

[2:20:32] plan is a foreclosure.

[2:20:34] >> So that's where we're

[2:20:35] starting. That's where we start

[2:20:36] because that's how it's always

[2:20:37] going to be. It's always been.

[2:20:39] That's how it was previous

[2:20:40] before your tenure is that

[2:20:41] NCASH was beginning cash.

[2:20:43] >> No, it never matched. I've

[2:20:45] done that research. No, never

[2:20:46] did it match. I can prove it

[2:20:47] to you if.

[2:20:48] >> You want to come to my.

[2:20:49] Yeah, I would love that.

[2:20:50] You're just confused.

[2:20:51] >> So you are really confused.

[2:20:52] But okay. I'm going

[2:20:53] to make a motion

[2:20:55] to approve this report. So did

[2:20:57] that include adopting the

[2:20:58] resolution?

[2:20:59] >> As far as the resolution

[2:21:03] goes, can we hear from Reu why

[2:21:04] it is that the.

[2:21:06] >> Speaker. Great. All right,

[2:21:08] we have a first and a second.

[2:21:16] Leslie.

[2:21:44] >> Few things.

[2:21:45] >> The annoyance.

[2:21:46] >> And the boredom

[2:21:48] on your faces.

[2:21:50] >> Three of your faces is

[2:21:52] echoed right here.

[2:21:54] >> My five year old also has

[2:21:55] somewhere she'd much rather be.

[2:21:56] However, statements like you're

[2:21:57] losing the crowd.

[2:21:59] >> This is not a show,

[2:22:01] this is not a TV episode. This

[2:22:04] is something you signed up for.

[2:22:06] >> And you asked to run for.

[2:22:08] When you say she looks

[2:22:10] unprepared,

[2:22:12] you know who looks unprepared?

[2:22:13] The people who came not having

[2:22:14] any questions to ask.

[2:22:18] >> The people who have said I

[2:22:19] understand. Wait, wait, I wrote

[2:22:20] it down.

[2:22:22] >> I understand.

[2:22:23] >> I agree.

[2:22:24] >> This is similar

[2:22:25] to what you've been.

[2:22:26] >> Asking for,

[2:22:30] yet then showed up without

[2:22:31] having those items knowing

[2:22:33] exactly what she was going

[2:22:34] to ask for.

[2:22:35] >> And then you want

[2:22:37] to go to.

[2:22:41] >> Social media and make a

[2:22:43] video that.

[2:22:44] >> Talks to us

[2:22:45] like we are her.

[2:22:47] >> Age and tell us you just

[2:22:48] don't understand the budget.

[2:22:50] >> Because we took the time

[2:22:51] to go be managed by staff. We

[2:22:53] took the time to go have them

[2:22:56] placate us and tell us what

[2:22:58] to think and what

[2:22:59] to do not.

[2:23:01] >> Thank you.

[2:23:02] >> Tenessa sat

[2:23:05] at home and took the time

[2:23:06] to go through the report,

[2:23:07] took the time

[2:23:09] to prepare questions,

[2:23:10] took the.

[2:23:11] >> Time to find out where

[2:23:13] things don't add up.

[2:23:15] >> And guess what?

[2:23:16] >> You, you,

[2:23:17] and you are all up

[2:23:20] for election 2026.

[2:23:22] >> And I really hope you two

[2:23:23] don't.

[2:23:24] >> Run, because I have the

[2:23:25] timestamps from.

[2:23:26] >> This behavior,

[2:23:27] and I will show the.

[2:23:28] >> Public who did the work,

[2:23:29] who asked.

[2:23:30] >> The questions,

[2:23:31] and who wants transparency.

[2:23:40] >> Okay.

[2:23:41] >> I'm so upset, I can't even

[2:23:43] read this and tell you the rest

[2:23:44] of my. I wrote this much notes,

[2:23:46] probably more notes than either

[2:23:48] of you came prepared with.

[2:23:49] >> So I'm shaking.

[2:23:51] >> I can't even.

[2:23:54] >> I'll provide a

[2:23:56] reconciliation.

[2:23:58] >> Guess what?

[2:23:59] >> If the number that was

[2:24:00] approved is.

[2:24:01] >> Different than the number

[2:24:02] that you're presenting, maybe

[2:24:03] you should have had that

[2:24:05] reconciliation. She's been

[2:24:06] playing on my phone because.

[2:24:08] >> I didn't plan

[2:24:09] to be here this long, otherwise

[2:24:10] I would have pulled up. How

[2:24:11] much money you make

[2:24:13] to not have those answers.

[2:24:14] Come on. Just out

[2:24:17] of clarity and just out

[2:24:20] of clarity,

[2:24:24] why I can support this. And

[2:24:29] point I made is I come

[2:24:31] to these meetings, I ask the

[2:24:32] directors a zillion questions.

[2:24:33] I get on the phone, I go meet

[2:24:34] with them

[2:24:35] in person. I had a lot

[2:24:36] of questions myself,

[2:24:37] and if I'm confused

[2:24:38] on things,

[2:24:39] I definitely go there. There's

[2:24:40] times that we take this

[2:24:41] information out

[2:24:42] of our meetings

[2:24:43] with directors, when we meet

[2:24:44] with them or talk to them

[2:24:45] on the phone, and we come back

[2:24:46] and sometimes we ask a question

[2:24:47] where we already know the

[2:24:48] answer, but we want

[2:24:49] to get that answer

[2:24:50] to the public itself.

[2:24:51] But the difference on myself

[2:24:52] and her is she didn't meet

[2:24:54] with the director. I did. I met

[2:24:56] with the director and had a lot

[2:24:57] of questions here myself. I

[2:24:58] spent tons of time. So I come

[2:24:59] prepared, and I try to come the

[2:25:01] most prepared I can. And I

[2:25:03] think we're supposed to flush

[2:25:04] out questions here

[2:25:06] in different kind

[2:25:08] of dialogue here, not sit here

[2:25:10] for an hour or two hours asking

[2:25:11] questions that we should have

[2:25:12] really asked these questions

[2:25:13] when we met with directors.

[2:25:14] And if I have, I want to come

[2:25:16] here prepared. I just want

[2:25:18] to make that statement. Every

[2:25:19] single time I talk to Greg, all

[2:25:21] the time in finance, I wrestle

[2:25:22] through all these numbers, and

[2:25:24] there's some stuff I just don't

[2:25:25] understand myself. But I want

[2:25:26] to make sure when I'm up here,

[2:25:27] I understand the information.

[2:25:28] And if I don't,

[2:25:31] then we can wrestle through

[2:25:32] that together as a council.

[2:25:33] But that. That's the best value

[2:25:34] we have, is to meet with our

[2:25:36] directors as often as we want.

[2:25:37] We can call them

[2:25:38] on the phone, we can meet

[2:25:39] with them in person,

[2:25:41] and they're always available.

[2:25:42] And I appreciate all the time

[2:25:44] that you spent with me, Greg.

[2:25:45] You've spent countless time

[2:25:47] with me. I appreciate that.

[2:25:48] Thank you. Mr. Curtis. Thank

[2:25:50] you. Just before the vote,

[2:25:52] I wanted

[2:25:53] to clarify the motion was

[2:25:54] for the recommended action,

[2:25:55] including the adoption

[2:25:56] of the resolution. Is that

[2:25:57] correct? Yes. And then I. This

[2:25:58] is probably lost since the

[2:26:00] conversations moved on,

[2:26:02] but I do just want to make sure

[2:26:03] that the council and the public

[2:26:04] are aware when it comes

[2:26:05] to an adjustment

[2:26:07] to ending cash based

[2:26:08] on something after the close

[2:26:11] of the year, that's not because

[2:26:12] there's new revenue that comes

[2:26:13] in. That's because

[2:26:14] of the changes,

[2:26:15] corrections or changes

[2:26:16] in the accounting practices,

[2:26:17] things that may be adjusted

[2:26:18] by the auditors, things that

[2:26:19] may be adjusted that need

[2:26:20] to be attributed

[2:26:21] to different fiscal years,

[2:26:22] different sources, et cetera.

[2:26:23] So I just wanted to make sure

[2:26:25] that everyone was aware

[2:26:28] of that.

[2:26:29] >> Thank you.

[2:26:34] >> No.

[2:26:37] >> Mayor, can I ask who made.

[2:26:38] >> The second

[2:26:39] on that?

[2:26:40] >> I have. Vice Mayor Latam

[2:26:41] made the motion.

[2:26:42] >> Aaron made the second.

[2:26:43] >> Thank you.

[2:26:44] >> Thank you.

[2:27:03] >> Oral Report regarding City

[2:27:04] of Rented Public Works Streets

[2:27:05] and Divisions.

[2:27:06] >> Good evening, honorable

[2:27:07] Mayor, members

[2:27:08] of the council, staff,

[2:27:09] colleagues, community, this

[2:27:10] evening I will be providing a

[2:27:11] Streets Department update,

[2:27:12] very similar to what Director

[2:27:13] many provided for the

[2:27:14] Community Services Department

[2:27:15] maybe two or three council

[2:27:16] meetings ago. Oh, there we go.

[2:27:18] This Evening I have 16 slides

[2:27:26] for you all,

[2:27:28] including questions.

[2:27:29] Obviously, I will be here and

[2:27:31] available for questions

[2:27:33] at the end. First, I will touch

[2:27:38] on the Streets Division

[2:27:39] functions. Then I will touch

[2:27:40] on the fund, the various

[2:27:41] various, excuse me,

[2:27:42] funding sources that come

[2:27:44] into the Streets Department.

[2:27:45] Then I'm going to touch

[2:27:46] on a brief financial summary

[2:27:48] for the Streets Department.

[2:27:50] And then I will touch on one

[2:27:52] of the things that keeps me up

[2:27:53] at night,

[2:27:54] the current condition of our

[2:27:55] pavement throughout the city.

[2:27:57] I'll talk about the pavement

[2:27:58] condition index. I'll provide

[2:27:59] examples of current PCI scores

[2:28:00] within the city. And then I'll

[2:28:02] talk about a PCI funding

[2:28:04] forecast that we have

[2:28:06] for you. So first, touching

[2:28:08] on the Streets Division

[2:28:15] functions, some

[2:28:19] of the core assets that the

[2:28:20] Streets Department are

[2:28:21] responsible for are roughly

[2:28:23] 450 roadway miles. And when I

[2:28:26] say roadway miles, what I truly

[2:28:27] mean there is center lane

[2:28:28] miles. And when we convert that

[2:28:32] based on the number

[2:28:34] of lanes that are out there,

[2:28:36] we have approximately 940 lane

[2:28:39] miles of pavement that we're

[2:28:40] responsible for here at the

[2:28:43] City of Reading. And I know

[2:28:44] council has heard me talk

[2:28:45] about this prior, but just as a

[2:28:47] good reference point, one

[2:28:48] of our neighboring cities,

[2:28:49] Chico, has a very similar size

[2:28:50] population,

[2:28:52] but they roughly have

[2:28:54] about half the lane miles

[2:28:55] to maintain about 568. Our

[2:28:58] streets department is also

[2:29:01] responsible for the 118 bridges

[2:29:02] that we have and we also have

[2:29:04] about 570 miles of sidewalk,

[2:29:06] 12,000 signs, 82 traffic

[2:29:08] signals and 47 rectangular

[2:29:11] rapid flashing beacons. On top

[2:29:14] of the hard assets that the

[2:29:15] Streets department is

[2:29:17] responsible for, we also have a

[2:29:20] traffic engineering division

[2:29:21] that is embedded within the

[2:29:23] Streets department. This unit

[2:29:26] is responsible

[2:29:28] for evaluating requests for

[2:29:29] traffic control devices which I

[2:29:30] know most, if not all

[2:29:31] of you are very familiar with.

[2:29:32] We get requests

[2:29:36] from communities very often

[2:29:38] to put in speed tables, sign

[2:29:39] packages, rectangular rapid

[2:29:40] flashing beacons and the likes.

[2:29:42] This unit also prepares

[2:29:43] engineering studies related

[2:29:44] to speed and speed limits,

[2:29:45] commonly referred to as

[2:29:46] engineering and traffic studies

[2:29:47] or ENTs for short. They also

[2:29:48] maintain our traffic counts and

[2:29:49] accident data, develop projects

[2:29:50] that have a multimodal focus.

[2:29:51] They also work through a lot

[2:29:52] of the permitting process

[2:29:53] for special events

[2:29:55] in the likes of that. Now we

[2:29:56] have about, not about, excuse

[2:30:00] me, we have 19.5 full time

[2:30:06] equivalents currently in the

[2:30:07] streets department and you'll

[2:30:09] notice there that I bring

[2:30:11] mention to that within the last

[2:30:13] the new budget cycle that we

[2:30:20] started July 1st

[2:30:22] of this year, I did work with

[2:30:24] city manager's office and

[2:30:27] council and recommended it and

[2:30:29] got approved

[2:30:31] for an additional position

[2:30:32] in the traffic Engineering

[2:30:35] group. So we do have that new

[2:30:36] position there.

[2:30:37] But when we break

[2:30:38] down the FTEs between the

[2:30:40] streets department and traffic

[2:30:41] unit, we have 15.5 FTEs

[2:30:43] in the streets department and

[2:30:45] of note there 2.5 of those FTEs

[2:30:47] are actually made up

[2:30:49] from part time employees. So

[2:30:52] there's roughly four to five

[2:30:53] employees that work part time

[2:30:55] that equate up to 2.5 full time

[2:30:57] equivalents. And then in our

[2:30:59] traffic division we have four

[2:31:01] full time equivalent positions,

[2:31:03] including the one new position

[2:31:04] that was authorized

[2:31:05] in the current budget. So that

[2:31:07] is a quick snapshot

[2:31:09] of what the Streets Division is

[2:31:11] responsible for

[2:31:13] from an asset perspective,

[2:31:14] as well as some of the

[2:31:16] engineering traffic duties that

[2:31:17] they provide,

[2:31:18] as well as the number

[2:31:19] of staff that we have

[2:31:21] to provide those services. So

[2:31:27] jump and I should have

[2:31:28] mentioned in the beginning,

[2:31:29] I will obviously be available

[2:31:30] for questions at the end,

[2:31:32] but I would encourage council

[2:31:33] to stop me or pause me if you

[2:31:35] have a question as I'm running

[2:31:37] through the presentation. So

[2:31:38] here I'm going to touch

[2:31:40] on the Street's funding

[2:31:42] sources. There's a lot of

[2:31:43] information here and I'm going

[2:31:44] to try my hardest not

[2:31:45] to simply read it off to each

[2:31:46] of you, but I'm going

[2:31:47] to try and touch

[2:31:49] on what I believe are the,

[2:31:50] the most important aspects

[2:31:51] of this. So you'll see

[2:31:54] at the table

[2:31:55] on the very top right, you'll

[2:31:56] see a column labeled total.

[2:31:57] What that is showing is that is

[2:31:59] showing our total revenue

[2:32:00] for each fiscal year. Now, I

[2:32:02] would like Council to keep

[2:32:03] in mind that for 2324, that is

[2:32:07] an actual number for 2425, the

[2:32:11] 12.76 million that you see,

[2:32:15] that is very close to an actual

[2:32:16] number because we're still

[2:32:17] finalizing everything as

[2:32:19] Director Robinette walked

[2:32:21] through previously. And then

[2:32:24] you will Notice that for 2526

[2:32:25] and 2627, you will see numbers

[2:32:28] slightly over 12.3 million that

[2:32:31] represent what we expect

[2:32:32] to receive from the various

[2:32:33] revenue sources throughout

[2:32:35] those fiscal years. Now, one

[2:32:38] of the benefits that the

[2:32:39] Streets Department has is we do

[2:32:40] get a lot of information from

[2:32:42] the state regarding what our

[2:32:43] revenue, anticipated revenue

[2:32:46] sources are going to be

[2:32:48] for the upcoming years. So that

[2:32:49] is a great benefit for us from

[2:32:51] a planning perspective and

[2:32:53] removes a little bit

[2:32:54] of the volatility.

[2:32:56] Volatility, excuse me, from the

[2:32:59] streets revenue itself. Now, a

[2:33:00] few things I wanted to point

[2:33:02] out here that I think are

[2:33:03] of note. One, you might notice

[2:33:04] and bear with me, I'm going

[2:33:06] to attempt

[2:33:07] to use the pointer here.

[2:33:09] >> Or not.

[2:33:15] >> In the rstp column. For

[2:33:19] 2324, you'll notice there's a

[2:33:24] number of just under $1.4

[2:33:28] million. And then you will

[2:33:29] notice right below it,

[2:33:30] we jump up to 1.6 and we kind

[2:33:31] of hover around there

[2:33:34] for the next couple years.

[2:33:35] That is directly attributable

[2:33:37] to changes that we've made,

[2:33:39] working with SERTA and our

[2:33:40] other partner agencies

[2:33:42] to find the most appropriate

[2:33:43] use for those funds,

[2:33:44] to make sure that each

[2:33:45] of the agencies within Shasta

[2:33:47] county receive the maximum

[2:33:48] amount of funding we can

[2:33:51] for street maintenance.

[2:33:53] Directly to the left of that

[2:33:54] column you'll see the column

[2:33:56] labeled entitled TDA. And

[2:33:58] you'll notice that in 2324 we

[2:33:59] had a actual revenue of just

[2:34:02] over 2.8 million. And then

[2:34:04] you'll notice that we had an

[2:34:07] increase of about 1.5 between

[2:34:10] 2324 and 2425. That is directly

[2:34:12] attributable to Rabba's efforts

[2:34:14] through Assistant City

[2:34:16] Manager Steve Bade and his

[2:34:18] staff in finding creative ways

[2:34:21] and grants

[2:34:23] to fund transit operations

[2:34:25] through Raba, which ultimately

[2:34:26] frees up revenue sources

[2:34:27] for all of the agencies

[2:34:28] within Shasta county to spend

[2:34:30] on street maintenance. So I do

[2:34:31] want

[2:34:32] to highlight those two areas

[2:34:33] for council to be aware

[2:34:34] of because those are

[2:34:35] in the.

[2:34:36] >> They.

[2:34:39] >> Are making up the biggest

[2:34:40] aspect, excuse me,

[2:34:41] of the increase we're seeing

[2:34:43] in revenue between 23242425

[2:34:46] in the following two years. So

[2:34:49] I'm going to pause here and see

[2:34:51] if there are any questions

[2:34:52] before I move on. I understand

[2:34:53] there's a lot of information

[2:34:54] to digest. Okay, moving on.

[2:34:56] And I'm happy

[2:35:01] to go back if needed later. So

[2:35:03] here we're going to pivot

[2:35:08] from revenue

[2:35:09] to what I titled, excuse me,

[2:35:11] a Streets financial summary.

[2:35:12] You'll notice

[2:35:13] on the second column

[2:35:15] from the left again, the total

[2:35:18] revenue amounts show up. And

[2:35:20] those are the same numbers that

[2:35:21] we had on the previous slide.

[2:35:24] And then we walk through it's

[2:35:26] from left to right we talk

[2:35:27] about total budget,

[2:35:28] then we talk

[2:35:30] about total expenses. And we

[2:35:31] break the expenses up into

[2:35:33] three primary food groups or

[2:35:34] categories, if you will,

[2:35:35] including O and M capital and

[2:35:36] personnel. And then we touch

[2:35:38] on carryover,

[2:35:39] which I will explain here

[2:35:40] in a few moments. So you'll

[2:35:43] notice that our revenues are

[2:35:44] hovering around that at least

[2:35:48] after 2324. We're hovering

[2:35:50] in that $12.5 million per year

[2:35:54] range. And you'll notice that

[2:35:57] our budget for 2425 ended up

[2:36:00] being 19.4. And you'll notice

[2:36:02] that our adopted budgets for

[2:36:04] 25, 26, 26, 27 are

[2:36:07] in that low 11 range. And

[2:36:10] you'll see our expenditures,

[2:36:12] O and M capital and personnel.

[2:36:15] So a few things I'd like

[2:36:18] to point out here.

[2:36:20] On average,

[2:36:21] our O and m is roughly 30%

[2:36:22] of our total expenditures, with

[2:36:23] our capital costs being roughly

[2:36:24] about 47% of our total expenses

[2:36:25] and our personnel costs making

[2:36:26] up the remainder, which is

[2:36:28] about 24%. So a pretty decent

[2:36:31] split of how we're spending the

[2:36:33] resources there. Now keep

[2:36:34] in mind, when I say O and M,

[2:36:35] what I'm talking about there

[2:36:37] are equipment costs, fuel

[2:36:40] costs, material costs,

[2:36:41] and the likes of all that. So

[2:36:43] that's the pothole material,

[2:36:44] the cracked ceiling,

[2:36:45] that's fuel. That's everything

[2:36:48] that our Streets True Blue

[2:36:49] maintenance crew needs and uses

[2:36:51] every day to go out there and

[2:36:52] maintain what we have. When I

[2:36:54] talk about capital projects,

[2:36:56] what I'm referring to there are

[2:36:57] projects that we're putting

[2:36:59] through the project delivery

[2:37:00] machine, for a lack

[2:37:02] of a better term,

[2:37:04] that are going through a

[2:37:05] planning process and

[2:37:06] environmental approval. We're

[2:37:07] developing full contract

[2:37:09] documents and we're putting

[2:37:10] those out to bid. And a

[2:37:11] contractor is bidding them and

[2:37:13] building them them. And then

[2:37:15] the personnel costs are just

[2:37:16] what they sound. That is what

[2:37:17] we that's what it costs us

[2:37:19] to have the team to get all

[2:37:20] those projects and efforts

[2:37:22] completed. So I'm going

[2:37:27] to touch.

[2:37:28] >> Can I interrupt you and ask

[2:37:29] a question just a little bit

[2:37:30] further in that O M versus

[2:37:31] Capital. How much of road

[2:37:34] maintenance or how big is a

[2:37:35] project before it's out

[2:37:37] of O and M and into

[2:37:38] like capital? If you're. Is O M

[2:37:39] always maintenance, that's like

[2:37:41] ceiling or patchwork or

[2:37:42] something along those sort

[2:37:43] of lines.

[2:37:44] >> It predominantly is. And we

[2:37:45] do have, and that's a great

[2:37:47] question, we do have a few

[2:37:48] contracts, if you will,

[2:37:50] that do end up living

[2:37:51] in the O and M bucket.

[2:37:52] But they are more for.

[2:37:56] From a maintenance perspective.

[2:37:58] For example,

[2:38:01] we have a few contracts for

[2:38:03] what we would call sidewalk

[2:38:04] leveling. If you recall

[2:38:05] from a few slides ago,

[2:38:06] we have roughly 570 miles

[2:38:09] of sidewalk and a number

[2:38:12] of our panels have moved due to

[2:38:15] tree roots or age or whatever.

[2:38:17] So we have a contract

[2:38:18] with a vendor to where our

[2:38:20] maintenance crews identify

[2:38:22] those locations and then they

[2:38:23] issue work orders essentially

[2:38:25] for that contractor to go

[2:38:26] out there and grind

[2:38:28] down those vertical edges. We

[2:38:29] also have a similar contract

[2:38:31] with a contractor for them.

[2:38:32] When those panels have been

[2:38:36] damaged well

[2:38:38] beyond the ability

[2:38:39] to be maintained,

[2:38:42] that vendor will go out and

[2:38:43] completely remove the failed

[2:38:45] panels and replace with new.

[2:38:46] We also have a striping

[2:38:48] contract, an annual contract

[2:38:49] where we put that out to bid.

[2:38:50] And for streets that are not

[2:38:52] getting any capital work

[2:38:53] in the near future,

[2:38:58] but our pavement delineation,

[2:39:01] either the striping or the

[2:39:02] markings or the markers are non

[2:39:04] existent or need

[2:39:08] to be freshened up. Our streets

[2:39:09] crew will use that contract and

[2:39:13] the resources there

[2:39:14] to have that contractor go out

[2:39:15] there and refresh the

[2:39:16] delineation

[2:39:17] along the streets.

[2:39:19] >> Cool.

[2:39:21] >> Thank you.

[2:39:22] >> So jumping back into this,

[2:39:23] I'm going to touch

[2:39:24] on the carryovers. So you'll

[2:39:25] see on the very far right

[2:39:26] column we have a column title

[2:39:27] titled Carryover from P Y.

[2:39:28] Excuse me, PY stands

[2:39:31] for prior year. And what I'm

[2:39:32] showing there is that for the

[2:39:34] 2324 fiscal year we transfer,

[2:39:36] we carried

[2:39:38] over and excuse me,

[2:39:39] I might mix up some

[2:39:40] of the financial terms. So I'm

[2:39:43] going to do my very best to,

[2:39:45] to use the correct ones. And if

[2:39:47] director Robinette throws

[2:39:49] something at me,

[2:39:51] you knew that I. You'll know

[2:39:52] that I used the wrong one.

[2:39:53] But we transferred in,

[2:39:55] or carried over, excuse me,

[2:39:57] just under $5 million

[2:39:58] into the 2324 year specifically

[2:39:59] for streets projects. Then

[2:40:00] for the the next year, 2425,

[2:40:01] there was just just under 5.1

[2:40:07] million transferred from the

[2:40:10] 2324 year into the 2425. And

[2:40:12] then right now we are

[2:40:14] anticipating, and I'm going

[2:40:16] to try and be very clear,

[2:40:21] we are anticipating just over

[2:40:22] 10 million being transferred

[2:40:24] from the previous fiscal year,

[2:40:27] which is 24, 25

[2:40:29] into the current fiscal year,

[2:40:31] which is 2526. Now my team is

[2:40:32] working internally as well as

[2:40:36] with the finance department

[2:40:39] to get all the final invoices

[2:40:41] to get the final bills. We're

[2:40:43] waiting for contractors

[2:40:44] to submit theirs,

[2:40:47] and once we have all that

[2:40:48] information, we'll have gone

[2:40:49] through the final process to

[2:40:50] determine what that actual

[2:40:51] carryover will be.

[2:40:52] But right now we anticipate it

[2:40:56] to be roughly $10.1 million.

[2:40:58] And I have a detailed list of

[2:41:00] all the projects that make up

[2:41:01] that $10.1 million and would be

[2:41:02] happy to provide it

[2:41:04] to council.

[2:41:06] But essentially it's a list of

[2:41:07] about 20 projects that consists

[2:41:09] of projects where streets funds

[2:41:12] are being used as a match,

[2:41:14] like on the Bocelli project.

[2:41:15] It's projects where the

[2:41:17] Streets Department or the

[2:41:19] Streets Revenue is funding the

[2:41:20] asphalt work that we're doing

[2:41:22] along Hartnell right now. It's

[2:41:24] funding projects

[2:41:27] like we're doing for the Cape

[2:41:28] Seal and some

[2:41:29] of the subdivisions

[2:41:30] on the northern part

[2:41:31] of town and a whole slew of

[2:41:33] other projects that are still

[2:41:34] having the books closed out, or

[2:41:35] there's final little remaining

[2:41:36] tidbits of work that need

[2:41:37] to remain, and that money will

[2:41:38] then ultimately go

[2:41:40] into the general fund,

[2:41:41] and so those bills can be paid.

[2:41:43] So I'm going to.

[2:41:46] >> Work that you've done, but

[2:41:49] you haven't collected on.

[2:41:50] >> I like to think

[2:41:53] about it again, and I'm trying

[2:41:54] to stay in my lane,

[2:41:55] and I'm not the finance expert,

[2:41:56] but the work has either been

[2:41:58] completed and we haven't had

[2:42:02] to pay it yet, or. Or it has

[2:42:03] yet to been completed and we

[2:42:06] know we're going to have

[2:42:07] to pay it

[2:42:08] in that fiscal year.

[2:42:09] >> But you have the revenue

[2:42:10] already.

[2:42:11] >> We have the revenue. That is

[2:42:12] correct,

[2:42:13] and that's what I'm going

[2:42:14] to touch on.

[2:42:15] >> This is a billing issue.

[2:42:16] This is just getting that money

[2:42:17] in because the work's gone

[2:42:18] out and you have the revenue

[2:42:19] for it. It just hasn't been

[2:42:20] billed to be, like,

[2:42:22] finished.

[2:42:23] >> That is correct. And I

[2:42:25] believe the next couple numbers

[2:42:26] you see there,

[2:42:27] the four numbers on the bottom

[2:42:28] of the slide, will help make

[2:42:29] the point you're articulating.

[2:42:31] But go ahead.

[2:42:32] >> Is the carryovers. Are these

[2:42:33] like, carrying over year

[2:42:34] after year, or is it a new

[2:42:36] amount each year?

[2:42:37] >> Essentially, what it boils

[2:42:38] down to is projects take longer

[2:42:39] than one year to plan,

[2:42:40] produce the contract documents

[2:42:42] for, put out,

[2:42:44] to bid and administer. And

[2:42:47] that's why the carryovers are

[2:42:48] generally

[2:42:49] in my shop and public works,

[2:42:51] because that's where the

[2:42:54] capital workload Exists.

[2:42:57] >> But this isn't 20 million.

[2:42:59] This is really. It just keeps,

[2:43:00] keeps going

[2:43:02] like you're adding on.

[2:43:03] >> Yeah. I would suspect that

[2:43:04] we will always have carry

[2:43:05] forwards and it's going

[2:43:07] to be a result of projects

[2:43:09] getting established and started

[2:43:10] within one fiscal year.

[2:43:12] But not all of the expenditures

[2:43:14] will actually occur

[2:43:15] in that year. They will occur

[2:43:17] in subsequent years.

[2:43:18] >> Yeah. This is the most

[2:43:19] traditional carryover that

[2:43:20] everybody's aware of and

[2:43:21] understands how it works,

[2:43:22] I would say. But I just wanted

[2:43:23] to clarify that these

[2:43:26] carryovers are accumulating.

[2:43:27] So when you want more engineers

[2:43:28] is because you want this to be

[2:43:31] finished.

[2:43:32] >> I'm assuming that's a great

[2:43:33] point which I can touch

[2:43:35] on here in a little bit.

[2:43:36] >> That's where I was leading.

[2:43:37] I figured you would catch on.

[2:43:38] But okay.

[2:43:39] >> Sometimes I can be slow.

[2:43:41] Yeah, yeah, but so to finish

[2:43:42] off on that point.

[2:43:44] >> So you'll see there's just

[2:43:45] one point that I think also is

[2:43:47] relevant to paving projects and

[2:43:49] that's paving projects are

[2:43:50] routinely bid later

[2:43:53] in the season because you want

[2:43:55] to pave in the summertime when

[2:43:56] the temperatures are hot. So

[2:43:58] you see this more with paving

[2:44:00] projects than you might with a

[2:44:01] water project that can be done

[2:44:03] in the shoulder season.

[2:44:04] >> So. Yeah, thank you. Good

[2:44:06] clarification. Yep. So the last

[2:44:07] part I was going to touch on

[2:44:10] on this slide. So there's four

[2:44:12] numbers you can see

[2:44:13] on the bottom there. So I

[2:44:14] worked with Director Robinette

[2:44:15] and his team

[2:44:16] to get an actual balance of the

[2:44:17] special gas tax fund and local

[2:44:20] transportation TDA fund fund

[2:44:22] balance. I'm viewing this as

[2:44:24] the, the checking account that

[2:44:27] holds the revenue as it comes

[2:44:29] in from our various revenue

[2:44:30] sources. Right now as of June

[2:44:32] 30, there was $20.2 million

[2:44:35] in there. We anticipate working

[2:44:39] with finance to transfer just

[2:44:41] under 8 million or 7.9 million

[2:44:43] from that account

[2:44:46] into the general fund to cover

[2:44:47] expenses that have occurred

[2:44:49] in the 24, 25 fiscal year.

[2:44:50] Fiscal year. So that will

[2:44:53] reduce our, our balance in our

[2:44:55] revenue checking account if you

[2:44:56] will, from 20 million down to

[2:44:58] about 12. And then we have that

[2:45:02] carry forward amount

[2:45:04] of approximately $10 million

[2:45:07] that will also is earmarked

[2:45:10] in that balance of 12, if you

[2:45:11] will, because we know those

[2:45:13] expenditures are going

[2:45:14] to occur. So when we take

[2:45:15] out the 8 in the 10

[2:45:17] from our balance,

[2:45:19] we're truly left with just

[2:45:21] about 2.2 million. What I'm

[2:45:22] going to call uncommitted un

[2:45:24] earmarked streets revenue.

[2:45:26] That is money that I could use

[2:45:29] to start a new project or add

[2:45:31] on to a contract or whatever.

[2:45:33] But that is truly how much

[2:45:36] funding? Approximately,

[2:45:39] without getting to the end

[2:45:41] of or finalizing the carryovers

[2:45:43] from 2425, there's roughly

[2:45:45] $2.2 million uncommitted

[2:45:46] in our checking account,

[2:45:47] if you will, that holds our

[2:45:52] streets revenue.

[2:45:54] >> And then when do you get the

[2:45:57] next.

[2:45:58] >> They come in in various

[2:46:01] waves. And I left my piece

[2:46:02] of paper on my desk that

[2:46:03] describes when those various

[2:46:04] revenue sources come in

[2:46:05] through the year.

[2:46:06] But they do come in

[2:46:07] at different times. And keep

[2:46:09] in mind, one of them, the rstp,

[2:46:10] is a reimbursable one. Right.

[2:46:11] So we don't get all

[2:46:12] of that money. We have to spend

[2:46:14] it first and then we can get

[2:46:15] reimbursed up

[2:46:16] to the maximum amount.

[2:46:17] >> But we're starting

[2:46:19] off the year with about 2.2.

[2:46:20] We anticipate to get another

[2:46:22] 10 from the gas tax.

[2:46:23] >> We should get

[2:46:24] about another 12.375 oh total.

[2:46:25] >> So we're going to be at

[2:46:26] about 14 and a half

[2:46:27] for the year.

[2:46:28] >> Including what we're going

[2:46:29] to end this year with. Yes.

[2:46:31] >> Okay.

[2:46:32] >> So generally we should see

[2:46:33] the streets department putting

[2:46:36] out about $12 million worth

[2:46:39] of effort combined between O

[2:46:41] and M or our true blue streets

[2:46:43] maintenance, our capital

[2:46:46] projects and then our personnel

[2:46:48] costs. Okay.

[2:46:49] >> No, I appreciate that

[2:46:51] comment. I've heard that

[2:46:52] fallacy in the public where

[2:46:53] people think that we're sitting

[2:46:54] on millions and millions and

[2:46:55] millions of dollars in street

[2:46:56] money and we're just choosing

[2:46:58] not to spend it. I mean,

[2:46:59] we hear stuff like that.

[2:47:00] That's not true, correct?

[2:47:01] >> Yeah, we do work pretty hard

[2:47:03] to get every dollar we possibly

[2:47:04] can out there. And I do feel

[2:47:05] like I should point

[2:47:07] out when we look

[2:47:09] at that uncommitted $2.2

[2:47:10] million as a percentage

[2:47:11] of our average revenue,

[2:47:13] so I'm just going to call it

[2:47:14] 12 and a half. We're sitting

[2:47:16] at around 18%. And I know that

[2:47:20] that's higher than the general

[2:47:21] Fund Council policy, but I'd

[2:47:23] like to remind this body that

[2:47:24] the type

[2:47:25] of efforts that we're doing

[2:47:27] in CAP

[2:47:29] in public works and these types

[2:47:30] of projects, I really have no

[2:47:32] idea what bids are to come in

[2:47:34] at for our projects.

[2:47:36] Oftentimes our projects

[2:47:38] potentially run

[2:47:39] into issues and we have claims

[2:47:41] with our contractors. And so I

[2:47:43] would recommend that we do run

[2:47:44] with a little bit

[2:47:46] of a higher than 10% reserve

[2:47:49] for those reasons

[2:47:50] in combination of if we have an

[2:47:52] emergency event,

[2:47:54] we likely having some cash

[2:47:56] on hand is a good thing. So I

[2:47:58] would think that running

[2:47:59] in that 15

[2:48:00] to 20% range makes a whole lot

[2:48:01] of sense for the type of work

[2:48:03] that the streets are department

[2:48:04] performs as well as the assets

[2:48:05] that they're responsible for.

[2:48:08] Okay, so I'm going

[2:48:09] to move on, but again,

[2:48:10] I'm happy to go back

[2:48:11] to any questions that we have.

[2:48:12] So here I'm going

[2:48:13] to touch on, as I mentioned

[2:48:14] earlier, kind of one

[2:48:16] of the things that keeps me up

[2:48:18] at night and this is the

[2:48:21] condition of our pavement. So

[2:48:22] first I'm going to touch

[2:48:23] on pavement condition. And I

[2:48:25] apologize, I'm sure the this

[2:48:26] body has heard this multiple

[2:48:27] times from my predecessors as

[2:48:28] well as me. But Pavement

[2:48:29] condition index is a numerical

[2:48:30] rating from 0 to 100 that

[2:48:31] generally just represents the

[2:48:32] health of our paved surface.

[2:48:34] It's comprised of a number

[2:48:35] of things, including the type

[2:48:38] of pavement distress. So that

[2:48:39] could either be cracking. Are

[2:48:41] we talking about fatigue?

[2:48:42] Thermal, longitudinal,

[2:48:44] transverse,

[2:48:47] how much rugging is

[2:48:48] out there? Potholes, raveling.

[2:48:49] It also takes

[2:48:51] into consideration the severity

[2:48:52] of the pavement stress. How bad

[2:48:53] is it? It also takes

[2:48:54] into consideration the extent,

[2:48:56] how much of it is there,

[2:48:57] as well as the traffic loading,

[2:48:59] because obviously routes that

[2:49:00] are heavy

[2:49:02] with trucks or buses are going

[2:49:04] to receive a higher traffic

[2:49:06] loading than a street that does

[2:49:07] not have that. Age and climate

[2:49:08] and weather are other factors

[2:49:10] that go into that. So

[2:49:13] in general,

[2:49:15] PCI is a good indicator

[2:49:16] of the health

[2:49:17] of your roadway system. So what

[2:49:19] I'm going

[2:49:20] to do here is I'm going

[2:49:22] to run jump through half a

[2:49:24] dozen or so slides that are

[2:49:26] meant to give visual examples

[2:49:27] to the body, the council as a

[2:49:30] body, as well as the members

[2:49:35] of the public, because I think

[2:49:36] this is very tangible

[2:49:37] to folks. So I'm going

[2:49:38] to touch on routes that have

[2:49:40] what I would consider to be

[2:49:41] very good or good conditions,

[2:49:43] as well as mediocre and as well

[2:49:44] as poor. And I suspect that

[2:49:47] this will resonate

[2:49:49] with pretty much everybody

[2:49:50] in the room. So here we're

[2:49:51] looking at Bocelli, excuse me.

[2:49:53] This is Bocelli Lane looking

[2:49:56] north. This is an arterial,

[2:49:57] so a major route

[2:49:58] within the city,

[2:50:00] higher traffic volumes. And we

[2:50:01] did significant work along

[2:50:02] Bocelli a few years ago and no

[2:50:04] surprise,

[2:50:05] right now we have a PCI score

[2:50:07] of 93, which is very good. And

[2:50:10] I think that most people that

[2:50:11] drive along that route would

[2:50:14] would agree that the pavement

[2:50:15] rides very smooth and.

[2:50:16] >> It'S

[2:50:17] in a good drivable about.

[2:50:18] >> Here's an example

[2:50:20] of a residential street. This

[2:50:22] is Garden Avenue. So this is

[2:50:24] not too far from where we're

[2:50:25] sitting right now. This is a

[2:50:26] residential street. And we're

[2:50:27] looking north here again,

[2:50:28] and we're sitting at an 86 PCI.

[2:50:32] Again, this is a Very good

[2:50:35] score. Pavement rides nice.

[2:50:36] Very few potholes are cracking

[2:50:38] here. We have Westside Road. I

[2:50:42] believe we're looking north

[2:50:44] here. Again, a residential

[2:50:47] street, or, excuse me,

[2:50:48] a collector. And we're sitting

[2:50:50] at a PCI of 75. I would like

[2:50:53] to point out to Council that if

[2:50:55] you do look closely,

[2:50:56] you're going

[2:50:57] to start noticing a few cracks,

[2:50:58] both horizontally, which would

[2:50:59] be transverse as well as

[2:51:00] parallel

[2:51:02] with the traveled way, which

[2:51:03] would be our longitudinal

[2:51:05] cracks. So you're starting

[2:51:07] to see some visual signs

[2:51:08] of distress there. Here we have

[2:51:11] Buenaventura Boulevard. This is

[2:51:13] looking south as you approach

[2:51:14] Placer Street. Again, this is

[2:51:16] an arterial, a major

[2:51:18] thoroughfare, and you start

[2:51:19] to see a lot

[2:51:20] of visual stress here. And

[2:51:23] based on our Data, this is a

[2:51:24] 45 in the PCI world. And it's

[2:51:25] teetering right there on fair

[2:51:26] to poor. Here we have Churn

[2:51:28] Creek Road. Again, we're

[2:51:29] looking north. Churn Creek is a

[2:51:39] very busy route. It's an

[2:51:42] arterial. And you can see a lot

[2:51:45] of the cracked ceiling we have

[2:51:46] there and the patches and

[2:51:48] everything else. And you can

[2:51:49] even see a transition between

[2:51:50] pavement that must have been

[2:51:52] done at different times.

[2:51:53] But we're sitting here at a

[2:51:55] 43. So again, we're kind

[2:51:56] of dropping down

[2:51:57] through those conditions. And

[2:51:58] you can see a visual

[2:52:00] difference. Here we have

[2:52:02] Brandstetter. This is a

[2:52:04] collector,

[2:52:05] so not as busy as an arterial,

[2:52:06] but a little bit more traffic

[2:52:09] than a residential or a local

[2:52:11] road. Pretty beat up. You can

[2:52:13] see a lot of missing chunks

[2:52:14] of asphalt. You can see a lot

[2:52:15] of cracking. You can see that

[2:52:16] there's a need for us to get

[2:52:17] out there and crack seal.

[2:52:19] But we're sitting at a PCI of

[2:52:20] 33, and in my opinion, a road

[2:52:21] in this condition is teetering

[2:52:23] on not even be worth the value

[2:52:25] of going out and crack,

[2:52:27] sealing or maintaining,

[2:52:30] because the structural

[2:52:32] condition of it is so poor that

[2:52:35] it's not a great use of the

[2:52:37] limited resources that we have.

[2:52:39] So this is a good example of

[2:52:40] one that's probably gone too

[2:52:41] long without maintenance. And I

[2:52:43] believe this is my last one.

[2:52:45] Give me one second. This is

[2:52:49] East Bonnevieu Road looking

[2:52:55] south. Another collector PCI

[2:52:57] of 31. And I think visually all

[2:52:59] of you can understand why. So

[2:53:02] again,

[2:53:04] another road that's well beyond

[2:53:05] its useful time and is

[2:53:06] teetering on needing a complete

[2:53:07] reconstruction, probably

[2:53:10] beyond maintenance. And then I

[2:53:12] have here a picture of Bute

[2:53:16] street, the worst of the slides

[2:53:19] that I'm showing you this

[2:53:21] evening. Another residential

[2:53:22] street at a PCI of 20. So

[2:53:25] terrible condition, definitely

[2:53:27] needs a full reconstruction.

[2:53:28] If not

[2:53:29] at least a significant rehab.

[2:53:30] Now, I should remind Council

[2:53:32] this information that I'm

[2:53:34] providing here, specifically

[2:53:36] on the pci,

[2:53:38] as well as these road

[2:53:39] conditions, is essentially the

[2:53:40] same information that City

[2:53:43] Manager Tippen provided back

[2:53:44] in April of last year. I want

[2:53:47] to say it was the 28th. 24th.

[2:53:49] Thank you. Regarding the unmet

[2:53:52] needs throughout the city as we

[2:53:54] kind of kicked

[2:53:56] off the budget workshops. So

[2:53:57] this. This is not new

[2:53:59] information, although they

[2:54:01] might be new pictures. So what

[2:54:02] I have here is a real fancy

[2:54:05] chart, and I'm going

[2:54:07] to walk the four of you

[2:54:10] through what I'm showing here.

[2:54:12] So what I have

[2:54:14] on the vertical access, again,

[2:54:15] is the PCI from 0 to 100. And

[2:54:16] then what I have down there on

[2:54:19] the horizontal axis are years.

[2:54:20] And I just went every five

[2:54:22] years,

[2:54:23] because if I showed every year,

[2:54:26] there was just too many numbers

[2:54:27] down there and it got busy. So

[2:54:28] what I'm showing is, first

[2:54:30] you'll see a solid red line and

[2:54:34] you'll see that there's about

[2:54:36] 10 years worth of data there.

[2:54:38] That is our historical,

[2:54:39] actual PCI

[2:54:40] for our entire roadway network,

[2:54:43] and that's based on that. We

[2:54:46] drive every mile

[2:54:47] of every street each year. We

[2:54:48] collect that, and we collect

[2:54:50] visual information

[2:54:52] through cameras and videos,

[2:54:54] and we upload it in a software

[2:54:55] that we have called roadai,

[2:54:57] and then we put that into

[2:54:59] additional software that we

[2:55:01] have that is called Street

[2:55:03] Saver. So those are actual

[2:55:04] historical network averages

[2:55:05] of our arterials, our

[2:55:07] collectors and our local

[2:55:10] roadways. So that's actual

[2:55:13] data. And you can see that

[2:55:14] we're really kind of hovering

[2:55:16] in the high 40s,

[2:55:17] which I would imagine resonates

[2:55:19] to most individuals that

[2:55:20] traverse reading. Now, you're

[2:55:21] going to see two dashed lines.

[2:55:23] To the right of that,

[2:55:25] you're going

[2:55:26] to see a dashed red line. What

[2:55:29] that represents is if we

[2:55:30] continued on the capital

[2:55:32] spending trajectory that we are

[2:55:34] on right now,

[2:55:37] which is approximately $5

[2:55:38] million

[2:55:41] of capital projects per year.

[2:55:43] And what you're going

[2:55:44] to see is our PCI is going

[2:55:46] to continue to deteriorate.

[2:55:48] And what's happening is we're

[2:55:50] getting very close,

[2:55:51] in my opinion, to falling off

[2:55:53] what I would call the

[2:55:54] rehabilitation cliff

[2:55:56] to where essentially too much

[2:55:58] of our pavement is

[2:55:59] beyond maintenance and it's.

[2:56:00] It can no longer be rehabbed.

[2:56:02] It needs

[2:56:04] to be completely reconstructed.

[2:56:06] So obviously that's a concern

[2:56:08] of mine as your city engineer.

[2:56:10] Now, you're going

[2:56:12] to see a blue line

[2:56:14] above that. That is a line that

[2:56:15] I've developed with my team,

[2:56:16] again using the current

[2:56:17] conditions, the Road AI and the

[2:56:18] Street Saver software as well

[2:56:20] as working with pavement

[2:56:22] officials that I have

[2:56:24] relationships with

[2:56:26] on what the condition of our

[2:56:28] pavement would be if we were to

[2:56:30] spend an additional eight and a

[2:56:32] half to $10 million per year

[2:56:35] on pavement. Now, that number

[2:56:37] wasn't grabbed out

[2:56:38] of thin air. It was really back

[2:56:39] calculated in order

[2:56:41] to get us up

[2:56:43] to a PCI that you're going

[2:56:44] to see is in the bottom end of

[2:56:45] the good zone that I'm

[2:56:47] indicating on the top. Top

[2:56:49] right in the green box. Now,

[2:56:50] you may ask yourself, or you

[2:56:53] may be asking yourself,

[2:56:54] why does Michael not want

[2:56:55] to go to the top

[2:56:56] of the green zone? Why is he

[2:56:58] recommending only the bottom?

[2:56:59] That's a good question. I'm

[2:57:00] recommending the bottom because

[2:57:01] that's where the best value is.

[2:57:02] We don't want to spend all of

[2:57:03] our resources and get the

[2:57:05] pavement into a condition where

[2:57:06] essentially we're overspending

[2:57:08] in pavement. We want to live

[2:57:10] in an average roadway network

[2:57:13] with a PCI of 75 to 80. What

[2:57:15] that means is that means our

[2:57:18] pavement is in a solid

[2:57:19] structural condition and

[2:57:22] in general good health. And

[2:57:23] really what we're doing is

[2:57:27] we're doing a lot

[2:57:29] of preventative maintenance.

[2:57:31] We're not doing very many

[2:57:32] rehabs or recon

[2:57:34] reconstructions, excuse me,

[2:57:35] which we want to avoid as much

[2:57:36] as possible because those are

[2:57:37] the most intrusive projects to

[2:57:39] our businesses and residents

[2:57:40] and they're also the most

[2:57:42] costly. Unfortunately,

[2:57:47] in order to get up

[2:57:48] to that PCI score of 75 to

[2:57:50] 80, there is a capital

[2:57:52] investment required which would

[2:57:55] consist of a number of

[2:57:56] rehabilitations and

[2:57:57] reconstructions for a period

[2:57:58] of time. Once we get there,

[2:57:59] then the type

[2:58:01] of our project would pivot

[2:58:06] from rehabs and reconstructions

[2:58:07] to predominantly preventative

[2:58:10] maintenance with select rehabs

[2:58:11] once pavement ended,

[2:58:12] reach the end

[2:58:14] of its useful life. And that's

[2:58:16] where we want to live because

[2:58:19] that truly is the best value

[2:58:20] when we're looking

[2:58:21] at being wise with the

[2:58:22] resources that we have. Now,

[2:58:24] there's one other thing that I

[2:58:25] would like to mention

[2:58:27] to council here. So the red

[2:58:28] line might my forecast if we

[2:58:29] were to continue

[2:58:30] on our trend. Again, that is a

[2:58:31] average roadway network. So

[2:58:33] what I'm saying there is that's

[2:58:34] the average

[2:58:35] between the condition

[2:58:36] of our arterials, our

[2:58:37] collectors,

[2:58:39] as well as the local roadways,

[2:58:41] which make up two thirds

[2:58:43] of our roadway network. So

[2:58:45] these are your residential

[2:58:46] streets where people live and

[2:58:47] their kids play out

[2:58:49] in the streets and everything.

[2:58:50] So that's two thirds

[2:58:52] of our network. What I would be

[2:58:53] forced to do if we continue on

[2:58:54] the funding strategy or the

[2:58:55] funding that we. The revenue

[2:58:57] that we have is I would be

[2:58:59] coming back to this body and

[2:59:01] recommending that we no longer

[2:59:02] spend. Spend resources on those

[2:59:03] local streets because we need

[2:59:05] to maintain our arterials and

[2:59:07] local roadways first. So if I

[2:59:09] was to make a chart like this

[2:59:10] for your arterials and a

[2:59:12] separate one for your local

[2:59:16] roadways and a separate one

[2:59:18] for the residential streets,

[2:59:20] you would see drastic

[2:59:22] differences between the

[2:59:23] arterials and the collectors

[2:59:24] and the subdivision streets.

[2:59:26] And then as that problem

[2:59:28] continued, we would see the

[2:59:29] local roadways fall off. And

[2:59:30] then most, if not all the money

[2:59:32] would be spent

[2:59:33] on the arterials.

[2:59:35] >> And none

[2:59:36] of this money includes paying

[2:59:37] for sidewalks in residential

[2:59:39] areas that don't have sidewalks

[2:59:40] right now.

[2:59:41] >> Or that was not. This was a

[2:59:42] pavement focused

[2:59:43] into your point. We do have a

[2:59:45] dire need

[2:59:46] with our sidewalks as well.

[2:59:48] Absolutely. I know I've thrown

[2:59:50] a lot at the council,

[2:59:52] but I am available for any

[2:59:53] questions that you all have.

[2:59:54] >> I mean,

[2:59:56] just the comments that we hear.

[2:59:58] Everybody talks about Victor

[3:00:00] Avenue and I,

[3:00:02] I know the answer to this, but

[3:00:04] the reasons why we're not

[3:00:06] running and paving it right

[3:00:08] now, knowing that I don't know,

[3:00:10] I don't know the score of

[3:00:12] Victor Avenue would be really

[3:00:13] right now. But you can answer

[3:00:14] this or confirm it,

[3:00:16] but it's because we're planning

[3:00:17] on paving that next year and

[3:00:19] it'd be kind of silly

[3:00:21] to spend money right now.

[3:00:23] >> That is correct. We do try

[3:00:24] and marry up our true blue

[3:00:25] maintenance operations

[3:00:26] with our capital. It would be

[3:00:27] an unwise investment for us

[3:00:29] to go spend money

[3:00:31] in the maintenance world just

[3:00:32] to rip it up the following year

[3:00:35] with a contractor. So we do try

[3:00:36] to strategize and organize to

[3:00:37] make sure we align those

[3:00:38] operations. And we are going

[3:00:39] to be very happy to get the

[3:00:41] Victor project out next year

[3:00:42] and make those improvements.

[3:00:45] Absolutely.

[3:00:46] >> We also hear

[3:00:47] from the community

[3:00:48] about bike lanes. Nobody says

[3:00:49] that all we're focused

[3:00:50] on is just putting

[3:00:51] in bike lanes. And if we could

[3:00:52] just spend more money on paving

[3:00:53] and not the bike lanes,

[3:00:54] then we'd be way better off.

[3:00:55] But you might be able

[3:00:56] to give some color

[3:00:57] to that comment.

[3:00:58] >> Yeah. You know,

[3:01:00] the city's been.

[3:01:01] From my perspective, obviously,

[3:01:02] I've been your public works

[3:01:04] director or city engineer for

[3:01:05] about two years now. But the

[3:01:07] city really has been able

[3:01:08] to hover in that PCI range

[3:01:10] because they've been successful

[3:01:11] leveraging funding

[3:01:12] opportunities

[3:01:15] through grants. A lot

[3:01:17] of those grants do come

[3:01:18] with requirements. And so the

[3:01:21] public works department,

[3:01:23] specifically the engineering

[3:01:25] team and the traffic team

[3:01:28] within the streets department

[3:01:30] have done a great job

[3:01:31] leveraging those grant

[3:01:33] opportunities, but doing them

[3:01:34] only where they make sense. We

[3:01:38] do take a hard look

[3:01:39] at when we're going to

[3:01:40] implement traffic calming

[3:01:42] measures along our roadways and

[3:01:43] we try very hard

[3:01:44] to maintain the level of

[3:01:46] operation that our community

[3:01:47] desires. Right. I could talk

[3:01:48] to you guys and gals

[3:01:49] about level

[3:01:50] of service thresholds A, B, C,

[3:01:51] D, but that's not going

[3:01:52] to resonate very well. The best

[3:01:53] I can explain

[3:01:54] to you is if you go drive down

[3:01:55] in San Francisco, you're going

[3:01:56] to experience a different type

[3:01:58] of driving that you're going

[3:01:59] to experience in Reading. And

[3:02:00] people in Reading want a little

[3:02:01] bit more space

[3:02:02] between their vehicles. They

[3:02:04] don't want to have bumper

[3:02:05] to bumper traffic. So we really

[3:02:06] strive to maintain that level

[3:02:08] of operations and safety

[3:02:09] along our roadway network. So

[3:02:10] we do not just blindly take,

[3:02:14] you know, of potentially

[3:02:16] available paid surface to put

[3:02:17] in a bike lane. We really do

[3:02:18] perform analyses, do a lot

[3:02:20] of community outreach to make

[3:02:21] sure that where we are going

[3:02:23] to implement those. It makes

[3:02:25] sense.

[3:02:26] >> Yeah. Last comment or

[3:02:27] question. But I'm

[3:02:28] like super nerdy

[3:02:30] about the road. So

[3:02:31] like I love this stuff. If we

[3:02:32] had the opportunity to spend

[3:02:34] $10 million a year now,

[3:02:35] but we don't do it, but we say

[3:02:36] we wait five more years,

[3:02:38] we would. Looking

[3:02:39] at this graph, we fall so far

[3:02:41] behind on that scoring index we

[3:02:43] would likely have

[3:02:44] to consider spending say 15

[3:02:46] million a year, say in five

[3:02:47] years or what do you think that

[3:02:49] number would look like if we

[3:02:50] wait another five more years

[3:02:51] to have

[3:02:52] to invest even more money?

[3:02:53] >> It's hard to say that the

[3:02:55] catch up just becomes more

[3:02:56] expensive. To your point?

[3:02:57] Point and right. It could go

[3:02:58] two ways. We could spend more

[3:03:01] over the same period of time

[3:03:03] to get to that PCI we want

[3:03:05] within a certain number

[3:03:06] of years. Or we could spend

[3:03:08] less and see if we ever get

[3:03:09] there. To your point,

[3:03:16] we're getting very close

[3:03:18] to dipping off what I call the

[3:03:19] rehabilitation cliff. And when

[3:03:21] that happens, we are going

[3:03:22] to have a number of

[3:03:23] reconstruction projects which

[3:03:25] we haven't had very many

[3:03:27] of those in the city. And what

[3:03:29] I mean by that is, I mean

[3:03:30] ripping up everything that is

[3:03:32] out there, down to the virgin

[3:03:34] soil and building the road

[3:03:35] completely back up. That is a

[3:03:36] very intrusive operation. And

[3:03:38] if you were just to think

[3:03:40] about doing that along Churn

[3:03:42] Creek, Hilltop Cypress, you're

[3:03:44] talking

[3:03:45] about every business that's

[3:03:47] out there is having to deal

[3:03:48] with temporary access

[3:03:49] in and out. Do we do that at

[3:03:50] nighttime and put light plants

[3:03:52] out there and have backup

[3:03:54] alarms all the evening

[3:03:55] for the residents? It becomes

[3:03:56] very expensive to do that. And

[3:03:57] that is really why I would

[3:03:59] recommend that we need to take

[3:04:01] this information seriously and

[3:04:03] do everything we can

[3:04:04] to avoid falling off that

[3:04:06] rehabilitation cliff.

[3:04:11] >> Anybody else?

[3:04:17] >> Yeah, I just so on. Sorry.

[3:04:19] On that slide

[3:04:21] at the bottom it says

[3:04:23] forecasted at 5 million per

[3:04:24] year versus forecasted at

[3:04:26] 13.5. Are we currently spending

[3:04:27] 5 million a year? Is that why

[3:04:29] that's there or what would you

[3:04:30] say? On average we're spending

[3:04:31] it's five.

[3:04:33] >> It varies from year

[3:04:34] to year. It depends

[3:04:35] on the size of the project,

[3:04:36] it depends on the bid prices,

[3:04:37] it depends on, you know, but

[3:04:38] on average we're, we feel

[3:04:39] comfortable that we're spending

[3:04:40] on average $5 million per year.

[3:04:41] And that made me think of

[3:04:43] something that I think is very

[3:04:44] valid. This is today's dollars.

[3:04:45] I have not escalated or

[3:04:46] inflated. These are today

[3:04:47] dollars.

[3:04:48] >> So anticipate a lot more

[3:04:49] escalation and.

[3:04:50] >> Inflation are going

[3:04:51] to occur and I, you know,

[3:04:54] it becomes very difficult for

[3:04:57] me. I can make escalation

[3:04:58] assumptions, but I think it's

[3:04:59] always easier to,

[3:05:00] to provide this information

[3:05:02] without that and be clear that

[3:05:04] we're talking

[3:05:05] in today's dollars.

[3:05:06] >> So if we're currently

[3:05:07] spending about 5 million a year

[3:05:09] for pavement, is there a way

[3:05:11] to increase that?

[3:05:12] >> I'm going to stay in my lane

[3:05:15] here because I believe the city

[3:05:17] manager is going to touch

[3:05:22] on that

[3:05:25] in the next presentation for

[3:05:27] our current budget. I think

[3:05:29] he'll discuss what options are

[3:05:31] if we were to desire to.

[3:05:32] >> Unless. Unless that question

[3:05:33] is relative to our current

[3:05:34] streets budget.

[3:05:36] >> Yeah, like. Like

[3:05:38] for what that earlier just.

[3:05:39] Yeah, like for what that

[3:05:40] earlier slide showed,

[3:05:41] like O and M versus capital.

[3:05:42] Like is there a way

[3:05:43] to switch that and increase?

[3:05:44] Or are we committed

[3:05:45] on capital projects for the

[3:05:47] near future or for like 10

[3:05:49] years out or how much have you

[3:05:52] already committed

[3:05:54] to that?

[3:05:56] >> So what? He was laughing

[3:05:58] at me. So certainly,

[3:05:59] obviously we have flexibility

[3:06:01] between those. I think I refer

[3:06:04] to them as three food groups, O

[3:06:05] and M capital and permanent

[3:06:07] personnel. Obviously we want

[3:06:08] to put every dollar possible

[3:06:11] into the infrastructure. But I

[3:06:14] would remind council that

[3:06:16] really the OM is also providing

[3:06:18] a critical service because they

[3:06:19] provide a lot

[3:06:21] of pavement maintenance.

[3:06:22] Right. So if we were

[3:06:23] to take funding

[3:06:24] from them and shift it purely

[3:06:26] to the capital project,

[3:06:28] we're missing out on a lot

[3:06:30] of that day to day maintenance

[3:06:32] that there's crews perform like

[3:06:34] potholes and crack ceiling and

[3:06:35] that is a very critical element

[3:06:37] of the pavement life cycle. So

[3:06:38] I would be hesitant

[3:06:41] to take very much if any

[3:06:43] from our day

[3:06:46] to day O and M operations.

[3:06:47] But obviously we look

[3:06:48] at that as much as possible.

[3:06:50] And then

[3:06:51] on the personnel side, we,

[3:06:52] we need staff

[3:06:53] to put the projects

[3:06:55] out and do the work.

[3:06:57] >> Yeah, I was mostly just

[3:06:58] thinking the OM and capital and

[3:06:59] how much flux responsibility

[3:07:00] you had between that

[3:07:02] to put towards. But I. I get

[3:07:03] it.

[3:07:04] >> Okay.

[3:07:05] >> Thank you.

[3:07:09] >> I don't really have you

[3:07:10] answer my questions that I had.

[3:07:11] I just wanted to say thank you

[3:07:12] for this information. I don't

[3:07:13] think that when I came.

[3:07:14] >> Onto council the first time

[3:07:15] that I.

[3:07:16] >> Was expecting as many

[3:07:17] complaints that we receive

[3:07:18] about roads.

[3:07:19] But as you are aware, it is the

[3:07:21] most frequent and common email

[3:07:22] judgment that we get. So thank

[3:07:25] you for that information,

[3:07:27] for the data. It's extremely

[3:07:32] useful for us,

[3:07:36] especially when we're

[3:07:39] explaining to members

[3:07:41] of the community.

[3:07:43] >> My pleasure.

[3:07:44] >> Thank you, Mr. Webb.

[3:07:47] >> Thank you.

[3:07:48] >> 9.11. Mr. Tippen.

[3:07:55] >> Identify impact to the

[3:07:56] general fund if an additional

[3:07:57] $10 million annually was

[3:07:59] redirected

[3:08:01] for street maintenance.

[3:08:02] >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I

[3:08:05] don't have the remote,

[3:08:06] so I'm gonna look at Aaron or

[3:08:08] something to. Steve's gonna

[3:08:09] grab it. So this,

[3:08:11] this item actually was an.

[3:08:13] Item 12 in August. And at the

[3:08:15] same time you'd requested these

[3:08:17] monthly updates

[3:08:18] from the department. So clearly

[3:08:20] it's not a coincidence that

[3:08:22] this item fell also where,

[3:08:23] where public works and Michael

[3:08:29] would give his presentation

[3:08:30] regarding street so that we'd

[3:08:32] have a good context

[3:08:34] of where we're starting

[3:08:36] from and where we're going.

[3:08:37] And so this item is really

[3:08:40] directed at. If we were

[3:08:43] to redirect money

[3:08:45] from the current general fund

[3:08:47] to streets maintenance,

[3:08:49] what might that look like

[3:08:50] in terms of impacting other

[3:08:52] planned expenditures

[3:08:53] within the general fund? And so

[3:08:56] that's the purpose

[3:08:57] of this. I have a number

[3:08:59] of disclaimers that I put

[3:09:02] in here because, you know,

[3:09:04] this, this is a super high

[3:09:05] level exercise. I mean, I did

[3:09:07] this myself. I did not involve

[3:09:10] all of the departments. You can

[3:09:12] imagine this type

[3:09:14] of discussion gets a lot

[3:09:16] of nervousness. I did ask

[3:09:18] for some information

[3:09:20] from finance in terms of

[3:09:21] individual expenditures and I

[3:09:23] did ask for information

[3:09:24] on impacts

[3:09:25] from the department directors.

[3:09:28] But $10 million, as you see

[3:09:30] in that first bullet point,

[3:09:32] we've got about a $65 million

[3:09:34] discretionary budget. And

[3:09:38] that's just money that you have

[3:09:41] available to choose

[3:09:42] to do whatever you want with.

[3:09:44] So the $10 million represents

[3:09:46] about 15% of that. This is not

[3:09:47] a detailed analysis or

[3:09:50] identifies any implementation

[3:09:51] steps. And what I mean

[3:09:53] by that is, you know, some of

[3:09:55] the expenditures that I list

[3:09:57] are really for a high level

[3:09:59] discussion because it doesn't

[3:10:01] take

[3:10:03] into account perhaps that some

[3:10:05] of those have some Other

[3:10:06] funding sources currently

[3:10:07] embedded in that, whether it's

[3:10:09] a safer grant or whether it's

[3:10:11] RRU wildfire. I figured that

[3:10:12] would be a much more

[3:10:13] complicated effort and it's

[3:10:15] probably not what you were

[3:10:17] really looking for. So that

[3:10:19] does not include this. It

[3:10:20] doesn't include, you know, any

[3:10:22] future actual reductions that

[3:10:27] would happen because that

[3:10:28] obviously requires much more

[3:10:29] detailed analysis. I can tell

[3:10:31] you that the most

[3:10:32] representative time

[3:10:34] in the city's history was the

[3:10:37] Great Recession where, you

[3:10:38] know, we lost $7 million in

[3:10:39] about a year

[3:10:42] in sales tax alone,

[3:10:44] when that number was 24 million

[3:10:45] at the time. And it was hours

[3:10:47] upon hours upon hours

[3:10:48] of analysis and work

[3:10:49] within departments

[3:10:51] to bring recommendations back

[3:10:52] to council. So I just want to

[3:10:54] make sure everybody understands

[3:10:55] the level that this is at. Oh

[3:10:56] sure.

[3:10:59] >> Has it ever been discussed?

[3:11:03] It just would. Because he's

[3:11:04] public works. It makes me think

[3:11:07] why isn't streets part of the

[3:11:08] public works or would we ever

[3:11:10] use public works budget

[3:11:11] for streets? I know it's in

[3:11:12] there because the gas tax. I

[3:11:16] know, I understand how that

[3:11:17] mechanisms work.

[3:11:18] >> Streets hasn't always been

[3:11:19] in public works. So streets its

[3:11:20] own account. Right. So when I

[3:11:21] first worked, came to work at

[3:11:22] the city streets and actually

[3:11:24] existed

[3:11:25] under municipal utilities.

[3:11:26] >> Right.

[3:11:29] >> And then in 2006 it was

[3:11:31] moved under engineering and

[3:11:32] transportation. So streets has

[3:11:33] always been sort of its own

[3:11:34] bucket and transferred around.

[3:11:35] >> It just moves around.

[3:11:36] >> Yeah. And so

[3:11:37] after actually the Great

[3:11:39] Recession is part

[3:11:40] of what caused public works to

[3:11:42] get reformed because as we were

[3:11:44] consolidating and eliminating

[3:11:46] director positions, we started,

[3:11:47] you know, building back up

[3:11:48] certain departments

[3:11:51] like public works. And so

[3:11:52] public works became. Came

[3:11:53] about because of the Great

[3:11:54] Recession.

[3:11:55] >> Really.

[3:11:56] >> So is it possible to think

[3:11:57] of a budget for streets coming

[3:11:58] from the public works

[3:11:59] department and not general

[3:12:00] fund?

[3:12:02] >> Yeah, I mean, sure, yeah,

[3:12:03] it's really a public works

[3:12:04] function, but the amount of

[3:12:06] where the money is actually

[3:12:07] held as a general fund.

[3:12:09] >> Yeah.

[3:12:11] >> Would it be worth

[3:12:13] to have a discussion

[3:12:16] about if it could come from

[3:12:17] enterprise funds and not from.

[3:12:18] >> It's probably not an

[3:12:20] enterprise fund just because

[3:12:22] of the nature

[3:12:23] of what enterprise funds are.

[3:12:25] They're self supporting. They

[3:12:27] are usually rate based. They

[3:12:28] have application to

[3:12:30] Proposition 218. So there's

[3:12:31] other fundamental issues if

[3:12:32] from accounting. Well,

[3:12:33] from an accounting perspective,

[3:12:35] I would have to talk to

[3:12:37] Finance and Mr. Robert about

[3:12:39] whether that would make sense

[3:12:41] or not. It's. It's perhaps

[3:12:43] possible to move the account

[3:12:44] over there. We could have

[3:12:45] to talk to. We could,

[3:12:47] we could discuss that maybe,

[3:12:48] but not.

[3:12:49] >> But it wouldn't be pulling

[3:12:51] from any of those funds.

[3:12:52] >> No, it would.

[3:12:53] >> That's my question.

[3:12:54] >> It would not.

[3:12:55] >> I don't mean where it lives,

[3:12:56] but I was just curious if

[3:12:57] there's a different.

[3:12:58] >> I do want

[3:12:59] to just highlight that Mr.

[3:13:00] Robinette did point out you do

[3:13:01] have some situations where you

[3:13:02] have been able

[3:13:04] to use funds for.

[3:13:05] From utilities that have

[3:13:07] impacts on the roads.

[3:13:08] >> Yes.

[3:13:09] >> To be able to offset.

[3:13:10] >> That was in the report.

[3:13:11] >> But under Prop 26 and

[3:13:12] under Prop 218, you're limited

[3:13:15] in your ability

[3:13:16] to essentially redirect funds

[3:13:17] from those purposes. So it's

[3:13:19] really got to be limited

[3:13:20] to their direct impacts

[3:13:21] on the roads

[3:13:22] to the extent that you're able

[3:13:23] to take those away and then

[3:13:24] repurpose those. Otherwise

[3:13:25] you'd be running

[3:13:26] into legal issues.

[3:13:27] >> Gotcha.

[3:13:28] >> Yeah. And so I'm glad you

[3:13:29] asked that question,

[3:13:30] because this does focus only

[3:13:31] on general funding and only on

[3:13:32] the discretionary because

[3:13:33] really the other elements where

[3:13:34] we have opportunity

[3:13:35] to transform money,

[3:13:36] we pretty much have.

[3:13:37] >> Yes.

[3:13:38] >> So because obviously streets

[3:13:39] have been a problem

[3:13:40] for a long, long time. So.

[3:13:41] Okay, so this only doesn't

[3:13:42] include the issues that we'd

[3:13:43] have

[3:13:44] with labor groups depending

[3:13:50] on where we'd make cuts.

[3:13:53] Right. And it also doesn't

[3:13:56] address all of our other

[3:13:58] infrastructure needs. Just, you

[3:13:59] know, we've had these big

[3:14:00] conversations

[3:14:01] about everything else. So I

[3:14:02] don't want

[3:14:03] to get just caught up

[3:14:04] on streets.

[3:14:05] >> And is the only thing we

[3:14:06] have.

[3:14:07] >> Because as you recall the

[3:14:08] big presentation

[3:14:09] on fire stations, we have

[3:14:10] about 85 to 100 million dollars

[3:14:11] worth

[3:14:12] of fire station needs as well.

[3:14:13] And then the caveat, again,

[3:14:15] these are just illustrative.

[3:14:17] This is not anything I am

[3:14:19] recommending at this time. So

[3:14:20] just for context, you know,

[3:14:23] because we hear these types

[3:14:25] of things all the time. So if

[3:14:26] you eliminated every director

[3:14:28] in the entire city

[3:14:29] of reading, it's about $1.7

[3:14:30] million to the general fund.

[3:14:32] And that's because obviously

[3:14:33] the other utilities pay

[3:14:35] for cost allocation, internal

[3:14:36] service funds and that sort

[3:14:37] of thing. If you decided that,

[3:14:39] hey, we still need to keep a

[3:14:41] fire chief and police chief,

[3:14:42] then that number goes down to

[3:14:43] about a million. And that's

[3:14:44] right, because the utilities

[3:14:45] need payroll done. They need

[3:15:20] financial work, they need

[3:15:22] personnel, they need hiring,

[3:15:23] they need all of that stuff.

[3:15:24] So the reality, if you look

[3:15:26] at general government, when you

[3:15:28] include all the cost borne

[3:15:29] by the utilities, it's about

[3:15:31] $6.5 million total cost

[3:15:32] to support our $550 million

[3:15:37] budget. So we spend about 1.2%

[3:15:39] of our total budget

[3:15:40] in general government. And

[3:15:44] lastly, with any reduction,

[3:15:48] it's unlikely the city council

[3:15:49] would be able to support other

[3:15:50] things that don't technically

[3:15:51] cost us money right now,

[3:15:53] and that's the sports park,

[3:15:54] the civic Auditorium, the arts

[3:15:55] council, airports, etc. We

[3:15:56] would not be able to continue

[3:15:57] to assist those likely if

[3:15:58] you're going

[3:15:59] to make these types of cuts.

[3:16:02] So just things to to think

[3:16:03] about now we're getting

[3:16:04] into the meat of it. Michael

[3:16:05] just told us the solution. So I

[3:16:06] figured, I just put it

[3:16:07] in there, about $10 million a

[3:16:09] year and that's what the

[3:16:10] request was from the council.

[3:16:11] So I'll go through these

[3:16:14] relatively fast. I did two

[3:16:16] options. One is looking at

[3:16:18] staff and programs and the

[3:16:20] other was assuming that the

[3:16:22] council wanted

[3:16:23] to keep all the various

[3:16:24] programs

[3:16:25] like recreation programs. And

[3:16:27] so it's essentially just staff.

[3:16:29] So I'll go

[3:16:30] through those quick. The real

[3:16:32] brief impacts to these are up

[3:16:33] there. I'm not going to go

[3:16:34] through those in detail.

[3:16:35] Certainly you can look at them.

[3:16:36] I think you'll know what they

[3:16:38] all are. You know,

[3:16:39] if we reduce police officers,

[3:16:40] we have lower response times,

[3:16:41] higher burnout, difficult

[3:16:42] recruitments, you know,

[3:16:45] all sorts of things. So option

[3:16:47] one, police department. So if

[3:16:49] we eliminated five officers,

[3:16:51] three detectives, eight CSOs

[3:16:53] and three support staff

[3:16:54] positions,

[3:16:56] the total savings would be

[3:16:58] around $2.4 million. And

[3:17:01] of course, you know,

[3:17:03] significant impact was the fire

[3:17:08] station. It's about 2.1

[3:17:09] million. And again,

[3:17:11] significant issues

[3:17:12] with our service levels

[3:17:13] for the community, whether it's

[3:17:15] land development and inability

[3:17:16] to process those to just simple

[3:17:18] response times as we'd be

[3:17:19] covering the entire city

[3:17:21] with a lesser station.

[3:17:23] Community services. This is one

[3:17:26] that actually gets pretty big

[3:17:28] and pretty surprising if you

[3:17:30] think about it. So recreation

[3:17:32] programs, eliminated four parks

[3:17:33] maintenance positions,

[3:17:34] close the library and sorry,

[3:17:37] Todd, if you're still here,

[3:17:39] I think you are, you know,

[3:17:40] cancel the rest of the visit.

[3:17:42] Ready contract, that's about

[3:17:43] $3.8 million that, that would

[3:17:45] be available development

[3:17:46] services,

[3:17:47] full cost recovery model. So

[3:17:48] that's about 1.5 that we could

[3:17:50] expect there. Obviously that's,

[3:17:51] you know, probably would not

[3:17:52] fully realize that because we

[3:17:53] had lower cost. Plus we'd have

[3:17:56] people who wouldn't come get

[3:17:57] permits because they're too,

[3:17:58] too expensive. And we have

[3:17:59] increased code enforcement

[3:18:00] costs. And so again,

[3:18:01] it's just illustrative. If we

[3:18:02] went

[3:18:03] to the general government,

[3:18:05] took a position

[3:18:06] from my office,

[3:18:09] took two positions

[3:18:10] from finance, one position from

[3:18:12] the city attorney's office,

[3:18:14] it's about $182,000. And that's

[3:18:16] because those offices are paid

[3:18:18] for by the utilities as well.

[3:18:20] So they're providing services

[3:18:22] not only to the General fund,

[3:18:23] but all of the utilities

[3:18:25] in every other department. So

[3:18:26] you only get

[3:18:28] about a 30% savings. So about

[3:18:29] 30 cents on every dollar is

[3:18:30] what you can claim

[3:18:32] in general fund savings. So

[3:18:33] in summary, if you're looking

[3:18:35] at staff and programs,

[3:18:36] that sums up to about 10, $10

[3:18:37] million, just over $10 million.

[3:18:39] So if we go

[3:18:40] to maintaining some

[3:18:41] of those programs, obviously it

[3:18:43] gets a lot worse when you talk

[3:18:44] about staff. Now we're up to

[3:18:46] 12 officer positions, three

[3:18:47] detectives, one captain, 10

[3:18:50] CSOs, and three support staff

[3:18:52] positions. Those numbers are

[3:18:53] picked because it represents

[3:18:54] 98 sworn officers,

[3:18:55] which is our low point in,

[3:18:56] in recent history. And so we

[3:18:58] have been there. So I just took

[3:19:00] us back

[3:19:01] to there as an example. That's

[3:19:03] about 3.9, almost $4 million.

[3:19:05] Fire department largely the

[3:19:07] same, except for now talking

[3:19:08] two fire stations at 2.8

[3:19:09] Community Services. Now that

[3:19:11] was way down because now we're

[3:19:12] continuing to provide the

[3:19:13] recreation programs. The

[3:19:17] library remains open. And so

[3:19:18] that savings, even though I

[3:19:19] added two parks positions

[3:19:21] to eliminate, that's about

[3:19:22] 600,000 development services.

[3:19:23] Now we're maintaining the same

[3:19:24] cost structure

[3:19:26] for our those who want

[3:19:28] to have permits,

[3:19:29] but we take four positions out

[3:19:31] of there. So obviously we're

[3:19:34] impacting our ability

[3:19:38] to actually deliver permits

[3:19:40] to individuals. That's about

[3:19:42] 400,000 miscellaneous. The

[3:19:45] realistic option here would be,

[3:19:50] I don't know how realistic it

[3:19:51] actually is, but

[3:19:58] like a 15% cut to all

[3:20:00] of the unrepresented managers.

[3:20:03] Likely you probably wouldn't do

[3:20:05] that, but this is just

[3:20:06] for context because Reu

[3:20:08] obviously wouldn't save you a

[3:20:09] dime, but that's about

[3:20:11] $570,000. If you were

[3:20:12] to do that

[3:20:14] in the box. I actually said,

[3:20:16] well, what if you just cut all

[3:20:18] the directors by one half? You

[3:20:19] know, their salary gets cut

[3:20:21] in half. That's about $1.9

[3:20:24] million. I didn't use that

[3:20:26] in the final calculation,

[3:20:27] but just again,

[3:20:28] for some context in terms

[3:20:29] of what that number is. And

[3:20:30] then if you just started

[3:20:33] to go, okay, we just have

[3:20:35] to actually sort

[3:20:36] of start nipping and tucking.

[3:20:38] It really goes into the

[3:20:39] internal service funds. And

[3:20:40] they have cost

[3:20:42] to the general fund somewhere

[3:20:46] between 25 and 40%, sort

[3:20:47] of depending

[3:20:48] on where they're at. I used

[3:20:50] about 30% as just a general

[3:20:51] average. So we need about

[3:20:52] 800,000. You'll see that we're

[3:20:54] a little high on the 10

[3:20:55] million, but I used 800,000.

[3:20:57] So that's 20 plus employees,

[3:20:59] depending on who they are and

[3:21:00] where they come from. That

[3:21:01] would be reduced from the

[3:21:03] internal service funds. That's

[3:21:04] it. That's your fleet

[3:21:05] maintenance,

[3:21:06] that's your records and,

[3:21:08] and those types of positions,

[3:21:10] employer services. And so

[3:21:11] in order

[3:21:12] to get that number up, It's a.

[3:21:14] It's 20 plus employees.

[3:21:15] >> I know that you said this. I

[3:21:17] know that you said this. Can

[3:21:19] you go back to one? I know that

[3:21:20] you said this out loud,

[3:21:22] but I just wanted

[3:21:23] to because it's

[3:21:24] on the screen. You meant

[3:21:27] unrepresented managers, all

[3:21:28] of them. Right, all of them.

[3:21:29] Your salary gets talked

[3:21:31] about a lot, so I wanted to

[3:21:32] make sure that reducing your

[3:21:33] pay by 15% did not look like

[3:21:34] 575.

[3:21:36] >> Yeah, that's every single

[3:21:37] unrepresented manager. So

[3:21:39] unfortunately, that's James,

[3:21:42] that's Josh, that's Ryan.

[3:21:44] >> Yeah, that's about 111 total

[3:21:51] are unrepresented management.

[3:21:52] >> Correct.

[3:21:53] >> Okay.

[3:21:54] >> Most of those are areu.

[3:21:55] So. So REU RU has a lower level

[3:21:56] of unrepresented individuals

[3:21:59] like electrical engineers. So

[3:22:02] they have a broader swath

[3:22:04] of them in REU than you see

[3:22:05] in the other departments.

[3:22:07] Whereas in public works, like I

[3:22:08] just unfortunately pointed out

[3:22:10] for those gentlemen

[3:22:11] below them is largely going to

[3:22:12] be represented employees.

[3:22:13] >> So this 111

[3:22:16] for unrepresented. It's not

[3:22:18] 111. Or is that.

[3:22:20] >> No, it's 111.

[3:22:21] >> The general fund. It's

[3:22:22] 111.

[3:22:23] >> No, it's 111 of

[3:22:24] unrepresented managers.

[3:22:25] >> Okay, but for the general

[3:22:26] fund.

[3:22:27] >> I don't know the exact

[3:22:28] number. General fund is much,

[3:22:29] much lower than that

[3:22:30] for just general fund.

[3:22:32] In fact,

[3:22:33] for just general fund,

[3:22:35] it's probably your police

[3:22:36] chief, fire chief and deputy

[3:22:38] fire chiefs. That's it

[3:22:39] for just general fund. Because

[3:22:42] my position, Steve's position

[3:22:44] is all funded

[3:22:45] by other departments. So. So

[3:22:46] you, you're only taking bits

[3:22:47] and pieces

[3:22:48] from their salary.

[3:22:50] >> So then what's this number

[3:22:52] represent?

[3:22:53] >> The 570.

[3:22:54] >> Yes.

[3:22:55] >> That's a 15 reduction of.

[3:22:56] >> Just

[3:22:57] for the general fund.

[3:22:58] >> Well, I just did it

[3:23:00] across all of them. But it,

[3:23:01] but it, but that's the general

[3:23:04] fund savings. So you got, you

[3:23:05] know, Tony Van Bokle,

[3:23:08] for instance,

[3:23:09] is an internal service fund.

[3:23:10] So that director position does

[3:23:11] have value

[3:23:12] to the general fund,

[3:23:13] but it's only about 30%.

[3:23:15] >> So it's 111 employees.

[3:23:16] But it's. Obviously the ratio

[3:23:17] is going

[3:23:19] to be different for.

[3:23:20] >> Yeah, because I don't know.

[3:23:21] I don't know the number.

[3:23:22] >> The general fund amount.

[3:23:23] >> The. The biggest number

[3:23:24] of that 111 is in reu.

[3:23:25] >> Gotcha.

[3:23:28] >> Yeah.

[3:23:29] >> And so obviously there would

[3:23:30] be zero value

[3:23:31] to the general fund by reducing

[3:23:32] them that's why I said largely

[3:23:33] you wouldn't do that.

[3:23:35] But frankly, we did do some

[3:23:37] of that during the Great

[3:23:38] Recession

[3:23:39] for parity and it didn't work

[3:23:40] out so well for us. Yeah, well,

[3:23:42] maybe did we got Nick. So then

[3:23:44] the general, the general

[3:23:45] government, you know,

[3:23:49] is basically the same as we had

[3:23:50] before at 182,000. Summarize

[3:23:53] that you get about 10.26

[3:23:56] million with all

[3:23:58] of those reductions. And so

[3:24:00] again, that's just a real fast

[3:24:02] look and it just gives you an

[3:24:04] idea of the types of impacts

[3:24:06] that you would be looking

[3:24:08] at if you truly just wanted

[3:24:09] to take our current 10 million

[3:24:11] dollar

[3:24:12] of general fund money and push

[3:24:14] to streets maintenance. The

[3:24:15] types of changes you'd have

[3:24:16] to make,

[3:24:18] especially if you wanted to

[3:24:19] make that an annualized change.

[3:24:20] And with that, I'm available

[3:24:23] for any questions as well as

[3:24:25] I'm sure some

[3:24:26] of the directors are available

[3:24:27] to come up here and talk

[3:24:28] about their impacts.

[3:24:29] >> Mr. Liddell, this is

[3:24:33] like your last report.

[3:24:35] >> Yeah, it's fun, right?

[3:24:36] >> Begging for money.

[3:24:37] >> Yeah. No, I think this is

[3:24:38] important to do today. It

[3:24:40] strikes back

[3:24:41] from some comments Councillor

[3:24:42] Danuka said many meetings ago.

[3:24:44] He says our city,

[3:24:45] we just have a revenue problem,

[3:24:46] you know, and just looking

[3:24:47] at our entire budget,

[3:24:49] there's so much that we want

[3:24:50] to do that we need to do. And

[3:24:52] how are we ever going to do all

[3:24:53] this stuff unless we increase

[3:24:55] revenue? And you know, most of

[3:24:56] our revenue is sales tax and

[3:24:57] property tax and that just

[3:25:00] doesn't double overnight. I

[3:25:01] mean, there's so much unmet

[3:25:03] needs that we really have here.

[3:25:04] Just for full transparency. I

[3:25:06] don't think anybody in the

[3:25:07] council is really advertising

[3:25:09] or promoting saying to cut

[3:25:10] public safety and saying, hey,

[3:25:11] we should be doing this right

[3:25:13] away. That's just not a good

[3:25:14] thing. And that's not what the

[3:25:16] public is saying is to go cut

[3:25:18] police officers and

[3:25:19] firefighters because we find

[3:25:20] very much big value

[3:25:21] to that. I mean that's,

[3:25:22] that's the core of our city is

[3:25:24] making people feel safe and

[3:25:25] protected. And so we appreciate

[3:25:26] everybody

[3:25:27] in public safety. A lot

[3:25:28] of sacrifices you make

[3:25:30] out there and we need you. The

[3:25:32] roads are a big problem. The

[3:25:33] roads is what we drive

[3:25:35] on every single day. And

[3:25:37] they're just going

[3:25:39] to get more and more expensive.

[3:25:41] And this has been something

[3:25:43] I've heard before I was elected

[3:25:44] here. I've heard this rhetoric

[3:25:45] about the roads 10 years ago.

[3:25:47] 15, you value public safety.

[3:25:48] Which one do you want? You

[3:27:18] know, because without increase

[3:27:19] in revenue, we're not going

[3:27:21] to get this stuff. And it's

[3:27:23] just going to Be a constant

[3:27:24] discussion that's going

[3:27:26] to come over and over again.

[3:27:27] So I just think it's very

[3:27:29] valuable that we brought this

[3:27:30] presentation,

[3:27:31] probably the best one we've

[3:27:33] seen in many, many years, just

[3:27:34] to paint a picture

[3:27:35] of what we need to do, because

[3:27:36] we've never really been

[3:27:38] presented a solution ever

[3:27:39] in the past that says,

[3:27:41] how are we going to do it?

[3:27:42] Right. All we say is we just

[3:27:43] don't spend enough towards the

[3:27:46] roads and we need to do more.

[3:27:47] We have a big problem here. We

[3:27:50] just don't have the revenue

[3:27:53] to do it. So that's my

[3:27:54] comments.

[3:27:55] >> Anybody else?

[3:27:56] >> I just want

[3:27:59] to say thank you

[3:28:00] for the information. That's

[3:28:01] all.

[3:28:02] >> Thank you, sir. All right,

[3:28:03] well, we shall move on.

[3:28:08] Travel.

[3:28:12] >> Council travel reports.

[3:28:13] >> Oh, none.

[3:28:15] >> All right, item 12.

[3:28:16] >> Aaron.

[3:28:19] >> She's getting ready to hit

[3:28:20] the button.

[3:28:22] >> I didn't even get

[3:28:23] to hit my button. I have two.

[3:28:27] The first one,

[3:28:28] and maybe I misunderstood what

[3:28:29] Director Webb was suggesting,

[3:28:32] but is anybody interested

[3:28:33] in bringing back,

[3:28:34] changing that council policy

[3:28:35] from 10%? Did I understand that

[3:28:36] correctly? 10% percent.

[3:28:37] >> So I do think there's a

[3:28:38] little bit of confusion on that

[3:28:39] one. I think you're referring

[3:28:40] to the, the question about the

[3:28:41] reserve policy and the 10%.

[3:28:42] >> That's not an actual council

[3:28:43] policy.

[3:28:44] >> I believe the policy,

[3:28:45] the council policy refers to

[3:28:46] the general reserve percentage.

[3:28:47] I'll look to Mr. Tiffin

[3:28:48] to correct me if I'm wrong.

[3:28:49] >> Yeah, there is no,

[3:28:50] there is no council policy.

[3:28:51] And actually Director Webb and

[3:28:52] I today talked

[3:28:53] about maybe him taking a stab,

[3:28:56] given the state of finances

[3:28:57] today versus years past,

[3:28:59] not only in streets, but also

[3:29:00] in the water utility where we

[3:29:02] have, you know,

[3:29:03] drought requirements and, you

[3:29:04] know, reduced water usage

[3:29:05] requirements, but we have

[3:29:07] increasing costs and ever

[3:29:09] increasing regulatory pressures

[3:29:11] and wastewater and solid waste

[3:29:12] that, you know,

[3:29:13] developing some fashion of

[3:29:14] financial management policy

[3:29:16] similar to what you have in RU

[3:29:17] to help guide the discussion

[3:29:19] in terms

[3:29:21] of what reserve should be. You

[3:29:23] know, what are the metrics

[3:29:24] around rates and that sort

[3:29:26] of thing. When do you bond,

[3:29:29] when you not bond or those

[3:29:32] types of things. And so I think

[3:29:33] he's going

[3:29:34] to be considering that

[3:29:35] over the next year. And, and

[3:29:36] we'll be coming back

[3:29:38] with you if he has a solution

[3:29:40] to that.

[3:29:43] >> Perfect.

[3:29:44] >> Clarifying question

[3:29:45] with that on that reserve

[3:29:46] policy was that a reserve

[3:29:47] policy itself says we can never

[3:29:48] have less than that in roads or

[3:29:50] we can't have more than that.

[3:29:51] >> It's like he just meant it

[3:29:52] was general. You can clarify.

[3:29:53] >> I thought you meant like we

[3:29:54] can't have more than that

[3:29:55] dollar amount.

[3:29:56] >> Yeah. Is that what I'm

[3:29:57] saying common practice. He

[3:29:59] wants to keep a buffer, like,

[3:30:00] meaning because there's 2

[3:30:02] million, don't feel

[3:30:04] like go spend it right now

[3:30:05] like he wants a buffer.

[3:30:06] >> Exactly, yeah.

[3:30:07] >> And, and just

[3:30:08] for general information, your

[3:30:11] general reserve buffer is not

[3:30:13] necessarily going to line up

[3:30:14] with the buffer that you may

[3:30:15] have in individual accounts

[3:30:16] for different reasons. So it's

[3:30:18] not uncommon to have both the

[3:30:20] general reserve and special

[3:30:21] reserve, you know, based

[3:30:22] on the needs

[3:30:23] of particular operations.

[3:30:24] >> Then I look forward

[3:30:26] to what you come back to us

[3:30:27] with and I'm glad that that was

[3:30:28] already an item that you

[3:30:29] thought was valuable

[3:30:30] to us and I obviously agree.

[3:30:33] My second item is that last

[3:30:35] week it was brought

[3:30:36] to my attention that Advanced

[3:30:38] Reading had made multiple large

[3:30:40] donations in our community,

[3:30:43] including contributions towards

[3:30:45] the citizen sales tax

[3:30:47] initiative and to the Denver

[3:30:50] flight. I should probably note

[3:30:51] that,

[3:30:53] and I'm pretty sure it's true

[3:30:54] for the rest of council,

[3:30:56] but I can't speak

[3:30:58] for everybody, but I haven't

[3:30:59] had any involvement

[3:31:00] in the sales tax committee. So

[3:31:02] that was new to me. It's

[3:31:03] citizen led and therefore,

[3:31:05] in my personal opinion, it's

[3:31:06] not something that city council

[3:31:08] members should be getting

[3:31:09] in the middle of. When council

[3:31:10] agreed to release that 675

[3:31:12] from the sale of the

[3:31:14] Sheraton, it was to hold

[3:31:16] Advanced Reading over and, and

[3:31:17] to keep the doors open. But

[3:31:19] with this new information,

[3:31:21] I would like to revisit the

[3:31:24] item and explore any sort

[3:31:25] of alternative of options.

[3:31:27] Does anybody have any

[3:31:29] consideration?

[3:31:31] >> Well, it's not,

[3:31:33] it's not as easy as that. The

[3:31:35] lease agreements and the grant

[3:31:39] agreements have all been signed

[3:31:41] and are in the hands

[3:31:43] of advanced reading. So Mr.

[3:31:45] Curtis, can you enlighten us a

[3:31:47] little bit?

[3:31:49] >> Yeah.

[3:31:50] >> So if you want, I,

[3:31:52] I can't tell you off the top

[3:31:54] of my head, you know, what the

[3:31:56] terms might be and whether

[3:31:57] there might be termination

[3:31:59] clauses or anything that might

[3:32:00] allow for anything

[3:32:02] to be recouped. If you wanted

[3:32:03] an item to come back, you know,

[3:32:04] we could take a look at that,

[3:32:06] give you the analysis. It's

[3:32:08] possible that the answer is

[3:32:09] that there's not really much

[3:32:11] you can do, but you know, we,

[3:32:12] if that's what the council

[3:32:13] would like to look at, we could

[3:32:15] certainly do that and bring it

[3:32:16] back to you. Other option is,

[3:32:17] if you'd like,

[3:32:19] I can simply do that analysis,

[3:32:20] give it

[3:32:21] to you and you could bring

[3:32:23] Forward another item 12 if you

[3:32:24] felt it was appropriate

[3:32:25] at that time. Downside would be

[3:32:26] there probably a little bit

[3:32:28] more delay,

[3:32:29] so there's possibility of more

[3:32:31] expenditure and more loss if

[3:32:32] that is the case.

[3:32:33] >> So just, just

[3:32:34] for your information, factual

[3:32:35] information, it was executed

[3:32:37] on September 8, so it's been

[3:32:38] in effect

[3:32:40] for a little while and it has a

[3:32:41] 30 day cancellation clause

[3:32:42] states that if the council were

[3:32:44] to do that after 30 days,

[3:32:45] whatever money has not been

[3:32:46] spent could be returned. So in

[3:32:48] effect they could have spent it

[3:32:49] all and you could have zero

[3:32:52] back. So I just put that as

[3:32:54] information as you decide

[3:32:55] whether consensus to bring it

[3:32:58] back exists or not.

[3:33:02] >> Was it

[3:33:04] on a reimbursement or was it.

[3:33:05] Did they get the full amount? I

[3:33:06] thought they were had

[3:33:07] to submit.

[3:33:08] >> They got the full amount.

[3:33:09] >> Oh, they got the full

[3:33:10] amount, yeah. I would love to

[3:33:11] know what our options are and I

[3:33:14] would likely.

[3:33:15] >> I.

[3:33:16] >> Would like

[3:33:18] to know what our sort of

[3:33:21] financial options are here and

[3:33:22] moving forward because I think

[3:33:24] that it is highly likely that

[3:33:25] the city is going

[3:33:26] to need that money

[3:33:28] to shutter the Civic. And so

[3:33:29] whether or not they would be

[3:33:30] willing

[3:33:31] to have those conversations

[3:33:32] with us now while they've

[3:33:33] potentially not used all

[3:33:35] of that money then.

[3:33:36] >> Yeah. So if there's a

[3:33:38] consensus

[3:33:39] on the council council

[3:33:40] to bring that back, I think we

[3:33:41] can arrange that and obviously

[3:33:42] let advance ready know.

[3:33:44] >> So I'm not in favor. I think

[3:33:45] it's highly likely the money's

[3:33:46] gonna be spent

[3:33:47] by the time it could come back.

[3:33:48] Which means we're opening up a

[3:33:49] can of worms

[3:33:50] of discussion that in the

[3:33:52] reality we might have given

[3:33:54] them the money anyways had

[3:33:56] they, had we known they donated

[3:33:58] the money just because the fact

[3:34:00] that they support the sales tax

[3:34:03] initiative means sure, they're

[3:34:06] on life support, they're doing

[3:34:09] everything they can to keep the

[3:34:10] doors open and they need,

[3:34:12] from their perspective, they

[3:34:13] need the sales tax initiative

[3:34:14] and so can't complain so much

[3:34:15] that they donated money

[3:34:16] to something for,

[3:34:18] for their own survival. But yet

[3:34:19] this money that has been fused

[3:34:20] is still going towards their

[3:34:22] operating expenses. I don't

[3:34:24] know if I would have, I don't

[3:34:28] know what we would have done

[3:34:31] differently,

[3:34:33] but I think the money is going

[3:34:36] to be all spent and maybe,

[3:34:38] maybe can, maybe it could come

[3:34:39] back if we confirm there's

[3:34:41] still money that we could take

[3:34:42] back. But we would have to. If

[3:34:43] we find out that the money has

[3:34:46] already been all spent

[3:34:47] in and we're not going

[3:34:48] to do anything, I don't know if

[3:34:49] that would be worth coming

[3:34:50] back.

[3:34:51] >> Would you entertain? Go

[3:34:52] ahead. Oh, well, if, if it's

[3:34:54] defined, I mean, along

[3:34:55] with what Mike said, like.

[3:34:57] Yes, but. And then if it comes

[3:35:00] back and it's already been

[3:35:01] spent, then we have

[3:35:03] to have that conversation.

[3:35:05] >> So if you wanted to Take any

[3:35:06] action. Essentially, you need

[3:35:08] to tell us now that you want us

[3:35:11] to put that

[3:35:12] on a future agenda. It could be

[3:35:14] that when we bring that

[3:35:15] forward,

[3:35:17] the money's been spent. It

[3:35:18] could be that when we bring it

[3:35:19] forward,

[3:35:20] you do have options and.

[3:35:21] Yeah, we just can't tell you

[3:35:22] that.

[3:35:23] >> Yeah, that's.

[3:35:24] >> Would you want that

[3:35:25] to come back if they find out

[3:35:26] that they've already spent all

[3:35:27] the money and they just pull

[3:35:30] the item from the agenda? Or do

[3:35:31] you want it to come back no

[3:35:32] matter what?

[3:35:33] >> I don't think that we have

[3:35:34] the. It sounds

[3:35:35] like that if there happened

[3:35:36] to be options. Options, we

[3:35:37] would need it to be

[3:35:38] on an agenda to be able

[3:35:39] to discuss it in the 30 days.

[3:35:40] Within the 30 days. So that is

[3:35:41] my suggestion or request is

[3:35:42] could we put it

[3:35:43] on as an agenda item to discuss

[3:35:44] what our options are? It may be

[3:35:45] that we have zero options.

[3:35:46] In which case,

[3:35:47] I suppose staff could pull it

[3:35:48] from agenda or something. We

[3:35:50] get edits.

[3:35:52] >> I. Yeah.

[3:35:53] >> So is that a consensus?

[3:35:55] >> I, I would be fine as long

[3:35:56] as we pull the item. If we find

[3:35:59] out there's no recourse and

[3:36:00] there's you, you,

[3:36:01] you confirm.

[3:36:02] >> I, I would encourage you to

[3:36:04] actually be more definitive

[3:36:05] because, you know, there,

[3:36:06] there's just a lot

[3:36:09] of squish there.

[3:36:10] >> Maybe it would be.

[3:36:12] >> Staff would just bring it

[3:36:13] back. I don't think we would

[3:36:14] pull it once the council said

[3:36:15] bring it.

[3:36:16] >> Maybe that would be a. It

[3:36:17] could just be informational.

[3:36:18] Only if we find out that we

[3:36:19] don't have any options, then

[3:36:21] the report is we have no

[3:36:22] options.

[3:36:23] >> Yeah, I think what we would

[3:36:24] probably couch it as, you know,

[3:36:26] receive the report and provide

[3:36:27] direction to staff so that the

[3:36:29] council can just decide what

[3:36:30] you wish to do if.

[3:36:31] >> No options.

[3:36:32] >> Yeah.

[3:36:34] >> And what's the date for 30

[3:36:36] days?

[3:36:37] >> Well, so 30 days is your

[3:36:39] term clause. So, so, so what is

[3:36:40] that date?

[3:36:41] >> I believe 30 days notice.

[3:36:42] So from the date that you gave

[3:36:43] notice, it would be 30 days

[3:36:44] after that. Right. So

[3:36:45] at which point.

[3:36:46] >> No, if you did. October 7th

[3:36:47] as a termination,

[3:36:48] it would be expired 30 days

[3:36:50] front then in November.

[3:36:51] >> So.

[3:36:52] >> Oh, oh, oh. So it's, it'll

[3:36:53] be, it'll be a contract

[3:36:54] for two months. It will have

[3:36:55] been a contract from September

[3:36:57] 8th to November 7th.

[3:36:59] >> Gotcha.

[3:37:00] >> Okay, so we'll,

[3:37:03] we'll agendize that, won't you,

[3:37:07] Steve?

[3:37:13] >> Yes.

[3:37:14] >> Thank you, Steve. Yes. I

[3:37:15] don't have anything else.

Sep 16, 2025 6:00 PM - Redding City Council - Regular Meeting

Agenda

Transcript