[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.