[2:56] I call the November 5th Assembly Finance

[2:59] Committee meeting to order. Miss Wendle,

[3:01] will you call roll or no roll?

[3:05] >> Thank you, Chair Wall. We have all

[3:07] assembly members present in chambers

[3:08] besides Assembly Member Atinson and

[3:11] Smith who are available on Zoom.

[3:15] » Thank you. That brings us to approval of

[3:17] minutes. You have the September 3rd,

[3:19] 2025 minutes in your packet. Any changes

[3:23] to those minutes?

[3:26] Seeing none, those are so moved. Brings

[3:29] us to agenda topics.

[3:31] We are going to start with the FY25

[3:34] financial wrap-up.

[3:36] Um,

[3:38] Miss Flick.

[3:41] Thank you, Chair Wall. I will um share

[3:43] the PowerPoint here in just a second.

[3:45] Uh, but I did want to just take a moment

[3:48] um the memo cover memo for this. Um, I

[3:52] don't usually do a a preamble to the

[3:55] meeting, but I felt like it was

[3:57] appropriate for this meeting. We have a

[3:59] lot of things on the agenda tonight and

[4:02] they are presented to you in pieces. Um,

[4:06] but they all kind of tie together. So,

[4:09] um, you know, we'll start with the, uh,

[4:12] FYI25 wrap-up, which we're still in

[4:14] process of the audit. Um, uh, but

[4:17] there's enough that solidified that we

[4:19] wanted to present to you. Um, tonight

[4:22] we've got, um, a whole memo and

[4:25] conversation about kind of the financial

[4:27] path forward given the election results

[4:29] that, um, have just been certified. Um

[4:33] something that we talked about earlier

[4:34] on uh in the calendar year was uh these

[4:38] items of foregone revenue. There's a

[4:40] whole uh memo on that that plays

[4:42] together with some of these things. And

[4:44] then finally a revisit of the dockage

[4:46] fee increase um and how to uh utilize

[4:51] those funds as a potential option. So um

[4:53] lots of things in the in the packet

[4:55] tonight. um recognition that you guys

[4:59] have had a heavy um couple weeks of

[5:02] meetings. Um last week having two

[5:04] meetings, this week having two meetings.

[5:06] Um so we've worked with Christine Wall.

[5:08] There are some places we can um um eject

[5:11] if we need to. And um if we can get to

[5:14] everything that's also fantastic. Uh so

[5:17] with that, let me see if I

[5:20] can successfully share my screen.

[5:26] And for the committee, do feel free to

[5:30] ask questions throughout um and wave at

[5:33] me if I don't see you.

[5:43] » Let's see.

[5:49] All right. Well, we'll do it in Perfect.

[5:55] I think it did it and I wasn't patient

[5:57] enough. So, let me hit that again and

[5:59] see if it comes across as the

[6:00] presentation.

[6:02] Yes. Excellent. So, we're going to talk

[6:05] about um FY25.

[6:07] Um I did want to just uh take a moment

[6:10] to pause and have a moment of gratitude.

[6:13] Um you all know that um finance has a

[6:16] lot have has had experienced a lot of

[6:19] turnover and actually I think we were

[6:21] three years of getting our financial

[6:23] statements out really really late and we

[6:26] were not even in a position to give you

[6:28] a fiscal year update in November like we

[6:30] pushed that to as close to the retreat

[6:32] as we possibly could as we possibly

[6:35] could. Um this year I am

[6:39] exceedingly excited to say we've kept uh

[6:42] most of our core of accountants for

[6:44] almost a full year. We we've have had in

[6:46] the last couple last month of turnover.

[6:49] Um but we are working on the final

[6:52] pieces of our year-end adjustments and

[6:56] our audit. We're pulling up transactions

[6:58] where last year we processed things in

[7:01] January and we're looking at them in

[7:03] October. Um, so just super excited to um

[7:06] see the growth of the team and um just

[7:10] the the year-over-year progress in

[7:13] improving our our year- end close

[7:15] processes. So um I fully anticipate that

[7:18] we'll be able to issue our financial

[7:19] statements on time, which is into the

[7:22] calendar year. Um the questions that the

[7:25] auditors have had for us are all

[7:28] completely reasonable and things we we

[7:31] would expect them to ask. And so, um,

[7:34] we're just, uh, in a really good place.

[7:36] So, um, fantastic team that I get to

[7:39] work with every day and I'm I am

[7:40] grateful for them. And so, I just wanted

[7:42] to take a moment and share that with

[7:43] you.

[7:45] But, we're here to talk about our

[7:46] financials. So, we will u move on to

[7:48] that. Um, this is um, granted a little

[7:52] bit of a busy screen, but when we talk

[7:54] about um, the general government,

[7:57] we um, see if I can hide some things on

[8:00] my screen so I can see it.

[8:05] This is our revenue picture and so this

[8:07] is the general government. So it is um

[8:10] your general fund elements and your

[8:13] sales tax um elements um combined

[8:16] together. This is how we generally talk

[8:17] about it when we put the budget

[8:18] together. Um you can see the um types of

[8:21] revenue that are discussed here are 25

[8:24] budget or 25 actuals. the difference

[8:27] between those. A positive number means

[8:29] that we brought in more revenue than

[8:31] anticipated. A negative number means

[8:33] less um than the budget.

[8:36] When we built our FY26 budget, we had

[8:40] done an FY25 forecast. And so there are

[8:43] areas that we had communicated to you as

[8:45] the assembly that we thought we were

[8:47] going to be over or under budget. So

[8:50] that's what that next column surplus

[8:52] deficit forecasted means. So, for

[8:55] charges for services, we thought we were

[8:57] going to be $350,000

[9:00] um over budget, have additional revenue

[9:02] than budgeted. It turns out we had

[9:05] $823,000

[9:07] more revenue. So, the newly realized is

[9:11] the last column, um the $473,000.

[9:15] So you can see that in the case of our

[9:17] federal revenue, we actually brought in

[9:19] less revenue than we forecasted

[9:22] um or less revenue than was budgeted.

[9:26] And uh for state um

[9:30] overall, I'll just I won't read all of

[9:32] them. The the the big number on this

[9:34] page is the investment income um where

[9:37] we had um $4.4 million budgeted. We had

[9:40] $15 million um actual um interest

[9:44] earnings. That's 10 million $10.7

[9:46] million um additional. We had um guessed

[9:49] it would be about $4 million more. Um it

[9:52] was actually ended up being $6.7 million

[9:54] more than we had even forecasted.

[9:57] Um that has a lot to do with um really,

[10:02] you know, the Feds had come in and

[10:03] forecasted or the market had projected

[10:05] the Feds were going to cut rates

[10:06] throughout the year. that didn't happen

[10:08] until September. Um so a lot of um a lot

[10:13] of things that uh we had anticipated not

[10:15] being as good as planned and they were

[10:18] um great. Um additional to that um we

[10:22] were able to um have uh reimbursements

[10:26] come in from grants that helped the

[10:28] general pool earn more revenue um than

[10:31] we had also forecasted.

[10:33] Um, we had talked to you about sales tax

[10:37] um, being less than forecasted by about

[10:39] $1.2 million when we built the budget.

[10:42] Um, it actually came in about $700,000

[10:45] less than the budget. So almost a half a

[10:48] million better than we had forecasted to

[10:50] you. Um, so that's just kind of a

[10:53] rundown of all of the um, various types.

[10:57] You may be wondering why other is

[10:58] negative. A lot of that has to do with

[11:00] that's where we categorize bad debt

[11:01] where we think we're going to write off

[11:04] um revenue. So it um is budgeted as a

[11:06] negative. We actually um amongst a lot

[11:09] of different kinds of other revenue

[11:10] ended up um having a positive position

[11:12] at the end of the year.

[11:19] Uh we like to look at sales tax. Um

[11:21] we're going to talk about sales tax a

[11:23] lot. So we're calling this out. The

[11:25] green bar 71 million is our actual

[11:27] revenue. Our FY26 budget is $71.3

[11:31] million in revenue. The purple bar at

[11:33] the end is the um forecasted revenue

[11:36] given the um the exemptions that were

[11:39] passed with the ballot. Um a question

[11:41] that we often get asked was well how did

[11:43] the summer fare for us? Um last Friday

[11:47] was the due date for sales tax that was

[11:49] collected July, August, and September.

[11:52] So I won't know the results of that for

[11:54] another few weeks. But the next slide um

[11:57] breaks out all of the sales tax

[11:59] collections by quarter. So you can see

[12:01] that April, May, June

[12:04] um revenue in sales tax was um pretty

[12:08] much in line with what we'd seen the

[12:10] last couple years. So while we had kind

[12:12] of been hearing rumblings that um it was

[12:15] expecting a soft summer um it turned,

[12:18] you know, the reality was it it came in

[12:19] about where it has been the last few

[12:21] years.

[12:24] on the expense side of the house. Um

[12:27] these are our different categories of

[12:28] expense and our budgeted amount, our

[12:32] actual amount and um the over under. So

[12:37] in personnel services we budgeted 63.5

[12:40] million there was 58.3 million actually

[12:43] expended. So we were 5.2 million under

[12:46] budget. Again, when we prepared our

[12:48] forecast for you preparing for FY26, we

[12:51] had anticipated that we would end up

[12:53] being about $4.5 million under budget.

[12:56] So, we realized about another $725,000

[12:59] worth of savings from um salaries,

[13:02] wages, benefits, unspent in the

[13:04] commodity and services. Um I broke these

[13:06] out into um just kind of bigger groups

[13:09] so you can see where those landed. Um

[13:13] the I will say about the community and

[13:14] youth grants um some of the assembly

[13:17] grants that you have awarded um you

[13:20] awarded a larger sum that were distri

[13:23] distributed over multiple years. So the total sum is in the budget although

[13:27] just a portion was distributed and so

[13:29] that shows as being um an underbudget

[13:33] that um basically rolls forward into 26

[13:36] and we know that that's going to be

[13:37] again expended partially in 26 and

[13:39] partly in 27. Um those are three-year

[13:42] awards. Um and so that's that's the big

[13:44] driver in your under budget there in the

[13:47] youth and community grants. Overall

[13:50] um we were um about $1 million under in

[13:53] our spending. We had planned um and

[13:56] forecasted for about five 5.2 of that.

[13:58] And so um we realized an additional 5.8

[14:01] million in savings um from under spent.

[14:05] um we will look at it at these a little

[14:09] bit um in detail. So with respect to the

[14:13] um personnel laps or um salary savings,

[14:16] however you want to think about it. So

[14:18] we had an amount budgeted for personnel

[14:22] and we didn't expend all of it. Here are

[14:24] the departments that um had the larger

[14:26] portions of the under spending. Um so

[14:29] police and fire have typically um led

[14:31] the way. transit was a big um number

[14:34] community community development and

[14:35] finance um kind of rounded that out um

[14:39] also with streets

[14:41] comparatively um you can look at um the

[14:45] 25 laps of some of the big departments

[14:47] compared to the 24 laps and um some

[14:51] departments are experiencing more some

[14:52] departments are experiencing less.

[14:54] finance. For example, we had almost

[14:56] $600,000 worth of laps in 24 and only

[14:59] about 300,000 in um FI25.

[15:03] Um as I just said, like in our

[15:06] accounting team, we were able to retain

[15:08] most of our accountants. So um you know,

[15:10] departments are experiencing some of

[15:12] that. The percentage is the percent of

[15:14] their department personnel services. And

[15:17] so just think of that as a um you can

[15:20] look at just the number or the slice um

[15:22] of their personnel budget that was

[15:25] savings.

[15:30] » Mayor Welen,

[15:33] >> thank you for that. I just um I'd asked

[15:36] you this earlier about the police. You

[15:37] want to explain that a little bit

[15:39] because um we know that our police isn't

[15:41] fully staffed.

[15:44] >> Yeah. So um you can see police and fire

[15:47] um are are both kind of represented the

[15:49] same way in the numbers. You can see

[15:50] their their 24 laps was 1.5 for police,

[15:54] 1.7 for fire and in FI25 it was 1.2 and

[15:58] 1.4 million. So their dollar lapsing is

[16:02] less but their percentage changed um a

[16:05] bit and that has to do with how big

[16:07] their personnel services budget was. So

[16:10] in FY25

[16:12] 1.3 1.4 million was only 8% of the

[16:17] personnel budget in total for police

[16:20] whereas um in FI24 they had a larger

[16:24] dollar amount associated

[16:43] Okay, so

[16:46] let me rephrase what I was just saying.

[16:49] Um, it's been a while since I put these

[16:51] together in FY25. I'm sorry. I'm

[16:53] comparing apples and oranges for you,

[16:55] and that is bad on my part. So, I will

[16:58] um follow up with um apples and apples.

[17:01] The dollars are apples to apples. The

[17:04] percent in FY25 is the percent of the

[17:07] laps of the department ser of the

[17:09] department's personal services and the

[17:11] 24 laps was actually the percentage of

[17:13] the whole more like what we saw here. So

[17:16] sorry to put those apples and oranges

[17:18] together.

[17:19] Um focus on the dollar values there. So

[17:23] it's dollars to dollars for for sure.

[17:27] >> Miss Hugh Scandies.

[17:29] >> Thanks Madam Chair. So to talk about the

[17:34] apple for a second just so I'm clear I

[17:36] can focus on the dollar amount and

[17:38] that's giving me apples to apples 8%

[17:43] of their personnel budget only their

[17:46] personnel budget is what I'm looking at

[17:48] and 25 yes

[17:49] >> and 24 is the percent of their total

[17:52] budget that's

[17:53] >> is the percent of all of the personnel

[17:55] labs so

[17:56] >> oh of all the personnel got it

[17:58] >> similar to here where they were out a

[18:00] quarter of the entire personal savings.

[18:02] >> That was the same um roughly the same

[18:05] last year.

[18:06] >> Great.

[18:06] >> So, sorry to do apples to oranges on you

[18:08] there.

[18:09] >> No, that's helpful.

[18:12] >> I'll ask a

[18:15] different question on this topic.

[18:19] [clears throat]

[18:20] You know, I remember

[18:23] when I first started the assembly, it

[18:25] was in the middle of the pandemic. you

[18:26] know, we we budgeted for a $1 million

[18:29] lapse.

[18:31] We were like, it's, you know, things

[18:33] were it was the pandemic. There's a lot

[18:35] of wild things happening with our um,

[18:39] you know, across the country in terms of

[18:40] employment.

[18:42] Now, we've seen several years in a row

[18:45] post pandemic at, you know, a much

[18:47] larger number in terms of what our lapse

[18:50] is. Do we feel like this is

[18:53] just the new normal or

[18:57] in terms of

[19:01] regular turnover in the department or is

[19:03] this really being driven by

[19:06] um

[19:08] you know our three big departments.

[19:14] Um thank you for that question. Um

[19:19] with respect to how we budget personnel

[19:22] and the anticipated lapse within

[19:24] personnel budget, um we have over the

[19:26] last couple of years um looked more

[19:29] closely at the department's historical

[19:32] trends in how they've been able to fill

[19:35] positions and adjusted the amount of

[19:39] expected savings in personnel um

[19:43] accordingly.

[19:45] um

[19:47] to what they've experienced. So

[19:50] for instance in in finance we may have

[19:52] only budgeted 1% of our personnel as a

[19:56] lapse and looking at where we had been

[19:58] over several years we increased that to

[20:01] 5% last year. And so for um

[20:06] we're we're spending um more time

[20:10] looking at that historical trend but

[20:12] also in conversation with the

[20:13] departments to understand what's

[20:15] changing. Um you know the uh CCFR

[20:19] implemented a new program this year and

[20:21] just um you know brought five folks on

[20:23] as um having passed their EMT. Um, so

[20:27] they're doing things to kind of change

[20:28] the dynamic of their vacancies. And so

[20:31] it's it's looking historically, but also

[20:34] um with that conversation of what

[20:35] they're what they're trying to do

[20:37] differently to try to to put that in

[20:40] anticipated lapse in the right ballpark

[20:43] so that we're not seeing um

[20:45] unanticipated lapses year-over-year.

[20:52] Okay, we'll move on to non-personal

[20:54] lapses. Um this is broken out by um the

[21:00] departments and divisions. Um this is

[21:02] the amount of their everything not

[21:05] personnel that they didn't spend out of

[21:07] their budget um and the percent of that

[21:11] department or division's um budget that

[21:14] was lapsed. And we've also called out in

[21:16] a couple places where there's some

[21:17] onetime spending um because that's

[21:19] important to understand that, you know,

[21:20] like in the manager's office, they had

[21:23] $325,000

[21:24] of um unspent budget. $182,000 of that

[21:29] was a contingency line that we had

[21:31] budgeted and we ended up not needing to

[21:32] use all of it um as it related to the

[21:35] MUN way facility and and some

[21:37] adjustments that needed to have there.

[21:40] Um, as we looked through this data,

[21:43] there wasn't any like one huge driver

[21:46] of, oh, this happened or we we planned

[21:49] for this and across the board, these

[21:51] things didn't come true. Um, as we

[21:54] looked at um where there were savings,

[21:56] it was little bits and pieces of

[21:59] everything everywhere. Um, you know,

[22:01] just, you know, even looking at streets

[22:03] there. Um, look at the winter that we

[22:06] had last year compared to the snow snow

[22:08] apocalypse that we had the year before.

[22:10] So just, you know, less, you know, less

[22:13] chemicals, less gravel, those things.

[22:15] Um, so there wasn't anything that that

[22:17] stood out as um big red flags amongst um

[22:20] these savings. Just little little things

[22:22] here and there that added up.

[22:27] We always want we spend a lot of time

[22:29] talking about our um general government

[22:32] um departments and funds. Um it's also

[22:35] important to look at our non-general

[22:36] government um expenses. Um so these are

[22:39] the um departments andor um divisions

[22:43] functions that um are not general funds.

[22:46] So we have the FI25 budget, the actuals

[22:48] and again these are just focused on

[22:50] expenses. So if they're over budget or

[22:52] under budget, um I want to point out

[22:54] that fleet

[22:57] is not um is is a tiny piece of

[23:01] operational, but that is where we budget

[23:04] and purchase large equipment um

[23:08] vehicles. And so we we see every year

[23:10] that we plan for things to come in um

[23:14] and you know certain and we just have a

[23:16] lot of stuff that don't make it in the

[23:18] one-year time frame. Some of that is

[23:19] large pieces of equipment that take

[23:21] longer to even build. Um, but that's that large number um there that

[23:27] kind of stands out um as an anomaly.

[23:33] » Brooks.

[23:36] >> Thank Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh I just

[23:39] had a question about uh wastewater

[23:43] coming in 14% under it. There's

[23:46] obviously a lot of work that still needs

[23:48] to be done within wastewater. Is there

[23:51] uh a reason it wasn't reallocated to

[23:54] some other projects within the

[23:56] department?

[23:59] » Uh it's a good question. Um some of the

[24:01] member books um I don't have all of the

[24:03] details on Wistro. I know that part of

[24:05] their um part of their savings overall

[24:08] is personnel laps. Um I know that they

[24:10] are a department that struggles to keep

[24:11] their positions filled. Um, and then

[24:13] they would have associated supplies and services to go with that.

[24:18] >> Thank you,

[24:23] » Miss Hughes Candies. [clears throat]

[24:25] Thanks, Madam Chair, for your

[24:26] indulgence. Miss Flick, I didn't realize

[24:29] you'd advance the page. If I'm just

[24:31] looking at the previous one, and I'm

[24:34] just curious, you know, I have my own

[24:36] curiosities with each department and I'm

[24:38] not going to say, well, what about this

[24:40] one and what about that one? But is

[24:42] there generally if I look at

[24:47] is there a general theme across some of

[24:49] these departments where they're in the

[24:52] same sort of ballpark

[24:56] and it's less obvious than like streets.

[24:58] you know, they're buying salt and gravel

[25:00] or whatever they're buying that it's

[25:03] things like supplies or they have like

[25:05] similar categories of what they lapsed

[25:08] on or is it really unique to each

[25:11] department? And if you don't know that

[25:13] off the top of your head, I can just in

[25:15] private ask about a couple.

[25:18] >> Um, thank you, Miss Huskandies. Um, we

[25:20] should probably just talk offline about

[25:21] the ones that you're curious about. As

[25:23] we as we looked through these, we didn't

[25:26] see like an overall theme like um

[25:29] everybody had conferences travel or

[25:31] conferences canceled or you know this

[25:35] big thing happened across the board. So

[25:36] we just we didn't see that a trend or a

[25:39] theme that that kind of weave through

[25:41] any of them but be happy to look at

[25:44] specifics where you have where you're

[25:45] curious.

[25:46] >> Okay, that helps. Thanks

[25:48] >> Mr. Steininger.

[25:50] Um similar question on trends and seams.

[25:53] Um is this do you see kind of

[25:57] consistently departments or divisions

[26:00] year-over-year having kind of similar

[26:02] levels of lapse or is it does it vary up

[26:06] and down quite a bit? Like have you done

[26:08] kind of a backwards look over a couple

[26:11] of years?

[26:12] >> I don't u Mr. Singer I don't know that

[26:14] we've um really looked across a couple

[26:16] years and across specific things. I know

[26:18] every year as we're preparing the

[26:20] budget, we look um at what they're

[26:22] requesting. We look at what historically

[26:24] they've spent, where we've seen those

[26:27] trends, looking at those um very

[26:29] granular details and we have those

[26:31] conversations with the departments as

[26:33] we're developing the budget.

[26:38] » I just will add having built a couple of

[26:40] these budgets now and then before as

[26:42] engineering and public works director,

[26:44] we are often aspirational in what we can

[26:47] get accomplished. So, for example, if we

[26:49] have plans uh I'll just use the this

[26:52] year budget example. We are going to

[26:54] renovate our red do our website. Well,

[26:56] we put money in this year's operating

[26:57] budget to redo our website and we will

[26:59] start on that project, but we will not

[27:01] finish that project within this year.

[27:03] So, that would be an example of and you

[27:05] have that in lots of line items, right?

[27:07] projects that uh don't get finished um

[27:10] and and that then you know have to be

[27:12] carried over to the next year which

[27:13] means we have to ask you for authority

[27:15] again to put those in the budget. So I

[27:18] think there are a lot of those pieces

[27:19] and it really reflects our budget

[27:21] culture which I'm proud of where

[27:24] departments don't feel like they have to

[27:26] rush to hurry up to spend uh all the

[27:28] money so that they can justify getting

[27:30] that money in the next line item. And I

[27:32] know that's something we talked about

[27:33] before, but I just want to reiterate it

[27:35] because um you know I suspect that that

[27:38] that'll be an area to to tighten and

[27:40] that will have an impact on our budget

[27:42] culture.

[27:48] Okay. Uh we covered this slide. So um

[27:52] we'll move to kind of wrapping up. Um

[27:54] this is the budget summary that um you

[27:57] all have in the back of your budget book

[27:59] every year. Um, so just

[28:04] can't see my mouse move. So, um, this

[28:06] starts with FY24, but if you go down a

[28:08] couple lines, 25 is what I want to focus

[28:11] on.

[28:12] This outlines, um, the

[28:17] budget summary as we had prepared it

[28:20] moving into the FY26 budget. So, this is

[28:24] what we thought was going to happen. and

[28:27] of particular notice. You'll notice um

[28:29] the last um last three columns over on

[28:32] the right hand side, the unrestricted

[28:34] fund balance and the restricted fund

[28:35] balance. So when we finished when we

[28:38] were getting ready to work with you

[28:39] about the FY26 budget, we expected we

[28:43] would end FY25

[28:45] with 20 million in unrestricted fund

[28:49] balance and 16 a half in the restricted

[28:52] fund balance. So this is just a recap of

[28:55] what um you saw when we were preparing

[28:58] the budget for FY26.

[29:01] The next page is what actually happened.

[29:04] So these have been updated for the FY25

[29:07] actuals. And so everything that we've

[29:10] just talked about is incorporated here

[29:12] in slightly um different words um just

[29:16] summarized a little bit differently. Um

[29:19] but you can see that our ending

[29:21] unrestricted fund balance is actually

[29:23] 31.4

[29:25] and your restricted um fund balance

[29:27] restricted funds reserve is also um sold

[29:30] as 16 12. So I'm just going to pull from

[29:33] the page before that last line so you

[29:36] can just see them side by side. And I

[29:38] know it looks kind of funny on your

[29:39] printed page. Um but the difference

[29:41] there is an $1 million increase in your

[29:44] unrestricted fund balance.

[29:47] So, that's our FY25 ending, but you've

[29:50] already moved into FY26 and you've

[29:52] already made decisions about the FY26

[29:55] um budget and there have been ordinances

[29:57] that have come through and so um the

[30:00] last page in this presentation shows the

[30:02] FY26

[30:04] adopted budget, the items that have come

[30:07] through a supplemental appropriations

[30:09] and then um things that we're already

[30:11] aware of um that we're we're including

[30:14] in our forecast And one of the things

[30:17] you can see in the yellow is um we've

[30:20] worked into the budget our anticipated

[30:22] revenue loss based on our estimates for

[30:25] the exemptions on um the sales tax that

[30:28] were recently passed. And so you'll see

[30:30] with that revenue reduction included um

[30:34] we anticipate without any other changes

[30:37] the ending fund your your unrestricted

[30:40] fund balance to be at 15 million. um

[30:42] your restricted fund balance has changed

[30:44] to 17.3 and that's um partly because um

[30:48] you did make a um a contribution to the

[30:53] restricted reserve but then we also

[30:55] pulled out the reserve for the Eagle

[30:58] Crest um deficit and then um with the

[31:01] deappropriation

[31:03] of the Eagle Crest um

[31:07] operating budget that recently went

[31:09] through after their staffing change. um

[31:12] those all combined um changed your bud

[31:14] your restricted reserve from 16 and a

[31:17] half to 17.4 and I can show that

[31:20] differently um in a different way if we

[31:22] need to but that's kind of the summary

[31:23] of how how that number changed

[31:27] >> Miss Hugh Gandes thanks Madame Chair

[31:30] just a question to help me think through

[31:32] that I think I'm tracking with you but

[31:35] our expectation

[31:38] at the time

[31:41] that we finished that budget.

[31:45] We had said I'm on page 21 of the packet

[31:50] was 16

[31:56] and they're restricted. That's correct.

[32:02] Well, I'm looking at this now. I'm

[32:03] looking at 25 and I see 20

[32:08] in the restricted and 16.8 8 in the

[32:10] unrestricted there you if you can see

[32:13] that line

[32:15] so does that I'm trying to make that

[32:18] square with the

[32:22] three per 3 million contribution that we

[32:25] made to the restricted because I would

[32:27] you know we did that before we passed

[32:30] the budget so I would expect to see that

[32:33] in like what we expect before we got

[32:36] Eagle Crest involved in it so I'm just

[32:39] trying to follow the math from that.

[32:41] >> So, um the math on that and um this is

[32:45] in the the published budget book which

[32:47] will take me a minute to pull up, but if

[32:49] we need to, we can have Miss Windle

[32:50] share her screen. Um you made a

[32:52] contribution of 3.3 million for the

[32:55] budget process. um as part of the budget

[32:58] process when the decision was made to

[33:01] allow Eagler Crest to run a deficit

[33:03] that's allowable if we restrict and

[33:06] additionally reserve funding and the

[33:09] body had decided that they were going to

[33:11] restrict the restricted budget reserve.

[33:14] It's a lot of restrict in there. And so

[33:16] what we've done is we've pulled that out

[33:18] of the available balance. So you

[33:20] increased by 3.3 but you reserved

[33:24] 3,45,800

[33:29] um which you net those together and and

[33:32] you roughly have 200,000 $250,000

[33:35] of an increase to what's in your

[33:38] restricted budget reserve that you could

[33:40] use in the future if you needed to. So

[33:44] that change in addition since you've

[33:47] approved the budget um Eaglerest has

[33:50] done their position conversion and with

[33:52] that realized that the full budget

[33:55] wasn't required and so a budget

[33:59] reduction came through which meant that

[34:01] you didn't have to reserve as much of

[34:03] your restricted budget reserve and so

[34:05] that freed up an additional 540,000.

[34:08] So that math gets you to the 17.3.

[34:11] Perfect. Thanks.

[34:15] » I'm gonna have you walk me this similar

[34:20] journey through the unrestricted fund

[34:22] balance. Um,

[34:25] so many memories flooding back here. the

[34:29] what I took you saying here um is

[34:37] the 15 something that I can't read under

[34:42] my notes um

[34:46] 15 15 million under at the very bottom

[34:48] of the page is what now we would expect

[34:52] the unrestricted

[34:57] fund balance balance to be at the end of

[35:00] fiscal year 26, which takes what we

[35:04] thought it was going to be

[35:07] when we set the budget,

[35:12] plus the additional

[35:16] um the surplus that we ended up with in

[35:18] FY25 that we didn't know about

[35:23] minus our anticipated

[35:26] changes to sales tax revenue and other

[35:29] actions that we've taken.

[35:32] >> That is exactly correct. And the the 23 million that's in the unrestricted

[35:40] budget fund balance for the assembly

[35:42] adopted budget is that's what we

[35:46] anticipated having at the end of FY26

[35:49] when we passed our budget. That seems

[35:53] much higher than I remember. So that's

[35:56] that confused me.

[36:02] » That's correct. So that that 23

[36:08] had our assumption

[36:11] of where we would in 25

[36:14] plus the changes that were made when we

[36:16] built the 26 budget.

[36:19] And I think Miss Wendell is going to

[36:22] share her screen andor talk with the

[36:24] numbers specifically in front of her.

[36:29] » Thank you. Let I'll try to provide a

[36:32] little clarity here. So, the way that

[36:34] the budget summary document is formatted

[36:36] is that um the and and and perhaps we

[36:41] need to make an adjustment here, but the

[36:42] assembly adopted budget amount of 23.7

[36:46] million for the unrestricted fund

[36:47] balance does actually take into effect

[36:51] um take into consideration

[36:54] the larger projected ending fund balance

[36:57] of FY25.

[36:59] So, that includes the additional 11

[37:02] million That [clears throat] that makes

[37:03] >> why your memory is

[37:04] >> more sense to me. Okay, that's super

[37:06] helpful. Thank you.

[37:13] » Keep rolling. Oh, Mayor Welen,

[37:17] >> you looked at me, so I'll have to answer

[37:18] a question. Ask a question. I'm assuming

[37:21] that the secure rules uh school spending

[37:24] will probably no longer exist. So, is

[37:27] that a true statement?

[37:30] >> Uh, thank you, Mayor Weldon. uh we are

[37:32] anticipating that we will um not receive

[37:35] the secure rural schools which is why in

[37:37] our FY26 projection here we've reduced

[37:40] our revenue by 523,000

[37:47] and a followup so those are what about

[37:51] the

[37:52] I mean community assistance I assume

[37:54] it's the same thing tobacco tax revenue

[37:57] you're estimating

[38:00] this is you projecting

[38:03] for the end of the year is a

[38:06] reduction or is that a policy call that

[38:10] you know is coming

[38:13] on the tobacco tax revenue? That's

[38:15] actually um a reduction to the general

[38:18] fund because the tobacco tax fund was

[38:22] significantly under um under budget and

[38:26] was actually running a negative fund

[38:28] balance. So, we um reduce the amount of

[38:32] transfer from the tobacco tax fund to

[38:35] the general fund to keep it from going

[38:37] negative.

[38:45] And if I could just provide um clarity

[38:47] on the community assistance, um we did

[38:49] actually receive some. It's just less

[38:51] than what we budgeted. And so that's the

[38:53] difference.

[38:58] Okay. Um, any other questions on the

[39:03] FY25

[39:05] update?

[39:07] And those folks online, I assume if they

[39:11] raise their hand, I'll be able to see

[39:12] them. I see your hand, Mr. Smith. Go

[39:15] ahead.

[39:17] [clears throat]

[39:17] >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um

[39:20] I just there was a the point about

[39:23] investment earnings being greater than

[39:26] projected this year and maybe it's maybe

[39:29] it's a question for maybe it's will be

[39:32] pertinent for later but I'll ask it now.

[39:34] Um Miss Flick there are years where we

[39:38] project and then we have lower

[39:41] investment returns as well. Would you

[39:43] confirm that and and if you remember you

[39:45] know within the near future maybe what

[39:47] size any of those you know below return

[39:53] below projections were.

[39:57] >> Uh thank you Mr. I I believe it was FY22

[40:01] or FY23.

[40:03] We were significantly or um the market

[40:07] did terribly and we were we had budgeted

[40:11] positive

[40:12] um interest earnings and we actually

[40:16] lost

[40:17] um on the on the market side. So, um I

[40:21] don't know the the scale of that um but

[40:25] it was um in very recent history that did occur.

[40:29] >> Thank you,

[40:32] >> Mr. Brooks.

[40:34] >> Thank you, Madam Chair. uh during those

[40:37] years where there were losses in the

[40:39] investment, was it the the same methods

[40:43] of investments being uh conducted? You

[40:46] know, the the the same firms and

[40:48] portfolios

[40:51] we're using currently. Sorry.

[40:53] >> Thank you, Assembly Member Brooks. Um

[40:55] yes, it is um we have not changed um

[40:59] firms or investment pools um since that

[41:03] time occurred.

[41:11] All right, we will move on. I'll just be

[41:15] just remind folks this, you know,

[41:17] there's a whole lot of data to unpack

[41:20] here. So, um, you know, take your time

[41:24] and I know staff are available to

[41:26] continue to help um, folks understand

[41:30] all that was just presented. All right,

[41:33] that brings us to um financial paths

[41:36] forward with election 2025 results. Is

[41:39] this Miss Flick or Manager Kuster?

[41:43] Probably both.

[41:45] >> Thank you, Chairwall. I believe we are

[41:46] going to tag team this. Uh so this is on

[41:50] starting on page 24 of your packet. Um

[41:54] this is

[41:55] >> Oops. I'll just inter um interrupt you

[41:58] real quick. I meant to say this. Our in

[42:00] this is a long memo and our intent is to

[42:03] take it kind of chunk by chunk here.

[42:05] [clears throat] So we've got some

[42:06] discussion questions and um things built

[42:10] in along the way. So um okay, go ahead,

[42:13] Miss Flick. [laughter]

[42:15] Thank you, Chairwell. Um there is a lot

[42:18] of information in this memo um and tried

[42:21] to lay it out in a way that um it would

[42:24] be easy to follow and kind of tie

[42:26] together concepts um that move through.

[42:29] Um there are a lot of questions also in

[42:32] this memo, but we do not need to answer

[42:34] every question tonight. Um there are um

[42:38] there are many decisions that need to be

[42:41] made over the course um of our next few

[42:45] meetings together. Um and we wanted to

[42:48] make sure that you had a full picture of

[42:51] information in front of you and that we

[42:54] um tried to ask you questions that would

[42:58] help you start thinking about things and

[43:00] maybe start preparing you to make some

[43:02] decisions that you don't have to make

[43:03] tonight. There are a few things that um

[43:05] we do need you to decide on tonight and

[43:08] so we'll we'll make sure that we either

[43:10] tackle those in process or they're also

[43:12] at the end of the memo so we make sure

[43:14] we don't lose sight of them. So we'll

[43:16] make sure that those get cared for. Um

[43:18] the uh

[43:21] I I don't need to uh belabor the point.

[43:24] There were um several election

[43:25] propositions. Um two of them passed. Um

[43:28] ballot proposition one um had to do with

[43:31] capping the mill rate at um nine mills.

[43:35] Um and this excludes debt service. Um

[43:38] and so previously it was 12, it will now

[43:41] be at 9. Um our FY26

[43:44] mill rate excluding debt service is

[43:47] 9.16.

[43:49] Um the FY26 impact of this ballot

[43:53] proposition passing passing is nothing.

[43:57] um your FY26 budget was built with the

[44:02] um mill rate which you passed as part of

[44:04] the FY26 budget preparation. I believe

[44:06] you passed it on June 9th. Um those mill

[44:09] rates were applied to the assessed

[44:11] values as of January 1st of 2025.

[44:14] Property tax bills went out roughly July

[44:17] 1st. Property taxes were due September

[44:20] 30th. The election happened after that.

[44:23] So at this point there's no action in

[44:24] FY26.

[44:26] um and no impact from that particular

[44:29] ballot measure on FY26. However, moving

[44:32] into FY27

[44:34] um we will need to reduce our mill rate

[44:36] by that 0.16 mills. Um assuming a

[44:39] relatively flat um market in the real

[44:43] estate world, we would expect that to be

[44:45] about a million dollars worth of revenue

[44:47] loss um to the um various uh general

[44:51] fund components that make that up. So

[44:54] that is something that we will have to

[44:55] address with our FY27 budget.

[44:58] Um [clears throat] proposition two um

[45:01] had two components. Um one was an

[45:04] exemption of sales tax on um basically

[45:07] SNAP eligible food or food is def as as

[45:10] defined by the food and nutrition act of

[45:12] 2008.

[45:14] um this uh there's that component and

[45:18] then there's also a component having to

[45:19] do with um utilities um at um the

[45:24] primary residents. Um those uh take

[45:27] effect um here this month. Um the

[45:30] estimated f annualized impact of both of

[45:34] those is roughly $1 million. We're

[45:37] partway through FY26. So roughly seven

[45:40] of the 12 months um will be impacted and

[45:45] so we calculate that to be about 6.4

[45:47] million of a revenue decrease for FY26.

[45:51] Um and again annualized for FY27

[45:55] um it's total of 11 million. Um

[45:58] depending on how we address FY26

[46:00] um that could just be um an incremental

[46:02] [clears throat] adjustment to the full

[46:03] year or the full 11 million. So what's

[46:07] really important to take away from the

[46:08] sales tax discussion is that our sales

[46:11] tax is made up of um three main

[46:14] components. One 1% is permanent and that

[46:18] goes to our operations. 1% is temporary

[46:22] and that goes to specific projects. And

[46:24] so on page 30 of your packet um

[46:27] attachment A is a breakout of um the

[46:30] sales tax. So, um the list A there on

[46:33] your right are the 1% temporary projects

[46:36] that um will um now that 1% has a less

[46:42] value um going forward for the remainder

[46:44] of that um particular um time period for

[46:49] which the 1% is in effect through

[46:50] September of 2028. And then the last

[46:53] component is a 3% temporary tax that we

[46:57] break up into three pieces. And what you

[47:00] see there on attachment A is the three

[47:02] pieces broken out as they appeared on

[47:04] the ballot. So um what I've called list

[47:07] B is 1% of the 3% temporary tax that

[47:11] goes to projects related to roads,

[47:14] drainage, retaining walls, sidewalks.

[47:15] We've also been doing utilities um with

[47:18] part there. Um list C are the

[47:21] operational components that are funded

[47:23] through the sales tax as called out on

[47:26] the ballot. and um list D is the last 1%

[47:29] of that 3% where goes to some capital

[47:32] projects um uh called out to go to the

[47:35] budget reserve um or other operations um

[47:39] a lot of that 1% ends up being operating

[47:41] in nature. So when we look at the five

[47:46] 1% pieces of our 5% sales tax um

[47:51] annualized again um 11 million um 4.4 4

[47:55] million would be a one-time um reduction

[47:58] to projects and 6.6 million would be

[48:01] recurring that we would need to reduce

[48:03] out of our operating budget. Again,

[48:05] that's kind of the annualized picture.

[48:09] So, um that's that's the breakdown of

[48:11] the impact of sales tax.

[48:19] All right.

[48:21] I I'll just um pause and note that while

[48:26] the uh

[48:28] 1% is one time um obviously there's a

[48:31] reduction in overall sales tax revenue

[48:33] which means all things being equal

[48:35] voters reauthorizing our 3% and 1% we

[48:38] will be collecting less revenue for

[48:40] capital projects. So moving forward, we

[48:42] will be looking at building UCIPs uh

[48:45] with less capital projects unless

[48:47] directed otherwise by the assembly.

[48:50] >> Um Mr. Smith and Mr. Steininger, then

[48:54] Mr. Kelly.

[48:57] >> Thank you, Madam Chair.

[49:00] I I wanted to, you know, as we're just

[49:03] anyway, I want to um just as we're

[49:06] looking at reductions, you know, one

[49:08] thing, of course, I don't want to see us

[49:10] do is, you know, cut CIPs too hard and

[49:13] that we are essentially creating a large

[49:16] deferred maintenance hole. Um,

[49:19] and this is something that can maybe

[49:21] come back later or or whatever, but um

[49:24] do we track and compare to, you know,

[49:30] uh commonly accepted metrics or

[49:32] something like

[49:34] how how we're doing in terms of spending

[49:39] on our infrastructure,

[49:42] you know, like I don't know. I'm sure

[49:44] there's a percentage out there that like

[49:45] you should be spending. Do we do we know

[49:49] do we track that or or do we know how

[49:51] we're doing compared to you know

[49:54] commonly accepted metrics on

[49:56] infrastructure investment?

[50:01] » So I have done that analysis in the past

[50:03] for our facilities um and there are kind

[50:07] of industry standards on how much you

[50:09] should be spending per year as a percent

[50:11] of the building value. And uh certainly

[50:14] worth running those numbers again and

[50:16] looking at that in the context of all of

[50:18] the capital uh you know maintenance

[50:20] projects that we do deferred maintenance

[50:22] projects such as streets and utilities.

[50:24] But at the time when I ran uh that that

[50:27] set of numbers uh we were at the very

[50:30] low end of what would be the industry

[50:32] standard for facilities and that

[50:34] includes like some major facility um

[50:36] projects. And then I would say that we

[50:38] are probably behind in our utility and

[50:41] street um investment just given the

[50:44] number of water leaks we have had over

[50:46] the last uh last few years. It has seen

[50:48] a lot that is when I say behind you have

[50:52] to remember we are we are for Alaska a

[50:54] pretty wellestablished town so we are

[50:56] experiencing you know failure of

[50:58] infrastructure that was put in when we

[51:00] had a big uh housing boom in the 80s. So

[51:02] part of this is the nature of um how

[51:06] long we've been around, but um I I would

[51:08] say there's definitely uh the need for

[51:11] increased investment in just the kind of

[51:14] regular

[51:16] replacing water lines and sewer mains

[51:18] and boilers and the kind of not not as

[51:22] fun uh capital projects.

[51:29] » Mr. Steininger,

[51:31] >> I'm good. that got covered. Thank you

[51:32] though,

[51:33] >> Mr. Kelly.

[51:35] >> Thank you. Um so those uh $2.2 million

[51:40] um that are taken from each 1%. Um just

[51:44] to get an idea of like how severe they

[51:46] are to each list. Um that's 2.2 million

[51:50] out of um out of how much

[51:54] or would you have that number off hand

[51:56] or maybe I can I can circle back.

[52:10] So, Mr. Kelly, I'm not entirely sure

[52:14] what your question is, but typically

[52:15] like our 1% temporary sales tax would um

[52:19] bring in about 14ish million.

[52:24] So, a 2.2 I could do the math right

[52:26] here.

[52:29] I think I could do the math. So, it's 2.2 out of 14 basically.

[52:32] >> 2.2 out of roughly 14. So, 15 16%.

[52:37] >> All right. Thank you.

[52:40] >> Um I've got a question on this one. Um I think

[52:46] um I heard you uh Miss Kester about kind

[52:51] of the you know we often maybe this is

[52:54] terminology we often talk about expenses

[52:56] being one time or ongoing ongoing

[52:59] operations versus a project that we're

[53:01] going to you know do this year and don't

[53:03] have to continually fund. Here we're

[53:05] talking about revenue as one time or

[53:09] ongoing sales tax

[53:14] is an ongoing revenue. You're just

[53:16] making a distinction between

[53:19] Well, I I think you're making a

[53:21] distinction between projects that we

[53:23] said we would do that qualify as

[53:26] projects

[53:28] like CIPs. We have to do CIPs in the

[53:31] future,

[53:33] but we were specifically funding a

[53:37] particular

[53:39] project in this year. Am I capturing

[53:42] that correctly?

[53:44] >> Thank you, Chairw. Um yes, I think a

[53:47] great example is um you know, we will we

[53:50] will always need to do capital projects.

[53:53] There will always be a need to do

[53:54] infrastructure projects.

[53:56] um you only need to pave a certain part

[53:59] of the road once every however year. So

[54:02] from a project perspective, paving road

[54:05] XYZ is is a one-time event, but you will

[54:08] always need to be addressing different

[54:10] pieces of road. So um one 1% of our 3%

[54:16] temporary tax goes to road street type

[54:20] projects. So it is a a continual need.

[54:24] Um, but the projects themselves are one

[54:27] time in nature. And that's as opposed to

[54:31] if we needed to make an a an operating

[54:34] cut where it's like we open the doors

[54:38] every day here and now we need to not

[54:39] open the doors or we need to have fewer

[54:42] hours. Um, that would be a recurring or

[54:44] an operating reduction.

[54:52] » Mr. Smith.

[54:56] » Thank you, Madam Chair.

[54:59] Um I I don't Anyway, I think your

[55:02] question was similar to mine, I guess.

[55:04] Um but just to make sure I understand.

[55:07] I'm sorry if I missed it when you if you

[55:08] said it earlier, Miss Flick.

[55:11] Um

[55:13] obviously the voters approve

[55:15] some of these taxes, you know, four 4% I believe there there isn't a

[55:26] legal or any other type of requirement

[55:29] that we

[55:30] would make

[55:34] reductions

[55:35] you know based on

[55:39] like based on these kind of buckets of

[55:41] different per 1% of taxes right just

[55:45] because we asked the voters to say oh

[55:48] you know we want a 3% % and it covers

[55:52] lists B, C, and D

[55:55] and those go to those different things.

[55:57] We don't have to we don't have to uh

[55:59] aortion it in that way. Like we could we

[56:03] could make more cuts to recurring things

[56:06] versus CIPs or something or in the other

[56:10] direction.

[56:15] » Uh thank you, Assembly Member Smith. Um

[56:18] I'm not the lawyer in the room. Uh so uh

[56:22] perhaps this is uh truly a legal

[56:25] question. Um but I I do believe that we

[56:27] have an obligation to follow the intent

[56:30] of the um of the ballot measure as it

[56:34] was presented to the voters. So the

[56:36] voters passed a 1% temporary tax to do

[56:39] these projects.

[56:41] We need to um do the the best we can to

[56:44] adhere to that. the the exemptions that

[56:47] were passed means that we are going to

[56:49] bring in less revenue to do those

[56:52] projects. And so um the extent to which

[56:56] we can accomplish those projects um may

[56:58] change

[57:00] in our plan for the future compared to

[57:03] what we may have planned a year ago.

[57:11] Do you have a followup, Mr. Smith?

[57:15] I I think maybe I'll just um chat with

[57:18] the attorney just to you know anyway

[57:20] just just trying to figure out like you

[57:23] know how how closely or not we need to

[57:26] you know

[57:28] adhere I'll say to these to this kind of

[57:30] to these different buckets or something

[57:32] but no that that's helpful. Thank you

[57:35] >> Miss Hugh Candies.

[57:37] >> Thank you Madam Chair. I should probably

[57:39] follow Mr. mislead. But just talking

[57:42] through that in a followup, when we make

[57:46] specific projects and take it to the

[57:48] voters, it is always an estimate. Is

[57:51] that correct? Because we could have

[57:54] there could be a huge inflation hike and

[57:57] we don't anticipate that, but that would

[58:00] depending on the tax bring in more tax

[58:03] and then we would have that percent

[58:07] would be a higher number. Correct? just

[58:09] the same way that now with an exemption

[58:12] it's going to be a lower number. Is does

[58:14] that seem right?

[58:18] Um I pulled up the ballot uh language

[58:22] from um the one the last 1% for example

[58:26] and in that um the ballot language did

[58:29] not have dollar amounts associated with

[58:31] projects. It just listed the projects

[58:32] and it clearly listed that it was the

[58:34] intent of it is the intent. Um, so it's

[58:38] it it depends again goes back to that

[58:40] intent language and in having

[58:41] conversations with the city attorney on

[58:43] this. You know, she said probably uh you

[58:46] know changing the dollar amounts within

[58:48] that bucket uh or postponing some of the

[58:51] projects would be um very defensible.

[58:54] Just cutting some of those projects

[58:56] would be more difficult. So, I am like

[58:58] poking at Emily quite a bit on this

[59:00] topic because I I definitely see some

[59:02] things on this list that might not be as

[59:04] high a priorities given our current

[59:06] fiscal situation.

[59:08] >> Thank you,

[59:12] » Mr. Steininger. And I guess kind of sort

[59:16] of followup to this line of question

[59:18] when I look at this list and

[59:20] particularly under the 1% in list A.

[59:23] Some of these projects are significantly

[59:26] if fully completed would be

[59:27] significantly more expensive than the

[59:30] total amount we had anticipated

[59:32] collecting from that 1% over its

[59:35] lifetime. I mean some of them are pretty

[59:38] spendy projects. So like the idea of

[59:41] being bound to complete every one of

[59:43] those projects seems it seems like we

[59:45] are not we because we never could have

[59:49] done it because there wouldn't have been

[59:50] enough revenue collection anyway. So

[59:53] we're just bound to doing some work on

[59:55] each of those projects I guess you know

[59:57] like we haven't

[59:59] appropriated enough to complete the

[1:00:01] relocation of the city museum for

[1:00:03] example or the you know construction of

[1:00:06] the Lemon Creek multimodonal pass. to

[1:00:08] like

[1:00:10] I guess I'm trying to understand you

[1:00:12] know what the actual commitment to the

[1:00:13] voters is if we couldn't have even

[1:00:15] completed the projects in the first

[1:00:16] place. Does that make sense or am I just

[1:00:18] kind of rambling?

[1:00:20] >> I I understand your question and I do

[1:00:22] think that uh Emily would be best suited

[1:00:24] to answer that question. I will explain

[1:00:28] kind of how we use these funds um when

[1:00:32] there are not enough money of course to

[1:00:33] do the project and Lemon Creek

[1:00:34] Multimotal Path is a great example. uh

[1:00:37] we've used that funding to initiate

[1:00:40] design and to match other grant

[1:00:42] opportunities. So get design uh you know

[1:00:44] to a level where we then can apply apply

[1:00:46] for grants and we've received um I think

[1:00:48] two different grants for Lemon Creek

[1:00:50] multimmoal path. So a lot of um these uh

[1:00:54] funding you know streams are set up to

[1:00:58] be able to do the work to advance a

[1:01:00] project to then to understand I mean

[1:01:02] there's there's projects on this list

[1:01:03] that we have very like relocation of

[1:01:05] city museum we have very little

[1:01:06] information about I believe there's a

[1:01:08] half a million dollar appropriation um

[1:01:11] obviously that's a much larger project

[1:01:13] and so like practically speaking how we

[1:01:15] would use that would be to develop a

[1:01:18] plan and a budget and and whatever level

[1:01:19] of design to be able to you take that to

[1:01:22] the assembly. You can uh you can advance

[1:01:25] funds um advance projects through

[1:01:28] design, but you remember you cannot

[1:01:30] construct the project unless you have

[1:01:32] full funding for the project. So that

[1:01:34] that's kind of where you get that

[1:01:35] commitment. Doesn't answer your

[1:01:36] question, but I just thought it might

[1:01:38] help you understand how we spend the

[1:01:40] less than enough money to do the project

[1:01:43] uh funds.

[1:01:47] » Mr. Brooks.

[1:01:50] >> Thank you, Madam Chair.

[1:01:52] On so for the ones that do have specific

[1:01:57] amounts attached to them, the ones that

[1:01:59] come to mind for me are the uh the

[1:02:01] wastewater and police communications.

[1:02:03] When that was brought to a vote, it I

[1:02:05] remember them having specific amounts.

[1:02:07] So, what how how is kind of the process

[1:02:11] as far as changing the amounts?

[1:02:16] and and she's well suited to answer this

[1:02:18] question, but we cannot we could not

[1:02:20] spend the full amount, but we that would

[1:02:22] be an example where like we can't spend

[1:02:24] bond money for public safety,

[1:02:26] communications, infrastructure on

[1:02:27] anything but public safety,

[1:02:29] communications infrastructure. So, a a

[1:02:31] general obligation bond is different and

[1:02:34] I I would say far more binding than the

[1:02:36] intent language in the 1%.

[1:02:41] » Absolutely. Um two very different ballot

[1:02:44] questions. So, um, the question going to

[1:02:47] the voters to say, "We'd like to have a

[1:02:49] 1% temporary sales tax to do these

[1:02:52] projects is very different from the

[1:02:55] general bond question that went to the

[1:02:57] voters about the public safety

[1:02:59] infrastructure, which was, we're looking

[1:03:02] for permission to go get $12.5 million,

[1:03:06] if I remember correctly, um, in general

[1:03:08] obligation bonds to construct

[1:03:12] this project." And sometimes um you know

[1:03:16] there was also the $10 million

[1:03:18] wastewater infrastructure bond that had

[1:03:22] a couple of projects listed, but we

[1:03:24] can't take any of those bond proceeds

[1:03:27] from that $10 million and use it to go

[1:03:31] build a street or to um go build a

[1:03:34] building. Um so the bond language is is

[1:03:37] very much more binding in particular. um

[1:03:41] the sales tax language. Um we do you

[1:03:44] know we say our intent is to do these

[1:03:47] types of things with this sales sales

[1:03:48] tax fund. Um the sales tax amount that

[1:03:52] we collect is going to be variable. As

[1:03:54] Miss Hugh Scandies um pointed out, we

[1:03:57] you know we collected much less during

[1:04:00] CO collected a lot more on the rebound

[1:04:03] when um you know tourism picked back up

[1:04:06] and so um just very different ballot

[1:04:09] questions.

[1:04:11] >> Thank you

[1:04:13] >> Miss Hall.

[1:04:15] >> And this is going back to the you know

[1:04:17] the projects on this day. So if you

[1:04:19] bring something up through the design

[1:04:21] phase that the federal grant has gone

[1:04:25] away for it and and so basically kind of

[1:04:28] killing the possibility of that project

[1:04:31] or you know is that design okay for you

[1:04:34] know 10 years down the road when we may

[1:04:37] pick it back up and be able to complete

[1:04:39] the project or or how does that work

[1:04:41] with the federal funding that's not

[1:04:45] likely to come through?

[1:04:50] So I I if you're specifically referring

[1:04:52] to Leven Creek multimodal path, we have

[1:04:55] successfully procured uh grants for

[1:04:58] that. Now we do not we still don't have

[1:04:59] enough funding to construct that

[1:05:01] project. Um we also uh are hopeful to in

[1:05:07] the future use some of the funds that we

[1:05:09] have to leverage match for uh future

[1:05:12] federal grants. So does that answer your

[1:05:14] question?

[1:05:14] >> Yeah. Yeah. So the project doesn't go

[1:05:16] away.

[1:05:23] » And mayor,

[1:05:24] >> I don't know if this will help or not to

[1:05:26] remind everybody about the sales tax. So

[1:05:29] if you remember when a sales tax passes,

[1:05:32] we come up with a five-year schedule and

[1:05:35] as an assembly, we change that schedule

[1:05:37] all the time. So there is flexibility in

[1:05:39] it. And um as director Ker says, we also

[1:05:43] have years that the sales tax comes in

[1:05:45] under. So then we don't allocate as

[1:05:47] much. So there is some flexibility, but

[1:05:49] we do try to do the intent of the voter

[1:05:51] as much as possible.

[1:05:56] » Mr. Brooks,

[1:05:58] >> thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to

[1:06:00] piggyback on Assembly Member Hall's uh

[1:06:04] question uh for the plans like the

[1:06:09] multimodal path uh being complete and

[1:06:12] then using those plans to secure the

[1:06:14] grants. How long is that plan good for

[1:06:19] to keep applying for grants? Does the

[1:06:21] plan have to be with within the last 5

[1:06:23] years or uh what are the requirements

[1:06:26] for applying for more grants with

[1:06:28] projects like that?

[1:06:32] » It's 100% dependent on the specific

[1:06:34] grant program that you would be applying

[1:06:36] to. Generally speaking, work that we put

[1:06:38] into developing a project doesn't go

[1:06:42] stale or or or die or change unless

[1:06:46] there are extenduating circumstances

[1:06:48] that that you know change the nature of

[1:06:50] it. I mean I if isostatic rebound

[1:06:52] totally changes uh the uh um geotech in

[1:06:57] that area um then maybe our design for a

[1:07:01] path that is over um that is a raised

[1:07:04] path doesn't have have to be a raised

[1:07:06] path anymore but of course you know

[1:07:09] those are things that are are hard to um

[1:07:12] hard to predict. So I I guess you know

[1:07:15] the work that we do on projects um is is

[1:07:18] always good work uh and is also

[1:07:21] sometimes uh becomes outdated like like

[1:07:25] any work but there's no set um

[1:07:28] there's no set time that that all

[1:07:30] federal agencies or all granting

[1:07:32] agencies have have put on that unlike

[1:07:35] when you apply for NEPA or some of those

[1:07:37] processes that you're more familiar with

[1:07:38] where you're like you have to do it

[1:07:39] within a specific time frame.

[1:07:42] Okay,

[1:07:48] » I think we can keep going.

[1:07:51] All right, page two of the memo.

[1:07:56] [laughter]

[1:07:57] So, um, we already spent time talking

[1:07:59] about the FY25 update and again, just,

[1:08:01] you know, all of our topics today weaved

[1:08:03] together. Um, I do want to take a moment

[1:08:05] and just talk about our revenue

[1:08:07] estimates. Um because as as we began

[1:08:11] work in the spring talking about um

[1:08:14] sales tax and exemptions and different

[1:08:16] um ways that that might be constructed.

[1:08:20] Um you know we as staff put together a

[1:08:24] model. It was based on information that

[1:08:26] we had. Um certainly um we do not have

[1:08:32] we have not collected complete data in

[1:08:35] the past to answer exactly how much

[1:08:38] revenue is going to change because of

[1:08:40] the two exemptions being um food and

[1:08:43] utilities um what exactly that number is

[1:08:47] going to be going forward. So, we put

[1:08:49] together an estimate uh based on

[1:08:51] information that we had, assumptions

[1:08:52] that we made. Um I know other members in

[1:08:55] the community put together models. Um

[1:08:57] some of those we shared and discussed

[1:08:59] were relatively close. They weren't

[1:09:01] exactly the same. They were built on

[1:09:02] slightly different data, slightly

[1:09:04] different assumptions. Um I think the

[1:09:06] one thing that we all agreed on is the

[1:09:08] impact to the revenue is not zero, but

[1:09:10] what it actually is is somewhat unknown.

[1:09:14] The first full quarter of um sales tax

[1:09:17] collection with these new exemptions is

[1:09:20] going to be January, February, March.

[1:09:22] Those sales tax returns and remittance

[1:09:24] remittances are due April 30th. So it

[1:09:27] will be miday before we know what that

[1:09:30] first quarter even looks like. By that

[1:09:33] time,

[1:09:36] if you all follow the same trajectory as

[1:09:38] you usually do, which is good, um you

[1:09:40] will be done with the budget discussions

[1:09:42] and all of those budget legisl

[1:09:44] legislation pieces will be waiting for

[1:09:46] the full assembly to act on in the

[1:09:48] beginning of June before we even know

[1:09:50] what the first full quarter looks like.

[1:09:52] So, we just need to again acknowledge

[1:09:55] that all of these estimates are

[1:09:57] estimates. Um it is going to take a

[1:09:59] while for us to see the full impact of

[1:10:02] these exemptions and how how they play

[1:10:04] out um before we know what the true

[1:10:07] numbers are. Um there are a lot of ways

[1:10:11] that um that we can go about reducing

[1:10:14] the budget. We know that there is a

[1:10:15] revenue impact. We know that we're going

[1:10:17] to have to reduce our FY27 budget. Um we

[1:10:22] um can definitely take many approaches.

[1:10:26] Um, one approach that's often used is

[1:10:27] just across the board cuts. Everybody

[1:10:29] cuts 5%, everybody cuts 10%. Um, I would

[1:10:33] argue that that's um,

[1:10:36] in some ways people will say that's

[1:10:38] completely fair. Everybody deals with

[1:10:40] the same percentage of pain. Um, but

[1:10:43] certainly how departments are

[1:10:45] constructed and the services they give

[1:10:47] don't necessarily always lend themselves

[1:10:48] to just a straight across the board cut.

[1:10:51] So, if you're um I think I used HR as an

[1:10:53] example in the memo who really has

[1:10:56] people and a couple of paper clips, a 5%

[1:10:58] cut to them is going to be very

[1:11:00] different from like a streets department

[1:11:02] that has people and equipment and lots

[1:11:04] of supplies and other things. And so, um

[1:11:07] being able to manage that kind of um a

[1:11:09] cut would be different. Um oftent times

[1:11:12] um organizations will say we're just

[1:11:13] going to do hiring freezes, which is

[1:11:16] okay as a shortterm kind of get through

[1:11:18] a period where you're making decisions.

[1:11:21] Um but a hiring freeze is not a

[1:11:25] permanent reduction to expenditures. The

[1:11:28] only way that that turns into a

[1:11:30] reduction of expenditure expenditures is

[1:11:32] by reduction of positions. Um which in

[1:11:35] our case usually means a reduction of

[1:11:37] services. So hiring freeze could be an

[1:11:38] option. A lot of people or different

[1:11:41] organizations might say, "Oh, we're just

[1:11:43] going to stop doing whatever. No more

[1:11:46] training. Uh we're not paying for

[1:11:48] certifications. We're not going to

[1:11:49] offer, you know, we're not going to pay

[1:11:51] for this line of of business." Um that's

[1:11:54] one way to do it. Um service reductions

[1:11:57] are another way to look at um either um

[1:12:01] bringing down a level of service,

[1:12:03] eliminating services. Um there's a lot

[1:12:05] of ways to get to um what those might

[1:12:07] be. Um, another way to fill a um a

[1:12:10] budget gap is to increase revenue. So,

[1:12:14] um, there's only so many ways that

[1:12:16] revenue can be increased um, with our

[1:12:19] particular um, situation, but looking at

[1:12:21] revenues might be a way um, to also um,

[1:12:26] reduce the gap. And then um finally,

[1:12:29] there's a lot of just tools in the

[1:12:31] toolkit for um the manager and for um

[1:12:35] finance and budget staff as we work

[1:12:38] through budget preparation and that um

[1:12:40] we already talked about like uh

[1:12:42] personnel lapses and right right sizing

[1:12:44] how much we think we're going to fill

[1:12:46] positions or how much turnover we think

[1:12:48] we're going to experience. Um and

[1:12:50] there's a lot of tools that we do that

[1:12:52] are just kind of invisible behind the

[1:12:54] scenes that we can use to um help

[1:12:56] mitigate um budget. So um there's a lot

[1:13:00] of options um available to us. This is

[1:13:03] certainly not a comprehensive list, but

[1:13:05] those are kind of the the big highlights

[1:13:06] of how um particularly governmental

[1:13:08] organizations um look to reduce um

[1:13:11] budgets.

[1:13:13] >> Go ahead.

[1:13:14] >> If I could add my color. Uh Angie said

[1:13:16] that it's it's her job to present my uh

[1:13:18] job to add colorful commentary.

[1:13:20] [laughter]

[1:13:21] So I just want to remind people that on

[1:13:23] budget assumptions that is certainly one

[1:13:25] way to make you know changing those is

[1:13:28] certainly one way to make our budget and

[1:13:30] our actuals match uh more accurately but

[1:13:33] it is not um reducing what we spend or

[1:13:36] increasing what we earn. So um it's it's

[1:13:40] the tool that like uh just makes us more

[1:13:43] accurate. it doesn't actually change our

[1:13:46] financial decision.

[1:13:50] » Thank you. [clears throat]

[1:13:51] Um so as as staff we've talked about

[1:13:53] like how we might recommend that we move

[1:13:55] forward and um our recommendation um for

[1:13:59] your consideration is a combination of

[1:14:01] looking at service reductions.

[1:14:04] um there are some places where we may be

[1:14:05] able to adjust revenue and then um just

[1:14:08] you know internally we'll use those

[1:14:10] tools um associated with budget

[1:14:12] assumptions um to tighten things up. So

[1:14:15] um that would be our our recommendation

[1:14:17] going forward. Um

[1:14:20] that decision doesn't necessarily have

[1:14:22] to be made tonight. Um but Chair Wald

[1:14:25] might be a great place to pause and see

[1:14:27] if there are any questions.

[1:14:37] I've got one.

[1:14:39] I I it is to me it's really helpful to

[1:14:43] have this terminology here around

[1:14:45] options so that

[1:14:48] you know I think these will be ongoing

[1:14:49] conversations and we can use shared

[1:14:51] vocabulary.

[1:14:53] You know some things that have been

[1:14:54] suggested

[1:14:57] um

[1:14:59] you know that people have been talking

[1:15:00] about I'm curious what category you'd

[1:15:03] put them in. Um

[1:15:07] shifting to more debt has been something

[1:15:11] that's been discussed um as we were

[1:15:14] preparing for these ballot initiatives

[1:15:16] that you know we we may things that

[1:15:18] typically would have been covered by

[1:15:21] revenue you know can be put

[1:15:24] to voters for debt financing. Um, and

[1:15:29] you know, the other things are kind of

[1:15:31] redirecting revenues that used to go to

[1:15:33] some things and maybe now should go

[1:15:36] somewhere else. So, we're going to talk

[1:15:38] about one of those tonight with dockage

[1:15:40] fees, which used to go somewhere and

[1:15:42] we're like, maybe we should go somewhere

[1:15:44] else. Hotel bed tax also comes to mind.

[1:15:46] Should I be thinking about those as kind

[1:15:50] of in the revenue increase

[1:15:52] bucket? You know,

[1:15:55] in terms of what you're recommending, do

[1:15:57] those things kind of fit

[1:16:00] neatly in any category?

[1:16:04] >> Thank you, Chair. Well, um I'd like to

[1:16:07] um tackle those um very distinctly. So,

[1:16:11] um let's deal with this the the second

[1:16:13] thought process that you brought up f um

[1:16:15] first, which is um reallocating revenue

[1:16:19] or redirecting revenue. Um I think that does fall in in the revenue um

[1:16:25] conversation, not necessarily increasing

[1:16:27] revenue, but I but I do think it's it is

[1:16:30] it could be um a combination of um a

[1:16:34] service reduction and a revenue

[1:16:37] increase, right? So, if we used to spend

[1:16:39] revenue here and we don't want to do

[1:16:40] that anymore, that might be a service

[1:16:42] reduction and then taking that revenue

[1:16:44] and allocating it somewhere else. Um,

[1:16:48] as far as like putting in category, um,

[1:16:50] I think you could certainly, um, put

[1:16:52] that in kind of a revenue increase

[1:16:54] category. Um, a revenue reallocation,

[1:16:57] um, would fit in there. Um the first

[1:16:59] item that you mentioned about using um

[1:17:02] debt perhaps

[1:17:04] um as an option. Um I think these budget

[1:17:08] reduction options that are in the memo

[1:17:12] are really geared towards operations. So

[1:17:15] operational reductions to the budget.

[1:17:18] When we talk about utilizing debt, we

[1:17:21] should not be talking about debt to run

[1:17:23] our operations, right? So debt is really

[1:17:25] geared around projects. And so um it it

[1:17:30] might be that um we want to use debt as

[1:17:34] a mechanism to fund various

[1:17:37] infrastructure projects or capital

[1:17:39] projects more so um in the future than

[1:17:43] whereas we may have just taken fund

[1:17:44] balance and allocated. Um but that is

[1:17:47] definitely [clears throat]

[1:17:48] um more of a a one-time

[1:17:51] um usage of funds. And so we would want

[1:17:54] to talk about um the utilization of debt

[1:17:57] more in a in a capital project kind of

[1:18:00] discussion. Although um you know when it comes time to um revisit some of

[1:18:07] these uh temporary sales tax, maybe the

[1:18:10] structure that's presented um looks

[1:18:13] different going to the voters the next

[1:18:15] time around than what we have today. And

[1:18:18] so that might be um you know part of the

[1:18:20] conversation. But certainly when we talk

[1:18:22] about debt we should really focus that

[1:18:24] on um funding of projects certainly not

[1:18:28] funding of operation and that was the

[1:18:29] intent of these reductions was more

[1:18:31] operationally speaking

[1:18:34] >> makes sense. Thanks Mr. Smith.

[1:18:40] » Thank you Madam Chair. Um

[1:18:43] I guess I it's not a question. It's more

[1:18:46] of a comment.

[1:18:48] So if we're if we're not if we're not

[1:18:50] ready to get there quite yet, then then

[1:18:52] that's fine. I um I did just have a

[1:18:55] comment about the budget assumptions,

[1:18:57] especially in light of the you know the

[1:18:59] response to my question earlier on um

[1:19:02] investment returns and how those can

[1:19:03] swing in both directions. So but I can

[1:19:07] I'll hold it for now.

[1:19:08] >> Yeah, let's hold for now. I think we're

[1:19:11] going to get pretty I bet lots of folks

[1:19:13] are an anxious here to get to a little

[1:19:16] bit more discussion. Um,

[1:19:20] you want to talk us through more about

[1:19:24] um I guess FY well we'll start with FY26

[1:19:28] and I think some of the stuff will come

[1:19:29] up.

[1:19:30] >> Okay. Um certainly so um

[1:19:35] you know given given the fact that we

[1:19:37] did have um particularly [clears throat]

[1:19:40] um interest earnings that we hadn't

[1:19:42] counted on um we have we have the

[1:19:46] opportunity to um take some time to make

[1:19:51] thoughtful decisions about

[1:19:55] reductions that we need to make. So, um,

[1:19:59] we, you know, certainly we could make

[1:20:02] some decisions today to make service

[1:20:06] reductions today. Um but you know

[1:20:10] certainly any reductions that any

[1:20:12] service reductions that we make um have

[1:20:15] an impact and um I would suspect that

[1:20:17] the body wants to um take some time to

[1:20:21] um thoughtfully consider those. um

[1:20:25] engage the public in those. And um I

[1:20:29] think that we have an opportunity to um

[1:20:33] utilize some of that extra revenue that

[1:20:35] we got in 25 to give us the time to make

[1:20:39] thoughtful decisions on where we want to

[1:20:41] make reductions. And so when we think

[1:20:44] about FY26,

[1:20:46] um our recommendation would be to have

[1:20:49] the assembly take the time to make those

[1:20:52] thoughtful decisions rather than jumping

[1:20:54] to um cut things um right away and and

[1:20:58] allow yourselves the time to um engage

[1:21:01] in a public process that's meaningful to

[1:21:03] you to get the um information that you

[1:21:05] need to make those decisions.

[1:21:07] Um [snorts]

[1:21:08] we did um there are um um a couple

[1:21:11] things that we'd like to bring out about

[1:21:13] FY26.

[1:21:14] So, um, when we distributed

[1:21:20] general fundbased

[1:21:22] assembly grants that were approved in

[1:21:24] the FY26 budget, um, we distributed a

[1:21:27] portion of those grants. Um, and we let

[1:21:31] those grantees know that we would get

[1:21:33] back to them mid November to um after

[1:21:36] the election came through and and the

[1:21:38] assembly had a chance to discuss um kind

[1:21:41] of what we needed to do going forward in

[1:21:43] response to the election. Um we would

[1:21:46] let them know if the full FY26 amount

[1:21:49] would be um remitted out to them or if

[1:21:53] there would need to be um a reduction in

[1:21:56] the FY26 grants. And so we do um need to

[1:22:01] provide some guidance to or we need your

[1:22:04] guidance so we can provide communication

[1:22:06] to those assembly grantees about the

[1:22:08] FY26 distribution of grants.

[1:22:12] Um handed out to you um was a sheet of

[1:22:16] paper that has the list of the grantees,

[1:22:18] the amount that was budgeted, what has

[1:22:20] actually been dispersed to them, and

[1:22:22] what's remaining to be dispersed. um not

[1:22:26] all of those fall fall in this category.

[1:22:28] Some of those um grantees are

[1:22:31] reimbursement grantees. Some of those

[1:22:33] grantees have marine passenger fee

[1:22:34] funds. So those are kind of outside the

[1:22:36] scope of the conversation, but that's um

[1:22:39] what what to do next on assembly grants

[1:22:41] is something that we will be looking for

[1:22:44] um your guidance on um tonight. Um there

[1:22:47] may be other things that you wish to

[1:22:49] give um staff guidance on. Um if there

[1:22:53] are areas where you want to pause on

[1:22:55] programs

[1:22:57] um you know for instance we know the

[1:22:58] affordable housing program grants and

[1:23:01] loans um is in process but no official

[1:23:04] awards have been made yet. That could be

[1:23:07] a potential area where you may want to

[1:23:08] just pause on that um and decide if you

[1:23:12] want to really want to give those grants

[1:23:13] or loans out this year or not. Um, we've

[1:23:18] already spent a lot of time talking

[1:23:19] about um, projects and certainly um, not

[1:23:24] doing projects doesn't solve a recurring

[1:23:27] revenue gap. Um, but there may be other

[1:23:30] projects that you want to

[1:23:32] um, have staff pause on. U, whether that

[1:23:35] be onetime expenditures or actual

[1:23:38] projects. Um, we mentioned a couple in

[1:23:41] the um, memo. Um the gondola project is

[1:23:44] one that um we know is going to require

[1:23:47] more funding um you know under the

[1:23:50] assembly direction. We're moving forward

[1:23:52] on that. Um so that that might be one

[1:23:56] where you want to to have staff take

[1:23:58] pause. Um [clears throat] we know that

[1:24:03] um there's additional funds that we're

[1:24:05] going to need to allocate to the um

[1:24:08] renovation of the Burns building to move

[1:24:09] staff in there. Um we know that that's

[1:24:12] coming up. Um there are other projects.

[1:24:15] Um some of them we've mentioned tonight

[1:24:17] already in discussion about projects. Um

[1:24:19] the waterfront city museum um the North

[1:24:22] State Office parking building parking

[1:24:24] garage. Um there are just some out there

[1:24:26] that we know um might be um of interest

[1:24:30] for the assembly to pause. And so

[1:24:32] whether we want to take action on those

[1:24:34] tonight, some questions that we have for

[1:24:36] you is whether or not you want um staff

[1:24:40] um or I guess staff recommends that we

[1:24:42] don't um make any broad service

[1:24:45] reductions or formal operating budget

[1:24:48] reductions right now for 26. Um and um

[1:24:52] you know the assembly guidance on that

[1:24:55] um or if you have guidance on where you

[1:24:57] want reductions to happen um we would

[1:25:00] need to hear that from you. Um, we do

[1:25:02] have um a question about um having you

[1:25:05] all direct to us to either distribute or

[1:25:08] not distribute the rest of the remaining

[1:25:10] assembly grant funds and then um just

[1:25:13] you know if there's any direction that

[1:25:15] you want to give staff on FY26

[1:25:18] one-time expenses or projects that might

[1:25:20] be out there and if there's commentary

[1:25:23] that you want to provide to that.

[1:25:28] » Oh, thank you Director Flick. I think

[1:25:29] you did a great job summarizing uh the guidance that we're looking for. You

[1:25:34] know, we appreciate that there's a lot

[1:25:36] of uh public process and assembly um

[1:25:40] debate that needs to happen around uh

[1:25:43] service reductions and around cuts, but

[1:25:46] we also want to make sure that um you

[1:25:48] know that those decisions rest in your

[1:25:50] hands. So, if if you see things that

[1:25:52] need to be addressed sooner because of

[1:25:54] the direct impacts in FY26, we are we're

[1:25:56] ready to have those conversations. So

[1:25:59] this is an opportunity to give us that

[1:26:00] direction.

[1:26:03] » Any last questions on staff

[1:26:07] recommendations on FY26 or the general

[1:26:09] state before we have a conversation?

[1:26:12] Mayor Weldon.

[1:26:14] >> Thank you. So just the FY26

[1:26:16] recommendation. So if we used um

[1:26:20] the 6.4 million that leaves us 8.5

[1:26:23] million roughly in our unrestricted fund

[1:26:25] balance. Is that correct?

[1:26:29] Uh, Mayor Weldon, the um FY 26 expected

[1:26:35] fund balance given the actions that the

[1:26:37] assembly have taken so far.

[1:26:41] Give me a moment while I find the page

[1:26:42] in the packet. Uh, page 23 of the

[1:26:45] packet, the last of the FI25 update. You

[1:26:48] currently have 15 million um sitting in

[1:26:52] your unrestricted fund balance. That

[1:26:54] includes an anticipated revenue

[1:26:56] reduction

[1:26:58] of um

[1:27:01] is it 6.7 million 6.4 million um that we

[1:27:05] anticipate of loss revenue from sales

[1:27:08] tax. So you would still have 15 million

[1:27:11] left in your unrestricted fund balance

[1:27:15] >> projected at the end of the fiscal year

[1:27:18] 26.

[1:27:18] >> That is correct.

[1:27:23] » Caster I I will just highlight that that

[1:27:25] um does not include IFFF and PSA uh

[1:27:29] negotiated wage increases. Um so just

[1:27:32] always keep that in the back of your

[1:27:34] head as another liability.

[1:27:41] But it does ask Oh, I saw some estimates

[1:27:44] on that somewhere in here. Never mind.

[1:27:47] Um, Miss Hugh Scandies, the Mr.

[1:27:50] Steininger.

[1:27:51] Uh, thanks Madame Chair. I just want to

[1:27:57] address a number in the paragraph. I'm

[1:28:00] looking at page 26 on the gondola

[1:28:02] project.

[1:28:04] um was in another meeting about that

[1:28:09] project today and got to talk to well

[1:28:11] our friends were in the room uh on that

[1:28:14] project. He

[1:28:15] >> still is.

[1:28:15] >> Oh, I didn't see him. There he is. You

[1:28:17] moved, Mr. Simmons. Um the uh best guess

[1:28:22] that we have there. Now, those numbers I

[1:28:25] think are different than the updated

[1:28:27] numbers I heard today. So, Mr. Bar was

[1:28:30] in that meeting and I just want to

[1:28:32] verify that. So the entire assembly has

[1:28:35] that same information when we're looking

[1:28:37] and thinking about all of this. In the

[1:28:41] memo I'm looking at here. It says if we

[1:28:44] our best guess is that if we pulled out

[1:28:46] now, we would have a sun cost of 10.8

[1:28:49] million and have to write a check to

[1:28:51] Gold Belt for 11.7 million. But my

[1:28:56] understanding is that based on the

[1:28:59] unspent funds, if we were to pull out

[1:29:01] today, the check that we would be

[1:29:04] writing to gold belt would be more like

[1:29:06] 7 million. Is that correct?

[1:29:10] >> Thank you, Miss Handies. Um, we believe

[1:29:14] the new money that the assembly would

[1:29:16] have to come up, we would still have to

[1:29:17] write a check for 11.7 million, but the

[1:29:20] new money that we would need to come up

[1:29:21] with based on the amount that is

[1:29:23] currently in the fund unspent would be

[1:29:26] about 6 million.

[1:29:28] >> 6 million. Okay. So, 6 million in

[1:29:32] additional funds with what we have

[1:29:34] today. Thank you,

[1:29:40] » Mayor Weldon. Oh, I missed Mr.

[1:29:43] Steininger. Sorry. Okay.

[1:29:46] >> And I don't know if I'm going out of

[1:29:47] order of the kind of way you wanted to

[1:29:50] organize questions. My question is

[1:29:52] related to the assembly grants that have

[1:29:54] been distributed. Are you okay with

[1:29:56] >> any any questions related to what we're

[1:29:59] going to that'll help inform your

[1:30:00] decision about FY26 or open

[1:30:05] season right now?

[1:30:06] >> All right. Thank you. Um, so with all

[1:30:10] them the funds we withheld on those

[1:30:12] grants, what kind of feedback have we

[1:30:15] received from the grantees? Is

[1:30:16] withholding those funds causing problems

[1:30:20] with payroll, causing problems with

[1:30:21] getting projects moved, causing other

[1:30:25] financing problems for any of these

[1:30:27] grantees? Are there like specific pain

[1:30:30] points that we should know about?

[1:30:33] like is that decision something urgently

[1:30:36] that needs to be decided today or

[1:30:38] something that we might have more time

[1:30:40] to discuss as we think about how much

[1:30:42] money we want to make sure we move into

[1:30:45] FY27.

[1:30:49] » Thank you, Mr. Steininger.

[1:30:51] We haven't had a lot of communication

[1:30:53] from assembly grantees on this topic.

[1:30:55] There has certainly been some I would

[1:30:58] say that of all of the assembly grantees

[1:31:00] there have been four or five that have

[1:31:02] been in direct contact with me who have

[1:31:04] been experiencing challenges with their

[1:31:06] budgets. Um you know of of the assembly

[1:31:10] grantees they vary widely in what

[1:31:14] percentage of their total budget comes

[1:31:16] from an assembly grant versus other

[1:31:19] sources. And as you would expect, those

[1:31:21] grantees who receive a larger portion of

[1:31:23] their budget from the assembly are

[1:31:25] struggling more or would struggle more

[1:31:27] without full funding. Um, and and those

[1:31:30] with smaller percentages struggled less.

[1:31:33] Um,

[1:31:36] if that doesn't fully answer your

[1:31:38] question, I'm happy to take another stab

[1:31:39] at it.

[1:31:43] If I could interject there about do we

[1:31:46] have to make the decision tonight or

[1:31:48] later. We did communicate to the

[1:31:50] grantees that we would get back to them

[1:31:51] in mid- November and so we need to

[1:31:55] provide them

[1:31:57] some feedback.

[1:32:04] If we wanted to delay that decision or

[1:32:07] deliberate on that decision longer,

[1:32:11] would it be a workable solution to

[1:32:12] release maybe another trans trunch of

[1:32:15] money? Like a smaller trunch might not

[1:32:17] the entire amount but small cost buys us

[1:32:21] some time in the bigger decision or you

[1:32:25] know could we get a better understanding

[1:32:27] of those grantees where there are

[1:32:30] problems and I don't necessarily need

[1:32:31] you to like list them out here. It could

[1:32:33] be something that we get in a memo and

[1:32:35] followup or something along those lines.

[1:32:40] >> Mr. Zeninger, I think you could give us

[1:32:42] direction to release another um less

[1:32:46] than full trunch if you will of of

[1:32:49] funding to the assembly grantees either

[1:32:52] as a whole. So like another 20% 30%

[1:32:56] whatever you know another you know

[1:33:00] get further along through the fiscal

[1:33:01] year keep them funded through through a

[1:33:03] portion of the fiscal year to buy

[1:33:05] yourselves more time to make decisions.

[1:33:07] Um or if you would prefer, I think we

[1:33:09] would also be able to follow direction

[1:33:11] that to um it would be more work, but to

[1:33:16] engage with uh some of the assembly

[1:33:19] grantees who we've already engaged out

[1:33:22] and summarize their experience in a

[1:33:25] memo. Um

[1:33:28] that would be more challenging, but I

[1:33:29] think we could do that, too.

[1:33:33] Mayor Weldon.

[1:33:35] >> Um following up on Mr. Steiningers and

[1:33:38] I'll put it into a question because I

[1:33:40] was just gonna um the one uh non or um

[1:33:46] grant recipient that I know that is

[1:33:48] needs to know an answer pretty quickly

[1:33:49] is the Alaska Committee because they do

[1:33:51] gavl Alaska and they're trying to and

[1:33:54] obviously they have to do it way before

[1:33:55] the legislature gets here. But my

[1:33:58] question um is actually in the FY26 have

[1:34:03] we accounted for these grants already?

[1:34:07] Thank you, Mayor Walden. Um yes, as we

[1:34:11] um provided the budget summary toward um

[1:34:14] for you, it anticipates that all of

[1:34:16] these grants are fully released to the

[1:34:18] grantees.

[1:34:24] » Any other questions?

[1:34:31] Go ahead, Miss Hall.

[1:34:33] >> I'm wondering with with the assembly

[1:34:35] grants if we have kind of a triage

[1:34:38] system, you know, what is life and

[1:34:40] safety? Um, you know, I I see child care

[1:34:43] is always rising to the top as uh a

[1:34:46] great need in in um across the state,

[1:34:50] you know. So, do we have something that

[1:34:52] if we take this money away, they're, you

[1:34:56] know, we're kind of going backwards. Um,

[1:34:59] but you know, but some of these other

[1:35:01] things, it's like, yeah, they'll survive

[1:35:02] without their funding. They may find

[1:35:04] another source or it it's not going to

[1:35:07] really negatively impact

[1:35:10] health safety type issues or or

[1:35:14] workforce or affordability.

[1:35:19] » If I could just a stab at answering that

[1:35:22] question. I think uh that uh criteria

[1:35:26] and metrics would be uh an excellent um

[1:35:31] use of the assembly's time and to to

[1:35:33] develop to establish your priorities as

[1:35:35] part of the of the FY27 budget process.

[1:35:38] So, I mean, I think as you look at our

[1:35:40] FY27 budget, you are going to have to

[1:35:43] ask yourselves those questions. um you

[1:35:46] know we would we would want to involve

[1:35:48] the assembly in any type of u any type

[1:35:52] of metric or matrix um and we're happy

[1:35:55] to do that but I think I think just

[1:35:57] given the highly personal nature for

[1:36:00] many of these organizations we could

[1:36:02] easily spend the next month um arguing

[1:36:05] over metrics for 40% of an assembly

[1:36:08] grant instead of really looking at what

[1:36:10] our FY27 landscape is going to

[1:36:15] follow up.

[1:36:16] >> Yeah. And I I guess I was thinking more

[1:36:18] FY27, you know, get through this, but

[1:36:21] going forward be a lot more

[1:36:24] targeted. Thank you.

[1:36:31] » Mayor Welen, maybe you could start us

[1:36:33] with a motion just on the first one just

[1:36:35] to put something on the floor um and we

[1:36:39] can walk through these.

[1:36:42] >> Okay. So, I think your first one

[1:36:45] >> would be to

[1:36:49] um

[1:36:51] I move that we

[1:36:57] absorb the $6.4 million gap this year

[1:37:00] for FY26.

[1:37:03] » Is that the one you're talking about?

[1:37:05] Uh, I think um maybe it would be easier

[1:37:10] if you stick to the or I know there's

[1:37:13] two places, but

[1:37:17] the action number one here. I I think

[1:37:20] you're saying the same thing, but it may

[1:37:21] be easier to

[1:37:23] >> I'll turn to that page because the other

[1:37:25] page didn't have it. [clears throat]

[1:37:26] >> Okay. Yeah.

[1:37:28] >> All right.

[1:37:28] >> Page 26, action number one. Um,

[1:37:32] >> doesn't have it either. I'm going to the

[1:37:33] last page. So,

[1:37:35] >> okay, this does not need to be the way I

[1:37:38] was the staff have a recommendation.

[1:37:40] Maybe we could put that on the floor.

[1:37:44] >> I'll try again. I uh um moved to direct

[1:37:48] staff to not do any broad service

[1:37:51] reductions or formal operating budget

[1:37:53] reductions for FY26,

[1:37:56] but fund FY26 from the unrestricted fund

[1:38:01] balance. Does that work?

[1:38:06] staff. That's clear. Motion. Okay. All

[1:38:09] right. Um

[1:38:12] I'll say any objections, but because

[1:38:14] we're just starting this conversation,

[1:38:16] even if you don't object, but you'd like

[1:38:18] to make a comment, you are welcome to.

[1:38:23] Mr. Smith.

[1:38:25] >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um,

[1:38:27] I I would I would be interested in

[1:38:31] seeing what the proposed service

[1:38:34] reductions were

[1:38:39] for 26

[1:38:41] [clears throat]

[1:38:42] >> like the assemblies or the the managers

[1:38:48] or

[1:38:48] >> um sorry and and maybe I should that

[1:38:50] should have been a question. When I read

[1:38:52] that, I was believing it to be like that

[1:38:56] staff and, you know, city leadership had

[1:38:59] come back with had come back with um

[1:39:02] service reduction ideas.

[1:39:05] Am I incorrect in in what that second

[1:39:08] sentence means?

[1:39:10] >> I understand now. Um I'll ask staff that

[1:39:13] whether

[1:39:15] s several service reductions ideas were

[1:39:17] brought forward meant in the community

[1:39:20] from the assembly or from you all.

[1:39:25] >> Thank you uh chair wall. So, um I did

[1:39:27] put out a uh call to department heads um

[1:39:32] and we had a we they're very concerned

[1:39:34] about this topic and so we've had

[1:39:36] meetings and multiple communications on

[1:39:38] it uh to suggest uh service reductions

[1:39:41] that you know might be uh natural or an

[1:39:43] easier fit uh for their department. A

[1:39:46] great example is a service that maybe

[1:39:48] was added in this year's budget that we

[1:39:50] haven't been able to hire for. Is that

[1:39:52] something that makes sense uh to pause?

[1:39:54] So, I don't have a full list of those

[1:39:57] for you tonight, but I'd be happy to

[1:39:58] bring that back to you.

[1:40:01] >> All right. I'm hearing an objection. I

[1:40:05] had other people before you unless

[1:40:08] >> Sure.

[1:40:08] >> Sorry to interrupt. That wasn't part of

[1:40:10] my motion. Just so you know, that

[1:40:11] particular line, second line, I skipped.

[1:40:15] >> I said no broad service reductions or

[1:40:17] formal operating. I did not touch the

[1:40:19] second sentence.

[1:40:25] Now maybe I'm confused. Um

[1:40:31] staff

[1:40:32] are you

[1:40:33] >> can we take a read just for a few

[1:40:35] minutes?

[1:43:04] Let's take a 10-minute break and we will

[1:43:07] come back.

[1:53:31] All

[1:53:47] right, I am going to bring us back.

[1:53:51] I see Mr. Smith is still with us. Okay.

[1:53:54] So, I think where we are at is the mayor

[1:53:57] has ma made a motion

[1:54:00] um to decide tonight that we are not

[1:54:03] going to be looking at service

[1:54:05] reductions in FY26.

[1:54:08] And Mr. Smith has objected because he

[1:54:10] would like to see the staff

[1:54:12] recommendations on service reductions

[1:54:15] before making that decision. That is my

[1:54:17] interpretation

[1:54:19] of what where we're at. Mr. Smith. Is

[1:54:23] that a good articulation?

[1:54:28] » I I I do I do think that's fair. Yes.

[1:54:32] Thanks.

[1:54:36] » Any questions on the motion?

[1:54:39] Okay. Um I know we had I believe we had comments from Mr.

[1:54:46] Steininger and Missu Scandies. Go ahead,

[1:54:49] Mr. Steininger.

[1:54:51] And so I guess I I like the the spirit

[1:54:53] of the motion in that I don't think we

[1:54:56] should be looking at stopping doing

[1:54:59] things we're currently doing now within

[1:55:02] the course of the fiscal year. Like I

[1:55:03] don't think we should be looking at pink

[1:55:05] slipping employees, shut down

[1:55:07] facilities. Um but maybe in the spirit

[1:55:10] of what Mr. Smith was suggesting, you

[1:55:12] know, if there and what manager Kester

[1:55:14] mentioned, if there are things that it's

[1:55:18] not that we're stopping doing something

[1:55:20] we're doing now, but we're not going to

[1:55:23] do something you have planned to do in

[1:55:24] the next six months to save a bit of

[1:55:26] money or

[1:55:29] finding ways to increase the lapse or

[1:55:31] those kind of smaller tools that you

[1:55:32] have as a manager to push down cost. I'd

[1:55:36] like to see those. If there's something

[1:55:37] you feel like has to come to an assembly

[1:55:39] decision of, yeah, hey, we weren't able

[1:55:42] to hire this position. So, we're

[1:55:43] thinking about just stopping trying. I

[1:55:47] see that a little bit different than

[1:55:49] service level reductions, I guess. And

[1:55:51] maybe that's just me trying to think

[1:55:52] through how I should be interpreting the

[1:55:54] motion that the mayor made. Um because I

[1:55:57] do think we need expectation of city

[1:56:00] staff that to make it smoother and

[1:56:04] easier when we come into our FY27

[1:56:06] deliberations, there's not new things

[1:56:08] that you're starting three months from

[1:56:10] now that we may have to cut in the FY27

[1:56:14] budget. Um, and so I guess I just wanted

[1:56:17] to make that comment on the record to

[1:56:20] kind of set that expectation

[1:56:22] and also kind of get feedback from the

[1:56:24] mayor to see if that's how I should be

[1:56:27] understanding the motion.

[1:56:30] >> Go ahead, Madame Mayor.

[1:56:32] >> I was going to look at staff because I

[1:56:33] would be in agreement with Mr.

[1:56:35] Steininger that I wouldn't like to see

[1:56:37] anything new. Um, if we haven't started

[1:56:39] design, let's not start a design. if we

[1:56:42] haven't done an service but we were

[1:56:43] looking at it let's not go ahead with

[1:56:45] that service um even to the extent um but this is

[1:56:51] going to be for another discussion but

[1:56:53] like the diversion center is this the

[1:56:55] time we say let's just deal with the

[1:56:59] compost right now and that's going to be

[1:57:01] pushed off for years but I just don't

[1:57:03] want to start anything new but I agree

[1:57:05] with Mr. Mr. Steininger, if there's

[1:57:07] obvious little cuts here and there,

[1:57:08] that's fine. But I don't think we do

[1:57:10] major ones. But if I need to amend my

[1:57:13] motion to say that, I'd be happy to. But

[1:57:15] or do you have enough direction on the

[1:57:17] motion?

[1:57:17] >> Kit,

[1:57:19] maybe I'd just take a crack of my

[1:57:22] understanding. There is a third question

[1:57:25] here about any direction on one-time or

[1:57:29] project funding for FY26. So, we could

[1:57:32] make a decision. don't cut services, but

[1:57:34] we can also later in this conversation

[1:57:37] talk about are there things projects on

[1:57:40] the horizon that we want to pause or cut

[1:57:42] or something. It I'll turn it over to

[1:57:46] the manager to see if I'm characterizing

[1:57:49] the direction that you want accurately.

[1:57:53] >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um I'm just

[1:57:55] going to summarize uh Assembly Member

[1:57:58] Steininger's comments. Um, I think

[1:58:01] giving the manager's office direction

[1:58:03] to, you know, be judicious, not start

[1:58:07] new things, um, is something that we can

[1:58:10] do. Uh, and you might get some

[1:58:12] complaints, right? Because we might have

[1:58:13] some, uh, parks and rec programming, for

[1:58:15] example, that doesn't happen when when

[1:58:18] people are expecting it to happen. Um, I

[1:58:20] think that I can do and I don't know

[1:58:22] that I would spend assembly time going

[1:58:24] through all of those things. Um I also

[1:58:27] really appreciate separating the um

[1:58:29] operating and the capital questions

[1:58:30] because when Mayor Welen said if you

[1:58:33] haven't started design on a project then

[1:58:35] don't that has far greater implications

[1:58:38] for our ability to

[1:58:41] do the things that we need to do to run

[1:58:43] the city. So um I think taking those two items separately would help provide

[1:58:47] me clarity.

[1:58:52] Mayor Weldon to

[1:58:54] >> stay with the intent of the original

[1:58:56] motion. [laughter] We'll address the

[1:58:58] other one.

[1:59:00] >> Mr. Sner, is that are you satisfied with

[1:59:03] those answers? Okay.

[1:59:06] >> Mr. Smith, do you have Oh, sorry. Miss

[1:59:10] Hugh Gandies was on the list and hasn't

[1:59:12] spoken yet. Miss Hugh Gandies.

[1:59:15] >> Thank you, Madam Chair.

[1:59:18] I think that helps me to think about

[1:59:21] this uh separately between projects and

[1:59:25] operating. And I think it will be

[1:59:28] helpful throughout this entire process

[1:59:30] to try to as much as I can think and

[1:59:33] speak in those different tools that you

[1:59:35] outlined in this memo of different ways

[1:59:38] of

[1:59:40] um conserving cost. Um,

[1:59:44] I would say that I am more of the

[1:59:51] mind that to absorb it, which is another

[1:59:56] way of saying uh, with these broad cuts

[2:00:00] feels wrong to me to where I would want

[2:00:03] to identify

[2:00:05] what those operating constraints would

[2:00:08] be, whether

[2:00:11] I agree I think that's a good way of

[2:00:13] characterizing it. Not like pink

[2:00:15] slipping people or to that end of uh if

[2:00:20] it's a spectrum, I guess. Um

[2:00:24] I think it's partially

[2:00:30] with what it what it would look like

[2:00:33] potentially or I'd be interested in what

[2:00:34] it would look like if we didn't

[2:00:36] institute uh if we didn't give the

[2:00:37] direction to say hiring freeze. don't

[2:00:40] hire anyone else.

[2:00:43] Understanding that there would be

[2:00:46] service reductions that wouldn't be

[2:00:48] necessarily cuts to services, but it

[2:00:51] would affect services. It might affect

[2:00:54] coverage. It might affect um things like

[2:00:57] uh parks programming is a good example

[2:01:00] that I was sort of imagining.

[2:01:03] I would be, I think, interested in

[2:01:05] looking at things like that for FY26

[2:01:08] before I said with this unexpected

[2:01:11] revenue, we're just going to absorb it.

[2:01:14] And I think the magnitude of the

[2:01:16] decisions we're going to make and the

[2:01:19] amount of time that we have to make

[2:01:21] them, uh, it just feels more,

[2:01:25] um, it feels better for me as trying to

[2:01:29] be a good steward, uh, of public funds

[2:01:32] throughout this process and at the same

[2:01:35] time make sure we're engaging the public

[2:01:37] in this process. Not that we are doing

[2:01:40] something panicked and willy-nilly. I

[2:01:43] and I'm apologize for the ramble, but

[2:01:46] I'm trying to give direction that

[2:01:50] demonstrates where I'm at personally. I

[2:01:53] appreciate the sentiment of wanting to

[2:01:55] make thoughtful decisions

[2:01:58] um and not make panicked cuts,

[2:02:01] but I think knowing the remaining months

[2:02:06] that are in FY26,

[2:02:09] I would want to start identifying some

[2:02:11] of those things.

[2:02:14] So, that's where I'm at.

[2:02:23] others.

[2:02:27] I'll speak

[2:02:30] um I'll speak in support of this motion.

[2:02:33] Um,

[2:02:37] I think that

[2:02:39] the

[2:02:41] I like to be holistic in my decision-

[2:02:44] making when I can that we are really for

[2:02:48] making service cuts, cuts to the

[2:02:51] fundamental things that the city does

[2:02:54] that we are engaging the public.

[2:02:58] We're being thoughtful.

[2:03:00] we're taking our time to do it because

[2:03:01] once you cut something

[2:03:04] it is not easy to come back. Um I

[2:03:09] appreciate

[2:03:10] the but I but I also share Miss Hughes

[2:03:13] Gandandy and I think Mr. Steininger's

[2:03:15] and and maybe even Mr. miss um I think

[2:03:19] where they're coming from which is you

[2:03:21] know we have to we have to start having

[2:03:24] these conversations soon and I'm not

[2:03:28] opposed to when we get to talking about

[2:03:31] one time or project funding you know

[2:03:33] pausing things or even hiring freezes if

[2:03:36] that's a option that we think makes

[2:03:38] sense to say hold on we we can't

[2:03:44] keep spending because we know what's

[2:03:46] coming. So I don't think it's time to do

[2:03:49] service reductions in FY26 knowing that

[2:03:52] we have significant service reductions

[2:03:55] planned for FY27. And I want to be

[2:03:57] thoughtful and because we have been so

[2:03:59] conser or this assembly past assemblies

[2:04:02] have been so conservative about how

[2:04:04] they've budgeted and because our

[2:04:07] investments did well we actually had the

[2:04:09] space to do that. We saw what the school

[2:04:11] board had to do when they had two months

[2:04:13] to make big decisions.

[2:04:16] That was extremely challenging for the

[2:04:19] public. So, um

[2:04:23] any little rabbit holes we go down about

[2:04:26] pool hours or um you know, other things

[2:04:30] I think are going to it's going to be a

[2:04:31] big waste of time for what we really

[2:04:33] need to do. So, thank you,

[2:04:36] >> Mr. Smith. I saw Mayor Weldon. Oh,

[2:04:42] >> I saw Miss the [clears throat] order. I

[2:04:44] saw people's hands. Miss Hall, Mayor

[2:04:46] Weldon, and Mr. Smith.

[2:04:49] >> And I would speak in favor of no broad

[2:04:52] service reduction. So, in favor of the

[2:04:54] motion and looking forward to FY27, I

[2:04:59] think we really need to pull the public

[2:05:01] in on this and have them help us make

[2:05:04] these decisions. and and that would be

[2:05:06] another reason I wouldn't want to

[2:05:09] willy-nilly start cutting things

[2:05:13] in in FY26. I think this should be a

[2:05:16] very public engagement process.

[2:05:20] >> I'm going to go to um Mr. Brooks first

[2:05:23] um because he hasn't spoken yet on this

[2:05:25] topic and then we'll have Mayor Wald Mr.

[2:05:28] Smith.

[2:05:30] >> Thank you, Madam Chair.

[2:05:32] I I think

[2:05:35] you know the the desire of the community

[2:05:39] through this past election cycle was

[2:05:43] pretty much you know asking for uh you

[2:05:47] know a a tighter constraint or a more

[2:05:50] efficiency within the operation. So I

[2:05:55] think you know looking at something even

[2:05:58] if it's small and supplemental for the

[2:06:00] remainder of the year should be worth

[2:06:02] considering and if that is a hiring

[2:06:05] freeze maybe it's a hiring freeze for

[2:06:07] non-emergency departments and even in

[2:06:10] accompaniment with that could even

[2:06:12] consider uh a cap on overtime for

[2:06:16] non-emergency departments for the

[2:06:18] remainder of the year as well.

[2:06:21] >> Mr. Mr. Brics, will you specify if you

[2:06:22] are objecting or um supporting the

[2:06:26] motion?

[2:06:29] » I'm object objecting to the motion.

[2:06:33] >> All right. I have Mayor Weldon and Mr.

[2:06:36] Smith.

[2:06:37] >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Everything that

[2:06:39] Miss Hugh Scandi said is true, and I

[2:06:41] think we need to look at everything very

[2:06:43] carefully. Unfortunately, um I think

[2:06:46] that's true for FY27 and on FY26, we're

[2:06:49] almost halfway through it and I think we

[2:06:52] will be rushed to get to some of those

[2:06:54] things. With that, I think staff will

[2:06:56] look at um cuts in services and all

[2:07:00] those kind of things as they're doing

[2:07:02] already now since they've predicted that

[2:07:04] with the ballot measures would been

[2:07:05] passed. So, I'm going to have a little

[2:07:06] faith in staff and um I think we really

[2:07:10] need to drill down to FY27, but I don't

[2:07:13] think we're going to have time to deal

[2:07:14] with FY26 and that's why I support the

[2:07:16] motion.

[2:07:19] >> Mr. Smith,

[2:07:23] [clears throat]

[2:07:24] >> thank you, Madam Chair.

[2:07:28] I definitely hear what folks are saying.

[2:07:31] I mean and and I'm trying to like tease

[2:07:35] out all the and that's that's I guess

[2:07:38] I'm you know curious about what the

[2:07:40] service reduction ideas were but um

[2:07:43] because you know for instance

[2:07:47] like hiring freezes and I don't know if

[2:07:50] those are the a good idea because even

[2:07:53] if it's a non-emergency position like we

[2:07:54] need people in CDD to permit projects to

[2:07:57] keep housing projects moving forward for

[2:07:58] instance. So, it's like some of these

[2:08:00] broad things I'm not I wouldn't say I'm

[2:08:02] totally interested in. Um I mean there's

[2:08:05] just a lot of detail in what that looks

[2:08:07] like and there's a lot of different

[2:08:09] options in that and I you know I'm

[2:08:11] hearing you know pausing new things or

[2:08:14] pausing a project or a one time funding.

[2:08:17] Anyway, I guess that's where

[2:08:21] I just don't know if we I don't I don't

[2:08:23] know if I see in the in the I don't know

[2:08:25] if I see in the motion the granularity

[2:08:28] that I'm looking for and I can

[2:08:29] understand maybe why that's

[2:08:32] probably a very long motion and and hard

[2:08:34] to hard to put together right now. Um,

[2:08:37] I'm hearing some things from the from

[2:08:38] the manager that I agree with that I'm

[2:08:40] interested in seeing and again maybe

[2:08:42] some one-time projects. We look at

[2:08:44] posits

[2:08:48] possible service reductions, some of

[2:08:50] which I think we maybe should consider

[2:08:52] for FY26.

[2:08:54] Um,

[2:08:55] so that's why I was kind of thinking,

[2:08:57] you know, continuing this discussion a

[2:09:00] bit further because it I understand that

[2:09:02] we'll be doing a lot of work on that for

[2:09:04] 27. We are probably thinking about it

[2:09:06] now though. Um, so I I guess I think I'm

[2:09:12] kind of similarly situated with with you

[2:09:15] all. It's just I don't have the

[2:09:16] granularity to say yes, don't make any,

[2:09:19] you know, any of some of these like

[2:09:22] broad surf. Anyway, I don't know if I

[2:09:23] have the granularity in the motion to

[2:09:25] feel 100% confident with it. So, I'm I'm

[2:09:28] vacasillating if I like want to remove

[2:09:30] my objection because I think we're kind

[2:09:32] of maybe on the same page, but I also do

[2:09:35] am interested in what possible service

[2:09:37] reductions could be done in 26. So, I

[2:09:40] I'll maintain I'll maintain my objection

[2:09:42] as well. I'm I I think I think I think

[2:09:46] we'll get to where I'm hoping we're

[2:09:48] going. It's just I don't know if I see

[2:09:50] that see that in or hear that in the

[2:09:53] motion that was made. So, thanks.

[2:09:56] If this motion fails, we can certainly

[2:09:58] try something else. Um, we got a long

[2:10:02] list here still. I don't think Mr. Kelly

[2:10:05] has spoken, so I'm going to let him skip

[2:10:07] the line here, but I got the rest of you

[2:10:09] on my sheet. Mr. Kelly,

[2:10:12] >> thank you. I appreciate that. Um, I

[2:10:14] think I will speak in in opposition um

[2:10:17] to this motion. I think um much along

[2:10:20] the the lines of um Mr. Smith who just

[2:10:23] spoke. Um it's not that um a vote

[2:10:27] against this would be in favor of broad

[2:10:29] reductions. I think I I want to explore

[2:10:32] um what these uh what these could be uh

[2:10:36] before we make this decision. So I think

[2:10:38] not necessarily this is the wrong

[2:10:40] decision, but it's I think it's too

[2:10:41] early to make this decision. And so I

[2:10:43] will be voting against.

[2:10:49] » All right.

[2:10:52] Mr. Steininger, you're up. I just so I

[2:10:56] keep track of everyone. I have Mr.

[2:10:57] Steininger, then Miss Candies, and then

[2:11:00] Miss Hall.

[2:11:03] So, I'm going to be specifically

[2:11:05] speaking in support of the motion, but

[2:11:08] that kind of my comments earlier than

[2:11:11] still now. I want to make sure that

[2:11:15] the manager is executing the budget.

[2:11:18] Very important. even if we're not making

[2:11:20] broad service reductions that you're

[2:11:22] executing the FY26 budget in a way that

[2:11:25] ensures that we're

[2:11:28] we have flexibility going into our 27

[2:11:30] deliberations that you know things that

[2:11:34] have ongoing impacts. You know, you you

[2:11:37] use the example of parks and recck

[2:11:39] programming. Um, but if that's something

[2:11:42] that's a, you know, oh, there's some

[2:11:43] summer programming coming up or

[2:11:45] something that's seasonal, that doesn't

[2:11:47] really obligate us into 27 doesn't

[2:11:49] create a problem, that's still within

[2:11:51] kind of the the budget that you've been

[2:11:54] given in our operating side. um that you're you have the tools to manage

[2:12:01] the budget in the way that you see best

[2:12:04] fit to both get the most laps that we

[2:12:09] can while still delivering the services

[2:12:11] that we promised when we passed the

[2:12:13] budget. Um and not, you know, kind of

[2:12:17] starting things up that you think we're

[2:12:19] probably gonna going to reassess in 27.

[2:12:23] it. I know that's kind of a fine line

[2:12:25] for you to walk down, but like I I think

[2:12:27] the mayor may have made this point, but

[2:12:30] spending a lot of time trying to make

[2:12:32] reductions in 26, I think will just

[2:12:35] distract from the really hard

[2:12:36] conversations we have to make about 27.

[2:12:39] And we're going to be spending a lot of

[2:12:41] time on those. And so when we think

[2:12:44] about this, do these discussions about

[2:12:47] 26, are they going to help us in our

[2:12:49] discussions about 27 or are they going

[2:12:52] to distract us from those discussions?

[2:12:55] Um, and I'll just add before I close, I

[2:12:59] have been involved in I think I counted

[2:13:01] in my head at least five different um

[2:13:04] hiring freezes that I was directly

[2:13:07] involved in managing and executing. And

[2:13:11] I don't think a single one of them did

[2:13:13] anything but create more bureaucracy and

[2:13:16] more headache for delivery of services

[2:13:20] with long-term implications on what the

[2:13:23] organization was able to do. So, broadly

[2:13:26] apply, I'm not in support of broadly

[2:13:28] applied hiring freezes, but

[2:13:31] I still expect you as a manager to use

[2:13:35] your discretion to make sure we're not

[2:13:38] hiring more than we absolutely need to.

[2:13:40] That you know that you recognize we're

[2:13:42] in a time of constraint. We're going to

[2:13:44] come into a much reduced budget, but

[2:13:48] we're we're trying not that this policy

[2:13:52] decision is to try not to micromanage

[2:13:54] you on the decisions, the hard decisions

[2:13:56] you have to make over the next six

[2:13:58] months while we focus on the long-term

[2:14:01] policy decisions we have to make for

[2:14:03] fiscal year 27 and beyond.

[2:14:08] Manager Ker, do you w to We This

[2:14:11] discussion is intended to give you

[2:14:14] direction and I think you know my

[2:14:19] interpretation is the

[2:14:22] Well, I'll let I'll let you respond to

[2:14:24] that comment. I won't put words in your

[2:14:26] mouth.

[2:14:27] Um I think um I um very much appreciate

[2:14:32] that direction and what I know uh you

[2:14:36] know the value of you giving me that

[2:14:38] direction is that when um small things

[2:14:42] don't move forward like maybe the public

[2:14:44] intended uh they may be part of some of

[2:14:47] those decisions. I could give you a

[2:14:48] couple examples if that's useful. uh

[2:14:50] Marie Drake uh expanding Jim Yuse at

[2:14:53] Marie Drake. We have not been able to

[2:14:55] hire for that position. Seems like the

[2:14:57] type of position that we need to just

[2:14:59] take a pause and that's an expand. It's

[2:15:02] a small very small example. Another

[2:15:03] example, uh when we lost our uh

[2:15:07] environmental sustainability coordinator

[2:15:09] that does a lot of our waste management

[2:15:10] and staffs the JCOS committee, we uh

[2:15:14] paused on advertising to hire to refill

[2:15:17] that position because um there's

[2:15:19] uncertainty in how the assembly is going

[2:15:22] to decide uh to move forward with waste.

[2:15:24] Those are uh not examples that I would

[2:15:26] consider assembly level decisions, but

[2:15:28] those are examples of uh me trying to

[2:15:31] exercise my best judgement. where you

[2:15:33] may feel that by constituents saying,

[2:15:35] "Hey, I want the support for this

[2:15:38] committee or I want, you know, this uh

[2:15:40] this service." Um, but but are examples

[2:15:43] of the type of um prudent budget

[2:15:46] decisions that I would be make that I am

[2:15:49] making and will continue to make and

[2:15:51] consider to be the spirit of Assemblyman

[2:15:53] Steininger's direction. Does that help?

[2:16:02] Miss Huskandies and Miss Hall. Thanks,

[2:16:05] Madam Chair.

[2:16:08] Lots of good stuff. I think Mr. Siger's

[2:16:11] comments very helpful, very as we are

[2:16:14] trying to dial this in and better

[2:16:17] articulate direction that is helpful to

[2:16:19] you that is more nuanced than a budget

[2:16:23] that was passed that you already have as

[2:16:25] something to refer back to. I think like

[2:16:28] Mr. Smith, I'm going back and forth

[2:16:31] between saying really then what is a

[2:16:33] harm in supporting this? So I'm just

[2:16:35] trying to flag for this body as we make

[2:16:38] decisions

[2:16:40] the sorts of things that I am thinking

[2:16:42] about because

[2:16:45] I what I primarily don't want is a focus

[2:16:50] on 26 that eats into our seven months

[2:16:55] when we need to be making decisions

[2:16:57] about 27.

[2:17:00] I think for myself I am trying to find

[2:17:02] those things that are additive that

[2:17:05] might be something we locate and

[2:17:09] identify in 26 that is also going to

[2:17:12] carry over into 27 is kind of how I was

[2:17:15] thinking about it. um

[2:17:21] 6 million 6.7 million in unexpected

[2:17:24] revenue is something that I I can almost

[2:17:27] picture with like a meter and it just

[2:17:29] drops down as we get to that 7th month

[2:17:31] period. So um in a way it buys us time

[2:17:35] and in another way it feels like we're

[2:17:36] just burning through the money without

[2:17:38] making decisions. So, I guess that's

[2:17:41] just to let you know how I'm thinking

[2:17:43] about it and the discomfort then that

[2:17:46] identifies for me. Um,

[2:17:49] I think potentially as I'm picturing I

[2:17:53] think all this discussion hopefully is

[2:17:55] helpful to you. Um,

[2:17:59] I also it is not my intention to want to

[2:18:04] micromanage those things. That's good to

[2:18:06] hear. I assume you are already doing

[2:18:09] that and I assume all department heads

[2:18:10] are already thinking about that having

[2:18:12] seen the news. I'm sure they are

[2:18:13] thinking about it all the time. Um what

[2:18:16] they might be able to identify.

[2:18:19] I think

[2:18:21] when I am trying to imagine the

[2:18:23] structure that we will use for 27, it

[2:18:25] seems natural to me that 26 might get a

[2:18:28] little bit mixed up in the froth. And

[2:18:30] that is why I was trying to kind of

[2:18:32] preserve that because

[2:18:35] it may be that

[2:18:38] as

[2:18:40] if we say just go forward with 26 making

[2:18:44] prudent budget decisions

[2:18:46] that at the next finance meeting we want

[2:18:49] to say you know can you identify

[2:18:52] potential like a partial hiring freeze

[2:18:55] and I don't know that if this body would

[2:18:57] do that Um, I don't know some of the

[2:19:01] future things we might want. Bring back

[2:19:04] a list of all vacant positions currently

[2:19:06] across the department. What would

[2:19:09] something that would be useful in

[2:19:11] regards to hiring look like? Um, I do

[2:19:14] think it's very important and and that

[2:19:17] is why it's so important we involve the

[2:19:18] public that we are giving direction and

[2:19:21] not not just turning to staff and saying

[2:19:24] bring back cuts because we don't want to

[2:19:25] make any. And I mean, we're all in a

[2:19:28] very unpleasant situation together. Um,

[2:19:34] » is that

[2:19:36] >> everybody? We're all in it together. Uh,

[2:19:38] so I I guess that's the only thing is

[2:19:40] like I'm thinking what potentially might

[2:19:42] we find in the 27 process that we might

[2:19:44] want to say. Also,

[2:19:47] could could that be applied before 7

[2:19:49] months are over? Because if it could,

[2:19:52] then we might save some money. Like if

[2:19:53] I'm just thinking of my own budget, like

[2:19:55] what might I identify that I could cut

[2:19:57] in two months, like looking at my

[2:19:59] subscription. So that's how I'm thinking

[2:20:01] about it. I'm not trying to add work for

[2:20:03] staff, but it seems like we might find

[2:20:06] things and I I could I could be okay

[2:20:08] just letting this motion go tonight, but

[2:20:11] I think in that process, we might find

[2:20:13] things that we do want to apply to 26.

[2:20:16] So that's kind of what I'm trying to

[2:20:18] preserve.

[2:20:22] » Miss Hall.

[2:20:23] >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so again, I read this as simply the staff

[2:20:29] recommends no broad service reductions

[2:20:31] or formal operating budget reductions

[2:20:34] implemented in FY26.

[2:20:36] However, they are saying we have the

[2:20:40] ability to make, you know, that you as staff have already identified some

[2:20:45] things that might possibly be cut. So, I

[2:20:48] see we're we're covering both of those

[2:20:50] in this. Am I reading that correctly?

[2:20:53] Yeah. So, I I think I you know, why

[2:20:56] wouldn't we support this? I think it's

[2:20:59] maybe got a little confusing thinking we

[2:21:01] needed to delve into all the several

[2:21:04] service reduction ideas that were

[2:21:06] brought forward, but no, we can ask our staff to to do that. Am I correct?

[2:21:13] And we can do both. Yeah. Go ahead,

[2:21:16] >> Miss Flick.

[2:21:18] >> Um, thank you [clears throat] and partly

[2:21:20] to Miss Hall and partly to Miss

[2:21:22] Huskandies. Um, I think as as you all

[2:21:25] wrestle with what FY27 looks like, there

[2:21:30] will

[2:21:32] you will be giving direction before

[2:21:34] we're out of FY26.

[2:21:36] So, if you say, "Hey, in FY27, we're not going to do this thing anymore

[2:21:41] or we're going to do less of this thing

[2:21:44] and in 26 there's already a natural flow

[2:21:48] to move there." The manager is going to

[2:21:51] make that happen. So if you know program

[2:21:54] XYZ is going to move to 50% of what it

[2:21:57] is today and we have a staff person

[2:22:00] leave in April, it wouldn't make sense

[2:22:03] to fill that position for May and June

[2:22:06] knowing that we would just have to cut

[2:22:07] it in July, right? So I think I think

[2:22:10] that as you make decisions about 27,

[2:22:14] we will naturally lean wherever we are

[2:22:17] in 26 to be moving to that 27 place. And

[2:22:21] so I think um miss you scandies your concern about what can we do early

[2:22:26] that's not the word you use but what can

[2:22:27] we do early in 26 that we've decided for

[2:22:30] 27 I think that will happen naturally

[2:22:33] based on the decisions that you make and

[2:22:34] the timing of those decisions.

[2:22:42] I'm

[2:22:44] um

[2:22:45] feeling

[2:22:47] like I gotta move this along or

[2:22:51] [laughter]

[2:22:53] do folks have new things to add before

[2:22:56] we vote.

[2:22:58] Go ahead, Mr. Smith.

[2:23:00] >> I I wish Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish

[2:23:03] I were there because I get I feel like

[2:23:05] we're all kind We're all kind of hoping

[2:23:06] to say the same thing. I just um and I I

[2:23:09] wish I were there because I would have

[2:23:11] tried [clears throat] to maybe work

[2:23:11] through an amendment. Um

[2:23:14] I'm going to try it if if tell me if the

[2:23:16] room just groans in pain and and I can

[2:23:20] get it because again I don't want to

[2:23:21] just belabor this.

[2:23:23] >> I was hoping someone would make an

[2:23:24] amendment. So

[2:23:25] >> I'm going to try one and I there might

[2:23:29] be language at the end of it that will

[2:23:31] make one person in particular grown. Um

[2:23:33] and I'd be open to ideas on it. Um,

[2:23:37] okay. So, going off the the mayor's

[2:23:40] motion, which was my understanding was

[2:23:41] the first line of the of the suggested

[2:23:44] action, um, would, you know, staff

[2:23:48] recommends that no broad service

[2:23:49] reductions or formal operating budgets

[2:23:50] are implemented in FY26.

[2:23:53] My amendment is to add

[2:23:56] though targeted reductions such as new

[2:23:59] programs or projects.

[2:24:05] This is where it gets bad. Um may be

[2:24:09] evaluated and considered

[2:24:14] I was going to say by the manager but um

[2:24:17] okay though targeted reductions such as

[2:24:18] new programs or projects

[2:24:22] may be implemented.

[2:24:31] I'm going just stop there because again,

[2:24:33] I don't know how to I don't know the

[2:24:34] process of that, but I think we can get

[2:24:38] >> I think we can figure that part out.

[2:24:40] >> That's a good intent language. I'll ask

[2:24:43] staff if that would give you um

[2:24:46] direction that you feel like you could

[2:24:48] work with if the body was to vote in the

[2:24:51] affirmative.

[2:24:54] >> Thank you, Chair Wall. Um I would uh

[2:24:57] appreciate understanding how that

[2:24:59] direction is different from a timing's

[2:25:02] um comments on is it is it is it to kind

[2:25:05] of codify his comments in a motion about

[2:25:08] how to manage the budget moving forward

[2:25:10] or is it different? getting a I'm

[2:25:12] getting a head nod from Mr. Smith that

[2:25:14] yes, he's trying to codify that

[2:25:17] direction.

[2:25:20] All right, we have a motion on the floor

[2:25:23] with an amendment. Any objections to the

[2:25:26] amendment?

[2:25:30] Seeing none, that is so moved. It brings

[2:25:33] us back to the original motion as

[2:25:36] amended. Any objections?

[2:25:41] All right, seeing none, that is so

[2:25:43] moved. Thank you all for working through

[2:25:46] that. Um,

[2:25:48] and

[2:25:50] thanks Mayor Mayor Walden for starting

[2:25:53] us off. All right, brings us to question

[2:25:58] action number two. And this is

[2:26:00] specifically about the assembly grant

[2:26:03] funding um to grantees. Mayor Welding,

[2:26:06] will you start us off with a motion? Can

[2:26:09] I have a twominut Eddie? Yes. to uh

[2:26:12] confer with Assembly Member Tiner.

[2:27:54] You're

[2:28:17] Mayor Walden

[2:28:19] Ken, this might be irritating to some,

[2:28:22] but uh we're going to do something a

[2:28:23] little different. Um [laughter]

[2:28:27] but uh Mr. Brooks, we do take it to

[2:28:30] heart what the voters tell us. And uh so

[2:28:33] my motion is to direct staff to reach

[2:28:35] out to each member on the assembly grant

[2:28:38] um budget list and ask them for an

[2:28:42] amended request.

[2:28:47] The last part of your motion was hard to

[2:28:50] hear.

[2:28:51] >> And to ask for an amended request.

[2:28:57] » Um, I see Miss Hughes Handies.

[2:29:01] >> Thanks, Madam Chair. I will object to

[2:29:03] that motion.

[2:29:06] I would object because this would not be

[2:29:09] the first part of the budget. This would

[2:29:12] be, I guess, what I would consider

[2:29:14] classic what I heard people voicing that

[2:29:17] they didn't want to do, which is to make

[2:29:19] willy-nilly cuts. So, we've identified

[2:29:22] one section of our FY26 budget and

[2:29:28] what's that operating budget? FY20,

[2:29:31] sorry, I'm distracted. our FY26

[2:29:33] operating budget and we've pulled this

[2:29:35] piece out and then we've said maybe we

[2:29:38] should cut this and let's go back to

[2:29:40] these people and see how they would do

[2:29:42] without that budget. To me, I don't know

[2:29:44] why I wouldn't say manager Kuster go to

[2:29:47] this department and see what they could

[2:29:50] do without. There's a difference

[2:29:52] obviously, but I think there are

[2:29:55] probably nine different opinions of what

[2:29:58] you would what we would all rank as

[2:30:01] potentially the first place we would

[2:30:03] should go for cuts. Um, and it probably

[2:30:06] comes as no surprise to this assembly

[2:30:08] that for me, this would definitely not

[2:30:10] be the first place that I would go for

[2:30:11] cuts. So, I would object for those

[2:30:14] reasons. And then in our wonderful

[2:30:19] packet, which I really did like, uh, on

[2:30:22] page 31, we have service listings broken

[2:30:25] out into different sections.

[2:30:28] And

[2:30:30] that's another way of thinking about

[2:30:32] different parts of the budget that you

[2:30:34] could just go into with a wrench and

[2:30:36] start messing about. But there's nothing

[2:30:39] about this piece that makes sense to me.

[2:30:42] went with the rest of the memo and the

[2:30:44] rest of the packet. Why this decision

[2:30:47] was pulled out even from staff. The fact

[2:30:50] that it's a section that staff is asking

[2:30:53] for direction on was strange to me. Not

[2:30:57] strange to me. I can figure out common

[2:30:59] sense-wise, but to me it is a

[2:31:02] inappropriate piece. It doesn't match

[2:31:05] with number one. So to say this is our

[2:31:08] recommendation here, but also what about

[2:31:11] just cutting this piece. So for all of

[2:31:13] those reasons, I will object.

[2:31:19] » Um, Madame Mayor, go ahead.

[2:31:22] >> I apologize. Apparently that sounded

[2:31:23] harsher than I meant it to. That's not

[2:31:25] what I was looking for at all, but thank

[2:31:26] you for that, Miss Husseanies, for

[2:31:28] stomping me into the ground. Um anyway,

[2:31:31] my the thought behind this and that's

[2:31:33] why I can say if they would how about I

[2:31:36] would me amend it to say would consider

[2:31:37] an amended request. My thought was maybe

[2:31:40] with some of these people knowing our

[2:31:42] circumstances might alter their um

[2:31:45] wishes. So I would add that they

[2:31:47] consider an amended request, but I hear

[2:31:50] what you're saying, Miss Usetti.

[2:31:53] >> I'm going to not treat that as an

[2:31:54] amendment and just treat that as your

[2:31:56] motion. I I think that was your intent.

[2:31:58] So we have a slightly different emotion

[2:32:00] on the floor now. Miss Huskinies, you

[2:32:03] maintain your objection. Yes, Miss

[2:32:05] Atkinson.

[2:32:06] >> Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. I will also

[2:32:08] object to this motion. I remember this

[2:32:12] assembly grants year being pretty

[2:32:14] fraught. We cut a lot of um requests in

[2:32:17] half. We made a lot of recurring

[2:32:19] requests not recurring. And to that end,

[2:32:21] I think that um much of these requests

[2:32:24] are not in fact recurring. And I just

[2:32:27] don't think this is I agree with Mrs.

[2:32:29] Scandies. This is the place I would not

[2:32:30] cut. And for many of these folks, they

[2:32:34] really can't afford to take the time to

[2:32:37] make an amended request. And I can't

[2:32:40] imagine they have budgeted on what

[2:32:42] they've currently gotten, but they've

[2:32:43] had to assume uh with nonprofits with

[2:32:46] shoestring budgets, they've had to

[2:32:47] assume that they will get the grants

[2:32:49] that we did promise them. So, um, I

[2:32:52] would be, uh, I'm very much objecting to

[2:32:54] this motion, though I I I appreciate

[2:32:56] what the mayor's attempted to do.

[2:32:59] >> Mr. Kelly, then Mr. Brooks.

[2:33:02] >> In the interest of time, since I largely

[2:33:04] agree with Miss Atinson and Miss

[2:33:05] Yuscantes, I won't restate their points.

[2:33:10] » Mr. Brooks,

[2:33:13] >> I would speak in support of the motion.

[2:33:16] Uh looking at the list that was given

[2:33:19] here, yes. Uh to Assembly Member

[2:33:23] Atkinson's point, there are a lot of

[2:33:24] these organizations who don't have the

[2:33:27] ability to close the gap if anyone were

[2:33:31] to occur. But phrasing the question to

[2:33:34] some of these entities,

[2:33:37] like the mayor had mentioned, might

[2:33:39] result in u a level of understanding.

[2:33:44] uh a handful of these organizations have

[2:33:47] very significant asset withholdings and

[2:33:50] reserves and um I think that those would

[2:33:53] be some of the more considerate

[2:33:55] organizations to um

[2:33:59] you know maybe maybe lighten their ask a

[2:34:01] bit to help the city as a whole.

[2:34:06] » Mr. Steininger

[2:34:08] and I'll speak in support of this as

[2:34:10] well. You know, I think there's

[2:34:13] some of these organizations you part the

[2:34:17] purpose of my question of asking who's

[2:34:19] reached out to say that this is causing

[2:34:21] problems was to also get an

[2:34:23] understanding of are there organizations

[2:34:25] who haven't reached out at all. And

[2:34:29] that tells me there may be some of these

[2:34:30] organizations that are willing to come

[2:34:32] back and say, "Yep, we can help. We see

[2:34:34] what's going on at the city level as

[2:34:36] well. we can also sharpen our pencils

[2:34:39] and kind of be part of that process. And

[2:34:41] I don't see this necessarily in conflict

[2:34:43] with our action on on point one earlier

[2:34:47] because we all know that our management

[2:34:51] within the city are sharpening their

[2:34:53] pencils and trying to come out of fiscal

[2:34:55] year 26 with as little spend as possible

[2:34:58] while still achieving all the goals we

[2:35:00] have. And by going back to these

[2:35:03] grantees, I feel like we're asking them

[2:35:05] to do the same. And some of them may

[2:35:07] come back and say, "Nope, we have

[2:35:09] slotted every penny of this and and need

[2:35:12] it to deliver what we need to deliver to

[2:35:14] constituents within the community." And

[2:35:16] those, you know, a lot of these are

[2:35:18] social services grants that are going to

[2:35:20] the neediest of Junoites. I don't really

[2:35:22] expect those ones to come back saying,

[2:35:24] "Hey, we could cut it in half," you

[2:35:26] know, but some of these are,

[2:35:28] you know, kind of on a nice to have, you

[2:35:30] know, but they're good things that, you

[2:35:32] know, we funded for very good reason,

[2:35:35] but might be able to come back and say

[2:35:37] in spirit of what they know the city's

[2:35:39] going through, you know, they can come

[2:35:41] back and and show support for the

[2:35:45] efforts that we're doing. And I think

[2:35:47] that's, you know, the mayor's motion is asking asking to see where that

[2:35:51] supported and where that kind of

[2:35:53] community belt tightening can happen. So

[2:35:56] I'm supporting the amend or the motion.

[2:35:58] Thank you

[2:36:00] >> Mr. Smith.

[2:36:02] >> Thank you Madam Chair. I'm objecting for

[2:36:04] just for the purpose of a question and

[2:36:05] that's

[2:36:07] um I I a concern of mine I guess is just

[2:36:10] you know I don't want to keep drag I

[2:36:12] don't want to drag this out for months I

[2:36:14] guess. So a question for staff like

[2:36:18] how quickly can we ask and can we set a

[2:36:20] short timeline? So that you know we can

[2:36:22] maybe have a sense of responses by

[2:36:27] the you know the December meeting. Is

[2:36:30] that a reasonable time frame?

[2:36:35] » December finance meeting.

[2:36:38] >> Thank you Mr. Smith.

[2:36:43] Test. Test. There we go.

[2:36:46] I think it is possible to reach out to

[2:36:49] organizations and request that they get

[2:36:52] back to us in time for packet

[2:36:54] preparation for the December finance

[2:36:55] meeting. I think any faster than that

[2:36:57] would be challenging for the

[2:36:58] organizations that might be interested

[2:37:01] if any are interested in taking a hard

[2:37:04] look at their budgets. Um that that work

[2:37:06] can be ownorous and challenging. So

[2:37:08] giving them less time I think would make

[2:37:09] it that harder uh for for those that

[2:37:12] potentially might be uh able or willing

[2:37:15] to do that.

[2:37:18] >> Thank you for that. Um I'll I'll remove

[2:37:22] my objection and speak in favor of it. I don't know we're going to hear back. I

[2:37:26] think it's worth an ask

[2:37:30] and we may see we may not. But if we

[2:37:33] can, you know, again hopefully deal this

[2:37:35] with by the end of this fiscal year.

[2:37:38] I'm okay with that with asking this and

[2:37:41] so I'll support the motion. Thanks.

[2:37:46] » I'll speak um in opposition to this

[2:37:50] motion. Um I too feel like this

[2:37:54] direction is counter to

[2:37:58] the the direction we just gave. This is

[2:38:01] part of our operating budget. These are

[2:38:04] groups doing work on our behalf and this

[2:38:07] is their operating budgets most in most

[2:38:09] of these cases. Um

[2:38:13] you know I think it plays into this idea

[2:38:15] that our community grants are

[2:38:17] philanthropy that we're doing this to be

[2:38:20] nice. We're doing this because these are

[2:38:22] needed services in our communities that

[2:38:24] others can do more efficiently and

[2:38:25] better um than we can. I also think it's

[2:38:32] a waste of time to ask these groups, can

[2:38:35] you ask for less money? They can do that

[2:38:38] if they want to. They can they can come

[2:38:41] back and tell us that they're not going

[2:38:42] to be spending the money. Um, but

[2:38:47] the nonprofit sector is under attack

[2:38:49] right now. So I do I I think it will be

[2:38:52] a waste of our time to try to gather

[2:38:54] that information and then try to sort

[2:38:56] through this as a body about what we do

[2:38:59] or do not want to um do with that. So

[2:39:04] with that I will call the question. We

[2:39:06] have a motion and we have an objection.

[2:39:13] » On the motion to direct staff to reach

[2:39:15] out to each organization on the assembly

[2:39:18] grant list and ask them to consider an

[2:39:20] amended request. Mayor Welen,

[2:39:24] >> yes.

[2:39:26] >> Assembly member Hugh Scandies,

[2:39:28] >> no. Assembly member at

[2:39:31] >> no.

[2:39:33] Assembly member Smith.

[2:39:36] >> Yes.

[2:39:39] >> Assembly member Kelly.

[2:39:41] >> No.

[2:39:43] >> Assembly member Hall.

[2:39:45] >> No.

[2:39:48] >> Assembly member Brooks.

[2:39:51] >> Yes.

[2:39:52] >> As member Siner.

[2:39:54] >> Yes.

[2:39:55] >> Chairwall.

[2:39:58] >> No.

[2:39:59] >> Motion fails. Four A's. Five Nazs.

[2:40:04] Could we get a alternative motion?

[2:40:07] Mayor Welen.

[2:40:09] >> Thank you. Um I would move to direct

[2:40:12] staff to distribute the remaining

[2:40:14] assembly grant funding to grantees in

[2:40:16] FY26.

[2:40:18] >> Any objection?

[2:40:21] Seeing none. Oh, seeing none. That's Oh.

[2:40:24] go ahead, Miss Hall. offer the

[2:40:27] amendment to direct um staff to uh

[2:40:33] distribute the remaining funds

[2:40:36] that that ask them. If any of you don't

[2:40:39] need these funds, please let us know.

[2:40:43] [laughter]

[2:40:44] >> Any objections to that amendment?

[2:40:47] >> I think that's what the first question

[2:40:49] was

[2:40:55] the

[2:40:57] one of these.

[2:40:59] >> I I'll object just because I I

[2:41:02] appreciate what uh member Hall is trying

[2:41:06] to do. I just think I'm trying to think

[2:41:09] of staff here and I don't know how that

[2:41:14] it's good direction to direct them to

[2:41:16] distribute the funds.

[2:41:19] I don't know what that process looks

[2:41:21] like. If it's an email, with an AC,

[2:41:26] and then you say, "By the way," in bold,

[2:41:31] "Don't let me know if I can have this

[2:41:33] money back." It just it it maybe staff

[2:41:36] could elaborate, but this just seems

[2:41:39] like uh a waste of their time, but I do

[2:41:41] appreciate the sentiment, so I'm going

[2:41:43] to object.

[2:41:46] >> We have an amendment. We have objection.

[2:41:50] Um, Miss Wendle, will you call roll on

[2:41:52] the amendment?

[2:41:55] >> Thank you, Chair Wall. On the amendment

[2:41:56] to direct to direct staff to distribute

[2:41:59] the remaining funds, but ask

[2:42:00] organizations if they don't need these

[2:42:02] funds to please let us know.

[2:42:06] [gasps and laughter]

[2:42:06] >> Assembly member Hall,

[2:42:09] >> yes.

[2:42:11] >> Assembly member Hugh Gandies,

[2:42:12] >> no.

[2:42:13] >> Assembly member Smith,

[2:42:15] >> yes.

[2:42:17] Assembly member Kelly,

[2:42:20] >> yes.

[2:42:21] >> Assembly member Atkinson,

[2:42:23] >> no.

[2:42:26] >> Mayor Welen,

[2:42:28] >> yes.

[2:42:30] >> Assembly member Brooks,

[2:42:33] >> yes.

[2:42:35] >> Assembly member Steiner,

[2:42:37] >> yes.

[2:42:38] >> Chair Wall,

[2:42:40] >> no.

[2:42:41] >> Amendment passes. Six's three ns. That

[2:42:45] brings us back to the original motion as

[2:42:49] amended.

[2:42:50] Miss W. Any objections,

[2:42:54] Miss Wendle? Oop. Sorry. We We don't

[2:42:56] need We That move. That's moved. We're

[2:42:59] good. Moving on.

[2:43:02] Okay. Um

[2:43:06] the last question. Does the AFC wish to

[2:43:09] give any direction on one-time or

[2:43:10] project funding for FY26?

[2:43:14] I believe we already gave some direction

[2:43:16] to not

[2:43:19] start new things, but maybe I'll ask

[2:43:24] staff if

[2:43:26] what direction they would like here.

[2:43:30] Um,

[2:43:34] we brought up a couple of examples.

[2:43:36] There's certainly many capital projects

[2:43:38] uh on our um what we call it the

[2:43:41] oneliner which you get in the CIP every

[2:43:43] year which are capital projects with

[2:43:45] funds left in them. Um uh there are

[2:43:48] projects in varying degrees of

[2:43:50] readiness. Um so if there's any

[2:43:52] intention to uh you know pause those

[2:43:55] projects or not start any new projects I

[2:43:57] think that I would appreciate a

[2:43:59] deliberate direction in that regard.

[2:44:03] >> Thank you Mr. Smith. Oh,

[2:44:07] well, [clears throat]

[2:44:08] I'll go to Mr. Smith. Sorry, Mr. Smith.

[2:44:11] Go ahead.

[2:44:11] >> Thank you, Madam Chair. um you know

[2:44:14] looking at the CI CIP report for or you

[2:44:18] know the CIP for for this project I uh I

[2:44:22] don't know if it's a hybrid of a red

[2:44:25] herring with a boogeyman but um I will

[2:44:28] move that we pause

[2:44:32] any action related to the waterfront uh

[2:44:34] city museum

[2:44:36] and ask unanimous consent.

[2:44:40] Any objections?

[2:44:45] » Go ahead, Madam Mayor.

[2:44:48] >> I appreciate the sentiment and I

[2:44:49] actually probably agree with it, but at

[2:44:51] this time I don't think I'm ready to do

[2:44:53] one-time projects without getting more

[2:44:55] information on all of them. So, I'll

[2:44:57] maintain my objection.

[2:45:02] » All right. Um, any other objections or

[2:45:05] people who want to speak to the motion?

[2:45:08] Go ahead, Miss Yseandies.

[2:45:09] >> I'll speak to the motion just briefly.

[2:45:11] I'm gonna support it. I fully

[2:45:14] am probably the same mind where Mayor

[2:45:17] Weldon is coming from. The reason I'm

[2:45:19] going to support it is because I would

[2:45:22] be comfortable giving broad

[2:45:26] guidance to staff

[2:45:28] over not starting projects that I guess

[2:45:31] I don't know what

[2:45:34] to Mayor Weldon's point. I don't know if

[2:45:36] anything's going on with the waterfront

[2:45:38] museum. So maybe I'll interrupt myself

[2:45:41] and ask staff is anything going on with

[2:45:43] the waterfront museum?

[2:45:46] No, it would be career suicide for me to

[2:45:48] start that project without a discussion

[2:45:50] with the assembly first.

[2:45:51] >> Perfect. I do not want to assume. I did

[2:45:54] assume. Okay. So, I feel okay saying I

[2:45:58] there's nothing going on with the

[2:45:59] waterfront museum. It would be career

[2:46:01] suicide for our wonderful manager. So, I

[2:46:04] feel comfortable with that direction and

[2:46:06] I will move to give broader direction

[2:46:08] after this.

[2:46:11] >> So, you're not objecting?

[2:46:13] >> Okay. Yeah. Sorry.

[2:46:16] All right, we have a motion and we have

[2:46:19] objection. Any other comments?

[2:46:23] Um, I'll just just so the body knows

[2:46:26] where I'm at. I I I'll also support this

[2:46:29] just because it feels like a no-brainer,

[2:46:31] but in general, I'm won't be ready to

[2:46:34] make any other pausing decisions

[2:46:36] immediately, but we may have other ones

[2:46:40] um given some broad direction that we

[2:46:42] want to give tonight. Okay.

[2:46:45] Go ahead, Mr. Brooks.

[2:46:52] Uh,

[2:46:53] I wonder if it is the will of the body

[2:46:57] to consider

[2:47:01] any more of the unrestricted funds

[2:47:04] within the CIP for the capital civic

[2:47:07] center or when it comes to uh the estimated uh costs related to the

[2:47:19] renovations of the Burns building may be

[2:47:21] directing staff to seek

[2:47:26] uh secondhand or state surplus as a temp

[2:47:32] makeup while we navigate the hard

[2:47:34] financial times. And uh

[2:47:37] >> Mr. Brooks, not to interrupt you,

[2:47:40] >> we've got a motion on the floor about

[2:47:42] the um specifically the waterfront

[2:47:45] museum. So if you want to hold comments

[2:47:47] on other topics till that we've mo voted

[2:47:51] on that.

[2:47:53] >> I I was just asking if if if anyone want

[2:47:57] to discuss I could amend I can do an

[2:47:59] amendment but we'll we'll let the

[2:48:02] action uh just go through them.

[2:48:08] » Can still make those other motions

[2:48:09] afterwards. We'll just keep it simple to

[2:48:11] the one project. Okay. We have Madame

[2:48:14] Mayor. Go ahead.

[2:48:16] >> Since no one speaking up to object, I

[2:48:18] will uh with draw my objection except

[2:48:21] for I could tell Mr. Brooks was looking

[2:48:24] for um direction. I could tell you right

[2:48:27] now again I am not ready to cut anything

[2:48:29] more.

[2:48:32] >> All right. So

[2:48:35] we have a motion with no objection

[2:48:40] and so that is so moved.

[2:48:43] Miss Hugh Gandies, did you want to make

[2:48:47] motion? Was that what you were

[2:48:49] indicating?

[2:48:51] >> Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. I'm

[2:48:53] struggling to think. I would like to

[2:48:56] >> take an addies. I

[2:48:57] >> I'll Yeah, I'll take an ease.

[2:54:15] Miss you scandies. Thank you madam chair

[2:54:17] for your indulgence and the at ease. I

[2:54:20] am much in the same vein that I think it

[2:54:23] was beneficial for this body and

[2:54:26] hopefully beneficial for staff with the

[2:54:28] first item to um verbalize some feedback

[2:54:34] on uh like we did on operating. I am

[2:54:38] just wanted to I think at this time I am

[2:54:41] not going to make a motion because it's

[2:54:45] my belief that if we ask staff to bring

[2:54:47] back a specific list

[2:54:50] much like this

[2:54:53] only for projects again we might be

[2:54:56] going down FY26 rabbit holes when we

[2:55:00] need to be going it's our job to be

[2:55:03] going a little bit higher. Um, I think

[2:55:06] some people have already verbalized that

[2:55:08] they're not comfortable making decisions

[2:55:10] without knowing more about what that

[2:55:12] particular project is at, which makes

[2:55:14] sense to me. Um, there's a couple that

[2:55:17] are

[2:55:19] popped out in this memo tonight. Um,

[2:55:23] which I think are those ones that I I

[2:55:26] appreciate that staff has identified as,

[2:55:29] you know, these are project these are

[2:55:32] firmly in the project category. These

[2:55:33] are things that it might be good to get

[2:55:36] direction on.

[2:55:40] I think there is not one motion that

[2:55:46] um sufficiently

[2:55:49] leaves room for that process to happen,

[2:55:52] keeps us out of rabbit holes um and does

[2:55:57] what I intend to do after talking with

[2:56:00] staff.

[2:56:01] So much [clears throat] in the same vein

[2:56:03] as trust, we sort of codified some of

[2:56:06] Mr. Steininger's comments and Mr.

[2:56:08] Smith's motion earlier.

[2:56:10] am not going to attempt to do that, but

[2:56:13] I it is my hope and belief that the city

[2:56:17] manager and staff are

[2:56:20] looking at all of those projects and

[2:56:23] identifying which of those have not

[2:56:26] started and are likely to run into

[2:56:30] financial problems in this new fiscal

[2:56:32] environment in FY27

[2:56:35] and make due diligent

[2:56:38] uh decisions. s there while we in start

[2:56:43] this process and we engage the public.

[2:56:46] Um, and then I will just briefly say

[2:56:49] because Eagle Crest is an hour memo and

[2:56:52] because I did have the uh pleasure of

[2:56:55] being involved in a Eaglerest meeting

[2:56:57] today with some staff that [snorts] I

[2:57:00] want to identify that personally to this

[2:57:02] body that based on the most recent

[2:57:05] information that I have, I do think

[2:57:08] there

[2:57:10] when we get again it's one of those

[2:57:13] things we may not get all the way to the

[2:57:15] calendar start of fiscal year 27 and we

[2:57:19] may get new information that makes us

[2:57:22] stop a project and that might occur in

[2:57:26] FY26

[2:57:28] but that will depend on the natural flow

[2:57:30] of when we receive certain fiscal

[2:57:33] information. Um so I just want to

[2:57:35] highlight that is one for instance I

[2:57:38] have deep concerns about in this new

[2:57:40] fiscal environment. So

[2:57:44] trying to articulate it. Apologize.

[2:57:46] Thank you for letting me ramble. But I

[2:57:47] think that um much like the operating I

[2:57:50] will trust that it is the manager's jobs

[2:57:53] to know which of those

[2:57:57] projects we would not want to start or

[2:58:00] put fiscal resources into. And I'll

[2:58:02] stop.

[2:58:04] >> Mr. Kelly,

[2:58:08] » thank thank you. So, um, are we ready

[2:58:10] for another discussion item or another

[2:58:12] motion or

[2:58:17] » um, sorry, you want to make a motion or

[2:58:20] you are making a discussion point?

[2:58:22] >> Um, I I think I was going to start with

[2:58:25] a discussion and see where see if maybe

[2:58:27] it's more efficient to go as a motion.

[2:58:29] Um

[2:58:33] » um

[2:58:36] I would say either if you want to make a

[2:58:38] comment to the body, go ahead and do

[2:58:40] that or make a motion as opposed to

[2:58:42] begin a discussion right now. Does that

[2:58:44] is that helpful? And you can take a I

[2:58:47] can move on to someone if you're not

[2:58:48] quite ready for that.

[2:58:49] >> No, no, no. Um I think I'm ready. I I'll

[2:58:52] just

[2:58:54] I'll go ahead and and make my motion.

[2:58:56] Um, I would move that uh we take up um

[2:59:04] discussion on

[2:59:08] grants as it pertains to the affordable

[2:59:10] housing fund and if we still want to

[2:59:12] continue to issue grants uh that we take

[2:59:14] up that discussion at a future um

[2:59:17] finance committee meeting and I can

[2:59:19] speak to my motion if Okay. Um so in in

[2:59:25] lands committee uh earlier this week um

[2:59:28] we um forwarded on to the assembly

[2:59:32] um about $2.3 million uh worth of

[2:59:36] affordable uh housing projects. More

[2:59:40] than half of those are are grants to to

[2:59:44] nonprofits.

[2:59:45] Um and and I see um I I there definitely

[2:59:49] um a need that's being met uh by these

[2:59:52] nonprofits and there's a reason why it's

[2:59:54] better for them to uh to receive these

[2:59:56] as as grants. Um but that also means

[3:00:00] that's money that's not coming back into

[3:00:02] the fund to be used for future projects.

[3:00:04] And considering that a part of the

[3:00:06] affordable housing fund is is funded

[3:00:09] through uh through sales tax revenue, um

[3:00:13] I I I think it's uh important at least

[3:00:17] um to to consider um maybe a temporary

[3:00:21] moratorium on grants um being

[3:00:23] distributed from the affordable housing

[3:00:26] fund um for for future rounds, not for

[3:00:29] round five that were

[3:00:31] um forwarded to the assembly this year,

[3:00:33] but for for future rounds if we uh want

[3:00:36] to as a practice um just focus on

[3:00:41] issuing loans that would eventually come

[3:00:43] back um and fund future projects.

[3:00:46] >> Mr. Kelly, I think we are still on the

[3:00:49] discussion topic of FY26. And so if you

[3:00:52] are not making a motion to change the

[3:00:54] affordable housing fund

[3:00:59] amount that we're that you've already

[3:01:01] for that has been forwarded to the

[3:01:03] assembly, I would hold that for another

[3:01:06] um committee or um different spot in the

[3:01:11] budget process for next year.

[3:01:14] >> Thank you, Madam Chair. With that, I'll

[3:01:15] withdraw my motion.

[3:01:19] >> Mayor, well done. Uh, thank you, Madam

[3:01:21] Chair. And I would give the same

[3:01:23] direction to Mr. Kelly if he's talking

[3:01:24] about this year. It's already moved to

[3:01:26] the assembly, so we'll discuss it there.

[3:01:28] Um, but um I don't want to make a formal

[3:01:32] motion because I think we've had enough

[3:01:33] on this particular topic, but I would

[3:01:35] just let staff know that I would be

[3:01:38] looking for information on any project

[3:01:41] um FY26, FY27 that they think are new,

[3:01:46] don't think it's got traction, something to that effect. so we could be

[3:01:50] considering it. Um, that's all I have.

[3:01:58] » Mr. Brooks,

[3:02:01] >> thank you, Madam Chair. And just tagging

[3:02:04] on to what the mayor was saying there a

[3:02:07] bit, uh, looking at projects that, uh,

[3:02:12] haven't had, uh, progress in long

[3:02:15] periods of times like you're saying, not appearing to have momentum or have

[3:02:21] been stagnated a little bit.

[3:02:25] >> Staff, do you I feel like we're kind of

[3:02:27] in consensus on those general comments.

[3:02:31] You guys feel good with that direction

[3:02:33] without emotion? Great.

[3:02:36] Okay,

[3:02:38] so we have not made it through this

[3:02:40] memo, which is okay. We knew this would

[3:02:42] be a while. Um it is 8:30.

[3:02:47] Um

[3:02:51] and we have um an executive

[3:02:53] [clears throat] session that um we do

[3:02:57] need to get to. So, um, my proposal

[3:03:02] would be, but but I'll look to the body

[3:03:05] is that we either spend some time

[3:03:07] talking about FY27,

[3:03:10] um, for about a half hour before

[3:03:14] executive session or we take a tackle an

[3:03:18] easier

[3:03:20] um, topic and just do some question and

[3:03:23] answer about foregone revenue, which was

[3:03:25] the next agenda item. Um,

[3:03:30] and maybe staff will have an opinion on

[3:03:34] where they want our attention right now.

[3:03:36] But that would be my question to the

[3:03:38] body. Are you okay tackling one more?

[3:03:40] And do you want it to be talking about

[3:03:42] next year's budget process or do you

[3:03:44] want to talk about foreground revenue?

[3:03:49] » Miss Hugh Scandies.

[3:03:50] >> Thanks, Madam Chair. I would prefer to

[3:03:53] spend a little time talking about FY27

[3:03:55] just so we could start to outline that

[3:03:58] process what that will look like.

[3:04:02] >> Mr. Smith.

[3:04:05] >> Thank you, Madame Chair. I I I agree. I

[3:04:08] mean, there was a question I the staff

[3:04:10] may want questions or want a response on

[3:04:12] in terms of, you know, public

[3:04:14] engagement. Um I have an idea for the um

[3:04:20] foregone revenue that I could bring up

[3:04:21] but I mean just to foreshadow I I wonder

[3:04:25] you know in the past we've done a te a

[3:04:28] group of three assembly members um who

[3:04:31] tackle some tricky subjects like

[3:04:33] foregone revenue or complex subjects

[3:04:35] where if the whole body was working on

[3:04:38] it could be painful for everyone um and

[3:04:41] they can work you know more nimly

[3:04:44] come up with some recommendations. They work with staff, you know, not in

[3:04:49] viol obviously that in with that number

[3:04:51] of people not in violation of open

[3:04:52] meetings act and then come back to us um

[3:04:55] or come back to the body with some

[3:04:57] having kind of run it through. So that would be a possible suggestion but

[3:05:01] um sorry my my thought would be FY27 and

[3:05:05] maybe that for foregone. Thanks.

[3:05:08] >> Making sure folks have energy for a

[3:05:11] little bit more discussion on FY27.

[3:05:14] Go ahead, Mr. Senator.

[3:05:16] >> Wanted to make sure there wasn't because

[3:05:18] [clears throat] I I agree with everybody

[3:05:19] FY27 and talking about the process and

[3:05:22] especially the public process makes most

[3:05:24] sense right now. But I wanted to make

[3:05:26] sure that staff that we're not delaying

[3:05:29] any potential action on the foregone

[3:05:31] revenue and stalling that process

[3:05:33] because it's been something I've been

[3:05:34] looking forward to talking about for

[3:05:36] quite a while. So

[3:05:38] >> as as Mr. Stunning. As exciting as

[3:05:40] foregone revenue and docking fees are, I

[3:05:42] don't think there's any harm in moving

[3:05:44] those to a future AFC meeting.

[3:05:49] All right, let's do another half hour

[3:05:53] and then we'll um you know at max and

[3:05:57] then we'll get a break before our

[3:05:59] executive session.

[3:06:01] All right,

[3:06:03] Miss Flick, I will um assume you all

[3:06:08] have labored intently over this terribly

[3:06:11] long memo and just cover some highlights

[3:06:14] on FI27.

[3:06:15] Um you all have already discussed that

[3:06:19] we have got um a long and hard set of

[3:06:22] discussion and decisions to make

[3:06:24] upcoming. Um there's a lot of things

[3:06:26] that um we can do to help with that

[3:06:30] decision making. Um one of the big

[3:06:32] questions is you know how big is the

[3:06:33] hole we need to fill. So on the chart in

[3:06:36] the middle of page 27 I've highlighted

[3:06:39] the three revenue decreases um that

[3:06:41] we've already talked about. Again those

[3:06:43] are annualized numbers. So that is um

[3:06:47] assuming that no cuts are made to 27 or

[3:06:49] making or sorry no cuts are made to 26.

[3:06:52] All cuts are made in 27 would be the $11

[3:06:55] million in sales tax and roughly a

[3:06:57] million dollars in property tax. In

[3:07:00] addition to that revenue loss, we know

[3:07:01] that we are going to have expenditure

[3:07:03] increases. The negotiated um contract

[3:07:06] with MIBA has a built-in um increase for

[3:07:09] wages in 27. Um we know that um IFFF and

[3:07:15] PSA contracts once they are finally

[3:07:18] negotiated will have an increase. um

[3:07:21] we're putting that number at 2.5 million

[3:07:23] which is kind of a 25 26 combination

[3:07:25] number. We also know that there are

[3:07:27] other things that we need to budget on

[3:07:30] an ongoing recurring basis due to our

[3:07:34] new love of glacial flooding outburst

[3:07:38] things. So, um we know that we're we're

[3:07:42] doing an annual um emergency operation

[3:07:46] and we need to put funding um aside to

[3:07:49] handle those staff costs and those u

[3:07:51] minimally related cl costs that we would

[3:07:54] expect to experience every year. Um, we

[3:07:56] know that there's ongoing just flood

[3:07:58] mitigation staff work, whether that's

[3:08:01] working with the Army Corps or um,

[3:08:03] working with residents, other things

[3:08:05] that are going on. And we know now that

[3:08:07] we have these Hescoll barriers in place

[3:08:09] and we will likely have more, there's

[3:08:11] ongoing maintenance that we're

[3:08:12] responsible for and we need to include

[3:08:14] that in our budget. So rough numbers um

[3:08:19] not knowing um exactly how much we need

[3:08:22] to budget as it relates to Gloth um

[3:08:24] we're looking at about 16.2 million of

[3:08:27] gap 11.2 million of that is operational.

[3:08:31] So annually speaking that's a relatively

[3:08:34] um decent number. Um we've talked about

[3:08:36] um SAS recommendation of looking at um

[3:08:39] service reductions and um potential

[3:08:42] revenue as um kind of the primary things

[3:08:44] that would be done in a public forum.

[3:08:46] And um on page 31 of the packet is

[3:08:50] excuse me is a service listing um whose

[3:08:53] origins started with the 2019 priority

[3:08:56] based budgeting exercise that was done.

[3:09:00] that list has been updated to uh reflect

[3:09:02] more current groupings and more current

[3:09:05] services um that have been edited. Um

[3:09:09] and we've grouped these into four groups

[3:09:12] and the first one is core services that

[3:09:14] um the city is responsible for doing. We

[3:09:17] just need to do those. Um the second are

[3:09:20] services that are um things that we need

[3:09:24] to do but perhaps we can control the

[3:09:25] level of service. So, an example is um

[3:09:29] at CBJ after a snowstorm, we like to

[3:09:31] have our streets cleared in 24 hours.

[3:09:33] Doesn't have to be 24 hours, could be 36

[3:09:36] hours or 48 hours. So, we could pick

[3:09:39] that um that level of service that we

[3:09:43] provide while still needing to provide

[3:09:44] that service. um the group that's um

[3:09:47] called number two support. Um those are

[3:09:49] really all those ancillary things that

[3:09:51] have to happen in order for your core

[3:09:54] services or discretionary services to

[3:09:56] take place. Um and then the third list

[3:10:00] are all of those discretionary items. Um

[3:10:04] think of those as the things that make a

[3:10:06] city um the place that people want to

[3:10:08] be, but not necessarily those required

[3:10:11] um services. And so what we'd like to do

[3:10:14] is um walk away from this discussion um

[3:10:20] with kind of an agreement that we want

[3:10:22] to focus our service reductions on the

[3:10:26] discretionary list with some attention

[3:10:30] to that core set where we can adjust the

[3:10:32] level of service. So it's not a question

[3:10:34] of do we do it or not, but are we good

[3:10:37] taking two days to clear streets instead

[3:10:38] of just one. Um and then you know with

[3:10:42] our our new and fantastic communications

[3:10:45] and engagement division, they're already

[3:10:48] working on um some plans to engage the

[3:10:51] public and and some different mechanisms

[3:10:53] that we could use. And so we'd really

[3:10:55] like to hear from you um your preference

[3:10:59] or guidance on the structure of how that

[3:11:02] looks. You know, do we want to do public

[3:11:04] meetings? Do we want to use online

[3:11:05] surveys? we have some online tools that

[3:11:08] are available and how quickly do we want

[3:11:12] that public engagement to take place. Um

[3:11:16] and so with with your guidance

[3:11:21] um it would be um useful to hear kind of

[3:11:23] what you would like to see um within

[3:11:26] that um and that I think that you know

[3:11:29] as far as what we need from you tonight

[3:11:31] that's probably the most timesensitive.

[3:11:34] Um, as we said in the beginning, there's lots of other information and decisions to be made. Those don't

[3:11:40] have to be made tonight, but in order to

[3:11:42] get our um communications group really

[3:11:45] working on a useful set of strategies to

[3:11:47] bring back to you um for your feedback,

[3:11:50] it would be good to know um kind of the

[3:11:52] structure and timing um of that public

[3:11:54] engagement and also if we're if we have

[3:11:57] consensus on focusing on that

[3:12:00] discretionary list and that kind of 1.5

[3:12:02] core list.

[3:12:10] going for questions. I said Mr. Kelly,

[3:12:14] Miss Scandies, and Mayor Weldon.

[3:12:19] » Um, thank you. Um,

[3:12:22] I see some pluses and minuses with going

[3:12:25] with the public uh survey route, but the

[3:12:29] in particular minus might be if it's not

[3:12:33] a scientifically conducted survey, if

[3:12:35] it's just

[3:12:38] we ask people their opinions, be happy

[3:12:40] to get a few responses and it may or may

[3:12:42] not be representative of the population

[3:12:44] actually wants. So my question is like

[3:12:47] are we if we did decide to go the survey

[3:12:50] route to get this uh public input

[3:12:53] uh would we be um set up to to conduct a

[3:12:58] real a real representative survey?

[3:13:03] » Not without an appropriation from the

[3:13:05] assembly. Uh right now for example we do

[3:13:08] the uh survey annually of our um

[3:13:12] community for uh tourism purposes. So,

[3:13:14] we asked them, you know, level of

[3:13:16] tourism, all those questions, and that

[3:13:18] runs us about $40,000 to have a

[3:13:20] statistically significant uh survey. So,

[3:13:23] um something like that, you we'd have to

[3:13:25] contract out with we're talking like

[3:13:27] we're talking survey monkey territory

[3:13:29] here.

[3:13:31] >> Thank you,

[3:13:34] » Miss Hughes Candies.

[3:13:36] >> Thank you, Madame Chair. I just wanted

[3:13:38] to verify 1.5. You say these are

[3:13:42] mandated functions of the city. However,

[3:13:44] the level of service may have some

[3:13:46] discretion and I feel like that is true

[3:13:50] of one core services as well. Would you

[3:13:54] agree?

[3:13:59] » She's like, you certainly could say no,

[3:14:02] I disagree with the grouping. And I just

[3:14:04] want to emphasize that this did not come

[3:14:06] out of um Director Flick's head. uh we

[3:14:10] used it based we took these based on the tabs from priority based budgeting.

[3:14:14] I wasn't here for that exercise but they

[3:14:16] had labeled things that were you know

[3:14:17] discretionary essential etc. So for

[3:14:19] example um if you want to talk about

[3:14:22] minimum staffing at JPD if you want to

[3:14:24] talk about not um patrolling during the

[3:14:27] night if you want to talk about um

[3:14:29] changing our service levels for CCFR and

[3:14:31] who we respond to you know how quick our

[3:14:34] response times are to emergencies. All

[3:14:36] of those things are things that you can talk about. Um, we are trying to uh

[3:14:43] present you with our best proposal of

[3:14:46] something that will be a use a good use

[3:14:49] of your time because I have been through

[3:14:51] these budget exercises before and what

[3:14:54] happens is those those core services uh

[3:14:57] just are are not something that the

[3:14:59] public uh and eventually the governing

[3:15:02] body is willing to move on. if if you

[3:15:04] need to go and and that could be

[3:15:06] different for this community and you may

[3:15:09] need to go uh broaden this conversation.

[3:15:12] It is just our attempt at trying to like

[3:15:15] hone down on something that's a that's

[3:15:17] manageable a manageable size

[3:15:19] conversation to the public. So that

[3:15:21] that's absolutely the type of feedback

[3:15:22] that we're looking for. Nope, I want to

[3:15:24] start at zero. And I believe the

[3:15:25] priority based budgeting uh exercise

[3:15:27] also started with like all the e all the

[3:15:30] services and the feedback that I heard

[3:15:32] and I don't know if you were here uh

[3:15:33] deputy manager bar was that like a lot

[3:15:35] of [snorts] time was spent saying yeah

[3:15:37] these are essential services and we're

[3:15:38] going to do them and that's time that

[3:15:40] you know you're not talking about um

[3:15:43] other nuances and other things. So that

[3:15:45] is why we presented it to you in this

[3:15:47] way. It is does not need to be how you

[3:15:49] approach it but that's kind of our

[3:15:50] justification. I appreciate that

[3:15:53] justification and I did have the

[3:15:54] pleasure of being here with the card

[3:15:56] exercise when we did this before.

[3:16:01] >> Mayor Welen.

[3:16:03] >> Um, so hearing that lovely price tag for

[3:16:07] the survey, I would say we do a

[3:16:09] combination of I don't know if we still

[3:16:12] can doing something online with the

[3:16:14] budget tool that we did in the past with

[3:16:16] Mr. Rogers and I think we should have

[3:16:19] some

[3:16:21] um open forum things. I don't know if we

[3:16:24] want to get out the cards but um it was

[3:16:27] interesting because um I when I had the

[3:16:30] cards I gave them to you know 10 of my

[3:16:33] friends just to see what they said and

[3:16:34] it was very interesting to see that

[3:16:36] nobody was the same. So, but it would be

[3:16:39] interesting to see the um what the

[3:16:41] public um we need to involve the public

[3:16:43] because I don't um

[3:16:46] >> Mayor Walden, do you have a question?

[3:16:48] >> Yes.

[3:16:50] >> I thought we were giving direction to

[3:16:52] them. Sorry.

[3:16:53] >> I think we were asking questions still.

[3:16:55] I didn't

[3:16:58] >> So, I will bring you to a question. Let

[3:17:00] me think about this for a second.

[3:17:04] What other tools can we use to get it

[3:17:06] out to the public before open forum and

[3:17:09] budget [laughter] tools?

[3:17:23] » Um, Madame Mayor, there's, you know,

[3:17:26] obviously we can do in-person town

[3:17:28] halls. We can, um, do a survey monkey.

[3:17:31] you can do the statistically um

[3:17:33] significant survey um within the the

[3:17:36] budget tool um that we currently have.

[3:17:40] There's an online platform where

[3:17:42] residents can um log in and actually

[3:17:46] provide feedback. Um so I think

[3:17:51] I don't want to say the sky's is the

[3:17:52] limit um because certainly that's not

[3:17:54] true. Um, but I think there's a a lot of

[3:17:58] creativity

[3:17:59] um that can that can go in in our um you

[3:18:04] know in our tools that we would

[3:18:06] regularly have and certainly our

[3:18:08] communications team is incredibly

[3:18:10] creative and can you know help help

[3:18:13] guide that and bring back some some good

[3:18:16] ideas for you.

[3:18:20] » Miss Hall, did you have a question or

[3:18:22] are you going to hold for comment time?

[3:18:23] Okay, Mr. Steiner, did you have a

[3:18:25] question?

[3:18:26] >> Um, I had a comment, but I figured out a

[3:18:28] way to turn it into a question.

[3:18:31] [laughter]

[3:18:32] Um, Miss Hugh Scandies was asking about

[3:18:35] number one core versus 1.5. And I've

[3:18:39] been kind of struggling with how we how

[3:18:41] we go about having this conversation

[3:18:43] with the public and not wanting to, you

[3:18:45] know, waste time asking them questions

[3:18:47] about things that we know we're not

[3:18:49] going to cut or can't cut. like you know

[3:18:51] you can't eliminate the assessor's

[3:18:53] office you know that as much as maybe

[3:18:56] some constituents might want us to you

[3:18:58] know it's some of these are not

[3:19:00] reasonable but I think eliminating some

[3:19:04] because we've decided oh this is

[3:19:06] uncutable

[3:19:08] may not be as we may get a lot of

[3:19:10] negative push back on that you know

[3:19:12] looking at some of these where you know

[3:19:15] things that I've definitely gotten

[3:19:16] emails complaining about spending too

[3:19:18] much money on fall into number one core

[3:19:22] in some ways. And so I guess my question

[3:19:24] is if we include number one core in that

[3:19:28] communication and that information

[3:19:30] gathering from the public whether it's

[3:19:32] through an online survey or or what have

[3:19:34] you. How do we plan to kind of inform

[3:19:38] the public on the implications of the

[3:19:43] input they give us? Like if somebody

[3:19:46] gives us the input of yeah cut

[3:19:48] permitting staff in half, are we going

[3:19:50] to like is it going to be a widget that

[3:19:53] says, you know, this would roughly

[3:19:55] impact permit issuance time by triple or what have you? Like are we going to

[3:20:02] give enough information to the public to

[3:20:04] truly understand the recommendations are

[3:20:06] giving us, I guess, and how are we going

[3:20:09] to do that?

[3:20:12] » Yeah, thank you for that question. I I

[3:20:14] um I don't have an answer to that

[3:20:17] question because it gets so unwieldy so

[3:20:19] quickly because we do so much which is

[3:20:22] why I was trying to get you to narrow my

[3:20:24] list down of of uh of items that we

[3:20:27] needed to um ask the public about. So,

[3:20:30] you know, I think if the direction is to

[3:20:32] start, you know, with everything, then

[3:20:35] we would need to bring you back um a

[3:20:37] proc design a process that does that and um and that's going to just take

[3:20:42] some some thoughtfulness.

[3:20:49] Any other questions?

[3:20:53] Okay. Um

[3:20:56] we have kind of we have two questions

[3:20:58] here. Um it's you know feedback on

[3:21:04] public engagement and

[3:21:07] um do we start with

[3:21:10] kind of core or do we you know um do we

[3:21:15] focus our discussion beyond core I

[3:21:18] guess. So, um, and I know they're

[3:21:21] linked, but,

[3:21:24] um, I feel like one drives the other

[3:21:27] probably. So, maybe starting with the

[3:21:29] question of

[3:21:32] do we'll

[3:21:34] read um, staff recommends that we focus

[3:21:38] public engagement and input on services

[3:21:40] that are discretionary [clears throat]

[3:21:41] or core where the level of service can

[3:21:43] be adjusted. Does the AFC concur with

[3:21:45] that focus?

[3:21:47] Mayor Welder,

[3:21:49] >> just a discussion or do you want a

[3:21:51] motion?

[3:21:52] >> Take a motion.

[3:21:53] >> Okay, I'll make

[3:21:54] >> that worked so well last [laughter]

[3:21:55] time.

[3:21:57] >> I'm going to try again. Go ahead, Mayor

[3:21:59] Weldon.

[3:22:00] >> I will say that we direct staff to focus

[3:22:04] public engagement and input on services

[3:22:06] that are discretionary or core where the

[3:22:10] level of service can be adjusted. And

[3:22:11] may I speak to my motion?

[3:22:13] >> Go ahead.

[3:22:14] >> Um, I think what Miss Director, sorry,

[3:22:19] manager Kester said is appropriate. Um,

[3:22:23] we where where we really need feedback

[3:22:26] is on our discretionary items and on our

[3:22:28] core services that can be adjusted. That

[3:22:31] does not mean that an assembly member is

[3:22:33] hearing quite a bit about something else

[3:22:35] that they can't bring it up to another

[3:22:37] time. But I think the public engagement

[3:22:39] should really be focused on those two

[3:22:40] items. discretionary and core where the

[3:22:42] service can be adjusted.

[3:22:45] >> We've got a motion on the table.

[3:22:47] Objections.

[3:22:49] Miss Hugh Candies.

[3:22:51] >> Thanks, Madam Chair. I will speak

[3:22:53] briefly to my motion.

[3:22:56] I agree that there is a difference

[3:23:00] between what the public gives feedback

[3:23:02] on and what this body might do. who this

[3:23:04] body might have a more educated opinion

[3:23:07] of what we think we can do to the core

[3:23:10] services versus it gets it does get very

[3:23:14] complicated very quickly if you open the

[3:23:16] entire thing up to the public.

[3:23:20] I would prefer, however, to get the

[3:23:24] public's opinion on the whole shebang

[3:23:27] because the magnitude of

[3:23:31] budget cuts that we are anticipating

[3:23:37] if we limit it to 1.5 and three. To me,

[3:23:42] I do think that a lot of Juno's public

[3:23:45] might have opinions about how do you

[3:23:47] reduce things in one? how do you um

[3:23:50] potentially reduce things in two um so

[3:23:54] that they can keep some of three or 1.5

[3:23:57] and I if that's the case and I want to

[3:23:59] hear that um I will blend that in to say

[3:24:05] that um it would be well maybe I should

[3:24:08] keep it just to one and not talk about

[3:24:10] outreach strategy.

[3:24:13] I I'll just keep it to that. I I I I

[3:24:16] certainly will be looking at the whole

[3:24:17] thing, but I think there are good

[3:24:18] reasons to Juno who has historically

[3:24:21] taxed itself and um paid for a lot of

[3:24:25] discretionary things that the rest of

[3:24:27] the state, you know, it's a limited

[3:24:29] number of the municipalities that

[3:24:31] provide this level of service. And um I

[3:24:36] think that when people understand the

[3:24:39] magnitude of the decisions made in the

[3:24:41] last election, there is going to be a

[3:24:44] little bit of whiplash and then they're

[3:24:45] going to have opinions about how they

[3:24:47] keep some of those things. I could be

[3:24:49] wrong, but I don't think I am. Uh and

[3:24:52] because of that, then I would want their

[3:24:54] feedback on the whole thing. So that's

[3:24:55] why I will object.

[3:24:59] » Mr. Steiner,

[3:25:01] >> and I'll object too. And I think Miss

[3:25:03] Hugh Scann put it very well. The one

[3:25:06] thing I'll add is I I feel like

[3:25:08] pre-editing

[3:25:10] the list of options that we give to the

[3:25:12] public kind of

[3:25:17] sends a message that maybe we're not

[3:25:19] willing to listen to all ideas. And I

[3:25:22] think having all the items on the list

[3:25:25] helps communicate that we are listening

[3:25:27] to every idea no matter whether it's

[3:25:31] challenging something that we believe

[3:25:33] can't be cut or reduced. Even if I am

[3:25:37] very skeptical that we can squeeze much

[3:25:39] out of the items in number one core. I I

[3:25:43] think it's I I think it would be sending

[3:25:45] the wrong message to not include those

[3:25:47] in our public outreach as we're asking

[3:25:49] people what pieces of government that

[3:25:51] they they prioritize the lowest.

[3:25:56] >> Mr. Kelly,

[3:25:59] >> thank you. Um I um much along the same

[3:26:02] lines as Miss Gandies and Mr. Steiner. I

[3:26:06] um hold firmly as a principle that

[3:26:09] leadership isn't to one party or the

[3:26:11] other giving direction. It's it's a

[3:26:13] discussion and so I think we should put

[3:26:15] it on the table and we should be able to

[3:26:17] communicate what the effects would be um

[3:26:20] and what the consequences would be. I

[3:26:22] think that gives us an opportunity for

[3:26:23] communication and so um I think Miss

[3:26:27] Husseand hasn't quite moved an amendment

[3:26:29] but maybe I um I would since Mr. Mr.

[3:26:32] Sener and Miss Scandies have spoken to

[3:26:34] it. Um I would move to um amend the

[3:26:38] motion to also include uh discussion of

[3:26:42] uh core essential items.

[3:26:47] » You've heard the amendment. Any

[3:26:50] objections to the amendment?

[3:26:52] >> I'll object. I don't need to speak to

[3:26:54] the

[3:26:58] » um I saw Mr. Brooks first. Do you want

[3:27:00] to speak to your objective? Objection.

[3:27:03] >> Objection. For the purpose of a

[3:27:05] question, uh, Assembly Member Kelly, did

[3:27:08] you

[3:27:10] include

[3:27:12] all four options for review in your

[3:27:15] amendment or was it just three of them?

[3:27:18] >> It was my intent to include um

[3:27:21] everything that hasn't been included

[3:27:22] yet.

[3:27:24] >> Thank you.

[3:27:28] » Um, do you remove your objection?

[3:27:29] >> I remove my objection. I just remembered

[3:27:31] >> Miss Hall.

[3:27:35] » Um I will speak in favor of this um

[3:27:40] amendment. I think it's a toss up and I

[3:27:42] understand where staff are coming from

[3:27:44] and I think we will need to get granular

[3:27:47] on you know probably these

[3:27:50] discretionary items at some point with

[3:27:53] the public. This will be an iterative

[3:27:56] process, but I do think from the having

[3:27:59] the community have to grapple with those

[3:28:01] big picture things first

[3:28:04] um will ultimately serve us in the end.

[3:28:06] Even though

[3:28:09] um when we get into the weeds, we'll

[3:28:11] have to get feedback on the the things

[3:28:15] and that right column because those are

[3:28:18] most likely the things that we are going

[3:28:20] to have to touch.

[3:28:24] All right, we have a Oh, go ahead,

[3:28:27] Mayor. Well done.

[3:28:28] >> And count uh votes. I'll just remove my

[3:28:30] objection.

[3:28:33] >> All right, we have a motion and we have

[3:28:34] an amendment. Any objections to the

[3:28:37] amendment?

[3:28:39] Seeing none, that's so moved. Um that

[3:28:42] brings us back to the original motion as

[3:28:44] amended. Any objections?

[3:28:49] Seeing none, that's so moved. And I know

[3:28:51] we're trying to create binary paths when

[3:28:54] there's obviously gray area between the

[3:28:56] two. I know that we will figure this out

[3:29:00] um

[3:29:01] to to do a little bit of a of all these

[3:29:04] things. Um

[3:29:09] the next question is really just getting

[3:29:13] feedback from the body on the public

[3:29:16] process. Is that correct? staff. Is that

[3:29:19] the additional feedback you'd like or is

[3:29:21] there some specific things you'd want

[3:29:24] from us?

[3:29:25] >> Um, yeah, I think just high level

[3:29:27] feedback on the public process would be

[3:29:29] useful. Um, timing I think is what I

[3:29:32] struggle with because you know you in

[3:29:35] what 6 weeks are going to be giving me

[3:29:38] budget direction for building the FY27

[3:29:40] budget. It would be great to have had

[3:29:42] all like surveys and public meetings and

[3:29:46] listening sessions uh in advance of

[3:29:48] that. I don't I don't know how to how to

[3:29:51] do that. Um so I so kind of weighing in

[3:29:55] on what that looks like. Um and what

[3:29:58] like what's so what's most important to

[3:30:00] you, right? Like if it's super

[3:30:01] important, I'll be like okay, we'll de prioritize other other things.

[3:30:05] So just I I just think some like high

[3:30:08] level feedback on uh process but also on

[3:30:11] timing would be useful.

[3:30:14] >> I saw Miss Scandies, Mr. Steining or Mr.

[3:30:17] Brooks.

[3:30:18] >> Thanks Madam Chair. I think um my

[3:30:22] feedback would be I see that before the

[3:30:25] retreat after the retreat

[3:30:28] um the timing before that I would say

[3:30:31] that I have no expectation that there's

[3:30:33] going to be a super robust public

[3:30:35] process before the retreat and I think

[3:30:37] we will give you that direction as a

[3:30:40] body and then

[3:30:42] I think the earlier we start the public

[3:30:45] process the better because it is going

[3:30:47] to be an iterative process and we are

[3:30:49] going going to have to go from, you

[3:30:51] know, 100,000 ft, 50,000 ft. I don't

[3:30:54] remember the numbers, but we're going to

[3:30:56] have to zoom in at some point,

[3:31:00] but that I anticipate if we take into

[3:31:03] account the holidays and travel and

[3:31:05] things that really that the real heart

[3:31:07] of that process is going to take place

[3:31:09] next year. I remember when the state

[3:31:13] went broke and they had the balance a

[3:31:15] budget tool on the website. I don't know

[3:31:18] that we could have anything as

[3:31:19] sophisticated as that, but I would

[3:31:21] really love it if people we had

[3:31:23] something that people could play with

[3:31:25] themselves at home. Um, even if it's,

[3:31:29] you know, putting a link to an Excel

[3:31:31] sheet or something. Um, and pointing

[3:31:34] them to it at social media so they could

[3:31:35] see the challenges of balancing the

[3:31:37] budget and the cuts that will need to be

[3:31:39] made. Um and then I think we should do

[3:31:41] non-statistical stuff in addition to you

[3:31:45] know if this body wanted to do anything

[3:31:46] non-statistical but public meetings I

[3:31:49] would think would be part of that. So I mean I will trust to the engagement

[3:31:52] team to bring bring us back strategies

[3:31:55] through you but um but I I would just

[3:31:58] say I would love giving something that

[3:32:01] allows the public to play with the

[3:32:03] budget because I think sometimes that's

[3:32:05] how you make someone realize how deep

[3:32:07] the cuts are.

[3:32:11] Mr. Steininger,

[3:32:14] >> Miss Hugh Scandies was thorough and

[3:32:16] covered everything.

[3:32:18] >> Mr. Brooks.

[3:32:22] » Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just

[3:32:25] wondering if, you know, maybe we could

[3:32:30] take a page out of the

[3:32:33] uh um election process and maybe utilize

[3:32:37] dropboxes in some sort of fashion, you

[3:32:40] know, for community outreach. People are

[3:32:42] more likely to do it uh if it has more

[3:32:47] options of partaking and more convenient

[3:32:49] options. So, you know, the strategic

[3:32:52] areas like supermarkets and things like

[3:32:55] that. It doesn't have to be the

[3:32:57] beautiful dropboxes that we have for for

[3:33:00] the ballots and stuff, but something,

[3:33:02] you know, sufficient enough with blank

[3:33:04] pages and then maybe having just a

[3:33:07] little bulletin above it or some sort of

[3:33:09] display that explains, you know, the the

[3:33:12] objective of the of the community and

[3:33:15] finances and then have people just write

[3:33:17] on a piece of paper. And uh I know it's

[3:33:20] all all staff and time permitting, but

[3:33:22] I'd read to them all.

[3:33:27] » Miss Hall,

[3:33:30] » I think we have a professional

[3:33:32] communication engagement division and I think we should divert a lot of

[3:33:37] these decisions about the howto's to to

[3:33:41] the professionals. Um, I I think the

[3:33:44] sooner the better, although running up

[3:33:47] to the holidays that's super

[3:33:48] challenging. Um, I think some community

[3:33:52] engagement in in meetings maybe downtown

[3:33:54] in the valley, but ultimately have

[3:33:56] people fill it out online so we're not

[3:33:58] getting

[3:34:00] multiple, you know, people going to a

[3:34:02] meeting and providing their input and

[3:34:04] then going home and doing it again, you

[3:34:06] know, like you can provide input once

[3:34:10] and but again, leave all those little

[3:34:13] details up to the professionals.

[3:34:17] Any

[3:34:19] other comments? I see a lot of head

[3:34:21] nods.

[3:34:24] I'll just add on the I think there will

[3:34:28] be, you know, a question of kind of

[3:34:30] appropriation and spending money and um

[3:34:35] we'll be I'll be you know curious what

[3:34:37] you all come to us with. But I will say

[3:34:41] that, you know, because we are we're

[3:34:45] embarking on this to cut the budget

[3:34:47] that, you know, I I don't statistical

[3:34:51] surveys are probably not where my brain

[3:34:54] is, but I will always advocate for um

[3:34:59] hiring a neutral facilitator.

[3:35:02] Um if if that makes sense. I know the

[3:35:05] brand new engagement team might have

[3:35:06] sorry the community marketing team might

[3:35:10] have good ideas that don't include that

[3:35:12] but I that is an expense that I'd be

[3:35:14] open to um so that we make sure that

[3:35:18] there's time and attention on putting

[3:35:22] together that process and and bringing

[3:35:24] us back um you know an output.

[3:35:32] Great. I think that is it. staff, do you

[3:35:34] have the fe feedback that you need?

[3:35:37] Great. Well, that bring we are going to

[3:35:41] skip the next few items here and we will

[3:35:43] come back to them.

[3:35:45] Revenue definitely something want to

[3:35:47] talk. Mr. Smith,

[3:35:49] >> sorry. Um [clears throat] I I just I I'm

[3:35:53] also I know we're I know a number of us

[3:35:55] are interested in foreground revenue. I did just want to maybe get a

[3:36:00] temperature check from the assembly and

[3:36:02] I I could do it in the form of a motion

[3:36:04] if that would be okay. Um just on the

[3:36:07] idea of again a a a group of three to

[3:36:11] kind of maybe dig in a little bit on the

[3:36:13] foreground revenue just so we don't lose

[3:36:16] steam on it.

[3:36:18] >> Would that be would you be open to that,

[3:36:20] Madam Chair? I think um I don't know

[3:36:23] that we need a motion because there's

[3:36:25] nothing keeping three people from doing

[3:36:27] that regardless. So I see some head nods

[3:36:30] and um that sounds like a good idea. I'd

[3:36:33] also say for folks who may not end up in

[3:36:36] that group, um it would probably be

[3:36:38] helpful if you look through that list

[3:36:40] and there are particular things that you

[3:36:42] think are either, you know, that are big

[3:36:46] movers or easy wins that you um pick those out and and can communicate

[3:36:53] those with with staff or or be thinking

[3:36:55] about those so we all can have a little

[3:36:57] homework.

[3:37:00] Does that satisfy you, Mr. Smith?

[3:37:04] Um, yeah, I I was gonna add that I

[3:37:07] didn't want to be on that group. That

[3:37:09] was the only part of my motion I was

[3:37:10] going to add in, but um

[3:37:13] [laughter]

[3:37:14] hold on. I thought I saw the mayor and

[3:37:16] she probably has better guidance than I

[3:37:17] do.

[3:37:18] >> Okay, M. [clears throat] Sorry.

[3:37:20] >> Well, uh, Mr. Sorry, Mr. Steininger

[3:37:23] already said that he's been interested

[3:37:24] in this. I've been interested in this

[3:37:26] and I've talked to you before. So, that

[3:37:28] will be our core three. And if anybody

[3:37:30] else wants another group, they're

[3:37:31] certainly welcome to because I

[3:37:33] >> Who's in the group? I missed Mr.

[3:37:35] Steininger.

[3:37:36] >> I volunteered. You me.

[3:37:38] >> Mr. Steiner.

[3:37:40] >> So, we'll see.

[3:37:41] >> We have lots of questions for the

[3:37:43] attorney.

[3:37:43] >> I didn't know I was in it. All right.

[3:37:45] Cool.

[3:37:51] » Chair. Go ahead. Miss

[3:37:53] >> Hallifying question. So those three, if

[3:37:55] any of the rest of us have info, we

[3:37:58] should give it to the staff who then

[3:38:00] give it to the

[3:38:02] >> Yes. Okay. Thanks.

[3:38:07] » All right. Um that brings us to next meeting date

[3:38:20] which is December 3rd, 2025.

[3:38:23] and executive session.

[3:38:28] Um, Madame Mayor,

[3:38:31] give a motion.

[3:38:33] >> Uh, I move that we recess into executive

[3:38:35] session to discuss and update collective

[3:38:37] bargaining negotiations, the immediate

[3:38:39] knowledge of which would adversely

[3:38:41] affect the finances of the municipality.

[3:38:47] » That's for unanimous consent. I should

[3:38:48] read the whole thing.

[3:38:51] Are there any members of the public that

[3:38:54] object?

[3:38:57] Oh, I have to I have to declare a

[3:39:00] conflict. Um I am have a conflict

[3:39:05] associated with negotiations with IAFF

[3:39:08] and so I will um leave for that part of

[3:39:12] the discussion. Any objections from the

[3:39:14] assembly about recessing into executive

[3:39:17] session?

[3:39:19] Oh, go ahead, Miss Flick.

[3:39:21] >> Thank you, Chair. Well, before you um

[3:39:24] actually resource into executive

[3:39:25] session, um do we need to come back to

[3:39:29] the public or [clears throat]

[3:39:32] um for public action?

[3:39:34] >> We will not need to take motion after

[3:39:37] the executive session. So, when we are

[3:39:39] done, we will adjourn.

[3:39:41] >> Perfect.

Assembly Finance Committee

Transcript