I call the November 5th Assembly Finance
Committee meeting to order. Miss Wendle,
will you call roll or no roll?
>> Thank you, Chair Wall. We have all
assembly members present in chambers
besides Assembly Member Atinson and
Smith who are available on Zoom.
» Thank you. That brings us to approval of
minutes. You have the September 3rd,
2025 minutes in your packet. Any changes
to those minutes?
Seeing none, those are so moved. Brings
us to agenda topics.
We are going to start with the FY25
financial wrap-up.
Um,
Miss Flick.
Thank you, Chair Wall. I will um share
the PowerPoint here in just a second.
Uh, but I did want to just take a moment
um the memo cover memo for this. Um, I
don't usually do a a preamble to the
meeting, but I felt like it was
appropriate for this meeting. We have a
lot of things on the agenda tonight and
they are presented to you in pieces. Um,
but they all kind of tie together. So,
um, you know, we'll start with the, uh,
FYI25 wrap-up, which we're still in
process of the audit. Um, uh, but
there's enough that solidified that we
wanted to present to you. Um, tonight
we've got, um, a whole memo and
conversation about kind of the financial
path forward given the election results
that, um, have just been certified. Um
something that we talked about earlier
on uh in the calendar year was uh these
items of foregone revenue. There's a
whole uh memo on that that plays
together with some of these things. And
then finally a revisit of the dockage
fee increase um and how to uh utilize
those funds as a potential option. So um
lots of things in the in the packet
tonight. um recognition that you guys
have had a heavy um couple weeks of
meetings. Um last week having two
meetings, this week having two meetings.
Um so we've worked with Christine Wall.
There are some places we can um um eject
if we need to. And um if we can get to
everything that's also fantastic. Uh so
with that, let me see if I
can successfully share my screen.
And for the committee, do feel free to
ask questions throughout um and wave at
me if I don't see you.
» Let's see.
All right. Well, we'll do it in Perfect.
I think it did it and I wasn't patient
enough. So, let me hit that again and
see if it comes across as the
presentation.
Yes. Excellent. So, we're going to talk
about um FY25.
Um I did want to just uh take a moment
to pause and have a moment of gratitude.
Um you all know that um finance has a
lot have has had experienced a lot of
turnover and actually I think we were
three years of getting our financial
statements out really really late and we
were not even in a position to give you
a fiscal year update in November like we
pushed that to as close to the retreat
as we possibly could as we possibly
could. Um this year I am
exceedingly excited to say we've kept uh
most of our core of accountants for
almost a full year. We we've have had in
the last couple last month of turnover.
Um but we are working on the final
pieces of our year-end adjustments and
our audit. We're pulling up transactions
where last year we processed things in
January and we're looking at them in
October. Um, so just super excited to um
see the growth of the team and um just
the the year-over-year progress in
improving our our year- end close
processes. So um I fully anticipate that
we'll be able to issue our financial
statements on time, which is into the
calendar year. Um the questions that the
auditors have had for us are all
completely reasonable and things we we
would expect them to ask. And so, um,
we're just, uh, in a really good place.
So, um, fantastic team that I get to
work with every day and I'm I am
grateful for them. And so, I just wanted
to take a moment and share that with
you.
But, we're here to talk about our
financials. So, we will u move on to
that. Um, this is um, granted a little
bit of a busy screen, but when we talk
about um, the general government,
we um, see if I can hide some things on
my screen so I can see it.
This is our revenue picture and so this
is the general government. So it is um
your general fund elements and your
sales tax um elements um combined
together. This is how we generally talk
about it when we put the budget
together. Um you can see the um types of
revenue that are discussed here are 25
budget or 25 actuals. the difference
between those. A positive number means
that we brought in more revenue than
anticipated. A negative number means
less um than the budget.
When we built our FY26 budget, we had
done an FY25 forecast. And so there are
areas that we had communicated to you as
the assembly that we thought we were
going to be over or under budget. So
that's what that next column surplus
deficit forecasted means. So, for
charges for services, we thought we were
going to be $350,000
um over budget, have additional revenue
than budgeted. It turns out we had
$823,000
more revenue. So, the newly realized is
the last column, um the $473,000.
So you can see that in the case of our
federal revenue, we actually brought in
less revenue than we forecasted
um or less revenue than was budgeted.
And uh for state um
overall, I'll just I won't read all of
them. The the the big number on this
page is the investment income um where
we had um $4.4 million budgeted. We had
$15 million um actual um interest
earnings. That's 10 million $10.7
million um additional. We had um guessed
it would be about $4 million more. Um it
was actually ended up being $6.7 million
more than we had even forecasted.
Um that has a lot to do with um really,
you know, the Feds had come in and
forecasted or the market had projected
the Feds were going to cut rates
throughout the year. that didn't happen
until September. Um so a lot of um a lot
of things that uh we had anticipated not
being as good as planned and they were
um great. Um additional to that um we
were able to um have uh reimbursements
come in from grants that helped the
general pool earn more revenue um than
we had also forecasted.
Um, we had talked to you about sales tax
um, being less than forecasted by about
$1.2 million when we built the budget.
Um, it actually came in about $700,000
less than the budget. So almost a half a
million better than we had forecasted to
you. Um, so that's just kind of a
rundown of all of the um, various types.
You may be wondering why other is
negative. A lot of that has to do with
that's where we categorize bad debt
where we think we're going to write off
um revenue. So it um is budgeted as a
negative. We actually um amongst a lot
of different kinds of other revenue
ended up um having a positive position
at the end of the year.
Uh we like to look at sales tax. Um
we're going to talk about sales tax a
lot. So we're calling this out. The
green bar 71 million is our actual
revenue. Our FY26 budget is $71.3
million in revenue. The purple bar at
the end is the um forecasted revenue
given the um the exemptions that were
passed with the ballot. Um a question
that we often get asked was well how did
the summer fare for us? Um last Friday
was the due date for sales tax that was
collected July, August, and September.
So I won't know the results of that for
another few weeks. But the next slide um
breaks out all of the sales tax
collections by quarter. So you can see
that April, May, June
um revenue in sales tax was um pretty
much in line with what we'd seen the
last couple years. So while we had kind
of been hearing rumblings that um it was
expecting a soft summer um it turned,
you know, the reality was it it came in
about where it has been the last few
years.
on the expense side of the house. Um
these are our different categories of
expense and our budgeted amount, our
actual amount and um the over under. So
in personnel services we budgeted 63.5
million there was 58.3 million actually
expended. So we were 5.2 million under
budget. Again, when we prepared our
forecast for you preparing for FY26, we
had anticipated that we would end up
being about $4.5 million under budget.
So, we realized about another $725,000
worth of savings from um salaries,
wages, benefits, unspent in the
commodity and services. Um I broke these
out into um just kind of bigger groups
so you can see where those landed. Um
the I will say about the community and
youth grants um some of the assembly
grants that you have awarded um you
awarded a larger sum that were distri
distributed over multiple years. So the total sum is in the budget although
just a portion was distributed and so
that shows as being um an underbudget
that um basically rolls forward into 26
and we know that that's going to be
again expended partially in 26 and
partly in 27. Um those are three-year
awards. Um and so that's that's the big
driver in your under budget there in the
youth and community grants. Overall
um we were um about $1 million under in
our spending. We had planned um and
forecasted for about five 5.2 of that.
And so um we realized an additional 5.8
million in savings um from under spent.
um we will look at it at these a little
bit um in detail. So with respect to the
um personnel laps or um salary savings,
however you want to think about it. So
we had an amount budgeted for personnel
and we didn't expend all of it. Here are
the departments that um had the larger
portions of the under spending. Um so
police and fire have typically um led
the way. transit was a big um number
community community development and
finance um kind of rounded that out um
also with streets
comparatively um you can look at um the
25 laps of some of the big departments
compared to the 24 laps and um some
departments are experiencing more some
departments are experiencing less.
finance. For example, we had almost
$600,000 worth of laps in 24 and only
about 300,000 in um FI25.
Um as I just said, like in our
accounting team, we were able to retain
most of our accountants. So um you know,
departments are experiencing some of
that. The percentage is the percent of
their department personnel services. And
so just think of that as a um you can
look at just the number or the slice um
of their personnel budget that was
savings.
» Mayor Welen,
>> thank you for that. I just um I'd asked
you this earlier about the police. You
want to explain that a little bit
because um we know that our police isn't
fully staffed.
>> Yeah. So um you can see police and fire
um are are both kind of represented the
same way in the numbers. You can see
their their 24 laps was 1.5 for police,
1.7 for fire and in FI25 it was 1.2 and
1.4 million. So their dollar lapsing is
less but their percentage changed um a
bit and that has to do with how big
their personnel services budget was. So
in FY25
1.3 1.4 million was only 8% of the
personnel budget in total for police
whereas um in FI24 they had a larger
dollar amount associated
Okay, so
let me rephrase what I was just saying.
Um, it's been a while since I put these
together in FY25. I'm sorry. I'm
comparing apples and oranges for you,
and that is bad on my part. So, I will
um follow up with um apples and apples.
The dollars are apples to apples. The
percent in FY25 is the percent of the
laps of the department ser of the
department's personal services and the
24 laps was actually the percentage of
the whole more like what we saw here. So
sorry to put those apples and oranges
together.
Um focus on the dollar values there. So
it's dollars to dollars for for sure.
>> Miss Hugh Scandies.
>> Thanks Madam Chair. So to talk about the
apple for a second just so I'm clear I
can focus on the dollar amount and
that's giving me apples to apples 8%
of their personnel budget only their
personnel budget is what I'm looking at
and 25 yes
>> and 24 is the percent of their total
budget that's
>> is the percent of all of the personnel
labs so
>> oh of all the personnel got it
>> similar to here where they were out a
quarter of the entire personal savings.
>> That was the same um roughly the same
last year.
>> Great.
>> So, sorry to do apples to oranges on you
there.
>> No, that's helpful.
>> I'll ask a
different question on this topic.
[clears throat]
You know, I remember
when I first started the assembly, it
was in the middle of the pandemic. you
know, we we budgeted for a $1 million
lapse.
We were like, it's, you know, things
were it was the pandemic. There's a lot
of wild things happening with our um,
you know, across the country in terms of
employment.
Now, we've seen several years in a row
post pandemic at, you know, a much
larger number in terms of what our lapse
is. Do we feel like this is
just the new normal or
in terms of
regular turnover in the department or is
this really being driven by
um
you know our three big departments.
Um thank you for that question. Um
with respect to how we budget personnel
and the anticipated lapse within
personnel budget, um we have over the
last couple of years um looked more
closely at the department's historical
trends in how they've been able to fill
positions and adjusted the amount of
expected savings in personnel um
accordingly.
um
to what they've experienced. So
for instance in in finance we may have
only budgeted 1% of our personnel as a
lapse and looking at where we had been
over several years we increased that to
5% last year. And so for um
we're we're spending um more time
looking at that historical trend but
also in conversation with the
departments to understand what's
changing. Um you know the uh CCFR
implemented a new program this year and
just um you know brought five folks on
as um having passed their EMT. Um, so
they're doing things to kind of change
the dynamic of their vacancies. And so
it's it's looking historically, but also
um with that conversation of what
they're what they're trying to do
differently to try to to put that in
anticipated lapse in the right ballpark
so that we're not seeing um
unanticipated lapses year-over-year.
Okay, we'll move on to non-personal
lapses. Um this is broken out by um the
departments and divisions. Um this is
the amount of their everything not
personnel that they didn't spend out of
their budget um and the percent of that
department or division's um budget that
was lapsed. And we've also called out in
a couple places where there's some
onetime spending um because that's
important to understand that, you know,
like in the manager's office, they had
$325,000
of um unspent budget. $182,000 of that
was a contingency line that we had
budgeted and we ended up not needing to
use all of it um as it related to the
MUN way facility and and some
adjustments that needed to have there.
Um, as we looked through this data,
there wasn't any like one huge driver
of, oh, this happened or we we planned
for this and across the board, these
things didn't come true. Um, as we
looked at um where there were savings,
it was little bits and pieces of
everything everywhere. Um, you know,
just, you know, even looking at streets
there. Um, look at the winter that we
had last year compared to the snow snow
apocalypse that we had the year before.
So just, you know, less, you know, less
chemicals, less gravel, those things.
Um, so there wasn't anything that that
stood out as um big red flags amongst um
these savings. Just little little things
here and there that added up.
We always want we spend a lot of time
talking about our um general government
um departments and funds. Um it's also
important to look at our non-general
government um expenses. Um so these are
the um departments andor um divisions
functions that um are not general funds.
So we have the FI25 budget, the actuals
and again these are just focused on
expenses. So if they're over budget or
under budget, um I want to point out
that fleet
is not um is is a tiny piece of
operational, but that is where we budget
and purchase large equipment um
vehicles. And so we we see every year
that we plan for things to come in um
and you know certain and we just have a
lot of stuff that don't make it in the
one-year time frame. Some of that is
large pieces of equipment that take
longer to even build. Um, but that's that large number um there that
kind of stands out um as an anomaly.
» Brooks.
>> Thank Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh I just
had a question about uh wastewater
coming in 14% under it. There's
obviously a lot of work that still needs
to be done within wastewater. Is there
uh a reason it wasn't reallocated to
some other projects within the
department?
» Uh it's a good question. Um some of the
member books um I don't have all of the
details on Wistro. I know that part of
their um part of their savings overall
is personnel laps. Um I know that they
are a department that struggles to keep
their positions filled. Um, and then
they would have associated supplies and services to go with that.
>> Thank you,
» Miss Hughes Candies. [clears throat]
Thanks, Madam Chair, for your
indulgence. Miss Flick, I didn't realize
you'd advance the page. If I'm just
looking at the previous one, and I'm
just curious, you know, I have my own
curiosities with each department and I'm
not going to say, well, what about this
one and what about that one? But is
there generally if I look at
is there a general theme across some of
these departments where they're in the
same sort of ballpark
and it's less obvious than like streets.
you know, they're buying salt and gravel
or whatever they're buying that it's
things like supplies or they have like
similar categories of what they lapsed
on or is it really unique to each
department? And if you don't know that
off the top of your head, I can just in
private ask about a couple.
>> Um, thank you, Miss Huskandies. Um, we
should probably just talk offline about
the ones that you're curious about. As
we as we looked through these, we didn't
see like an overall theme like um
everybody had conferences travel or
conferences canceled or you know this
big thing happened across the board. So
we just we didn't see that a trend or a
theme that that kind of weave through
any of them but be happy to look at
specifics where you have where you're
curious.
>> Okay, that helps. Thanks
>> Mr. Steininger.
Um similar question on trends and seams.
Um is this do you see kind of
consistently departments or divisions
year-over-year having kind of similar
levels of lapse or is it does it vary up
and down quite a bit? Like have you done
kind of a backwards look over a couple
of years?
>> I don't u Mr. Singer I don't know that
we've um really looked across a couple
years and across specific things. I know
every year as we're preparing the
budget, we look um at what they're
requesting. We look at what historically
they've spent, where we've seen those
trends, looking at those um very
granular details and we have those
conversations with the departments as
we're developing the budget.
» I just will add having built a couple of
these budgets now and then before as
engineering and public works director,
we are often aspirational in what we can
get accomplished. So, for example, if we
have plans uh I'll just use the this
year budget example. We are going to
renovate our red do our website. Well,
we put money in this year's operating
budget to redo our website and we will
start on that project, but we will not
finish that project within this year.
So, that would be an example of and you
have that in lots of line items, right?
projects that uh don't get finished um
and and that then you know have to be
carried over to the next year which
means we have to ask you for authority
again to put those in the budget. So I
think there are a lot of those pieces
and it really reflects our budget
culture which I'm proud of where
departments don't feel like they have to
rush to hurry up to spend uh all the
money so that they can justify getting
that money in the next line item. And I
know that's something we talked about
before, but I just want to reiterate it
because um you know I suspect that that
that'll be an area to to tighten and
that will have an impact on our budget
culture.
Okay. Uh we covered this slide. So um
we'll move to kind of wrapping up. Um
this is the budget summary that um you
all have in the back of your budget book
every year. Um, so just
can't see my mouse move. So, um, this
starts with FY24, but if you go down a
couple lines, 25 is what I want to focus
on.
This outlines, um, the
budget summary as we had prepared it
moving into the FY26 budget. So, this is
what we thought was going to happen. and
of particular notice. You'll notice um
the last um last three columns over on
the right hand side, the unrestricted
fund balance and the restricted fund
balance. So when we finished when we
were getting ready to work with you
about the FY26 budget, we expected we
would end FY25
with 20 million in unrestricted fund
balance and 16 a half in the restricted
fund balance. So this is just a recap of
what um you saw when we were preparing
the budget for FY26.
The next page is what actually happened.
So these have been updated for the FY25
actuals. And so everything that we've
just talked about is incorporated here
in slightly um different words um just
summarized a little bit differently. Um
but you can see that our ending
unrestricted fund balance is actually
31.4
and your restricted um fund balance
restricted funds reserve is also um sold
as 16 12. So I'm just going to pull from
the page before that last line so you
can just see them side by side. And I
know it looks kind of funny on your
printed page. Um but the difference
there is an $1 million increase in your
unrestricted fund balance.
So, that's our FY25 ending, but you've
already moved into FY26 and you've
already made decisions about the FY26
um budget and there have been ordinances
that have come through and so um the
last page in this presentation shows the
FY26
adopted budget, the items that have come
through a supplemental appropriations
and then um things that we're already
aware of um that we're we're including
in our forecast And one of the things
you can see in the yellow is um we've
worked into the budget our anticipated
revenue loss based on our estimates for
the exemptions on um the sales tax that
were recently passed. And so you'll see
with that revenue reduction included um
we anticipate without any other changes
the ending fund your your unrestricted
fund balance to be at 15 million. um
your restricted fund balance has changed
to 17.3 and that's um partly because um
you did make a um a contribution to the
restricted reserve but then we also
pulled out the reserve for the Eagle
Crest um deficit and then um with the
deappropriation
of the Eagle Crest um
operating budget that recently went
through after their staffing change. um
those all combined um changed your bud
your restricted reserve from 16 and a
half to 17.4 and I can show that
differently um in a different way if we
need to but that's kind of the summary
of how how that number changed
>> Miss Hugh Gandes thanks Madame Chair
just a question to help me think through
that I think I'm tracking with you but
our expectation
at the time
that we finished that budget.
We had said I'm on page 21 of the packet
was 16
and they're restricted. That's correct.
Well, I'm looking at this now. I'm
looking at 25 and I see 20
in the restricted and 16.8 8 in the
unrestricted there you if you can see
that line
so does that I'm trying to make that
square with the
three per 3 million contribution that we
made to the restricted because I would
you know we did that before we passed
the budget so I would expect to see that
in like what we expect before we got
Eagle Crest involved in it so I'm just
trying to follow the math from that.
>> So, um the math on that and um this is
in the the published budget book which
will take me a minute to pull up, but if
we need to, we can have Miss Windle
share her screen. Um you made a
contribution of 3.3 million for the
budget process. um as part of the budget
process when the decision was made to
allow Eagler Crest to run a deficit
that's allowable if we restrict and
additionally reserve funding and the
body had decided that they were going to
restrict the restricted budget reserve.
It's a lot of restrict in there. And so
what we've done is we've pulled that out
of the available balance. So you
increased by 3.3 but you reserved
3,45,800
um which you net those together and and
you roughly have 200,000 $250,000
of an increase to what's in your
restricted budget reserve that you could
use in the future if you needed to. So
that change in addition since you've
approved the budget um Eaglerest has
done their position conversion and with
that realized that the full budget
wasn't required and so a budget
reduction came through which meant that
you didn't have to reserve as much of
your restricted budget reserve and so
that freed up an additional 540,000.
So that math gets you to the 17.3.
Perfect. Thanks.
» I'm gonna have you walk me this similar
journey through the unrestricted fund
balance. Um,
so many memories flooding back here. the
what I took you saying here um is
the 15 something that I can't read under
my notes um
15 15 million under at the very bottom
of the page is what now we would expect
the unrestricted
fund balance balance to be at the end of
fiscal year 26, which takes what we
thought it was going to be
when we set the budget,
plus the additional
um the surplus that we ended up with in
FY25 that we didn't know about
minus our anticipated
changes to sales tax revenue and other
actions that we've taken.
>> That is exactly correct. And the the 23 million that's in the unrestricted
budget fund balance for the assembly
adopted budget is that's what we
anticipated having at the end of FY26
when we passed our budget. That seems
much higher than I remember. So that's
that confused me.
» That's correct. So that that 23
had our assumption
of where we would in 25
plus the changes that were made when we
built the 26 budget.
And I think Miss Wendell is going to
share her screen andor talk with the
numbers specifically in front of her.
» Thank you. Let I'll try to provide a
little clarity here. So, the way that
the budget summary document is formatted
is that um the and and and perhaps we
need to make an adjustment here, but the
assembly adopted budget amount of 23.7
million for the unrestricted fund
balance does actually take into effect
um take into consideration
the larger projected ending fund balance
of FY25.
So, that includes the additional 11
million That [clears throat] that makes
>> why your memory is
>> more sense to me. Okay, that's super
helpful. Thank you.
» Keep rolling. Oh, Mayor Welen,
>> you looked at me, so I'll have to answer
a question. Ask a question. I'm assuming
that the secure rules uh school spending
will probably no longer exist. So, is
that a true statement?
>> Uh, thank you, Mayor Weldon. uh we are
anticipating that we will um not receive
the secure rural schools which is why in
our FY26 projection here we've reduced
our revenue by 523,000
and a followup so those are what about
the
I mean community assistance I assume
it's the same thing tobacco tax revenue
you're estimating
this is you projecting
for the end of the year is a
reduction or is that a policy call that
you know is coming
on the tobacco tax revenue? That's
actually um a reduction to the general
fund because the tobacco tax fund was
significantly under um under budget and
was actually running a negative fund
balance. So, we um reduce the amount of
transfer from the tobacco tax fund to
the general fund to keep it from going
negative.
And if I could just provide um clarity
on the community assistance, um we did
actually receive some. It's just less
than what we budgeted. And so that's the
difference.
Okay. Um, any other questions on the
FY25
update?
And those folks online, I assume if they
raise their hand, I'll be able to see
them. I see your hand, Mr. Smith. Go
ahead.
[clears throat]
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um
I just there was a the point about
investment earnings being greater than
projected this year and maybe it's maybe
it's a question for maybe it's will be
pertinent for later but I'll ask it now.
Um Miss Flick there are years where we
project and then we have lower
investment returns as well. Would you
confirm that and and if you remember you
know within the near future maybe what
size any of those you know below return
below projections were.
>> Uh thank you Mr. I I believe it was FY22
or FY23.
We were significantly or um the market
did terribly and we were we had budgeted
positive
um interest earnings and we actually
lost
um on the on the market side. So, um I
don't know the the scale of that um but
it was um in very recent history that did occur.
>> Thank you,
>> Mr. Brooks.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. uh during those
years where there were losses in the
investment, was it the the same methods
of investments being uh conducted? You
know, the the the same firms and
portfolios
we're using currently. Sorry.
>> Thank you, Assembly Member Brooks. Um
yes, it is um we have not changed um
firms or investment pools um since that
time occurred.
All right, we will move on. I'll just be
just remind folks this, you know,
there's a whole lot of data to unpack
here. So, um, you know, take your time
and I know staff are available to
continue to help um, folks understand
all that was just presented. All right,
that brings us to um financial paths
forward with election 2025 results. Is
this Miss Flick or Manager Kuster?
Probably both.
>> Thank you, Chairwall. I believe we are
going to tag team this. Uh so this is on
starting on page 24 of your packet. Um
this is
>> Oops. I'll just inter um interrupt you
real quick. I meant to say this. Our in
this is a long memo and our intent is to
take it kind of chunk by chunk here.
[clears throat] So we've got some
discussion questions and um things built
in along the way. So um okay, go ahead,
Miss Flick. [laughter]
Thank you, Chairwell. Um there is a lot
of information in this memo um and tried
to lay it out in a way that um it would
be easy to follow and kind of tie
together concepts um that move through.
Um there are a lot of questions also in
this memo, but we do not need to answer
every question tonight. Um there are um
there are many decisions that need to be
made over the course um of our next few
meetings together. Um and we wanted to
make sure that you had a full picture of
information in front of you and that we
um tried to ask you questions that would
help you start thinking about things and
maybe start preparing you to make some
decisions that you don't have to make
tonight. There are a few things that um
we do need you to decide on tonight and
so we'll we'll make sure that we either
tackle those in process or they're also
at the end of the memo so we make sure
we don't lose sight of them. So we'll
make sure that those get cared for. Um
the uh
I I don't need to uh belabor the point.
There were um several election
propositions. Um two of them passed. Um
ballot proposition one um had to do with
capping the mill rate at um nine mills.
Um and this excludes debt service. Um
and so previously it was 12, it will now
be at 9. Um our FY26
mill rate excluding debt service is
9.16.
Um the FY26 impact of this ballot
proposition passing passing is nothing.
um your FY26 budget was built with the
um mill rate which you passed as part of
the FY26 budget preparation. I believe
you passed it on June 9th. Um those mill
rates were applied to the assessed
values as of January 1st of 2025.
Property tax bills went out roughly July
1st. Property taxes were due September
30th. The election happened after that.
So at this point there's no action in
FY26.
um and no impact from that particular
ballot measure on FY26. However, moving
into FY27
um we will need to reduce our mill rate
by that 0.16 mills. Um assuming a
relatively flat um market in the real
estate world, we would expect that to be
about a million dollars worth of revenue
loss um to the um various uh general
fund components that make that up. So
that is something that we will have to
address with our FY27 budget.
Um [clears throat] proposition two um
had two components. Um one was an
exemption of sales tax on um basically
SNAP eligible food or food is def as as
defined by the food and nutrition act of
2008.
um this uh there's that component and
then there's also a component having to
do with um utilities um at um the
primary residents. Um those uh take
effect um here this month. Um the
estimated f annualized impact of both of
those is roughly $1 million. We're
partway through FY26. So roughly seven
of the 12 months um will be impacted and
so we calculate that to be about 6.4
million of a revenue decrease for FY26.
Um and again annualized for FY27
um it's total of 11 million. Um
depending on how we address FY26
um that could just be um an incremental
[clears throat] adjustment to the full
year or the full 11 million. So what's
really important to take away from the
sales tax discussion is that our sales
tax is made up of um three main
components. One 1% is permanent and that
goes to our operations. 1% is temporary
and that goes to specific projects. And
so on page 30 of your packet um
attachment A is a breakout of um the
sales tax. So, um the list A there on
your right are the 1% temporary projects
that um will um now that 1% has a less
value um going forward for the remainder
of that um particular um time period for
which the 1% is in effect through
September of 2028. And then the last
component is a 3% temporary tax that we
break up into three pieces. And what you
see there on attachment A is the three
pieces broken out as they appeared on
the ballot. So um what I've called list
B is 1% of the 3% temporary tax that
goes to projects related to roads,
drainage, retaining walls, sidewalks.
We've also been doing utilities um with
part there. Um list C are the
operational components that are funded
through the sales tax as called out on
the ballot. and um list D is the last 1%
of that 3% where goes to some capital
projects um uh called out to go to the
budget reserve um or other operations um
a lot of that 1% ends up being operating
in nature. So when we look at the five
1% pieces of our 5% sales tax um
annualized again um 11 million um 4.4 4
million would be a one-time um reduction
to projects and 6.6 million would be
recurring that we would need to reduce
out of our operating budget. Again,
that's kind of the annualized picture.
So, um that's that's the breakdown of
the impact of sales tax.
All right.
I I'll just um pause and note that while
the uh
1% is one time um obviously there's a
reduction in overall sales tax revenue
which means all things being equal
voters reauthorizing our 3% and 1% we
will be collecting less revenue for
capital projects. So moving forward, we
will be looking at building UCIPs uh
with less capital projects unless
directed otherwise by the assembly.
>> Um Mr. Smith and Mr. Steininger, then
Mr. Kelly.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair.
I I wanted to, you know, as we're just
anyway, I want to um just as we're
looking at reductions, you know, one
thing, of course, I don't want to see us
do is, you know, cut CIPs too hard and
that we are essentially creating a large
deferred maintenance hole. Um,
and this is something that can maybe
come back later or or whatever, but um
do we track and compare to, you know,
uh commonly accepted metrics or
something like
how how we're doing in terms of spending
on our infrastructure,
you know, like I don't know. I'm sure
there's a percentage out there that like
you should be spending. Do we do we know
do we track that or or do we know how
we're doing compared to you know
commonly accepted metrics on
infrastructure investment?
» So I have done that analysis in the past
for our facilities um and there are kind
of industry standards on how much you
should be spending per year as a percent
of the building value. And uh certainly
worth running those numbers again and
looking at that in the context of all of
the capital uh you know maintenance
projects that we do deferred maintenance
projects such as streets and utilities.
But at the time when I ran uh that that
set of numbers uh we were at the very
low end of what would be the industry
standard for facilities and that
includes like some major facility um
projects. And then I would say that we
are probably behind in our utility and
street um investment just given the
number of water leaks we have had over
the last uh last few years. It has seen
a lot that is when I say behind you have
to remember we are we are for Alaska a
pretty wellestablished town so we are
experiencing you know failure of
infrastructure that was put in when we
had a big uh housing boom in the 80s. So
part of this is the nature of um how
long we've been around, but um I I would
say there's definitely uh the need for
increased investment in just the kind of
regular
replacing water lines and sewer mains
and boilers and the kind of not not as
fun uh capital projects.
» Mr. Steininger,
>> I'm good. that got covered. Thank you
though,
>> Mr. Kelly.
>> Thank you. Um so those uh $2.2 million
um that are taken from each 1%. Um just
to get an idea of like how severe they
are to each list. Um that's 2.2 million
out of um out of how much
or would you have that number off hand
or maybe I can I can circle back.
So, Mr. Kelly, I'm not entirely sure
what your question is, but typically
like our 1% temporary sales tax would um
bring in about 14ish million.
So, a 2.2 I could do the math right
here.
I think I could do the math. So, it's 2.2 out of 14 basically.
>> 2.2 out of roughly 14. So, 15 16%.
>> All right. Thank you.
>> Um I've got a question on this one. Um I think
um I heard you uh Miss Kester about kind
of the you know we often maybe this is
terminology we often talk about expenses
being one time or ongoing ongoing
operations versus a project that we're
going to you know do this year and don't
have to continually fund. Here we're
talking about revenue as one time or
ongoing sales tax
is an ongoing revenue. You're just
making a distinction between
Well, I I think you're making a
distinction between projects that we
said we would do that qualify as
projects
like CIPs. We have to do CIPs in the
future,
but we were specifically funding a
particular
project in this year. Am I capturing
that correctly?
>> Thank you, Chairw. Um yes, I think a
great example is um you know, we will we
will always need to do capital projects.
There will always be a need to do
infrastructure projects.
um you only need to pave a certain part
of the road once every however year. So
from a project perspective, paving road
XYZ is is a one-time event, but you will
always need to be addressing different
pieces of road. So um one 1% of our 3%
temporary tax goes to road street type
projects. So it is a a continual need.
Um, but the projects themselves are one
time in nature. And that's as opposed to
if we needed to make an a an operating
cut where it's like we open the doors
every day here and now we need to not
open the doors or we need to have fewer
hours. Um, that would be a recurring or
an operating reduction.
» Mr. Smith.
» Thank you, Madam Chair.
Um I I don't Anyway, I think your
question was similar to mine, I guess.
Um but just to make sure I understand.
I'm sorry if I missed it when you if you
said it earlier, Miss Flick.
Um
obviously the voters approve
some of these taxes, you know, four 4% I believe there there isn't a
legal or any other type of requirement
that we
would make
reductions
you know based on
like based on these kind of buckets of
different per 1% of taxes right just
because we asked the voters to say oh
you know we want a 3% % and it covers
lists B, C, and D
and those go to those different things.
We don't have to we don't have to uh
aortion it in that way. Like we could we
could make more cuts to recurring things
versus CIPs or something or in the other
direction.
» Uh thank you, Assembly Member Smith. Um
I'm not the lawyer in the room. Uh so uh
perhaps this is uh truly a legal
question. Um but I I do believe that we
have an obligation to follow the intent
of the um of the ballot measure as it
was presented to the voters. So the
voters passed a 1% temporary tax to do
these projects.
We need to um do the the best we can to
adhere to that. the the exemptions that
were passed means that we are going to
bring in less revenue to do those
projects. And so um the extent to which
we can accomplish those projects um may
change
in our plan for the future compared to
what we may have planned a year ago.
Do you have a followup, Mr. Smith?
I I think maybe I'll just um chat with
the attorney just to you know anyway
just just trying to figure out like you
know how how closely or not we need to
you know
adhere I'll say to these to this kind of
to these different buckets or something
but no that that's helpful. Thank you
>> Miss Hugh Candies.
>> Thank you Madam Chair. I should probably
follow Mr. mislead. But just talking
through that in a followup, when we make
specific projects and take it to the
voters, it is always an estimate. Is
that correct? Because we could have
there could be a huge inflation hike and
we don't anticipate that, but that would
depending on the tax bring in more tax
and then we would have that percent
would be a higher number. Correct? just
the same way that now with an exemption
it's going to be a lower number. Is does
that seem right?
Um I pulled up the ballot uh language
from um the one the last 1% for example
and in that um the ballot language did
not have dollar amounts associated with
projects. It just listed the projects
and it clearly listed that it was the
intent of it is the intent. Um, so it's
it it depends again goes back to that
intent language and in having
conversations with the city attorney on
this. You know, she said probably uh you
know changing the dollar amounts within
that bucket uh or postponing some of the
projects would be um very defensible.
Just cutting some of those projects
would be more difficult. So, I am like
poking at Emily quite a bit on this
topic because I I definitely see some
things on this list that might not be as
high a priorities given our current
fiscal situation.
>> Thank you,
» Mr. Steininger. And I guess kind of sort
of followup to this line of question
when I look at this list and
particularly under the 1% in list A.
Some of these projects are significantly
if fully completed would be
significantly more expensive than the
total amount we had anticipated
collecting from that 1% over its
lifetime. I mean some of them are pretty
spendy projects. So like the idea of
being bound to complete every one of
those projects seems it seems like we
are not we because we never could have
done it because there wouldn't have been
enough revenue collection anyway. So
we're just bound to doing some work on
each of those projects I guess you know
like we haven't
appropriated enough to complete the
relocation of the city museum for
example or the you know construction of
the Lemon Creek multimodonal pass. to
like
I guess I'm trying to understand you
know what the actual commitment to the
voters is if we couldn't have even
completed the projects in the first
place. Does that make sense or am I just
kind of rambling?
>> I I understand your question and I do
think that uh Emily would be best suited
to answer that question. I will explain
kind of how we use these funds um when
there are not enough money of course to
do the project and Lemon Creek
Multimotal Path is a great example. uh
we've used that funding to initiate
design and to match other grant
opportunities. So get design uh you know
to a level where we then can apply apply
for grants and we've received um I think
two different grants for Lemon Creek
multimmoal path. So a lot of um these uh
funding you know streams are set up to
be able to do the work to advance a
project to then to understand I mean
there's there's projects on this list
that we have very like relocation of
city museum we have very little
information about I believe there's a
half a million dollar appropriation um
obviously that's a much larger project
and so like practically speaking how we
would use that would be to develop a
plan and a budget and and whatever level
of design to be able to you take that to
the assembly. You can uh you can advance
funds um advance projects through
design, but you remember you cannot
construct the project unless you have
full funding for the project. So that
that's kind of where you get that
commitment. Doesn't answer your
question, but I just thought it might
help you understand how we spend the
less than enough money to do the project
uh funds.
» Mr. Brooks.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair.
On so for the ones that do have specific
amounts attached to them, the ones that
come to mind for me are the uh the
wastewater and police communications.
When that was brought to a vote, it I
remember them having specific amounts.
So, what how how is kind of the process
as far as changing the amounts?
and and she's well suited to answer this
question, but we cannot we could not
spend the full amount, but we that would
be an example where like we can't spend
bond money for public safety,
communications, infrastructure on
anything but public safety,
communications infrastructure. So, a a
general obligation bond is different and
I I would say far more binding than the
intent language in the 1%.
» Absolutely. Um two very different ballot
questions. So, um, the question going to
the voters to say, "We'd like to have a
1% temporary sales tax to do these
projects is very different from the
general bond question that went to the
voters about the public safety
infrastructure, which was, we're looking
for permission to go get $12.5 million,
if I remember correctly, um, in general
obligation bonds to construct
this project." And sometimes um you know
there was also the $10 million
wastewater infrastructure bond that had
a couple of projects listed, but we
can't take any of those bond proceeds
from that $10 million and use it to go
build a street or to um go build a
building. Um so the bond language is is
very much more binding in particular. um
the sales tax language. Um we do you
know we say our intent is to do these
types of things with this sales sales
tax fund. Um the sales tax amount that
we collect is going to be variable. As
Miss Hugh Scandies um pointed out, we
you know we collected much less during
CO collected a lot more on the rebound
when um you know tourism picked back up
and so um just very different ballot
questions.
>> Thank you
>> Miss Hall.
>> And this is going back to the you know
the projects on this day. So if you
bring something up through the design
phase that the federal grant has gone
away for it and and so basically kind of
killing the possibility of that project
or you know is that design okay for you
know 10 years down the road when we may
pick it back up and be able to complete
the project or or how does that work
with the federal funding that's not
likely to come through?
So I I if you're specifically referring
to Leven Creek multimodal path, we have
successfully procured uh grants for
that. Now we do not we still don't have
enough funding to construct that
project. Um we also uh are hopeful to in
the future use some of the funds that we
have to leverage match for uh future
federal grants. So does that answer your
question?
>> Yeah. Yeah. So the project doesn't go
away.
» And mayor,
>> I don't know if this will help or not to
remind everybody about the sales tax. So
if you remember when a sales tax passes,
we come up with a five-year schedule and
as an assembly, we change that schedule
all the time. So there is flexibility in
it. And um as director Ker says, we also
have years that the sales tax comes in
under. So then we don't allocate as
much. So there is some flexibility, but
we do try to do the intent of the voter
as much as possible.
» Mr. Brooks,
>> thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to
piggyback on Assembly Member Hall's uh
question uh for the plans like the
multimodal path uh being complete and
then using those plans to secure the
grants. How long is that plan good for
to keep applying for grants? Does the
plan have to be with within the last 5
years or uh what are the requirements
for applying for more grants with
projects like that?
» It's 100% dependent on the specific
grant program that you would be applying
to. Generally speaking, work that we put
into developing a project doesn't go
stale or or or die or change unless
there are extenduating circumstances
that that you know change the nature of
it. I mean I if isostatic rebound
totally changes uh the uh um geotech in
that area um then maybe our design for a
path that is over um that is a raised
path doesn't have have to be a raised
path anymore but of course you know
those are things that are are hard to um
hard to predict. So I I guess you know
the work that we do on projects um is is
always good work uh and is also
sometimes uh becomes outdated like like
any work but there's no set um
there's no set time that that all
federal agencies or all granting
agencies have have put on that unlike
when you apply for NEPA or some of those
processes that you're more familiar with
where you're like you have to do it
within a specific time frame.
Okay,
» I think we can keep going.
All right, page two of the memo.
[laughter]
So, um, we already spent time talking
about the FY25 update and again, just,
you know, all of our topics today weaved
together. Um, I do want to take a moment
and just talk about our revenue
estimates. Um because as as we began
work in the spring talking about um
sales tax and exemptions and different
um ways that that might be constructed.
Um you know we as staff put together a
model. It was based on information that
we had. Um certainly um we do not have
we have not collected complete data in
the past to answer exactly how much
revenue is going to change because of
the two exemptions being um food and
utilities um what exactly that number is
going to be going forward. So, we put
together an estimate uh based on
information that we had, assumptions
that we made. Um I know other members in
the community put together models. Um
some of those we shared and discussed
were relatively close. They weren't
exactly the same. They were built on
slightly different data, slightly
different assumptions. Um I think the
one thing that we all agreed on is the
impact to the revenue is not zero, but
what it actually is is somewhat unknown.
The first full quarter of um sales tax
collection with these new exemptions is
going to be January, February, March.
Those sales tax returns and remittance
remittances are due April 30th. So it
will be miday before we know what that
first quarter even looks like. By that
time,
if you all follow the same trajectory as
you usually do, which is good, um you
will be done with the budget discussions
and all of those budget legisl
legislation pieces will be waiting for
the full assembly to act on in the
beginning of June before we even know
what the first full quarter looks like.
So, we just need to again acknowledge
that all of these estimates are
estimates. Um it is going to take a
while for us to see the full impact of
these exemptions and how how they play
out um before we know what the true
numbers are. Um there are a lot of ways
that um that we can go about reducing
the budget. We know that there is a
revenue impact. We know that we're going
to have to reduce our FY27 budget. Um we
um can definitely take many approaches.
Um, one approach that's often used is
just across the board cuts. Everybody
cuts 5%, everybody cuts 10%. Um, I would
argue that that's um,
in some ways people will say that's
completely fair. Everybody deals with
the same percentage of pain. Um, but
certainly how departments are
constructed and the services they give
don't necessarily always lend themselves
to just a straight across the board cut.
So, if you're um I think I used HR as an
example in the memo who really has
people and a couple of paper clips, a 5%
cut to them is going to be very
different from like a streets department
that has people and equipment and lots
of supplies and other things. And so, um
being able to manage that kind of um a
cut would be different. Um oftent times
um organizations will say we're just
going to do hiring freezes, which is
okay as a shortterm kind of get through
a period where you're making decisions.
Um but a hiring freeze is not a
permanent reduction to expenditures. The
only way that that turns into a
reduction of expenditure expenditures is
by reduction of positions. Um which in
our case usually means a reduction of
services. So hiring freeze could be an
option. A lot of people or different
organizations might say, "Oh, we're just
going to stop doing whatever. No more
training. Uh we're not paying for
certifications. We're not going to
offer, you know, we're not going to pay
for this line of of business." Um that's
one way to do it. Um service reductions
are another way to look at um either um
bringing down a level of service,
eliminating services. Um there's a lot
of ways to get to um what those might
be. Um, another way to fill a um a
budget gap is to increase revenue. So,
um, there's only so many ways that
revenue can be increased um, with our
particular um, situation, but looking at
revenues might be a way um, to also um,
reduce the gap. And then um finally,
there's a lot of just tools in the
toolkit for um the manager and for um
finance and budget staff as we work
through budget preparation and that um
we already talked about like uh
personnel lapses and right right sizing
how much we think we're going to fill
positions or how much turnover we think
we're going to experience. Um and
there's a lot of tools that we do that
are just kind of invisible behind the
scenes that we can use to um help
mitigate um budget. So um there's a lot
of options um available to us. This is
certainly not a comprehensive list, but
those are kind of the the big highlights
of how um particularly governmental
organizations um look to reduce um
budgets.
>> Go ahead.
>> If I could add my color. Uh Angie said
that it's it's her job to present my uh
job to add colorful commentary.
[laughter]
So I just want to remind people that on
budget assumptions that is certainly one
way to make you know changing those is
certainly one way to make our budget and
our actuals match uh more accurately but
it is not um reducing what we spend or
increasing what we earn. So um it's it's
the tool that like uh just makes us more
accurate. it doesn't actually change our
financial decision.
» Thank you. [clears throat]
Um so as as staff we've talked about
like how we might recommend that we move
forward and um our recommendation um for
your consideration is a combination of
looking at service reductions.
um there are some places where we may be
able to adjust revenue and then um just
you know internally we'll use those
tools um associated with budget
assumptions um to tighten things up. So
um that would be our our recommendation
going forward. Um
that decision doesn't necessarily have
to be made tonight. Um but Chair Wald
might be a great place to pause and see
if there are any questions.
I've got one.
I I it is to me it's really helpful to
have this terminology here around
options so that
you know I think these will be ongoing
conversations and we can use shared
vocabulary.
You know some things that have been
suggested
um
you know that people have been talking
about I'm curious what category you'd
put them in. Um
shifting to more debt has been something
that's been discussed um as we were
preparing for these ballot initiatives
that you know we we may things that
typically would have been covered by
revenue you know can be put
to voters for debt financing. Um, and
you know, the other things are kind of
redirecting revenues that used to go to
some things and maybe now should go
somewhere else. So, we're going to talk
about one of those tonight with dockage
fees, which used to go somewhere and
we're like, maybe we should go somewhere
else. Hotel bed tax also comes to mind.
Should I be thinking about those as kind
of in the revenue increase
bucket? You know,
in terms of what you're recommending, do
those things kind of fit
neatly in any category?
>> Thank you, Chair. Well, um I'd like to
um tackle those um very distinctly. So,
um let's deal with this the the second
thought process that you brought up f um
first, which is um reallocating revenue
or redirecting revenue. Um I think that does fall in in the revenue um
conversation, not necessarily increasing
revenue, but I but I do think it's it is
it could be um a combination of um a
service reduction and a revenue
increase, right? So, if we used to spend
revenue here and we don't want to do
that anymore, that might be a service
reduction and then taking that revenue
and allocating it somewhere else. Um,
as far as like putting in category, um,
I think you could certainly, um, put
that in kind of a revenue increase
category. Um, a revenue reallocation,
um, would fit in there. Um the first
item that you mentioned about using um
debt perhaps
um as an option. Um I think these budget
reduction options that are in the memo
are really geared towards operations. So
operational reductions to the budget.
When we talk about utilizing debt, we
should not be talking about debt to run
our operations, right? So debt is really
geared around projects. And so um it it
might be that um we want to use debt as
a mechanism to fund various
infrastructure projects or capital
projects more so um in the future than
whereas we may have just taken fund
balance and allocated. Um but that is
definitely [clears throat]
um more of a a one-time
um usage of funds. And so we would want
to talk about um the utilization of debt
more in a in a capital project kind of
discussion. Although um you know when it comes time to um revisit some of
these uh temporary sales tax, maybe the
structure that's presented um looks
different going to the voters the next
time around than what we have today. And
so that might be um you know part of the
conversation. But certainly when we talk
about debt we should really focus that
on um funding of projects certainly not
funding of operation and that was the
intent of these reductions was more
operationally speaking
>> makes sense. Thanks Mr. Smith.
» Thank you Madam Chair. Um
I guess I it's not a question. It's more
of a comment.
So if we're if we're not if we're not
ready to get there quite yet, then then
that's fine. I um I did just have a
comment about the budget assumptions,
especially in light of the you know the
response to my question earlier on um
investment returns and how those can
swing in both directions. So but I can
I'll hold it for now.
>> Yeah, let's hold for now. I think we're
going to get pretty I bet lots of folks
are an anxious here to get to a little
bit more discussion. Um,
you want to talk us through more about
um I guess FY well we'll start with FY26
and I think some of the stuff will come
up.
>> Okay. Um certainly so um
you know given given the fact that we
did have um particularly [clears throat]
um interest earnings that we hadn't
counted on um we have we have the
opportunity to um take some time to make
thoughtful decisions about
reductions that we need to make. So, um,
we, you know, certainly we could make
some decisions today to make service
reductions today. Um but you know
certainly any reductions that any
service reductions that we make um have
an impact and um I would suspect that
the body wants to um take some time to
um thoughtfully consider those. um
engage the public in those. And um I
think that we have an opportunity to um
utilize some of that extra revenue that
we got in 25 to give us the time to make
thoughtful decisions on where we want to
make reductions. And so when we think
about FY26,
um our recommendation would be to have
the assembly take the time to make those
thoughtful decisions rather than jumping
to um cut things um right away and and
allow yourselves the time to um engage
in a public process that's meaningful to
you to get the um information that you
need to make those decisions.
Um [snorts]
we did um there are um um a couple
things that we'd like to bring out about
FY26.
So, um, when we distributed
general fundbased
assembly grants that were approved in
the FY26 budget, um, we distributed a
portion of those grants. Um, and we let
those grantees know that we would get
back to them mid November to um after
the election came through and and the
assembly had a chance to discuss um kind
of what we needed to do going forward in
response to the election. Um we would
let them know if the full FY26 amount
would be um remitted out to them or if
there would need to be um a reduction in
the FY26 grants. And so we do um need to
provide some guidance to or we need your
guidance so we can provide communication
to those assembly grantees about the
FY26 distribution of grants.
Um handed out to you um was a sheet of
paper that has the list of the grantees,
the amount that was budgeted, what has
actually been dispersed to them, and
what's remaining to be dispersed. um not
all of those fall fall in this category.
Some of those um grantees are
reimbursement grantees. Some of those
grantees have marine passenger fee
funds. So those are kind of outside the
scope of the conversation, but that's um
what what to do next on assembly grants
is something that we will be looking for
um your guidance on um tonight. Um there
may be other things that you wish to
give um staff guidance on. Um if there
are areas where you want to pause on
programs
um you know for instance we know the
affordable housing program grants and
loans um is in process but no official
awards have been made yet. That could be
a potential area where you may want to
just pause on that um and decide if you
want to really want to give those grants
or loans out this year or not. Um, we've
already spent a lot of time talking
about um, projects and certainly um, not
doing projects doesn't solve a recurring
revenue gap. Um, but there may be other
projects that you want to
um, have staff pause on. U, whether that
be onetime expenditures or actual
projects. Um, we mentioned a couple in
the um, memo. Um the gondola project is
one that um we know is going to require
more funding um you know under the
assembly direction. We're moving forward
on that. Um so that that might be one
where you want to to have staff take
pause. Um [clears throat] we know that
um there's additional funds that we're
going to need to allocate to the um
renovation of the Burns building to move
staff in there. Um we know that that's
coming up. Um there are other projects.
Um some of them we've mentioned tonight
already in discussion about projects. Um
the waterfront city museum um the North
State Office parking building parking
garage. Um there are just some out there
that we know um might be um of interest
for the assembly to pause. And so
whether we want to take action on those
tonight, some questions that we have for
you is whether or not you want um staff
um or I guess staff recommends that we
don't um make any broad service
reductions or formal operating budget
reductions right now for 26. Um and um
you know the assembly guidance on that
um or if you have guidance on where you
want reductions to happen um we would
need to hear that from you. Um, we do
have um a question about um having you
all direct to us to either distribute or
not distribute the rest of the remaining
assembly grant funds and then um just
you know if there's any direction that
you want to give staff on FY26
one-time expenses or projects that might
be out there and if there's commentary
that you want to provide to that.
» Oh, thank you Director Flick. I think
you did a great job summarizing uh the guidance that we're looking for. You
know, we appreciate that there's a lot
of uh public process and assembly um
debate that needs to happen around uh
service reductions and around cuts, but
we also want to make sure that um you
know that those decisions rest in your
hands. So, if if you see things that
need to be addressed sooner because of
the direct impacts in FY26, we are we're
ready to have those conversations. So
this is an opportunity to give us that
direction.
» Any last questions on staff
recommendations on FY26 or the general
state before we have a conversation?
Mayor Weldon.
>> Thank you. So just the FY26
recommendation. So if we used um
the 6.4 million that leaves us 8.5
million roughly in our unrestricted fund
balance. Is that correct?
Uh, Mayor Weldon, the um FY 26 expected
fund balance given the actions that the
assembly have taken so far.
Give me a moment while I find the page
in the packet. Uh, page 23 of the
packet, the last of the FI25 update. You
currently have 15 million um sitting in
your unrestricted fund balance. That
includes an anticipated revenue
reduction
of um
is it 6.7 million 6.4 million um that we
anticipate of loss revenue from sales
tax. So you would still have 15 million
left in your unrestricted fund balance
>> projected at the end of the fiscal year
26.
>> That is correct.
» Caster I I will just highlight that that
um does not include IFFF and PSA uh
negotiated wage increases. Um so just
always keep that in the back of your
head as another liability.
But it does ask Oh, I saw some estimates
on that somewhere in here. Never mind.
Um, Miss Hugh Scandies, the Mr.
Steininger.
Uh, thanks Madame Chair. I just want to
address a number in the paragraph. I'm
looking at page 26 on the gondola
project.
um was in another meeting about that
project today and got to talk to well
our friends were in the room uh on that
project. He
>> still is.
>> Oh, I didn't see him. There he is. You
moved, Mr. Simmons. Um the uh best guess
that we have there. Now, those numbers I
think are different than the updated
numbers I heard today. So, Mr. Bar was
in that meeting and I just want to
verify that. So the entire assembly has
that same information when we're looking
and thinking about all of this. In the
memo I'm looking at here. It says if we
our best guess is that if we pulled out
now, we would have a sun cost of 10.8
million and have to write a check to
Gold Belt for 11.7 million. But my
understanding is that based on the
unspent funds, if we were to pull out
today, the check that we would be
writing to gold belt would be more like
7 million. Is that correct?
>> Thank you, Miss Handies. Um, we believe
the new money that the assembly would
have to come up, we would still have to
write a check for 11.7 million, but the
new money that we would need to come up
with based on the amount that is
currently in the fund unspent would be
about 6 million.
>> 6 million. Okay. So, 6 million in
additional funds with what we have
today. Thank you,
» Mayor Weldon. Oh, I missed Mr.
Steininger. Sorry. Okay.
>> And I don't know if I'm going out of
order of the kind of way you wanted to
organize questions. My question is
related to the assembly grants that have
been distributed. Are you okay with
>> any any questions related to what we're
going to that'll help inform your
decision about FY26 or open
season right now?
>> All right. Thank you. Um, so with all
them the funds we withheld on those
grants, what kind of feedback have we
received from the grantees? Is
withholding those funds causing problems
with payroll, causing problems with
getting projects moved, causing other
financing problems for any of these
grantees? Are there like specific pain
points that we should know about?
like is that decision something urgently
that needs to be decided today or
something that we might have more time
to discuss as we think about how much
money we want to make sure we move into
FY27.
» Thank you, Mr. Steininger.
We haven't had a lot of communication
from assembly grantees on this topic.
There has certainly been some I would
say that of all of the assembly grantees
there have been four or five that have
been in direct contact with me who have
been experiencing challenges with their
budgets. Um you know of of the assembly
grantees they vary widely in what
percentage of their total budget comes
from an assembly grant versus other
sources. And as you would expect, those
grantees who receive a larger portion of
their budget from the assembly are
struggling more or would struggle more
without full funding. Um, and and those
with smaller percentages struggled less.
Um,
if that doesn't fully answer your
question, I'm happy to take another stab
at it.
If I could interject there about do we
have to make the decision tonight or
later. We did communicate to the
grantees that we would get back to them
in mid- November and so we need to
provide them
some feedback.
If we wanted to delay that decision or
deliberate on that decision longer,
would it be a workable solution to
release maybe another trans trunch of
money? Like a smaller trunch might not
the entire amount but small cost buys us
some time in the bigger decision or you
know could we get a better understanding
of those grantees where there are
problems and I don't necessarily need
you to like list them out here. It could
be something that we get in a memo and
followup or something along those lines.
>> Mr. Zeninger, I think you could give us
direction to release another um less
than full trunch if you will of of
funding to the assembly grantees either
as a whole. So like another 20% 30%
whatever you know another you know
get further along through the fiscal
year keep them funded through through a
portion of the fiscal year to buy
yourselves more time to make decisions.
Um or if you would prefer, I think we
would also be able to follow direction
that to um it would be more work, but to
engage with uh some of the assembly
grantees who we've already engaged out
and summarize their experience in a
memo. Um
that would be more challenging, but I
think we could do that, too.
Mayor Weldon.
>> Um following up on Mr. Steiningers and
I'll put it into a question because I
was just gonna um the one uh non or um
grant recipient that I know that is
needs to know an answer pretty quickly
is the Alaska Committee because they do
gavl Alaska and they're trying to and
obviously they have to do it way before
the legislature gets here. But my
question um is actually in the FY26 have
we accounted for these grants already?
Thank you, Mayor Walden. Um yes, as we
um provided the budget summary toward um
for you, it anticipates that all of
these grants are fully released to the
grantees.
» Any other questions?
Go ahead, Miss Hall.
>> I'm wondering with with the assembly
grants if we have kind of a triage
system, you know, what is life and
safety? Um, you know, I I see child care
is always rising to the top as uh a
great need in in um across the state,
you know. So, do we have something that
if we take this money away, they're, you
know, we're kind of going backwards. Um,
but you know, but some of these other
things, it's like, yeah, they'll survive
without their funding. They may find
another source or it it's not going to
really negatively impact
health safety type issues or or
workforce or affordability.
» If I could just a stab at answering that
question. I think uh that uh criteria
and metrics would be uh an excellent um
use of the assembly's time and to to
develop to establish your priorities as
part of the of the FY27 budget process.
So, I mean, I think as you look at our
FY27 budget, you are going to have to
ask yourselves those questions. um you
know we would we would want to involve
the assembly in any type of u any type
of metric or matrix um and we're happy
to do that but I think I think just
given the highly personal nature for
many of these organizations we could
easily spend the next month um arguing
over metrics for 40% of an assembly
grant instead of really looking at what
our FY27 landscape is going to
follow up.
>> Yeah. And I I guess I was thinking more
FY27, you know, get through this, but
going forward be a lot more
targeted. Thank you.
» Mayor Welen, maybe you could start us
with a motion just on the first one just
to put something on the floor um and we
can walk through these.
>> Okay. So, I think your first one
>> would be to
um
I move that we
absorb the $6.4 million gap this year
for FY26.
» Is that the one you're talking about?
Uh, I think um maybe it would be easier
if you stick to the or I know there's
two places, but
the action number one here. I I think
you're saying the same thing, but it may
be easier to
>> I'll turn to that page because the other
page didn't have it. [clears throat]
>> Okay. Yeah.
>> All right.
>> Page 26, action number one. Um,
>> doesn't have it either. I'm going to the
last page. So,
>> okay, this does not need to be the way I
was the staff have a recommendation.
Maybe we could put that on the floor.
>> I'll try again. I uh um moved to direct
staff to not do any broad service
reductions or formal operating budget
reductions for FY26,
but fund FY26 from the unrestricted fund
balance. Does that work?
staff. That's clear. Motion. Okay. All
right. Um
I'll say any objections, but because
we're just starting this conversation,
even if you don't object, but you'd like
to make a comment, you are welcome to.
Mr. Smith.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um,
I I would I would be interested in
seeing what the proposed service
reductions were
for 26
[clears throat]
>> like the assemblies or the the managers
or
>> um sorry and and maybe I should that
should have been a question. When I read
that, I was believing it to be like that
staff and, you know, city leadership had
come back with had come back with um
service reduction ideas.
Am I incorrect in in what that second
sentence means?
>> I understand now. Um I'll ask staff that
whether
s several service reductions ideas were
brought forward meant in the community
from the assembly or from you all.
>> Thank you uh chair wall. So, um I did
put out a uh call to department heads um
and we had a we they're very concerned
about this topic and so we've had
meetings and multiple communications on
it uh to suggest uh service reductions
that you know might be uh natural or an
easier fit uh for their department. A
great example is a service that maybe
was added in this year's budget that we
haven't been able to hire for. Is that
something that makes sense uh to pause?
So, I don't have a full list of those
for you tonight, but I'd be happy to
bring that back to you.
>> All right. I'm hearing an objection. I
had other people before you unless
>> Sure.
>> Sorry to interrupt. That wasn't part of
my motion. Just so you know, that
particular line, second line, I skipped.
>> I said no broad service reductions or
formal operating. I did not touch the
second sentence.
Now maybe I'm confused. Um
staff
are you
>> can we take a read just for a few
minutes?
Let's take a 10-minute break and we will
come back.
All
right, I am going to bring us back.
I see Mr. Smith is still with us. Okay.
So, I think where we are at is the mayor
has ma made a motion
um to decide tonight that we are not
going to be looking at service
reductions in FY26.
And Mr. Smith has objected because he
would like to see the staff
recommendations on service reductions
before making that decision. That is my
interpretation
of what where we're at. Mr. Smith. Is
that a good articulation?
» I I I do I do think that's fair. Yes.
Thanks.
» Any questions on the motion?
Okay. Um I know we had I believe we had comments from Mr.
Steininger and Missu Scandies. Go ahead,
Mr. Steininger.
And so I guess I I like the the spirit
of the motion in that I don't think we
should be looking at stopping doing
things we're currently doing now within
the course of the fiscal year. Like I
don't think we should be looking at pink
slipping employees, shut down
facilities. Um but maybe in the spirit
of what Mr. Smith was suggesting, you
know, if there and what manager Kester
mentioned, if there are things that it's
not that we're stopping doing something
we're doing now, but we're not going to
do something you have planned to do in
the next six months to save a bit of
money or
finding ways to increase the lapse or
those kind of smaller tools that you
have as a manager to push down cost. I'd
like to see those. If there's something
you feel like has to come to an assembly
decision of, yeah, hey, we weren't able
to hire this position. So, we're
thinking about just stopping trying. I
see that a little bit different than
service level reductions, I guess. And
maybe that's just me trying to think
through how I should be interpreting the
motion that the mayor made. Um because I
do think we need expectation of city
staff that to make it smoother and
easier when we come into our FY27
deliberations, there's not new things
that you're starting three months from
now that we may have to cut in the FY27
budget. Um, and so I guess I just wanted
to make that comment on the record to
kind of set that expectation
and also kind of get feedback from the
mayor to see if that's how I should be
understanding the motion.
>> Go ahead, Madame Mayor.
>> I was going to look at staff because I
would be in agreement with Mr.
Steininger that I wouldn't like to see
anything new. Um, if we haven't started
design, let's not start a design. if we
haven't done an service but we were
looking at it let's not go ahead with
that service um even to the extent um but this is
going to be for another discussion but
like the diversion center is this the
time we say let's just deal with the
compost right now and that's going to be
pushed off for years but I just don't
want to start anything new but I agree
with Mr. Mr. Steininger, if there's
obvious little cuts here and there,
that's fine. But I don't think we do
major ones. But if I need to amend my
motion to say that, I'd be happy to. But
or do you have enough direction on the
motion?
>> Kit,
maybe I'd just take a crack of my
understanding. There is a third question
here about any direction on one-time or
project funding for FY26. So, we could
make a decision. don't cut services, but
we can also later in this conversation
talk about are there things projects on
the horizon that we want to pause or cut
or something. It I'll turn it over to
the manager to see if I'm characterizing
the direction that you want accurately.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um I'm just
going to summarize uh Assembly Member
Steininger's comments. Um, I think
giving the manager's office direction
to, you know, be judicious, not start
new things, um, is something that we can
do. Uh, and you might get some
complaints, right? Because we might have
some, uh, parks and rec programming, for
example, that doesn't happen when when
people are expecting it to happen. Um, I
think that I can do and I don't know
that I would spend assembly time going
through all of those things. Um I also
really appreciate separating the um
operating and the capital questions
because when Mayor Welen said if you
haven't started design on a project then
don't that has far greater implications
for our ability to
do the things that we need to do to run
the city. So um I think taking those two items separately would help provide
me clarity.
Mayor Weldon to
>> stay with the intent of the original
motion. [laughter] We'll address the
other one.
>> Mr. Sner, is that are you satisfied with
those answers? Okay.
>> Mr. Smith, do you have Oh, sorry. Miss
Hugh Gandies was on the list and hasn't
spoken yet. Miss Hugh Gandies.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think that helps me to think about
this uh separately between projects and
operating. And I think it will be
helpful throughout this entire process
to try to as much as I can think and
speak in those different tools that you
outlined in this memo of different ways
of
um conserving cost. Um,
I would say that I am more of the
mind that to absorb it, which is another
way of saying uh, with these broad cuts
feels wrong to me to where I would want
to identify
what those operating constraints would
be, whether
I agree I think that's a good way of
characterizing it. Not like pink
slipping people or to that end of uh if
it's a spectrum, I guess. Um
I think it's partially
with what it what it would look like
potentially or I'd be interested in what
it would look like if we didn't
institute uh if we didn't give the
direction to say hiring freeze. don't
hire anyone else.
Understanding that there would be
service reductions that wouldn't be
necessarily cuts to services, but it
would affect services. It might affect
coverage. It might affect um things like
uh parks programming is a good example
that I was sort of imagining.
I would be, I think, interested in
looking at things like that for FY26
before I said with this unexpected
revenue, we're just going to absorb it.
And I think the magnitude of the
decisions we're going to make and the
amount of time that we have to make
them, uh, it just feels more,
um, it feels better for me as trying to
be a good steward, uh, of public funds
throughout this process and at the same
time make sure we're engaging the public
in this process. Not that we are doing
something panicked and willy-nilly. I
and I'm apologize for the ramble, but
I'm trying to give direction that
demonstrates where I'm at personally. I
appreciate the sentiment of wanting to
make thoughtful decisions
um and not make panicked cuts,
but I think knowing the remaining months
that are in FY26,
I would want to start identifying some
of those things.
So, that's where I'm at.
others.
I'll speak
um I'll speak in support of this motion.
Um,
I think that
the
I like to be holistic in my decision-
making when I can that we are really for
making service cuts, cuts to the
fundamental things that the city does
that we are engaging the public.
We're being thoughtful.
we're taking our time to do it because
once you cut something
it is not easy to come back. Um I
appreciate
the but I but I also share Miss Hughes
Gandandy and I think Mr. Steininger's
and and maybe even Mr. miss um I think
where they're coming from which is you
know we have to we have to start having
these conversations soon and I'm not
opposed to when we get to talking about
one time or project funding you know
pausing things or even hiring freezes if
that's a option that we think makes
sense to say hold on we we can't
keep spending because we know what's
coming. So I don't think it's time to do
service reductions in FY26 knowing that
we have significant service reductions
planned for FY27. And I want to be
thoughtful and because we have been so
conser or this assembly past assemblies
have been so conservative about how
they've budgeted and because our
investments did well we actually had the
space to do that. We saw what the school
board had to do when they had two months
to make big decisions.
That was extremely challenging for the
public. So, um
any little rabbit holes we go down about
pool hours or um you know, other things
I think are going to it's going to be a
big waste of time for what we really
need to do. So, thank you,
>> Mr. Smith. I saw Mayor Weldon. Oh,
>> I saw Miss the [clears throat] order. I
saw people's hands. Miss Hall, Mayor
Weldon, and Mr. Smith.
>> And I would speak in favor of no broad
service reduction. So, in favor of the
motion and looking forward to FY27, I
think we really need to pull the public
in on this and have them help us make
these decisions. and and that would be
another reason I wouldn't want to
willy-nilly start cutting things
in in FY26. I think this should be a
very public engagement process.
>> I'm going to go to um Mr. Brooks first
um because he hasn't spoken yet on this
topic and then we'll have Mayor Wald Mr.
Smith.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair.
I I think
you know the the desire of the community
through this past election cycle was
pretty much you know asking for uh you
know a a tighter constraint or a more
efficiency within the operation. So I
think you know looking at something even
if it's small and supplemental for the
remainder of the year should be worth
considering and if that is a hiring
freeze maybe it's a hiring freeze for
non-emergency departments and even in
accompaniment with that could even
consider uh a cap on overtime for
non-emergency departments for the
remainder of the year as well.
>> Mr. Mr. Brics, will you specify if you
are objecting or um supporting the
motion?
» I'm object objecting to the motion.
>> All right. I have Mayor Weldon and Mr.
Smith.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Everything that
Miss Hugh Scandi said is true, and I
think we need to look at everything very
carefully. Unfortunately, um I think
that's true for FY27 and on FY26, we're
almost halfway through it and I think we
will be rushed to get to some of those
things. With that, I think staff will
look at um cuts in services and all
those kind of things as they're doing
already now since they've predicted that
with the ballot measures would been
passed. So, I'm going to have a little
faith in staff and um I think we really
need to drill down to FY27, but I don't
think we're going to have time to deal
with FY26 and that's why I support the
motion.
>> Mr. Smith,
[clears throat]
>> thank you, Madam Chair.
I definitely hear what folks are saying.
I mean and and I'm trying to like tease
out all the and that's that's I guess
I'm you know curious about what the
service reduction ideas were but um
because you know for instance
like hiring freezes and I don't know if
those are the a good idea because even
if it's a non-emergency position like we
need people in CDD to permit projects to
keep housing projects moving forward for
instance. So, it's like some of these
broad things I'm not I wouldn't say I'm
totally interested in. Um I mean there's
just a lot of detail in what that looks
like and there's a lot of different
options in that and I you know I'm
hearing you know pausing new things or
pausing a project or a one time funding.
Anyway, I guess that's where
I just don't know if we I don't I don't
know if I see in the in the I don't know
if I see in the motion the granularity
that I'm looking for and I can
understand maybe why that's
probably a very long motion and and hard
to hard to put together right now. Um,
I'm hearing some things from the from
the manager that I agree with that I'm
interested in seeing and again maybe
some one-time projects. We look at
posits
possible service reductions, some of
which I think we maybe should consider
for FY26.
Um,
so that's why I was kind of thinking,
you know, continuing this discussion a
bit further because it I understand that
we'll be doing a lot of work on that for
27. We are probably thinking about it
now though. Um, so I I guess I think I'm
kind of similarly situated with with you
all. It's just I don't have the
granularity to say yes, don't make any,
you know, any of some of these like
broad surf. Anyway, I don't know if I
have the granularity in the motion to
feel 100% confident with it. So, I'm I'm
vacasillating if I like want to remove
my objection because I think we're kind
of maybe on the same page, but I also do
am interested in what possible service
reductions could be done in 26. So, I
I'll maintain I'll maintain my objection
as well. I'm I I think I think I think
we'll get to where I'm hoping we're
going. It's just I don't know if I see
that see that in or hear that in the
motion that was made. So, thanks.
If this motion fails, we can certainly
try something else. Um, we got a long
list here still. I don't think Mr. Kelly
has spoken, so I'm going to let him skip
the line here, but I got the rest of you
on my sheet. Mr. Kelly,
>> thank you. I appreciate that. Um, I
think I will speak in in opposition um
to this motion. I think um much along
the the lines of um Mr. Smith who just
spoke. Um it's not that um a vote
against this would be in favor of broad
reductions. I think I I want to explore
um what these uh what these could be uh
before we make this decision. So I think
not necessarily this is the wrong
decision, but it's I think it's too
early to make this decision. And so I
will be voting against.
» All right.
Mr. Steininger, you're up. I just so I
keep track of everyone. I have Mr.
Steininger, then Miss Candies, and then
Miss Hall.
So, I'm going to be specifically
speaking in support of the motion, but
that kind of my comments earlier than
still now. I want to make sure that
the manager is executing the budget.
Very important. even if we're not making
broad service reductions that you're
executing the FY26 budget in a way that
ensures that we're
we have flexibility going into our 27
deliberations that you know things that
have ongoing impacts. You know, you you
use the example of parks and recck
programming. Um, but if that's something
that's a, you know, oh, there's some
summer programming coming up or
something that's seasonal, that doesn't
really obligate us into 27 doesn't
create a problem, that's still within
kind of the the budget that you've been
given in our operating side. um that you're you have the tools to manage
the budget in the way that you see best
fit to both get the most laps that we
can while still delivering the services
that we promised when we passed the
budget. Um and not, you know, kind of
starting things up that you think we're
probably gonna going to reassess in 27.
it. I know that's kind of a fine line
for you to walk down, but like I I think
the mayor may have made this point, but
spending a lot of time trying to make
reductions in 26, I think will just
distract from the really hard
conversations we have to make about 27.
And we're going to be spending a lot of
time on those. And so when we think
about this, do these discussions about
26, are they going to help us in our
discussions about 27 or are they going
to distract us from those discussions?
Um, and I'll just add before I close, I
have been involved in I think I counted
in my head at least five different um
hiring freezes that I was directly
involved in managing and executing. And
I don't think a single one of them did
anything but create more bureaucracy and
more headache for delivery of services
with long-term implications on what the
organization was able to do. So, broadly
apply, I'm not in support of broadly
applied hiring freezes, but
I still expect you as a manager to use
your discretion to make sure we're not
hiring more than we absolutely need to.
That you know that you recognize we're
in a time of constraint. We're going to
come into a much reduced budget, but
we're we're trying not that this policy
decision is to try not to micromanage
you on the decisions, the hard decisions
you have to make over the next six
months while we focus on the long-term
policy decisions we have to make for
fiscal year 27 and beyond.
Manager Ker, do you w to We This
discussion is intended to give you
direction and I think you know my
interpretation is the
Well, I'll let I'll let you respond to
that comment. I won't put words in your
mouth.
Um I think um I um very much appreciate
that direction and what I know uh you
know the value of you giving me that
direction is that when um small things
don't move forward like maybe the public
intended uh they may be part of some of
those decisions. I could give you a
couple examples if that's useful. uh
Marie Drake uh expanding Jim Yuse at
Marie Drake. We have not been able to
hire for that position. Seems like the
type of position that we need to just
take a pause and that's an expand. It's
a small very small example. Another
example, uh when we lost our uh
environmental sustainability coordinator
that does a lot of our waste management
and staffs the JCOS committee, we uh
paused on advertising to hire to refill
that position because um there's
uncertainty in how the assembly is going
to decide uh to move forward with waste.
Those are uh not examples that I would
consider assembly level decisions, but
those are examples of uh me trying to
exercise my best judgement. where you
may feel that by constituents saying,
"Hey, I want the support for this
committee or I want, you know, this uh
this service." Um, but but are examples
of the type of um prudent budget
decisions that I would be make that I am
making and will continue to make and
consider to be the spirit of Assemblyman
Steininger's direction. Does that help?
Miss Huskandies and Miss Hall. Thanks,
Madam Chair.
Lots of good stuff. I think Mr. Siger's
comments very helpful, very as we are
trying to dial this in and better
articulate direction that is helpful to
you that is more nuanced than a budget
that was passed that you already have as
something to refer back to. I think like
Mr. Smith, I'm going back and forth
between saying really then what is a
harm in supporting this? So I'm just
trying to flag for this body as we make
decisions
the sorts of things that I am thinking
about because
I what I primarily don't want is a focus
on 26 that eats into our seven months
when we need to be making decisions
about 27.
I think for myself I am trying to find
those things that are additive that
might be something we locate and
identify in 26 that is also going to
carry over into 27 is kind of how I was
thinking about it. um
6 million 6.7 million in unexpected
revenue is something that I I can almost
picture with like a meter and it just
drops down as we get to that 7th month
period. So um in a way it buys us time
and in another way it feels like we're
just burning through the money without
making decisions. So, I guess that's
just to let you know how I'm thinking
about it and the discomfort then that
identifies for me. Um,
I think potentially as I'm picturing I
think all this discussion hopefully is
helpful to you. Um,
I also it is not my intention to want to
micromanage those things. That's good to
hear. I assume you are already doing
that and I assume all department heads
are already thinking about that having
seen the news. I'm sure they are
thinking about it all the time. Um what
they might be able to identify.
I think
when I am trying to imagine the
structure that we will use for 27, it
seems natural to me that 26 might get a
little bit mixed up in the froth. And
that is why I was trying to kind of
preserve that because
it may be that
as
if we say just go forward with 26 making
prudent budget decisions
that at the next finance meeting we want
to say you know can you identify
potential like a partial hiring freeze
and I don't know that if this body would
do that Um, I don't know some of the
future things we might want. Bring back
a list of all vacant positions currently
across the department. What would
something that would be useful in
regards to hiring look like? Um, I do
think it's very important and and that
is why it's so important we involve the
public that we are giving direction and
not not just turning to staff and saying
bring back cuts because we don't want to
make any. And I mean, we're all in a
very unpleasant situation together. Um,
» is that
>> everybody? We're all in it together. Uh,
so I I guess that's the only thing is
like I'm thinking what potentially might
we find in the 27 process that we might
want to say. Also,
could could that be applied before 7
months are over? Because if it could,
then we might save some money. Like if
I'm just thinking of my own budget, like
what might I identify that I could cut
in two months, like looking at my
subscription. So that's how I'm thinking
about it. I'm not trying to add work for
staff, but it seems like we might find
things and I I could I could be okay
just letting this motion go tonight, but
I think in that process, we might find
things that we do want to apply to 26.
So that's kind of what I'm trying to
preserve.
» Miss Hall.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so again, I read this as simply the staff
recommends no broad service reductions
or formal operating budget reductions
implemented in FY26.
However, they are saying we have the
ability to make, you know, that you as staff have already identified some
things that might possibly be cut. So, I
see we're we're covering both of those
in this. Am I reading that correctly?
Yeah. So, I I think I you know, why
wouldn't we support this? I think it's
maybe got a little confusing thinking we
needed to delve into all the several
service reduction ideas that were
brought forward, but no, we can ask our staff to to do that. Am I correct?
And we can do both. Yeah. Go ahead,
>> Miss Flick.
>> Um, thank you [clears throat] and partly
to Miss Hall and partly to Miss
Huskandies. Um, I think as as you all
wrestle with what FY27 looks like, there
will
you will be giving direction before
we're out of FY26.
So, if you say, "Hey, in FY27, we're not going to do this thing anymore
or we're going to do less of this thing
and in 26 there's already a natural flow
to move there." The manager is going to
make that happen. So if you know program
XYZ is going to move to 50% of what it
is today and we have a staff person
leave in April, it wouldn't make sense
to fill that position for May and June
knowing that we would just have to cut
it in July, right? So I think I think
that as you make decisions about 27,
we will naturally lean wherever we are
in 26 to be moving to that 27 place. And
so I think um miss you scandies your concern about what can we do early
that's not the word you use but what can
we do early in 26 that we've decided for
27 I think that will happen naturally
based on the decisions that you make and
the timing of those decisions.
I'm
um
feeling
like I gotta move this along or
[laughter]
do folks have new things to add before
we vote.
Go ahead, Mr. Smith.
>> I I wish Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish
I were there because I get I feel like
we're all kind We're all kind of hoping
to say the same thing. I just um and I I
wish I were there because I would have
tried [clears throat] to maybe work
through an amendment. Um
I'm going to try it if if tell me if the
room just groans in pain and and I can
get it because again I don't want to
just belabor this.
>> I was hoping someone would make an
amendment. So
>> I'm going to try one and I there might
be language at the end of it that will
make one person in particular grown. Um
and I'd be open to ideas on it. Um,
okay. So, going off the the mayor's
motion, which was my understanding was
the first line of the of the suggested
action, um, would, you know, staff
recommends that no broad service
reductions or formal operating budgets
are implemented in FY26.
My amendment is to add
though targeted reductions such as new
programs or projects.
This is where it gets bad. Um may be
evaluated and considered
I was going to say by the manager but um
okay though targeted reductions such as
new programs or projects
may be implemented.
I'm going just stop there because again,
I don't know how to I don't know the
process of that, but I think we can get
>> I think we can figure that part out.
>> That's a good intent language. I'll ask
staff if that would give you um
direction that you feel like you could
work with if the body was to vote in the
affirmative.
>> Thank you, Chair Wall. Um I would uh
appreciate understanding how that
direction is different from a timing's
um comments on is it is it is it to kind
of codify his comments in a motion about
how to manage the budget moving forward
or is it different? getting a I'm
getting a head nod from Mr. Smith that
yes, he's trying to codify that
direction.
All right, we have a motion on the floor
with an amendment. Any objections to the
amendment?
Seeing none, that is so moved. It brings
us back to the original motion as
amended. Any objections?
All right, seeing none, that is so
moved. Thank you all for working through
that. Um,
and
thanks Mayor Mayor Walden for starting
us off. All right, brings us to question
action number two. And this is
specifically about the assembly grant
funding um to grantees. Mayor Welding,
will you start us off with a motion? Can
I have a twominut Eddie? Yes. to uh
confer with Assembly Member Tiner.
You're
Mayor Walden
Ken, this might be irritating to some,
but uh we're going to do something a
little different. Um [laughter]
but uh Mr. Brooks, we do take it to
heart what the voters tell us. And uh so
my motion is to direct staff to reach
out to each member on the assembly grant
um budget list and ask them for an
amended request.
The last part of your motion was hard to
hear.
>> And to ask for an amended request.
» Um, I see Miss Hughes Handies.
>> Thanks, Madam Chair. I will object to
that motion.
I would object because this would not be
the first part of the budget. This would
be, I guess, what I would consider
classic what I heard people voicing that
they didn't want to do, which is to make
willy-nilly cuts. So, we've identified
one section of our FY26 budget and
what's that operating budget? FY20,
sorry, I'm distracted. our FY26
operating budget and we've pulled this
piece out and then we've said maybe we
should cut this and let's go back to
these people and see how they would do
without that budget. To me, I don't know
why I wouldn't say manager Kuster go to
this department and see what they could
do without. There's a difference
obviously, but I think there are
probably nine different opinions of what
you would what we would all rank as
potentially the first place we would
should go for cuts. Um, and it probably
comes as no surprise to this assembly
that for me, this would definitely not
be the first place that I would go for
cuts. So, I would object for those
reasons. And then in our wonderful
packet, which I really did like, uh, on
page 31, we have service listings broken
out into different sections.
And
that's another way of thinking about
different parts of the budget that you
could just go into with a wrench and
start messing about. But there's nothing
about this piece that makes sense to me.
went with the rest of the memo and the
rest of the packet. Why this decision
was pulled out even from staff. The fact
that it's a section that staff is asking
for direction on was strange to me. Not
strange to me. I can figure out common
sense-wise, but to me it is a
inappropriate piece. It doesn't match
with number one. So to say this is our
recommendation here, but also what about
just cutting this piece. So for all of
those reasons, I will object.
» Um, Madame Mayor, go ahead.
>> I apologize. Apparently that sounded
harsher than I meant it to. That's not
what I was looking for at all, but thank
you for that, Miss Husseanies, for
stomping me into the ground. Um anyway,
my the thought behind this and that's
why I can say if they would how about I
would me amend it to say would consider
an amended request. My thought was maybe
with some of these people knowing our
circumstances might alter their um
wishes. So I would add that they
consider an amended request, but I hear
what you're saying, Miss Usetti.
>> I'm going to not treat that as an
amendment and just treat that as your
motion. I I think that was your intent.
So we have a slightly different emotion
on the floor now. Miss Huskinies, you
maintain your objection. Yes, Miss
Atkinson.
>> Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. I will also
object to this motion. I remember this
assembly grants year being pretty
fraught. We cut a lot of um requests in
half. We made a lot of recurring
requests not recurring. And to that end,
I think that um much of these requests
are not in fact recurring. And I just
don't think this is I agree with Mrs.
Scandies. This is the place I would not
cut. And for many of these folks, they
really can't afford to take the time to
make an amended request. And I can't
imagine they have budgeted on what
they've currently gotten, but they've
had to assume uh with nonprofits with
shoestring budgets, they've had to
assume that they will get the grants
that we did promise them. So, um, I
would be, uh, I'm very much objecting to
this motion, though I I I appreciate
what the mayor's attempted to do.
>> Mr. Kelly, then Mr. Brooks.
>> In the interest of time, since I largely
agree with Miss Atinson and Miss
Yuscantes, I won't restate their points.
» Mr. Brooks,
>> I would speak in support of the motion.
Uh looking at the list that was given
here, yes. Uh to Assembly Member
Atkinson's point, there are a lot of
these organizations who don't have the
ability to close the gap if anyone were
to occur. But phrasing the question to
some of these entities,
like the mayor had mentioned, might
result in u a level of understanding.
uh a handful of these organizations have
very significant asset withholdings and
reserves and um I think that those would
be some of the more considerate
organizations to um
you know maybe maybe lighten their ask a
bit to help the city as a whole.
» Mr. Steininger
and I'll speak in support of this as
well. You know, I think there's
some of these organizations you part the
purpose of my question of asking who's
reached out to say that this is causing
problems was to also get an
understanding of are there organizations
who haven't reached out at all. And
that tells me there may be some of these
organizations that are willing to come
back and say, "Yep, we can help. We see
what's going on at the city level as
well. we can also sharpen our pencils
and kind of be part of that process. And
I don't see this necessarily in conflict
with our action on on point one earlier
because we all know that our management
within the city are sharpening their
pencils and trying to come out of fiscal
year 26 with as little spend as possible
while still achieving all the goals we
have. And by going back to these
grantees, I feel like we're asking them
to do the same. And some of them may
come back and say, "Nope, we have
slotted every penny of this and and need
it to deliver what we need to deliver to
constituents within the community." And
those, you know, a lot of these are
social services grants that are going to
the neediest of Junoites. I don't really
expect those ones to come back saying,
"Hey, we could cut it in half," you
know, but some of these are,
you know, kind of on a nice to have, you
know, but they're good things that, you
know, we funded for very good reason,
but might be able to come back and say
in spirit of what they know the city's
going through, you know, they can come
back and and show support for the
efforts that we're doing. And I think
that's, you know, the mayor's motion is asking asking to see where that
supported and where that kind of
community belt tightening can happen. So
I'm supporting the amend or the motion.
Thank you
>> Mr. Smith.
>> Thank you Madam Chair. I'm objecting for
just for the purpose of a question and
that's
um I I a concern of mine I guess is just
you know I don't want to keep drag I
don't want to drag this out for months I
guess. So a question for staff like
how quickly can we ask and can we set a
short timeline? So that you know we can
maybe have a sense of responses by
the you know the December meeting. Is
that a reasonable time frame?
» December finance meeting.
>> Thank you Mr. Smith.
Test. Test. There we go.
I think it is possible to reach out to
organizations and request that they get
back to us in time for packet
preparation for the December finance
meeting. I think any faster than that
would be challenging for the
organizations that might be interested
if any are interested in taking a hard
look at their budgets. Um that that work
can be ownorous and challenging. So
giving them less time I think would make
it that harder uh for for those that
potentially might be uh able or willing
to do that.
>> Thank you for that. Um I'll I'll remove
my objection and speak in favor of it. I don't know we're going to hear back. I
think it's worth an ask
and we may see we may not. But if we
can, you know, again hopefully deal this
with by the end of this fiscal year.
I'm okay with that with asking this and
so I'll support the motion. Thanks.
» I'll speak um in opposition to this
motion. Um I too feel like this
direction is counter to
the the direction we just gave. This is
part of our operating budget. These are
groups doing work on our behalf and this
is their operating budgets most in most
of these cases. Um
you know I think it plays into this idea
that our community grants are
philanthropy that we're doing this to be
nice. We're doing this because these are
needed services in our communities that
others can do more efficiently and
better um than we can. I also think it's
a waste of time to ask these groups, can
you ask for less money? They can do that
if they want to. They can they can come
back and tell us that they're not going
to be spending the money. Um, but
the nonprofit sector is under attack
right now. So I do I I think it will be
a waste of our time to try to gather
that information and then try to sort
through this as a body about what we do
or do not want to um do with that. So
with that I will call the question. We
have a motion and we have an objection.
» On the motion to direct staff to reach
out to each organization on the assembly
grant list and ask them to consider an
amended request. Mayor Welen,
>> yes.
>> Assembly member Hugh Scandies,
>> no. Assembly member at
>> no.
Assembly member Smith.
>> Yes.
>> Assembly member Kelly.
>> No.
>> Assembly member Hall.
>> No.
>> Assembly member Brooks.
>> Yes.
>> As member Siner.
>> Yes.
>> Chairwall.
>> No.
>> Motion fails. Four A's. Five Nazs.
Could we get a alternative motion?
Mayor Welen.
>> Thank you. Um I would move to direct
staff to distribute the remaining
assembly grant funding to grantees in
FY26.
>> Any objection?
Seeing none. Oh, seeing none. That's Oh.
go ahead, Miss Hall. offer the
amendment to direct um staff to uh
distribute the remaining funds
that that ask them. If any of you don't
need these funds, please let us know.
[laughter]
>> Any objections to that amendment?
>> I think that's what the first question
was
the
one of these.
>> I I'll object just because I I
appreciate what uh member Hall is trying
to do. I just think I'm trying to think
of staff here and I don't know how that
it's good direction to direct them to
distribute the funds.
I don't know what that process looks
like. If it's an email, with an AC,
and then you say, "By the way," in bold,
"Don't let me know if I can have this
money back." It just it it maybe staff
could elaborate, but this just seems
like uh a waste of their time, but I do
appreciate the sentiment, so I'm going
to object.
>> We have an amendment. We have objection.
Um, Miss Wendle, will you call roll on
the amendment?
>> Thank you, Chair Wall. On the amendment
to direct to direct staff to distribute
the remaining funds, but ask
organizations if they don't need these
funds to please let us know.
[gasps and laughter]
>> Assembly member Hall,
>> yes.
>> Assembly member Hugh Gandies,
>> no.
>> Assembly member Smith,
>> yes.
Assembly member Kelly,
>> yes.
>> Assembly member Atkinson,
>> no.
>> Mayor Welen,
>> yes.
>> Assembly member Brooks,
>> yes.
>> Assembly member Steiner,
>> yes.
>> Chair Wall,
>> no.
>> Amendment passes. Six's three ns. That
brings us back to the original motion as
amended.
Miss W. Any objections,
Miss Wendle? Oop. Sorry. We We don't
need We That move. That's moved. We're
good. Moving on.
Okay. Um
the last question. Does the AFC wish to
give any direction on one-time or
project funding for FY26?
I believe we already gave some direction
to not
start new things, but maybe I'll ask
staff if
what direction they would like here.
Um,
we brought up a couple of examples.
There's certainly many capital projects
uh on our um what we call it the
oneliner which you get in the CIP every
year which are capital projects with
funds left in them. Um uh there are
projects in varying degrees of
readiness. Um so if there's any
intention to uh you know pause those
projects or not start any new projects I
think that I would appreciate a
deliberate direction in that regard.
>> Thank you Mr. Smith. Oh,
well, [clears throat]
I'll go to Mr. Smith. Sorry, Mr. Smith.
Go ahead.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. um you know
looking at the CI CIP report for or you
know the CIP for for this project I uh I
don't know if it's a hybrid of a red
herring with a boogeyman but um I will
move that we pause
any action related to the waterfront uh
city museum
and ask unanimous consent.
Any objections?
» Go ahead, Madam Mayor.
>> I appreciate the sentiment and I
actually probably agree with it, but at
this time I don't think I'm ready to do
one-time projects without getting more
information on all of them. So, I'll
maintain my objection.
» All right. Um, any other objections or
people who want to speak to the motion?
Go ahead, Miss Yseandies.
>> I'll speak to the motion just briefly.
I'm gonna support it. I fully
am probably the same mind where Mayor
Weldon is coming from. The reason I'm
going to support it is because I would
be comfortable giving broad
guidance to staff
over not starting projects that I guess
I don't know what
to Mayor Weldon's point. I don't know if
anything's going on with the waterfront
museum. So maybe I'll interrupt myself
and ask staff is anything going on with
the waterfront museum?
No, it would be career suicide for me to
start that project without a discussion
with the assembly first.
>> Perfect. I do not want to assume. I did
assume. Okay. So, I feel okay saying I
there's nothing going on with the
waterfront museum. It would be career
suicide for our wonderful manager. So, I
feel comfortable with that direction and
I will move to give broader direction
after this.
>> So, you're not objecting?
>> Okay. Yeah. Sorry.
All right, we have a motion and we have
objection. Any other comments?
Um, I'll just just so the body knows
where I'm at. I I I'll also support this
just because it feels like a no-brainer,
but in general, I'm won't be ready to
make any other pausing decisions
immediately, but we may have other ones
um given some broad direction that we
want to give tonight. Okay.
Go ahead, Mr. Brooks.
Uh,
I wonder if it is the will of the body
to consider
any more of the unrestricted funds
within the CIP for the capital civic
center or when it comes to uh the estimated uh costs related to the
renovations of the Burns building may be
directing staff to seek
uh secondhand or state surplus as a temp
makeup while we navigate the hard
financial times. And uh
>> Mr. Brooks, not to interrupt you,
>> we've got a motion on the floor about
the um specifically the waterfront
museum. So if you want to hold comments
on other topics till that we've mo voted
on that.
>> I I was just asking if if if anyone want
to discuss I could amend I can do an
amendment but we'll we'll let the
action uh just go through them.
» Can still make those other motions
afterwards. We'll just keep it simple to
the one project. Okay. We have Madame
Mayor. Go ahead.
>> Since no one speaking up to object, I
will uh with draw my objection except
for I could tell Mr. Brooks was looking
for um direction. I could tell you right
now again I am not ready to cut anything
more.
>> All right. So
we have a motion with no objection
and so that is so moved.
Miss Hugh Gandies, did you want to make
motion? Was that what you were
indicating?
>> Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. I'm
struggling to think. I would like to
>> take an addies. I
>> I'll Yeah, I'll take an ease.
Miss you scandies. Thank you madam chair
for your indulgence and the at ease. I
am much in the same vein that I think it
was beneficial for this body and
hopefully beneficial for staff with the
first item to um verbalize some feedback
on uh like we did on operating. I am
just wanted to I think at this time I am
not going to make a motion because it's
my belief that if we ask staff to bring
back a specific list
much like this
only for projects again we might be
going down FY26 rabbit holes when we
need to be going it's our job to be
going a little bit higher. Um, I think
some people have already verbalized that
they're not comfortable making decisions
without knowing more about what that
particular project is at, which makes
sense to me. Um, there's a couple that
are
popped out in this memo tonight. Um,
which I think are those ones that I I
appreciate that staff has identified as,
you know, these are project these are
firmly in the project category. These
are things that it might be good to get
direction on.
I think there is not one motion that
um sufficiently
leaves room for that process to happen,
keeps us out of rabbit holes um and does
what I intend to do after talking with
staff.
So much [clears throat] in the same vein
as trust, we sort of codified some of
Mr. Steininger's comments and Mr.
Smith's motion earlier.
am not going to attempt to do that, but
I it is my hope and belief that the city
manager and staff are
looking at all of those projects and
identifying which of those have not
started and are likely to run into
financial problems in this new fiscal
environment in FY27
and make due diligent
uh decisions. s there while we in start
this process and we engage the public.
Um, and then I will just briefly say
because Eagle Crest is an hour memo and
because I did have the uh pleasure of
being involved in a Eaglerest meeting
today with some staff that [snorts] I
want to identify that personally to this
body that based on the most recent
information that I have, I do think
there
when we get again it's one of those
things we may not get all the way to the
calendar start of fiscal year 27 and we
may get new information that makes us
stop a project and that might occur in
FY26
but that will depend on the natural flow
of when we receive certain fiscal
information. Um so I just want to
highlight that is one for instance I
have deep concerns about in this new
fiscal environment. So
trying to articulate it. Apologize.
Thank you for letting me ramble. But I
think that um much like the operating I
will trust that it is the manager's jobs
to know which of those
projects we would not want to start or
put fiscal resources into. And I'll
stop.
>> Mr. Kelly,
» thank thank you. So, um, are we ready
for another discussion item or another
motion or
» um, sorry, you want to make a motion or
you are making a discussion point?
>> Um, I I think I was going to start with
a discussion and see where see if maybe
it's more efficient to go as a motion.
Um
» um
I would say either if you want to make a
comment to the body, go ahead and do
that or make a motion as opposed to
begin a discussion right now. Does that
is that helpful? And you can take a I
can move on to someone if you're not
quite ready for that.
>> No, no, no. Um I think I'm ready. I I'll
just
I'll go ahead and and make my motion.
Um, I would move that uh we take up um
discussion on
grants as it pertains to the affordable
housing fund and if we still want to
continue to issue grants uh that we take
up that discussion at a future um
finance committee meeting and I can
speak to my motion if Okay. Um so in in
lands committee uh earlier this week um
we um forwarded on to the assembly
um about $2.3 million uh worth of
affordable uh housing projects. More
than half of those are are grants to to
nonprofits.
Um and and I see um I I there definitely
um a need that's being met uh by these
nonprofits and there's a reason why it's
better for them to uh to receive these
as as grants. Um but that also means
that's money that's not coming back into
the fund to be used for future projects.
And considering that a part of the
affordable housing fund is is funded
through uh through sales tax revenue, um
I I I think it's uh important at least
um to to consider um maybe a temporary
moratorium on grants um being
distributed from the affordable housing
fund um for for future rounds, not for
round five that were
um forwarded to the assembly this year,
but for for future rounds if we uh want
to as a practice um just focus on
issuing loans that would eventually come
back um and fund future projects.
>> Mr. Kelly, I think we are still on the
discussion topic of FY26. And so if you
are not making a motion to change the
affordable housing fund
amount that we're that you've already
for that has been forwarded to the
assembly, I would hold that for another
um committee or um different spot in the
budget process for next year.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. With that, I'll
withdraw my motion.
>> Mayor, well done. Uh, thank you, Madam
Chair. And I would give the same
direction to Mr. Kelly if he's talking
about this year. It's already moved to
the assembly, so we'll discuss it there.
Um, but um I don't want to make a formal
motion because I think we've had enough
on this particular topic, but I would
just let staff know that I would be
looking for information on any project
um FY26, FY27 that they think are new,
don't think it's got traction, something to that effect. so we could be
considering it. Um, that's all I have.
» Mr. Brooks,
>> thank you, Madam Chair. And just tagging
on to what the mayor was saying there a
bit, uh, looking at projects that, uh,
haven't had, uh, progress in long
periods of times like you're saying, not appearing to have momentum or have
been stagnated a little bit.
>> Staff, do you I feel like we're kind of
in consensus on those general comments.
You guys feel good with that direction
without emotion? Great.
Okay,
so we have not made it through this
memo, which is okay. We knew this would
be a while. Um it is 8:30.
Um
and we have um an executive
[clears throat] session that um we do
need to get to. So, um, my proposal
would be, but but I'll look to the body
is that we either spend some time
talking about FY27,
um, for about a half hour before
executive session or we take a tackle an
easier
um, topic and just do some question and
answer about foregone revenue, which was
the next agenda item. Um,
and maybe staff will have an opinion on
where they want our attention right now.
But that would be my question to the
body. Are you okay tackling one more?
And do you want it to be talking about
next year's budget process or do you
want to talk about foreground revenue?
» Miss Hugh Scandies.
>> Thanks, Madam Chair. I would prefer to
spend a little time talking about FY27
just so we could start to outline that
process what that will look like.
>> Mr. Smith.
>> Thank you, Madame Chair. I I I agree. I
mean, there was a question I the staff
may want questions or want a response on
in terms of, you know, public
engagement. Um I have an idea for the um
foregone revenue that I could bring up
but I mean just to foreshadow I I wonder
you know in the past we've done a te a
group of three assembly members um who
tackle some tricky subjects like
foregone revenue or complex subjects
where if the whole body was working on
it could be painful for everyone um and
they can work you know more nimly
come up with some recommendations. They work with staff, you know, not in
viol obviously that in with that number
of people not in violation of open
meetings act and then come back to us um
or come back to the body with some
having kind of run it through. So that would be a possible suggestion but
um sorry my my thought would be FY27 and
maybe that for foregone. Thanks.
>> Making sure folks have energy for a
little bit more discussion on FY27.
Go ahead, Mr. Senator.
>> Wanted to make sure there wasn't because
[clears throat] I I agree with everybody
FY27 and talking about the process and
especially the public process makes most
sense right now. But I wanted to make
sure that staff that we're not delaying
any potential action on the foregone
revenue and stalling that process
because it's been something I've been
looking forward to talking about for
quite a while. So
>> as as Mr. Stunning. As exciting as
foregone revenue and docking fees are, I
don't think there's any harm in moving
those to a future AFC meeting.
All right, let's do another half hour
and then we'll um you know at max and
then we'll get a break before our
executive session.
All right,
Miss Flick, I will um assume you all
have labored intently over this terribly
long memo and just cover some highlights
on FI27.
Um you all have already discussed that
we have got um a long and hard set of
discussion and decisions to make
upcoming. Um there's a lot of things
that um we can do to help with that
decision making. Um one of the big
questions is you know how big is the
hole we need to fill. So on the chart in
the middle of page 27 I've highlighted
the three revenue decreases um that
we've already talked about. Again those
are annualized numbers. So that is um
assuming that no cuts are made to 27 or
making or sorry no cuts are made to 26.
All cuts are made in 27 would be the $11
million in sales tax and roughly a
million dollars in property tax. In
addition to that revenue loss, we know
that we are going to have expenditure
increases. The negotiated um contract
with MIBA has a built-in um increase for
wages in 27. Um we know that um IFFF and
PSA contracts once they are finally
negotiated will have an increase. um
we're putting that number at 2.5 million
which is kind of a 25 26 combination
number. We also know that there are
other things that we need to budget on
an ongoing recurring basis due to our
new love of glacial flooding outburst
things. So, um we know that we're we're
doing an annual um emergency operation
and we need to put funding um aside to
handle those staff costs and those u
minimally related cl costs that we would
expect to experience every year. Um, we
know that there's ongoing just flood
mitigation staff work, whether that's
working with the Army Corps or um,
working with residents, other things
that are going on. And we know now that
we have these Hescoll barriers in place
and we will likely have more, there's
ongoing maintenance that we're
responsible for and we need to include
that in our budget. So rough numbers um
not knowing um exactly how much we need
to budget as it relates to Gloth um
we're looking at about 16.2 million of
gap 11.2 million of that is operational.
So annually speaking that's a relatively
um decent number. Um we've talked about
um SAS recommendation of looking at um
service reductions and um potential
revenue as um kind of the primary things
that would be done in a public forum.
And um on page 31 of the packet is
excuse me is a service listing um whose
origins started with the 2019 priority
based budgeting exercise that was done.
that list has been updated to uh reflect
more current groupings and more current
services um that have been edited. Um
and we've grouped these into four groups
and the first one is core services that
um the city is responsible for doing. We
just need to do those. Um the second are
services that are um things that we need
to do but perhaps we can control the
level of service. So, an example is um
at CBJ after a snowstorm, we like to
have our streets cleared in 24 hours.
Doesn't have to be 24 hours, could be 36
hours or 48 hours. So, we could pick
that um that level of service that we
provide while still needing to provide
that service. um the group that's um
called number two support. Um those are
really all those ancillary things that
have to happen in order for your core
services or discretionary services to
take place. Um and then the third list
are all of those discretionary items. Um
think of those as the things that make a
city um the place that people want to
be, but not necessarily those required
um services. And so what we'd like to do
is um walk away from this discussion um
with kind of an agreement that we want
to focus our service reductions on the
discretionary list with some attention
to that core set where we can adjust the
level of service. So it's not a question
of do we do it or not, but are we good
taking two days to clear streets instead
of just one. Um and then you know with
our our new and fantastic communications
and engagement division, they're already
working on um some plans to engage the
public and and some different mechanisms
that we could use. And so we'd really
like to hear from you um your preference
or guidance on the structure of how that
looks. You know, do we want to do public
meetings? Do we want to use online
surveys? we have some online tools that
are available and how quickly do we want
that public engagement to take place. Um
and so with with your guidance
um it would be um useful to hear kind of
what you would like to see um within
that um and that I think that you know
as far as what we need from you tonight
that's probably the most timesensitive.
Um, as we said in the beginning, there's lots of other information and decisions to be made. Those don't
have to be made tonight, but in order to
get our um communications group really
working on a useful set of strategies to
bring back to you um for your feedback,
it would be good to know um kind of the
structure and timing um of that public
engagement and also if we're if we have
consensus on focusing on that
discretionary list and that kind of 1.5
core list.
going for questions. I said Mr. Kelly,
Miss Scandies, and Mayor Weldon.
» Um, thank you. Um,
I see some pluses and minuses with going
with the public uh survey route, but the
in particular minus might be if it's not
a scientifically conducted survey, if
it's just
we ask people their opinions, be happy
to get a few responses and it may or may
not be representative of the population
actually wants. So my question is like
are we if we did decide to go the survey
route to get this uh public input
uh would we be um set up to to conduct a
real a real representative survey?
» Not without an appropriation from the
assembly. Uh right now for example we do
the uh survey annually of our um
community for uh tourism purposes. So,
we asked them, you know, level of
tourism, all those questions, and that
runs us about $40,000 to have a
statistically significant uh survey. So,
um something like that, you we'd have to
contract out with we're talking like
we're talking survey monkey territory
here.
>> Thank you,
» Miss Hughes Candies.
>> Thank you, Madame Chair. I just wanted
to verify 1.5. You say these are
mandated functions of the city. However,
the level of service may have some
discretion and I feel like that is true
of one core services as well. Would you
agree?
» She's like, you certainly could say no,
I disagree with the grouping. And I just
want to emphasize that this did not come
out of um Director Flick's head. uh we
used it based we took these based on the tabs from priority based budgeting.
I wasn't here for that exercise but they
had labeled things that were you know
discretionary essential etc. So for
example um if you want to talk about
minimum staffing at JPD if you want to
talk about not um patrolling during the
night if you want to talk about um
changing our service levels for CCFR and
who we respond to you know how quick our
response times are to emergencies. All
of those things are things that you can talk about. Um, we are trying to uh
present you with our best proposal of
something that will be a use a good use
of your time because I have been through
these budget exercises before and what
happens is those those core services uh
just are are not something that the
public uh and eventually the governing
body is willing to move on. if if you
need to go and and that could be
different for this community and you may
need to go uh broaden this conversation.
It is just our attempt at trying to like
hone down on something that's a that's
manageable a manageable size
conversation to the public. So that
that's absolutely the type of feedback
that we're looking for. Nope, I want to
start at zero. And I believe the
priority based budgeting uh exercise
also started with like all the e all the
services and the feedback that I heard
and I don't know if you were here uh
deputy manager bar was that like a lot
of [snorts] time was spent saying yeah
these are essential services and we're
going to do them and that's time that
you know you're not talking about um
other nuances and other things. So that
is why we presented it to you in this
way. It is does not need to be how you
approach it but that's kind of our
justification. I appreciate that
justification and I did have the
pleasure of being here with the card
exercise when we did this before.
>> Mayor Welen.
>> Um, so hearing that lovely price tag for
the survey, I would say we do a
combination of I don't know if we still
can doing something online with the
budget tool that we did in the past with
Mr. Rogers and I think we should have
some
um open forum things. I don't know if we
want to get out the cards but um it was
interesting because um I when I had the
cards I gave them to you know 10 of my
friends just to see what they said and
it was very interesting to see that
nobody was the same. So, but it would be
interesting to see the um what the
public um we need to involve the public
because I don't um
>> Mayor Walden, do you have a question?
>> Yes.
>> I thought we were giving direction to
them. Sorry.
>> I think we were asking questions still.
I didn't
>> So, I will bring you to a question. Let
me think about this for a second.
What other tools can we use to get it
out to the public before open forum and
budget [laughter] tools?
» Um, Madame Mayor, there's, you know,
obviously we can do in-person town
halls. We can, um, do a survey monkey.
you can do the statistically um
significant survey um within the the
budget tool um that we currently have.
There's an online platform where
residents can um log in and actually
provide feedback. Um so I think
I don't want to say the sky's is the
limit um because certainly that's not
true. Um, but I think there's a a lot of
creativity
um that can that can go in in our um you
know in our tools that we would
regularly have and certainly our
communications team is incredibly
creative and can you know help help
guide that and bring back some some good
ideas for you.
» Miss Hall, did you have a question or
are you going to hold for comment time?
Okay, Mr. Steiner, did you have a
question?
>> Um, I had a comment, but I figured out a
way to turn it into a question.
[laughter]
Um, Miss Hugh Scandies was asking about
number one core versus 1.5. And I've
been kind of struggling with how we how
we go about having this conversation
with the public and not wanting to, you
know, waste time asking them questions
about things that we know we're not
going to cut or can't cut. like you know
you can't eliminate the assessor's
office you know that as much as maybe
some constituents might want us to you
know it's some of these are not
reasonable but I think eliminating some
because we've decided oh this is
uncutable
may not be as we may get a lot of
negative push back on that you know
looking at some of these where you know
things that I've definitely gotten
emails complaining about spending too
much money on fall into number one core
in some ways. And so I guess my question
is if we include number one core in that
communication and that information
gathering from the public whether it's
through an online survey or or what have
you. How do we plan to kind of inform
the public on the implications of the
input they give us? Like if somebody
gives us the input of yeah cut
permitting staff in half, are we going
to like is it going to be a widget that
says, you know, this would roughly
impact permit issuance time by triple or what have you? Like are we going to
give enough information to the public to
truly understand the recommendations are
giving us, I guess, and how are we going
to do that?
» Yeah, thank you for that question. I I
um I don't have an answer to that
question because it gets so unwieldy so
quickly because we do so much which is
why I was trying to get you to narrow my
list down of of uh of items that we
needed to um ask the public about. So,
you know, I think if the direction is to
start, you know, with everything, then
we would need to bring you back um a
proc design a process that does that and um and that's going to just take
some some thoughtfulness.
Any other questions?
Okay. Um
we have kind of we have two questions
here. Um it's you know feedback on
public engagement and
um do we start with
kind of core or do we you know um do we
focus our discussion beyond core I
guess. So, um, and I know they're
linked, but,
um, I feel like one drives the other
probably. So, maybe starting with the
question of
do we'll
read um, staff recommends that we focus
public engagement and input on services
that are discretionary [clears throat]
or core where the level of service can
be adjusted. Does the AFC concur with
that focus?
Mayor Welder,
>> just a discussion or do you want a
motion?
>> Take a motion.
>> Okay, I'll make
>> that worked so well last [laughter]
time.
>> I'm going to try again. Go ahead, Mayor
Weldon.
>> I will say that we direct staff to focus
public engagement and input on services
that are discretionary or core where the
level of service can be adjusted. And
may I speak to my motion?
>> Go ahead.
>> Um, I think what Miss Director, sorry,
manager Kester said is appropriate. Um,
we where where we really need feedback
is on our discretionary items and on our
core services that can be adjusted. That
does not mean that an assembly member is
hearing quite a bit about something else
that they can't bring it up to another
time. But I think the public engagement
should really be focused on those two
items. discretionary and core where the
service can be adjusted.
>> We've got a motion on the table.
Objections.
Miss Hugh Candies.
>> Thanks, Madam Chair. I will speak
briefly to my motion.
I agree that there is a difference
between what the public gives feedback
on and what this body might do. who this
body might have a more educated opinion
of what we think we can do to the core
services versus it gets it does get very
complicated very quickly if you open the
entire thing up to the public.
I would prefer, however, to get the
public's opinion on the whole shebang
because the magnitude of
budget cuts that we are anticipating
if we limit it to 1.5 and three. To me,
I do think that a lot of Juno's public
might have opinions about how do you
reduce things in one? how do you um
potentially reduce things in two um so
that they can keep some of three or 1.5
and I if that's the case and I want to
hear that um I will blend that in to say
that um it would be well maybe I should
keep it just to one and not talk about
outreach strategy.
I I'll just keep it to that. I I I I
certainly will be looking at the whole
thing, but I think there are good
reasons to Juno who has historically
taxed itself and um paid for a lot of
discretionary things that the rest of
the state, you know, it's a limited
number of the municipalities that
provide this level of service. And um I
think that when people understand the
magnitude of the decisions made in the
last election, there is going to be a
little bit of whiplash and then they're
going to have opinions about how they
keep some of those things. I could be
wrong, but I don't think I am. Uh and
because of that, then I would want their
feedback on the whole thing. So that's
why I will object.
» Mr. Steiner,
>> and I'll object too. And I think Miss
Hugh Scann put it very well. The one
thing I'll add is I I feel like
pre-editing
the list of options that we give to the
public kind of
sends a message that maybe we're not
willing to listen to all ideas. And I
think having all the items on the list
helps communicate that we are listening
to every idea no matter whether it's
challenging something that we believe
can't be cut or reduced. Even if I am
very skeptical that we can squeeze much
out of the items in number one core. I I
think it's I I think it would be sending
the wrong message to not include those
in our public outreach as we're asking
people what pieces of government that
they they prioritize the lowest.
>> Mr. Kelly,
>> thank you. Um I um much along the same
lines as Miss Gandies and Mr. Steiner. I
um hold firmly as a principle that
leadership isn't to one party or the
other giving direction. It's it's a
discussion and so I think we should put
it on the table and we should be able to
communicate what the effects would be um
and what the consequences would be. I
think that gives us an opportunity for
communication and so um I think Miss
Husseand hasn't quite moved an amendment
but maybe I um I would since Mr. Mr.
Sener and Miss Scandies have spoken to
it. Um I would move to um amend the
motion to also include uh discussion of
uh core essential items.
» You've heard the amendment. Any
objections to the amendment?
>> I'll object. I don't need to speak to
the
» um I saw Mr. Brooks first. Do you want
to speak to your objective? Objection.
>> Objection. For the purpose of a
question, uh, Assembly Member Kelly, did
you
include
all four options for review in your
amendment or was it just three of them?
>> It was my intent to include um
everything that hasn't been included
yet.
>> Thank you.
» Um, do you remove your objection?
>> I remove my objection. I just remembered
>> Miss Hall.
» Um I will speak in favor of this um
amendment. I think it's a toss up and I
understand where staff are coming from
and I think we will need to get granular
on you know probably these
discretionary items at some point with
the public. This will be an iterative
process, but I do think from the having
the community have to grapple with those
big picture things first
um will ultimately serve us in the end.
Even though
um when we get into the weeds, we'll
have to get feedback on the the things
and that right column because those are
most likely the things that we are going
to have to touch.
All right, we have a Oh, go ahead,
Mayor. Well done.
>> And count uh votes. I'll just remove my
objection.
>> All right, we have a motion and we have
an amendment. Any objections to the
amendment?
Seeing none, that's so moved. Um that
brings us back to the original motion as
amended. Any objections?
Seeing none, that's so moved. And I know
we're trying to create binary paths when
there's obviously gray area between the
two. I know that we will figure this out
um
to to do a little bit of a of all these
things. Um
the next question is really just getting
feedback from the body on the public
process. Is that correct? staff. Is that
the additional feedback you'd like or is
there some specific things you'd want
from us?
>> Um, yeah, I think just high level
feedback on the public process would be
useful. Um, timing I think is what I
struggle with because you know you in
what 6 weeks are going to be giving me
budget direction for building the FY27
budget. It would be great to have had
all like surveys and public meetings and
listening sessions uh in advance of
that. I don't I don't know how to how to
do that. Um so I so kind of weighing in
on what that looks like. Um and what
like what's so what's most important to
you, right? Like if it's super
important, I'll be like okay, we'll de prioritize other other things.
So just I I just think some like high
level feedback on uh process but also on
timing would be useful.
>> I saw Miss Scandies, Mr. Steining or Mr.
Brooks.
>> Thanks Madam Chair. I think um my
feedback would be I see that before the
retreat after the retreat
um the timing before that I would say
that I have no expectation that there's
going to be a super robust public
process before the retreat and I think
we will give you that direction as a
body and then
I think the earlier we start the public
process the better because it is going
to be an iterative process and we are
going going to have to go from, you
know, 100,000 ft, 50,000 ft. I don't
remember the numbers, but we're going to
have to zoom in at some point,
but that I anticipate if we take into
account the holidays and travel and
things that really that the real heart
of that process is going to take place
next year. I remember when the state
went broke and they had the balance a
budget tool on the website. I don't know
that we could have anything as
sophisticated as that, but I would
really love it if people we had
something that people could play with
themselves at home. Um, even if it's,
you know, putting a link to an Excel
sheet or something. Um, and pointing
them to it at social media so they could
see the challenges of balancing the
budget and the cuts that will need to be
made. Um and then I think we should do
non-statistical stuff in addition to you
know if this body wanted to do anything
non-statistical but public meetings I
would think would be part of that. So I mean I will trust to the engagement
team to bring bring us back strategies
through you but um but I I would just
say I would love giving something that
allows the public to play with the
budget because I think sometimes that's
how you make someone realize how deep
the cuts are.
Mr. Steininger,
>> Miss Hugh Scandies was thorough and
covered everything.
>> Mr. Brooks.
» Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just
wondering if, you know, maybe we could
take a page out of the
uh um election process and maybe utilize
dropboxes in some sort of fashion, you
know, for community outreach. People are
more likely to do it uh if it has more
options of partaking and more convenient
options. So, you know, the strategic
areas like supermarkets and things like
that. It doesn't have to be the
beautiful dropboxes that we have for for
the ballots and stuff, but something,
you know, sufficient enough with blank
pages and then maybe having just a
little bulletin above it or some sort of
display that explains, you know, the the
objective of the of the community and
finances and then have people just write
on a piece of paper. And uh I know it's
all all staff and time permitting, but
I'd read to them all.
» Miss Hall,
» I think we have a professional
communication engagement division and I think we should divert a lot of
these decisions about the howto's to to
the professionals. Um, I I think the
sooner the better, although running up
to the holidays that's super
challenging. Um, I think some community
engagement in in meetings maybe downtown
in the valley, but ultimately have
people fill it out online so we're not
getting
multiple, you know, people going to a
meeting and providing their input and
then going home and doing it again, you
know, like you can provide input once
and but again, leave all those little
details up to the professionals.
Any
other comments? I see a lot of head
nods.
I'll just add on the I think there will
be, you know, a question of kind of
appropriation and spending money and um
we'll be I'll be you know curious what
you all come to us with. But I will say
that, you know, because we are we're
embarking on this to cut the budget
that, you know, I I don't statistical
surveys are probably not where my brain
is, but I will always advocate for um
hiring a neutral facilitator.
Um if if that makes sense. I know the
brand new engagement team might have
sorry the community marketing team might
have good ideas that don't include that
but I that is an expense that I'd be
open to um so that we make sure that
there's time and attention on putting
together that process and and bringing
us back um you know an output.
Great. I think that is it. staff, do you
have the fe feedback that you need?
Great. Well, that bring we are going to
skip the next few items here and we will
come back to them.
Revenue definitely something want to
talk. Mr. Smith,
>> sorry. Um [clears throat] I I just I I'm
also I know we're I know a number of us
are interested in foreground revenue. I did just want to maybe get a
temperature check from the assembly and
I I could do it in the form of a motion
if that would be okay. Um just on the
idea of again a a a group of three to
kind of maybe dig in a little bit on the
foreground revenue just so we don't lose
steam on it.
>> Would that be would you be open to that,
Madam Chair? I think um I don't know
that we need a motion because there's
nothing keeping three people from doing
that regardless. So I see some head nods
and um that sounds like a good idea. I'd
also say for folks who may not end up in
that group, um it would probably be
helpful if you look through that list
and there are particular things that you
think are either, you know, that are big
movers or easy wins that you um pick those out and and can communicate
those with with staff or or be thinking
about those so we all can have a little
homework.
Does that satisfy you, Mr. Smith?
Um, yeah, I I was gonna add that I
didn't want to be on that group. That
was the only part of my motion I was
going to add in, but um
[laughter]
hold on. I thought I saw the mayor and
she probably has better guidance than I
do.
>> Okay, M. [clears throat] Sorry.
>> Well, uh, Mr. Sorry, Mr. Steininger
already said that he's been interested
in this. I've been interested in this
and I've talked to you before. So, that
will be our core three. And if anybody
else wants another group, they're
certainly welcome to because I
>> Who's in the group? I missed Mr.
Steininger.
>> I volunteered. You me.
>> Mr. Steiner.
>> So, we'll see.
>> We have lots of questions for the
attorney.
>> I didn't know I was in it. All right.
Cool.
» Chair. Go ahead. Miss
>> Hallifying question. So those three, if
any of the rest of us have info, we
should give it to the staff who then
give it to the
>> Yes. Okay. Thanks.
» All right. Um that brings us to next meeting date
which is December 3rd, 2025.
and executive session.
Um, Madame Mayor,
give a motion.
>> Uh, I move that we recess into executive
session to discuss and update collective
bargaining negotiations, the immediate
knowledge of which would adversely
affect the finances of the municipality.
» That's for unanimous consent. I should
read the whole thing.
Are there any members of the public that
object?
Oh, I have to I have to declare a
conflict. Um I am have a conflict
associated with negotiations with IAFF
and so I will um leave for that part of
the discussion. Any objections from the
assembly about recessing into executive
session?
Oh, go ahead, Miss Flick.
>> Thank you, Chair. Well, before you um
actually resource into executive
session, um do we need to come back to
the public or [clears throat]
um for public action?
>> We will not need to take motion after
the executive session. So, when we are
done, we will adjourn.
>> Perfect.