[0:01] Great. Thank you. And uh staff will be
[0:04] in touch.
[0:06] >> Thank you so much. Thank you.
[0:08] >> You're welcome.
[0:08] >> It's too easy, right?
[0:09] >> Yeah. [laughter]
[0:12] >> All right. Uh next on the agenda is a uh
[0:15] I guess it's a three-part uh request
[0:18] uh for 733 McKinley Avenue. Uh beginning
[0:22] with a landmark designation, uh an
[0:25] alteration certificate and a grant
[0:28] request. And we will have a staff
[0:30] presentation.
[1:55] recording in progress.
[2:14] The mayor is running a few minutes late.
[2:16] He says ETA 12:05. Start
[2:18] >> the meeting. Do it.
[2:19] >> So, no. He said do not start and I shall
[2:22] not
[7:08] got the
[7:11] » right
[7:13] six months.
[7:16] >> Are we on Zoom?
[7:20] >> Okay. Um,
[7:24] thank you [clears throat] all today for
[7:28] being here. I'm sorry for my delay in
[7:32] getting here. Um, but we will be done no
[7:36] later than 5:00 period and maybe uh a
[7:39] bit earlier than that. Um,
[7:42] why don't we take a roll call first?
[7:46] >> Council member Fehee
[7:48] >> here.
[7:50] >> Council member Kern
[7:51] >> present. Council member
[7:54] >> here.
[7:54] >> Mayorington
[7:56] >> here.
[7:57] >> Council member
[7:58] >> here.
[8:01] Um, if you would join me in pledge
[8:04] of allegiance.
[8:08] » I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
[8:11] United States of America and to the
[8:13] republic for which it stands, one nation
[8:16] under God, indivisible, with liberty and
[8:19] justice for all.
[8:23] Um,
[8:25] is is Caleb online?
[8:27] >> No. Yeah. I one of our members today got
[8:32] pretty violently sick last night. I'm
[8:34] not going to say that was either because
[8:37] he had to come to council meeting or
[8:40] that he had to pick up family at the
[8:44] airport, but um I do um wish him well
[8:48] and that's why he is not here today.
[8:51] >> [clears throat]
[8:51] >> sense his regrets. Um,
[8:55] all right. Um, we're at the budget
[8:58] retreat for the banial budget
[9:02] for 2027
[9:04] 28. Um, and I'm delighted to be here as
[9:09] I think council are and hopefully staff
[9:12] and the public are as well.
[9:16] >> [clears throat]
[9:16] >> Um, I wanted to um provide a few
[9:21] preliminary comments and I'm going to
[9:23] also have the chair of our finance
[9:27] committee um do so um council member
[9:31] Hfner um because that's um we've had a
[9:35] huge integral part in the development of
[9:39] the budget so far. Um, this meeting is
[9:44] being recorded. So, I hope that those
[9:47] who can't be here and even those who are
[9:50] here um can look back at it and um and
[9:55] be here to uh understand what we're
[9:58] doing because transparency is incredibly
[10:01] important especially on this
[10:03] [clears throat] issue. And I want to at
[10:05] the outset thank uh
[10:08] um the the kind of following
[10:12] groups of people. Um first the staff who
[10:15] have worked absolutely tirelessly to get
[10:19] us where we are right now. Um and that
[10:22] includes all the directors I think who
[10:24] are here today. Um their staff. Um, I
[10:29] want to thank council who are going to
[10:32] do hopefully a lot of heavy lifting
[10:37] um today and and throughout the process.
[10:40] Um, want to thank the members of the
[10:42] boards and commissions who've had uh big
[10:45] input into this as well. They've been
[10:47] asked for their input and they've
[10:48] provided it.
[10:51] um want to ask or mention members of the
[10:53] public who um we'll get to that in just
[10:57] a minute, but are going to play an
[10:59] important role in this and indeed all
[11:03] already are in [snorts]
[11:05] comments that they've made to us.
[11:08] [clears throat] And I do want to single
[11:10] out our city manager
[11:13] um Diana Langley for leading the staff
[11:16] charge on this and uh she and her staff
[11:19] will be conducting
[11:21] um a chunk of this meeting. Um want to
[11:26] make sort of four points. Um,
[11:29] one is that one of the most important
[11:32] things a city council and this city
[11:35] council does under the charter
[11:38] is passing a balanced budget.
[11:43] Um, and we will do that later this year.
[11:47] What does that involve? It involves
[11:49] making policy choices
[11:52] and setting the spending priorities of
[11:54] the city for um the next two years. We
[11:59] do a bianial budget. We will revisit it
[12:02] next year and indeed we'll revisit it
[12:05] throughout the year on for certain
[12:08] purposes,
[12:10] but [clears throat]
[12:12] we're going to make those policy choices
[12:14] and set spending priorities that we
[12:17] believe reflect and balance the values
[12:21] that the community that we serve,
[12:26] the voting public and those
[12:28] [clears throat] who can't vote.
[12:31] yet or can't vote at all um
[12:37] uh embody and that we understand I think to the
[12:42] best of our knowledge
[12:45] um and ability um
[12:49] we also
[12:52] are collaborating in this process and I
[12:55] have enumerated some of the folks who
[12:57] collaborate and are collaborating ating
[12:59] with in evaluating
[13:03] um and making those choices and those
[13:08] decisions. That's why you call it a
[13:09] budget process.
[13:12] Um
[13:14] the second um thing I think to know in
[13:19] all of this is that every municipality
[13:21] in Colorado, probably across the country
[13:25] and most other governments, including
[13:28] our state government particularly, are
[13:30] undergoing incredible
[13:32] maybe metamorphic
[13:35] financial pressures.
[13:37] and it makes this job all the more
[13:39] important and difficult.
[13:42] I I think I don't want to I don't want
[13:44] to overstate it. Um but I I do think
[13:47] that's a really important lens through
[13:50] which we all have to um understand this.
[13:56] We've got tough choices to make, but we
[13:58] have um what I consider to be um the
[14:04] ability to stand on the shoulders of a
[14:07] lot of people, staff,
[14:11] presidents,
[14:13] um public officials
[14:16] who have made really terrific choices,
[14:21] um often conservative choices
[14:24] to uh protect protect the city
[14:27] and bring us to what we're going to do
[14:29] today. Um so while um these are tough
[14:33] decision decisions today, there are many
[14:35] communities that are really in uh much
[14:38] more difficult situations than we are
[14:40] and I think that's important.
[14:43] Uh third, um during this budget process,
[14:47] there will be quite a number of
[14:50] important points in which or at which
[14:53] the public has input
[14:58] formally in meetings and so forth. And
[15:01] of course, the public is always willing
[15:03] or able to send us emails, contact us um
[15:07] when we're not in meeting, but today is
[15:09] not one of those. Um, we have a lot of
[15:13] information to get through today and we
[15:15] will uh
[15:17] um we'll take public comment in other
[15:20] circumstances later in this long
[15:22] process. And fourth is that we will get
[15:26] through as many items as we can in the
[15:29] budget today. [snorts]
[15:30] Um during this retreat, there may be in
[15:33] particular some elements of the capital
[15:35] improvement budget that we may um decide
[15:38] to put over to a subsequent meeting.
[15:42] We've allowed time for that. Um that is
[15:45] a challenge in and of itself, but we'll do that and um can and will do
[15:51] that. Um so those are the points I want
[15:55] to make to kind of frame the bigger
[15:56] discussion. But um we have the benefit
[16:00] of a terrific finance committee
[16:03] supported by staff uh writer Bailey,
[16:07] finance director and many others. Um
[16:10] members of that um include
[16:14] um the chair uh Dietrich Hefner
[16:17] um and Josh Coopermanman
[16:20] [clears throat and cough]
[16:21] and Deair Prom. Um they just happen to
[16:24] be sitting
[16:26] uh to the left of me to the right on
[16:31] from your point of view probably. And um
[16:36] I we want uh to give them an opportunity
[16:40] to council member Hefner to make a few
[16:42] comments um about um their work and um
[16:48] the way they're seeing that and um he's
[16:51] seeing it as a finance year. So council
[16:54] member,
[16:55] >> thank you mayor. Uh [clears throat] I'll
[16:58] try and be brief. The finance committee
[17:00] has um worked hard to date on um the
[17:05] items we're going to be looking at today
[17:06] in the retreat. I know many of you were
[17:08] with us at the budget retreat preview on
[17:11] July 2nd um and and got at least a taste
[17:15] of some of the issues that are going to
[17:17] be before us today.
[17:20] I think the thing I want to underline
[17:22] that the the mayor talked about is we
[17:25] are in a much better position in many
[17:28] ways than a lot of neighboring
[17:29] jurisdictions, the state government, the
[17:32] county, um take take your pick, who are
[17:35] all facing um
[17:38] decisions that are that are much harder
[17:41] than the ones we're facing in terms of,
[17:43] you know, not having the money to
[17:45] continue the programs they've already
[17:46] got. Um we we are fortunate in in the
[17:50] sense of um
[17:53] we haven't gotten ourselves into that
[17:55] particular situation. I think everyone
[17:56] deserves a lot of credit for the the
[17:59] prudent decision-m that got us there.
[18:01] Nevertheless, we face all of the same
[18:03] cost pressures as everybody else, which
[18:05] we've heard a lot about. Um that costs
[18:07] of lots of things are going up faster uh
[18:10] than city revenue. And if we are not if
[18:14] we don't continue to be diligent and
[18:16] prudent and responsible uh we could very
[18:20] easily find ourselves in a situation
[18:22] where there isn't for example enough
[18:23] general fund money to cover all the
[18:26] things the general fund needs to cover
[18:27] or not enough capital fund money to
[18:29] undertake the the sort of core capital
[18:32] projects we need to do. Um, you know, I
[18:35] think this this has been and will be
[18:38] described as a transitional budget and a sort of bridge from the way we have
[18:43] been doing things toward potentially a
[18:46] new way of doing things. I hope we can
[18:47] all think about that as we talk about
[18:49] the long list of decisions in front of
[18:51] us. Um, because I think we're at
[18:55] something of an inflection point. Um,
[18:58] but nowhere near as bad of an inflection
[19:00] point as some of our neighbors. So there
[19:03] there's both a challenge but an
[19:05] opportunity as well.
[19:09] » With that
[19:15] me with that I'll turn it over to staff.
[19:17] I think there may be a number of people
[19:20] who are going to have some part of the
[19:22] presentation. Um
[19:25] the council will be weighing in at
[19:27] different parts and I'll uh be kind of
[19:30] shephering that discussion, but the
[19:33] staff is going to be shephering us
[19:34] through um some preliminary thoughts and
[19:38] hard um analyzed facts and suggestions
[19:44] and priorities and decisions for us. So
[19:47] >> all right, thank you. Thank you council
[19:49] for joining us today. I would like to uh
[19:52] reiterate the gratitude for staff. Um to
[19:56] get to this point is a culmination of
[19:58] months worth of work of all of the
[20:00] departments and really appreciate all of
[20:02] the time and effort that you've put into
[20:04] this. Also want to thank the finance
[20:06] committee uh council for your support to
[20:08] this point and then also the advisory
[20:09] boards for submitting their requests as
[20:11] well. Um, as council member Hefner
[20:14] noted, we are entering transitional
[20:16] budget years. As we were starting to
[20:18] prepare for um, this workshop, you know,
[20:22] we realized all the things that are in
[20:24] transition. We while we will adopt a
[20:26] balanced budget, we do have a structural
[20:28] issue with our ongoing budget. And when
[20:30] you look at the um, the models, they
[20:33] will show that costs continue to exceed
[20:36] revenues. So the transitional piece of
[20:38] this is setting the foundation to
[20:40] understand where we are at as a city
[20:42] with the community to understand the
[20:44] services that we provide the um
[20:47] constraints that we have and then
[20:49] opportunities to move forward. Also
[20:51] there are opportunities to increase
[20:52] revenues through evaluations of fees um
[20:56] perhaps a technology fee um plant check
[20:59] and inspection fee and then also
[21:01] reviewing credit card fees. And then um
[21:04] there's impacts to be determined as we
[21:06] have the adoption of the pros guide book
[21:09] which was a huge um input from the
[21:11] public. You'll see requests for not only
[21:14] maintaining existing amenities but new
[21:16] amenities. How do we fit that into the
[21:18] long-term plan adoption of the comp plan
[21:21] which is very exciting that will result
[21:24] in uh development that is not factored
[21:26] into this budget. And then looking at
[21:29] cost allocations and that's a
[21:30] behind-the-scenes item that we do um not
[21:33] only cost allocation of the um internal
[21:37] divisions in terms of finance, IT and HR
[21:41] across the entire organization but then
[21:44] also how staff are allocated amongst the
[21:47] funds and as um finance has pulled back
[21:50] the curtain on some of these positions,
[21:52] we have found that they are not
[21:53] allocated appropriately. And so we need
[21:55] to evaluate that and go through. And
[21:58] then finally, you know, if you look at
[22:00] the current budget, there are a lot of
[22:02] KPIs and I understand why they're in the
[22:04] budget. As we move forward in this next
[22:07] two-year cycle, we would really like to
[22:08] evaluate the KPIs and make sure that
[22:10] they are meaningful and that they
[22:13] actually tell a story and that they um
[22:16] provide value. Um versus right now it's
[22:19] more so there are a long list in the
[22:21] budget that are occasionally referred
[22:23] to. Next slide, please.
[22:26] So, just looking at what this is a brief
[22:29] snapshot of what's occurred within the
[22:31] last year or what we're currently
[22:33] working on. Um, again, this list is
[22:36] small compared to what the entire city
[22:39] staff have completed, but these are um
[22:43] some may be considered very small in
[22:45] terms of RV dump station, but it has a
[22:47] big impact on the public. And then we
[22:49] have very large the comp plan adoption.
[22:51] And so, uh, you know, kudos to staff for
[22:54] all of these items. What this really
[22:56] reflects is that, um, staff does not
[23:00] just sit there and stay with status quo.
[23:02] There's constantly how can we improve,
[23:04] how can we better our processes, and we
[23:06] always receive feedback that we need to.
[23:09] And so, we take that in and evaluate
[23:11] what we can do. So, again, thank you.
[23:13] And I'm going to transition this to
[23:15] Ryder.
[23:19] » Thank you.
[23:21] Um, thank you all for attending. I'd
[23:23] like to thank our city department heads
[23:26] and their staff for their hard work and
[23:27] input so far in this process. Takes a
[23:30] village. I'd also like to acknowledge
[23:32] the outstanding work of Mahar Mansurati,
[23:34] financial analyst, who's been
[23:35] instrumental in compiling and analyzing
[23:38] the budget to date, and our deputy
[23:40] finance director, Mr. James Frank, who's
[23:42] embarking on his initial budget journey
[23:44] with the city. I'd be amiss not to
[23:46] recognize also my finance team, many of
[23:48] which are sitting behind me, our tax
[23:50] team, Travis, Hope, Melissa, and Jess,
[23:53] as well as our accounting team, Jordan,
[23:55] uh, Kylie, Ally, Julie, and Jen. They're
[23:58] fabulous. I really appreciate all the
[23:59] support they do for me and my team and
[24:01] for the organization. I'd like to start
[24:04] with the purpose of today's budget
[24:05] meeting and what success looks like.
[24:07] You're going to be presented with a lot
[24:09] of information today, a lot of
[24:10] information and details. It's meant to
[24:12] be interactive. Along the way, we'll be
[24:14] seeking your direction at council
[24:17] decision points. To help us along with
[24:19] that process, we have a multi-pager
[24:20] handout for you to follow along as well.
[24:26] So, let's set the stage. Um, we'll start
[24:29] today's presentation off going over the
[24:31] budget process in the calendar, budget
[24:33] guidelines, financial policies,
[24:35] council's priorities, city manager
[24:38] priorities, some key considerations,
[24:40] what we're seeing in other communities,
[24:42] fiscal and policy issues with potential
[24:44] significant impacts, and council
[24:47] decision points. Then we're going to hop
[24:49] right into it for long-term financial
[24:52] forecasts and initial focus areas of
[24:55] budget development. The general fund,
[24:57] the parks fund, open space fund, and the
[24:59] golf fund. Then we'll touch on some
[25:01] major revenue and personnel and benefit
[25:04] expenditure assumptions.
[25:08] We'll go over the city manager's
[25:10] recommended adjustments. This includes
[25:11] both personnel and operational.
[25:14] will revisit fiscal and policy issues
[25:16] with significant impacts. As mentioned,
[25:19] expense growth continues to outpace our
[25:21] revenue growth. The recreation debt mill
[25:25] levy, temporary credit expiring and
[25:27] resetting to align with uh annual debt
[25:30] payments. I will not spend that much
[25:32] time on the historic preservation tax
[25:34] after last night's council meeting, but
[25:36] I dock of these materials before last
[25:37] night. We'll spend some time on board
[25:40] and commission requests. LSAB, a
[25:42] sustainability, sustainability advisory
[25:44] board, cultural advisory board, open
[25:47] space advisory board, recreation
[25:49] advisory board, and the historical
[25:50] museum advisory board. And at the end,
[25:53] we'll talk about our preliminary CIP.
[25:58] So, the calendar, a lot of good work has
[26:01] been done to date. March through May, we
[26:05] compiled capital requests, material
[26:07] operational requests and personnel
[26:09] expansion requests. May through June,
[26:12] the department 2027-28 operational
[26:14] budget was developed and refined by
[26:16] department heads. Preliminary revenue
[26:19] estimates were also prepared. June and
[26:21] July, finance and CMO staff consolidated
[26:24] those inputs and developed the materials
[26:25] you have today.
[26:27] Earlier this month, we gave the finance
[26:30] committee a budget retreat preview of
[26:31] this meeting.
[26:35] Here we are today in council chambers uh
[26:38] for the 2728 budget retreat. Looking
[26:42] forward um depending on the progress
[26:44] made today, I feel it's very likely
[26:46] we'll have a another meeting engaging
[26:48] the entire council to do further CIP
[26:50] revi refinement and development. At the
[26:53] August 20th finance committee meeting,
[26:54] we'll have a budget retreat recap and
[26:56] additional CIP discussion. All targeting
[26:59] Tuesday, September 1st council meeting
[27:01] for the city manager's recommended
[27:02] budget. September to October, we'll have
[27:05] working sessions as necessary. Tuesday,
[27:08] October 20th will be our public hearing,
[27:11] um the city manager's final budget
[27:12] presentation with adoption slated for
[27:15] Monday, November 2nd.
[27:21] Budget guidelines. The city is currently
[27:23] developing its 202728 bianual budget and
[27:27] six-year capital improvement plan. This
[27:29] is a heavy lift. The budget process aims
[27:32] to allocate resources in alignment with
[27:34] our priorities. We've talked about a
[27:36] balanced budget. I'd like to add on to
[27:38] structurally balanced. What this means
[27:40] is that one-time funding is only to be
[27:42] used for one-time expenditures, not
[27:44] ongoing funding. Put another way, your
[27:47] revenues need to exceed your ongoing
[27:49] expenditures.
[27:51] Line item adjustments are based upon
[27:53] detailed analysis and projections.
[27:55] Staffing requests and will include
[27:58] detailed and specific information
[28:00] defining the need for those positions.
[28:02] One thing I've talked a lot with our
[28:03] department heads is cost neutrality that
[28:05] increases are to be offset by
[28:08] commeasurate reductions. What this has
[28:10] allowed us to do is prioritize our
[28:12] staffing and our obligations. Um,
[28:17] and given existing and potential fiscal
[28:20] challenges, our community's high level
[28:22] of expectation, we do expect the budget
[28:24] development process to generate some
[28:26] challenging conversations and difficult
[28:28] decisions.
[28:31] The city's financial policies are posted
[28:33] on our department's website and are
[28:34] routinely reviewed by the finance
[28:36] committee. They were last amended on
[28:38] June 16th of this year. The budget is
[28:41] developed within this framework. The
[28:43] financial policies that have a direct
[28:45] impact on budget are asterisks on this
[28:48] chart, reserves, revenues, and our
[28:50] operating budget policies.
[28:53] This budget aims to align your council
[28:57] priorities with our resources, economic
[28:59] vitality, core services, safety,
[29:01] housing, all within the lens of EDI and
[29:04] environmental sustainability.
[29:07] Our
[29:09] city manager's priorities are to
[29:11] prioritize our existing critical
[29:13] infrastructure and core functions. What
[29:15] this means is public safety in the but
[29:17] in the recommended budget. Today you'll
[29:18] see market adjustments for police and
[29:19] Boulder ODM maintenance of our capital
[29:22] investments including technology and
[29:24] critical infrastructure and addressing
[29:26] the long-term stability of the general
[29:28] fund, parks fund, open space fund and
[29:30] golf funds. investments in staff with an
[29:32] emphasis on retention, training, and
[29:34] development. To continuously evaluate
[29:37] and implement cost-saving opportunities,
[29:38] and operational efficiencies, and to
[29:40] evaluate fees and cost allocations where
[29:43] appropriate.
[29:46] Some key considerations. We are not
[29:48] alone. Other cities are going through
[29:49] something similar. Lewisville has a high
[29:52] quality of life and delivers a high
[29:54] level of service. This city has taken on
[29:56] truly impressive and aspirational work.
[29:59] We just need to balance those with our
[30:00] resources. There are pathways through
[30:02] this. We are seeking your guidance on
[30:04] proposed pathways forward and we will
[30:07] have a balanced budget for adoption this
[30:09] fall.
[30:11] This slide uh neighboring communities
[30:13] aims to set some context. Here are
[30:15] somehat of some of what our neighboring
[30:17] communities are experiencing as they
[30:19] develop their budgets. Um many of which
[30:21] are just entering the budget process.
[30:23] Staff will continue to monitor what's
[30:25] going on in our region. I would like to
[30:27] highlight and applaud the fiscal
[30:29] discipline of your council and prior
[30:31] councils which have placed this city in
[30:33] a better position than some
[30:38] fiscal policy issues and significant
[30:40] impacts. Again, addressing the general
[30:43] park and golf funds structural
[30:45] imbalances. The general trend of expense
[30:47] growth outpacing our revenue growth with
[30:50] projected slowing or flattening of sales
[30:52] and use and also property tax revenues.
[30:55] our personnel costs and retention,
[30:58] suspension of the temporary credit of
[30:59] the rec center debt mill levy to align
[31:02] with our annual debt service payments,
[31:04] service level alignments as necessary,
[31:06] and prioritizing our capital investments
[31:09] to balance our CIP. We will be
[31:10] revisiting this throughout and at the
[31:12] end of today's presentation.
[31:16] Council decision points. This slide aims
[31:18] to put you on notice of council
[31:20] direction sought. And again, you can
[31:22] reference the multi-pager that has a
[31:24] matrix throughout. This will include our
[31:26] parks fund extend increase the
[31:29] conservation trust fund transfer for
[31:31] park operations beyond 2028 in models.
[31:35] Increasing general fund subsidy and or
[31:37] service level reductions. The open space
[31:40] fund revisiting the acquisition reserve
[31:42] percentage set aside. The golf fund
[31:45] continued to engage the recreation
[31:47] advisory board. [clears throat] We'll go
[31:49] over the city manager's operational and
[31:51] personnel recommended adjustments,
[31:54] service level reductions,
[31:57] the rec center debt fund, temporary mill
[31:59] le mill levy credit, the historic
[32:02] preservation fund we will not spend much
[32:04] time on, and boards and commission
[32:05] requests.
[32:09] Let's hop right into it.
[32:12] Initial areas of budget focus. Over the
[32:14] next few slides, we will review the
[32:16] city's major funds. the general fund,
[32:18] parks fund, open space, golf,
[32:20] recreation, and consolidated utilities.
[32:22] The capital fund will be later in the
[32:24] presentation. But before we do, um, how
[32:28] are they developed? The long-term
[32:30] financial forecast for major funds are
[32:32] developed using 2025 actuals to arrive
[32:34] at our beginning fund balances. 2026
[32:38] current year adjusted or revised budget
[32:40] and in some instances projections, our
[32:42] 27 and 28 requested budgets. Turnback is
[32:46] utilized for certain funds in model
[32:47] years. I'll spend a little more time on
[32:49] that. Um projections and assumptions may
[32:52] be updated throughout the budget
[32:53] development process. I would like to uh
[32:56] remind folks unlike at the budget
[32:58] retreat preview why I did not have
[32:59] everything modeled at this time all 2027
[33:02] city manager recommended adjustments are
[33:04] reflected in the models.
[33:09] So before we get into the the charts, a
[33:12] few more slides. Um a few additional
[33:14] inputs worth considering. While your
[33:17] council adopts total appropriations, our
[33:19] long-term forecasts incorporate
[33:21] operational turnback. This is often
[33:23] largely driven by salary savings or
[33:25] vacancies. Um but could be mater uh but
[33:28] also could include materials or
[33:29] supplying supply line items coming in
[33:31] under budget. These savings are taken
[33:34] into consideration and greatly impact
[33:36] the following forecasts.
[33:40] Inter fund transfers for 2027. These are
[33:43] increased over 2020 2026's transfers by
[33:47] 4.2%.
[33:51] These transfers are codified in the city
[33:53] financial policies. I'll run through
[33:55] this real fast.
[34:02] The general fund transfers out 1.1
[34:05] million to the parks fund. It transfers
[34:08] out 140,000 to the cemetery fund and
[34:10] nearly 1.5 million to the recreation
[34:14] fund. The cemetery perpetual fund or
[34:16] endowment fund makes a transfer of its
[34:18] interest earned to the cemetery
[34:20] operations fund. The historic
[34:22] preservation fund transfers 230,000 to
[34:24] the general fund for museum operations.
[34:27] This this takes into account the
[34:29] existing percentage, not any future
[34:31] percentages
[34:33] depending on the outcome of a future tax
[34:35] measure. The capital projects fund
[34:37] transfers 174,000 to the recreation
[34:39] fund. This supports capital
[34:41] expenditures. And we'll talk about this
[34:43] more later, but the conservation trust
[34:44] lottery fund transfers $100,000 to the
[34:47] parks fund for park operations.
[34:50] All these transfers are in the model.
[34:52] Looking at a two-year budget, we're
[34:53] looking at 2028. Here are all those same
[34:55] transfers again increased by 3%.
[35:01] All right, beginning with the general
[35:03] fund. Now, before I get into the
[35:05] numbers, I'd like to touch on the
[35:07] general fund a little bit. This is where
[35:09] your primary governmental activity
[35:11] occurs. It is the city's largest
[35:13] operating fund. It's where public safety
[35:16] lives, community development, and
[35:18] building safety, cultural services,
[35:20] including our library, museum, and arts,
[35:23] sustainability, resiliency, our clerk,
[35:26] our legal team,
[35:28] CMO, and portions of HR, IT, and
[35:31] finance.
[35:33] And as I've just mentioned with the
[35:34] transfer slides, significant support of
[35:36] parks, wreck, and cemetery via those
[35:38] transfers. This fund is the core of a
[35:41] lot of what your government does. It's
[35:44] primarily funded by tax revenue, sales,
[35:47] and property tax, and to a lesser
[35:49] degree, building and permit fees, the
[35:51] superior library IGA, Excel, and Comcast
[35:54] franchise fees, just to name a few.
[35:58] So general fund forecasted revenues for
[36:00] 2027 are 28.7 million for 2028 29.6
[36:05] million. The general fund forecasted
[36:08] expenses in 27 29.2 million 30.2 million
[36:11] in 2028. These forecasted expenses do
[36:15] include 250,000 in one time in 2027 and
[36:19] 40,000 in onetime expenses in 2028. I
[36:22] touched on turnback a little bit
[36:23] earlier. These models, those forecasted
[36:25] expenses do take into consideration
[36:27] operational turnback of approximately
[36:30] 1.5 million.
[36:32] Put another way, our operational gap
[36:34] gaps at this time are approximately
[36:36] 200,000 for 2027 and 600,000 in 2028.
[36:42] These models include approximately 1.5
[36:45] uh additional FTEES, a piece of a civil
[36:49] engineer 12, a piece of an operations
[36:51] technician, a portion of a construction
[36:54] and storm water inspector, and a portion
[36:56] of the PROS deputy director. These are
[36:59] staff's preliminary efforts and are not
[37:01] the city manager's recommended budget.
[37:06] You will be seeing a few charts like
[37:08] this one today. So let me explain by
[37:11] what these bars mean.
[37:15] The blue bars are your revenues pro
[37:18] comprised of a lot of different revenue
[37:20] sources but primarily sales and prop uh
[37:23] property taxes. Your red bar are your
[37:25] expenses.
[37:27] The green bar is the ending fund balance
[37:29] for that year.
[37:31] The orange line across the bottom is the
[37:33] 15% operate minimum operating reserve
[37:36] set by financial policies. The dotted
[37:38] line is a 25% minimum target operational
[37:42] reserve.
[37:44] So focusing in on 2027 and 2028, you'll
[37:48] see visually demonstrated what I
[37:50] mentioned on the prior slide. Ongoing
[37:52] revenues in 2027 are 28.7 million, about
[37:57] $200,000 short of ongoing expenses in
[38:00] 2027.
[38:02] This is our current structural gap.
[38:05] Note that from the budget retreat
[38:07] preview to today, staff has modeled all
[38:09] city manager recommendations, which has
[38:11] widened this gap. Um, we'll speak on
[38:13] this later. In 2028, our operating
[38:17] revenues are 29.6 million, our ongoing
[38:20] expenses of 30.2 million, a structural
[38:22] gap again of 600,000.
[38:25] And you'll note if you don't address
[38:26] this structural gap in balance
[38:28] immediately, it compounds over time.
[38:33] You also note that throughout the
[38:36] forecast, we are anticipated to remain
[38:38] above our minimum and target reserves
[38:41] goals throughout this model.
[38:47] So important to note that staff will
[38:49] continue to refine forecasts throughout
[38:51] this process that the imper information
[38:53] presented today includes assumptions of
[38:55] revenues and expenditure growth. This
[38:57] could mean evaluating things such as the
[38:59] wind tail deductible buy down or other
[39:01] cost-saving opportunities, potentially
[39:04] reallocating resources to higher
[39:05] priorities, which would likely include
[39:07] programmatic or service level
[39:09] reductions. We may assess vacant
[39:11] positions and city policies. We will
[39:13] continuously evaluate cost setting
[39:15] opportunities and efficiencies. We will
[39:17] evaluate fee recovery and cost
[39:19] allocations. And this all may be
[39:21] impacted by future development and
[39:22] policies.
[39:28] I will continue on to the parks fund,
[39:31] our second fund of initial area focus.
[39:34] Our parks department is widely
[39:35] recognized as top tier, safe, clean, and
[39:38] extremely well-maintained. Credit to our
[39:41] current superintendent, Chris Davis,
[39:43] Director Blackmore, and their
[39:44] extraordinary staff. The department is
[39:47] nearly kappa accredited which is an
[39:49] incredible accomplishment nationwide
[39:51] with less than 2% of parks departments
[39:53] receiving such an honor. Our parks
[39:56] forecasted revenues for 2027 are 29.9 20
[40:01] uh 2.9 million.
[40:03] Same in 2028. Our forecasted expenses in
[40:06] 2027 are 2.9 and 3.0 3.0 million in
[40:12] 2028.
[40:13] Again, this does our forecast expenses
[40:16] takes into consideration operational
[40:18] turnback of nearly $200,000.
[40:20] Our preliminary operational gaps within
[40:22] this fund are 40,000 in 2027 and about
[40:26] 85,000 in 2028. Future needs and some
[40:29] current are not funded, including front
[40:31] center maintenance, red tail
[40:33] development, and as city manager Langley
[40:35] mentioned, our PROS long-term plan. A
[40:38] reminder that future capital parks
[40:40] expenditures are not modeled in this
[40:42] fund. There are some personnel
[40:43] recommended changes. A partial
[40:45] allocation of the PROS deputy director.
[40:47] This has been offset by a reduction in
[40:48] variable hours. This reflects staff's
[40:51] preliminary efforts and is not the
[40:53] recommended budget at this time.
[40:57] So, here is the park's long-term
[40:59] financial forecast.
[41:01] Within the blue bar and at your request,
[41:03] we have split out tax revenue from the
[41:07] general fund ongoing transfer between
[41:09] the deep blue and the slightly lighter
[41:11] blue. Um, also you can see a top the
[41:13] lightest of blues is a conservation
[41:15] trust fund transfer. While nearly
[41:17] structurally balanced in 2027 28, the
[41:20] differences that were previously noted
[41:22] on the former slide, staff has extended
[41:25] the CTF transfer throughout this model.
[41:28] This is a council decision point. So,
[41:30] let me pivot briefly to the conservation
[41:32] trust fund.
[41:35] Here is a summary of what the
[41:37] conservation trust fund is paying for
[41:39] from 2024 through 2032, which covers
[41:42] playgrounds, wayfinding, and signs for
[41:45] parks and open space. And as mentioned,
[41:47] beginning in 2026, the conservation
[41:49] trust fund transfer uh supports
[41:52] approximately 3% of park operations.
[41:55] This fund brings in approximately
[41:56] $250,000 annually, and notably, the
[41:59] playground replacements are tapering off
[42:01] in out years.
[42:05] Here's that same information visually
[42:08] demonstrated. I just like to again blue
[42:10] are revenues, red are expenses. I'd like
[42:13] to call out the bright pink at top is
[42:15] the $100,000 transfer to the parks fund
[42:18] for operations. Um you'll note there
[42:21] still is projected to have a balance
[42:23] approximately 200,000 at the end of the
[42:25] model in 2032.
[42:29] So, as you noted, staff extended the
[42:31] conservation trust fund for park
[42:32] operations beyond 2028 in modeling. It
[42:36] was kept at 100,000 through 2032, where
[42:38] previously it's been uh discussed 2026
[42:41] through 2028. It's worth noting the
[42:44] potential impacts to the capital fund
[42:45] and other divisions that rely upon this
[42:47] fund. So, this is our first council
[42:49] policy direction uh point.
[42:52] Would you like us to consider extending
[42:54] or increasing the CTF transfer for park
[42:56] operations beyond 2028?
[42:59] We could potentially increase the annual
[43:01] transfer beyond inflation, annual
[43:03] general fund transfer beyond inflation
[43:05] to the extent feasible possible. I will
[43:08] say today that is not possible in our
[43:10] current projections
[43:12] and or service level adjustments. We
[43:15] could consider aligning variable
[43:16] personnel expenses with the historical
[43:18] trends.
[43:20] So at that at this point I will pause um
[43:23] and open it up for some council
[43:26] direction discussion on this decision
[43:28] point.
[43:32] » Um thank you. Um first of all just a
[43:35] question and it's more for um the
[43:39] um folks who are watching this who may
[43:41] not be as familiar with budgeting. Can
[43:43] you describe turn back just to make sure
[43:45] people we may have you may have covered
[43:47] it. You've certainly talked about it.
[43:49] It's a concept that the average person
[43:52] sometimes doesn't know,
[43:55] >> of course. So, um, where I came from,
[43:58] mayor, turnback was often discussed as
[44:00] salary savings, just because you would
[44:02] have staff, you would have vacancies,
[44:03] and when you had vacancies, it took a
[44:05] little time to rehire and fill that
[44:06] position. So operational turnback kind
[44:09] of builds upon salary savings and looks
[44:11] to all of your operational accounts
[44:13] including perhaps your um your paper
[44:16] budget came in under and so that would
[44:18] be returned to the general fund um
[44:21] [clears throat] returned to that fund.
[44:22] Your council um adopts annual budgets so
[44:26] any unexpended appropriations funding
[44:28] would fall to the fund balance. um your
[44:30] council adopts appropriations and what
[44:33] we do in our modeling to really refine
[44:36] to finetune where we're headed. We do
[44:38] take into consideration those
[44:40] non-expenses, those things that may not
[44:42] occur. So really, it's a way for us to
[44:45] um adopt a budget, but then refine our
[44:48] projections as sharply as we can,
[44:51] knowing that there will be some expenses
[44:53] that just don't occur.
[44:57] » Thanks. um what we have been given which
[45:02] is a nice kind of little bit of a cheat
[45:04] sheet from staff on council decision
[45:08] points um and on parks wreck and open
[45:13] space which are different funds I maybe
[45:16] what we ought to start with is the parks
[45:18] fund it looks like from the list that
[45:21] there are three decision points um one
[45:26] um extending you know it's on the the
[45:28] slide here, but extending or increasing
[45:31] the CTF transfer parts operations,
[45:34] increasing annual general fund transfer
[45:37] and uh service level adjustments. Um, I
[45:41] wanted to ask council if based on their
[45:44] review of the budget materials, there
[45:46] any other decisions that um they think
[45:51] we ought to be making in addition to
[45:53] those.
[45:57] All right.
[45:58] Seeing none.
[46:00] >> Go ahead, council member.
[46:04] >> No, no, just on parks fund.
[46:07] >> Yeah, we're just doing this one one bite
[46:10] at a time. Rather large bites, but yeah.
[46:13] Um,
[46:17] any any thoughts initially?
[46:20] >> Yes, Council Member Hefner.
[46:22] >> Yeah. So, um, Director Bailey, if you
[46:26] could flip back to the general fund for
[46:28] a minute because this is this is
[46:29] relevant to the general fund transfer.
[46:32] I just want to talk briefly about one
[46:34] thing I saw in the CIPs, which is moving
[46:37] about $500,000 a year of software
[46:40] expense that currently lives in the
[46:42] general fund into the capital fund.
[46:45] um which obviously we need to pay for
[46:47] that expense from somewhere. But I
[46:49] assume this graph shows that 500k moved
[46:52] out already and that if it's still lived
[46:54] in the general fund, we'd see the gap
[46:57] increase by
[46:58] >> half a million dollars.
[47:02] I believe your question is did we reduce
[47:04] our software expense in the general fund
[47:07] to account for the request in the
[47:09] capital fund. We have not done that to
[47:11] this point.
[47:11] >> Okay.
[47:12] >> It's still in this chart. We are
[47:13] currently refining exactly what software
[47:16] will will extend into the future. So
[47:19] I've not accounted for that and I don't
[47:20] want to say it's double counted because
[47:22] we're still working through all the
[47:24] softwares that will be required.
[47:25] >> So it's it's still showing up here and
[47:27] it's not showing up yet in the chart for
[47:29] the capital fund. It
[47:31] >> is showing up in both charts, but I I
[47:33] think my point is we may need more than
[47:36] $500,000 for for software.
[47:38] >> Okay. So this Okay, I think I'm with
[47:42] you.
[47:43] back to parks.
[47:45] Um, sorry, I have I have a couple more
[47:47] things. Um,
[47:49] so I think one thing we talked about for
[47:51] the conservation trust fund on finance
[47:54] is that that fund does other parks
[47:57] related work, mainly playground
[47:59] replacements. And so I think the thing
[48:02] that had been the recommendation on
[48:04] finance was what is the amount we can
[48:08] transfer out of conservation trust
[48:11] that leaves enough money behind to
[48:13] continue to pay for the playground
[48:15] program
[48:17] and I don't know if there's an answer on
[48:19] that or not. Um I will maybe turn over
[48:23] to Adam or director Blackbird to speak
[48:25] to the specificity but we have modeled
[48:27] the requests within the CIP program and
[48:29] we have allocated those costs between
[48:31] those both funds. So I would say the
[48:34] demonstrated need is reflected in these
[48:36] models to be funded by the capital fund
[48:38] and the conservation trust fund as
[48:40] presented today.
[48:42] >> So my question is a little bit different
[48:44] though. So on that slide we're talking
[48:46] about a 100k transfer and I think the
[48:50] question posed by finance is what is the
[48:52] dollar amount of transfer that can come
[48:54] out of conservation trust without
[48:57] prejudicing the playground stuff that
[49:00] gets financed out of there.
[49:04] » I think that's dependent upon what you
[49:07] want the playground replacement pro
[49:09] process to look like.
[49:10] >> Yeah. Um, you know, we have some models
[49:13] that you're not seeing today that if
[49:15] there is a desire to use CT increase the
[49:18] CTF transfer into park ops, what that
[49:21] does to the playground replacement
[49:23] depreciation schedule. Um, so you know,
[49:26] outside of 2027,
[49:30] which the majority of that playground
[49:32] money is going to potentially be needed
[49:35] to do community park the way we would
[49:37] want to do community park. Once you get
[49:39] 28 and beyond,
[49:42] it's kind of all fair game. Um, it's
[49:45] just a matter of whether we want to fund
[49:46] park operations or expedite the
[49:48] replacement of the playgrounds. Um once
[49:51] we get through a community all of the
[49:52] playgrounds will have been replaced with
[49:54] they'll be in their existing lifespan.
[49:57] So if we want to defer you know a park
[50:00] playground that we had depreciation and
[50:02] replacement at 10 years to 12 years for
[50:05] example like a net brand we could
[50:07] certainly do that and then you could use
[50:08] the entirety of the playground money for
[50:11] a separate purpose in say 2028
[50:15] if that makes sense. and and so what are the sort of 28 and onward
[50:21] expenses in in the playground here?
[50:25] >> So what you're seeing here is beginning
[50:27] back again with a net brand in 2028.
[50:31] This is a percentage assistance to the
[50:34] playground replacement money that's also
[50:36] out of the capital fund for I have the
[50:40] list. It's a net brand cowboy pirates
[50:43] and then potentially allocated money for
[50:45] a new park 203132
[50:50] based on how things evolve with red tail
[50:52] or some other placeholder property.
[50:54] >> But you're saying we may not need to we
[50:56] may not need to do those projects.
[50:58] >> Correct. There's there's a way that we
[51:00] could not do if desired by council all
[51:03] five of those parks. We could
[51:05] consolidate that down to only doing two
[51:07] playgrounds over the next six years.
[51:09] Okay.
[51:10] >> And transfer that.
[51:11] >> But even if we do this program, there's
[51:13] still enough to move 100K every year.
[51:16] It's it's not an issue.
[51:17] >> Yep. No, it's already been modeled and we're fine with the playground
[51:20] replacements as currently stated with
[51:22] the 100,000 coming out.
[51:23] >> Okay.
[51:28] » I I guess my question back then would be
[51:30] should it be more than 100,000 which
[51:32] doesn't quite cover the gap. I mean
[51:35] that's a nice round number.
[51:37] you pull will you pull up the chart? Um
[51:41] chair or um council member Hefner, you
[51:45] could you could extend and increase. I
[51:47] think there's a cap though. Um if you
[51:49] look, we have if you go to the uh the
[51:51] conservation trust fund, you could see
[51:52] through 2032 having $200,000 in the
[51:55] bank, you could potentially increase it
[51:57] by $25,000 and still have a solvent
[52:00] fund. So there is a little room there.
[52:03] Um, but there is a ceiling because only
[52:05] 200 to 250,000 calls in every year. So,
[52:07] if you're looking to potentially
[52:08] increase it, you could probably go to
[52:10] 125 and then that green bar on the far
[52:13] right would be closer to zero than is to
[52:15] 200,000.
[52:18] » Does that answer your question?
[52:20] >> No, that that's helpful.
[52:22] >> So, there's a there's a little more
[52:23] headroom, but not a lot.
[52:25] >> Correct.
[52:27] But if we kick out some of the parks
[52:28] projects that director Blackmore just
[52:31] described, there could be maybe we get
[52:33] to 150.
[52:36] >> Correct.
[52:40] » When you say kick out,
[52:42] do you mean
[52:43] >> defer?
[52:44] >> Yes.
[52:45] >> Okay. Rather than reduce
[52:49] um any given
[52:50] >> Yeah. I mean, I assume there's there
[52:52] comes a point where you have to
[52:53] undertake those projects. Yep.
[52:55] >> Um, but it would be delaying them
[52:57] further into the future.
[53:00] >> Uh, director, did you have something to
[53:02] add?
[53:03] >> I would just add maybe a staff opinion
[53:07] that from a replacement
[53:10] and expectations of the community as
[53:12] terms of quality and fresh appeal of the
[53:15] investment of this money. um you know
[53:18] staff would prefer
[53:21] a deferment or a delay to ensure an
[53:25] appropriate amount of funding per
[53:27] project versus a reduction in scope if
[53:31] that makes sense.
[53:34] >> I appreciate that. One one of the things
[53:36] I guess I would say and this is true
[53:40] I think across the budget is there's
[53:44] always trade-offs. Um, one tradeoff, um,
[53:49] certainly is doing things to a lower,
[53:54] uh, service level or a cheaper for lack
[53:59] of a better termament, but um, a cheaper
[54:02] product or a less um, exemplary product
[54:05] that perhaps the the city
[54:08] residents would like. And I think, you
[54:12] know, my general view is that we ought
[54:15] to do fewer things very well
[54:20] uh rather than a bunch of things in a
[54:23] mediocre way. It's not always that kind
[54:26] of trade-off, but I appreciate I think
[54:28] that's consistent with that kind of at
[54:31] least in that area kind of thing. So,
[54:34] yes, Council Member Heather.
[54:37] >> Yeah, I I agree. And I guess the the
[54:40] suggestion I would make on this topic is
[54:44] um you know give the direction to defer
[54:48] playground projects to the extent sort
[54:51] of that's reasonable and use that
[54:54] savings to maximize
[54:56] the amount of the transfer from
[54:58] conservation trust.
[55:03] » Are you suggesting a particular amount
[55:05] of transfer?
[55:08] No, I mean I it would be nice to have it
[55:09] be more than this. Um, but I think
[55:12] whatever we can squeeze by pushing off,
[55:15] you know, look, I don't think any of us
[55:17] want unsafe playgrounds or falling apart
[55:19] playgrounds. But if it's mainly an
[55:21] aesthetic concern
[55:23] um and we can ek out three or four or
[55:25] five more years from a aging playground,
[55:29] I would rather take that money and spend
[55:31] it today on operations and maintenance
[55:34] that really is unavoidable that if we
[55:37] stop doing it will be quite noticeable
[55:39] and then try and stage out the
[55:41] playground replacements um space them
[55:44] out a little farther than we have been.
[55:47] I'm going to do as we go through this
[55:49] quite a few kind of straw holes. Um what
[55:52] we often do is a thumbs up um for
[55:55] direction. U if there's additional
[55:58] conversation that needs to happen fine
[56:00] but um I don't know there are others
[56:03] have comments but uh are people
[56:06] generally in agreement with um that
[56:09] discussion or that that suggestion?
[56:12] Council member Coopermanman. Yeah.
[56:16] Uh first I just wanted to ask um so the
[56:20] service level adjustments there's one
[56:22] bullet point um
[56:24] is the implication that [clears throat]
[56:27] our our variable personnel expenses were
[56:30] lower in the past than they are now.
[56:35] Um, council member, when finance is
[56:37] reviewing detailed line item analysis,
[56:39] we did notice that there was just a
[56:41] delta between actual expenses in that
[56:43] account versus what was budgeted,
[56:45] appearing that there may be some room,
[56:46] but there's a myriad of reasons why
[56:48] there could be some delta between your
[56:51] staffing and what you have budgeted.
[56:53] >> Okay. Um,
[56:56] I generally speaking, I'm supportive of
[56:59] Council Member Hefner's um suggestion.
[57:03] Um, but I would also be interested in
[57:06] what other service level adjustments
[57:08] might be proposed.
[57:12] » Okay. Any other questions?
[57:15] >> Yes.
[57:16] >> Um, question and then a few comments.
[57:18] Will you please refresh my memory of um
[57:23] how the conservation trust money can be
[57:26] spent? Does it have to be on parks or
[57:28] are there other um ways in which that
[57:31] money can be spent?
[57:34] I believe it has to be spent on parks.
[57:36] I'd have to go back to the code. I could
[57:38] say this city has not spent it on
[57:40] anything other than parks. Although now
[57:42] that you mentioned open space also is an
[57:44] eligible expense. So at this city we
[57:46] have used them for parks and open
[57:47] spaces.
[57:48] >> Okay. So it's a it's a public lands
[57:49] thing. Public lands.
[57:50] >> Public land and outdoor recreation.
[57:53] >> Okay. That's really helpful. The reason
[57:54] why I ask is because um
[57:59] you know I am open to the proposal from
[58:03] council member Hefner about increasing
[58:05] the dollar amount and extending it uh
[58:08] beyond what we originally were thinking
[58:10] in FICOM.
[58:12] But this is now feeling like a long-term
[58:15] solution to the problem and I'm not
[58:18] confident that it is going to be a
[58:22] viable long-term solution in itself. So
[58:24] I would be interested in some additional
[58:26] service level adjustment conversations.
[58:29] I feel like there's multiple levers that
[58:31] need to be pulled here to try to make
[58:33] this fund um you know more balanced in
[58:37] the outy years and be able to sustain
[58:38] itself without having to dip into all
[58:40] these other funds to make it viable. So
[58:44] I I'd like to see more service level
[58:46] conversations as well um as it relates
[58:49] to this particular fund. And correct me
[58:52] if if I'm wrong, if the intention is not
[58:54] to have this be the long-term solution,
[58:56] then I think that discussion needs to be
[58:58] had. But what's being proposed right now
[59:01] feels like it is where originally we
[59:03] were thinking just a couple years, pull
[59:05] more money out of the trust so that we
[59:07] can kind of shore things up and then
[59:08] maybe get our long-term plan going. But
[59:10] this feels like we're transitioning to
[59:12] long-term here
[59:26] » I'll just state my agreement. I I would
[59:29] appreciate proposals on, you know, what
[59:31] else we can do to stretch our dollars.
[59:52] » It's fine.
[59:53] I I actually think um this
[59:56] has I think this particular fund has
[59:58] greater stability with the income.
[1:00:00] Correct me if I'm wrong. Like we we we
[1:00:02] we're pretty certain of how much we're
[1:00:03] going to get from the lottery trust
[1:00:04] every single year. Correct.
[1:00:07] >> Yeah. We've seen minimal variability in
[1:00:08] that.
[1:00:09] >> Right. And so given that some of our
[1:00:11] other sources of income through the
[1:00:13] general fund are actually more variable.
[1:00:15] They're less fixed. I actually feel more
[1:00:17] comfortable versus less comfortable
[1:00:19] using this as a reliable source to help
[1:00:22] maintain our parks. Um, I think m the
[1:00:25] parks are um a real treasure in
[1:00:28] Lewisville. Um, I think lowering uh the
[1:00:32] service level would be disappointing and
[1:00:34] if using a reliable steady source of
[1:00:36] income helps the park staff to maintain
[1:00:41] certain levels of service. So, you know,
[1:00:44] rather than doing upgrades or making
[1:00:47] bigger changes, I think this is actually
[1:00:49] a good source of income for that because
[1:00:51] it is reliable and can be counted on.
[1:00:54] So, I'm I'm fully in favor of increasing
[1:00:56] the amount um so that the everyday
[1:01:00] maintenance is um has can be um counted
[1:01:04] upon. And I think it might be easier for
[1:01:06] um Director Blackmore and his team to
[1:01:08] know that that's a reliable source of
[1:01:09] income versus you know us worrying about
[1:01:12] how much money is in the general fund
[1:01:13] and we have to allocate that away from
[1:01:15] parks. I mean we put a significant
[1:01:17] amount of general fund money toward the
[1:01:19] parks and that that is a source that
[1:01:22] needs to be spread widely across the
[1:01:24] whole community and a lot of other
[1:01:26] things. We're going to get to staffing
[1:01:28] concerns. So, um, my preference actually
[1:01:31] would be to make this a long-term plan
[1:01:33] versus a short-term plan.
[1:01:35] >> I don't know that we need to kind of
[1:01:37] decide between the short-term and
[1:01:39] long-term. I think it is a really good
[1:01:41] point to be making uh as between you and
[1:01:43] May Prom about how we do that um as we
[1:01:46] move forward. Um, one question I had was
[1:01:50] if you go back to the Can you go back to
[1:01:52] the uh CTF,
[1:01:54] but um I don't know the answer to this
[1:01:58] offhand. What is there a is there 15%
[1:02:04] reserve that we include or is it not?
[1:02:06] It's not that kind of a fund because it
[1:02:08] comes in from elsewhere. Okay,
[1:02:10] >> that's correct. This this fund does not
[1:02:11] have reserve. Um it's those are
[1:02:13] generally driven with operational funds.
[1:02:15] didn't see that familiar blue or yellow
[1:02:18] line. So, I just wanted to clarify that.
[1:02:20] All right, I think we're ready with our
[1:02:22] uh with that. Let's go to the next one,
[1:02:24] which is the question of increasing the
[1:02:27] general fund subsidy. Um the current
[1:02:31] transfers are $1.125 million.
[1:02:35] uh in 2020, excuse me, that the
[1:02:38] transfers that are noted are uh about
[1:02:42] $1.125 million in 27 and $1.16 million
[1:02:47] in 2028 to the parks fund. And the
[1:02:51] question is whether we would like to
[1:02:54] increase that amount if it's feasible.
[1:02:58] Um any initial thoughts about this from
[1:03:01] council? Did I get that issue correct?
[1:03:04] Mayor, if you don't mind, I feel like I
[1:03:06] have the feedback necessary to kind of
[1:03:08] remodel for September 2nd. Um I I think
[1:03:12] the only thing I would need on this
[1:03:14] because at this time I I I don't have
[1:03:16] the funding available to increase this
[1:03:18] just to just to know if this is still a
[1:03:21] tool in your toolbox that you want me to
[1:03:22] monitor and if presents itself, I could
[1:03:24] bring it back in that modeling as well.
[1:03:26] Um, so I don't know if we need to spend
[1:03:27] a lot of time this right now because
[1:03:28] again, uh, where are we where we are in
[1:03:30] the general fund, but if it's something
[1:03:31] that you still would like to keep on the
[1:03:33] slide, keep on the board, um, should it
[1:03:35] present itself, I could bring it as a
[1:03:37] future decision point in the modeling,
[1:03:39] >> unless we say absolutely, we don't want
[1:03:41] to do this. Seems like monitor is a good
[1:03:45] uh, position, but yeah, council member
[1:03:48] Hefner. Yeah, just maybe a little more
[1:03:50] color um along the lines of what the
[1:03:52] mayor prom said, which is,
[1:03:56] you know, we're looking for a long-term
[1:03:58] solution and maybe we'll get there as
[1:04:01] between service level and changing
[1:04:03] playground replacement schedule and
[1:04:06] borrowing or transferring from the
[1:04:09] conservation trust. But if we don't,
[1:04:12] right, if if those factors aren't enough
[1:04:13] to get us to a a stabilizing solution,
[1:04:17] then um sort of short of some other new
[1:04:21] revenue source, this is the remaining
[1:04:23] thing, the remaining tool we have. Um
[1:04:26] and so I do think we'll need to look at
[1:04:28] it if the other tools don't get us
[1:04:30] there.
[1:04:32] Okay.
[1:04:33] >> Um thumbs up for monitoring this in
[1:04:37] light of the comments that have been
[1:04:38] made.
[1:04:39] >> Okay. Um
[1:04:42] if you've got adequate direction then
[1:04:44] let's go to the next one which is uh
[1:04:47] considering service level reductions.
[1:04:49] We've had discussions about this a bit
[1:04:53] um but um not as much about the variable
[1:04:57] personal expenses particular what um any
[1:05:01] comments or thoughts about this one?
[1:05:06] >> Yes.
[1:05:07] I think does staff need more details on
[1:05:11] it or can you take kind of the general
[1:05:13] theme and bring back some ideas? Okay,
[1:05:15] thank you.
[1:05:19] » So, thanks. So, we're talking about the
[1:05:21] service level adjustments. One of my
[1:05:23] thoughts has been we're we and we
[1:05:25] recently got a lovely award for two uh
[1:05:27] neighborhood parks um that were redone
[1:05:30] post Marshall fire uh burned to the
[1:05:31] ground unfortunately. But one of my
[1:05:33] thoughts has been in these neighborhood
[1:05:36] parks to get the neighborhoods more
[1:05:39] invested in them the way that it was
[1:05:41] like a decade or more ago. And I was
[1:05:44] thinking that I mean we're talking about
[1:05:47] potentially trying to activate some more
[1:05:49] volunteers. This might be one of the
[1:05:51] ways to do that is engaging neighborhood
[1:05:54] members to help maintain their
[1:05:56] neighborhood park. Most of I think the
[1:05:59] neighborhood parks are um predominantly
[1:06:02] used by the people who live in that
[1:06:04] neighborhood. Although they are
[1:06:05] accessible to everybody in the entire
[1:06:08] they are public parks accessible to all.
[1:06:10] Um but I think that one it's a way for
[1:06:12] people in each neighborhood to own their
[1:06:16] park and I think that might also help
[1:06:19] especially if they understand we have
[1:06:21] some budget constraints doing
[1:06:23] maintenance. Uh perhaps that's a way to
[1:06:26] help reduce some of the staffing costs.
[1:06:29] >> Is there any initial thoughts from staff
[1:06:32] very high level about that?
[1:06:35] >> No.
[1:06:37] >> Okay.
[1:06:37] >> I think it could certainly be considered
[1:06:39] a tool in the toolbox as director Bailey
[1:06:41] said. So we'll keep that in mind.
[1:06:43] >> Okay.
[1:06:44] >> Yes. Council member.
[1:06:47] Um, I very much like that idea and would
[1:06:50] like to see it as part of a larger
[1:06:52] discussion about how volunteers could
[1:06:54] assist the city in other ways.
[1:06:56] >> I would like to note on that because
[1:06:58] this topic has come up about volunteer
[1:07:00] utilization. Um, if we're going to go
[1:07:02] that route, we need to add a position
[1:07:04] for volunteer coordinator. It's not a
[1:07:07] realistic expectation to put on the
[1:07:09] supervisors to manage all of the
[1:07:11] volunteers. I think there is an
[1:07:13] opportunity there, but we would want to
[1:07:14] add a volunteer coordinator position um
[1:07:17] to assist with coordinating all of these
[1:07:19] activities and that might span multiple
[1:07:22] departments. It wouldn't just have to be
[1:07:24] proa could be cultural services as well.
[1:07:26] Um but there is opportunity, but we'd
[1:07:29] want to be able to have that staff
[1:07:30] person to manage it as well.
[1:07:34] >> Yeah. And I don't know the answer to
[1:07:36] this, but um
[1:07:39] volunteers sounds um sort of resonates
[1:07:43] in a certain way, but I don't know
[1:07:44] whether there are uh potential insurance
[1:07:48] uh implications of using
[1:07:51] uh volunteers to a greater degree than
[1:07:54] we've done before. But that's something
[1:07:56] we don't need to discuss that too much
[1:07:58] today, but I it would be good to know
[1:08:00] that if we decide to expand that. Um,
[1:08:03] and that's one of those things where I
[1:08:05] think as we move forward, we're going to
[1:08:09] need an offset
[1:08:11] um or at least a estimate of kind of how
[1:08:13] we could accomplish savings. But um with
[1:08:17] those um with that input, do you have
[1:08:20] enough council comfortable with the the
[1:08:24] input? Okay, let's uh move to open
[1:08:29] space. Thank you, mayor. Um, thank you
[1:08:32] for that discussion. On to the open
[1:08:34] space fund. The city owns or has
[1:08:37] interest in nearly 2,000 acres of open
[1:08:40] lands that serve a wide variety of
[1:08:43] values. These lands provide recreational
[1:08:45] opportunities for residents and
[1:08:47] visitors, supports diverse wildlife and
[1:08:50] plant communities, and buffers between
[1:08:53] Lewisville and our neighboring
[1:08:54] municipalities. It's funded by a
[1:08:56] dedicated sales tax through December
[1:08:58] 2033. It's led by Ember Brignull and her
[1:09:01] amazing staff. Open space is another is
[1:09:04] a reason another great reason to enjoy
[1:09:07] Lewisville. What makes it a great place
[1:09:08] to live, work, and recreate? In 2027,
[1:09:12] revenues are 2.8 million growing to 2.9
[1:09:15] million in 28. Or forecasted uses. I'll
[1:09:19] go on to why I use uses here. Uh for
[1:09:21] 2027, 2.7 million and 3.1 million in
[1:09:25] 2028. Those uses include not only your
[1:09:27] operating expenses, but also capital
[1:09:29] expenses of 200,000 in 2027 and half a
[1:09:33] million in 2028. This also accounts for
[1:09:36] the acquisition set aside of $300,000
[1:09:38] annually. If you recall, last budget
[1:09:41] cycle, your council set a target uh
[1:09:44] acquisition reserve of 5 million.
[1:09:48] The open space fund is structurally
[1:09:50] balanced in 27 and 28. It includes 1.2
[1:09:54] two full-time personnel recommended
[1:09:57] additions, a natural resource technician
[1:10:00] and a partial allocation of the pros
[1:10:02] deputy director. However, our long-term
[1:10:05] modeling identifies an imbalance in the
[1:10:07] outy years.
[1:10:11] The acquisition reserve at current set
[1:10:13] aside levels which is 30% of the
[1:10:15] incremental 1/8 or another way 12% of
[1:10:19] the total tax is projected to accumulate
[1:10:21] 3.1 million through 2032.
[1:10:25] Recall that the open space acquisition
[1:10:27] reserve amount was set at 5 million
[1:10:28] during last year's budget development.
[1:10:30] So this brings us to another col call
[1:10:32] col uh council policy direction point
[1:10:35] whether to revisit the acquisition
[1:10:37] reserve percentage to balance
[1:10:39] operational capital and acquisition
[1:10:42] expenditures against available funding.
[1:10:44] But I'll continue before we have
[1:10:46] discussion
[1:10:48] to the chart. Um so the open space again
[1:10:52] open base open space fund again is
[1:10:54] structurally balanced. What this means
[1:10:56] is your ongoing expenses
[1:10:59] um are less than your ongoing revenues. However, future refinement of
[1:11:04] your capital projects would be necessary
[1:11:08] uh through 2032. So, let me touch on
[1:11:10] this forecast because this one's got a
[1:11:11] lot of action on it. Your blue bar are
[1:11:14] your revenues.
[1:11:16] Your red are your operating expenses.
[1:11:19] The bright pink are your capital
[1:11:21] expenses.
[1:11:22] The orange along the top is the
[1:11:24] acquisition reserve set aside. And in
[1:11:27] addition to the fund ending fund balance
[1:11:29] for each of these years, the green bars,
[1:11:32] your purple bar is your accumulation of
[1:11:34] the acquisition reserve. This is subject
[1:11:37] to change if and when land is purchased.
[1:11:41] In 2031,
[1:11:43] the minimum reserve exceeds your
[1:11:45] operating fund balance.
[1:11:48] Um, you're not meeting your target in
[1:11:50] 2031. This continues into 2032.
[1:11:54] Um, one of the drivers of that is
[1:11:56] significant capital expend expenditures
[1:11:58] in those out years. A reminder that the
[1:12:01] additional FTE to maintain open space,
[1:12:03] the natural resource technician is in
[1:12:06] this model. Um,
[1:12:08] let's touch on the capital projects in
[1:12:11] these orange slivers on the next slide.
[1:12:16] It's actually not so bad to read, but
[1:12:18] you all have a handout to look at these
[1:12:20] capital projects here, so you can see
[1:12:21] what's making up uh the bright orange
[1:12:24] piece of those of the open space chart,
[1:12:29] uh the bright selections of the the
[1:12:33] long-term forecast chart. So now I'll
[1:12:36] probably kick it back to slide 41 and
[1:12:39] revisit
[1:12:41] um the council policy direction. So you
[1:12:44] have a few levers here. You can adjust
[1:12:46] the acquisition reserve which is
[1:12:47] $300,000 set aside. Um we have an
[1:12:51] expansion position that director
[1:12:53] Blackboard could speak to a little
[1:12:54] better than I. Um and he also have
[1:12:57] capital expenditures um as another
[1:12:59] lever. Um again this fund is
[1:13:01] structurally balanced for 2728 but we do
[1:13:04] run our model through 232 for good
[1:13:06] reason. So you can see where we're
[1:13:08] headed. Um so with that I'd like to go
[1:13:11] back to council and open up discussion
[1:13:13] on the open space fund.
[1:13:17] >> Okay. Thank you very much. Um
[1:13:21] question you have um was there is um
[1:13:26] revisiting potentially revisiting the
[1:13:28] acquisition review percentage.
[1:13:32] Um, are there other questions that
[1:13:35] council
[1:13:37] might want to add to that? Yeah, council
[1:13:40] member.
[1:13:40] >> Great. Thanks. So, um, I was actually
[1:13:42] just curious. It looks like in 28
[1:13:45] there's $255,000.
[1:13:48] That's for open space planning
[1:13:50] documents. Is that part of the pro long
[1:13:52] range plan? That's the component just
[1:13:54] for open space.
[1:13:57] Now that would be the the next step of
[1:13:59] open space planning. Um so open space is
[1:14:03] a little unique that it's uh managed by
[1:14:08] what used to be called a master plan.
[1:14:10] It's comprehensive plan. Uh it's
[1:14:12] intended to be basically property level
[1:14:14] management recommendations and
[1:14:16] evaluations for all the things on all of
[1:14:19] our properties. Uh the last time it was
[1:14:21] done was 2004. Was intended to be a
[1:14:24] 10-year document. um it's been a high
[1:14:27] priority of the community members who
[1:14:30] advocate for these things and for OSAP
[1:14:32] and so um the discussion between doing
[1:14:36] that process or the long range plan
[1:14:39] first or second um we're using the long
[1:14:41] range plan to inform that plan. Um, it
[1:14:45] also includes set aides potentially for
[1:14:48] other evaluations that um, you know,
[1:14:50] we've heard from the community that they
[1:14:52] would like us to have a more formal
[1:14:53] approach with as it relates to ecology,
[1:14:56] wildlife uh, management plans, that kind
[1:14:58] of thing that we don't have formalized
[1:15:00] and adopted currently at the moment. We
[1:15:02] have operational best practices and we
[1:15:04] have reliance on the 2004
[1:15:05] recommendations, but it's kind of a a
[1:15:09] catchall for the prioritization of
[1:15:12] planning efforts that comes out of the
[1:15:13] long range plan.
[1:15:14] >> And is pardon me, does that also include
[1:15:17] or is the trails separate because I know
[1:15:19] there was a trails plan as well?
[1:15:21] >> Yeah, the the trails plan is a separate
[1:15:24] document. It informs property level
[1:15:28] impacts moving forward. Um the 2028
[1:15:32] effort will also include the 147ish
[1:15:36] acres that were being dedicated as
[1:15:38] preserved not preserved as dedicated
[1:15:40] open space to be determined what kind of
[1:15:43] open space it is u at Red Tail Ridge as
[1:15:46] well. So
[1:15:47] >> and then I was looking at the Warberg.
[1:15:49] So we're like when we're looking at
[1:15:51] future out and how it's depleting um the
[1:15:53] reserve and some of these projects these
[1:15:55] are some pretty high ticket estimates as
[1:15:58] well for Wberg. There's the 160,000 this
[1:16:00] is for the planning and then another
[1:16:02] nearly 600,000. It's estimated at 575
[1:16:05] now, but it's so far out. My guess is
[1:16:06] it'll go well over six. Is is that again
[1:16:10] part of it is just to create a plan for
[1:16:12] that and that's not included in the the 2028 plans and then is it also the
[1:16:18] cost of like redoing that whole pond
[1:16:21] that's there?
[1:16:21] >> Yeah. So the so the 160 in 2031 would be
[1:16:25] the site planning evaluation, community
[1:16:28] engagement, what they want to see.
[1:16:30] Basically, the intention
[1:16:32] um of OSAB and staff is in alignment
[1:16:34] with the recommendation is to really um
[1:16:38] turn Warrenburgg being centrally located
[1:16:41] in town as kind of a a hub of open space
[1:16:44] operations, if you will, for things like
[1:16:46] educational programming that potentially
[1:16:48] could result in a restroom facility. It
[1:16:51] could result in an educational
[1:16:54] amphitheater setup of some kind.
[1:16:55] basically uh more of a activated
[1:16:58] recreational open space opportunity at
[1:17:00] that property is what those particular
[1:17:03] projects are.
[1:17:03] >> So I'm curious if this has come up with
[1:17:05] the open space advisory board for where
[1:17:07] the priorities are. um they've always
[1:17:11] really um asked and I think we've heard
[1:17:13] from the community too a high priority
[1:17:14] on putting funds aside for additional
[1:17:17] property but if it's a higher priority
[1:17:20] that these and it sounds like a really
[1:17:22] awesome plan to do for that warmberg
[1:17:25] space because it is so centrally located
[1:17:27] for everyone. Um if that's the bigger
[1:17:30] priority then I mean I now I could see
[1:17:32] where shifting some of the funds to
[1:17:34] programs like this away from
[1:17:35] acquisition. Uh but I would say that we
[1:17:38] have to balance the priority here and I
[1:17:41] wasn't sure how where their input came
[1:17:44] into this.
[1:17:47] >> This operationally is the top of their
[1:17:51] list. Um they they were really excited
[1:17:53] about this perspective opportunity and
[1:17:55] the change of just the addition of some
[1:17:59] recreational amenities within our open
[1:18:01] space program. Um, we would have to ask
[1:18:04] them, you know, if one of the directives
[1:18:07] today is to evaluate that acquisition
[1:18:09] percentage if it was an eitheror
[1:18:11] recommendation back to council, we could
[1:18:13] certainly do that. Thank you for
[1:18:17] >> uh yes, start with member Tim and then
[1:18:20] council member Hefner and council member
[1:18:23] Cooperman.
[1:18:25] So I I think um thank you council member
[1:18:28] Kerna for your point regarding
[1:18:29] maintaining what we have um and
[1:18:32] balancing that with trying to expand
[1:18:34] through acquisition more properties. I
[1:18:35] think it's a really important discussion
[1:18:38] and um there's certainly quite a bit of
[1:18:40] money that's sitting in acquisition that
[1:18:42] if we need to uh revisit that could be
[1:18:44] used for other per more immediate
[1:18:46] purposes. Um,
[1:18:49] talking about Warrenburgg Pond,
[1:18:52] do any of these costs encompass
[1:18:55] the neighboring part of the neighboring
[1:18:58] property that will now need to be
[1:18:59] maintained or brought into that fold?
[1:19:02] the 2031 site planning would um
[1:19:06] operationally we would we wouldn't need
[1:19:09] to do any type of capital investment for
[1:19:11] that particular parcel but um assuming
[1:19:14] it's under our control and management by
[1:19:16] 2031 then yeah it would be included as a
[1:19:19] potential site to include an investment
[1:19:21] with the 2032 money.
[1:19:23] >> Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. That
[1:19:25] was my only question right now.
[1:19:31] I I was just going to echo some of
[1:19:34] council member Karn's
[1:19:36] I think I heard skepticism about some of
[1:19:38] the the numbers in here. Um and maybe
[1:19:42] starting with a small one. $30,000 for
[1:19:45] the weed management plan. That's a a
[1:19:47] 15page document and a few pages aren't
[1:19:50] substantive. I mean that's $2,000 a page
[1:19:53] for a weed plan.
[1:19:56] Is there any I mean is that outside
[1:19:58] consulting just abusing us? Why is that
[1:20:01] so expensive?
[1:20:05] » It's a it's not just a open space weed
[1:20:09] management plan. It's also it's for the
[1:20:10] entire department. This is the
[1:20:12] percentage. So it would be an evaluation
[1:20:13] of parks, herbicide use, golf course,
[1:20:18] all of the things. Then
[1:20:20] >> I think it is a bit to be determined the
[1:20:22] exact amount. We could we could
[1:20:24] certainly consider altering a projected
[1:20:28] amount to align with the projected
[1:20:29] scope. Um, you know, that just dictates
[1:20:32] what we're able to put into a proposal
[1:20:34] that would come before council before a
[1:20:36] contract was approved. Um, and would
[1:20:38] also go before PLAB and OSAB as a high
[1:20:41] priority for us to do in this next
[1:20:42] two-year budget um to ensure that
[1:20:45] they're getting they're proposing um
[1:20:48] what they would like to see as an
[1:20:50] outcome from that plan.
[1:20:53] And then I I mean I guess I I sort of
[1:20:55] have the same question about the the
[1:20:57] budgets for the planning documents for
[1:21:00] the professional services budget and the
[1:21:02] Warren Borg fishing pond plan.
[1:21:06] And maybe to put a finer point on it, I
[1:21:08] I'm worried we're paying consultants to
[1:21:11] go out and do essentially
[1:21:14] repetitive community engagement style
[1:21:16] work where they ask people about what
[1:21:18] the city's core priorities should be and
[1:21:21] have lots of focus groups and do I mean
[1:21:23] it's thousands and thousands and
[1:21:26] thousands of hours essentially of
[1:21:27] consulting help here for areas where I
[1:21:32] think we have internally quite a bit of
[1:21:34] knowledge about what the priorities are.
[1:21:36] And you know, I don't know what the
[1:21:37] consultant proposals are. Um, but right,
[1:21:41] $255,000,
[1:21:43] even at $250 an hour, that's a,000 hours
[1:21:46] of consulting work for those planning
[1:21:48] documents,
[1:21:50] which is one person working full-time
[1:21:52] for 6 months. Um, that like that's a lot
[1:21:56] of time. And if there's any
[1:21:59] way to sort of pull these back and and
[1:22:03] try and tailor them, um, I think it
[1:22:06] could help with where we land on the bar
[1:22:08] graph. I I have I'll just say out loud
[1:22:11] what's driving this is I've not been
[1:22:13] terribly impressed by the consulting
[1:22:15] help we got on the long range plan, and
[1:22:18] I don't think that's the fault of anyone
[1:22:19] in this room. Um, but I I do think
[1:22:22] there's a lot of consultants out there
[1:22:24] who are happy to charge us too much and
[1:22:27] I would love to see sort of a more
[1:22:31] skeptical approach to to what they're
[1:22:34] proposing.
[1:22:35] >> City manager has a comment on this.
[1:22:38] >> Yes. So, a couple of things. Um, one of
[1:22:40] the things that we've talked about with
[1:22:42] the CIP is to um budget appropriately.
[1:22:47] uh you know we've seen budget amendments
[1:22:49] come to council for projects because we
[1:22:51] underestimated and so part of what staff
[1:22:54] has done is they've tried to put
[1:22:55] estimates in that uh you know we think
[1:22:58] are more realistic in what can be
[1:23:01] accomplished. The other thing I would
[1:23:02] say with particularly this budget um you
[1:23:06] know OSAB PLAB they have a lot of
[1:23:10] expectations for what uh the
[1:23:13] department's going to do and then also
[1:23:15] with the um guide book you know we also
[1:23:18] see that this is a this community is
[1:23:20] very passionate about open space and
[1:23:22] parks and how they're maintained and um
[1:23:26] you know I the level of documentation
[1:23:29] does seem um to be to some excessive,
[1:23:34] but I would say to those that use it,
[1:23:37] uh, this becomes the document that they
[1:23:40] refer to to defend what they're doing to
[1:23:42] the community because they get so much
[1:23:44] skepticism in terms of and so much
[1:23:47] there's so much expertise in this
[1:23:49] community and everybody knows how to do
[1:23:51] it better than they do. And so when we
[1:23:53] have these documents, they're able to
[1:23:54] point to that to say, you know, this was
[1:23:57] prepared um by somebody that's an expert
[1:23:59] in the field. um it was vetted, it went
[1:24:02] through the process and you know we are
[1:24:06] following best practice. So could could
[1:24:09] this be scaled down? It probably could.
[1:24:12] With that said though, we also know that
[1:24:13] we would get a lot of blowback from the
[1:24:15] community in terms of well we know
[1:24:18] better than you do and let me tell you
[1:24:20] how to do it.
[1:24:22] Council
[1:24:24] member Cooperman.
[1:24:26] Um the
[1:24:30] open space signs uh row is that mostly
[1:24:33] for wayfinding.
[1:24:39] It is the 2027 especially is mostly for
[1:24:42] interpretive signage and replacement of
[1:24:44] kiosk and trail head signage. Um there
[1:24:46] is an element where it could fall into
[1:24:49] assisting with wayfinding but um most of
[1:24:52] the wayfinding projects are being funded
[1:24:54] out of the CTF allocated funds. Um so
[1:24:57] this is more sight specific property
[1:24:59] specific signage.
[1:25:00] >> Okay.
[1:25:00] >> And then are there specific projects in
[1:25:02] mind for the trail connections for those
[1:25:05] three years at $75,000?
[1:25:08] >> Not yet. Those are long range our trail
[1:25:10] system plan placeholders. Um there has
[1:25:12] we have heard that there's a a strong
[1:25:15] preference and priority for community
[1:25:17] trail connection expansion neighborhood
[1:25:19] connections that kind of thing. Um and
[1:25:22] so this is the placeholder for where
[1:25:25] >> open spaces part of that would be
[1:25:27] impacted.
[1:25:28] >> Okay. Um and then I'll just make a
[1:25:31] comment. Um
[1:25:34] well I know of a few or especially one
[1:25:38] resident who is quite interested in
[1:25:40] mustering a lot of volunteer effort for
[1:25:42] the Warrenburgg pond project. So I feel
[1:25:45] like that's a place where maybe uh we
[1:25:49] could get the community more involved
[1:25:50] and reduce our costs.
[1:25:55] » Yep. Council member Fee,
[1:25:58] >> I just have a long range question and
[1:26:00] that is has the open space board decided
[1:26:05] or staff
[1:26:07] how new properties are going to be
[1:26:10] maintained within the budget when you
[1:26:12] purchase another piece of open space.
[1:26:15] Where's the money going to come from to
[1:26:17] pay for it and then maintain that?
[1:26:24] Probably the short answer is no. Um,
[1:26:26] we've spent the last 18 months or so
[1:26:28] refining what the actual acquisition
[1:26:31] process is going to look like and that's
[1:26:33] been a high priority of city manager
[1:26:35] Langley with OSAP since she came on
[1:26:37] board. Um, how we then fund the
[1:26:41] maintenance after that I think would
[1:26:42] have to be discussed as a component of
[1:26:44] the acquisition process.
[1:26:47] Um, I I want to uh
[1:26:51] trail back to a comment that was made by
[1:26:56] [clears throat] council member Hefner.
[1:26:58] Actually, a number of different people
[1:26:59] have raised issues including the city
[1:27:02] manager um to kind of speed this along a
[1:27:06] bit because we have a lot to cover um uh
[1:27:10] still and we're having good discussions,
[1:27:12] but we have a lot to to move through.
[1:27:15] Um, I'm kind of keeping a list of like
[1:27:18] major sort of thematic issues that I
[1:27:22] think would be good to cover, not just
[1:27:24] in this part of the budget, but frankly
[1:27:27] in many parts of the budget where they
[1:27:30] come up. Consulting generally is
[1:27:33] something I think most council members,
[1:27:35] if not all council members have um
[1:27:39] discussed in the past, particularly
[1:27:41] parts that council member Hefner talked
[1:27:44] about, which is sort of the redoing over
[1:27:46] and over and over again at times of uh
[1:27:51] community sentiment because um we get a
[1:27:54] lot of that through public comments, but
[1:27:57] um also we have a large body of
[1:28:00] information. So, um, that's one thing
[1:28:02] that I think could apply to many
[1:28:05] consultant situations across the board.
[1:28:08] I think another one that we've talked
[1:28:10] about is sort of board and commission
[1:28:12] uh, input and um, um, support. Uh this
[1:28:18] is something that's kind of a discussion
[1:28:20] that is going to happen over and over uh
[1:28:24] at times because our boards and
[1:28:26] commissions are very motivated, very um
[1:28:29] involved, very excited about what
[1:28:32] they're doing with a lot of energy and a
[1:28:34] lot of information. Um, there have been
[1:28:37] times when I think some boards and
[1:28:40] commissions have verurged on suggesting
[1:28:43] that maybe they have a budget and they
[1:28:45] don't. We're the budget making folks.
[1:28:48] Um, you know, I I think sometimes it's
[1:28:51] easy to not think about staff uh
[1:28:56] pressure u to do other things when
[1:29:00] boards and commissions meet. Um, and
[1:29:04] suggest they want certain things. Um, I
[1:29:07] think part of that is board management
[1:29:08] and um, I know that staff is doing that
[1:29:12] in the course and and hope that will
[1:29:14] continue and um, I think it's attention
[1:29:18] constantly because we want to make sure
[1:29:19] our boards and commissions are doing
[1:29:22] what they need to do and um, doing it
[1:29:25] with support, but um, like all things
[1:29:28] that's got to be balanced against other
[1:29:30] stuff. their advisory and so I encourage
[1:29:34] that to you know I think that's the kind
[1:29:36] of thing that we can do. I think we're
[1:29:38] hearing about volunteers multiple times
[1:29:41] here. I think to the extent that any um
[1:29:46] part of the city government can make use
[1:29:48] of volunteers. I think you can assume
[1:29:50] that that might be something that's
[1:29:52] worth discussing. We could flag those
[1:29:55] each time, but I I think um you know,
[1:29:59] and maybe these are the the greatest
[1:30:01] places or the most likely places to deal
[1:30:04] with volunteers, but I think those
[1:30:06] issues are going to be coming up over
[1:30:08] and over, too. So, we've got very
[1:30:11] involved citizenry. They can do a lot of
[1:30:13] things. There's trade-offs there. So, if
[1:30:16] that's okay, I am thinking that's one
[1:30:18] way we can not cut down the comments,
[1:30:21] but move through this um as
[1:30:23] expositiously as we can. All right. Um,
[1:30:27] does staff have let's see, we still have I I think the question of
[1:30:38] adjusting the acquisition reserve
[1:30:41] um percentage. I mean, I didn't hear
[1:30:43] anything definitive on that. So, yeah,
[1:30:45] Council Member Cooper,
[1:30:48] >> um
[1:30:49] I guess given the the current modeling,
[1:30:53] um
[1:30:54] I feel like there's maybe sufficient
[1:30:57] wiggle room in the uh capital side of
[1:31:00] expenditures to for me to sort of hold
[1:31:04] off on making any adjustments to the
[1:31:06] acquisition uh reserve.
[1:31:11] » Yeah, counc. Yeah, I' [clears throat]
[1:31:16] I'd suggest a slight modification to
[1:31:18] that, which is rather than tinker with
[1:31:20] the percentage, we just bring down the
[1:31:22] target um so that it's not continuing to
[1:31:26] drive the balance negative in the outy
[1:31:28] years and that way we're still saving
[1:31:30] for the future. If we're able to sort of
[1:31:33] get a handle on the capital expenses, we
[1:31:36] can always increase the target again. Um
[1:31:39] so I would say, you know, let's bring
[1:31:40] that down to a million and a half or 2
[1:31:42] million. I forget where it was. If you
[1:31:44] have that chart,
[1:31:45] >> we like the chart,
[1:31:46] >> but
[1:31:47] sort of do it so that we can stay above
[1:31:50] the yellow line.
[1:31:53] » Talking about smoothing.
[1:31:55] >> What's that?
[1:31:55] >> You're talking about smoothing or
[1:31:57] something different?
[1:31:57] >> Uh, no, more of a cliff.
[1:32:02] >> Okay, then. Um, others. Council member
[1:32:06] Coopermanman, you raised this just a
[1:32:07] minute ago. Are you comfortable with
[1:32:08] that?
[1:32:10] >> Are others
[1:32:21] Maybe if I could add highle math as I
[1:32:23] look at this PowerPoint, that would put
[1:32:25] a 30% uh reserve or 12% of the total tax
[1:32:29] through about 2029 or 2030, at which
[1:32:32] case the purple bar would be frozen and
[1:32:35] those kind of net proceeds or it would
[1:32:37] stack a little bit further on the green
[1:32:38] bar keeping above the orange line. This
[1:32:40] is something I could model for uh the
[1:32:42] next presentation.
[1:32:45] >> I guess I would just add I would need
[1:32:46] direction on the amount of which that
[1:32:48] the purple bar is capped out.
[1:32:50] >> Do you think it's 1.5 or two? Just
[1:32:52] looking at this, I think it's somewhere
[1:32:54] in that range.
[1:32:56] >> Somewhere in that range, but yeah, I
[1:32:58] would have to put in a spreadsheet for
[1:32:59] that.
[1:33:01] And [clears throat]
[1:33:02] just just to put a finer point on the
[1:33:05] reason I like that is because it's
[1:33:06] essentially status quo
[1:33:09] and if next year or the year after we
[1:33:11] want to things are going well and we
[1:33:13] want to increase the target again we
[1:33:14] can.
[1:33:20] » Any other thoughts about that proposal?
[1:33:26] Yes,
[1:33:28] 10.
[1:33:28] >> I actually um I really like that idea of
[1:33:31] adjusting the target for the acquisition
[1:33:33] because I I'm not certain I see any
[1:33:36] opportunity here with just maintaining
[1:33:38] what we have um to, you know, cut a lot
[1:33:42] on this current um itemization.
[1:33:46] So, I I think doing this proposal is a nice path forward that allows us to
[1:33:52] maintain what we have, but also still
[1:33:53] plan for the future. and then pivot for
[1:33:56] that future if needed. Um so that
[1:33:58] everything is staying balanced there.
[1:34:03] » Council member Cooper just so if we went
[1:34:06] with that direction but let's say we
[1:34:09] bought something
[1:34:11] I don't know in 2029 or or whenever um
[1:34:16] that would it would go down right and
[1:34:18] then we would keep putting money into it
[1:34:21] right until we got back to the cap. So,
[1:34:25] I'm just wondering like would an
[1:34:27] acquisition throw off the the that idea
[1:34:32] the the the aim of that idea to keep us
[1:34:34] above the the minimum?
[1:34:37] >> I think that that would be a challenge
[1:34:38] for future future us future council.
[1:34:43] Um,
[1:34:45] which is another way of saying it grows
[1:34:48] more speculative as we go in out years.
[1:34:51] We're not only focused on 27 28 but and
[1:34:56] so forth but I think we can probably
[1:34:59] hopefully move on with
[1:35:04] um the proposal that's been made by council
[1:35:09] member Hfner with the considerations
[1:35:11] that have been otherwise brought by
[1:35:14] council member Coopermanman and mayor
[1:35:16] Patan.
[1:35:19] >> Pardon me. You can make the chart look
[1:35:21] better. [laughter]
[1:35:24] >> Council member Curtain says you you may
[1:35:25] be able to make the chart look better.
[1:35:27] So, I'll leave that to you. All right.
[1:35:31] Do you have enough?
[1:35:33] Okay. And I think we're good. Um All
[1:35:37] right. Moving on to the golf fund.
[1:35:42] » Thank you for that direction. Nestled at
[1:35:45] the foot of the Rocky Mountains, Cole
[1:35:47] Creek Golf Course is a landmark in
[1:35:49] public golf. [laughter]
[1:35:52] >> That's great.
[1:35:53] >> This is stri straight from the website.
[1:35:56] [laughter]
[1:35:56] Want to hear about the layout? Okay.
[1:35:59] It's managed by Mark Jensen, Bo Lewis,
[1:36:01] both PGA certified. And I'd be a miss
[1:36:03] not to mention the Turn restaurant at
[1:36:05] the golf course if you haven't been
[1:36:06] there.
[1:36:08] Forecasted revenues for 2027, 2.9
[1:36:11] million. Forecasted revenues for 2028 3
[1:36:13] million. Forecasted expenses in 2027 3.5
[1:36:17] million. Forecasted expenses in 2028 3.6
[1:36:21] million. This does those forecasted
[1:36:23] expenses do include significant capital
[1:36:26] expenditures of $400,000 in each year
[1:36:28] and minimal amount of operational
[1:36:31] turnback of 60,000 in each year. This
[1:36:33] leaves us with preliminary operational
[1:36:35] gaps in 2027 of about 200,000 and
[1:36:38] 230,000 in 2028.
[1:36:41] This is the preliminary CIP includes
[1:36:43] significant capital investments of
[1:36:45] approximately 1.7 million over the term
[1:36:48] 3.65 FTE recommended additions. This is
[1:36:51] a piece of the partial allocation of the deputy director and also an increase
[1:36:57] in FTEES variables for maintenance
[1:36:59] workers and guest service attendance to
[1:37:01] align with actual hours worked in recent
[1:37:03] history.
[1:37:07] Recreation Advisory Board has been
[1:37:09] engaged with multiple meetings
[1:37:11] established throughout the summer and
[1:37:13] staff is currently modeling multiple
[1:37:16] revenue scenarios next to be presented
[1:37:18] to the RAB meeting on July 27th.
[1:37:21] This reflects the staff's sorry one
[1:37:23] second preliminary what I just mentioned
[1:37:26] on the previous slide. Um
[1:37:29] 2026, that purple bar, you see
[1:37:31] significant capital expenses, 1.3
[1:37:33] million at varying degrees of uh
[1:37:36] completion. 2027,
[1:37:39] again, the structural deficit is
[1:37:40] visually demonstrated between the blue
[1:37:42] bar at 2.9 million and 3.1 on the red
[1:37:44] bar, the $200,000 deficit, $400,000 in
[1:37:47] the capital expenditures. 2028, 3
[1:37:50] million in revenues, 3.2 million
[1:37:51] operator operation expenditures with
[1:37:54] 400,000 in capital. Um, I'm going to
[1:37:57] give you one other forecast to look at.
[1:38:00] We removed capital capital from 2027
[1:38:04] and beyond.
[1:38:07] Um, this chart does may indicate some
[1:38:11] urgency in capital investment in 2026.
[1:38:16] Next one.
[1:38:19] All of the 1.7 million in capital
[1:38:22] expenses are listed here. You can
[1:38:24] actually see this. Okay. in the chart
[1:38:25] and I did not mention this earlier maybe
[1:38:27] mostly for the folks at home in the
[1:38:29] attachments to this uh this item we have
[1:38:32] the summaries as attachments and they're
[1:38:34] hyperl so if you have any questions of
[1:38:36] any of the uh individual projects now we
[1:38:39] have great staff here to answer your
[1:38:40] questions uh you can hover over it click
[1:38:42] it'll take you directly to that page um
[1:38:44] again mostly for those folks walking at
[1:38:46] watching at home so significant capital
[1:38:48] expenditure here
[1:38:52] and some projects that did not make the
[1:38:56] recommended list. Here's a list of
[1:38:57] unfunded projects as well.
[1:39:02] So, staff has engaged the recreation
[1:39:04] advisory board on the following. It's
[1:39:06] modeling a number of fee increases
[1:39:09] and other items.
[1:39:12] The finance committee's direction at the
[1:39:13] May 18th meeting was to re-examine
[1:39:15] unlimited golf fees and residential
[1:39:18] preferences.
[1:39:20] The fund is expected to be
[1:39:21] self-sufficient covering operational and
[1:39:24] capital expenses.
[1:39:26] So council policy direction assuming the
[1:39:28] fund is expected to be self-sufficient
[1:39:31] covering both operational and capital
[1:39:33] expenses.
[1:39:34] Shall we remove or defer certain capital
[1:39:36] projects? Continue to explore 2027 fee
[1:39:40] rate adjustments. It should be noted I
[1:39:44] didn't know what you're going to say.
[1:39:46] Initial modeling suggests we cannot fee
[1:39:48] our way out of this um and that some
[1:39:51] other creativity is needed and while RAB
[1:39:54] has been engaged the stability of the
[1:39:56] fund will likely require a combination
[1:39:58] of actions.
[1:40:02] » Yeah, just to expand on that. So um
[1:40:05] finance has done the modeling that RAB
[1:40:07] requested and then also what finance
[1:40:09] committee requested. And what it
[1:40:11] basically shows is when you include
[1:40:12] capital projects, which I want to say
[1:40:14] this is a modest list of capital
[1:40:16] projects, um, you have you would have to
[1:40:19] increase the fees. I think it was 55%
[1:40:22] in order to cover capital plus
[1:40:24] operational, which then you wouldn't
[1:40:27] have people coming to golf at Colreek
[1:40:29] Golf Course. And so realistically um if
[1:40:33] you if you look at the chart where it's
[1:40:35] removes capital I think kind of at best
[1:40:38] we can try to target to be able to cover
[1:40:40] our operational expenses through the
[1:40:42] fees through some fee increases but then
[1:40:46] we're going to need to rely more on the
[1:40:48] capital fund to fund capital projects at
[1:40:52] the golf course. So, and this is an
[1:40:54] enterprise fund and so recognition of
[1:40:56] that, but we don't see a path forward
[1:40:59] where the golf fund is 100% funding
[1:41:03] operations and capital projects.
[1:41:10] Note, we haven't told RAB this yet. That
[1:41:12] meeting is this Monday. So, there's a
[1:41:15] subcommittee that has seen the um the
[1:41:18] model for this, but the entire RAB group
[1:41:21] will see the model on Monday.
[1:41:26] In other words, what you were saying is
[1:41:27] that the information has been not been
[1:41:30] presented in a meeting, but the
[1:41:32] information is [snorts]
[1:41:34] obviously available now. Um, but just
[1:41:38] [clears throat] to be clear about the
[1:41:40] public disclosure of that. Um
[1:41:43] I I guess I I wanted to to underscore I
[1:41:47] mean unless there's more of the
[1:41:49] presentation I think you've given us
[1:41:51] what we what we need. um just to
[1:41:54] underscore the enterprise
[1:41:57] um nature of the of golf in in
[1:42:02] Lewisville and that's why we have a
[1:42:03] separate golf fund and um we in the old
[1:42:09] days after the particularly after the
[1:42:13] flood we had a lot of transfers
[1:42:17] um in subsidizing
[1:42:20] um things have gotten are uh better in
[1:42:24] terms of financials for the the golf
[1:42:27] fund, but we this is a pretty stark
[1:42:30] picture if you look back at at your
[1:42:32] earlier uh graph. So, we've got to
[1:42:35] wrestle with that a little bit and um
[1:42:38] maybe the first people have comments on
[1:42:41] either referring or deferring capital
[1:42:44] projects or exploring fee rate
[1:42:48] adjustments um or other matters.
[1:42:52] because May Pro 10 then
[1:42:55] council member Heather
[1:42:57] >> I'm not necessarily suggesting we should
[1:42:59] do this if it's an option I'm just
[1:43:00] trying to understand what the options
[1:43:02] are um trust fund is that is this
[1:43:07] technically
[1:43:09] something that those funds could be used
[1:43:11] for or no
[1:43:15] » uh they could from an operational
[1:43:18] standpoint I don't know what the
[1:43:19] restrictions are with it being an
[1:43:21] enterprise fund I think would be the
[1:43:23] hangup.
[1:43:24] >> I don't know the answer to that
[1:43:26] question. I could look into it, but I
[1:43:27] could say as an enterprise fund external
[1:43:29] sources cannot whatever they are can
[1:43:31] exceed 10%. So on a $3 million fund,
[1:43:34] you're looking at a cap of external
[1:43:36] resources at 300,000 otherwise sub u
[1:43:40] jeopardizing its kind of enterprise
[1:43:43] nature.
[1:43:44] >> Okay. So
[1:43:46] again, I'm not necessarily suggesting
[1:43:48] this should be done, but if that is
[1:43:51] something that can truly help be a
[1:43:54] short-term bridge the gap until we can
[1:43:57] amp up fees to cover more of our onm and
[1:44:04] capital projects.
[1:44:06] I don't know if there's any appetite for
[1:44:09] that discussion. Um, so I just wanted to
[1:44:12] throw that out there as an option with
[1:44:14] the other two that you mentioned.
[1:44:16] >> Council member Afra.
[1:44:18] >> Yeah, I just had a a specific question.
[1:44:21] I see we have a a CIP for design to
[1:44:24] expand or replace the clubhouse
[1:44:27] um in 28
[1:44:30] and and I thought we as a as as a group
[1:44:32] had more or less taken that off the
[1:44:34] table. So I'm trying to understand why
[1:44:37] we have a CIP for the design work.
[1:44:43] » Director Blackmore, you could probably
[1:44:45] speak to this better than I, but total
[1:44:46] later in the presentation, we will get
[1:44:48] to board and commission requests of
[1:44:50] which this was one of the ones from Rob.
[1:44:54] Yeah, I would just add that it is
[1:44:57] intended to be a site plan as much as an
[1:45:00] architectural design review for the
[1:45:03] feasibility of even being able to
[1:45:05] accomplish what the 2021
[1:45:09] um feasibility study suggested that if
[1:45:12] you recall the three options for either
[1:45:15] renovating the current building,
[1:45:17] expanding on the current footprint using
[1:45:19] the current building or a complete
[1:45:20] rebuild were those three options. And so
[1:45:23] this again to director Bailey's comment
[1:45:27] is partially driven by a desire from the
[1:45:30] rec board to continue to see some type
[1:45:33] of movement on what is an end of life
[1:45:35] building that's um for all intents and
[1:45:39] purposes uh you know not in great shape
[1:45:41] and is going to need some level of
[1:45:42] investment similar to some other
[1:45:44] buildings in this community. Um, but
[1:45:47] again, it can either, I think I
[1:45:50] mentioned in an email yesterday, it can
[1:45:52] either be put in unfunded, it can it's
[1:45:54] at the discretion, it can be moved to an
[1:45:56] outer year or it can be removed for this
[1:45:59] particular budget. Um, we're good
[1:46:02] either.
[1:46:02] >> I wonder whether we might take that
[1:46:07] request out of order and just deal with
[1:46:10] it while we've got it, while we're
[1:46:12] thinking about it. if Council Member
[1:46:14] Hefner raises a good point um because
[1:46:18] it's it at least the suggestion is to
[1:46:21] take the um replacement of the clubhouse
[1:46:25] off the table. Um I don't know how
[1:46:28] involved it is to explain what the board
[1:46:31] and commission suggestion is, but we may
[1:46:34] be able to give direction right now on
[1:46:37] that.
[1:46:39] That's fine with me and and I I think I
[1:46:41] would remove it just given the squeeze
[1:46:43] we have. I mean, it is it is a worthy
[1:46:46] project. It's not a bad project. We're
[1:46:47] just we're in a squeeze and
[1:46:50] why bother designing something that we
[1:46:52] don't have the funds to ever build?
[1:46:55] >> Yeah. I'm just as a sort of respect for
[1:47:00] the for RAB I just you know maybe you
[1:47:03] can at least describe what it is and
[1:47:06] then we may decide exactly what
[1:47:08] >> Sure.
[1:47:08] >> Council member After talking about.
[1:47:10] >> Yeah. And I think to council member
[1:47:12] Hefner's point as well, this work could
[1:47:16] certainly be incorporated into a future
[1:47:19] council's decision to consider a full
[1:47:22] clubhouse redesign, replacement,
[1:47:24] renovation project. that is obviously
[1:47:26] not included before you today. Um, and
[1:47:29] so that that message could be relayed as
[1:47:31] well. But again, the scope from a RAB
[1:47:33] perspective was a site analysis for a
[1:47:36] future footprint and have a uh rendering
[1:47:40] of some sort that could be utilized if
[1:47:42] we ever were to get to that point. But
[1:47:44] um,
[1:47:45] >> okay. [clears throat]
[1:47:45] >> At a at a sta at a staff level,
[1:47:48] >> it's fine.
[1:47:49] >> Thank you. Um, let me Council Member
[1:47:52] Kern and Council Member Cooper and the
[1:47:54] Mayor Proton.
[1:47:56] >> Great. Thanks. So, um, just to clarify
[1:47:58] for the day-to-day operations, um, we're
[1:48:01] going to run around $200,000 short with
[1:48:04] the current fee schedule that or the
[1:48:07] fees that we're proposing for 27 to 28,
[1:48:10] right? [clears throat]
[1:48:10] >> Yes.
[1:48:11] >> Okay. And did I understand correctly
[1:48:14] that there is a way through adjusting
[1:48:17] that or some other means that we could
[1:48:19] actually not have the day-to-day
[1:48:21] maintfall
[1:48:22] or is that not an option?
[1:48:25] >> It is an option. We're currently
[1:48:26] modeling different free um opportunities
[1:48:28] running through RAB right now. So, it's
[1:48:30] kind of being baked.
[1:48:31] >> Okay. Um, so one of the suggestions that
[1:48:34] I'm going to make and throw it out to
[1:48:36] everyone is, and [clears throat] I'm
[1:48:38] sorry because this suggestion actually
[1:48:39] adds more complexity, [laughter] Adam,
[1:48:41] to um to I think the the golf course,
[1:48:45] but it's instead of just having a subset
[1:48:48] of the wreck advisory board, we had a
[1:48:50] tremendous
[1:48:52] like outpour from the community of
[1:48:54] golfers who I think really didn't
[1:48:57] understand where the costs are, where
[1:48:59] the shortfalls are, and that the fees
[1:49:02] are changing. And I think when we're
[1:49:05] also talking about, you know, not
[1:49:07] creating a much of a difference between
[1:49:09] residents because it's an enterprise
[1:49:11] fund, but now we're talking about how
[1:49:13] much money is going to actually come
[1:49:14] from the residents in the form of
[1:49:16] capital projects. I think we need to be
[1:49:20] really mindful of this that the
[1:49:23] community is going to be making
[1:49:25] significant investments into this golf
[1:49:27] course in one way or another. And
[1:49:31] there might be a benefit in engaging
[1:49:34] some of those golfers who maybe we do it
[1:49:37] on the people who have the annual passes
[1:49:41] uh in this conversation. So to that
[1:49:43] everyone can better understand what the
[1:49:47] needs are, where the fees lay like how
[1:49:50] many residents versus non-residents
[1:49:52] golf. Can we do a discount for them? Can
[1:49:55] we increase the non uh resident fees to be at a balance so that it does
[1:50:01] justify the community's um continued
[1:50:04] investment in the golf course. That's
[1:50:06] what I'm putting out there as a as an
[1:50:08] option. So, it's not just the wreck
[1:50:09] advisory board because I think that
[1:50:11] still created uh confusion in the
[1:50:14] community.
[1:50:16] >> Thanks, Council Member Kern.
[1:50:20] Um um I kind of like that idea too. I'm
[1:50:26] also wondering to what extent we'll get
[1:50:28] some of that information from the pros
[1:50:31] long range plan.
[1:50:36] » The long range plan will
[1:50:40] gauge community I guess support and
[1:50:42] engagement with the golf course itself
[1:50:45] and where it's seen as a value to the
[1:50:47] community. uh it doesn't have a specific
[1:50:50] pricing structure, right? Um it'll have
[1:50:52] some funding recommendations for future
[1:50:54] investments through granting and
[1:50:55] secondary funding opportunities, but I
[1:50:57] won't get into that level of detail.
[1:50:59] >> Okay. Um
[1:51:01] and then so I had a small question on
[1:51:05] the the chart showing the fund balance
[1:51:08] for this year itself. That's a
[1:51:10] projection that we're going by the end
[1:51:11] of the year we'll be below the reserve.
[1:51:15] >> That is the projection. Okay.
[1:51:16] >> Yes. Um, and then
[1:51:21] also I'm wondering, um, aside from the
[1:51:25] clubhouse redesign, which I think we
[1:51:27] should probably drop from 20 um, from
[1:51:30] the CIP, if we look at the CIPs from the
[1:51:33] next two years mostly, um,
[1:51:38] are those things you that
[1:51:40] are there things in there that could
[1:51:42] possibly be delayed um, if we're looking
[1:51:45] for a longer term solution?
[1:51:47] um
[1:51:49] or some of those things sort of
[1:51:50] pressing.
[1:51:54] » Uh I think with the majority of these
[1:51:58] there's the potential to delay with an
[1:52:00] understanding that that has operational
[1:52:02] impacts. Um you know things like the
[1:52:04] bunker renovations are partially funded
[1:52:06] this year. That's a second half of
[1:52:08] funding for next year. Um you know you
[1:52:11] explore alternative construction
[1:52:13] methods. you explore expanding life cy
[1:52:16] lifespans um that kind of thing. Um but
[1:52:19] similar to the building, you know, that
[1:52:21] particular part of the course is about
[1:52:23] 10 years past life cycle uh that it was
[1:52:26] expected to have after the rebuild. And
[1:52:28] so uh with any of these, it's just a
[1:52:30] balance of operational impact and
[1:52:33] investment in the course itself.
[1:52:38] Council
[1:52:43] member Hefner, did you have comment?
[1:52:47] >> No, I don't. I can make one, but I
[1:52:49] didn't have my hand up.
[1:52:50] >> No, I'm not going to make you if you
[1:52:52] don't want to.
[1:52:53] >> I I do think we might want to get back
[1:52:55] to the question here in front of us um
[1:52:58] as to whether to continue to engage RAB
[1:53:01] on the fee adjustments.
[1:53:05] » Council member
[1:53:14] I was just going to say I'm fine with
[1:53:16] removing the the redesign. I think we
[1:53:18] were pretty clear when we met with RAB
[1:53:20] last time of trying to reset what their
[1:53:22] expectations are around that. So,
[1:53:29] » I also agree with removing the the
[1:53:32] redesign from the process. I have a
[1:53:35] question though for Ryder. Um,
[1:53:39] if a group of golfers were to form a
[1:53:44] nonprofit 501c3
[1:53:47] and raise money,
[1:53:50] how much of that could they only raise
[1:53:52] 300,000 a year to donate to the golf
[1:53:56] course?
[1:53:59] » I don't know the answer to that
[1:54:00] question, but it's certainly something I
[1:54:02] can look into. I mean, would that impact
[1:54:04] the the uh enterprise fund?
[1:54:08] >> I I think my initial reaction would be
[1:54:10] maybe if it runs through our city if it
[1:54:13] runs through our city coffers, it would
[1:54:15] look to me like an additional subsidy on
[1:54:17] top of the enterprise fund. Maybe if it
[1:54:20] was outside of the city coffers,
[1:54:21] potentially that'd be a way to do this
[1:54:23] project. But
[1:54:24] >> how could they how could they do that
[1:54:26] outside of the city coffers?
[1:54:29] >> I don't know that pathway right now, so
[1:54:30] I'd have to look into it.
[1:54:32] >> Okay. Thank you,
[1:54:36] » Council Member Curtain.
[1:54:37] >> Yeah, I I think that's a great idea that
[1:54:39] we've we've actually heard a lot of
[1:54:40] comments from community members um and
[1:54:42] it's not like in the last 6 months, it's
[1:54:44] been for years that this might be one of
[1:54:46] the best ways to fund some of the bigger
[1:54:48] projects that maintain the course's um
[1:54:51] integrity and expand or improve the
[1:54:54] clubhouse is through donations. And we
[1:54:57] currently don't have a path. So it' be
[1:55:00] nice to find out the legal path that could be formed and then advise the
[1:55:04] appropriate organizations on how that
[1:55:06] might happen. I I I strongly support
[1:55:08] that. Uh but here's just an overarching
[1:55:12] question and I do get this from uh
[1:55:15] people who are not part of the golfing
[1:55:16] world but are residents which is this is
[1:55:20] an enterprise it cannot maintain itself.
[1:55:23] There are golf courses all across the
[1:55:24] country that can. So, what is it that is
[1:55:28] different with our golf course and how
[1:55:30] it's being managed or funded that that
[1:55:34] is done differently with private golf
[1:55:36] courses or different with other public
[1:55:38] golf courses that we're that we're not
[1:55:41] following that same model or and perhaps
[1:55:43] that's part of already what uh the new
[1:55:46] golf manager has come up with and and
[1:55:48] the reason for some of the changes that
[1:55:50] we're seeing. But I'd be curious. It
[1:55:52] doesn't have to be an answer right now,
[1:55:53] but I'd be I would like actually for
[1:55:55] that to to come and maybe it comes to
[1:55:57] the finance committee because this is
[1:55:59] just such a big piece of it is figuring
[1:56:01] out, you know, what what do they do
[1:56:03] differently to stay solvent in other
[1:56:06] communities that we're not for somehow
[1:56:07] able to do.
[1:56:10] Um [clears throat] I think we have a um
[1:56:14] consensus to defer the uh redesign of
[1:56:18] the clubhouse and uh I think we've had
[1:56:22] discussion about exploring fee rate
[1:56:25] adjustments. There's a number of things
[1:56:27] which I don't think are necessarily
[1:56:29] budget items but are sort of operational
[1:56:31] issues for the um director to consider
[1:56:35] about involving um uh community members.
[1:56:39] I have very for I'll just say this very
[1:56:43] big concerns about advising about having
[1:56:46] our
[1:56:48] council advise about um uh lawfulness of
[1:56:53] or sort of supporting a a 503 but that's
[1:56:58] something that I think we can sort of
[1:57:00] deal with separately um and um if
[1:57:04] there's a chance to help a group of
[1:57:07] people um move toward a you know um that
[1:57:12] kind of arrangement. I mean that's it's
[1:57:15] all good. I think um just want to flag
[1:57:17] that. Um but I don't know. Do you need
[1:57:20] any further?
[1:57:24] >> Um what I'm hearing is we will continue
[1:57:26] to explore the adjustments with RAB. Um
[1:57:29] what the city manager said and and I do
[1:57:32] agree to. I I think it's uh maybe a goal
[1:57:35] would be get to covering our
[1:57:36] operational. I think above and beyond
[1:57:39] that will be extremely challenging. Um
[1:57:41] so if I don't have a decision or
[1:57:43] direction today on uh the potential of
[1:57:46] subsidizing capital projects or
[1:57:48] deferring or eliminating them for the
[1:57:50] fund, uh I would expect that discussion
[1:57:52] at the at a CIP deeper discussion.
[1:57:56] >> Okay. Yep. Council member,
[1:57:59] >> just on on the RAB point,
[1:58:02] I I think it's really important to
[1:58:04] continue to engage RAB. I think they
[1:58:07] need to take a a hard look at all of the
[1:58:09] fee structure, not just the daily green
[1:58:12] fees, but the annual passes, resident
[1:58:14] preference, so on. I assume that's part
[1:58:15] of what they're doing. And then I think
[1:58:18] it needs to come to us because
[1:58:22] in in a lot of ways, what we're seeing
[1:58:23] here is the golf course is in crisis and
[1:58:26] I don't think it's entirely fair to put
[1:58:28] it on RAB to solve the crisis. I really
[1:58:30] want their recommendation and then it
[1:58:33] needs to come back to us to make a hard
[1:58:34] decision about how to write the ship. It
[1:58:39] is it is an enterprise fund. It's meant
[1:58:41] to be operated as an enterprise and we
[1:58:45] should think very carefully before we
[1:58:48] start pouring capital fund money in uh
[1:58:51] above and beyond the 10% a year that's
[1:58:53] allowed for an enterprise. And I think
[1:58:56] as part of that, and I I just want to
[1:58:58] say this out loud, I think everything
[1:59:00] needs to be on the table, including
[1:59:02] entirely eliminating unlimited golf,
[1:59:06] resident preferences only on booking,
[1:59:08] not on pricing,
[1:59:10] deferring any capital projects that can
[1:59:12] possibly be deferred.
[1:59:14] Um, removing any expenses related to
[1:59:17] clubhouse replacement or expansion. I
[1:59:19] know the design is a big one. If there
[1:59:21] are others, I think they need to come
[1:59:23] out. and then coming back after
[1:59:26] engagement with RAB to us w with a
[1:59:28] detailed comprehensive financial picture
[1:59:31] if we pull every lever we have how close
[1:59:34] are we
[1:59:37] >> director did you have a comment
[1:59:41] >> just a comment because to council member
[1:59:44] Karn's point we do hear a lot of
[1:59:48] feedback about comparison course to
[1:59:51] course operation to operation
[1:59:54] And I would just caution council
[1:59:58] on how that message is being given,
[2:00:02] researched, portrayed. Uh the golf
[2:00:05] industry is unlike any other business in
[2:00:07] the city as to where it really is apples
[2:00:10] to oranges across the board. So there
[2:00:13] may be things at certain local courses
[2:00:15] that council or the golfers would find
[2:00:19] palatable. there may be other things
[2:00:20] that would seem just extreme. And so I
[2:00:24] think to try to wrap that into
[2:00:28] kind of a happy package of well this
[2:00:30] golf course is profitable why aren't
[2:00:32] you? I think that's a very slippery
[2:00:34] slope. Um
[2:00:36] we can certainly do the research if
[2:00:38] that's something that's requested and
[2:00:41] bring that back. But I do think that we
[2:00:42] still have to be able to operate
[2:00:45] within some of the confines of our
[2:00:47] particular structure. Whether that comes
[2:00:49] to really high dollar things like
[2:00:52] utility cost, footing the bill of all
[2:00:54] capital,
[2:00:56] um providing incentive and benefit to
[2:00:58] our regular users or residents, not
[2:01:01] becoming a membership country club style
[2:01:05] minimum food and beverage merchandise
[2:01:07] type of course that offsets their extra
[2:01:10] expenses by getting that from their
[2:01:12] members. Um, so I just I don't know
[2:01:15] exactly what the answer is, but as we
[2:01:17] move through this, I think that as we
[2:01:19] express problems or crisis that need to
[2:01:23] be resolved, there is this inclination
[2:01:25] to go straight to, well, I don't think
[2:01:28] this other course is having this type of
[2:01:29] a problem without really a full
[2:01:32] understanding of the history. There
[2:01:34] could have been decades in the making on
[2:01:36] how they got to that point or what the
[2:01:39] future looks like. The future didn't
[2:01:40] look like this in 2014.
[2:01:43] because all of these bills hadn't come
[2:01:45] to fruition yet for the next generation
[2:01:48] of maintenance as it relates to the
[2:01:50] course. So, I just want to say that
[2:01:54] >> um just [clears throat] to clarify and
[2:01:56] council member Kon can certainly correct
[2:01:58] me on her understanding, but I I took
[2:02:00] her point is more focusing on ways in
[2:02:05] which um the golf course could be uh run
[2:02:10] more efficiently and and so forth than necessarily. I think she gave one
[2:02:16] example of how to do that, but I or how
[2:02:18] to compare it, but I I I think we all
[2:02:21] appreciate your expertise and the
[2:02:24] challenge of saying certain things that
[2:02:27] are really going to be more problematic
[2:02:30] uh than addressing the any
[2:02:33] inefficiencies and so forth. Um, I I
[2:02:36] want to make sure that we are uh the
[2:02:40] next couple of items, the uh city
[2:02:42] manager operational and personnel
[2:02:44] recommendation adjustments, the service
[2:02:47] level reductions, those are going to be
[2:02:50] covered later in the presentation. So,
[2:02:53] we can skip over that. I think the the
[2:02:55] only other uh parks wreck open space
[2:02:59] item is just the recreation debt fund.
[2:03:04] Correct. And is that Go ahead.
[2:03:07] >> Uh, mayor, I am going to get to the
[2:03:08] recreation debt fund mill later in this
[2:03:10] presentation. I've got two more funds
[2:03:12] before our planned break. They um their
[2:03:15] big funds, the recreation fund and the
[2:03:16] consolidated utilities, but I am not
[2:03:18] seeking council decision points for the
[2:03:20] next two funds. So, we can go through
[2:03:22] them and hit a planned break in a few
[2:03:24] minutes or we could take a break now,
[2:03:25] whatever.
[2:03:26] >> No, we'll go ahead and uh soldier on.
[2:03:31] >> Wonderful. Thank you. Um, the recreation
[2:03:34] fund. The recreation fund supports the
[2:03:37] recreation and senior center built in
[2:03:38] 1990 uh renovated in 20 uh 2019. That's
[2:03:42] world class. You've all been there. It
[2:03:44] also includes robust senior services
[2:03:46] which includes the Brooks Cafe for daily
[2:03:48] lunches. Uh has trips, promotes health
[2:03:51] and community for seniors and also
[2:03:53] events like last week's ice cream
[2:03:54] social. Um also within this fund is the
[2:03:57] Memory Square pool uh at Memory Square
[2:03:59] Park. This is all managed under the
[2:04:01] expert and tenured leadership of Miss
[2:04:02] Kathy Martin and her amazing staff. Um
[2:04:06] again, recreation fund structurally
[2:04:08] balanced in 2027 2028. However, we do
[2:04:10] fall below the renewal and replacement
[2:04:12] target in 29 and beyond. Um this fund
[2:04:16] like the golf fund which I did not
[2:04:17] mention has has been receiving the
[2:04:19] allocation of central funds uh central
[2:04:22] departments in 2025 I'm sorry in the
[2:04:26] current year 2026 that included um HR
[2:04:30] and finance in 2027 it now includes IT
[2:04:33] as well. So we're finally getting
[2:04:34] through uh allocating all our central
[2:04:35] costs to enterprise funds. We did shift
[2:04:38] the ICE rank to the out of this fund
[2:04:40] into the general fund um 5.05 05 FT
[2:04:44] recommended additions, two full-time
[2:04:46] positions, a youth and sports
[2:04:48] coordinator and a recreation assistant
[2:04:50] nights uh at a point8 or 32-hour week, a
[2:04:53] sliver of the pro uh parks recreation
[2:04:56] open space director and some variables
[2:04:59] uh mostly lifeguards.
[2:05:02] Um again, you've seen this chart. It's
[2:05:04] above the minimum throughout the model
[2:05:06] uh but falling short in some of the
[2:05:08] outer years on saving enough for the
[2:05:09] renewal and replacement.
[2:05:13] Here are all the capital projects
[2:05:16] include with included within the model
[2:05:18] and in the preliminary CIP. I believe
[2:05:20] it's continued on to the next slide.
[2:05:22] Again, within your attachments, the
[2:05:24] project names are hyper hyperl to their
[2:05:26] individual pages with one project not
[2:05:28] being recommended for funding. That's
[2:05:30] the skate park impart improvements.
[2:05:36] That is the recreation fund. I will
[2:05:38] pause if there's any questions or
[2:05:40] comments, but I am not seeking council
[2:05:42] decisions. So, if you'd like me to move
[2:05:43] on, I can continue on to consolidated
[2:05:45] utilities.
[2:05:46] >> Any questions?
[2:05:48] >> Uh, we can go ahead, council member
[2:05:51] Cooperman.
[2:05:51] >> Um, just to be clear, um, not only in
[2:05:54] the recreation fund, but when you cite
[2:05:56] the additional positions, those have
[2:05:59] been incorporated into the modeling.
[2:06:00] >> That is correct.
[2:06:01] >> Okay. Thank you.
[2:06:05] » Any other questions? Go ahead. Good job,
[2:06:09] [laughter]
[2:06:10] >> Council Member Afar.
[2:06:12] >> Um, just big picture, are we expecting
[2:06:15] to try and get this fund to a position
[2:06:19] where it is meeting either the minimum
[2:06:21] reserve or target reserve by the end of
[2:06:23] the forecast period or is that not a
[2:06:27] goal?
[2:06:30] >> Uh, council member, that is of course a
[2:06:32] goal. One of the challenges with the the
[2:06:35] renewal and replacement target is oftent
[2:06:37] times these replacements extend beyond
[2:06:40] the modeling. So in my tenure here, I've
[2:06:42] often seen a delta between the amount in
[2:06:44] the bank and achieving that dotted line.
[2:06:47] Um it's a little bit of a timing thing
[2:06:50] depending on how many how much equipment
[2:06:52] is purchased in each year. Um it's
[2:06:55] something that we monitor annually with
[2:06:56] the finance committee. Um, I think
[2:06:58] within that dotted line, it's also
[2:06:59] important to to understand that it's
[2:07:01] factoring in larger components of the
[2:07:04] building. Um, so part of that dotted
[2:07:06] line is a percentage of the building's
[2:07:08] costs. So, it's really doing its best
[2:07:10] to, you know, achieve saving enough to
[2:07:12] replace all the components within its
[2:07:13] building. Um, a lot of words to say that
[2:07:16] it's something that we are doing our
[2:07:18] best to achieve and monitor, but um, it
[2:07:20] is challenging to um, manage the
[2:07:23] day-to-day and save enough to replace
[2:07:25] all those facilities.
[2:07:29] So is that sorry is that no
[2:07:33] >> don't have that plan today something
[2:07:35] that
[2:07:35] >> so so we're expecting to essentially
[2:07:37] adopt a budget that leaves probably
[2:07:39] leaves this fund projected to fall below
[2:07:41] the minimum
[2:07:44] >> um not the minimum reserve but the the
[2:07:47] enough to replace parts of the building.
[2:07:50] The dotted line is place uh equipment
[2:07:52] and pieces components of the building.
[2:07:53] So, operationally, yes, but not all the
[2:07:56] equipment.
[2:07:58] >> Council member Kern,
[2:08:00] >> thank you. And can you remind us of what
[2:08:02] the revenue sources are for the rec
[2:08:05] fund?
[2:08:06] >> Council member, yes. This is what I like
[2:08:08] to call a three-legged stool. Um, about
[2:08:11] half of the revenues come from user
[2:08:13] fees. Um, and then the other two pieces
[2:08:15] are the general fund subsidy and the uh
[2:08:20] dedicated and perpetual sales and use
[2:08:22] tax that voters approved in 2017. So
[2:08:25] about 50% user fees and about 25% those
[2:08:28] other two buckets, sales tax, dedicated
[2:08:30] and general fund transfer.
[2:08:32] >> And the property tax component is just
[2:08:34] to repay for the building that we built
[2:08:38] about 10 years ago.
[2:08:39] >> Correct.
[2:08:40] >> Okay. And so then we so we moved we
[2:08:43] moved the ice rink out of wreck so that
[2:08:46] this would balance
[2:08:48] because otherwise then we would not be
[2:08:50] balanced. But it's still a general fund
[2:08:51] expense that we're going to have to
[2:08:52] figure out how to pay for. So we just
[2:08:54] moved it so that this
[2:08:56] >> we did move it. Yes, it is in the
[2:08:58] current general fund modeling um as it
[2:09:01] stands today
[2:09:02] >> versus just transferring more of the
[2:09:04] general fund into the wreck. Okay. Thank
[2:09:06] you.
[2:09:08] Any other questions on this one? Okay,
[2:09:14] thank you. Go ahead. Um, continuing on
[2:09:18] with our consolidated utility funds,
[2:09:21] notable impacts for 2027 2028 are the
[2:09:23] impacts of future development, potential
[2:09:26] drought impacts, fee adjustment
[2:09:28] methodology. We're seeking smoothing,
[2:09:30] consistency, and predictability in
[2:09:32] revenues uh while remaining competitive.
[2:09:34] a change in accounting methodology pra p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p
[2:09:36] practice in how we plan and budget for
[2:09:38] tap fee revenues, switching to ar a
[2:09:41] rears versus projections.
[2:09:43] Uh bonding um as you'll see in the chart
[2:09:46] is likely needed to smooth out some of
[2:09:48] our large and major uh capital projects
[2:09:51] including raw water integration, solid
[2:09:54] residuals, and the Sid Copeland admin
[2:09:56] building. Preliminary total capital
[2:09:58] investment 27 through 32 is robust at
[2:10:00] 67.2 million. It also includes within
[2:10:03] the modeling additional personnel. I
[2:10:06] talked about this previously on the
[2:10:07] general fund side. Here are the other
[2:10:08] pieces of those employees. The
[2:10:10] construction storm water inspector,
[2:10:12] operations tech, and civil engineer.
[2:10:19] Here is the long-term financial forecast
[2:10:22] for the utility funds. Um, as you can
[2:10:24] see, um, robust capital expenditures
[2:10:27] projected throughout the model, um, in
[2:10:30] excess of what we're able to cash flow.
[2:10:32] So, while we're looking at revenues,
[2:10:35] rates, and fees, we're also going to be
[2:10:37] exploring, um, financing some of these
[2:10:40] major projects.
[2:10:44] The next handful of slides are all of
[2:10:46] the capital projects included in the
[2:10:48] model. You don't need to spend enough a
[2:10:50] lot of time on this. You guys can click
[2:10:51] through at your leisure. and a few
[2:10:53] unfunded projects towards the end.
[2:10:57] That's what I have for consolidated
[2:10:59] utilities. Uh, no decision points right
[2:11:01] now, but welcome feedback and
[2:11:03] discussion.
[2:11:05] >> Are there any council questions? Council
[2:11:07] member Coopermanman.
[2:11:09] >> Um, so back to the chart showing the
[2:11:12] fund balances. Um, so in 2028, we're
[2:11:16] dipping below the minimum reserve.
[2:11:19] Um, do we need to resolve that before we
[2:11:21] adopt the budget for that next few
[2:11:24] years?
[2:11:25] >> Yes.
[2:11:26] >> Okay. And you think that we can resolve
[2:11:27] it through these financing kinds of
[2:11:30] options or
[2:11:32] >> Yes. The way I see it, you two levers.
[2:11:33] We can uh spend some time going through
[2:11:36] the capital projects that are contained
[2:11:38] um sharpen the pencil potentially defer
[2:11:40] um and or look at a financing model
[2:11:43] where you can kind of spread them out
[2:11:44] over future years. Right.
[2:11:46] >> Okay. Other
[2:11:52] questions?
[2:11:54] Um, is there any appetite right now for
[2:11:59] identifying any items in the CIP that
[2:12:02] are worth
[2:12:05] um
[2:12:06] considering cuts on?
[2:12:11] » Sorry, for utilities or in general?
[2:12:14] >> Uh, no, no, no. I'm talking about
[2:12:15] utilities. I'm I'm talking about the
[2:12:18] one, two, three and a half pages of
[2:12:24] projects.
[2:12:26] >> Yes, Council Member Curry. I think
[2:12:27] unless um Director Cow has um any
[2:12:30] recommendations on ways that we could
[2:12:32] smooth it out a little bit, uh this is
[2:12:35] clearly been identified as from our
[2:12:37] community, from our residents as like
[2:12:39] among the highest of priorities um and
[2:12:42] core service that they would like to
[2:12:44] maintain the high standards on. And I
[2:12:47] don't really think that this is the
[2:12:48] place where we do the cutting. I think
[2:12:50] that we do the cutting in in things that
[2:12:52] are less mandatory to daily life and uh
[2:12:56] the drought conditions we were in and
[2:12:58] that we continue to anticipate. I think
[2:13:00] a lot of these expenses are related to
[2:13:02] like water rights and other things if
[2:13:03] I'm not mistaken. Um and we hear over
[2:13:06] and over and over again, what about
[2:13:08] more? What about doing it for ponds? So
[2:13:10] I I'm my concern would be to find a way
[2:13:12] to reduce some of this. I think we we
[2:13:15] have to we almost have to figure out a
[2:13:17] way to fund it. um unless again the
[2:13:20] director is able to come up with some
[2:13:22] good recommendations on how we don't
[2:13:23] have to cut necessarily but can maybe
[2:13:26] postpone to make it the numbers work
[2:13:28] better.
[2:13:30] >> I think director Bailey summed it up
[2:13:32] well. I think we're going to smooth some
[2:13:34] things out with financing. We've moved
[2:13:36] from a pay as you go model to a
[2:13:38] financing model. Just costs are
[2:13:40] increasing faster than our appetite for
[2:13:43] increasing rates. Uh we did discuss with
[2:13:47] the finance committee some concepts last
[2:13:49] week just there's a lot of factors
[2:13:52] converging on us whether it's climate
[2:13:54] change costs uh various thing growth
[2:13:57] that will will come or is planned and so
[2:14:01] we're I think we're going through a
[2:14:02] pivot point or a paradigm shift with
[2:14:04] utility of
[2:14:07] what does the future look like. So,
[2:14:09] we're going to run a pretty standard
[2:14:11] rate model that shows financing options
[2:14:14] for this year and then over the course
[2:14:16] of the next two to three years, we're
[2:14:18] analyzing our tap fees and our tier
[2:14:21] structure to see how to accomplish our
[2:14:23] goals in a reasonable way.
[2:14:25] >> So, along with that, that would be then
[2:14:27] taking into consideration some of the um
[2:14:30] possible new development that were for
[2:14:32] and I don't mean red tail because that's
[2:14:34] a separate negotiated thing. I mean any
[2:14:35] of the new residential or other
[2:14:36] businesses.
[2:14:38] >> Yes.
[2:14:38] >> Okay. It's all encompassing.
[2:14:40] >> Okay, good.
[2:14:42] >> Other thoughts?
[2:14:45] >> Yes, council member.
[2:14:46] >> I I just had one specific question on
[2:14:50] the Sid Copeland administration building
[2:14:53] that the CIP form says final design is
[2:14:57] anticipated through the remainder of 26,
[2:15:01] but then we have $400,000 of design cost
[2:15:04] in 28.
[2:15:06] >> Yeah. I just think that was an artifact
[2:15:08] that we missed.
[2:15:09] >> Okay.
[2:15:10] >> So, we had 116 project sheets and we
[2:15:13] missed it on this one.
[2:15:15] >> So, so we don't need the 420.
[2:15:17] >> I don't think we do.
[2:15:18] >> Great.
[2:15:18] >> Yeah. We're not going to double up on
[2:15:20] consulting. Yeah.
[2:15:22] >> And you guys are always a final check
[2:15:23] when we bring a contract to you of like
[2:15:25] this is a good use of our money or a bad
[2:15:27] use. So, uh there's always a filter
[2:15:30] there if we're not using consultants.
[2:15:31] Well,
[2:15:34] >> other questions.
[2:15:35] >> Easy peasy.
[2:15:37] comments. Yes, Council Member Cooperman.
[2:15:40] >> Yeah, one specific question. Um, for 27
[2:15:44] and 28, their line items for water
[2:15:46] rights acquisitions. Are we are those
[2:15:49] pretty definite? We think we really want
[2:15:50] to acquire some rights in those years or
[2:15:54] >> we know from all our hopes and dreams
[2:15:56] that we have to go acquire water rights
[2:15:59] and we try to guess the best year to
[2:16:01] kind of do that. We also try to have
[2:16:04] that money balance out cash flow. So, if
[2:16:06] we have a large project year, we might
[2:16:08] move the water to a different year. That
[2:16:11] said, uh, and some of you that have been
[2:16:12] on council for a while, we're always
[2:16:14] shopping for water. And if there's a
[2:16:16] good opportunity, we're going to come to
[2:16:17] you. We're going to say we need to go
[2:16:19] spend$1 or2 million to get this good
[2:16:21] opportunity. So, I both things are
[2:16:23] always in play. But for now, that's a
[2:16:25] best guess. Balancing cash flow.
[2:16:34] I would like to note that RAB requested
[2:16:36] that we put money in the budget to
[2:16:39] acquire water rights for Col Creek Golf
[2:16:41] Course. Um we are not recommending that
[2:16:45] for funding at this point in time. The
[2:16:47] amount that's in there, you know, water
[2:16:49] rights right now are so costly. Um and
[2:16:52] we have other priorities that we need to
[2:16:54] fund. So that is a project that we're
[2:16:55] not recommending for approval.
[2:17:00] Thank you for clarifying that.
[2:17:02] Other comments? Um I appreciate the
[2:17:07] council member Karn's um comment about
[2:17:10] expectations. I think um
[2:17:15] this is a a high priority area. Um uh as are a number of others. I I think we
[2:17:23] just have to bear in mind that just
[2:17:25] because we've got high priority areas
[2:17:27] that they're not off limits to further
[2:17:30] consideration. At least from my
[2:17:31] standpoint, I want to make sure we um
[2:17:35] aren't directing council and I if
[2:17:38] council member Kern feels differently.
[2:17:40] Obviously, that's a thing, but um that
[2:17:43] we're not saying don't bring us back any
[2:17:45] changes to this because we don't need to
[2:17:48] consider them. I didn't think
[2:17:50] >> No, that's what I said. I was asking the
[2:17:52] director like I mean and I was um as an
[2:17:55] alternate for the finance committee, I
[2:17:56] attend every single meeting and and
[2:17:58] listen in on the conversations and
[2:17:59] usually add my two cents. Uh so I was
[2:18:02] very much paying attention to um the
[2:18:04] last finance committee meeting and on
[2:18:06] this topic and I think there is
[2:18:08] definitely room for a lot more
[2:18:09] conversation. I think we have to get
[2:18:11] creative about how we pay for my point
[2:18:13] is this is not a choice in whether we
[2:18:16] pay for these things. It is we have to
[2:18:18] find the best method forward versus
[2:18:21] eliminating I think the community needs
[2:18:24] this investment is what I'm trying to
[2:18:25] say.
[2:18:27] >> Okay. You're not talking about any given
[2:18:30] >> one of these. All right. Um good. Um I
[2:18:34] do you have the direction that you need?
[2:18:38] Not that you asked for it because I
[2:18:39] think you said expressly you weren't
[2:18:41] asking for for direction but our council
[2:18:44] is comfortable giving you direction even
[2:18:46] though you don't ask for it and that's
[2:18:47] our job of course. So let's uh take a
[2:18:50] break for 10 minutes be back at 228 and
[2:18:54] uh we'll tackle the rest of this. I
[2:18:56] would say that we're about halfway
[2:18:59] through so this is a we're going at a
[2:19:02] pretty good clip.
[2:29:32] Um,
[2:29:34] >> we're missing one council member.
[2:29:37] >> Disappeared, I think, for just a moment.
[2:29:40] Um, but I want why don't we go ahead
[2:29:43] just in terms of
[2:29:47] >> Thanks. Um just we wanted to um address
[2:29:53] one issue that didn't get addressed this
[2:29:55] morning. Council member Kern,
[2:29:57] >> thank you. Um oh actually I do need to
[2:30:00] wait for for Director Blackmore to get
[2:30:01] back. It's he's 100% relevant in in my
[2:30:04] comments. So once he returns then if you
[2:30:07] wouldn't mind circling back that' be
[2:30:08] awesome.
[2:30:09] >> Thank you.
[2:30:10] >> Um
[2:30:12] >> yes, director
[2:30:13] >> mayor. Let's continue. So I'm going to
[2:30:15] hand this off to Mahar and he's going to
[2:30:17] go through some revenues then our uh
[2:30:19] then James will handle some
[2:30:20] expenditures. So be uh we'll we'll be
[2:30:22] sharing it for next few slides.
[2:30:26] >> Take us away.
[2:30:28] Thank you all for joining back after the
[2:30:30] break. We're going to go over major
[2:30:32] revenue assumptions. These consist of
[2:30:35] property tax and sales tax.
[2:30:39] We will start with mill levy changes. In
[2:30:43] 2027, the city will be suspending the
[2:30:45] temporary mill levy credit on the rec
[2:30:48] center debt mill levy. Uh as just some
[2:30:52] background, voters approved a mill levy
[2:30:54] up to 3.35 mills with uh with a
[2:30:59] restriction that the tax revenues of
[2:31:02] this rec center uh debt not to exceed
[2:31:05] 1.2 $1.82 million annually. uh the rec
[2:31:10] center deck can uh no longer absorb any
[2:31:14] uh excess uh revenues. So
[2:31:19] we've uh we've updated that. Uh so the
[2:31:22] sorry the changes for the uh mill levy
[2:31:25] are resetting the uh rec center debt
[2:31:28] from excuse me to 1.7
[2:31:32] from 1.375 mills. Overall the
[2:31:35] Louiswisville mill levy will change to
[2:31:37] 6.88. 884
[2:31:40] from 6.559.
[2:31:45] In this chart, we're going to show
[2:31:47] property tax uh revenue changes. Blue
[2:31:50] bars are general property tax, orange
[2:31:53] rec center debt, and the yellow line is
[2:31:56] the city's total mill levy.
[2:32:01] Just as a uh reminder that the uh mill
[2:32:04] levy reduction that we had uh the
[2:32:06] temporary mill levy reduction we had
[2:32:08] done was to offset the increased
[2:32:11] assessed values.
[2:32:14] In total our city mills are at 6.559. Uh
[2:32:18] this chart breaks out the two went over
[2:32:20] blue being general, orange being rec
[2:32:22] center and the yellow bar at top just
[2:32:25] showing your total mill levies in the
[2:32:27] city.
[2:32:30] This next chart highlights uh
[2:32:32] year-over-year changes while calling out
[2:32:34] 2026 and 2027
[2:32:37] property tax revenues. Same as last time
[2:32:40] where blue is your general and orange
[2:32:43] rec center debt. The yellow bar showing
[2:32:46] changes year-over-year.
[2:32:56] This uh next slide is uh showing for
[2:33:00] every property tax dollar collected
[2:33:03] within the city of Lewisville. Where
[2:33:06] does it go? 7 cents of that dollar comes
[2:33:10] to the city of Lewisville. Majority of
[2:33:12] it goes to Boulder Valley School
[2:33:13] District, followed by Boulder County,
[2:33:16] Lewisville Fire District, Seven Sense to
[2:33:19] the City, North uh Colorado Water, and
[2:33:23] UDFC.
[2:33:27] This slide is basically showing for
[2:33:30] every dollar that's collected for City
[2:33:34] of Lewisville sales tax, where does that
[2:33:36] dollar get divvied up? Most of it 53
[2:33:40] cents goes to general fund. The next big
[2:33:43] one is capital fund. About 26 cents of
[2:33:45] that will go there. Followed by open
[2:33:48] space 8 cents, parks at 5 cents,
[2:33:52] recreation center 4 cents, and finally
[2:33:55] historic preservation at 3 cents.
[2:34:02] This chart is showing sales tax uh
[2:34:06] revenue year-over-year changes and total
[2:34:09] revenue assumptions.
[2:34:13] Uh just some notes. Um in this uh in
[2:34:17] this projection we do have a few things
[2:34:20] taken into account which are king supers
[2:34:24] opening up. uh certain things have not
[2:34:27] uh have not been incorporated into this
[2:34:29] such as Sundance Film Festival and uh
[2:34:32] Red Tail Ridge development impacts.
[2:34:40] Any questions on this slide?
[2:34:46] This next slide uh is basically going
[2:34:49] over the uh when we looked at the dollar
[2:34:53] slide where it shows for every dollar
[2:34:54] collected of sales tax revenue inside
[2:34:56] the city where is it going to this is
[2:34:58] basically showing that year-over-year.
[2:35:00] So you can see the major blue bar being
[2:35:02] your general followed by capital and so
[2:35:05] on.
[2:35:11] All right, that's all I have for revenue
[2:35:15] assumptions.
[2:35:17] >> Um, just to add a little bit of color
[2:35:18] just real fast. Um, going back to
[2:35:21] property taxes, we've kind of two
[2:35:24] revenue sources. One for our general
[2:35:26] fund. It's a little over 5 million.
[2:35:27] We're at the cap of our mill levy. We
[2:35:29] cannot go any higher without going back
[2:35:31] to the voters. At 5 million, this is
[2:35:33] about 16th of your general general fund.
[2:35:35] some material but not as large of a
[2:35:37] lever as your sales tax. That orange bar
[2:35:40] is how we repay our rec center debt uh
[2:35:44] fund uh rec center debt. Our our mill
[2:35:47] levy right now is just under 1.4. We're
[2:35:49] proposing to realign it at 1.7. That
[2:35:52] will align us with our annual debt
[2:35:54] servicing payment amounts of 1.74 1.75
[2:35:58] million through 2042.
[2:36:01] So this is something that we were able
[2:36:02] to hold down for a few years. We've
[2:36:04] eaten up the fund balance in the debt
[2:36:06] fund. We can no longer absorb that short
[2:36:09] shortfall. We really do need to align
[2:36:10] the collections with the the debt. Uh
[2:36:13] the impact to the median home of that that adjustment in the mills is
[2:36:17] about $20 per year. So that's what we
[2:36:20] have to do. And if you were to go to the
[2:36:22] property tech property tax chart looking
[2:36:24] forward, you see it kind of petering
[2:36:26] down a little bit. What we're doing is
[2:36:28] we're we're modeling assessed value
[2:36:30] increases and then adjusting or refining
[2:36:33] that rec center mill levy to arrive at
[2:36:35] the amount of the debt payment. So we
[2:36:37] will talk about this a little bit more
[2:36:38] later but really looking for your uh
[2:36:41] your direction to align the mill levy
[2:36:43] with those debt payments. Um again then
[2:36:46] the other thing I would say with the
[2:36:48] sales tax is it is the significant the
[2:36:51] primary funer of our general fund. You
[2:36:53] can see uh over half of the dollar goes
[2:36:56] into the general fund. Um from my
[2:36:58] memory, it's probably close to 13 or 14
[2:37:00] million when compared to our property
[2:37:02] tax, which is five. Um but it's also
[2:37:04] extremely material to the other funds
[2:37:06] outlaid here. Um the general fund is
[2:37:09] blue, but red is our capital fund. We'll
[2:37:11] have some time later today and likely at
[2:37:12] a future meeting talk about our capital
[2:37:14] fund. Generates close to 89$10 million
[2:37:17] annually. But also the other funds here,
[2:37:19] open space fund, our recreation fund,
[2:37:22] our parks fund, historic preservation
[2:37:24] fund, funds we've sort of talked about,
[2:37:25] um are largely uh driven by our sales
[2:37:28] tax collections. This is the biggest
[2:37:30] revenue source. It's our biggest lever
[2:37:32] on how we fund city operations.
[2:37:35] So, thank you, Mahair. Excellent. Just
[2:37:37] want to add a little more color to that.
[2:37:38] >> Thank you.
[2:37:45] » Okay. Okay, next we're going to get into
[2:37:46] some person.
[2:37:47] >> Hold on for just a minute. Sorry for
[2:37:49] interrupting. Just want to make sure if
[2:37:51] council members have any questions about
[2:37:52] the revenue piece here. That's
[2:37:57] >> Yes, council member.
[2:38:00] >> I just have one very general question.
[2:38:02] What would you estimate is our total
[2:38:06] revenue income annually for the city
[2:38:10] totaling all sources?
[2:38:15] I have a spreadsheet for that, so I
[2:38:16] would hate to guess. Um, 80 million,
[2:38:20] close to 100 million. Wow.
[2:38:21] >> Um, again, a lot of it's in the general
[2:38:24] fund. The next largest are utilities.
[2:38:26] You know, we do tens of millions of
[2:38:27] dollars when we fund our utilities. So,
[2:38:28] those those are pretty much the primary
[2:38:31] funding source for what we do. And
[2:38:33] actually, a main component of my job is
[2:38:34] collecting and my team's job is
[2:38:36] collecting uh sales tax and use tax, but
[2:38:39] also monthly utility billing. So a lot
[2:38:41] of what we do is bring money in the door
[2:38:43] >> so folks can deliver excellent services
[2:38:45] to your citizens.
[2:38:46] >> Thank you
[2:38:46] >> residents.
[2:38:51] » Thank you.
[2:38:53] >> So one of the next things we're going to
[2:38:54] get into is some personnel and benefit
[2:38:56] uh assumptions u through those out years
[2:38:58] in the model. Um aligning with one of uh
[2:39:01] the city manager's priorities in uh
[2:39:03] retaining uh staff and investing in
[2:39:06] staff and staff development. um we've
[2:39:09] kind of outlaid what our expectations
[2:39:11] are as far as uh salary increases which
[2:39:14] are a large driver of those expenses um
[2:39:17] that as we've dictated are our fast
[2:39:19] outpacing revenues. Um there are a
[2:39:23] couple of different adjustments that we
[2:39:24] make and that we model. uh the first
[2:39:27] being a market adjustment um that would
[2:39:30] go into effect January 1st for all
[2:39:32] employees and then also a merit-based
[2:39:35] adjustment um to kind of capture that
[2:39:37] remaining uh portion of maybe the
[2:39:40] difference between the market and what
[2:39:43] people are experiencing inflationary in
[2:39:45] their daily lives. Um, in that same
[2:39:48] vein, uh, the human resources department
[2:39:51] has done some, um, third-party
[2:39:54] consulting and they've also identified
[2:39:55] some, uh, specific targeted adjustments
[2:39:58] to kind of align some of, uh, current
[2:40:01] staff, namely in this instance, uh, our
[2:40:05] police officers to the market
[2:40:07] surrounding areas so that they can
[2:40:09] continue to retain officers and maintain
[2:40:11] that public safety that is a priority of
[2:40:15] council.
[2:40:16] Um among those uh assumptions we have
[2:40:20] modeled a 2% market adjustment again
[2:40:22] that's the first day of the year going
[2:40:25] into effect and then a uh 4% merit
[2:40:28] adjustment um max for uh staff. Um and
[2:40:34] then as far as the targeted police
[2:40:36] adjustment that we discussed, um that
[2:40:39] third-party consultant has suggested
[2:40:41] that to get us competitive and and
[2:40:44] remain competitive in addition to the
[2:40:46] adjustments made in uh the end of 2025,
[2:40:49] we need to uh bump the
[2:40:54] police officers up about 7%. Those would
[2:40:57] be your uh non-admin staff in the police
[2:41:01] department. uh and then their steps for
[2:41:04] their pay program are at 5%.
[2:41:08] Um in addition to that, we've kind of
[2:41:10] modeled some increases for variable
[2:41:13] personnel. Uh we've targeted 3% for that
[2:41:16] for 2027 and 28. And then uh some
[2:41:20] additional um costs for benefits as
[2:41:23] well. Um given that the benefit
[2:41:27] costs are kind of unknown to us now
[2:41:29] we've uh been very conservative and
[2:41:31] budgeted or
[2:41:34] uh targeted at 10% um for the health
[2:41:38] insurance and then 2% for dental and
[2:41:40] vision. Um we're hoping those numbers
[2:41:43] come in lower but we want to
[2:41:46] incorporate. It's always easy to take a
[2:41:48] step back then to say oh you guys have
[2:41:51] kind of closed the gap but bad news. uh
[2:41:53] these have come in worse than expected.
[2:41:56] Uh so um we've also have some history of
[2:41:59] kind of those uh assumptions
[2:42:02] over changes over the years. Uh
[2:42:06] so this next table is just kind of like
[2:42:08] a history of the personnel adjustments
[2:42:10] since 2019. Um that kind of captures
[2:42:13] kind of what we historically have been
[2:42:15] doing for staff to maintain that
[2:42:17] retainage. Um,
[2:42:21] if you want to go to the next one.
[2:42:24] And finally, this is uh kind of the
[2:42:26] history of our benefit insurance uh cost
[2:42:29] increases. As you can see, the last two
[2:42:31] years, we've come in flat uh thanks to a
[2:42:34] lot of work with uh human resource
[2:42:37] department, collaborating with um some
[2:42:39] of our benefit providers. And so, we are
[2:42:43] hopeful that we'll get good news again
[2:42:45] this year. But again, we have kind of
[2:42:47] taken a conservative approach and
[2:42:49] budgeted for a 10% increase. Uh, and
[2:42:53] these all average up to about an eight 8
[2:42:55] and a half% increase in the model.
[2:42:59] Any questions on any of that?
[2:43:03] >> Yes.
[2:43:04] >> Thanks. Appreciate you doing this. So
[2:43:06] you had mentioned that you had already
[2:43:08] um hired a consultant to come up with
[2:43:10] some of the merit increases and yet we
[2:43:11] saw for some of the capital improvement
[2:43:13] requests
[2:43:15] was um another exterior consultant to do
[2:43:19] some additional work. Is this like and
[2:43:23] it doesn't look like it's projected for
[2:43:24] all the years is is it that you needed
[2:43:26] it for this time you'll need it one more
[2:43:28] time but you don't need it in ongoing
[2:43:30] years. Um, Council Member Kern, maybe
[2:43:34] Beth for Director Bonzingo to answer
[2:43:35] that question, but my understanding is
[2:43:37] that these are two different asks, two
[2:43:39] different studies. They annually review
[2:43:41] um markets um against what our
[2:43:44] competitors are paying folks. I think
[2:43:45] last I was over 30 jurisdictions they
[2:43:47] benchmark against us. So, this is part
[2:43:48] of their annual work. Uh that is not the
[2:43:51] that is separate and different from the
[2:43:53] budget ask. With that, I will ask
[2:43:55] director Monzingo to delineate the
[2:43:57] difference between those two.
[2:43:59] Yeah, I just want to have you clarify
[2:44:00] your question just to make sure I answer
[2:44:02] it appropriately.
[2:44:03] >> So, it was mentioned that you guys had
[2:44:04] already done used a consultant to help
[2:44:06] you come up with the market adjustments
[2:44:08] and yet we see in a budget request for
[2:44:10] additional consulting to assist with
[2:44:13] understanding salaries and market. So, I
[2:44:15] just was curious to know if this is a
[2:44:17] repetitive thing, if it's it's an annual
[2:44:20] request that you need because it looks
[2:44:21] like it's only a one time or what what
[2:44:23] that
[2:44:24] >> Yeah. We use uh an exterior an outside
[2:44:26] consultant to assist us in determining
[2:44:28] the market rate adjustments. These are
[2:44:31] looked at each and every year. So that's
[2:44:33] an ongoing one. We also use a separate
[2:44:35] consultant for our benefits as well to
[2:44:37] go out to market. Uh so so it's two
[2:44:39] separate um consultants there. But
[2:44:42] really what they're looking at is is
[2:44:44] both telling us uh what the market is
[2:44:48] doing for each of the positions and so
[2:44:51] that we can compare our positions and
[2:44:52] then that's what we use to determine the
[2:44:55] adjustments that we recommend. So in
[2:44:56] this case for instance uh there was an
[2:44:59] adjustment of over 9%
[2:45:01] uh in just the police jobs alone. So
[2:45:04] that's largely what accounted for the 7%
[2:45:07] additional increase with them. So I I
[2:45:10] don't know if that is
[2:45:10] >> director, do you I'm sorry. Do you mind
[2:45:12] I I believe the question is around the
[2:45:13] compensation policy analysis. We do have
[2:45:16] that later in our presentation, but
[2:45:17] since it's up now, would you be willing
[2:45:18] to speak to what the compensation policy
[2:45:20] analysis is? The request
[2:45:23] >> for
[2:45:26] compensation policy analysis.
[2:45:29] >> Oh, here. Will you run to slide?
[2:45:34] » Is that for the
[2:45:35] >> $50,000 request? Okay. I didn't think we
[2:45:37] had gotten to that one. Yeah. Sorry.
[2:45:39] Okay, now I'm following you. Yeah. Okay,
[2:45:41] I'm with you now. You're right. This is
[2:45:43] a yet a separate project. So, what we've
[2:45:45] what I found uh at least in my first
[2:45:47] year working here is that we spend an
[2:45:49] inordinate amount of staff time uh
[2:45:52] working through compensation issues uh
[2:45:55] because we lack a lot of uh solid
[2:45:58] policies and procedures on how we work
[2:46:00] through these. Secondarily, um probably
[2:46:03] in the last five or six years, uh
[2:46:05] there's been a lot of structure,
[2:46:07] especially through the Equal Pay for
[2:46:08] Equal Work Act, on ensuring compliance,
[2:46:11] uh with our compensation practices. So
[2:46:15] this analysis here is to ensure we're
[2:46:18] compliant, but then also find ways to
[2:46:20] save staff time and ambiguity on how we
[2:46:24] work through and have a cleaner process
[2:46:26] to work through when we adjust pay, how we do reclasses and
[2:46:31] those types of things. So I completely
[2:46:33] apologize. You were one step ahead of me
[2:46:34] and I wasn't quite following your
[2:46:36] question.
[2:46:36] >> They went together in my mind when I was
[2:46:38] saw the market and I was and I thought
[2:46:40] they were similar. It's a completely
[2:46:42] different topic and I I appreciate the reason for needing this and and it
[2:46:47] being a one-time evaluation process and
[2:46:48] figuring how we move forward. So then
[2:46:50] the then we'll go back a slide to what
[2:46:52] we did discuss the variable um pay is
[2:46:55] that for like our part-time employees
[2:46:58] that kind of thing.
[2:46:59] >> It is
[2:47:00] >> uh and it's interesting that we think
[2:47:01] that we need to uh a higher market
[2:47:03] increase than we do for our full-time
[2:47:05] employees.
[2:47:05] >> Yeah. So the that's a great question as
[2:47:07] well. So, uh, while you'll see the
[2:47:09] market adjustment for full-time at 2%,
[2:47:11] the reason we did a 3% is that we
[2:47:14] currently don't have a way to adjust
[2:47:17] variable pay. So, when you get hired
[2:47:19] into a job as a variable pay employee
[2:47:23] and you work or as a seasonal and you
[2:47:25] come back the next year, your pay goes
[2:47:27] up the two or 3% that we recommend here.
[2:47:31] That's the same pay that the person
[2:47:32] coming in as a brand new employee is
[2:47:35] also paid as well. So we're trying to
[2:47:36] build out a structure where we can give
[2:47:38] variable increases as well to recognize
[2:47:42] retain uh some of those valuable staff
[2:47:45] members like in our seasonal ranks that
[2:47:47] come back year after year uh so that we
[2:47:50] have kind of a a market or a merit
[2:47:53] increase per se for for those positions.
[2:47:56] >> When it comes to the uh merit increase
[2:47:59] or the market adjustments for the police
[2:48:00] department, you were saying it's not
[2:48:02] applying to the admin staff. Will that
[2:48:04] the administrative staff will that they still be applicable to the 2% that
[2:48:08] everyone else Okay, great. And then what
[2:48:10] about for the leadership in within the
[2:48:12] police department? Is the 7% also being
[2:48:15] applied or is it for non-leership
[2:48:17] officers?
[2:48:18] >> It's just for the police officer ranks
[2:48:21] to my knowledge. I don't believe that it
[2:48:23] accounts for those. But we do have to
[2:48:25] check to see if we have a compaction
[2:48:26] issue because as we continue to increase
[2:48:29] the sworn officer pay in the um
[2:48:32] management structure side of it. We have
[2:48:34] to look at the commander side to see if
[2:48:36] we're getting into a compaction issue.
[2:48:38] So that there may need to be some
[2:48:39] adjustments there just to address
[2:48:41] compaction.
[2:48:42] >> But that's not being considered in this
[2:48:44] yet. Okay. So but maybe I I would agree.
[2:48:46] I would expect there to be some
[2:48:48] variation. That's why I was curious
[2:48:49] about that. Last thing 10% for a health
[2:48:52] increase. Are we expecting to change
[2:48:56] providers in service because uh that's a
[2:48:59] really substantial increase?
[2:49:02] >> Well, we don't have those numbers. Uh
[2:49:04] sadly, we don't generally get those, I'm
[2:49:06] being told, until sometime in early
[2:49:08] August. And as you might expect, uh
[2:49:10] those vendors hold those numbers pretty
[2:49:12] close to the best until they're until
[2:49:14] they're um a little more sure about
[2:49:16] them. So, as you could see from the
[2:49:18] slide up there, over the last several
[2:49:20] years, I think they did a placeholder in
[2:49:22] the budget for 10%. But that the
[2:49:25] increase came out at zero. So, I guess
[2:49:27] one thing that I could speak to is that
[2:49:30] at least at the end of May, our benefits
[2:49:32] consultants said that we were operating
[2:49:34] at an 80% loss ratio. So, uh that's
[2:49:37] actually quite good where you want to
[2:49:39] be. It's when you get to 100% and above
[2:49:41] that is when you're actually at a loss.
[2:49:43] So while our claims against our health
[2:49:45] insurance have gone up this year, all
[2:49:48] indications are is that we're still
[2:49:50] operating at a level that we need to be.
[2:49:53] So I don't think that our own usage of
[2:49:55] the plan is going to drive up the costs.
[2:49:58] So now we're really going to be seeing
[2:50:00] what the market does and what that
[2:50:02] dictates. And just on the research I've
[2:50:04] done, um it's probably the same research
[2:50:07] you all could do, it could be an
[2:50:09] increase anywhere between 0% up to 12%.
[2:50:12] So, we really want to get those numbers
[2:50:14] through our consultant and then have
[2:50:16] them work with the the the vendors
[2:50:18] themselves to to negotiate those down to
[2:50:21] the best price we can get.
[2:50:22] >> Thank you and appreciate the indulgence.
[2:50:24] Um, I spent many years in finance but um
[2:50:27] also targeting human resources and
[2:50:30] benefits and I did benefits for casinos
[2:50:32] with thousands of employees. So, that's
[2:50:34] why this was uh my pertinent questions.
[2:50:36] I happen to have background and
[2:50:37] experience in it. So, thanks
[2:50:40] Other
[2:50:43] questions from council? Yes, Council
[2:50:45] Cooper.
[2:50:47] Um
[2:50:49] I can you can you give an a ballpark
[2:50:52] estimate for like if our health
[2:50:56] insurance uh has like a a 1% increase
[2:51:00] roughly how much that translates to in
[2:51:02] expenses for the city?
[2:51:05] A
[2:51:05] >> lot of on the spot math here this
[2:51:06] afternoon. I'm glad I'm sharp. It's uh
[2:51:08] we've got three million in our annual
[2:51:11] benefit costs. So when we project 10%
[2:51:14] that's 300,000. Um so every percent
[2:51:18] split across all the funds. Um I I spent
[2:51:20] a lot of time on the general funds. So
[2:51:22] that'd be half of it. Half your
[2:51:24] personnel's in those funds. So you know
[2:51:26] um one thing I did mention earlier is we
[2:51:28] use a lot of projections and estimates
[2:51:30] at this time of the year. Uh we try to
[2:51:32] be conservative so we don't have a
[2:51:34] widening gap throughout the process. We
[2:51:35] have one that's closing. So, one thing
[2:51:36] I'm optimistic about is HR and uh and
[2:51:39] their and their great team and our
[2:51:40] broker can keep these costs as low as
[2:51:42] we've seen historically and we can come
[2:51:44] back to you in September with um some
[2:51:46] good news.
[2:51:51] » Other comments?
[2:51:56] » If there are no more questions on
[2:51:59] personnel and benefit costs, I will hand
[2:52:01] this over to the city manager. Are you
[2:52:03] okay driving these slides or I can keep
[2:52:05] going and take notes?
[2:52:07] >> Do we want to circle back to Council
[2:52:08] Member Kern now that Adam's back in the
[2:52:10] room?
[2:52:14] » Pardon me.
[2:52:15] >> Do we want
[2:52:16] >> Oh, yes. I'm sorry. Um the question that
[2:52:19] she raised from before. Yes. Do you
[2:52:21] would you Sorry.
[2:52:22] >> Now that the director is
[2:52:24] >> I appreciate that. So, I forgot to when
[2:52:26] we were talking about um the wreck
[2:52:29] department and the budget, uh one of the
[2:52:31] things that I wanted to ask about and
[2:52:33] bring up is do we ever separate out the cost of the memory square pool and
[2:52:40] the swimming pool component at the rec
[2:52:42] center so that we can see how that that
[2:52:45] cost is different than just all the
[2:52:47] other services of the wreck and senior
[2:52:48] center.
[2:52:52] Aquatics has its own budget lines. Yeah.
[2:52:55] So, Memory Square has a line and
[2:52:57] aquatics has a line in the overall
[2:52:59] budget.
[2:53:00] >> So, do and and pardon me if I don't
[2:53:02] know. I tried to find it and I couldn't
[2:53:04] on the website. Um, are there like
[2:53:07] separate and additional fees to use
[2:53:09] memory square pool if you already have a
[2:53:10] rec center pass?
[2:53:13] >> U membership transitions to Memory
[2:53:15] Square. That's not a separate fee and
[2:53:17] the daily admission is the same as the
[2:53:18] rec center. So that's what I was
[2:53:20] thinking and I was looking at several of
[2:53:21] the the capital requests and it seems
[2:53:24] like a lot of the large ticket items are
[2:53:26] because swimming pools are very
[2:53:27] expensive. Everything related to them is
[2:53:30] just expensive. Anybody who's ever had
[2:53:31] their own knows that. Um I I was curious
[2:53:34] if there was value in us looking at the
[2:53:39] fee structure that we have um to because
[2:53:42] we are worried about the general fund. A
[2:53:44] portion of the general fund goes to the
[2:53:46] wreck which goes to aquatics. if we
[2:53:48] shouldn't be charging people because we
[2:53:51] have lifeguards that are expensive and
[2:53:53] sometimes hard to acquire. Um more for
[2:53:55] the utilization of specifically of the
[2:53:58] aquatics versus the person who's you
[2:54:01] know coming in and just working out on a
[2:54:02] treadmill or using you know the the
[2:54:05] baseball or the basketball courts or
[2:54:06] something
[2:54:10] to try to recoup some of that extra that
[2:54:12] very specific user cost. Yeah, I think
[2:54:16] we could consider that possibly for
[2:54:18] memory square um as a starting point
[2:54:21] being a seasonal pool. Um it's pretty
[2:54:24] low impact probably for what you're
[2:54:26] getting at maybe as a relief to the
[2:54:28] general fund. Um
[2:54:32] we can explore whatever you'd like to
[2:54:34] explore. the I think you know the
[2:54:35] majority of that 30-ish million dollar
[2:54:39] renovation was intended you know and
[2:54:41] went towards a lot of renovations for
[2:54:43] the pool area. So I would imagine the
[2:54:45] community is expecting that debt
[2:54:48] repayment to allow them the same access
[2:54:52] at the same rate as the rest of the
[2:54:54] building. Um
[2:54:57] but you know we we can look into
[2:54:58] whatever you'd like to look into but
[2:55:00] pools are pools are expensive. Um, so
[2:55:03] are senior services, you know, that's
[2:55:05] less than 5% cost recovery and the
[2:55:07] majority of the people coming in to use
[2:55:08] those services are paying less than $3.
[2:55:11] >> Mhm.
[2:55:12] >> So, I mean, it really is just what
[2:55:14] whatever area of the facility you would
[2:55:16] like to kind of zone in on.
[2:55:18] >> Okay. Thank you.
[2:55:21] >> Okay.
[2:55:23] Go ahead.
[2:55:29] » All right. So, at this point in time,
[2:55:30] we're going to go into the CMO
[2:55:31] recommended operational adjustments. Um,
[2:55:34] if council has questions about the
[2:55:36] items, the directors are ready to
[2:55:38] respond to those questions. Uh, but
[2:55:41] first is the market adjustments for
[2:55:42] police. I would like to take this as an
[2:55:44] opportunity for Chief Gutier to talk
[2:55:46] about kind of current state of staffing
[2:55:49] at the police department and the impacts
[2:55:51] of the cost or the salary increase that
[2:55:54] council approved late last year.
[2:55:57] >> Thank you. Um yeah, definitely want to
[2:56:00] uh send words of appreciation for the
[2:56:02] market adjustment that was done last
[2:56:03] year. Um that that made a significant
[2:56:05] difference in morale and and some
[2:56:07] retention areas. Um I'm not hearing the
[2:56:09] same commentary that people are looking
[2:56:11] for employment elsewhere because of uh
[2:56:13] paying compensation. Um certainly life
[2:56:16] circumstances come up and we do have
[2:56:18] some officers that are looking at other
[2:56:19] opportunities simply because of family
[2:56:21] reasons or a need to relocate. But it's really changed the narrative at the
[2:56:25] PD. Um the police market, the police
[2:56:28] officer market is is steadily increasing
[2:56:31] and has been for the last several years.
[2:56:33] And I think what we recognize in the
[2:56:35] slide that was put up earlier is um as a
[2:56:37] city organization, you know, a 2% or a
[2:56:40] 0% uh for the police market
[2:56:44] put us in a position where we're now
[2:56:45] trying to play catch-up. And I think
[2:56:47] that's kind of what's reflected in that
[2:56:48] 7% recommendation now. Um but it has
[2:56:51] made a significant difference. uh
[2:56:53] employees there um they they understand
[2:56:55] they recognize that the city is is
[2:56:58] definitely uh trying to take care of
[2:56:59] them um and supporting of them and and
[2:57:02] it has gone a long way. So uh from a
[2:57:04] staffing perspective right now as of
[2:57:06] September um knock on wood we will be at fully staffed in the officer ranks.
[2:57:11] Um we do have a code enforcement process
[2:57:13] that's ongoing now. We're doing
[2:57:14] interviews for that. Um and and that
[2:57:17] that's the extent of our vacancies right
[2:57:18] now. So it's a really good condition to
[2:57:20] be in. Um, and I think again it says a
[2:57:22] lot to what has already been decided
[2:57:24] upon and some of the recommendations
[2:57:26] that are being made.
[2:57:30] » All right. Thank you. Uh, the next two
[2:57:32] items are HR requests and um the
[2:57:36] citywide training increase I think is
[2:57:38] pretty self-explanatory, but Jeff, could
[2:57:40] you briefly discuss those two items for
[2:57:42] HR?
[2:57:45] >> Yeah, thank you. So, uh, the citywide
[2:57:47] training increase, uh, is really
[2:57:49] covering two things. So, uh, in talking
[2:57:51] to the city manager when I started
[2:57:53] employment, uh, one of the things that
[2:57:55] she really wanted to focus on was, uh,
[2:57:57] employee development and succession
[2:58:00] planning and making sure that we have
[2:58:01] the bench strength going forward,
[2:58:02] recognizing our leaders and ensuring
[2:58:05] that our employees just have development
[2:58:07] opportunities. So, when I started, uh,
[2:58:10] we weren't doing much in the way of all
[2:58:12] city training both at the staff level
[2:58:14] and for leaders. And while we were able
[2:58:17] to use the funding that we do have right
[2:58:19] now, it was pretty limited at only
[2:58:20] $14,000 a year for the or entire
[2:58:23] organization. And that's the money we
[2:58:25] use for all staff training and
[2:58:27] leadership training. So part of this um
[2:58:30] citywide training increase is to
[2:58:31] increase that budget by about $20,000
[2:58:34] just to allow us uh to increase our
[2:58:36] training offerings. Uh what I clearly
[2:58:38] heard from staff when I started is that
[2:58:40] training was important to them that they
[2:58:43] wanted more and then the feedback we're
[2:58:45] getting on the training that we're given
[2:58:47] is that they wish that there were more
[2:58:48] offerings and that we could offer longer
[2:58:50] classes with the budget we have we're
[2:58:52] offering lunch and learns as leadership
[2:58:54] trainings and two-hour trainings once a
[2:58:57] quarter. So, this is just going to allow
[2:58:58] us the ability to increase that. And
[2:59:01] then the excess money on top of the
[2:59:03] ongoing uh 20,000 we'd be adding to the
[2:59:06] to this training budget would be to run
[2:59:09] an emerging leaders academy in 2027
[2:59:12] followed by a leadership academy in
[2:59:14] 2028. So this would just be formal
[2:59:16] training uh for those emerging leaders
[2:59:19] in the organization to both recognize
[2:59:21] and train those and then just to ensure
[2:59:23] that uh we can have ongoing professional
[2:59:26] leadership uh training and academy both
[2:59:28] for our current and seasoned leaders as
[2:59:30] well. So that kind of encompasses the
[2:59:32] citywide training increase.
[2:59:38] » Yeah. So NEOGV perform and policy. This
[2:59:41] is another thing as I've gone around the
[2:59:42] organization uh learning about areas
[2:59:45] where I think we could um both improve
[2:59:47] process and save a lot of staff time and
[2:59:49] this is two areas. So NEOGV perform
[2:59:52] would be an electronic way of building
[2:59:54] onto our current NEOGV platform which is
[2:59:57] an HIS platform we're currently using
[2:59:59] but it would allow us to do performance
[3:00:01] reviews electronically. Our current
[3:00:03] process is done by paper which makes it
[3:00:06] extremely difficult to get data
[3:00:07] analytics as to performance around the
[3:00:10] organization. It makes it a very manual
[3:00:12] process for dealing with performance
[3:00:14] issues that come from these performance
[3:00:16] reviews. And with this program, it would
[3:00:19] allow uh full web access and would allow
[3:00:23] us to tie these to our uh performance
[3:00:26] improvement processes. Um and it would
[3:00:29] allow it allow us to tie it to our
[3:00:31] learning module. uh that's also within
[3:00:33] NEOGV as well. So a lot of capability
[3:00:35] there. The second half of this would be
[3:00:37] a 2028 program. That's the policy
[3:00:40] management module. This is a more
[3:00:42] organizational benefiting uh program in
[3:00:46] the sense that right now uh one of the
[3:00:48] things I'm focusing on is ensuring that
[3:00:49] our policies uh are compliant and that
[3:00:52] we continuously update our policies. And
[3:00:55] while we make do with our current
[3:00:56] processes, it is a very daunting process
[3:00:59] to write the policy, get feedback on the
[3:01:02] policy and then approve the policies.
[3:01:03] And this this uh module would allow us
[3:01:06] to do that very seamlessly with tracking
[3:01:09] of both the approval process and the uh acknowledgement process for
[3:01:16] employees. The doubly cool thing about
[3:01:18] it is that it's not just for HR. We
[3:01:20] could build this to where every
[3:01:22] department in the entire city could have
[3:01:24] a module much like we do with our laser
[3:01:26] fish system. So we could house internal
[3:01:30] departmental policies as well as
[3:01:32] citywide policies all in one place in
[3:01:34] the same format and using the same uh
[3:01:36] approval process. So it would really
[3:01:39] increase our efficiencies, save a lot of
[3:01:41] staff time, but also make these a heck
[3:01:43] of a lot more accessible and easier to
[3:01:45] update.
[3:01:49] Yes,
[3:01:50] >> I I this is more of just like I guess a
[3:01:53] comment or a compliment. So, what I'm
[3:01:54] hearing is lots of cost savings in sta
[3:01:58] very expensive staff time for a for a
[3:02:02] $25,000 annual investment. I'm assuming
[3:02:05] we're expected to receive significantly
[3:02:07] more than 25,000 a year in staff
[3:02:09] savings.
[3:02:11] >> Yeah, that I don't know what the total
[3:02:13] cost for both would be. It might be a
[3:02:15] little bit above that, but this is
[3:02:16] before we've negotiated the price. We
[3:02:18] might be able to get both programs for
[3:02:21] that 25,000. But to answer your
[3:02:23] question, yes, indeed. Lots of s staff
[3:02:26] savings to where we could realize that
[3:02:28] and recoup that cost in the first year
[3:02:30] alone.
[3:02:30] >> Great. Thanks for thinking outside the
[3:02:32] box. That's nice.
[3:02:32] >> Yeah. Thanks.
[3:02:34] >> Other questions, comments?
[3:02:37] >> Would you like me to go over the last
[3:02:38] one on this slide, Mayor?
[3:02:39] >> Pardon me.
[3:02:40] >> Would you like me to go over the last
[3:02:41] one on this slide?
[3:02:43] >> Sure.
[3:02:44] >> Great. So, the hard to recycle voucher
[3:02:46] is a pilot program we started in 2026.
[3:02:49] We have had almost all of these vouchers
[3:02:51] taken up and over 250 used at this point
[3:02:54] in time. You might recall this replaced
[3:02:56] our hard to recycle event which was
[3:02:59] consistently weathered out. So, it was a
[3:03:01] very challenging event for us to hold.
[3:03:03] Um, we are hearing a lot of positive
[3:03:05] comments about this program. In fact, a
[3:03:07] lot of other cities have asked us for a
[3:03:09] model because they're very interested in
[3:03:10] this program. We'd like to extend it and
[3:03:12] we'd like to use general fund funding to
[3:03:14] extend it. I will say staff who is here
[3:03:16] to answer questions should council have
[3:03:18] them. Um would is considering a no match
[3:03:22] grant through the Colorado Circular
[3:03:23] Communities C3 waste reduction programs.
[3:03:26] So if council wants to, they could
[3:03:29] approve this contingent upon receipt of
[3:03:30] the grant.
[3:03:34] » Any uh council questions? Council member
[3:03:37] Curtain. of the um 37,000 there, how
[3:03:41] much of is actually coming from the bag
[3:03:42] tax and how much would we need the grant
[3:03:44] money for? I'm just curious
[3:03:46] >> uh for our proposal for 2027 is that no
[3:03:49] money would come from bag tax. We take
[3:03:51] it out of general fund. Staff would like
[3:03:53] to seek grant for the full amount.
[3:03:57] >> Correct.
[3:03:58] >> Yes.
[3:03:58] >> Correct.
[3:03:59] >> Okay. And are would then the bag tax be
[3:04:01] going? Would we still be doing um like
[3:04:03] the hard recycle program in some of the
[3:04:06] lower income neighborhoods that we've
[3:04:07] done in the past that was very
[3:04:09] successful and really wellliked?
[3:04:10] >> We would still be looking at doing the
[3:04:11] other programming in the bag tax. And I
[3:04:13] think there's a larger sustainability
[3:04:15] conversation coming up for this council
[3:04:17] where we talk a little bit more about
[3:04:19] bag tax that sort of declining revenue
[3:04:21] and what that looks like when we talk
[3:04:23] about those larger sustainability goals.
[3:04:25] Is that one of the reasons the move to
[3:04:26] the general fund for this instead of the
[3:04:28] bag is because of the declining bag tax
[3:04:29] numbers?
[3:04:30] >> Uh, okay, great. I This is an amazing
[3:04:32] program. I'm in favor of it. I I do
[3:04:35] really recommend that we push as hard as
[3:04:36] we can to get the grant money though um
[3:04:38] just given how tight things are.
[3:04:41] >> So, at this point in time, we are
[3:04:43] looking for council input on each of
[3:04:45] these items. So, if we could go down the
[3:04:49] list and get input in terms of
[3:04:52] preliminary council support or if you're
[3:04:55] not supportive of this, that would be
[3:04:57] helpful.
[3:04:58] >> I will start
[3:05:00] um I
[3:05:02] on market adjustments for police. I
[3:05:05] really appreciate the the uh analysis
[3:05:08] that's been done. is hard stuff and it's
[3:05:12] uh I absolutely support um that um item
[3:05:18] training increase. I I was
[3:05:21] to be honest almost shocked to see how
[3:05:23] low it was.
[3:05:26] um having you know this is my day job is
[3:05:30] employment law and deal with a lot of
[3:05:31] clients with the last well the next two
[3:05:34] but um this is really important and
[3:05:38] something that uh employees I think
[3:05:41] across the board want and expect if
[3:05:45] we're going to keep them and it's a
[3:05:48] really good um investment in our human
[3:05:52] capital and and our human resources Um
[3:05:56] the next one um I mean again these are
[3:06:00] the the next three are small numbers
[3:06:02] compared to others and I don't want to
[3:06:04] underest understate that. Um we got a
[3:06:08] lot of big numbers coming but those two
[3:06:11] uh or the
[3:06:13] modules are going to pay for themselves
[3:06:15] easily. um trying to centralize that
[3:06:18] data is going to provide so much easy
[3:06:20] analysis or the ability to do some
[3:06:23] really easy analysis, complex analysis.
[3:06:26] And then the hard to recycle voucher,
[3:06:30] you know, personally, I think that's
[3:06:32] like the best um the best kind of not
[3:06:36] the best of the four, but it's a great
[3:06:39] program and I think we can support it.
[3:06:42] Others Yes.
[3:06:45] I'm wondering for the rest of us um
[3:06:50] for for time's sake, should we go each
[3:06:52] go through all of them or can we say if
[3:06:53] there's one that we want to pull out and
[3:06:55] discuss otherwise assume we all are
[3:06:57] agreeable for all all the reasons you
[3:06:59] listed.
[3:07:00] >> Yeah, I was sort of setting um a
[3:07:02] potential set of reasons why perhaps
[3:07:05] other council members might be
[3:07:08] supportive of this. That's the reason I
[3:07:09] went into it. Thanks. But I'm open to
[3:07:12] whatever council members would like to
[3:07:13] do. No, thank you for doing that. I
[3:07:15] agree to all those reasons and approving
[3:07:18] all of those that are listed.
[3:07:29] I just want to say I do agree with
[3:07:31] everything the mayor has just said and
[3:07:33] councelor Kerna. Um, but I want to add
[3:07:37] that I think it's important to maintain
[3:07:41] staff rather than bringing in new staff
[3:07:44] that then have to be trained and don't
[3:07:46] know the history. And so I think these
[3:07:49] programs are amazing.
[3:07:54] » That sounds like a sport. Everybody a
[3:07:57] verbal thumbs up. All right.
[3:07:59] >> All right. We'll move to the next slide
[3:08:01] and go through the same exercise. Um so
[3:08:04] Sam will address the three CMO requests
[3:08:07] and then you already heard from uh Jeff
[3:08:09] in terms of the compensation policy
[3:08:11] analysis.
[3:08:13] >> Great. Thank you Diana. So the Sundance
[3:08:15] request is a little bit of a late ad
[3:08:16] here. I had the opportunity to attend
[3:08:18] one of our coordination meetings and I
[3:08:20] realized how many unknowns there are
[3:08:22] about Sundance coming up from the amount
[3:08:25] of trash pickup to additional signage
[3:08:26] and notifications. This set aside is
[3:08:29] really intended to be an if needed if
[3:08:31] there are additional costs to allow us
[3:08:33] to get that information and then in
[3:08:35] future years we can start anticipating
[3:08:36] that and budgeting for that. The cost
[3:08:39] allocation analysis uh you might have
[3:08:41] remembered from the finance committee a
[3:08:43] strategic planning document. So looking
[3:08:47] at what we're doing there as we've been
[3:08:48] evolving that using that for cost
[3:08:51] allocation is something that we think
[3:08:52] would be really beneficial for this
[3:08:53] organization to get a really good feel
[3:08:55] for where everyone is placed. That
[3:08:58] dollar amount is something that we're
[3:08:59] working on refining as we refine the
[3:09:01] scope of what this cost allocation is.
[3:09:03] But this will help us truly understand
[3:09:05] our programs and the cost of our
[3:09:06] programs to put council in a place to
[3:09:08] make those strategic decisions.
[3:09:11] And then I'll skip over to the community
[3:09:13] survey. So this is a community survey
[3:09:14] that we have been doing every four years
[3:09:16] for many years now. We are next up in
[3:09:18] 2028. This is used in a lot of our
[3:09:21] strategic planning and our budget
[3:09:23] considerations and departmental
[3:09:24] considerations when they're prioritizing
[3:09:26] items. It's really a baseline that we'd
[3:09:28] like to continue.
[3:09:34] » Okay. Any questions from council members
[3:09:36] about these four?
[3:09:39] >> I do have a question.
[3:09:40] >> Yes. uh member pro Tim and then council
[3:09:43] member Hefner.
[3:09:44] >> Um I do have a question regarding the
[3:09:46] community survey. I from my
[3:09:47] understanding there's some pretty
[3:09:48] consistent questions so we can track
[3:09:50] metrics over time. Um, you know, we
[3:09:53] don't necessarily have to get into the
[3:09:55] details today, but I I am curious given
[3:09:57] some of the concerns and feedbacks
[3:09:59] around um multiple consultants asking
[3:10:02] similar questions if this isn't an
[3:10:05] opportunity to maybe blend some of that
[3:10:07] into this existing survey um to maybe
[3:10:11] save some dollars in some area other
[3:10:13] areas as well.
[3:10:14] >> Yeah, thank you mayor. That's a great
[3:10:16] question and that's something that we
[3:10:17] have been looking to each time we've
[3:10:19] done the survey. For example, when we
[3:10:20] did the survey in 2024, we incorporated
[3:10:22] some comprehensive plan questions. I'll
[3:10:24] also throw out that one of the things
[3:10:26] we're looking at is as with updating our
[3:10:29] KPIs, we're going to take the
[3:10:30] opportunity to look at the survey and
[3:10:32] make sure that we're asking what we
[3:10:33] should be asking. And I'd like to look
[3:10:35] at making sure that we're aligning with
[3:10:37] nationally benchmarkable questions so
[3:10:38] that when we set a KPI, it's not that we
[3:10:40] expect 100% satisfaction on a question
[3:10:42] response, which is never going to
[3:10:44] happen. Um, but that we are measuring
[3:10:47] oursel maybe in something more
[3:10:48] realistic, right? like we're going to be
[3:10:49] above the national benchmark.
[3:10:54] » Council member Hefner.
[3:10:55] >> Yeah, Mayor Mayor Prom stole most of my
[3:10:57] thunder. Um, I I agree with that point
[3:11:01] and and
[3:11:04] maybe this isn't a budget item, but if
[3:11:05] there's a way on other consultant work
[3:11:07] that we can refer them back to the
[3:11:09] community survey and demand that they
[3:11:12] not reinvent the wheel and and rely on the fact that we know full well
[3:11:18] people value open space in downtown
[3:11:19] Louisville and they don't need to go
[3:11:21] around focus grouping those questions a
[3:11:23] second time. Um,
[3:11:26] and then I also would like to see the
[3:11:28] cost allocation study refined somewhat.
[3:11:31] $100,000 seems like a lot for an
[3:11:34] organization of our size.
[3:11:40] » Any other comments?
[3:11:42] >> Just so that you do have like additional
[3:11:45] comment on that. That was going to be my
[3:11:46] statement was that the that cost
[3:11:48] allocation analysis seems a little steep
[3:11:51] for what I the value it'll add. Thanks.
[3:11:57] All right. Um,
[3:11:59] do we have uh with the
[3:12:04] qualifications mentioned, do we have a
[3:12:06] thumbs up?
[3:12:08] >> Okay.
[3:12:10] Great.
[3:12:13] >> All right. Thank you. We're next going
[3:12:14] to get into summary of city manager
[3:12:16] recommended personnel adjustments.
[3:12:20] All right. This is the opportunity um
[3:12:22] you've heard in previous slides about
[3:12:25] positions that have been proposed. This
[3:12:28] is the opportunity to ask questions
[3:12:30] about these positions. Um specifically,
[3:12:33] I would ask uh Director Blackmore to
[3:12:35] address the deputy director for parks,
[3:12:37] recreation, and open space. This may
[3:12:39] seem like a big ask, but there's there
[3:12:42] are very good reasons for this. And then
[3:12:44] also I would like um Kurt to address the
[3:12:47] civil engineer one two positions
[3:12:49] specifically but if you have any other
[3:12:51] positions that you would like the
[3:12:52] directors to address um we can do that
[3:12:55] as well.
[3:12:56] Can I ask one question
[3:12:59] as we're going through this? Um if it's
[3:13:02] possible
[3:13:04] and I this is just for my information um
[3:13:07] to indicate how many FTEEs
[3:13:10] are currently in I mean there's three of
[3:13:12] them for pros and recreation four and
[3:13:16] then one for operations, two for
[3:13:18] engineering. if you if there's any way
[3:13:20] to you know indicate what the current
[3:13:22] FTE number is um that's just helpful.
[3:13:27] It's a little data point. It's a little
[3:13:29] tiny data point which has to be
[3:13:31] considered
[3:13:33] in light of a whole bunch of other
[3:13:35] things but I appreciate if you do that.
[3:13:43] » I'll go. No pressure. Thank you for
[3:13:45] saying I have really good reasons for
[3:13:47] it. Before I say what
[3:13:48] >> donations are welcome.
[3:13:50] >> That's right. That's right. Uh first I
[3:13:51] do want to just kudos to city manager
[3:13:54] Langley and director Bailey for finding
[3:13:57] a kind of creative way to get the deputy
[3:14:01] um funds [clears throat]
[3:14:03] required for salary and benefits
[3:14:05] incorporated throughout the department
[3:14:07] to uh allow for what seems to be a a
[3:14:10] decent modeling um especially with the
[3:14:12] direction from today. Uh so just a few
[3:14:15] things on the deputy director. I would
[3:14:17] start with the cost including the
[3:14:19] benefits. It's uh projected at a
[3:14:22] mid-range higher of the pay rate for
[3:14:26] other deputies positions throughout
[3:14:30] um the city. Uh other departments that
[3:14:32] currently do have that deputy director
[3:14:34] position in place. Um so just notating
[3:14:38] that as a jumping off point that it may
[3:14:41] or may not be a little less or a little
[3:14:42] more than that. Um, a few reasons for
[3:14:46] the request uh through the city manager
[3:14:48] for this consideration and now to
[3:14:50] council. Uh, as you've seen uh during
[3:14:53] our retreat about a year ago um and
[3:14:56] through these ongoing budget
[3:14:58] discussions, this department is
[3:14:59] incredibly broad, has u high level of
[3:15:03] intensity and passion from our community
[3:15:06] for high levels of service and varying
[3:15:09] degrees of expertise and wants and
[3:15:11] needs. Um and with that breath comes a
[3:15:15] lot of individualized attention from the
[3:15:18] director position which as I mentioned a
[3:15:20] year ago was known coming into the role.
[3:15:22] Um I do think that we have evolved to a
[3:15:25] place with um administrative needs at at
[3:15:30] uh to assist me with the day-to-day to
[3:15:32] assist with the oversight of the seven
[3:15:34] direct reports um that are currently
[3:15:37] reporting to the director. Um, in
[3:15:40] addition to other things like attending
[3:15:43] advisory board meetings, um, unscheduled
[3:15:47] public meetings, potentially task force,
[3:15:50] uh, related to things like golf fees and
[3:15:52] that kind of thing that having another
[3:15:54] administrative level, executive level
[3:15:56] employee to assist the department would
[3:15:58] be would be a a great benefit. Um, I
[3:16:01] also think there are a few positions
[3:16:03] that we put forward for the department
[3:16:05] that were not put forward in the model.
[3:16:07] one of which is a project supervisor to
[3:16:10] assist our project manager Weber with an
[3:16:13] ongoing uh backlog um and a continued
[3:16:16] growing list of capital projects uh that
[3:16:19] the community and council desire for
[3:16:21] completion at a high level. Um, and this
[3:16:24] position would potentially be assigned
[3:16:26] to assist with those efforts as well and
[3:16:29] oversee those projects at an
[3:16:30] administrative level that are currently,
[3:16:33] if they're able to, they're being given
[3:16:36] to operating staff and supervisors um to
[3:16:39] oversee some of the day-to-day type of
[3:16:41] capital projects that Brian can't
[3:16:43] incorporate into his workload um which
[3:16:46] obviously results in some inefficiencies
[3:16:48] and some ineffective use of time um for
[3:16:52] those fields. staff that could now be
[3:16:54] freed up um to allow them to get back
[3:16:56] out into the field and supervise the
[3:16:58] operation instead of spending so much
[3:16:59] administrative time on contracts and
[3:17:01] working with contractors to get those
[3:17:03] projects completed. Um,
[3:17:07] I already talked a little bit about the
[3:17:09] guest service component of the position,
[3:17:11] but there does you know there there with
[3:17:14] the high level of engagement of this
[3:17:16] community, there are delays in
[3:17:18] communicating with staff effectively um,
[3:17:21] you know, addressing concerns, that kind
[3:17:22] of thing, the high level of service
[3:17:24] expectation, uh, which could also be
[3:17:26] offset with this position as well. Um,
[3:17:29] and lastly, and I I don't know if this
[3:17:31] is the most important or the least
[3:17:32] important, is the succession planning
[3:17:35] factor. Back to Council Member Fehees
[3:17:37] point about making sure that that
[3:17:39] knowledge is retained. Um, you know,
[3:17:43] having that deputy position that could
[3:17:45] come in and learn the ropes, the
[3:17:47] administration, the ins and outs of how
[3:17:49] this department works. It's an
[3:17:50] incredibly challenging, as I've learned
[3:17:52] over the last four and a half years, um,
[3:17:55] acclamation. It's a very unique
[3:17:57] position, a unique uh community as it
[3:17:59] relates to parks, wreck, and open space
[3:18:01] as we've talked about a lot today. Um so
[3:18:03] having that ability to have kind of a
[3:18:05] number two and having that knowledge in
[3:18:07] place, um I think would also be very
[3:18:09] beneficial. So at a high level, those
[3:18:11] were a lot of the rationale items that
[3:18:13] you'd see on the position request in
[3:18:15] your packet today. Um and just some
[3:18:17] anecdotal information from me.
[3:18:21] Do you have an idea of how many people
[3:18:24] currently
[3:18:25] >> I I can answer that question. I just ran
[3:18:27] the data and we'll have I do. Go ahead.
[3:18:29] >> Should we see if they're the same?
[3:18:31] >> It's a tag team.
[3:18:32] >> Um well, we have a we include a FTE
[3:18:35] recon as part of our budget materials.
[3:18:36] We'll have that in September. Um we have
[3:18:38] approximately 300 FTEES of which 122
[3:18:42] FTEES are parks, wreck, open space, and
[3:18:45] golf. And when you factor in, you know,
[3:18:47] a lot of variables in there, we probably
[3:18:48] have closer to 500 employees and I would
[3:18:51] say over half are in parks, wreck, open
[3:18:53] space, and golf.
[3:18:54] >> Appreciate that. It's for scale of these
[3:18:58] changes. I think it's important for the
[3:18:59] public to know
[3:19:01] >> um that you're not a threeperson
[3:19:03] department.
[3:19:05] [laughter]
[3:19:06] >> All right. Um could we're going to shift
[3:19:10] to operations
[3:19:12] >> and then maybe real quick before Kurt
[3:19:13] you hop in. You've got 50 eighth FTEES
[3:19:16] out of 300. So about one out of six
[3:19:18] employees is yours.
[3:19:22] » Thank you. Scale-wise, how much of the
[3:19:24] budget do those 50 responsible for? If
[3:19:28] we mess up budget, what's our risk?
[3:19:30] >> Utilities is a material uh component of
[3:19:33] our budget.
[3:19:34] >> All the directors now,
[3:19:36] less people more, [laughter]
[3:19:39] >> right?
[3:19:39] >> Uh good questions. Uh,
[3:19:41] >> this is not a this was not meant to
[3:19:43] create controversy, just provide a
[3:19:45] little
[3:19:46] >> scale. We're just having fun. That's
[3:19:47] all. I'm just trying to give you the
[3:19:49] lightness in the day. Um, all right.
[3:19:52] Civil engineer. So, our engineering
[3:19:54] department, they run uh almost all your
[3:19:57] construction in the city and they're
[3:19:59] handling tens of millions, sometimes
[3:20:01] over hundred million dollars worth of
[3:20:02] work. Uh, some of your most critical
[3:20:05] high-profile projects. That department
[3:20:07] has not been fully staffed since 2019.
[3:20:11] Despite that, they regularly deliver
[3:20:13] projects and deal with disasters and
[3:20:16] deal with community expectations. Uh
[3:20:19] we've done that uh we've accomplished
[3:20:21] that I think through dedication of of
[3:20:23] several long-term employees that have
[3:20:25] retired in the last several years. We've
[3:20:28] done that through working nights and
[3:20:30] weekends. Uh, and we used to get away
[3:20:32] with that because contractors would do
[3:20:34] what they said or we had long-term
[3:20:37] employees that made things that are
[3:20:38] really complex look really easy to get
[3:20:40] done. But as the world has changed
[3:20:43] because of co uh you can't hire someone
[3:20:45] and have them do the job well uh and and not have to babysit them. I don't
[3:20:51] know how many people love the word
[3:20:52] intrepid right now, but I'm sure you all
[3:20:54] love intrepid. Uh but that's just one
[3:20:57] example of a lot of projects we do
[3:20:59] throughout the year that require a lot
[3:21:01] of effort to make sure it goes well. Our
[3:21:03] resident expectations I think
[3:21:05] continually climb of how we interact
[3:21:08] with them and the uh I would say uh high
[3:21:12] customer service nature at which we have
[3:21:14] to respond to emails or phone calls when
[3:21:18] projects happen. So so everything's
[3:21:20] taking longer. We've had people that
[3:21:22] used to be able to make it look easy
[3:21:23] leave. So now we're bringing in new
[3:21:26] people. New people don't stay for 20 or
[3:21:28] 30 years. They stay for three years and
[3:21:30] then they go and they get a better job.
[3:21:32] Um so there's time caught up in the
[3:21:34] churn of recruiting, training, getting
[3:21:37] them up to speed and they leave. So we
[3:21:39] need to make up for that time. And then
[3:21:42] skill set. We just have a different
[3:21:44] skill set coming in. uh we a we have
[3:21:47] positions that ask people to do five to
[3:21:50] 10 different roles and uh run 10 to 20
[3:21:55] different projects and do that all one
[3:21:57] time and do it well. And the the
[3:21:59] incoming uh workforce just isn't
[3:22:02] equipped to do that. So we need to uh in
[3:22:05] this case split a position we had into
[3:22:08] two engineers so that we can keep up and
[3:22:10] it's sustainable and a lot of times just
[3:22:13] cover the the churn. So, um, see if I
[3:22:17] have anything else in there that I'm
[3:22:18] missing. Um, I do think it also comes
[3:22:22] down to quality, making sure we keep our
[3:22:24] quality up in delivery of our projects.
[3:22:27] And also just I think cost
[3:22:29] responsibility. When we're delivering
[3:22:31] this much money, if we know we're not
[3:22:33] watching it well and we know we're going
[3:22:36] to miss, um, we need to make sure we
[3:22:38] correct that so we have the right amount
[3:22:40] of eyes to, uh, be responsible to the
[3:22:43] taxpayer dollar.
[3:22:45] I'll stop there. So, what do I have? You
[3:22:47] said I have like 50. Hopefully, I'll
[3:22:50] have 53 after this conversation.
[3:22:57] » Yes, thank you for the reminder. Uh the
[3:23:00] traditional budget process doesn't
[3:23:02] always match our reality. Our reality is
[3:23:06] we're we're underwater now. So, we would
[3:23:09] suggest that this engineer position be
[3:23:11] filled now with a budget amendment uh so
[3:23:13] that we can uh we do have current
[3:23:15] candidates that we could slot in uh and
[3:23:18] if the council feels that's good value,
[3:23:20] then we would hire that position now uh
[3:23:23] and help dig out for the the workload
[3:23:25] that we're currently in.
[3:23:30] Thank you for the consideration.
[3:23:34] Um,
[3:23:35] as a follow-up question to that, either
[3:23:39] to you or city manager or the finance
[3:23:42] director, is there room in current
[3:23:47] budget for the department to cover an
[3:23:52] early or not an early but a an immediate
[3:23:56] filling of that position should council
[3:23:58] decide to do it. Um, mayor, I would say
[3:24:01] I would look into this a little further,
[3:24:02] do some analysis, but it's very likely
[3:24:04] that you're able to do that. This is one
[3:24:06] of those uh benefits of having uh good
[3:24:09] fiscal conservatism and some fund
[3:24:11] balance in case uh you're not able to
[3:24:13] generate the current year savings, which
[3:24:15] I could look into. I would just say at
[3:24:17] this point it's likely you'll be able to
[3:24:18] do so. I'm going to suggest that that
[3:24:21] may not be quite ripe, but it could be
[3:24:24] ripe with a little bit of analysis and
[3:24:26] maybe coming back to council with a
[3:24:30] proposal um of some sort. Not making any
[3:24:34] decision today about that, I think,
[3:24:37] based on the information we have, but I
[3:24:38] appreciate
[3:24:39] >> also connecting some dots that are on
[3:24:41] different slides. The development review
[3:24:44] fee will cover some of this position in
[3:24:47] the future. uh timelines for development
[3:24:49] review can eb and flow depending on our
[3:24:52] staffing levels which impacts our
[3:24:54] commercial customers and our partners
[3:24:56] out there in the business world. Um also
[3:24:59] we do rely heavily on consultants to
[3:25:02] manage our peak workload and we've had
[3:25:05] to rely more and more on consultants. So
[3:25:07] we'll be reducing our consultant costs
[3:25:09] as well. So we're not just asking for a
[3:25:12] new position without trying to offset it
[3:25:14] and make it a neutral ad in the long
[3:25:15] run.
[3:25:17] And I again I'm going to sort of take
[3:25:19] the liberty of speaking for all of
[3:25:21] council. We know that you are working
[3:25:24] very hard to try to cut and and bring
[3:25:29] costs for personnel and everything else
[3:25:34] down or steady or with as
[3:25:39] modest an increase as possible. Um so
[3:25:42] just be I think to make that clear or um
[3:25:47] expressed to you I think is worth worth
[3:25:50] doing. Um
[3:25:54] so that if there are there any other
[3:25:55] questions on any of the other proposed
[3:25:57] positions on this slide and then we need
[3:26:00] to know if there's general council
[3:26:02] support for these positions in terms of
[3:26:04] the 27
[3:26:06] budget.
[3:26:07] >> Okay. Council members. Yes. Council
[3:26:09] member Kurt.
[3:26:11] >> Um, so Director Blackmore, you kind of
[3:26:13] set us up for a teaser and then didn't
[3:26:15] tell us. You said that uh the city
[3:26:17] manager gotten had some creative ideas
[3:26:19] on coming up with the funding for the
[3:26:22] deputy director position.
[3:26:24] >> I didn't mean to be a teaser. Um, but on
[3:26:27] at the surface level, it seems like it's
[3:26:28] a administrative general funded parks
[3:26:31] and wreck administrative type of
[3:26:33] position. and we worked to really
[3:26:35] delegate out um to the various funds
[3:26:38] within the department um where we
[3:26:40] thought a lot of the work would end up
[3:26:42] going with this position. And so it's
[3:26:44] just spread out as you would have seen
[3:26:46] through the previous slides at 20% here,
[3:26:48] 15% there, that kind of a thing instead
[3:26:50] of just trying to have it all hit the
[3:26:51] general fund.
[3:26:52] >> Oh, okay. That Okay, that that makes me
[3:26:54] understand things a little bit better.
[3:26:55] And then the uh the recent at nights
[3:26:58] it's not a full-time. It's I guess a
[3:27:00] 32-hour almost
[3:27:01] >> full time. It's a It's a tier two
[3:27:03] full-time up to 35 hours. Um, no
[3:27:06] overtime without approval, that kind of
[3:27:08] a thing, maxed out. Um, it's kind of a
[3:27:10] one and a half,
[3:27:12] >> but a benefited position.
[3:27:14] >> Yeah, benefited position.
[3:27:15] >> Um, and is this one of the things that's
[3:27:16] going to allow us to um have some like
[3:27:20] better night hours instead of I mean, or
[3:27:22] are we just short staffed for the the
[3:27:24] current early evening hours we have?
[3:27:26] Now,
[3:27:27] >> part of the hour setup is demand and
[3:27:30] programming demand. after we expand and
[3:27:32] we construct constrict and expand based
[3:27:35] on usage of the facility. Um, but this
[3:27:38] certainly if we were to do permanent
[3:27:41] expansion till the 9:00 p.m. closure
[3:27:42] would give us that level of consistency
[3:27:44] and it would give us I mean an ongoing
[3:27:48] professional full-time level employee
[3:27:50] overseeing the facility in the evenings.
[3:27:52] And this this is uh I I think I remember
[3:27:55] you discussed this before with us, but I
[3:27:57] just because we're in the budget retreat
[3:27:59] now and there are people watching, I
[3:28:00] want to bring it up again. So the youth
[3:28:01] and sports coordinator position that is
[3:28:03] new. You had mentioned to us that you
[3:28:06] believed there was a revenue benefit to
[3:28:10] this position in in order to like create
[3:28:13] programming that essentially that job
[3:28:15] will pay for itself. Is that correct? Is
[3:28:17] that still the assumption?
[3:28:19] >> I don't know if I go that far. Okay. But
[3:28:21] it does I will say that there is a
[3:28:23] significant
[3:28:24] offset to this position because that
[3:28:27] most of the role is currently being
[3:28:29] filled by variable labor that will no
[3:28:31] longer be needed.
[3:28:33] >> Um and so they'll be overseeing a lot of
[3:28:35] you know weekend sports that kind of
[3:28:37] thing. The other thing that I had
[3:28:38] mentioned in previous discussion was we
[3:28:40] do have weight lists for a number of our
[3:28:42] programs and this would allow us the
[3:28:44] opportunity to explore getting some of
[3:28:46] the people off of that by an expanded
[3:28:47] program offering. Um, it also gives us
[3:28:50] the ability to, you know, evolve into
[3:28:53] things like what we're going to do with
[3:28:55] expanded programming with pickle ball or
[3:28:58] future sports development as it relates
[3:29:00] to new parks and that kind of thing and
[3:29:01] has somebody um at a higher level at a
[3:29:04] full-time position that's able to be
[3:29:06] retained and trained and that kind of
[3:29:07] thing.
[3:29:08] >> So, it wouldn't be 100% dedicated to
[3:29:10] just youth sports. It's youth activities
[3:29:12] and all other sport.
[3:29:14] >> Correct. It's youth activities which I'
[3:29:16] I'd highlight on that as well. Um
[3:29:19] there's an assistance with summer camp
[3:29:21] and our our current summer camp
[3:29:23] supervisor is a tier 2 employee and so
[3:29:26] you know this position would help offset
[3:29:29] you know those hours shortfalls. It
[3:29:30] would also be able to provide a
[3:29:32] supervisory level experience for um you
[3:29:35] know field trips and um assist
[3:29:37] throughout the year with things like our
[3:29:39] child watch program that's currently
[3:29:40] supervised by our fitness supervisor. So
[3:29:43] this may give the ability for the
[3:29:44] fitness supervisor to open up more time
[3:29:46] to continue to meet the demand for
[3:29:48] fitness programming. So there's a lot of
[3:29:50] kind of hats this position would
[3:29:52] potentially wear. It was also I think I
[3:29:54] had mentioned it but it was originally
[3:29:55] approved in 2021
[3:29:58] I want to say um coming out of COVID
[3:30:01] there just wasn't the demand as there
[3:30:03] was still some hesitancy to get back
[3:30:04] into youth sports and so the money was
[3:30:06] reallocated at that time into golf
[3:30:08] course maintenance to assist with some
[3:30:10] growing needs there. Um, so this is
[3:30:12] being brought back forward for
[3:30:14] additional consideration.
[3:30:15] >> Thank you.
[3:30:19] » Yes, Council Member Heftner.
[3:30:22] >> Um, two things. The, um, the first is I
[3:30:25] actually think we should just since it's
[3:30:27] before us right now, say yes or no to
[3:30:31] whether we want something to come back
[3:30:32] on filling the engineering position in
[3:30:35] the near term. I'm a yes on that. just
[3:30:38] given the amount of money that's flying
[3:30:40] around on those projects, if we can
[3:30:42] avoid one big mistake, this probably
[3:30:44] pays for itself. Um, do you think that's
[3:30:47] true?
[3:30:48] >> True.
[3:30:49] >> Um,
[3:30:52] but to be clear, you're not suggesting
[3:30:54] that it is a mistake going into
[3:30:56] decision.
[3:30:58] >> No, no, no, no. just just given that
[3:31:01] this the dollar amounts involved with
[3:31:02] all of our various engineering projects.
[3:31:04] I think if we're we're short an
[3:31:06] engineer, let's let's get the engineer
[3:31:08] hired because,
[3:31:11] you know, if if you screw up a $30
[3:31:12] million project, it's going to cost you
[3:31:14] a lot more than 155k.
[3:31:17] Um,
[3:31:20] bigger picture though, I sort of have
[3:31:22] the opposite point or just something
[3:31:24] that I want us all to keep in mind that
[3:31:26] in 2018 we had, you know, approximately
[3:31:29] 240 FTEES.
[3:31:32] Now we have 300. The population of
[3:31:35] Lewisville has not grown. It's
[3:31:37] essentially the same. Um, plus or minus
[3:31:39] a few hundred. And you know, I know
[3:31:42] we've all talked about there's reasons
[3:31:44] for that around the rec center expansion
[3:31:46] and so on. Um,
[3:31:49] but our property tax rate hasn't really
[3:31:51] gone up. Um, our sales tax rate hasn't
[3:31:54] really gone up a little bit for the rec
[3:31:57] center. Uh, and if we continue to add
[3:31:59] FTE headcount to the tune of five or six
[3:32:03] or seven or eight per year, that that
[3:32:06] will eventually consume all of our
[3:32:08] resources. Um, and not saying any of
[3:32:10] these are bad hires or not needed, but we can't I mean, we just can't keep
[3:32:16] doing it eventually, adding FTEES um,
[3:32:20] without adding revenue to pay for them.
[3:32:22] And I don't have a I don't have an
[3:32:24] answer to that question, but I just do
[3:32:26] want to bring it up because we've had
[3:32:27] enormous growth in the size of city
[3:32:30] staff without any corresponding growth
[3:32:32] in revenue sources.
[3:32:36] Um, other comments, questions?
[3:32:41] Yeah, Council Member.
[3:32:43] >> So, I'm going to echo [sighs] uh in some
[3:32:45] ways with what council member Hefner
[3:32:47] just said. I I brought that up in the
[3:32:48] past, the concern with the expansion of
[3:32:51] government and not the expansion of
[3:32:54] residents. Um, and a lot of it is
[3:32:56] service related. You know, our our
[3:32:58] residents every year would like more and
[3:33:01] more service. with that comes the need
[3:33:04] for more and more staff. Um, so but then
[3:33:07] again, I think for some of those service
[3:33:09] positions like around the rec center,
[3:33:11] this perhaps should not be the burden of
[3:33:14] all of the taxpayers, but the users
[3:33:16] requesting the service. And so
[3:33:19] therefore, I think it needs to come
[3:33:21] through the fees of the people who are
[3:33:22] asking for the additional service,
[3:33:24] asking for the additional employees, let
[3:33:26] them pay for it, not not increasing
[3:33:29] property taxes. So every community
[3:33:31] member who may not be asking for the
[3:33:33] increase in services is paying for it. I
[3:33:35] think it needs to be a fee based um
[3:33:37] allocation and hence the reason I was
[3:33:38] asking some of the questions around how
[3:33:40] we're paying for these positions. Are we
[3:33:43] saving in one place and another and
[3:33:45] maybe um although we're adding staff, we
[3:33:47] might not be adding cost because we
[3:33:49] might be removing some of the cost
[3:33:50] somewhere else. Thank you.
[3:33:53] >> Comments.
[3:33:54] I'm I'm going to respond to this because
[3:33:56] I I think I want to be very clear.
[3:33:59] um about what I see. I've been uh I
[3:34:03] guess council member Fay and I both have
[3:34:06] been on council
[3:34:08] um since 2019
[3:34:12] which was your benchmark year I think.
[3:34:14] Um council after council after council
[3:34:19] including the people at this dis have
[3:34:22] voted to uh pass budgets that increased
[3:34:27] uh personnel and I don't know that um
[3:34:31] you know it's not a matter of going back
[3:34:33] and and debating those budgets. Um I
[3:34:37] think we all had good reasons or
[3:34:40] wouldn't have voted for the budgets that
[3:34:42] we created. Um, that's number one. I
[3:34:45] think two, um, the point which I do
[3:34:49] appreciate from from,
[3:34:51] uh, Council Member Kern and I think
[3:34:53] generally is that I think there is no
[3:34:56] question in my mind that the level of
[3:34:59] expectation in this community has gone
[3:35:02] up across the board
[3:35:06] um, and in some cases pretty
[3:35:08] substantially.
[3:35:10] And that's okay.
[3:35:12] But you can only
[3:35:15] um get so much
[3:35:17] um juice out of the orange that you
[3:35:20] squeeze. And that's going to be
[3:35:22] something we're going to have to deal
[3:35:23] with. I think we are dealing with this
[3:35:25] as we talk about it. Uh I think we're
[3:35:28] all trying to to do that. But it is
[3:35:30] something that uh council members see,
[3:35:34] but we don't see it on a day-to-day
[3:35:36] basis, department
[3:35:38] basis like the staff do. and I we've
[3:35:42] gotten a lot of feedback all of us about
[3:35:44] that. Um I think it's great to think
[3:35:47] about fees. I my understanding is that
[3:35:51] staff is thinking in terms of
[3:35:56] fees for
[3:35:59] sort of technology for example there's
[3:36:01] some there are some ways of of
[3:36:05] allocating costs that way. I think we
[3:36:07] have to be careful for tax reasons.
[3:36:10] um you know um not calling
[3:36:15] uh a tax fee. Um I think we're all
[3:36:18] sensitive to that under Taber and I know
[3:36:21] that council members are too. So I mean
[3:36:24] I I do want to defend the choices that
[3:36:27] have been made. I understand the optics
[3:36:31] of having bigger government and I think
[3:36:34] that's something we all have to think
[3:36:35] about, but it's not the only
[3:36:37] consideration.
[3:36:38] And um it is our job not just to be very
[3:36:43] careful about who we add and so forth,
[3:36:45] but to meet the demand that we're
[3:36:47] getting. And uh and I know other council
[3:36:51] members have talked about this that, you
[3:36:53] know, considering other revenue sources
[3:36:55] or potential revenue sources as a way
[3:36:57] of, you know, addressing these things.
[3:36:59] But there are tradeoffs to be sure and
[3:37:02] we're working through them. And I have a
[3:37:05] great deal of respect for the staff.
[3:37:07] Again, I think others on council share
[3:37:11] that for how we make do with what we've
[3:37:14] got. And um so I I think it bears um
[3:37:20] saying those things um you know, just to
[3:37:24] make sure. I don't know that that any of
[3:37:26] that conflicts with anything that's been
[3:37:27] said, but I think it's important to say
[3:37:30] just as perhaps the person who served
[3:37:32] the longest on council, maybe because
[3:37:35] I'm the mayor, too, but I think it's
[3:37:38] important to say.
[3:37:40] Um, yeah, Council Member Cooperman.
[3:37:43] >> Yeah. Um, me just add sort of one
[3:37:46] comment on that. Um
[3:37:50] I mean a as we have added employees
[3:37:54] right we have done so within our means.
[3:37:56] Um right we you know there are little
[3:38:00] places here and there where we have
[3:38:01] added a tax like the bag tax or
[3:38:04] increasing the open space and parks tax.
[3:38:07] But by and large right you know our
[3:38:11] sales tax has been pretty constant over
[3:38:13] the last number of years. Our property
[3:38:15] tax have been pretty constant over the
[3:38:16] last last number of years. And so we
[3:38:19] have been able to
[3:38:21] increase the number of employees,
[3:38:24] provide more services, um, and yet still
[3:38:28] pass a balanced budget. Um, you know,
[3:38:32] maybe looking ahead that's going to
[3:38:33] change, but I mean, even right even
[3:38:36] right now, we're saying we can add these
[3:38:38] employees and still have essentially a
[3:38:41] balanced budget for the next couple of
[3:38:42] years. So, um
[3:38:46] I I I mean clearly we have to pay
[3:38:49] attention to this going forward, but um
[3:38:52] I feel like, you know, you I don't know.
[3:38:55] I I just feel like that's worth stating.
[3:38:57] Um I mean, you could ask the question
[3:38:59] like, should we have not hired more
[3:39:01] employees in the past and saved I don't
[3:39:04] know, save money or or put it to other
[3:39:06] projects or something. Um which is a
[3:39:09] perfectly valid question. Um but then
[3:39:12] again like another thing which has
[3:39:14] stayed constant is the the distribution
[3:39:16] of funds to general onto capital and
[3:39:18] that that has remained constant over
[3:39:20] time for a while too. Um so it's not
[3:39:24] really clear that maybe we could have
[3:39:25] taken some of that money and put it to
[3:39:27] projects but that's all.
[3:39:31] Yes, council member for a
[3:39:34] >> I just want to add that for like the
[3:39:37] public works
[3:39:39] um you have increased the water tap fees
[3:39:44] the water prices for all residents
[3:39:47] and you are presiding providing a core
[3:39:52] service a fundamental needed resource
[3:39:55] for all of the residents
[3:39:58] residential or commercial in the city
[3:40:02] and in order to do that you have to hire
[3:40:05] some more people and you have to raise
[3:40:07] the prices for what you do.
[3:40:11] Rec center and golf course could do the
[3:40:14] same.
[3:40:17] I know that
[3:40:19] the the the annual membership for a
[3:40:22] Lewisville resident for the rec center
[3:40:26] is $20 and some dollars a year.
[3:40:30] I'm not sure what the out nonresident
[3:40:35] uh price is, but I know that the
[3:40:37] nonresident price for an annual
[3:40:40] membership at the Boulder Rec Center is
[3:40:43] over $600 a year.
[3:40:46] So perhaps the price increase in
[3:40:50] membership
[3:40:51] would help balance out and cover the
[3:40:54] cost of the the additional staff needed
[3:40:58] there.
[3:41:00] So that's all I will say.
[3:41:03] >> Thanks. Any other comments? Yeah,
[3:41:05] Council Member Heft.
[3:41:06] >> Just want to briefly agree with that. Um
[3:41:10] as well as I think council member Kern's
[3:41:12] broader point um
[3:41:16] that there there are and I think the
[3:41:18] city manager has been looking this
[3:41:20] others have been looking at this there.
[3:41:21] must be more opportunity for us to
[3:41:23] do cost recovery on certain things like
[3:41:28] the rec center and shelter rentals and
[3:41:31] whatever. Um and and we should be taking
[3:41:34] a very careful look at every opportunity
[3:41:36] for cost recovery because we have such
[3:41:38] limited flexibility on taxes and
[3:41:41] changing taxes. Um, and I think as the
[3:41:44] mayor pointed out, a a basically
[3:41:46] unlimited appetite for um, you know, top
[3:41:51] tier level governmental services. And I
[3:41:55] mean, the rec center is a great example,
[3:41:57] right? A private gym me membership is
[3:41:59] often $150 a month. Uh, and we're
[3:42:02] charging 200 some per year. And I'm not
[3:42:06] saying we should we should benchmark to
[3:42:07] private by any stretch of the
[3:42:09] imagination, but there's probably some
[3:42:11] room in between those two things.
[3:42:16] » Any other comments?
[3:42:20] >> City manager, you have some thoughts?
[3:42:22] >> No, I'm just looking for yes or no on
[3:42:25] these positions.
[3:42:31] or if you're not if you're not at a
[3:42:32] point to make a decision on some of
[3:42:34] them, let us know.
[3:42:35] >> Yeah,
[3:42:37] >> let me do that. I I hope that we haven't
[3:42:41] um we certainly haven't
[3:42:45] finished with the discussion if if if I
[3:42:49] could why don't we take two different
[3:42:51] questions. One is on these particular
[3:42:57] uh CMO wrecks um that are on the board
[3:43:00] here. Um is there agreement to approve
[3:43:06] all of of those? Not approve but uh
[3:43:10] direct staff to continue on uh including
[3:43:14] those. Yes, Council Member Devier.
[3:43:17] >> I'm happy to move forward with all of
[3:43:19] them. On the first one, I am immensely
[3:43:22] hopeful that we'll get the parks, open
[3:43:26] space, and golf funds to a position
[3:43:28] where they can support this. And I don't
[3:43:30] think what we saw today
[3:43:33] is is that yet, but I'm hopeful we will
[3:43:35] get there and this can remain included.
[3:43:37] But I would I would include it
[3:43:38] provisionally until we see more
[3:43:42] um refinement on those funds.
[3:43:44] >> Okay. Do people generally agree with
[3:43:46] what uh Council Member Hefner said? Go
[3:43:50] ahead.
[3:43:50] >> I do and I I don't actually understand
[3:43:53] what the natural resources technician is
[3:43:55] going to be doing with the open space,
[3:43:56] but I was thinking things like that if
[3:43:59] we're running short to be able to fund
[3:44:01] the deputy director position. That seems
[3:44:03] like a higher priority to me if we're
[3:44:06] trying to figure out where we're coming
[3:44:07] up with the the new funds within a what
[3:44:10] looks like a very difficult budget past
[3:44:12] the next two years. So I am curious
[3:44:14] though uh Director Bremore what that job
[3:44:17] does.
[3:44:20] >> So that position oversees the land
[3:44:22] management components for all of our
[3:44:24] open space properties including
[3:44:25] maintenance and restoration,
[3:44:28] rehabilitation, fire mitigation
[3:44:30] contracts, that kind of thing. Um
[3:44:33] they're involved in things like our
[3:44:36] invasive weed controls, community
[3:44:38] education. They do noxious weed
[3:44:40] education seminars, that kind of thing.
[3:44:43] Um, it's also a proposed hire in
[3:44:47] response to the community feedback we've
[3:44:50] received to do more in this area.
[3:44:52] Currently, we only have one of these
[3:44:54] positions in the open space division.
[3:44:57] Uh, it's also an advanced kind of hire
[3:45:01] in preparation. As I mentioned, we do
[3:45:03] have 147 acres of open space coming on
[3:45:06] board. The warranty period is within the
[3:45:08] next two years. Um so having that person
[3:45:11] on board and acclimated to our land
[3:45:14] management structure um would be very
[3:45:17] beneficial for the open space division.
[3:45:19] >> So this person will have um some
[3:45:21] required background knowledge uh
[3:45:24] specialty area in wildfire mitigation to
[3:45:26] assist with this or are they just
[3:45:28] assisting with the program that somebody
[3:45:29] else puts under?
[3:45:30] >> Yeah, they'll be responsible for
[3:45:32] implementing the program that our
[3:45:34] department is putting forward whether
[3:45:35] it's Ember or me or council driven. um
[3:45:39] their primary background for these
[3:45:40] positions usually revolves around
[3:45:42] natural resource management, ecology,
[3:45:45] wildlife management, that kind of thing.
[3:45:47] >> Okay. Thank you.
[3:45:50] >> Okay. Um yeah, Council Member Cooperman.
[3:45:53] >> Yeah. Um I'm generally supportive of
[3:45:56] these positions. Uh I just had one
[3:46:00] uh sort of question. So on the following
[3:46:05] slides, there are lists of positions
[3:46:06] that are not recommended. Um, and a few
[3:46:09] of those are in Adam's uh departments.
[3:46:13] I'm just curious, I assume you had
[3:46:16] discussions about, you know, these being
[3:46:18] the ones you most want to go forward and
[3:46:21] those other ones are lower priority.
[3:46:26] » Yeah, I think they're all a priority,
[3:46:29] right? To your point, we have certain
[3:46:31] things that could be accomplished with
[3:46:33] all of the position requests that we
[3:46:34] have. There's a significant number of
[3:46:36] positions that were requested in things
[3:46:37] like golf course maintenance that just
[3:46:40] there's no way the fund is going to bear
[3:46:41] it.
[3:46:42] >> Um, you know, so we'll we'll make do in
[3:46:44] there. I do I do think that every one of
[3:46:46] these hopefully through some of my
[3:46:49] ramblings here has shown a level of
[3:46:52] importance to what we've heard from the
[3:46:54] community from a service standpoint as
[3:46:56] well as from uh an effectiveness for how
[3:46:58] we serve the community through this
[3:47:00] department.
[3:47:02] >> Good.
[3:47:07] Sounds like the consensus is to support
[3:47:10] these positions
[3:47:13] um with with some
[3:47:16] you know some further discussion that
[3:47:18] may happen. I think I I certainly don't
[3:47:20] want to tie anybody's hands. We're not voting on a budget. we're
[3:47:26] providing direction and uh appreciate
[3:47:29] all of the careful discussion and really
[3:47:32] good comments of all the council members
[3:47:34] on this one and thanks for the staff's
[3:47:37] responses. Uh the second question is
[3:47:40] whether council uh is comfortable with
[3:47:43] directing
[3:47:45] uh staff to prepare a or expedited
[3:47:50] um um creation
[3:47:54] uh this year of a civil engineer one two
[3:47:59] position. That's the last one on this
[3:48:01] particular list.
[3:48:06] » Okay. and we'll we'll see a budget
[3:48:09] amendment on that and propose, you know,
[3:48:10] propose. Okay, good.
[3:48:13] >> All right. The next list is for variable
[3:48:16] uh positions and so we have lifeguards
[3:48:19] which um Adam can explain the need for
[3:48:22] that. The golf course item, this is uh
[3:48:25] to align with what they've been they've
[3:48:27] been spending and so this isn't
[3:48:29] necessarily a new request. It's to align
[3:48:31] with what they have been spending. And
[3:48:34] then the museum associate interns u
[3:48:36] Brandy can address uh this request if
[3:48:38] you have questions
[3:48:40] and note that this one is not in the
[3:48:42] model. It would be dependent upon the
[3:48:43] historic tax outcome.
[3:48:47] >> Thanks. Um do we have questions about
[3:48:49] this? May prot,
[3:48:52] >> can you um clarify for me more what you
[3:48:55] meant by like what they have been
[3:48:57] spending that that comment?
[3:49:02] >> Um yes. So the golf fund historically
[3:49:06] has uh funded extra variables based on
[3:49:10] kind of salary savings and turnover. Uh
[3:49:12] the last handful of years I've noticed
[3:49:14] that they used about 30,000 variable
[3:49:16] hours out there but budgeted for closer
[3:49:18] to 23 or 24. Um so this is looking just
[3:49:22] to rightsize the amount of hours they
[3:49:24] are using at the golf course between
[3:49:26] guest service attendants and maintenance
[3:49:27] workers. Um
[3:49:29] and kind of relying less upon turnback
[3:49:33] or salary savings.
[3:49:39] » Okay, that's helpful. I mean, given our
[3:49:43] discussions we just had
[3:49:46] um about the golf fund, it gives me
[3:49:48] pause. Um I guess my question would be
[3:49:51] they've been using those hours. Are they
[3:49:55] necessarily needed going forward or help
[3:49:58] me understand?
[3:49:58] >> Couple couple things. Um
[3:50:02] we have not adjusted
[3:50:06] yet. We are working with this model to
[3:50:09] adjust not having winter here anymore.
[3:50:13] I mean like really like the hours in the
[3:50:15] past have projected that we would be
[3:50:17] down a couple months out of the year
[3:50:18] with no variable salaries being spent at
[3:50:22] all and that just has not been the case.
[3:50:24] And so part of that overage has been um
[3:50:29] the result of just more hours that we
[3:50:31] are open and needing to have staff there
[3:50:33] more often to be able to serve our
[3:50:35] customers. Um that being said, uh there
[3:50:39] with the new general manager being on
[3:50:40] board now for almost a year, uh this is
[3:50:44] certainly an area of emphasis that I've
[3:50:46] stressed to him to work within our means
[3:50:49] andor give a realistic projection for
[3:50:51] the expense. At a maintenance side of
[3:50:54] things, there has been a turnback
[3:50:55] savings as it relates to the full-time
[3:50:57] employees over there just because it is
[3:51:00] for whatever reason it's been a high
[3:51:01] turnover position. And so we have
[3:51:03] increased our variable budgets on
[3:51:05] purpose to um account for that
[3:51:08] additional expenses. Uh but it's again
[3:51:12] that hasn't caught up to the trends yet
[3:51:14] showing the overall golf fund impact.
[3:51:16] Um, and that variable expense is offset.
[3:51:20] If we could retain full-time employees
[3:51:22] for longer, then we have less need for a
[3:51:24] variable hour. So, you see some of that
[3:51:26] offset in the turn back for the
[3:51:27] full-time and maintenance. And you see
[3:51:29] some of it that's been um primarily
[3:51:31] driven by increased playable days on the
[3:51:35] off side.
[3:51:38] >> Okay, that's really helpful. And I I
[3:51:41] trust as the conversations around the
[3:51:43] gulf fund, the capital projects, you
[3:51:46] know, all of that is happening, you all
[3:51:49] will have a, you know, risk benefit
[3:51:51] analysis of whether this is most
[3:51:55] important or some other projects or
[3:51:59] >> staff. Yeah. sim similar to the
[3:52:02] lifeguard line item here. It's really a
[3:52:04] balance between what you want to use
[3:52:06] your full-time labor for and what
[3:52:08] variable labor should be used for and
[3:52:10] the cost benefit for each of those
[3:52:12] things. You know, there could be a
[3:52:13] drastic reduction in golf course
[3:52:15] variable labor at the expense of
[3:52:18] probably ineffectively using your
[3:52:20] full-time labor to run your front desk,
[3:52:23] wash carts, ranger, that kind of thing
[3:52:26] that we're paying variable salary for.
[3:52:27] So, I think that there is a balance in
[3:52:30] there and I think that to director
[3:52:31] Bailey's point, this now aligns with
[3:52:34] trend and it's modeled to kind of show
[3:52:36] the true impact of that so that we can
[3:52:38] adjust up and down on that balance. Um,
[3:52:40] I'll speak to lifeguards while I've got
[3:52:42] the mic real quick. Um, so again, this
[3:52:45] reflects kind of a true hours need based
[3:52:49] on full staffing at only using variable
[3:52:53] employees at Memory Square and our
[3:52:55] aquatics divisions. It also speaks to an
[3:52:57] increase in the number of afterhour
[3:52:59] rentals that we're receiving and
[3:53:00] additional hours request that do have a
[3:53:02] revenue offset for the rec center. Um,
[3:53:06] we're still using our aquatic
[3:53:08] supervisors and our aquatics manager to
[3:53:10] lifeguard particularly in the off season
[3:53:12] during the day more than I would like
[3:53:14] for them to be um out on the deck um not
[3:53:18] supervising but actually actively
[3:53:20] lifeguarding. So this is still
[3:53:22] contingent upon recruitment and
[3:53:24] retention which goes back to director
[3:53:26] Monzingo's points earlier about
[3:53:28] investing in that effort. Um but that's
[3:53:30] where that projected cost would come
[3:53:33] from at a at a maximum level um to
[3:53:36] attain that cost would be wonderful. Uh
[3:53:40] but it's not entirely realistic
[3:53:42] probably.
[3:53:44] >> Okay. Thank you. That's helpful as well.
[3:53:46] And I'll just, you know, rise to the
[3:53:48] surface once again, the conversations of
[3:53:50] fees to recover some of this and the
[3:53:54] rentals associated
[3:53:56] uh with the pool that requires those
[3:53:58] lifeguards evaluating those as well. So,
[3:54:00] thank you. That was all very helpful. I
[3:54:02] appreciate it.
[3:54:08] Okay. So
[3:54:10] uh
[3:54:12] thumbs up to these three
[3:54:15] requests
[3:54:17] >> in our direction to good
[3:54:20] >> you can do it.
[3:54:24] » Thumbs up.
[3:54:27] >> One final comment about let's see I
[3:54:30] think we're are we through all of the
[3:54:32] >> personnel. Um, no. I mayor, I have a
[3:54:34] handful of slides that I don't need to
[3:54:36] spend a ton of time on, but I I I do
[3:54:38] think it's worth recognizing that um,
[3:54:41] significant thought was given into many
[3:54:44] other full-time position requests that
[3:54:45] did not were not able to rise up in the
[3:54:48] model. Um, largely for budgetary
[3:54:51] constraints, but potentially other
[3:54:52] reasons as well. So, we could go through
[3:54:54] those slides. If you have any questions,
[3:54:56] thoughts or feelings on them, please let
[3:54:58] us know. But again, these are not in the
[3:55:00] model today.
[3:55:01] >> Please do.
[3:55:04] All right. So we have um a management
[3:55:07] analyst, a termed position for three
[3:55:09] years, a procurement and contracts
[3:55:11] manager. This is a void within the
[3:55:13] organization. Um grant administration
[3:55:16] manager and then uh two police officers.
[3:55:21] Going to the next slide, please.
[3:55:25] We have uh two police officers in 2027,
[3:55:28] two police officers in 2028, a records
[3:55:31] lead technician, a project supervisor
[3:55:33] for PROS, and then a parks technician
[3:55:36] one. And then going to the next slide,
[3:55:38] park maintenance technician 2, a golf
[3:55:40] maintenance tech two, spring, and then a
[3:55:42] ranger naturalist. So, as Ryder noted,
[3:55:45] um some of these are based upon uh well,
[3:55:48] all of these are based upon budget
[3:55:50] constraints. And another position, you
[3:55:53] know, identified today was volunteer
[3:55:55] coordinator. Um, that could be
[3:55:57] potential, but you know, we did
[3:56:00] prioritize and those are the positions
[3:56:02] that you see before you in terms of
[3:56:03] recommendations. Not that these
[3:56:05] positions aren't um warranted, but we
[3:56:07] just can't recommend them at this time.
[3:56:12] » Any questions about
[3:56:16] any of these positions that were not
[3:56:18] recommended? Yes, council member.
[3:56:20] >> Thanks. I it's just the grant
[3:56:22] administration man. We we've talked
[3:56:24] about this and we've had a lot of grants
[3:56:26] in the past. Um and we we also had like
[3:56:30] you know we've seen some come through.
[3:56:31] We've seen department heads particularly
[3:56:33] around sustainability that handle this
[3:56:35] really well for us. Um but you had
[3:56:37] mentioned in the past we might be
[3:56:39] missing some opportunities if we do not
[3:56:41] have this position. I'm I'm curious. I
[3:56:44] mean, obviously the the landscape has
[3:56:46] changed state and federal wise, and
[3:56:48] maybe that's not applicable right now,
[3:56:50] but it might be two years from now. So,
[3:56:52] would this be something you would be
[3:56:53] continuing to evaluate for us?
[3:56:55] >> It would be. And in in making that
[3:56:58] statement, um, there [clears throat] are
[3:57:00] a lot of grant opportunities that are
[3:57:01] out there that we're we're not plugged
[3:57:03] into. And so, in having a full-time
[3:57:06] grants person, they would be monitoring
[3:57:08] what those opportunities are. But I
[3:57:10] would also say right now we're not at a
[3:57:12] capacity to take on a lot more. And so
[3:57:14] sometimes these grants with good
[3:57:16] intentions can become curses because
[3:57:19] when you have to administer them um and
[3:57:22] also come up with the match funding it
[3:57:24] can become difficult and when we get
[3:57:26] into the CIP discussion just preview as
[3:57:28] we're talking about decarb projects um
[3:57:31] this is going to be a key conversation
[3:57:33] that we need to have. So as as maybe in
[3:57:36] the future, this is something that we
[3:57:38] need to look ahead to. Um but right now,
[3:57:42] you know, we don't have capacity really
[3:57:44] to take on a lot more grants, but we are
[3:57:45] missing opportunities for grants.
[3:57:47] >> Okay. Thank you.
[3:57:51] >> Other comments?
[3:57:53] >> I think that's a a great comment. Um
[3:57:55] Council Member K. I I wanted to build on
[3:57:57] it just to the to the extent that some
[3:58:02] of the positions are being proposed.
[3:58:05] um do have elements that um include kind
[3:58:11] of paying for themselves or partly
[3:58:13] paying for themselves. We can't count on
[3:58:16] the revenue. It's like grant
[3:58:18] administration, right? You hire somebody
[3:58:20] on grants and you can't say, "Well, we
[3:58:22] know that that's going to pay for itself
[3:58:24] because that's just not the way the
[3:58:26] budget accounting works." But um I think
[3:58:29] it's important for the public to know
[3:58:32] that there's there's something to be
[3:58:35] considered there and I think staff has
[3:58:37] already explained a bit of that. I think
[3:58:39] the other thing is that some of the
[3:58:42] positions that have been proposed um are
[3:58:46] um reduce the risk of uh expenditures
[3:58:51] that either are very likely to occur
[3:58:54] without that or could occur and have you
[3:58:58] know if you did a um the calculation
[3:59:02] about the percentage risk versus the
[3:59:04] percentage loss that we might suffer um
[3:59:08] I think there's an aspect of that um
[3:59:11] which you know is is something I think
[3:59:14] most most people understand a little bit
[3:59:16] but it's not you know we don't always
[3:59:19] know what we don't know but sometimes we
[3:59:21] know that we may be on borrowed time on
[3:59:24] certain kinds of things and and I think
[3:59:27] of that civil engineer position as one
[3:59:30] of them because there's just a lot that
[3:59:33] we can do more efficiently and prevent
[3:59:37] big problems from occurring and resolve
[3:59:39] the ones that do occur. So, I wanted to
[3:59:42] point that out. Um, you want to keep
[3:59:45] going?
[3:59:47] Thank you, mayor. That brings us to uh
[3:59:50] service level reductions.
[3:59:53] Um, department heads and staff have
[3:59:55] refined and reviewed their budgets. A
[3:59:56] few reductions have been recommended.
[3:59:58] None are being recommended to be
[3:59:59] restored at this time. Um, if you have
[4:00:03] any questions, we're happy to answer
[4:00:04] those on these.
[4:00:08] questions from council. Council member
[4:00:10] Coopermanman.
[4:00:13] >> Um
[4:00:14] [clears throat]
[4:00:16] the So the first one, the commercial
[4:00:17] sustainability rebates, is that um
[4:00:20] elimination or is that just reduction in
[4:00:22] the amount of funding?
[4:00:24] >> Thank you, council member. It's
[4:00:25] reduction in the amount of funding. And
[4:00:27] those first two are to offset a grant
[4:00:30] that we've historically received and
[4:00:32] used for staffing, but we will no longer
[4:00:34] be able to receive and use for anything
[4:00:35] but an added item. And since we're not
[4:00:38] in a place to add at this point in time,
[4:00:40] and the grant wouldn't fully cover the
[4:00:42] things we would add, we're working to
[4:00:43] show those offsets.
[4:00:46] >> Okay. Um and uh Okay. And uh as if I
[4:00:53] remember correctly, we've actually not
[4:00:56] really done either of those first two
[4:00:58] things, right? The applications are
[4:01:00] still open for the the rebates and we
[4:01:02] haven't started the
[4:01:03] >> So the applications are still open for
[4:01:05] the rebates. Um and this proposal to
[4:01:07] bring it down to 40,000 from 70,000 is
[4:01:10] right sizing it with the applications it
[4:01:12] looks like we're receiving right now. So
[4:01:14] right now we have four applications.
[4:01:16] They close in about a week. I think
[4:01:18] August 3rd or 4th. Um, and they cover
[4:01:22] things like decarbonization, efficiency,
[4:01:24] and turf removal. We have seen not as
[4:01:26] much uptake on that as we could. And
[4:01:28] then the the sustainable neighborhood
[4:01:31] network. We are still proposing to
[4:01:33] launch this for this year. It's in the
[4:01:34] works with a launch date in September.
[4:01:37] We would still run this program, look
[4:01:39] for opportunities to integrate it with
[4:01:41] other things out there. I know we've got
[4:01:42] community groups like Louisville Fires
[4:01:44] Smart. see what that looks like and wrap
[4:01:47] it as just a one-year pilot.
[4:01:49] >> Okay. And then could you just comment on
[4:01:52] the last line um why you're thinking
[4:01:54] about eliminating that?
[4:01:56] >> Yeah, that's a great question. So, the
[4:01:58] last line is the community event
[4:01:59] sponsorship program. This was a pilot in
[4:02:01] 2026. It did take fairly significant
[4:02:04] staff resources to work through this. It
[4:02:07] funded nine um events and I would say it
[4:02:10] seems very likely that most of them with
[4:02:13] a strong exception for one of them would
[4:02:15] have gone on without this funding. So as
[4:02:17] we're looking for service level
[4:02:19] reductions, this is an opportunity for
[4:02:20] council to choose that.
[4:02:23] >> Okay. And if we did eliminate that, um
[4:02:28] do you have a suggestion for
[4:02:32] an alternative? Like I mean like if I
[4:02:35] think about the turkey trot like we we
[4:02:37] seem to have a lot of interest in
[4:02:38] supporting them to some extent um and if
[4:02:41] we so if we did but not through this
[4:02:44] method um what would you recommend?
[4:02:47] >> So I can speak to it and city manager
[4:02:48] Langley can speak to it too. You know
[4:02:50] one of the alternatives is pairing this
[4:02:51] in the future with a program such as
[4:02:53] your nonprofit grants. The organization
[4:02:55] I came from these things were compared.
[4:02:57] The scope of that program was expanded a
[4:02:59] little bit. Um, did you have something
[4:03:01] you wanted to add there?
[4:03:04] >> I would just say if council's interested
[4:03:05] in funding turkey trot, we could put
[4:03:07] that as a line item in the budget for a
[4:03:09] specific amount and do it specific for
[4:03:12] Turkey Trot and then not include other
[4:03:15] organizations.
[4:03:17] >> Okay, thank you.
[4:03:21] » Questions?
[4:03:23] >> I just have one question. Is the back
[4:03:25] tax amount used at all for or could it
[4:03:30] be used for decarbonizing city
[4:03:33] facilities?
[4:03:36] So, that's a great question. Um, I' I'd
[4:03:39] want to look at the language again of
[4:03:41] the tax. I think the answer is
[4:03:42] potentially under the uses of the tax.
[4:03:44] So, I'd want to confirm that. However,
[4:03:46] the amount of bag tax is not significant
[4:03:50] enough to make an impact on those
[4:03:51] projects. We're talking about millions
[4:03:53] of dollars of projects for
[4:03:54] decarbonization.
[4:04:00] » Any other questions, comments
[4:04:04] um as to the Thank you for the
[4:04:07] clarification on the last um item. Um
[4:04:12] and I don't want to spend too much time
[4:04:13] on this. What I what I would suggest be
[4:04:16] very interested in other council members
[4:04:18] input on this is I would like to add the
[4:04:22] turkey as a line item. Um but I think we
[4:04:25] need more information. Uh specifically
[4:04:28] I'd like more information about what the
[4:04:30] sponsorships
[4:04:31] of other communities are of that
[4:04:35] uh event. um and have been um we could have a I I guess what I
[4:04:42] would propose is we have a placeholder
[4:04:45] um and we come back to that um
[4:04:49] sometime when we have more information
[4:04:51] um how do other council members think
[4:04:54] about that?
[4:04:56] Yes, council member or excuse me.
[4:05:00] >> So when you say put turkey trot as a
[4:05:02] line item, you mean on service level
[4:05:04] reductions?
[4:05:05] Um, no. Um, as as an item in the budget.
[4:05:11] >> In the budget. Got it.
[4:05:12] >> Yeah.
[4:05:13] >> Okay. Um, my only other comment on this,
[4:05:16] I I staff clearly has thought very
[4:05:19] carefully about what they're going to
[4:05:21] put on this slide. Um, and as you
[4:05:24] continue to, you know, work through the
[4:05:27] budget, I'm open if you have other
[4:05:30] service level reductions that you think
[4:05:32] are needed to balance the budget. Let's
[4:05:34] have those conversations
[4:05:37] um sooner rather than later.
[4:05:43] » Okay. Yeah. Council member Cooperman. Um
[4:05:47] I agree with Council Member Hamilton's
[4:05:50] comment. Uh I had one other question. So
[4:05:54] is this meant to be service level
[4:05:56] reductions where you look across all
[4:05:58] funds or is it meant to be like
[4:06:02] this is mostly I mean these are all
[4:06:04] three in the city manager's office so I
[4:06:07] just wasn't clear like
[4:06:10] where you were looking for these
[4:06:12] reductions or
[4:06:13] >> uh yeah council member we are looking
[4:06:15] citywide but I think it's worth a caveat
[4:06:17] that the direction to all department
[4:06:20] heads was cost neutrality
[4:06:22] So they were asked to refine and make
[4:06:24] adjustments within their operations to
[4:06:26] just to to to address just the headwinds
[4:06:30] of just rising costs across the board.
[4:06:32] Probably why this list isn't so robust
[4:06:34] is we've we've brought to you today a
[4:06:36] budget that's that's that's uh
[4:06:38] >> closer to adoption. um when you take
[4:06:41] those things into consideration so that
[4:06:43] they looked within their operating
[4:06:44] budgets and were expected to kind of
[4:06:46] hold the line um and so um that
[4:06:49] direction resulted in not too many other
[4:06:52] opportunities for reductions.
[4:06:54] >> Okay. I would also say that this
[4:06:55] contributes to the theme of transitional
[4:06:57] budget is that we need to set the
[4:07:00] baseline within the foundation of the
[4:07:02] community for what we provide in terms
[4:07:04] of services so that we can have that
[4:07:06] process with the community and council
[4:07:09] in terms of what people are willing to
[4:07:11] accept for service level reductions. if
[4:07:13] we were to put those forward right now,
[4:07:16] um that we would probably have a lot of
[4:07:18] conversations about things and we
[4:07:20] wouldn't have the foundation for people
[4:07:22] to understand where we're coming from.
[4:07:24] >> And so in 2027, we really need to focus
[4:07:26] on creating that foundation of the why
[4:07:29] so that we can then start to have the
[4:07:30] conversation of what can we do.
[4:07:34] >> Thanks.
[4:07:38] Okay.
[4:07:40] Um,
[4:07:43] » all right. Um, you want to continue?
[4:07:47] >> So, maybe before I continue, do I have
[4:07:50] clear direction on whether or not to
[4:07:52] continue moving along in the budget
[4:07:54] process with these outside of the city
[4:07:56] manager's recommendation in September?
[4:08:03] » Thumbs up.
[4:08:04] >> Yeah. Sorry, I had one more question.
[4:08:06] So, um I think as you said before, the first two reductions are offsetting
[4:08:13] essentially grant money that we're not
[4:08:14] going to be getting. Um that grant money
[4:08:17] has mostly been paying for
[4:08:20] um a f
[4:08:22] an um a staff position, right? So, is
[4:08:27] the idea that these offsets are going to
[4:08:29] help us retain that staff person?
[4:08:31] >> That's correct.
[4:08:32] >> Okay. Thank you. Can I clarify direction
[4:08:36] on the last item?
[4:08:38] I heard that you would like us to bring
[4:08:39] back more information about the
[4:08:41] sponsorships from other communities for
[4:08:43] Turkey Trot and consider adding it as a
[4:08:45] solo line to the budget. Okay, thank
[4:08:47] you.
[4:08:52] » Great. Um and otherwise are we
[4:08:55] comfortable with
[4:08:57] um each of these
[4:09:00] non- reququests um or excuse me service
[4:09:04] level reductions really?
[4:09:07] >> Yes.
[4:09:08] Okay. Good. Let's with a little
[4:09:11] side we have a consensus on that one.
[4:09:14] All right. Uh may we go to the next uh
[4:09:17] part? I just to be clear, it's about
[4:09:20] we've got about 50 minutes uh to go
[4:09:24] through the remaining slides. We've got
[4:09:28] um at least slidewise about 25 slides
[4:09:32] out of the whole 102. So, um I'm hopeful
[4:09:35] we could get through those, but I think
[4:09:38] we're doing pretty well. Long enough to
[4:09:41] cover the subject matter. Short enough?
[4:09:45] >> Yes, Mayor. I think we're in a good
[4:09:46] spot. We may not get your second break.
[4:09:48] Um, continuing on other policy and
[4:09:51] fiscal items with significant impacts to
[4:09:53] the budget. Let's talk about uh expense
[4:09:56] growth outpacing revenue growth briefly.
[4:09:58] This has been a theme throughout the
[4:09:59] presentation.
[4:10:03] Oh, thank you. Um, so while significant
[4:10:06] progress has been made in the budget
[4:10:08] development today here at the budget
[4:10:09] retreat, there still are a number of
[4:10:10] uncertainties regarding revenues and
[4:10:12] expenditures. Again, we're seeing slowly
[4:10:14] projected sales and property tax growth.
[4:10:17] We will continue to monitor sales tax
[4:10:19] extremely closely. Um the preliminary
[4:10:22] property tax information is expected to
[4:10:24] be from the assessor in August. And
[4:10:27] there's there's uncertainty around
[4:10:29] impacts of Sundance, Red Tail, King
[4:10:31] Supers, and other future potential
[4:10:32] developments. We'll keep monitoring
[4:10:34] that. Inflation headwinds continue to be
[4:10:36] strong. Um so that's something that
[4:10:38] we'll monitor and will likely impact
[4:10:40] future iterations of the budget. person
[4:10:42] uh prioritizing our personnel and those
[4:10:44] costs and also prioritizing our required
[4:10:47] and contractual obligations. You know,
[4:10:50] our insurance and legal costs,
[4:10:51] utilities, uh dispatch, technology, and
[4:10:54] other maintenance items have been
[4:10:55] prioritized in this budget. Okay, here's
[4:10:58] another council policy uh decision
[4:11:00] point. Uh uh we've talked about this the
[4:11:03] model uh through the presentation today,
[4:11:05] but over the past three years, the
[4:11:06] recreation center debt mill levy was
[4:11:09] temporarily lowered to help offset those
[4:11:11] property tax increases. However,
[4:11:13] beginning in 2027, uh we are
[4:11:15] recommending to reset the current mill
[4:11:18] levy of 1.375 to 1.7 to align with the
[4:11:21] annual debt service payments through
[4:11:23] 2042. The estimated impact to the median
[4:11:26] home is roughly $20 uh per year. In
[4:11:30] future years, the rec center mill levy
[4:11:32] will continue to be adjusted to align
[4:11:33] with future debt payments. So, I'd like
[4:11:35] to pause here and seek your uh support
[4:11:39] to suspend the temporary mil levy credit
[4:11:41] and to align it with our annual debt
[4:11:43] servicing payments.
[4:11:45] >> Is another way of putting the policy
[4:11:49] decision that we're letting what was a
[4:11:52] temporary measure lapse?
[4:11:56] >> Essentially.
[4:11:57] >> Okay. All right, other council member
[4:12:00] questions.
[4:12:02] Are we comfortable with that decision?
[4:12:05] Everybody's got a thumbs up on that one.
[4:12:11] » You all were here last night. I will
[4:12:13] skip this one. I do not believe we know
[4:12:15] any longer need direction to place this
[4:12:16] on the ballot.
[4:12:18] >> Thank you.
[4:12:20] >> Not sure if in the last 48 minutes we
[4:12:22] can afford a break. So, if the mayor is
[4:12:24] okay, we will continue on to board and
[4:12:26] commission requests. Uh, five boards and
[4:12:30] commissions made.
[4:12:33] Is that okay?
[4:12:34] >> I'm Yeah, I'm just sort of doing a quick
[4:12:36] uh head count. Are we
[4:12:39] >> two minutes?
[4:12:40] >> Pardon me.
[4:12:40] >> Two minutes.
[4:12:41] Why don't we take a break
[4:12:43] till 4:15?
[4:12:45] We'll be back in race.
[4:16:16] it and uh director, thank you for taking
[4:16:18] us through the last no more than 44
[4:16:22] minutes.
[4:16:26] » Thank you, mayor. I appreciate all your
[4:16:28] time and attention. I know you guys were
[4:16:29] here late last night and have some of
[4:16:31] you have an event after this meeting as
[4:16:33] well. So very much appreciate your time
[4:16:35] uh and attention uh today. Um
[4:16:40] so board and commission requests uh
[4:16:43] staff uh department heads
[4:16:46] received
[4:16:50] » that.
[4:16:55] » We're getting there. All right. Bringing
[4:16:56] y'all back in. Included
[4:16:59] >> included within today's packet as an
[4:17:01] attachment are uh we've compiled board
[4:17:03] and commission requests from the
[4:17:05] following boards and commissions.
[4:17:06] Recreation advisory board, Lewisville
[4:17:08] Sustainability Advisory Board, Open
[4:17:10] Space Advisory Board, Cultural Advisory
[4:17:12] Board, Historical Museum Advisory Board.
[4:17:15] I've summarized this in total and
[4:17:18] individually by board over the next
[4:17:19] handful of slides. We've also indicated
[4:17:21] whether or not they are in our current
[4:17:23] modeling or not. um department heads are
[4:17:25] here to speak to uh those requests if
[4:17:28] you have any questions. So in total we
[4:17:30] received 33 requests across those five
[4:17:33] boards totaling nearly $15 million with
[4:17:36] some additional positions as well. Um
[4:17:39] you could see per board those amounts
[4:17:41] across and you could see where their
[4:17:42] funding source would primarily land for
[4:17:45] cultural advisory board. The general
[4:17:46] fund same with sustainability open space
[4:17:49] advisory board would land within the
[4:17:50] open space fund. The recreation advisory
[4:17:53] board is covering a few different forts
[4:17:55] cap uh funds the capital golf and
[4:17:57] recreation funds and the historical
[4:17:59] museum advisory board again would fall
[4:18:01] within the general fund. So moving
[4:18:03] through these and I suppose beginning
[4:18:05] with the cultural advisory board at this time we'll within the five
[4:18:10] boards I'll probably turn to the
[4:18:12] department heads that oversee them. So
[4:18:14] if you have any questions or if Brand if
[4:18:17] director Cummings would like to add some
[4:18:18] color to these please do.
[4:18:21] >> Thank you Director Bailey. Happy to do a
[4:18:23] very brief walk through. Um the cultural
[4:18:25] advisory board submitted a request this
[4:18:27] year in support of uh staffing for the
[4:18:31] arts and culture department. As we know
[4:18:33] that department is currently one
[4:18:34] full-time employee and one part-time
[4:18:36] employee who are responsible with
[4:18:37] putting on 29 community events
[4:18:39] throughout the year including our banner
[4:18:42] 4th of July that happened this year with
[4:18:44] over 12,000 attendees. um 1.5 people is
[4:18:47] not quite sufficient to continue these
[4:18:49] beloved community traditions and uphold
[4:18:51] them not only operationally but for
[4:18:53] safety. So the board is requesting a uh
[4:18:56] increase in staff funding to either make
[4:18:58] our current part-timer full-time or the
[4:19:01] addition of a full-timer to make the
[4:19:03] total department two 2.5 FTEEs. In
[4:19:06] addition to that, um as we've talked
[4:19:09] about throughout the year, events are
[4:19:10] costing more to do the same. We've seen
[4:19:12] this with our partners who have come
[4:19:13] before us with the same sort of asks.
[4:19:16] Um, specifically Fourth of July this
[4:19:18] year, um, next year without an increase
[4:19:21] to that budget, we will not be able to
[4:19:23] have any entertainment in Fourth of
[4:19:25] July. So, it'll be fireworks, food,
[4:19:26] trucks, and nothing else because the
[4:19:28] cost of inflation for events is far
[4:19:30] surpassing our our operational budget as
[4:19:32] part of the operational fund or the
[4:19:35] general fund. Um, lastly, our our
[4:19:38] current allocation for public art is
[4:19:40] $25,000 a year, which is insufficient
[4:19:43] for any real gain for the city of
[4:19:44] Lewisville's temporary or permanent
[4:19:46] collection of public art. And so, with
[4:19:48] an increased desire from the community,
[4:19:50] um, the cultural advisory board thought
[4:19:52] it was best to bring forward a request
[4:19:54] for increased support in that so we can
[4:19:56] activate programs like we see in our
[4:19:57] neighboring communities, Lafayette,
[4:19:59] Longmont, and Superior. Happy to answer
[4:20:01] any questions.
[4:20:03] >> Council questions. Yes, member Tim.
[4:20:07] >> I just have a general question and I I
[4:20:09] don't know who can answer it, but when
[4:20:12] boards and commissions submit these
[4:20:15] requests,
[4:20:17] do they have um
[4:20:21] do they get information about where the
[4:20:24] budget is when they submit these
[4:20:27] requests?
[4:20:29] >> I can speak to that for my boards if
[4:20:31] that's helpful. So yes, we talk with
[4:20:33] each of our boards about where the
[4:20:34] budget is, how the funding shows up. Um
[4:20:36] the difference between being part of the
[4:20:38] general fund where we don't have costs
[4:20:40] or fees that we can raise to cover the
[4:20:42] cost of our services we provide the
[4:20:44] community versus being in an enterprise
[4:20:46] fund that might have those
[4:20:47] opportunities. And then we talk about
[4:20:49] what goals might align with what the
[4:20:51] department has set out for the coming
[4:20:53] years and the goals we hear from city
[4:20:55] council and city leadership overall.
[4:20:57] Then that results in well to do those
[4:20:59] things we need X. and then we calculate
[4:21:02] what that might cost.
[4:21:03] >> Okay. And do they see some of the
[4:21:04] projections and bar graphs that we see?
[4:21:07] Typically
[4:21:08] >> this information isn't available until
[4:21:10] we get into budget season and these
[4:21:12] requests are due before that information
[4:21:13] is calculated. But they are able to look
[4:21:15] back at last year's. Um we do share with
[4:21:17] them or I did share with my boards um
[4:21:20] that we are expecting a flat budget
[4:21:22] which is why this is actually a rainedin
[4:21:24] request um compared to what you might
[4:21:26] see from some of our other boards. Yeah.
[4:21:28] >> Got it. Thank you. Okay. Other
[4:21:33] questions? Yes, Council Member
[4:21:34] Crooppleman.
[4:21:36] >> Um,
[4:21:38] yeah, I guess the first two items um
[4:21:43] sort of strike me as things that
[4:21:45] cultural services might have requested
[4:21:48] itself. Um, you know, so I guess I'm
[4:21:52] curious for the first one.
[4:21:55] um you know, if we left our staffing as
[4:21:57] it is, you know, do we feel like we're
[4:22:00] going to have to reduce the number of
[4:22:03] events that we're putting on or can we
[4:22:04] maintain what we did in this last year?
[4:22:07] Um and then likewise for the second one,
[4:22:10] right, if we don't put a little more
[4:22:12] money behind uh those events, are we
[4:22:15] going to have to cut back on them in in
[4:22:18] this coming year?
[4:22:19] >> Yeah. So these were also areas that
[4:22:20] cultural services identified as service
[4:22:22] level reductions in preparation for a
[4:22:25] neutral budget. And so without
[4:22:27] investment, we will have to see
[4:22:29] reduction in programs offered to the
[4:22:30] community. We just aren't able to
[4:22:32] continue to do more with less at this
[4:22:34] point. Um our hope is to find ways to
[4:22:37] make that as mutually impactful to the
[4:22:40] community as possible. Maybe we can team
[4:22:41] up with other departments to help cost
[4:22:43] share or people share. Um, we've been
[4:22:46] continuing to look at ways to activate
[4:22:48] volunteers, um, get those into our
[4:22:51] communities. The city's working hard on
[4:22:52] updating their volunteer processes and
[4:22:54] policies to help us with that. But
[4:22:56] overall, at this point, we are beyond
[4:22:59] capacity and we remain beyond capacity.
[4:23:07] » Other comments or questions? Yes,
[4:23:10] Council Member Ra. I I think at minimum
[4:23:13] we should do the the middle item. Um
[4:23:17] maintaining the same level of Fourth and
[4:23:19] Fourth of July and summer concerts. I
[4:23:22] know um we would hear I think a lot from
[4:23:25] folks if those were
[4:23:28] um scaled back significantly from what
[4:23:31] they are now.
[4:23:35] » Yes, Council Member Kurt.
[4:23:36] >> So I'm curious. So, you're mentioning um
[4:23:38] specific with the Fourth of July,
[4:23:40] there's three primary cost components.
[4:23:42] The food trucks, the music, and the
[4:23:45] fireworks. I thought the fireworks were
[4:23:47] donated to the city. Is there
[4:23:49] marginally?
[4:23:50] >> No, I I'm not sure where that
[4:23:51] information might have come from.
[4:23:53] Fireworks cost us $18,000.
[4:23:56] >> Oh, that's not that bad. Um Okay. So,
[4:23:58] then and like
[4:24:01] where where's like the cost to the city
[4:24:03] for the food trucks?
[4:24:04] >> Yeah. So, actually to clarify what I was
[4:24:06] saying that this coming year's Fourth of
[4:24:08] July would only be fireworks and food
[4:24:10] trucks.
[4:24:10] >> Oh, because we wouldn't be able to apply
[4:24:13] any of our music. We wouldn't be able to
[4:24:15] have any bands. We wouldn't have any
[4:24:16] bounce houses or family entertainment.
[4:24:18] It would just be food trucks, fireworks,
[4:24:20] golf cart course fees.
[4:24:23] >> Yeah. And I have that breakdown of those
[4:24:24] numbers if you'd like me to run through
[4:24:25] them.
[4:24:26] >> And what do you think the cut back is in
[4:24:27] the summer concerts that you're
[4:24:28] suggesting if we don't increase the
[4:24:30] budget?
[4:24:31] We rolled back to four when the budget
[4:24:34] was reduced in 2025. Um, four is
[4:24:37] manageable with reduction of maybe other
[4:24:40] events as well. So things that might be
[4:24:42] on the table are things like block
[4:24:43] party, the world music series. There's
[4:24:45] some wintertime events that we do. Um,
[4:24:47] the silent movie that's rather popular
[4:24:50] at the art center that happens in
[4:24:51] October. So overall, it's, you know,
[4:24:53] it's that domino effect of trying to
[4:24:55] figure out what we can prioritize and
[4:24:57] maintain. So, if we aren't able to
[4:25:00] afford the increase for this, at least
[4:25:02] maybe the whole amount, maybe just
[4:25:04] enough just to do the Fourth of July. It
[4:25:06] is possible though for you to cost shift
[4:25:08] into maintaining the summer concerts
[4:25:10] versus some of the other items that you
[4:25:12] just mentioned.
[4:25:12] >> Possibly.
[4:25:14] >> Yeah, because I agree. I think the
[4:25:15] summer concert series is we I mean, we
[4:25:17] consistently hear how popular that is
[4:25:19] and and you know, what a draw and an
[4:25:21] interesting thing on a Thursday night.
[4:25:22] So I I would I mean I I hear about it
[4:25:26] more than mo than a lot of other events
[4:25:28] that the city sponsors. So um my guess
[4:25:30] is that it would be a disappointment if
[4:25:32] we couldn't continue with it. I don't
[4:25:35] know if that means the extra funding has
[4:25:36] to come in be added to the budget but
[4:25:38] instead taken from some other areas in
[4:25:40] my opinion.
[4:25:44] » Other comments.
[4:25:47] >> Yes. Council member Coopermanman.
[4:25:50] Uh, one little question. If we shift it
[4:25:53] to something like a drone show, do you
[4:25:55] know if that would be more expensive or
[4:25:56] less expensive?
[4:25:58] >> The smallest available drone show on the
[4:26:00] front range is $15,000 outside of our
[4:26:02] current fireworks budget.
[4:26:04] >> So, be more expensive.
[4:26:05] >> More expensive. Yes. Okay, that's
[4:26:07] interesting. Um,
[4:26:09] >> that's another discussion, but I was
[4:26:11] just curious. Um, but I I I tend to
[4:26:14] agree I with Council Member Hefner. Um I
[4:26:17] would like to try to fund the middle
[4:26:20] item to some extent.
[4:26:25] » Other comments
[4:26:28] of public art.
[4:26:31] >> Go ahead.
[4:26:33] >> I would agree with that also to fund the
[4:26:35] center item, but I would also be
[4:26:38] interested in at least going to
[4:26:42] part-time to a full-time on that first
[4:26:45] position. the events coordinator.
[4:26:50] » I appreciate that. I do want to speak to
[4:26:53] the fact that while funding the
[4:26:55] additional um costs of inflation for
[4:26:58] events does not give us the body
[4:27:00] resources that we need. So to to council
[4:27:02] member's point there, um staffing is is
[4:27:05] a sort of a tandem situation because
[4:27:08] there's 29 events throughout the
[4:27:10] community every year and 1.5 people. uh
[4:27:13] we tend to run up into our allowance for
[4:27:16] how often we're able to work our part-
[4:27:18] timerrs. So, that becomes quite a
[4:27:20] challenge.
[4:27:24] » It sounds like we have a consensus on
[4:27:27] the middle one. Um
[4:27:30] this is a hard one. Uh I think um
[4:27:34] because I I think having staff there to
[4:27:38] do events is really important. I think
[4:27:41] public art, we've heard certainly from
[4:27:44] the public over and over again about
[4:27:47] that, but it's not the priority that
[4:27:51] others other items
[4:27:54] elsewhere in the budget um are. And I
[4:27:57] know that
[4:27:59] director, you've gone through and these
[4:28:02] aren't in your current requests or the
[4:28:07] part you're requesting. That's
[4:28:11] But in um I guess qu one question for
[4:28:15] you is um this is a board and commission
[4:28:20] request. Um
[4:28:24] you've cons you've reviewed these as
[4:28:27] part of your own analysis right in terms
[4:28:30] of priorities.
[4:28:31] >> Correct. So, while these requests didn't
[4:28:33] come through our budget process, these
[4:28:35] have been internal requests as we've
[4:28:37] been looking at um department
[4:28:39] restructuring and what we can do to best
[4:28:41] utilize what resources we have available
[4:28:43] to align our resource level with our
[4:28:45] output. So, um these these numbers are accurate to our pay and to our
[4:28:52] policies. Yes.
[4:28:55] I mean on the public art um there's
[4:28:58] nothing certainly that stops community
[4:29:01] members from collectively acting to
[4:29:06] >> um potentially provide um
[4:29:11] funding that might be used consistent
[4:29:14] with our own policies.
[4:29:16] >> We are working through those policies.
[4:29:18] Currently that level of donation policy
[4:29:20] for the city is not in place. So, we're
[4:29:22] working through those processes.
[4:29:23] >> City manager.
[4:29:25] >> Um, just something I'd like to note,
[4:29:26] too. You know, I really appreciate
[4:29:28] everything that Director Cummings does
[4:29:30] and her department does. This is a hard
[4:29:32] conversation and this is a hard
[4:29:34] conversation for her staff to listen to.
[4:29:36] Um, part of that is because on the flip
[4:29:38] side, we approve increases for chamber
[4:29:41] contract. We approve increases for DBA
[4:29:44] contracts. We're going to be bringing
[4:29:46] forward to you a request from the DBA to
[4:29:48] give them an additional $35,000 for the
[4:29:50] ice rink for last year. Um because they
[4:29:53] are short that amount for that. They're
[4:29:55] going to be requesting additional
[4:29:57] funding for the ice rink for this year.
[4:29:58] They're going to be requesting
[4:29:59] additional funding for street fair. And
[4:30:01] so really this comes down to is
[4:30:04] council's priority city events? Is
[4:30:07] council's priority the broader city
[4:30:10] events that are being put on by multiple
[4:30:13] organizations? And sometimes I feel like
[4:30:15] we give um director Cummings mixed
[4:30:18] messages in terms of what we support and
[4:30:21] we're looking for more definitive. If
[4:30:24] you want cultural services to be in
[4:30:26] charge of these events, then we need to
[4:30:27] provide them the ability to do so or we
[4:30:30] need to talk about events that we can
[4:30:33] cut
[4:30:34] or are we going to put more funds
[4:30:36] towards these events that are run by
[4:30:38] other agencies and then we're we're
[4:30:40] great with what they can do with what
[4:30:42] they have. And so this is again this is
[4:30:45] that conversation of these are going
[4:30:47] back to writer's early slide about some
[4:30:49] difficult conversations. This is one of
[4:30:51] those difficult items because nobody
[4:30:53] feels good talking about this.
[4:30:56] >> I I was going to make a suggestion about
[4:31:00] this. I'd be very interested in how
[4:31:02] council might think about this. Um
[4:31:06] clearly we've we have I think consensus
[4:31:09] about the second item. Um I wonder as
[4:31:12] we're consider you know as we consider
[4:31:14] those other um items that you were
[4:31:18] talking about potential requests from
[4:31:21] DBA and so forth whether we might maybe
[4:31:25] revisit this in the with under the
[4:31:29] perhaps broader umbrella of events. we
[4:31:32] might be able to conceivably make a
[4:31:34] policy
[4:31:36] decision um related to that and have a
[4:31:40] little bit more wholesome discussion.
[4:31:42] It's one of the things that's hard about
[4:31:44] this is just the way it works and the
[4:31:47] time space continuum. I think it was
[4:31:51] described uh in one
[4:31:55] council meeting is that we're not we
[4:31:57] don't have all of the like things to
[4:31:59] compare with, right? and you've brought
[4:32:03] it up and I do appreciate that. Um, so I
[4:32:07] would just suggest maybe we come back,
[4:32:09] you know, we give the guidance [snorts]
[4:32:11] that we all I think have a consensus
[4:32:14] about and then maybe talk about the
[4:32:17] other two and whatever else
[4:32:20] relates to events and the balance
[4:32:23] between city sponsored events, city
[4:32:26] staffed events and those sponsored
[4:32:29] staffed outside agencies that get money
[4:32:33] from us.
[4:32:35] Yeah.
[4:32:36] >> Does that sound like something first
[4:32:37] that
[4:32:39] >> that does that sounds like a good
[4:32:40] approach? Another option would be if you
[4:32:43] wanted to fund some of these with
[4:32:45] one-time funds, recognizing it's just
[4:32:47] for this budget cycle as we during this
[4:32:50] next two-year period work through some
[4:32:52] of these items and gives us time to work
[4:32:54] through them. That would give you the
[4:32:56] opportunity to continue provide director
[4:32:59] Cummings the resources that she needs
[4:33:01] for the next two years as we then
[4:33:03] evaluate Sundance and evaluate these
[4:33:06] other items that will occur during this
[4:33:08] budget period.
[4:33:12] » We might be able to do that along with
[4:33:15] the other items. No, I mean I I don't
[4:33:19] want to hold up the process to too much,
[4:33:22] but I mean it's we're going to be
[4:33:24] dealing with that in the budget
[4:33:27] process. Maybe doing all of what we've
[4:33:30] been talking about together. What you
[4:33:32] just mentioned, what I mentioned, um
[4:33:35] might work.
[4:33:37] >> Yes, Council Member F.
[4:33:38] >> Yeah, I I agree. I mean, I think we
[4:33:40] should fund the first two items here for
[4:33:42] both years of this budget with the
[4:33:45] expectation that, you know, we'll
[4:33:46] revisit them as we consider this
[4:33:50] from a from a higher level perspective.
[4:33:52] Um, but but these are highly visible,
[4:33:55] very important events to the community.
[4:33:58] It's, you know,
[4:34:01] delivering water is very important and
[4:34:03] very good. It doesn't generate a lot of
[4:34:04] joy or excitement. These generate a lot
[4:34:06] of joy and excitement. It's a relatively
[4:34:08] modest amount of money in terms of
[4:34:10] everything we're looking at. And I I
[4:34:12] just
[4:34:14] I think we've got to do it for this
[4:34:16] budget cycle and we should have the the
[4:34:17] more detailed conversation about where
[4:34:20] all of all of these dollars are going
[4:34:22] and DBA and street fair and so on. Um
[4:34:25] but
[4:34:28] I think it would be a mistake to to let
[4:34:29] these dwindle. So, my only concern with
[4:34:33] the first one um by only approving it
[4:34:35] for the next two years is that that
[4:34:36] actually creates an employment challenge
[4:34:39] um unless we're saying let's approve
[4:34:41] either another part-time person to help
[4:34:44] with the events because that's a really
[4:34:46] easy thing to hire somebody just for a
[4:34:48] season or two seasons or what have you.
[4:34:50] I think making somebody a full-time
[4:34:52] employee that is not going to change and
[4:34:55] the expectation should be then that
[4:34:56] that's a permanent change. We could do a
[4:34:58] limited term where it's for a two-year
[4:35:00] period and that would give us the
[4:35:03] opportunity to then re-evaluate at the
[4:35:05] end of that two-year period.
[4:35:06] >> My only concern is if it's like we have
[4:35:07] a part-time person, it's as an existing
[4:35:09] part-time coordinator. If that person
[4:35:11] has the expectation that they're now
[4:35:12] full-time, I I almost feel like it's an
[4:35:15] uh like an unfair teaser to say, well,
[4:35:18] for two years if you'll do it, it's
[4:35:19] full-time. So, stop whatever else you're
[4:35:20] doing to help you, you know, make a
[4:35:22] living. And then we're in two years we
[4:35:25] come up with a completely different
[4:35:26] restructure. and then that person no
[4:35:28] longer has their full-time job. I would
[4:35:30] that seems I mean unless that individual
[4:35:33] and the director knows that that
[4:35:35] individual like no I would love the
[4:35:36] opportunity to work only for two years
[4:35:38] full-time. Uh but I just I I can imagine
[4:35:41] if I was that person that would be very
[4:35:42] confusing for me. So that's my that's my
[4:35:44] only concern with approving the
[4:35:46] employment.
[4:35:46] >> Well and and I I agree with that. I mean
[4:35:49] I guess I would just I would go back to
[4:35:52] what I suggested initially which is do
[4:35:54] the second one. Um, I think it's it's
[4:35:58] hard to do force planning on the fly
[4:36:01] just like it is. And I wonder whether,
[4:36:05] you know, as a function of how we choose
[4:36:08] to deal with outside organizations that
[4:36:12] the director may have a sense that, oh,
[4:36:16] you know, one FTE is not going to be
[4:36:18] enough or maybe it's going to be 1.5 or
[4:36:21] some or or god forbid less. I I would
[4:36:25] hate to push you into that position and
[4:36:27] then have to re
[4:36:30] uh discuss it later. Um because we don't
[4:36:33] have to make that decision today. I
[4:36:35] think it's better to have all the
[4:36:36] information
[4:36:38] with us at once.
[4:36:39] >> Yes, me.
[4:36:41] >> Yeah, I really quite like the idea of
[4:36:43] having like all events under an umbrella
[4:36:45] to evaluate it. Um,
[4:36:48] and the other thing I wanted to say is
[4:36:50] my initial question about, you know, are
[4:36:53] boards and commissions aware of our
[4:36:56] budgetary constraints was by no mean
[4:36:58] directed specifically at this board. You
[4:37:01] guys just happen to be the first ones.
[4:37:03] Uh, but I just wanted to ask the
[4:37:04] question upfront and really apply that
[4:37:07] to to all the boards and commissions
[4:37:09] just so so we can understand what their
[4:37:12] expectations were when they submitted
[4:37:14] all of these requests. So
[4:37:20] » um
[4:37:22] consensus
[4:37:24] how I mean are you comfortable with I
[4:37:28] mean it sounds like it's some of us
[4:37:31] interested in
[4:37:32] >> mayor if I may please
[4:37:34] >> I heard that we want to follow up on the
[4:37:36] larger picture and we want to follow up
[4:37:38] on potentially funding with one time
[4:37:46] Yeah, go ahead. Ju
[4:37:47] >> just pushing off the whole decision for
[4:37:49] later.
[4:37:51] >> That's what I heard. I thought I heard
[4:37:52] fund with one time and then follow up on
[4:37:54] big picture, but I there was a lot of
[4:37:55] waffling on that.
[4:37:57] >> Okay.
[4:37:58] >> I was in favor. I like the idea of at a
[4:38:00] minimum the event inflation for the next
[4:38:02] two years. So that that said so the
[4:38:05] plans can get so the plans can get made.
[4:38:08] Um, my only concern was saying yes for
[4:38:10] the next two years from from an employee
[4:38:12] perspective was converting somebody from
[4:38:14] a part-time position into a full-time.
[4:38:15] That's a that's a bigger thing. So, I
[4:38:17] mean, if I would be in favor of a second
[4:38:19] part-time person because that's a much
[4:38:20] easier thing to do just for a two-year
[4:38:22] cycle. Um, and then over the next year
[4:38:25] or so, mayor, have the big like this
[4:38:28] year rather, have the big conversation
[4:38:30] about all of these events. I thought
[4:38:31] that's what we would do, but let's fund
[4:38:34] these the second line item definitely
[4:38:37] perhaps even a part-time person which is
[4:38:38] the first one just for now so that
[4:38:41] director Cummings can make plans and
[4:38:43] move forward. Yeah,
[4:38:44] >> I' I'd recommend funding both and then
[4:38:46] as staff we're happy to work with HR and
[4:38:48] Director Cummings on the best way to do
[4:38:50] that position keeping in mind the HR
[4:38:52] concerns.
[4:38:53] >> Yeah, and I was what I was referring to
[4:38:56] is not th kicking that can way down the
[4:38:59] road. It was just that maybe when you're
[4:39:02] coming back with some of these other
[4:39:04] things within this
[4:39:06] budget development that we deal with it.
[4:39:08] But I'm I you know I'm I'm fine. I would
[4:39:11] like to hear from the director if she's
[4:39:13] comfortable with that way of proceeding
[4:39:18] uh whether there's some cost to it. I'm
[4:39:22] not trying to screw up. The last thing
[4:39:24] is screwing up your own planning and
[4:39:28] budgeting. That's not my interest. It's efficiency.
[4:39:33] >> No, I think much like deputy city
[4:39:35] manager said, we with a one-time
[4:39:37] allocation for both the first and the
[4:39:39] second um we could work within our city
[4:39:42] processes and with HR to determine how
[4:39:45] that additional whether it's turning
[4:39:47] someone full-time or additional
[4:39:48] part-time coordinator um position would
[4:39:51] work best with our own policy and
[4:39:53] practice.
[4:39:54] >> Okay, fair enough. Thank you. Um so with
[4:39:58] that
[4:39:59] is there consensus for the two first
[4:40:01] two. All right. Good.
[4:40:04] >> All right. Direction received and
[4:40:07] process. Go ahead.
[4:40:10] Continuing on. We have four more boards.
[4:40:13] Uh we have 20 minutes. So I just want to
[4:40:17] put that in perspective. And if uh if
[4:40:19] some of this leaks to a future meeting
[4:40:21] uh you just you just let us know. I
[4:40:23] don't want to rush you, but I just want
[4:40:24] you to know how much time we have left.
[4:40:26] >> Just use nouns and verbs. [laughter]
[4:40:29] >> So, in the interest of time, I'll cover
[4:40:30] elab here. This board was aware of our
[4:40:33] financial situation, and I think they
[4:40:34] were very thoughtful in their requests.
[4:40:36] Their first request was to add grants to
[4:40:38] the sustainable neighborhood networks.
[4:40:40] This is a service level reduction that
[4:40:42] council has given us direction to
[4:40:43] pursue. Um, water conservation programs
[4:40:46] in commercial and both residential were
[4:40:48] items they were looking at. We do know
[4:40:51] that public works and utilities is doing
[4:40:53] some water conservation programming. So
[4:40:54] there might be some work there. Um
[4:40:57] sustainability specialists and volunteer
[4:40:59] recruitment. They wanted this both for
[4:41:01] support of the sustainability programs
[4:41:03] and for that volunteer coordination need
[4:41:04] which we heard as a follow-up item that
[4:41:06] council has been interested in. And then
[4:41:09] that is it. I was going to start into
[4:41:11] Ozap.
[4:41:13] >> Thoughts from council.
[4:41:20] the the first three strike me as fairly
[4:41:24] small ticket items. That doesn't mean we
[4:41:26] should be approving them or not, but I
[4:41:30] they are relatively small. The the the
[4:41:32] fourth I'm mindful that
[4:41:35] there is
[4:41:37] there were a lot of discussion among
[4:41:39] staff about positions. We had a
[4:41:42] discussion on council about how many
[4:41:45] more FTEEs or even part-time positions
[4:41:49] we add and I I guess I'm based on an
[4:41:53] ELSAB request and I think ELSAB is I
[4:41:56] mean I appreciate they're suggesting
[4:41:58] this. I just would kind of expect that would have been already in the
[4:42:06] suggestions by staff if it were a
[4:42:08] priority. Um, and so I I think that one
[4:42:13] I would be uh certainly would want to
[4:42:17] just take off our further consideration
[4:42:20] >> today.
[4:42:23] >> The others we could talk about if you
[4:42:25] want.
[4:42:26] >> I agree with your reasoning.
[4:42:32] Other council comments about these three
[4:42:35] or are they worth if I mean is there
[4:42:38] consensus to take off the sustainability
[4:42:42] uh specialist as a additional request
[4:42:45] for funds?
[4:42:48] Yeah, me rep member Tim.
[4:42:50] >> I feel like uh
[4:42:52] Sam's presentation to me the way I
[4:42:55] interpreted it as we already made a
[4:42:57] decision on the top row line item. Um
[4:43:00] the next two are can be encompassed in
[4:43:04] some capacity with some of the work that
[4:43:05] Kurt and his team is doing. I think you
[4:43:07] made great points about the part-time
[4:43:09] position. So for me at this point in
[4:43:12] time I don't see the need to to
[4:43:14] designate funds for these particular
[4:43:17] items
[4:43:19] >> and I agree with that other
[4:43:21] >> I agree.
[4:43:22] >> All right we can move on.
[4:43:25] >> Moving on to our third advisory board.
[4:43:28] This is open space advisory board.
[4:43:30] Within this one you'll note on the far
[4:43:32] right many of these are included in the
[4:43:33] existing model. With that, I will turn
[4:43:35] it over to Adam or to council if you
[4:43:38] have any questions for director
[4:43:39] Blackmore.
[4:43:41] >> I'll go first. Uh, so to Mayor Pro Tim's
[4:43:46] question earlier, the reason why you do
[4:43:47] see a lot of yeses on this, number one,
[4:43:49] we appreciate the support and saying
[4:43:51] yes, but we also align our CIP request
[4:43:55] process internally with OSAB's review.
[4:43:59] So a number of these are put forward in
[4:44:01] a memo as a level of support for what
[4:44:03] staff is already submitting for
[4:44:06] consideration. So that's why you may see
[4:44:08] an inordinate inordinate amount of
[4:44:10] yeses. It's not just because open space
[4:44:13] is the greatest. There is a process that
[4:44:15] leads to an alignment with staff's
[4:44:17] request and OABS. Um so you've seen all
[4:44:21] of the yeses as we've gone through uh
[4:44:23] the um capital plan as a component of
[4:44:26] the open space fund review. Um the nose
[4:44:30] on here, there are a couple staff
[4:44:31] positions. Again, uh the project manager
[4:44:35] position um isn't currently in the model
[4:44:37] because it is in some of those duties
[4:44:39] are incorporated into the deputy model.
[4:44:42] Um and the ranger naturalist was a
[4:44:45] potential push out to a 2028 or a 2029
[4:44:48] request as we expand our trail mileage.
[4:44:52] So, it's kind of tied to um the need for
[4:44:55] additional rangers um with increased uh
[4:44:59] trail inventory that we currently don't
[4:45:01] have. Um you see the natural resource
[4:45:04] technician as mentioned is a yes. Um the
[4:45:07] other no was just a prioritization of
[4:45:10] where to allocate uh potential future
[4:45:13] trail money to and the community
[4:45:15] connections went over as a priority um
[4:45:18] in in our mind and in discussions with
[4:45:20] OSAB over some of the regional trail
[4:45:22] cost that comes along with this and as
[4:45:25] dire city manager Langley discussed um
[4:45:28] there's still a further evaluation
[4:45:29] needed for the volunteer and education
[4:45:31] coordinator positions. So, that's a
[4:45:33] recap of where we got to with OSAD.
[4:45:38] >> Are um well, first, are there any
[4:45:41] council questions? And second, if there
[4:45:44] aren't, are council members comfortable
[4:45:47] with the um priorities that have already
[4:45:50] been set and discussed previously or or
[4:45:53] at least by implication and not adding
[4:45:56] these. Go ahead, Council Member.
[4:45:59] >> Great. Thanks. Um, actually appreciate
[4:46:01] that you guys coordinated with the board
[4:46:03] with a lot of this. It it it actually
[4:46:05] really helps with the process. Um, I was
[4:46:08] curious about it's new trails,
[4:46:10] neighborhood connections is part of the
[4:46:11] 225,000 we're asking for, but new trails
[4:46:14] and it says safety, access, and road
[4:46:16] improvements. Um, what the safety and
[4:46:19] access seems like a high priority with
[4:46:21] new trails. I'm I'm just not
[4:46:23] understanding how that's not already
[4:46:24] built into that.
[4:46:27] That's um that didn't move forward
[4:46:30] because it's not a OSAP purview. It's
[4:46:33] not an open space purview to discuss
[4:46:35] crosswalks and that kind of thing. So,
[4:46:36] as a recommended use of open space
[4:46:38] funds, that wouldn't be something that
[4:46:40] we would
[4:46:40] >> That's what that means.
[4:46:42] >> Oh, that's why I was I would just I had
[4:46:44] no idea what it meant that that meant
[4:46:45] crosswalk.
[4:46:46] >> It's a component of the trail system,
[4:46:47] but it wouldn't be under the purview of
[4:46:49] OSAP to provide
[4:46:50] >> it's where public works has already like
[4:46:52] they a lot of intersections where
[4:46:53] they've already improvement.
[4:46:55] >> Okay. Thank you.
[4:47:30] Wonderful. Uh, keeping Director
[4:47:31] Blackmore in the hot seat, we have the
[4:47:33] Recreation Advisory Board requests.
[4:47:36] >> [snorts]
[4:47:36] >> Okay, so this is the wreck advisory
[4:47:38] board. Um, again, same kind of a process
[4:47:41] uh with this particular board that we
[4:47:42] just mentioned with the open space
[4:47:44] advisory board. So, we take a look at
[4:47:45] the uh previous six-year CIP and kind of
[4:47:48] build out the next six-year CIP. um RAB
[4:47:52] um has been more inclined to provide
[4:47:55] recommended projects in their memo to
[4:47:59] bring awareness to a desire of future um
[4:48:03] future desires, if you will, versus
[4:48:07] immediate approval. Um hence, you know,
[4:48:09] the $7 million for soccer and multi-use
[4:48:12] fields is meant to illustrate that um
[4:48:15] that's a high priority for them as
[4:48:17] future development and future
[4:48:18] infrastructure needs. Um we did fund
[4:48:23] until recently a couple of these. Um the
[4:48:26] clubhouse pre-esign as you can see was
[4:48:28] originally in the model. Um per the
[4:48:31] direction today that'll be removed from
[4:48:33] the model. Uh we have included um per
[4:48:36] the discussion and then the um confirmed
[4:48:40] support from RAB the potential for a
[4:48:43] puck and stick court of some sort to uh
[4:48:46] replace the inline rink that's being
[4:48:48] converted to pickle ball. um that's
[4:48:50] built into the model and put into the
[4:48:52] 2028 budget uh with a placeholder for
[4:48:54] funding. Um still to be determined that
[4:48:57] location that would be a component of
[4:48:58] that project. Um and then city manager
[4:49:02] Langley touched on the water rights uh
[4:49:05] item for Cole Creek golf course. Um
[4:49:08] we've elected at this point in time not
[4:49:10] to include funding for site plan review
[4:49:12] of the park parcel at Red Tail Ridge.
[4:49:13] That'll be a future budget ask um with
[4:49:17] some level of alignment to the long
[4:49:19] range plans desires from the community.
[4:49:22] And the Centennial Park tennis courts,
[4:49:25] two new courts, again, that's just not a
[4:49:27] cost that we're able to bear in the
[4:49:28] funds at this moment and um will be
[4:49:31] considered in future expansion again
[4:49:33] based on community feedback from the
[4:49:34] long-range plan.
[4:50:10] I'm not sure I understood what you just
[4:50:12] said.
[4:50:13] >> Well, there's clubhouse pre-esign that's
[4:50:16] coming off the list and I thought water
[4:50:18] rights were off the list, too. Is that
[4:50:20] not right?
[4:50:22] >> Water rights are listed already in an
[4:50:23] unfunded
[4:50:25] >> Okay.
[4:50:25] >> list. The only one that was funded
[4:50:27] initially in the model that we've been
[4:50:29] asked to take off today is the clubhouse
[4:50:31] pre-esign.
[4:50:32] >> Okay.
[4:50:34] All right. At any rate,
[4:50:38] what are thoughts about adding any of
[4:50:41] these
[4:50:43] um that are already not already
[4:50:46] in
[4:50:47] um
[4:50:49] I guess yeses in the final?
[4:50:52] Well,
[4:50:54] is there any interest in adding any of
[4:50:56] the ones that are not already baked into
[4:50:59] the draft or but baked into the requests
[4:51:02] that you've made,
[4:51:05] » council member current?
[4:51:06] >> So, I I don't I I have an interest, but
[4:51:10] I want to clarify. I don't believe
[4:51:12] there's the budget. We've heard for
[4:51:14] years now the request for the tennis
[4:51:17] courts and I think it was the number one
[4:51:19] priority from the rec advisory board
[4:51:21] when we met with them um was to be able
[4:51:24] to move that forward.
[4:51:26] Uh I would love if there was a way and
[4:51:28] we found the funding through capital
[4:51:30] improvements to do this because I
[4:51:32] recognize the community's need and the
[4:51:35] uh the board's request repeatedly for
[4:51:37] this pro and it the fact that um they
[4:51:40] have presented and I think this would be
[4:51:41] correct director Blackmore that the
[4:51:43] tennis courts could produce revenue for
[4:51:45] the city if used for the tennis
[4:51:48] association.
[4:51:51] >> They would potentially. Yeah. I I also
[4:51:54] would guess just for your reference that 1.5 million is a low estimate based
[4:52:00] on um some of the earthwork and the
[4:52:01] grading that we think we would need to
[4:52:03] do out there to add these. So it's also
[4:52:05] not in there because I think it needs a
[4:52:07] deeper dive into the actual cost
[4:52:09] projection.
[4:52:10] >> Okay. Yeah. So that I just wanted to say
[4:52:12] there's not lack of interest. I just
[4:52:14] realize there's lack of funding. Thank
[4:52:15] you.
[4:52:16] >> Yeah. Yeah. And I I would just also note
[4:52:17] really quick that um if the desire is
[4:52:20] for more tennis courts, that'll be
[4:52:21] reflected in the longrange plan and
[4:52:22] could be incorporated into future park
[4:52:25] site development that may be a little
[4:52:27] more efficient with the construction.
[4:52:31] » Okay. Um it sounds like we have a
[4:52:35] consensus not to add
[4:52:38] um further based on their requests.
[4:52:43] Okay. Next,
[4:52:46] >> our final board request is the
[4:52:48] Historical Museum Advisory Board. It's
[4:52:50] on the screen now. There's some uh
[4:52:52] potential impacts with the uh outcome of
[4:52:54] the tax, but for additional color, I'll
[4:52:57] turn it over to Director Cummings.
[4:52:59] >> Director Blackmore and I closing you
[4:53:01] guys out today. Um so HMAB also had
[4:53:04] submitted a request this year looking
[4:53:05] for staffing support um this last year
[4:53:08] and actually every year for the last
[4:53:10] five years the museum's associates have
[4:53:12] seen 100% turnover year after year which
[4:53:16] brings some continuity issues um both in
[4:53:19] supporting the community and doing in
[4:53:20] our work to support historic
[4:53:22] preservation. So, the ask was to
[4:53:24] increase one of our part-time positions
[4:53:25] to full-time to again retain some of our
[4:53:28] local talent or to add one additional
[4:53:31] full-time position um to to the team.
[4:53:34] Should the historic preservation tax
[4:53:36] pass, this could be covered by that.
[4:53:39] Should it not, HMAB would still love to
[4:53:41] see if council has appetite for
[4:53:42] supporting that staffing increase. Um
[4:53:45] we've talked at length about storage
[4:53:47] offsite. Again, um with the historic
[4:53:50] preservation tax, there's opportunity to
[4:53:52] offset some of that increasing inflation
[4:53:55] costs to museum operations. And then
[4:53:58] much like our friends at RAB, um the
[4:54:00] staff workspaces and offices and program
[4:54:02] event space are more of an aspirational
[4:54:04] awareness recognizing that in the 2017
[4:54:07] museum expansion plan, um there was a
[4:54:09] great desire from the community to see
[4:54:11] more spaces available for programming
[4:54:13] for our historical preservation museum
[4:54:16] and those programs together.
[4:54:19] >> Any questions?
[4:54:25] It would appear that the first two are
[4:54:29] um maybe
[4:54:31] um sort of premature to include in the
[4:54:34] budget. Um we could include it in the
[4:54:37] budget right now, but we maybe need not.
[4:54:41] Is there a particular cost to uh the
[4:54:45] operations
[4:54:47] if we don't include those before the tax
[4:54:51] passes? Um, no, not if there's no
[4:54:55] additional like service level reduction
[4:54:57] that happens should the tax pass. Should
[4:54:59] the tax not pass, we come back to
[4:55:01] service level reduction conversation. So
[4:55:03] right now that directly impacts our
[4:55:05] public education and programming that
[4:55:07] would be greatly reduced.
[4:55:12] So, I guess my proposal on this would be
[4:55:15] to without um passing judgment on the
[4:55:20] first two, maybe even expressing an
[4:55:23] interest in those, we wait until the
[4:55:25] historic uh preservation tax uh result
[4:55:30] and then address the these two and then
[4:55:36] otherwise
[4:55:37] um leave the other two off.
[4:55:40] Yes.
[4:55:46] » Yeah. Okay. Looks like we've got um
[4:55:50] we've got a consensus on that one. So um
[4:55:56] did we really finish that with four
[4:55:57] minutes to
[4:55:58] >> I could I could bring us home now. Again
[4:56:01] our eyes were bigger than our plate for
[4:56:03] the capital improvement plan discussion
[4:56:06] development and priorization. Do you
[4:56:07] have all these materials in the packet?
[4:56:09] Um if so moving forward, why don't we
[4:56:12] hop to next steps, we will jump over the
[4:56:15] capital slides. We will carve out some
[4:56:17] time at the I just connected with the
[4:56:19] clerk the August 11th council meeting so
[4:56:22] we can engage the full city council to
[4:56:23] go through um CIP refinement and
[4:56:27] development. So now between now and then
[4:56:30] you are welcome to go through the
[4:56:31] materials to this packet where every
[4:56:33] capital project is listed hyperl and
[4:56:36] with the the pages and we can really uh
[4:56:38] spend the appropriate amount of time to
[4:56:40] discuss uh the capital plan. Uh beyond
[4:56:43] that meeting on onx August 11th which on
[4:56:45] the slide is date TBD. Um August 20th
[4:56:48] we'll have a finance committee. We'll
[4:56:49] have a recap of all of that work.
[4:56:50] September 1st, we are targeting the city
[4:56:52] manager's recommended budget
[4:56:53] presentation, budget public hearing on
[4:56:55] the third Tuesday of October with
[4:56:57] adoption plan for Monday, November 2nd.
[4:57:01] Um, again, this was a lot of time. I'm
[4:57:03] truly appreciative of all of your
[4:57:04] engagement and energy through this
[4:57:06] process. We'll have some more work to
[4:57:07] do. Um,
[4:57:09] that's everything we had to cover today.
[4:57:12] >> Um, anything else that council members
[4:57:16] have questions
[4:57:18] otherwise? All right. I'll just add that
[4:57:22] I really appreciate all of staff again,
[4:57:24] the public um for um thoughts that
[4:57:29] they've provided to us. Um, council
[4:57:32] members, boards, and commissions
[4:57:35] um look forward to the next thing and um really appreciate our everybody's
[4:57:42] working together to hit the budget of
[4:57:44] time that we uh set for this. Um and
[4:57:49] hopefully give uh our W 2
[4:57:52] representatives
[4:57:53] uh time to catch their breath before the
[4:57:55] W 2 meeting tonight. And it's being held
[4:58:01] where?
[4:58:01] >> Relish.
[4:58:03] >> We're going to be at Relish. Not
[4:58:04] >> anybody who's there who's online and
[4:58:07] here or otherwise
[4:58:08] >> grab a bite, grab a drink, and grab a
[4:58:10] meeting.
[4:58:10] >> Yeah. [laughter]
[4:58:11] >> Amen. All right. Do we have a motion to
[4:58:13] adjourn?
[4:58:13] >> So moved.
[4:58:15] >> Second.
[4:58:16] >> All in favor?
[4:58:18] >> I. Any opposed? Thank you, everybody.