[0:02] >> All right, we are coming

[0:03] out of closed session. We are

[0:05] in recess. Our intentions are

[0:07] we are going to go back

[0:08] in closed session

[0:09] at the conclusion

[0:10] of this meeting. We don't have

[0:11] any reportable action

[0:13] to report. And of course,

[0:14] if you have any action

[0:15] to report at the conclusion

[0:17] of closed session, we will come

[0:18] back and let you know. Just a

[0:20] reminder.

[0:22] For public participation today,

[0:23] members

[0:24] of the public are invited

[0:26] to participate

[0:27] in the city council meetings,

[0:28] either in person or remotely

[0:29] using the city's online public

[0:30] comment platform, Local,

[0:32] located

[0:33] on the city's website, and

[0:34] instructions are also included

[0:35] on the agenda. The meeting

[0:36] agendas and staff reports are

[0:37] available at the website

[0:38] cityofreading.gov and also in

[0:39] the public view binder located

[0:41] on the podium

[0:43] on the north side

[0:44] of the chambers. We're going

[0:45] to call this meeting

[0:46] to order. We'll start

[0:48] with the pledge of allegiance

[0:49] and then our invocation by

[0:50] Gordon Dewitt. He's the

[0:52] chaplain for the Redding

[0:54] Police and Fire Department.

[0:55] After the pledge of

[0:56] Allegiance, if you'll rise

[0:57] with me. All right,

[0:59] ready?

[1:02] >> I pledge allegiance to the

[1:03] Flag of the United States of

[1:04] America and to the Republic

[1:06] for which it stands,

[1:07] one nation under God,

[1:09] indivisible,

[1:11] with liberty and justice

[1:12] for all.

[1:21] >> If you're willing,

[1:22] would you bow with me?

[1:24] Heavenly father, thank you

[1:25] for your presence here. Thank

[1:28] you for all who are

[1:29] in this room tonight. Thank you

[1:30] for their commitment

[1:32] to our community. May all of

[1:33] our words and actions

[1:34] contribute

[1:35] to positive outcomes

[1:37] for this wonderful city. We

[1:38] pray for our council members

[1:39] that you would grant them

[1:40] wisdom and clarity as they

[1:42] serve and as they strive

[1:43] to make this city the pride

[1:44] of our region. May they not

[1:46] become weary in doing good.

[1:47] May you provide strength and

[1:49] courage to each of them.

[1:50] Father, bless us, this

[1:52] community, and protect all

[1:53] of those who work

[1:54] to keep us safe. Pray this

[1:56] in your holy name. Amen.

[1:58] >> Thank you, Gordon. Thank

[2:04] you, Gordon. We're going

[2:06] to start with roll call.

[2:08] >> [ CALLING ROLL ]

[2:18] >> All right,

[2:19] welcome everybody. In light

[2:20] of the cooler weather,

[2:21] we're going to try

[2:22] to move this meeting along so

[2:23] you can go outside and enjoy

[2:24] it. So, we have public comment.

[2:25] And again,

[2:27] public comment is also

[2:28] for non-agendized matters

[2:29] within the city's jurisdiction.

[2:30] Pursuant to the Brown act, the

[2:32] city council cannot take action

[2:33] on any public comment items.

[2:34] We have four people here today.

[2:36] We'll start with Robert, Sid,

[2:37] Margie Cottrell, Nick and

[2:41] Shasta, county watchdog. If you

[2:42] guys can make your way along

[2:44] the wall and we'll be ready

[2:45] to go

[2:48] after each speakers done. So

[2:49] again, that's Robert, Sid,

[2:50] Margie Cantrell, Nick and

[2:52] Chasta County Watchdog.

[3:10] >> Good evening,

[3:11] mayor and council members.

[3:12] Tonight, I'm presenting an

[3:13] analysis prepared by Angelo

[3:14] Valles, a Lakehead resident,

[3:16] former City Council member and

[3:17] retired finance director.

[3:18] After reviewing Councilmember

[3:20] Audette's report in the city's

[3:22] financial records, the evidence

[3:23] shows that neither side has

[3:24] told the complete story. Three

[3:26] of Audet's major accounting

[3:28] allegations do not withstand

[3:29] reconciliation

[3:30] with the adopted budget. The

[3:31] disputed 1.349 million

[3:32] in internal revenue is

[3:34] accounted for

[3:35] in the detailed tables. The

[3:36] allegedly missing $72,000

[3:37] soccer field transfer appears

[3:38] under a different

[3:39] classification. The disputed

[3:40] 740,001.09 million

[3:42] in expenditures belong to

[3:43] separately funded grant and

[3:44] capital project accounts.

[3:45] Those findings do not prove

[3:46] that money was fabricated,

[3:48] hidden or removed

[3:49] from the budget. Serious

[3:51] accusations require evidence

[3:52] and the reviewed public record

[3:53] does not establish fraud. But

[3:54] audit accounting errors do not

[3:55] excuse the city contact

[3:56] conduct. Sales tax revenue

[4:01] repeatedly fell

[4:02] below projections. The 2023

[4:03] compensation agreement added

[4:04] approximately $3.8 million in

[4:05] recurring general fund

[4:07] expenses. Yet the council was

[4:08] not consistently shown a

[4:09] complete 10-year analysis

[4:10] explaining how these raises

[4:25] pensions, benefits, overtime

[4:28] and staffing would cost costs

[4:30] would affect reserves. The

[4:34] fiscal year 2025 third quarter

[4:35] report was presented after the

[4:36] new budget had already been

[4:37] adopted that deprived the

[4:38] council and public of critical

[4:41] financial information

[4:42] before the vote. The city then

[4:45] declared the budget balanced

[4:46] and accurate while relying on

[4:47] an unaudited opening cash

[4:48] estimate, weakening sales tax

[4:49] revenue and increasingly thin

[4:50] reserves. A clean audit of

[4:52] historical financial statements

[4:53] does not prove that future

[4:54] forecasts are accurate. Later

[4:57] reports reduced the opening

[4:58] cash estimate and showed

[4:59] reserves falling below the

[5:00] city's own policy target. That

[5:02] does not prove intentional

[5:03] deception, but it shows the

[5:04] city expressed more certainty

[5:06] than the evidence justified.

[5:08] Accountability cannot stop

[5:09] with the finance director.

[5:17] Staff must explain the figures

[5:21] they present, City manager must

[5:22] answer

[5:23] for the recommendations placed

[5:25] before the council and council

[5:26] members must accept

[5:27] responsibility

[5:28] for their motions and votes.

[5:30] Audette deserves credit for

[5:31] raising important questions.

[5:32] However, she also supported

[5:33] compensation actions and

[5:35] accepted financial reports

[5:36] during the period she now

[5:38] criticizes. If she believes the

[5:39] warning signs were visible,

[5:40] she must explain what she

[5:42] verified, what documents she

[5:43] requested and why she voted as

[5:44] she did before approving major

[5:46] recurring expenses. The council

[5:47] should require a 10-year

[5:48] affordability analysis.

[5:50] Reading Residents deserve the

[5:51] complete financial picture

[5:54] before decisions are made,

[5:55] not accusations

[5:56] after the damage occurs. If

[5:58] staff presented it,

[6:02] staff must explain it. If

[6:03] management recommended it,

[6:04] management must defend it. If

[6:06] Council members approved, it.

[6:08] Council members must own it. A

[6:10] budget is not ceremonial. A

[6:11] budget vote is not ceremonial.

[6:14] Council seat. Thank you.

[6:17] >> Thank you, Robert. The

[6:18] Cliff notes version in 3

[6:19] minutes. Easy for us

[6:20] to understand. Thank you,

[6:22] Robert. Very well. All right,

[6:23] Marcie. And then Erin, I did

[6:26] see your name pop up if that

[6:27] was you. So, you'll go fifth

[6:28] after Shackley County Watchdog,

[6:34] >> council members and public.

[6:35] My name is Marge Cantrell. I

[6:36] have lived here since I was

[6:38] 4, leaving to go to college

[6:40] in different jobs for four

[6:41] years and always came back to

[6:43] Redding. I am here

[6:47] to ride my broom again. The

[6:49] Coutras McConnell lease was up

[6:51] on December 31, 2021. The

[6:53] Coutras family in Les

[6:55] Melbourne were ready

[6:56] to open the motel, the

[7:06] restaurant and the old lost

[7:07] night bar. They had plans

[7:11] to build buildings. They had

[7:12] numerous empty buildings

[7:16] because the McConnell

[7:18] foundation left Park Marina

[7:20] Drive as it is now and it was

[7:23] voted in a record Searchlight

[7:25] poll ugly. Immediately when

[7:30] that lease was up debt months

[7:32] and winter started. The Park

[7:34] Marina plant, it was supposed

[7:36] to be done in 2024. I have a

[7:39] stack of paper over a foot tall

[7:43] when that started and when it

[7:45] finally ended in 2025 and it

[7:52] went into an EIR,

[7:53] we have not received one report

[7:55] on how that is progressing and

[7:56] if it is ever freaking ever

[8:01] going to get done. And so, we

[8:04] would like to make the council

[8:05] know that any information that

[8:08] comes out of that,

[8:10] if you would put it on the

[8:11] agenda once a month and report

[8:13] to those of us who care if it's

[8:17] what the final date's going to

[8:21] be and that we can finally let

[8:25] the Kutras family who has had

[8:27] the job increases and the

[8:28] interest rate increases over

[8:32] with so they can finally get

[8:35] started on the project. Number

[8:39] two, one

[8:41] of the biggest agendas on your

[8:42] budget is PERs and you have a

[8:49] lot of supervisors that are

[8:51] coming up to retire. And as a

[8:54] number cruncher,

[8:56] as a comptroller

[8:57] at numerous businesses in

[8:59] Reading, Sierra Stationers,

[9:01] four retail stores in the

[9:05] Downtown Mall, Cypress Square

[9:06] and Red Bluff and

[9:08] at skyway machines, Skyway

[9:09] recreation products for 13

[9:11] years. I can tell you that you

[9:12] need to make sure that they

[9:15] have supervised and educated

[9:17] their department second head

[9:19] and thirds so that you don't

[9:21] have to double hire so when

[9:23] they retire, they aren't going

[9:29] to get hired back like the

[9:30] previous councils have done

[9:31] for years. You got to have

[9:35] smarter supervisors than that

[9:37] and you're going to pay them

[9:39] seven years longer than you

[9:41] would your time to that.

[9:42] >> Thank you. Thank you.

[9:43] >> You're going

[9:46] to pay them seven Years longer

[9:47] than you would if they were

[9:48] on Social Security.

[9:49] >> Thank you for coming,

[9:50] Michael. For clarity, I think

[9:51] in the riverfront,

[9:52] we're expecting that

[9:53] to come back in December. Is

[9:54] that correct, or do you want

[9:55] to make a comment

[9:56] to that?

[9:59] >> Yes, Mr. Mayor. We're

[10:00] working with Director Pagan,

[10:01] his department,

[10:02] to bring that back

[10:03] before you hopefully hear

[10:04] before the calendar year.

[10:05] >> Okay.

[10:06] >> Margie, did you hear his

[10:07] answer to your question?

[10:10] >> Margie, did you hear that

[10:12] comment that it's going

[10:13] to come back in December

[10:14] for the riverfront? So, we

[10:15] wanted

[10:16] to make sure you heard that.

[10:23] So, I know we did that

[10:24] for you.

[10:27] >> Just to clarify, Mike, will

[10:28] there be public workshops

[10:32] before it comes to the open

[10:33] council meeting?

[10:36] >> No.

[10:38] >> Now, we've already done all

[10:40] the workshops.

[10:44] >> No, I think there was going

[10:45] to be.

[10:46] >> My understanding there's a

[10:47] lease. It's under a lease,

[10:48] most

[10:49] of that current property.

[10:51] >> Okay. Let's be careful we

[10:53] don't comment too much

[10:54] since it's not agendized,

[10:55] but. Okay.

[10:56] >> Yeah, we don't want

[10:57] to comment too much. The public

[10:58] might know what's going on. I'm

[10:59] here because,

[11:00] as you probably well know,

[11:01] it's predicted we're going

[11:02] to have a real severe El Nino

[11:03] and a lot

[11:08] of precipitation here in

[11:10] Redding. And after the flood or

[11:11] big rainstorm we had,

[11:15] I think it was in December and

[11:16] all the flooding, I'm wondering

[11:20] why the city isn't jumping

[11:21] on the gun and cleaning

[11:22] out all

[11:24] of our storm drains. I live

[11:26] down off of Henderson Ditch,

[11:28] and it flooded probably 12

[11:29] houses down there because

[11:31] of neglect and no upkeep

[11:35] on the canal. And I've had

[11:37] Aaron down there. I've had

[11:38] other supervisors and city

[11:39] council members there,

[11:40] and nobody's cleaning that out.

[11:41] And getting ahead of the gun.

[11:43] You know that it turns into

[11:44] negligence when there's a

[11:45] problem and you don't solve it.

[11:47] And it's brought

[11:49] to your attention, and I hate

[11:51] to see you get sued. You know,

[11:52] last time there was probably

[11:55] 10 or 12 houses that got

[11:56] flooded and they were looking

[12:01] to sue, but then they found

[12:03] out you don't have any money,

[12:05] so there's no sense suing it.

[12:07] I'm just guessing,

[12:09] but that segues

[12:11] into something else.

[12:14] In your closed session here, I

[12:15] see all these people wanting

[12:16] races. The firefighters,

[12:18] electrical workers. The

[12:19] electrical workers. The

[12:21] electrical workers. Clerical,

[12:23] technical, professional,

[12:26] employees, organization

[12:27] supervisors, confidential

[12:29] police, police, peace officers,

[12:31] peace officers,

[12:32] electric professionals. It goes

[12:33] on and on and on. Why are they

[12:34] asking for a raise? We're

[12:35] broke. We're in the hole.

[12:37] >> Do you guys know we don't

[12:38] have any more Money.

[12:39] >> I just thought I'd bring

[12:41] that to your attention.

[12:46] >> Thank you, Nick. All right.

[12:47] Shasta County Watchdog. There

[12:48] you are. And then Erin, you are

[12:51] up after her. And if you wanted

[12:52] to save us time, Erin, you can

[12:54] line up on the wall and then

[12:55] spare us a few seconds.

[13:03] >> Thanks, Mr. Mayor. This is

[13:04] to you two meetings prior me

[13:07] coming up here. I don't even

[13:08] appreciate you mocking me. And

[13:10] when you speak and make certain

[13:13] comments towards when I say

[13:15] something regarding that you

[13:18] shouldn't be rubber stamping

[13:20] like the Board of

[13:21] Supervisors. They're

[13:22] rubber-stamping things when

[13:23] they don't even check to make

[13:24] sure they're licensed

[13:25] contractors of make sure it's

[13:27] consistent or active. And

[13:28] for you to be mocking me or

[13:31] anything that is actually

[13:32] called retaliation

[13:34] against exercising my

[13:36] of my constitution rights.

[13:38] So, I don't appreciate you

[13:39] doing that at all. Period.

[13:42] So, since you did that,

[13:44] I did a little research on you.

[13:46] I do believe that your wife

[13:47] sits on the board of the

[13:48] Enterprise Element District.

[13:49] Hello. This is regarding you.

[13:54] >> This is.

[13:55] >> This is regarding you. This

[13:57] is about you. Okay? You

[13:59] actually,

[14:01] your wife approved a lot

[14:03] of the money for Kevin Christ

[14:06] Ninja coalition. And also,

[14:08] you were involved with one of

[14:10] your business who actually did

[14:13] insurance. It's called a goose

[14:14] head. And actually, that was

[14:16] under investigation,

[14:18] wasn't it? And for fraud. Oh

[14:20] yes, it was. I have the papers,

[14:23] your photos in here. So don't

[14:25] tell me if you're going

[14:26] to retaliate against me,

[14:27] you did that bad. Because you

[14:28] know what? I will tolerate that

[14:31] kind of shit. Because if you're

[14:32] going to mock me in front of

[14:34] people thinking you know better

[14:35] in trying to make fun

[14:36] of me and I don't like that.

[14:38] So, I am digging stuff off

[14:39] of you what you've done. So

[14:41] don't try to do that again

[14:42] because I do have a

[14:45] constitutional right

[14:46] to actually file something

[14:47] against you for retaliation.

[14:50] My freedom of speech. And I

[14:51] compliant

[14:53] for you abusing your position

[14:55] under color of law under Title

[14:56] 42 1983. So don't tell. That's

[14:57] a federal. That would be a

[14:59] federal lawsuit. So don't start

[15:01] pissing me

[15:02] off because I will come after

[15:03] you or anybody else who

[15:05] actually thinks that they're

[15:07] going to try

[15:08] to mock me and try

[15:09] to railroad me for my freedom

[15:10] of constitution. I have a right

[15:17] to address you. Even though I

[15:19] don't live here. I also pay

[15:20] taxes. Pay taxes when I. I go

[15:22] to these stores up here. I'm a

[15:23] taxpayer, I'm a homeowner.

[15:24] So, I do have a right to

[15:29] address you if you're doing

[15:30] something wrong. Damn right.

[15:32] I'm going

[15:34] to address you retired people

[15:35] like you who think they know

[15:36] better and come up here and sit

[15:37] on that position and they start

[15:38] treating people and citizens

[15:41] like they don't matter. We are

[15:42] the taxpayers. We are your

[15:43] boss. Whether you

[15:45] like it or not,

[15:46] when people get on that seat,

[15:48] they think they're the boss.

[15:51] You should be thanking those

[15:52] people, praising them,

[15:54] because they got you

[15:56] on the seat where you get paid

[15:57] to represent the citizens,

[16:00] not the other way around. So

[16:01] that's where you have a

[16:03] problem, people. You think

[16:04] you're in charge of it.

[16:05] >> All right,

[16:08] your time is up. And this is

[16:10] the first I've heard that. My

[16:11] wife is on the school board,

[16:12] by the way, so she's not on the

[16:13] school board and she has not

[16:14] run for Congress. But

[16:15] to my wife out there,

[16:16] if you're

[16:17] on the school board,

[16:19] let's talk

[16:24] after this meeting. So, thank

[16:25] you.

[16:26] >> Good evening council

[16:30] members. My name is Aaron

[16:31] Moreland. I live on Shasta

[16:32] street not far from the

[16:33] Manzanita Hills Elementary

[16:34] School, and this comment is

[16:36] on the Butte Street Boogie

[16:37] Project, which just issued the

[16:40] final initial study mitigated

[16:41] negative declaration

[16:42] Environmental documentation,

[16:44] when that draft is MND,

[16:46] was circulated in May

[16:49] of this year. I left a comment

[16:50] on it discussing the

[16:52] infrastructure

[16:53] of the bike lane on Shasta

[16:54] Street, and when the final

[16:56] ISMND was released,

[16:57] it discussed all

[17:02] of the city's responses

[17:03] to a handful of comments made

[17:04] by myself and some

[17:05] of my neighbors as well. This

[17:06] particular comment I'm making

[17:08] is about one of the comment

[17:11] responses that you gave to

[17:14] Letter G, where another member

[17:15] of the community requested that

[17:16] the safety enhancements to the

[17:19] crosswalks and sidewalks

[17:22] outside of Manzanita Hills

[17:24] Elementary School be removed or

[17:25] reduced in lieu

[17:26] of their parking spaces

[17:27] in front of their home. And

[17:29] this project is funded in part

[17:32] by an active transportation

[17:35] grant by the State of

[17:36] California which emphasizes the

[17:37] infrastructure go toward

[17:39] pedestrian and cyclist and

[17:41] other rolling type

[17:42] improvements. So, the

[17:43] modifications

[17:45] in the city's response to this

[17:48] letter were that the bulb outs

[17:49] and crosswalks

[17:51] on the northeast side of

[17:52] Manzanita Hills Avenue will be

[17:54] eliminated. No new stop signs

[17:57] will be installed

[17:58] at the intersection of

[17:59] Manzanita Hills Avenue and

[18:00] Montebello and the existing

[18:02] single stop sign on Montebello

[18:04] will remain and a bulb

[18:05] out and crosswalk

[18:06] on the southeast side of

[18:08] Shasta Street and Manzanita

[18:10] Hills Avenue will be

[18:11] eliminated. These are three key

[18:12] infrastructure enhancements

[18:13] that are designed for

[18:14] pedestrian safety right outside

[18:15] of the school. That the city's

[18:17] response is that those are

[18:18] going to be eliminated

[18:21] to preserve a few parking spots

[18:22] in an area, in my opinion,

[18:23] which has ample parking

[18:24] on the streets in front

[18:25] of everybody's homes. So, my

[18:26] request

[18:27] to you is just please discuss

[18:32] with the city's engineering

[18:34] department and review these

[18:35] infrastructure changes that

[18:36] were made that are different

[18:37] from what was in the active

[18:38] transportation grant

[18:39] application and make sure that

[18:40] they are protecting public

[18:41] safety, especially of the

[18:42] children who are attending

[18:48] Manzanita Hills Elementary

[18:50] School. Thank you, Aaron.

[18:52] >> Thank you. That was helpful.

[18:53] If you ever send us an email,

[18:55] we can follow up with you

[18:56] for sure. But I'd love to talk

[18:58] to you about that later.

[18:59] >> Okay.

[19:00] >> That was wonderful. Thank

[19:01] you. All right,

[19:07] there's no more public comment.

[19:09] We have our consent calendar.

[19:10] So, the consent calendar

[19:11] contains items considered

[19:12] routine and or which have

[19:13] individually been scrutinized

[19:15] by city council members and are

[19:16] anticipated to require no

[19:17] further deliberation. If a

[19:18] member of the public wishes

[19:19] to address an item

[19:20] on the consent calendar,

[19:21] please enter your name

[19:22] in the electronic KIOF located

[19:23] in the lobby before the consent

[19:24] calendar is considered. It

[19:25] shall be the prerogative

[19:26] of any council member before

[19:29] consent calendar is acted upon

[19:31] to 1. Comment on an item. 2,

[19:32] respond to any public comment

[19:34] on an item 3, request the

[19:35] record reflect an abstention or

[19:36] neighbor

[19:37] on an item number four,

[19:38] remove an item and place it

[19:40] on the regular portion

[19:41] of the agenda for delivery of a

[19:42] staff report and or an extended

[19:44] discussion or deliberation.

[19:46] All right,

[19:51] do we have any speakers?

[19:55] >> We don't have any speakers

[19:56] online for calling in.

[19:57] >> Okay. We would entertain a

[19:58] motion in a second. Or if any

[20:02] other council has any comments

[20:04] or anything,

[20:06] >> I'll make a motion

[20:07] to approve. I just wanted to

[20:08] ask council member if outside

[20:09] of. On item 4.12 a, which has

[20:10] to do with League of

[20:11] California cities,

[20:13] because she's our rep there,

[20:14] if outside

[20:17] of being pro local control, if

[20:18] you have any other comments.

[20:21] >> No, that's actually a good

[20:26] one for the league to actually

[20:27] pick up. I'm really,

[20:30] actually quite delighted. And

[20:31] there for the last several.

[20:33] There hasn't been any movement

[20:34] in that. So actually,

[20:35] this is the first time

[20:36] since I've been on that they

[20:37] actually have some amendments.

[20:38] And so,

[20:41] this is. I'm looking forward to

[20:42] it.

[20:43] >> I'll second the motion.

[20:44] >> Aye.

[20:48] >> Without any further

[20:49] comments. All in favor?

[20:50] >> Aye.

[20:52] >> All opposed? That passes.

[20:53] >> Five-Zero.

[20:54] >> All right, moving on

[20:55] to our regular items. Today,

[20:56] The City Manager, 9 1B, an oral

[20:57] presentation regarding the

[20:59] quick wins associated

[21:00] with the efficiency study

[21:01] for the City of Redding.

[21:02] Michael, I'll turn that over

[21:05] to you.

[21:08] >> Thank you, honorable mayor,

[21:09] and good evening. Good evening,

[21:10] council members,

[21:11] community and staff. Give me

[21:12] one second here as the clerk

[21:15] pulls up the presentation.

[21:17] Thank you, Mrs. Tipton. So,

[21:19] good evening again. This

[21:21] evening I will be presenting an

[21:23] informational presentation

[21:25] regarding the quick wins that

[21:26] were identified

[21:27] within the efficiency study.

[21:28] However,

[21:31] before I get started, I'd like

[21:32] to introduce a few of our

[21:33] consultants that assisted us

[21:34] with this. Mr. Nathan Sprague

[21:35] and Ms. Amanda Ekman. I want to

[21:36] make sure that they can both

[21:37] hear us as we're discussing

[21:38] this item tonight,

[21:39] and we can both hear them.

[21:40] So, Mr. Sprague, are you able

[21:42] to hear us?

[21:44] >> Yes, loud and clear, Mr.

[21:51] Webb.

[21:53] >> All right, thank you, Ms.

[21:55] Ekman.

[21:57] >> Perfectly, thank you.

[21:59] >> All right, thank you. So,

[22:00] with that,

[22:01] just a gentle reminder

[22:03] to the council members here,

[22:04] in talking

[22:06] with the clerk's office, when

[22:08] we do have folks participating

[22:09] through audio, visual or phone,

[22:10] it definitely helps them if we

[22:11] make sure

[22:12] to turn our microphones

[22:14] on and talk into them

[22:15] during comments and questions.

[22:16] So, if we could all please do

[22:18] that,

[22:19] I think it would help when

[22:20] Mr. Sprague and Ms. Ekman join

[22:21] us probably on the latter half

[22:22] of the presentation. So,

[22:23] without any further ado,

[22:26] we'll jump into it here.

[22:29] >> So, first slide here.

[22:32] >> As council likely recalls,

[22:34] we've jumped into this effort

[22:35] as the city's general fund

[22:36] budget is in significant

[22:37] financial distress. I don't

[22:38] think that's any news to any

[22:39] of you that are up there. And

[22:42] in response

[22:45] to that financial distress, the

[22:47] city's taken a proactive and

[22:50] responsible approach

[22:51] by engaging

[22:52] in independent analysis to help

[22:53] the city inform our future

[22:54] financial decisions,

[22:56] with a goal of understanding

[22:59] where we are today, to help us

[23:01] also identify our opportunities

[23:03] to become stronger and a more

[23:04] sustainable organization

[23:06] in the future. So, this was the

[23:09] main nexus of why Mr. Tarbo and

[23:13] I decided to enter

[23:14] into this agreement. So,

[23:19] council may also recommend,

[23:20] or excuse me, recall,

[23:21] that we entered

[23:23] into this contract with

[23:24] Circle Six just as a recursor

[23:25] in the middle of March. I

[23:27] believe it was March 13th,

[23:28] to be specific. And this,

[23:30] this whole activity, or

[23:31] engagement, if you will,

[23:33] is really a four phase

[23:34] activity, with phase one being

[23:36] a rapid assessment that

[23:38] included, I believe it was,

[23:39] over 70 interviews of staff,

[23:43] council members, community

[23:44] members, leadership, and other

[23:45] folks,

[23:49] a dozen or so site visits where

[23:50] Circle 6 was here in person,

[23:51] went out to a number

[23:52] of our facilities and spent

[23:53] time with staff,

[23:55] as well as a review of over

[23:56] 300 documents. And quite

[23:59] honestly, that number is pretty

[24:01] old now. I'd be willing to bet

[24:03] that we're probably approaching

[24:04] four to 500 documents that have

[24:05] been reviewed, that really

[24:08] being the first phase.

[24:10] However, the second phase,

[24:12] the immediate quick wins,

[24:13] that's what we're here very

[24:14] specifically to talk

[24:15] about tonight. And we'll dive

[24:17] into that here in a second. But

[24:18] I would be remiss if I didn't

[24:20] remind Council that again,

[24:21] this really was a four-phase

[24:24] engagement, with the third

[24:25] phase being opportunity

[24:26] development and the fourth page

[24:27] being execution and governance.

[24:29] And I would also be remiss if I

[24:31] didn't point out that most of

[24:34] the opportunity that has been

[24:38] identified through this

[24:39] engagement really lies

[24:40] within phases three and four,

[24:41] which will be covered

[24:42] in detail. Right now, we're

[24:43] targeting and very likely

[24:44] bringing to Council the balance

[24:48] of this presentation

[24:52] on the 15th. So, our next

[24:53] council meeting. That way our

[24:54] consultant, Mr. Sprague, can be

[24:57] here in person to make sure

[24:58] that we don't lose anything

[24:59] through communications and he's

[25:00] able to really present their

[25:02] findings and recommendations

[25:03] of Phase three. So again,

[25:04] this evening we're really going

[25:05] to be focusing on phase two,

[25:07] which were the immediate quick

[25:08] wins that were identified

[25:09] in and ran

[25:10] to ground while the Circle six

[25:11] team, in combination

[25:12] with city staff, were still

[25:16] completing activities or phases

[25:17] three and four. So,

[25:20] with that, I'm going

[25:25] to jump right

[25:26] into the quick wins. Council

[25:27] very likely recalls that it was

[25:29] about four

[25:30] to five weeks ago we shared

[25:31] with staff and council members

[25:36] a one-page summary

[25:37] of the engagement. And one of

[25:40] the biggest opportunities there

[25:43] was that the screening that was

[25:44] Undertaken by Circle6

[25:46] identified just under $83

[25:51] million of potentially

[25:52] releasable capacity. Now, I

[25:53] want to pause here for a second

[25:57] and make sure that I'm

[25:58] explaining that correctly,

[25:59] because in a number

[26:02] of situations,

[26:03] words really do matter. And

[26:04] when I talk

[26:06] about screening amounts, I.e.

[26:07] raw, unfiltered data that was

[26:09] provided to our consultant

[26:12] for them to analyze and look

[26:13] over and then send back to us

[26:14] with things for city staff

[26:15] to work with them

[26:16] to validate. So, the $82.6

[26:24] million that you see

[26:25] on the top

[26:27] of the leftmost box, those were

[26:28] the screened potential

[26:30] releasable capacity,

[26:31] or is the potential leasable

[26:32] capacity, excuse me,

[26:34] that was identified

[26:35] to be validated in combination

[26:36] with them and city staff. And

[26:40] there were four main areas that

[26:41] encompassed the 82. 6, $82.6

[26:42] million that included,

[26:43] excuse me one time,

[26:44] releases associated

[26:45] with encumbrance cleanup,

[26:47] carryover cleanup project

[26:48] closeouts, and then it also

[26:50] included what we deemed ongoing

[26:51] relief through salary savings

[26:53] associated

[26:55] with vacant positions. So, when

[26:56] you boil that $82.6 million

[26:58] down

[27:04] to the primary fund groups

[27:05] within the city, the 82.6 boils

[27:15] down to $4 million

[27:17] of releasable capacity

[27:18] within the general fund, just

[27:19] under 80

[27:21] within the enterprise funds,

[27:22] which again, those are your

[27:23] utilities, approximately

[27:26] $800,000 within special revenue

[27:27] funds and approximately

[27:28] $200,000

[27:29] within internal service funds.

[27:35] And again, like I mentioned

[27:36] on the previous slide,

[27:37] we're going to cover in detail

[27:38] on the 15th the future

[27:39] opportunities that Mr. Sprague

[27:42] will run through in detail

[27:44] for us at the next meeting.

[27:45] And that will include

[27:50] governance things such as

[27:51] policy reviews. We'll talk

[27:52] about bond refinancing, tot

[27:53] opportunities, credit card

[27:54] fees, development services

[27:56] fees, overtime. I don't have

[27:58] to read them off to you,

[28:00] but there are a number

[28:01] of things that were identified

[28:02] through the engagement that are

[28:03] worthy

[28:05] of having a conversation about.

[28:06] So, moving forward here again,

[28:10] one of the main categories

[28:11] of the $82.6 million was a

[28:15] review of our vacant positions

[28:16] that were associated with the

[28:20] hiring freezes that have been

[28:22] put into place at the City

[28:23] Council. May recall that In

[28:25] January of 2025 a general fund

[28:26] hiring freeze was put

[28:27] into play by then City

[28:28] Manager Tippen, and In January

[28:29] of 2026 a citywide hiring

[28:30] freeze was implemented,

[28:34] again citywide. I do want to

[28:37] stress that when hiring freezes

[28:38] are enacted,

[28:41] what that means is that

[28:42] for departments

[28:44] to fill vacant positions,

[28:47] it requires the approval

[28:50] of the City Manager. So, most

[28:54] positions that are becoming

[28:55] vacant are not being allowed to

[28:56] be backfilled other than

[28:57] positions that are deemed to be

[28:59] essential or mission critical.

[29:02] In a further definition that

[29:04] I'd like to point out, budgeted

[29:05] personnel funding that is not

[29:07] spent while authorized position

[29:08] remains vacant. That is the

[29:10] definition

[29:12] of vacancy savings. And so

[29:13] again, I'm sure I don't need

[29:16] to read that to you, but the

[29:17] definitions matter here. So,

[29:18] through the screening process

[29:19] again, when Circle six was

[29:20] reviewing the raw unfiltered

[29:24] data, there was approximately

[29:26] if I recall correctly, 16

[29:29] general fund positions that

[29:30] were vacant at the time. Now

[29:31] those positions upon them being

[29:32] vacated either

[29:33] from someone resigning,

[29:37] someone retiring,

[29:38] someone taking another job

[29:39] based

[29:41] on when they left the position

[29:42] within the fiscal year and the

[29:44] remaining value

[29:45] of their salary, those 16

[29:46] positions were worth

[29:48] approximately $1 million. As

[29:49] you can see there before you.

[29:51] When those individuals left the

[29:52] positions,

[29:54] the city was required to cash

[29:55] out any accrued PTOs that they

[29:57] had through vacation time or

[29:58] other accruals that resulted in

[30:07] that million dollars being

[30:08] whittled down, for lack

[30:09] of a better term,

[30:11] to approximately $780,000.

[30:12] So, you can see

[30:15] by those vacant those 16

[30:16] positions being vacated. There

[30:17] is savings associated

[30:18] with those positions.

[30:20] But I do want to be very,

[30:21] very clear to Council, this is

[30:23] a snapshot of those 16

[30:25] positions. This is not a

[30:27] snapshot

[30:29] of the entire personnel budget

[30:30] within the general fund. And

[30:33] those are two drastically

[30:34] different things. But for the

[30:36] 16 positions that were vacant

[30:38] within the General Fund when

[30:39] the data was screened, these

[30:43] are the numbers that are

[30:44] associated with them. And I

[30:46] would also be remiss if I

[30:47] didn't share with Council that

[30:52] to date we have a number of

[30:53] additional positions that are

[30:54] currently being held vacant

[30:56] that have a potential salary

[30:57] savings of upwards of $4

[30:59] million. So, as we continue

[31:00] to have that hiring freeze

[31:02] in place, as positions become

[31:03] vacant and they're not being

[31:04] filled, that number continues

[31:05] to grow. So, moving over

[31:10] to stale encumbrances. So

[31:11] again, quickly

[31:14] on the definitions, an

[31:15] encumbrance is a reservation or

[31:16] a portion

[31:17] of a budget that is set aside

[31:18] to pay for a specific future

[31:20] obligation, such as an approved

[31:21] contract or a purchase order.

[31:22] And so one

[31:26] of the exercises that occurred

[31:28] with Circle six when they did

[31:29] their screening was that they

[31:30] flagged just

[31:31] under a million dollars of

[31:33] encumbrances that hadn't had

[31:34] activity on them

[31:35] for a little bit of time. And I

[31:36] believe the benchmark was 12

[31:39] months. And after city staff

[31:40] and coordination with Circle 6

[31:44] validated that, we were able

[31:45] to release approximately

[31:49] $800,000. You'll see the number

[31:51] there in the fifth column

[31:52] from the right. It's titled

[31:55] amount released. So, $797,000

[31:56] went back

[32:01] to their home departments. And

[32:04] you can see the breakup

[32:05] of the dollar amount back

[32:06] to each department.

[32:08] For instance,

[32:09] the general fund received

[32:10] $270,000 back. The enterprise

[32:11] funds 339, special revenue 63

[32:12] and internal revenue,

[32:13] or excuse me, internal service

[32:15] 125. And so those funds that

[32:17] are being released back to

[32:23] those departments can be

[32:25] considered new programming

[32:27] capacity

[32:30] within those specific funds, as

[32:32] long as the programming

[32:33] activity is, is allowable

[32:34] within them. So,

[32:36] in other words, the enterprise

[32:38] funds, we couldn't take that

[32:40] $339,000 and spend it

[32:43] on a general fund activity.

[32:44] Nor could we take the Special

[32:45] Revenue or Internal Service

[32:46] funds. They go back to those

[32:47] fund types and then they can be

[32:48] used

[32:50] for future allowable activities

[32:51] within those funds. Similar

[32:56] to stale encumbrances, Circle

[32:57] 6 flagged a pretty large

[32:58] number, was just over $80

[33:00] million

[33:01] for validation regarding carry.

[33:03] And again, I want to hit home

[33:08] on the definitions because I

[33:10] think that's really, really

[33:12] important. A carryover is a

[33:13] process for moving prior fiscal

[33:14] year obligations

[33:15] from one fiscal year

[33:18] to another. And so,

[33:20] each year city staff go

[33:21] through a process of working

[33:23] through carryovers to figure

[33:26] out how much funds need

[33:27] to be taken

[33:28] from one fiscal year

[33:30] to the next. And this is a very

[33:32] common practice specifically

[33:33] with our very large capital

[33:34] infrastructure projects,

[33:36] because as Council very well

[33:37] knows, those projects do not

[33:39] both get initiated nor

[33:40] completed in one fiscal year,

[33:42] let alone two or three. Most

[33:47] of the projects take four

[33:48] to five years to get

[33:49] from completion

[33:50] until ultimate, excuse me,

[33:53] from initiation

[33:54] to completion. So therefore,

[33:55] carryovers are a very standard

[33:56] process that happens, however,

[33:57] through the screening process

[34:03] Again, circle six identified

[34:04] almost $81 million that didn't

[34:05] seem like it needed

[34:06] to be carried forward. And

[34:10] after we went through the Data

[34:11] with Circle 6 again

[34:14] through the validation process,

[34:16] we did validate that

[34:17] approximately $65 million,

[34:19] predominantly tied to the

[34:20] enterprise utilities or the wet

[34:22] utilities in this instance,

[34:23] did not need to be carried over

[34:24] and was actually rejected and

[34:26] goes back

[34:27] to those funds outside of the

[34:29] capital infrastructure program.

[34:36] Now that is really important

[34:37] because that money then goes

[34:38] back

[34:40] to those accounts that will sit

[34:41] in those reserve accounts and

[34:42] ultimately is used when the

[34:43] utilities go through their rate

[34:46] study process here in the

[34:47] near future. My analysis

[34:53] of that, again in working

[34:55] with Mr. Sprague and his team

[34:56] as well as city staff, is

[34:57] really what's happening there

[35:00] is the assumptions that are

[35:01] being made

[35:03] within our utility master plans

[35:04] on the rate at which projects

[35:05] can actually be designed and

[35:08] then constructed is more

[35:11] aggressive than what we're

[35:14] actually able

[35:15] to occur or actually able

[35:20] to get out the door in

[35:21] combination that when projects

[35:24] that have ultimately got

[35:25] to construction and they get

[35:27] to completion,

[35:28] if there are funds left

[35:33] on those individual projects,

[35:34] those funds hadn't been swept

[35:35] and gone back

[35:37] to the reserve accounts

[35:38] in the past. So, by sweeping

[35:44] those funds that no longer are

[35:45] needed

[35:47] for the completed projects, as

[35:50] well as stopping transferring

[35:51] money from the reserve account

[35:54] into the project accounts

[35:56] unless it's needed,

[35:57] that will result in making sure

[36:00] that we only have funds

[36:01] within the accounts for the

[36:02] projects when we need them.

[36:03] This is a big change

[36:04] from my understanding

[36:09] on how the city's operated

[36:10] for years. And a number

[36:11] of staff and I sat

[36:16] down and went

[36:17] through the carryovers

[36:18] with a very fine-tooth comb.

[36:19] And we intend to continue this

[36:20] into the future as well as to

[36:29] update policies and procedures

[36:35] to make sure that as we're

[36:36] moving funds from the utility

[36:37] reserve accounts

[36:38] into project accounts, that

[36:39] we're only transferring the

[36:41] dollar amount that is needed

[36:42] for those fiscal years. So, you

[36:43] can see here, as we walked

[36:44] through that, that $80.6

[36:45] million was screened

[36:46] through identification,

[36:47] we realized that 65 needs

[36:48] to be put back. So, 65 was

[36:49] removed. Then we validated went

[36:50] through the validation process

[36:51] for approximately $16 million,

[36:52] released another 12.8 and

[36:53] ultimately landed with $3.3

[36:54] million of the 80.6 needing to

[36:55] actually stay because it was

[36:56] associated with the project

[36:57] activity that was going

[36:58] to occur

[36:59] within the next fiscal year.

[37:00] So, with that I'll keep moving

[37:01] on and there will definitely be

[37:02] time for questions and answers

[37:03] at the end. Similar

[37:04] to carryovers for capital

[37:05] improvement projects,

[37:06] we also had a subset category

[37:07] of that, if you will,

[37:13] that we titled Dormant

[37:14] Capital Project Review.

[37:17] Again, this is with CIPS. So,

[37:18] these are a number. These are

[37:19] projects that have got

[37:22] to the finish line. Excuse me,

[37:24] real quick. That had got

[37:26] to the finish line and we

[37:27] needed to clean them up and

[37:29] finalize the project. And so,

[37:31] you can see here that there was

[37:33] approximately $260,000 screened

[37:34] for validation. That

[37:35] after we went

[37:37] through the validation process,

[37:38] we identified that 18,000 could

[37:43] go back and $244,000 was needed

[37:45] to actually finish authorized

[37:47] and needed projects. Now there

[37:49] were a few quick wins that were

[37:55] identified by Circle 6 that we

[37:58] definitely both Circle 6 and

[37:59] city staff feel like we need

[38:00] to continue

[38:04] to push forward on. However, we

[38:05] hadn't had adequate time

[38:06] to run them completely to

[38:07] ground as we did the previous

[38:08] opportunities I ran through.

[38:10] One

[38:13] of those are some refinancing,

[38:15] some callable bonds that the

[38:19] city's general fund has. There

[38:21] is an opportunity

[38:25] to refinance the 2013 general

[38:26] fund, lease revenue bonds and

[38:27] save anywhere from 15 to

[38:28] $50,000 annually. The

[38:30] recommendation at this time is

[38:36] to continue to monitor it and

[38:37] revisit as market conditions

[38:38] potentially improve. And you

[38:42] might be asking why do we not

[38:43] want to do this right now?

[38:44] Well, the interest rate market

[38:46] has changed a little bit over

[38:47] the last couple months and so

[38:49] we still need to validate that

[38:50] and make sure that it makes

[38:51] sense financially as well as we

[38:53] did receive notification

[38:56] from the CDJPA's SMP Global

[38:57] rating that the city's credit

[38:58] score was downgraded from an A

[39:04] to an A minus a few weeks ago.

[39:05] This is a big thing. And they

[39:07] cited negative outlook,

[39:08] diminishing revenues in a

[39:13] general fund 10-year plan that

[39:14] is in a state of disrepair.

[39:15] And so, for those two things

[39:17] in combination, that it would

[39:18] very much likely take us two

[39:19] to three months

[39:20] to actually process that. This

[39:21] is something that we definitely

[39:25] want to continue to monitor and

[39:26] track and move on. It just

[39:28] wasn't something that we

[39:29] couldn't run to ground

[39:30] in the last two

[39:31] to three weeks. Similar

[39:36] to that, another quick win was

[39:37] identified titled pension

[39:39] obligations. If council very

[39:41] much knows the city pays both

[39:43] normal costs and UAL payments

[39:45] associated with pers. And there

[39:47] are a number of opportunities

[39:52] to consider here

[39:53] with the pension obligations.

[39:54] Obviously one option could be

[39:58] to stay the course where the

[39:59] city continues to pay both the

[40:00] normal and the UAL costs

[40:01] on an annual basis. Another

[40:02] option could be

[40:05] to do what's referred

[40:10] to potentially as a 15 year or

[40:11] a 10-year fresh start. I'm not

[40:12] going to pretend to be a

[40:15] financial expert and that is

[40:16] not my bailiwick. However, I

[40:17] would akin these two options

[40:19] very much

[40:20] to myself refinancing my home

[40:21] to a shorter term with a higher

[40:23] interest rate and I'm

[40:25] essentially signing

[40:26] on the dotted line

[40:27] to pay a higher monthly payment

[40:33] for a shorter period of time,

[40:37] which would save me money long

[40:40] run, but I have to be able

[40:41] to afford the higher payment.

[40:42] Now. That's very much what

[40:45] options 2 and 3 are. And I'm

[40:46] not suggesting that they're

[40:47] bad, they just involve us

[40:48] potentially paying a little bit

[40:50] more initially and

[40:51] during the middle.

[40:54] But there is savings

[40:55] over the lifetime

[40:56] of it that we do need

[40:57] to consider and evaluate.

[40:58] Similar to that,

[41:01] we could definitely need

[41:02] to look at a 15 year or

[41:03] potentially 10- or 20-year

[41:04] targeted pension obligation

[41:05] bond. These are opportunities

[41:07] as well and something that we

[41:09] need to spend a little bit more

[41:12] time and run to ground. And

[41:13] similar to that, There's a

[41:15] section 115 trust option which

[41:16] may

[41:17] in my opinion be most

[41:22] attractive to council once we

[41:23] run these scenarios

[41:24] to ground, because this would

[41:25] give us the most flexibility

[41:26] to make deposits

[41:27] into that account when the,

[41:29] when the city could afford it

[41:30] and then use those funds

[41:32] specifically for FERS costs

[41:33] at a later date. It gives us

[41:35] flexibility without locking us

[41:36] into a potentially higher

[41:37] payment. These are all great

[41:38] things and these are things

[41:39] that we definitely need to run

[41:43] to ground. We just hadn't had

[41:44] time to run them completely

[41:45] to ground in advance

[41:46] of this presentation. So, this

[41:48] might look a little bit

[41:56] like an intermission. That's

[41:57] not meant to

[41:58] for what this is. That is not

[41:59] what this is meant to be. The

[42:00] information that I just walked

[42:02] through essentially summarizes

[42:03] the quick wins that were

[42:05] identified as part

[42:06] of the second phase

[42:08] of that rapid engagement

[42:09] with the Circle 6. And it was

[42:12] meant very specifically

[42:13] to tie back to their ultimate

[42:14] findings and recommendation.

[42:16] That way we had the ability to

[42:18] reconcile and make sure that

[42:20] nothing was missed. What the

[42:21] next series of slides is going

[42:22] to do is going to show council

[42:25] and the community what those

[42:26] releasable and recovered funds

[42:29] actually mean and where they're

[42:32] going to go. So, kind

[42:33] of turn that information

[42:36] into what happens to the four

[42:37] fund types that I identified

[42:40] in the very beginning

[42:41] of the presentation. So first

[42:42] we'll focus

[42:46] on the general fund. And so,

[42:49] Council, you may recall that

[42:50] of the 82.6 total screened

[42:52] opportunities, 4 million of

[42:53] that number was identified

[42:56] specifically

[42:57] within the general fund. And

[42:58] so,

[42:59] what you'll see is you're going

[43:00] to see two columns

[43:01] on the right hand side

[43:02] of your slide,

[43:03] the leftmost column or purple,

[43:06] those are the screened

[43:09] opportunities again

[43:11] from circle six. And then

[43:14] you're going

[43:15] to see the blue column,

[43:16] which are the validated numbers

[43:17] by the Circle 6 and staff,

[43:18] city staff. And those numbers

[43:19] represent what was actually

[43:21] released. So, for example,

[43:24] we identified $4 million

[43:25] of opportunity within the

[43:26] general fund as a whole. And

[43:28] $1.2 million was actually found

[43:29] through the validation project

[43:33] to be able to be released. And

[43:34] you can see the breakup

[43:35] of that between carryovers,

[43:36] there were 2.6 identified

[43:39] through screening and

[43:40] through carryover cleanup, 188

[43:42] were let go. And so,

[43:47] you can see the breakup

[43:48] between what was screened

[43:51] within each category. Again,

[43:52] carryovers, encumbrance

[43:53] cleanup,

[43:55] and then personnel vacancies.

[43:56] Now, there are a few notes here

[43:57] that I want to point

[43:58] out because

[44:00] within the general fund, the

[44:06] engineering and street teams

[44:09] live there. So, when those

[44:16] funds are released,

[44:17] they are not released back

[44:18] to the general fund. For true

[44:19] blue general fund new

[44:20] expenditures, they are going

[44:21] to go back to the streets

[44:22] Reserve account, which is

[44:23] in a lot of ways very similar

[44:24] to one of the enterprise

[44:25] utility accounts. So that's why

[44:26] you see asterisks there, to try

[44:27] and delineate that those are

[44:28] not funds that could be

[44:29] repurposed for anything

[44:30] within the general fund.

[44:31] They're going to go back

[44:32] to the streets account for

[44:35] streets eligible activities.

[44:36] And then you'll also notice,

[44:37] excuse me, that some grants

[44:38] fees were identified

[44:40] to be able

[44:42] to be swept as well. And

[44:43] obviously those would not be

[44:44] eligible

[44:45] for any general fund activity,

[44:46] only activities that were

[44:47] associated with that Grant. So

[44:52] again, $4 million was screened

[44:54] as an opportunity and $1.2

[44:56] million were identified and

[44:57] actually released

[44:59] through the validation process.

[45:00] So, moving forward or moving

[45:02] on to the enterprise funds,

[45:06] again,

[45:08] this was the lion's share

[45:09] of the 82.6 that was

[45:15] identified. You can see on this

[45:19] slide there's actually three

[45:23] columns here again we have the

[45:24] purple, which are the circle

[45:25] six screened opportunities.

[45:28] Then you're going to see

[45:29] in the middle, the green,

[45:32] the validated errors. And then

[45:34] you'll see over on the right,

[45:35] the blue,

[45:36] the actual released amounts.

[45:37] So, what's happening here is

[45:39] we're breaking out and you can

[45:40] see the amounts, the 64.5

[45:41] million in green,

[45:42] that was a combination

[45:43] of approximately $19 million

[45:44] and $45 million of wastewater

[45:45] in water utility funds that was

[45:46] determined

[45:47] through the validation process

[45:48] to not be needed

[45:49] at this time and

[45:50] to be returned to those

[45:51] enterprise funds reserve

[45:52] accounts. And so,

[45:55] after we pulled that $64.5

[45:57] million out, there was roughly

[45:58] $12.5 million that was further

[45:59] identified for release going

[46:00] through the validation process.

[46:06] So, 12.5 million

[46:07] of the ultimate 77.6 was

[46:09] released back to. You can see

[46:10] the numbers there, 30,000

[46:14] to the airport, roughly 5

[46:15] million to water, 7.4

[46:16] to wastewater. And then you can

[46:17] see down

[46:18] below the encumbrances as well.

[46:19] So again,

[46:21] this is a combination of

[46:22] carryover as well as

[46:23] encumbrance screening and then

[46:25] validation and then special

[46:36] revenue funds. This is where

[46:38] circle six identified just

[46:39] under $800,000, 782,

[46:40] to be specific. And ultimately

[46:42] $480,000 was released here.

[46:45] And again, you can see the

[46:48] breakup where we have the

[46:49] screened opportunities, again

[46:50] in purple, and the actual

[46:51] release amounts there

[46:53] in the blue. And you can see

[46:54] the breakup

[46:55] of the different categories

[46:56] between the carryovers and the

[46:57] encumbrances. So, try and use

[46:58] the same theme as we run

[47:02] through each slide. Going

[47:03] to go back for a second. There

[47:07] is one thing I wanted to point

[47:10] out here. Apologies. There was

[47:11] approximately $53,000 that

[47:14] through the screening process

[47:16] was associated with general

[47:17] fund savings that when we went

[47:19] through the validation process,

[47:21] turned out to actually be

[47:22] grants and impact fees. So

[47:24] you'll see in some

[47:27] of the previous slides. I

[47:28] forgot to mention that,

[47:29] but I caught it here. So if

[47:30] you're wondering in the

[47:31] previous slides why you saw

[47:32] some

[47:33] of those asterixis or the

[47:34] $53,000 was shown that way is

[47:35] because it was moved

[47:36] from the general fund

[47:37] into grants and impact fees

[47:39] through the validation process.

[47:47] So, the last fund type here,

[47:49] the internal service funds,

[47:50] $152,000 was identified

[47:52] for seeing opportunities, went

[47:55] through the validation process,

[47:56] and $125,000 was identified

[47:58] to be returned back

[48:00] to the home units. And you can

[48:01] see the breakup there a little

[48:04] bit with an IT communication,

[48:06] building maintenance risk and

[48:07] employer services. So again,

[48:12] 152 identified, 125 released.

[48:13] So, the balance there would

[48:14] have been determined

[48:15] to have been needed

[48:19] for actual ongoing activities.

[48:20] So, this slide here is meant to

[48:26] really combine everything that

[48:28] I've walked through

[48:30] over the last 10 or 12 slides.

[48:33] And you'll see that

[48:34] in purple again, trying

[48:36] to stay with the same things.

[48:38] The purple numbers were the

[48:39] screened amounts and then the

[48:40] blue amounts were the validated

[48:41] in either the release or

[48:44] realized or vacancy savings.

[48:48] And so again, in summary,

[48:49] through the quick wins and

[48:50] running Those to ground, $82.6

[48:51] million was identified, went

[48:54] through the validation process,

[48:55] 14.3 million was released,

[48:58] realized or recovered. And you

[49:03] can see the breakout

[49:04] by fund type through or

[49:05] within the middle slide

[49:08] of what each fund gets. And

[49:11] then again, the total is 14.3

[49:12] with 1.2 to the general fund

[49:14] in the balance

[49:15] to enterprise funds,

[49:16] special revenue and the

[49:17] Internal Service fund. So, at

[49:18] this point I thought it would

[49:20] be appropriate

[49:25] to turn the presentation over

[49:26] to Mr. Sprague and let him say

[49:27] a few things. And then I would

[49:28] be happy to take any questions

[49:32] that you have and I'm sure that

[49:34] Mr. Scragg and his team would

[49:36] as well.

[49:38] >> Thank you, Mr. Webb, Mayor

[49:43] Lapel, members

[49:44] of the council, city staff,

[49:45] everyone in the Redding

[49:46] community joining us either

[49:48] in the chamber online. Good

[49:49] evening. As Mr. Webb said,

[49:50] Amanda and Ekmanite are joining

[49:51] you remotely on behalf of

[49:52] Circle six. And I'll just take

[49:55] a couple of minutes just

[49:56] to put tonight's discussion

[50:00] in context. First, I'd like

[50:02] to thank Mr. Webb and the

[50:03] city's leadership team,

[50:05] department leaders, the many

[50:06] employees who have worked

[50:07] with us. You know,

[50:10] they've all been very candid

[50:11] about difficult issues.

[50:13] They've been responsive

[50:14] to our questions, willing

[50:16] to dig into details and that

[50:17] cooperation has made a real

[50:19] difference. And I also

[50:20] appreciate the community's

[50:21] interest in this work. Also, as

[50:25] Mr. Webb said,

[50:27] there are four connected parts

[50:28] to engagement, and I just want

[50:30] to go over those again. First

[50:32] was to understand phase one was

[50:33] where's the city, losing time,

[50:34] money,

[50:35] organizational capacity. Phase

[50:36] two was

[50:38] through that deep dive,

[50:39] identify practical quick wins

[50:40] and hopefully implement those

[50:41] quickly. And you saw some

[50:42] of the results of that. Next

[50:44] was

[50:45] to build a prioritized roadmap

[50:46] for the larger improvements and

[50:47] put the ownership,

[50:49] government and controls in

[50:50] place so that those

[50:51] improvements actually happen.

[50:52] And last, which is the most

[50:53] important part. And again,

[50:54] tonight's mostly about the

[50:55] quick wins and they matter, but

[50:56] they're not the whole story.

[50:58] We really believe the greatest

[50:59] long-term value is going

[51:00] to come from the more complex

[51:02] operational and structural

[51:04] changes that you'll see us

[51:07] discuss on the 15th. We'll

[51:09] present those recommendations

[51:11] along with the trade-offs

[51:12] involved and a practical path

[51:13] to implementation. We're also

[51:15] working

[51:16] with the city leadership

[51:18] on organizational design. So,

[51:19] we have several scenarios

[51:20] under review. Each of those has

[51:21] its own advantages and

[51:24] trade-offs and we're not

[51:25] starting with a predetermined

[51:26] organizational chart or some

[51:28] target number of positions.

[51:29] Rather, we're starting with the

[51:30] services the city must deliver,

[51:31] the work that's required

[51:34] to deliver them, and where the

[51:35] accountability and decision

[51:38] making really should sit. It's

[51:40] our philosophy that the

[51:42] structure should follow the

[51:43] work,

[51:44] not the other way around. One

[51:45] final point,

[51:48] and I think you saw that there.

[51:49] But we're being very careful

[51:50] to separate verified savings

[51:51] from potential opportunities.

[51:52] So that's why you saw that

[51:53] two-step process there.

[51:55] Nothing really should be

[51:56] counted as savings

[51:57] until a few things happen. You

[51:59] know, finance needs

[52:00] to validate the amount,

[52:01] the fund impact. And the other

[52:03] important part of this for

[52:04] sustainability is that no

[52:06] initiative should be considered

[52:07] complete

[52:08] until the control needed

[52:09] to sustain it is operating.

[52:11] So, you know, all in all,

[52:13] Redding has some meaningful

[52:16] challenges to address. But our

[52:17] work also shows a credible path

[52:19] forward. So, I'm excited

[52:21] about that. And that path is

[52:23] going

[52:24] to require some clear choices.

[52:25] It's going to require

[52:26] disciplined execution and

[52:27] sustained follow through. Not a

[52:28] one-time action or, you know,

[52:30] some report that sits

[52:32] on a shelf. So, Amanda and I

[52:33] appreciate the opportunity

[52:35] to work with the city,

[52:36] and we look forward

[52:38] to presenting a full roadmap

[52:39] on September 15th. Thank you.

[52:45] >> Thank you, Mr. Sprague.

[52:46] So, at this time, honorable

[52:47] Mayor, I'd love to entertain

[52:49] any questions that you or the

[52:51] council have.

[52:55] >> We have a couple here

[52:57] to speak on public comment. So

[52:58] maybe you can get through

[52:59] public comment and then we'll

[53:00] go to council questions. So, I

[53:02] see. Robert Sidd, welcome back.

[53:03] And also, Shasta County

[53:06] Watchdog. Welcome back.

[53:29] >> Good evening again. I

[53:30] propose the Circle 6 efficiency

[53:31] study in the 300,000 cities

[53:33] council authorized Redding

[53:34] already has a city manager's

[53:36] office, department directors,

[53:37] managers, supervisors,

[53:38] analysts, accountant, and a

[53:40] finance department responsible

[53:42] for financial management,

[53:44] budget monitoring, internal

[53:45] controls, financial analysis

[53:47] and long term planning. The

[53:48] current budget includes

[53:52] approximately $176 million

[53:53] in citywide personnel costs,

[53:54] including $81 million

[54:00] in the general fund. So,

[54:01] taxpayers deserve

[54:02] to ask a very simple question.

[54:03] Why are we paying an outside

[54:05] consultant up to 300,000 to

[54:06] identify financial and

[54:09] management issues that our

[54:10] existing management structure

[54:11] should already be identifying?

[54:14] Look at some

[54:15] of the findings presented.

[54:16] Circle 6 identified between

[54:17] 300,000 and 500,000 aged

[54:19] encumbrances that may be

[54:20] available for release.

[54:21] Approximately 250,000 in

[54:24] potentially idle capital

[54:26] project balances and personnel

[54:27] vacancy savings. Those issues

[54:29] should certainly be addressed.

[54:30] But releasing old encumbrance

[54:31] is not permanent savings.

[54:37] Closing an inactive capital

[54:38] project does not reduce next

[54:39] year's operating expenses. And

[54:40] a vacant position saves money

[54:41] only

[54:42] until that position is filled

[54:43] Even Mayor Letta acknowledged

[54:45] at the May presentation that

[54:48] some of these could be useful

[54:49] one-time fixes while ongoing

[54:50] reductions were still needed.

[54:51] That brings us to what the

[54:55] taxpayers really need to see.

[54:56] Where are the permanent

[54:58] recurring annual savings?

[54:59] Where is the analysis

[55:01] of the management layer,

[55:03] staffing level, spans

[55:04] of control over time,

[55:05] administrative overhead and

[55:07] duplicated functions? Where are

[55:08] the measurable improvements

[55:10] showing what a process cost

[55:11] today, what Circle 6 proposes

[55:13] changing and exactly how much

[55:16] that change will save taxpayers

[55:17] every year? And where is the

[55:19] 10-year financial analysis?

[55:20] Reading already uses a 10-year

[55:22] financial planning framework.

[55:24] Every major Circle 6

[55:26] recommendation should be

[55:27] inserted into that model. So,

[55:28] counsel and the public to see

[55:29] whether these recommendations

[55:30] actually solve Redding's

[55:33] structural financial problems

[55:35] or simply make the next budget

[55:36] look better. There is another

[55:37] question that cannot be

[55:39] ignored. If hundreds

[55:40] of thousands

[55:42] of dollars were sitting

[55:44] in steel encumbrances, why

[55:45] wasn't the city management

[55:47] already identifying and

[55:48] correcting that? Finding old

[55:49] money is one thing.

[55:51] Identifying management failure

[55:52] that allowed it to sit there

[55:53] and fixing that failure

[55:54] permanently is what I would

[55:55] expect

[55:56] from an efficiency study.

[55:57] Ultimately, this responsibility

[55:59] belongs to the city council.

[56:00] You approve the contracts,

[56:03] you approve the budgets,

[56:04] you approve the spending.

[56:06] Taxpayers should demand

[56:07] measurable results. Show us the

[56:08] numbers, show us the permanent

[56:11] savings and show us the 10-year

[56:12] results. Then let taxpayers

[56:14] decide whether they got their

[56:15] $300 worth. I'll look forward

[56:16] to the meeting on the 15th

[56:18] where long-term solutions are

[56:19] promised to be presented.

[56:21] Thank you.

[56:27] >> Thank you. Robert. Shasta

[56:28] County Watchdog.

[56:29] >> Sounds like you guys need an

[56:38] audit. I think it's, you know,

[56:39] I just can't understand why is

[56:40] it so hard

[56:41] for as many as you are,

[56:42] business owners and everything

[56:43] for the city to be in this

[56:51] situation that tells me that

[56:55] somebody's not doing their work

[56:56] or nobody's paying attention

[56:58] and you're covering up a lot of

[57:02] things. I just had an email

[57:05] last week from an agency

[57:07] actually just granted another

[57:10] audit here in Shasta County. I

[57:11] can't say it because it's a

[57:12] confidential,

[57:14] but I'm telling you, you will

[57:16] be my next agency that I will

[57:17] report for them to do an audit

[57:19] because there's some other

[57:22] things that I know that I will

[57:24] look into and you as business

[57:25] owners, like I said,

[57:26] should have some experience.

[57:28] But I know some

[57:35] of sometimes men are

[57:36] like a bottle. All they could

[57:39] do is think one thing

[57:40] at a time. Women could do a lot

[57:42] of things all at once, but

[57:44] sometimes men are just saying,

[57:46] oh, okay, that's fine,

[57:48] we can't have that. This is a

[57:50] city, you need to run it

[57:52] like a business

[57:53] but you also need to care

[57:55] about the taxpayer's money.

[57:59] It's not your money. You treat

[58:00] it like no big deal. That's why

[58:01] you don't have that many people

[58:03] coming

[58:04] in here because they're tired.

[58:06] But I. There people are

[58:07] watching and Mr. Mr. Mike, the

[58:08] mayor. Like I said, I know you

[58:14] had a business and you actually

[58:16] are the owner of Goose Head and

[58:17] there was fraud involved. You

[58:19] said I didn't know anything. I

[58:20] wasn't aware that was

[58:24] happening. How can you not

[58:26] know? You're doing the same

[58:27] thing here as the mayor. It's

[58:29] all in here. You were. You

[58:31] didn't know. How can you not

[58:36] know you were the owner

[58:38] of the business. You're doing

[58:40] the same thing. That's what I.

[58:42] I can't get it. Why are you

[58:43] running for? Why don't you let

[58:44] somebody else take over? You.

[58:46] >> You're not doing a good job.

[58:49] What do you need the job for?

[58:52] What do you want to do? Move up

[58:56] to a better position.

[58:57] Seriously, you're not doing the

[59:00] people any good. See, the

[59:01] finance,

[59:02] those are just numbers.

[59:05] They're not the real numbers. I

[59:06] could tell you that right now.

[59:08] So why are we not doing

[59:09] something else? Something

[59:10] different? I mean,

[59:16] I know you took over, but

[59:17] unfortunately we don't have all

[59:18] the information. But I could

[59:19] tell you I know what's been

[59:21] happening behind the scenes. I

[59:22] understand somebody provided

[59:25] two boxes with information.

[59:26] The information's in there.

[59:32] So, I will be going through

[59:34] those two boxes and I am going

[59:36] to find

[59:38] out and I will provide that

[59:39] to the state.

[59:42] >> All right.

[59:43] >> Thank you. Councilmember

[59:44] Resner.

[59:47] >> I know that our report said

[59:51] that September 15, the full

[59:52] circle six slide deck that

[59:53] council was provided will be

[59:54] that. That's when we are

[59:59] assuming that we are bringing

[1:00:00] this to council. When will the

[1:00:03] public have access to that?

[1:00:05] Are we assuming the Thursday

[1:00:09] before that's the 10th by 4pm

[1:00:10] or is there any opportunity

[1:00:12] for the public to have access

[1:00:13] to some of those slides prior

[1:00:15] to that?

[1:00:18] >> So that's a great question.

[1:00:19] Councilmember Resner. The plan

[1:00:20] right now is when we prepare

[1:00:21] the staff report

[1:00:22] for the 15th, that those the

[1:00:24] Circle 6 findings and

[1:00:25] recommendations will be made as

[1:00:27] a attachment to that and when

[1:00:29] the agenda is posted and the

[1:00:30] staff reports are out there,

[1:00:33] that it will be there

[1:00:34] for all.

[1:00:37] >> I just want to make it

[1:00:38] really clear that Thursday by

[1:00:42] 4PM is when it is that that

[1:00:43] really needs to be posted

[1:00:44] because I believe that the

[1:00:45] community really would

[1:00:46] like some time to digest some

[1:00:48] of the. If it's the same amount

[1:00:49] of slides that we looked at.

[1:00:52] We're talking about 50 plus

[1:00:53] slides and I want to make sure

[1:00:58] that people have time to look

[1:00:59] through that.

[1:01:01] >> Duly noted. And I'm sure the

[1:01:02] clerk will remind me

[1:01:03] of that.

[1:01:05] >> Just to clarify

[1:01:09] for the public, I know you told

[1:01:10] us that the reason

[1:01:13] to split this

[1:01:14] in two parts was so that

[1:01:17] Circle 16 could be here

[1:01:20] in person for September 15th

[1:01:22] presentation.

[1:01:26] >> That is correct.

[1:01:27] Councilmember Dhanuka, I think

[1:01:29] that it's imperative that Mr.

[1:01:30] Sprague's here

[1:01:32] to provide that information.

[1:01:34] Sometimes things just get lost

[1:01:36] in translation over audio,

[1:01:38] visual. And it didn't work out

[1:01:40] for today and I thought it was

[1:01:41] pertinent

[1:01:42] to bring this portion,

[1:01:43] which as Mr. Sprague outlined

[1:01:44] this is just a small tidbit

[1:01:47] of the overall engagement.

[1:01:48] So, the real meat and potatoes

[1:01:50] are with what is remaining and

[1:01:53] we'll talk about and cover

[1:01:54] on the 15th.

[1:01:56] >> So, I just want the public

[1:01:57] to understand the reason

[1:01:58] of putting that in September

[1:02:00] 15th or most of it in the quick

[1:02:01] wins that have been brought to

[1:02:04] our attention today. I

[1:02:05] understand these are already

[1:02:06] being implemented now. It's not

[1:02:07] requiring action of the council

[1:02:10] today because these things are

[1:02:12] already in the works.

[1:02:13] >> That is correct, Mr.

[1:02:17] Mayor, with the exception

[1:02:19] of the salary savings. I mean,

[1:02:20] they're technically being

[1:02:22] realized because those

[1:02:23] positions are still available.

[1:02:25] >> I'm just not allowing them

[1:02:30] to be backfilled. So, we are

[1:02:31] realizing savings there,

[1:02:32] but we could realize them into

[1:02:33] the future if we decided that

[1:02:34] those vacant positions were no

[1:02:35] longer needed.

[1:02:37] But all the other ones, the

[1:02:41] carryovers, the dormant CIP

[1:02:42] projects, the sale

[1:02:43] encumbrances, all

[1:02:44] of those have gone

[1:02:46] through the screening process,

[1:02:48] joint validation, and the funds

[1:02:49] have either been realized or

[1:02:50] released.

[1:02:55] >> That's correct. A few more

[1:02:56] comments later.

[1:02:57] >> But Councilman Audette, will

[1:02:58] there be any limitations

[1:03:01] to what's released

[1:03:02] to the public from Circle six's

[1:03:03] report?

[1:03:06] >> Yeah, it's a great question.

[1:03:07] Councilmember Audette, there

[1:03:08] will be some slides or portions

[1:03:09] of slides that will have

[1:03:10] information redacted because

[1:03:11] some

[1:03:12] of the information will pertain

[1:03:13] to ongoing bargaining that the

[1:03:14] city is currently working

[1:03:17] through with a number

[1:03:18] of bargaining units. So

[1:03:20] absolutely, we're going to

[1:03:23] release everything that we can,

[1:03:24] but some information is tied to

[1:03:25] ongoing contract negotiations

[1:03:26] and will be redacted

[1:03:28] for those purposes.

[1:03:37] >> Councilmember Munns Steve, I

[1:03:38] just want to let the public

[1:03:39] know and others know that a lot

[1:03:41] of those things, encumbrances

[1:03:43] and closeout contracts were

[1:03:45] happening before Circle six got

[1:03:47] here, probably

[1:03:49] at least a year or more before.

[1:03:52] So, some

[1:03:53] of that was already happening.

[1:03:55] And thanks to Michael, because

[1:03:56] we had talked about it like

[1:03:57] at least two years ago.

[1:03:58] >> So, just some fair comments.

[1:04:03] We could not afford to do

[1:04:05] Circle six every single year.

[1:04:06] If they're listening, I'm

[1:04:07] sorry, but we can't afford

[1:04:10] to do this every single year.

[1:04:11] And I'm sure Circle six went

[1:04:12] into any government agency,

[1:04:14] they would be able

[1:04:15] to find things just

[1:04:17] like they're finding for us.

[1:04:18] So, in fairness,

[1:04:21] are we putting any kind

[1:04:24] of measures in place for the

[1:04:25] future that would allow us

[1:04:26] to be able to find stuff

[1:04:27] like this in the future, or

[1:04:28] have they recommended some

[1:04:29] protocols for us to do

[1:04:33] in the future, be able to catch

[1:04:34] this stuff so we don't have to

[1:04:36] hire them every single year and

[1:04:37] send this money?

[1:04:38] >> So that's another great

[1:04:39] question, Mr. Mayor. I think

[1:04:40] Mr. Sprague really touched on

[1:04:41] it when he chatted a few

[1:04:43] minutes ago. There's a lot of

[1:04:44] governance and policy and

[1:04:46] procedural things that need

[1:04:47] to be taken into consideration

[1:04:48] and updated and that is where a

[1:04:50] lot of the lion's share

[1:04:51] of the effort really will come

[1:04:53] to fruition. Obviously, there

[1:04:55] are other things that we'll

[1:04:57] touch on the 15th, but a lot of

[1:04:58] our policies and procedures are

[1:04:59] just, they're ready

[1:05:01] to be updated. They're maybe

[1:05:02] 15 or 20 years old. As council

[1:05:05] may know. We've obviously

[1:05:06] transitioned from the AS 400

[1:05:08] financial system to the Oracle

[1:05:09] financial system. A lot of our

[1:05:11] policies and procedures were

[1:05:13] drafted in accordance

[1:05:15] with the limitations of as 400

[1:05:17] and it would be very prudent

[1:05:18] for us to revise those and

[1:05:20] update those as well as just

[1:05:21] with the times things have

[1:05:22] changed. And so, a term that

[1:05:23] Mr. Sprague uses pretty often,

[1:05:25] I'm going to steal it here,

[1:05:27] is we need to ring fence those

[1:05:29] savings and those things that

[1:05:31] we've identified

[1:05:32] to prevent them from happening

[1:05:33] in the future. And we

[1:05:35] absolutely are prioritizing

[1:05:36] that. And we're doing it

[1:05:37] in many ways, specifically with

[1:05:40] the carryovers and stale

[1:05:42] encumbrances. We're doing it

[1:05:44] ahead of updating policy and

[1:05:45] procedure just by the fact

[1:05:46] of going through the process. I

[1:05:49] should also kind

[1:05:50] of mention that there is a lot

[1:05:52] of value in having an

[1:05:54] independent company come in. A

[1:05:58] lot of times your staff are

[1:05:59] very busy with their day to day

[1:06:01] activities and it becomes very

[1:06:02] difficult to pull them away

[1:06:04] from their routine daily

[1:06:05] activities and have them do

[1:06:06] extra work. And so, a lot of

[1:06:08] times if we want something done

[1:06:10] at a rapid or a faster pace,

[1:06:14] that is when you bring on a

[1:06:16] consultant and then obviously

[1:06:17] someone that hasn't been here

[1:06:19] very long or is new or as a

[1:06:21] consultant, they're going

[1:06:23] to ask a lot of questions.

[1:06:24] They're going

[1:06:26] to have good perspective,

[1:06:27] and they have experience

[1:06:28] working with other companies,

[1:06:29] which obviously Circle six does

[1:06:33] government and a whole slew

[1:06:35] of other companies. That really

[1:06:36] is how you have someone else

[1:06:39] come in and take a hard look at

[1:06:41] operations and make

[1:06:42] suggestions. And I really want

[1:06:43] to commend, obviously, circle

[1:06:45] six, but city staff as well,

[1:06:47] because Mr. Sprague hit the

[1:06:50] nail on the head. City staff

[1:06:51] went into this

[1:06:52] with open arms. We helped as

[1:06:54] much as we could. All the

[1:06:55] information that was provided

[1:06:56] to Circle six was raw and

[1:06:57] unfiltered. That was a very

[1:06:58] critical decision that Mr.

[1:06:59] Tarbo and I discussed

[1:07:00] at length before files were

[1:07:01] created because it did not seem

[1:07:02] appropriate to modify,

[1:07:03] fix or adjust information

[1:07:04] before we provided it

[1:07:05] to the consultant. And so, I do

[1:07:06] think that I would be remiss if

[1:07:09] I didn't share that with

[1:07:10] council that we intentionally

[1:07:11] gave raw, unfiltered data

[1:07:12] to go

[1:07:13] through the screening process

[1:07:15] to make sure that we were

[1:07:19] getting the biggest bang

[1:07:21] for our buck for the effort. I

[1:07:22] think it's very,

[1:07:24] very important

[1:07:25] to understand that.

[1:07:29] >> Vice Mayor Dhanuka.

[1:07:30] >> I just want

[1:07:32] to share my experience

[1:07:34] with the medical field. Most

[1:07:35] of the medical institutions,

[1:07:37] like hospitals, have every two

[1:07:38] to three years or so what we

[1:07:40] call accreditation cycle,

[1:07:43] and external body comes in,

[1:07:44] hospital actually pays

[1:07:46] for it. And the idea is to go

[1:07:47] through the operations because

[1:07:50] just like any big machine

[1:07:51] with time, it needs servicing.

[1:07:53] So, you've got

[1:07:55] to clean the filter,

[1:07:59] change the oil, look

[1:08:00] at everything, do the

[1:08:01] inspections, think of a car.

[1:08:03] So, I think this exercise, we

[1:08:04] should have something not this

[1:08:06] scale, not this expensive, but

[1:08:08] smaller one. I would say that

[1:08:10] it's useful for any big machine

[1:08:12] every few years to have those

[1:08:15] external people come

[1:08:16] in and look at things

[1:08:21] with different eyes, outside,

[1:08:25] thinking outside the box that

[1:08:26] we cannot see because we are

[1:08:27] used to doing things certain

[1:08:28] way.

[1:08:32] >> Good. That was really good

[1:08:33] feedback. Thank you. Anybody

[1:08:35] else have any questions or

[1:08:36] comments at this time? So, we

[1:08:37] need to accept this

[1:08:39] presentation here.

[1:08:42] >> Thanks, sir.

[1:08:46] >> So, you accept it.

[1:08:47] >> Thank you to the manager as

[1:08:48] well as interim manager,

[1:08:49] as well as our staff,

[1:08:50] as well as Circle six

[1:08:51] for bringing this.

[1:08:56] >> Okay. All right. Do we have

[1:08:58] to make a motion

[1:08:59] to accept this or no,

[1:09:00] we just get a verbal. I'm

[1:09:01] sorry, we're good to go. All

[1:09:02] right, so we'll move on

[1:09:03] to the big one,

[1:09:05] our council travel reports.

[1:09:08] Anything anybody have

[1:09:10] to report? No. Okay. Any

[1:09:11] suggestions

[1:09:12] from council members,

[1:09:16] relatives of potential topics

[1:09:17] for the future? I'm sorry.

[1:09:18] So, we're on to line 912.

[1:09:24] Suggestions

[1:09:25] from council members relative

[1:09:26] to Potential topics. I did see

[1:09:27] a name pop up,

[1:09:28] but maybe that's off. So, I

[1:09:32] don't see anything else. We are

[1:09:33] going to.

[1:09:36] >> I have a.

[1:09:37] >> You do have one.

[1:09:38] >> I do.

[1:09:39] >> Sorry.

[1:09:40] >> I have reviewed minutes from

[1:09:41] meetings where we discussed the

[1:09:43] Finance Committee, and I've

[1:09:46] reviewed my notes and attempted

[1:09:48] to gather as best as I can put

[1:09:52] together the specific direction

[1:09:54] that we gave to the Finance

[1:09:55] Committee. And it feels dis.

[1:09:56] Discouraging because I'm not

[1:09:58] sure that I could show if

[1:10:02] someone from the public said,

[1:10:04] what is the line items

[1:10:05] of topics that the Finance

[1:10:06] Committee is supposed

[1:10:13] to bring forward,

[1:10:14] what specifically we directed,

[1:10:15] what was handed to the

[1:10:17] Finance Committee

[1:10:18] in terms of. These are your

[1:10:19] directives. And I'm not sure if

[1:10:23] that's a me problem, but I

[1:10:24] would be discouraged if I was

[1:10:25] the general public trying

[1:10:28] to look at what their job was

[1:10:29] since we had so many

[1:10:30] discussions about it.

[1:10:31] But I would like one. I would

[1:10:32] like a detailed list

[1:10:34] of specifically what we voted

[1:10:35] on so that that's really clear

[1:10:36] to the public and to this

[1:10:39] Council. And then I also would

[1:10:43] like to potentially bring back

[1:10:46] to Council consideration of,

[1:10:47] in the next year, the committee

[1:10:49] or a time frame that they had

[1:10:52] time or that felt reasonable

[1:10:53] to. That they would potentially

[1:10:55] bring back any sort

[1:10:58] of best practices policies for

[1:10:59] reviewing and approving the

[1:11:00] budget.

[1:11:08] >> So, Councilmember Resner, if

[1:11:09] I could, I just want to read

[1:11:10] back my notes and make sure I

[1:11:11] captured them correctly.

[1:11:12] First, what I heard was a

[1:11:13] request

[1:11:14] to essentially be briefed

[1:11:17] on what the Financial

[1:11:20] Advisory Committee was

[1:11:21] established for, kind

[1:11:22] of what they're supposed to be

[1:11:25] doing and make sure that that

[1:11:26] is in alignment with Council's

[1:11:29] direction. And then second,

[1:11:30] what I heard was what I believe

[1:11:33] is a potential agenda item

[1:11:34] for the Financial Advisory

[1:11:35] Committee, which is input and

[1:11:36] recommendations

[1:11:40] on reporting type

[1:11:41] of information intervals. Did I

[1:11:43] capture that correctly?

[1:11:44] >> Yes.

[1:11:45] >> Some sort of best practices,

[1:11:46] once they've had time to digest

[1:11:47] and review what our current

[1:11:48] process looks like,

[1:11:49] give us some feedback. Do they

[1:11:51] have any policy suggestions so

[1:11:54] that future councils. Because

[1:11:55] this council will look

[1:11:58] differently next year and so

[1:12:00] forth. Any suggestions? Best

[1:12:05] practices? Hey, I see this

[1:12:06] weakness here, those sort

[1:12:07] of things.

[1:12:13] >> Okay.

[1:12:14] >> Were you going

[1:12:17] to say something, Michael, or

[1:12:18] no? Oh, Michael, were you going

[1:12:19] to say something?

[1:12:25] >> Nope, I think I'm good.

[1:12:26] Thank you. You're good

[1:12:27] to go.

[1:12:28] >> Okay.

[1:12:29] >> Can it be possible that it

[1:12:30] comes back at the next meeting

[1:12:31] in conjunction with some

[1:12:32] of the stuff that Circle six is

[1:12:33] going to suggest? Because part

[1:12:34] of my notes was what is the

[1:12:35] mechanism by which we actually

[1:12:36] change policies? Policies and

[1:12:39] maybe the. Maybe one

[1:12:40] of those. Because if we don't

[1:12:41] have something scheduled,

[1:12:42] it's probably not going

[1:12:43] to happen.

[1:12:50] >> So, if we.

[1:12:52] >> If the Finance Committee can

[1:12:53] be part of that mechanism,

[1:12:55] then maybe from that, the

[1:12:56] Circle 6's report,

[1:12:59] we make some suggestions

[1:13:02] from that of what the Council

[1:13:03] is amenable to going back

[1:13:04] to the Finance Committee

[1:13:05] to target.

[1:13:08] >> Maybe I'm. I would be

[1:13:09] amicable to that idea,

[1:13:10] but I do think that

[1:13:11] to her point, there should be

[1:13:12] regular updates that the

[1:13:13] Council gets as to what the

[1:13:16] Finance Committee is doing

[1:13:17] to make sure, we're staying

[1:13:18] on track and the Council is

[1:13:19] aware

[1:13:23] of what we're working on. We

[1:13:27] really love a good ad hoc

[1:13:28] feedback loop.

[1:13:29] >> How much time do they need?

[1:13:35] >> Well, they may not need

[1:13:36] to come back and report,

[1:13:37] but you and I are also

[1:13:40] on that commission. So, if it

[1:13:41] is an agenda item

[1:13:42] in the future,

[1:13:43] either you or I or both

[1:13:44] of us can also speak to that

[1:13:45] without requiring them

[1:13:46] to come. But they may or may

[1:13:49] not want to come,

[1:13:50] but you and I will.

[1:13:53] >> But an agenda item probably

[1:13:54] makes sense.

[1:13:56] >> Okay.

[1:13:57] >> I don't know the rhythm yet,

[1:13:58] but we can talk about that

[1:13:59] at the committee.

[1:14:00] >> Yeah. Okay.

[1:14:01] >> Mayor and Littau, is there

[1:14:07] consensus on that, the

[1:14:08] Council, that you want that

[1:14:09] to come back?

[1:14:10] >> Yes.

[1:14:11] >> Yes. Yeah. Thank you. So, we

[1:14:12] are going to adjourn,

[1:14:13] but we're going to go back

[1:14:14] to closed session,

[1:14:15] and if we have any reportable

[1:14:16] action, we will come back and

Sep 1, 2026 6:00 PM - Redding City Council - Regular Meeting - Sep 1st, 2026

Agenda

Transcript