[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