Amanda, we Good afternoon everyone. I'd like to welcome you to the uh March 9th meeting of the Scottsdale Budget Review Commission. We'll start off with a public comment. Citizens may address the members of the
Budget Review Commission during public comment. Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot roll call. Thank you. Chair Schwiker >> here. >> Vice Chair Stevens. >> I'm here. >> Commissioner Baden >> here. >> Commissioner Carla
>> here. >> Commissioner Latiri. >> Commissioner Newman >> here. >> Commissioner Polland >> here. >> City Manager Greg Kaitton >> here. >> City Treasurer Sonia Andrews >> here. >> Assistant City Attorney Jennifer Fernandez here.
>> And the city budget director is present. Thank you. Now we'll go to public comment. So citizens may address the members of the budget review commission during public comment regarding any non-aggendaized items and on agendaized
items when the item is presented. Arizona law pre prohibits the commission from discussing or taking action on an item that is not on the prepared agenda. Citizens may submit one request to speak a public comment card per meeting to the
city staff. Public testimony is limited to three minutes per speaker. Written public comment cards can be submitted to the city staff at any time for an agenda or non-aggendaized items. Cards submitted after public comment has begun
for the item will be provided to the commission at the conclusion of the public comment for that item. I don't see any public request cards. Okay. Uh without that, we will go to the approval of the minutes of the February
23rd, 2026 regular commission meeting. Does anyone have any additions, corrections? >> I'll move that they be um approved as written. >> Second. >> Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Is
there any other other discussion? Otherwise, all those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> We will now go to item number two, the proposed fiscal year 2627 capital improvement plan
recommendations. Um, Okay. So, staff does not have any recommendations or anything. So, we'll open this up for discussion among the uh commission for any suggestions um items they want to vote on, observations. Uh
Commissioner Commissioner Carla, >> thank you. Um, I sent it out to the group and then it went public after that. Uh, four recommendations I have and um, I don't know if you want me to read them off and then staff will
comment on them or how you want to do it, but I'll start with the two community ser facilities things which are the Granite Reef Senior Center and the Pyute Neighborhood Center. Um, they are both citizen approved bond 2019
projects. And like anything else you're going to build, the longer you wait, the more it costs. And I guess I would ask this group to consider recommending that for the Granite Reef Senior Center um
sometime in the next in this CIP that a feasibility study is funded to clarify the project scope and the responsibility of community partners in its implementation. And regarding the Paute Neighborhood
Center, um this is a very wellused uh and critical community asset to a lot of people like hundreds or more people. And it is falling down around them. And
I know that some um upkeep was done for a roof this past, you know, year. But the more you keep trying to patch it up, the more it's going to cost. So I would ask for it to be um unpushed because it
was supposed to be completed in I think 29 and that's been pushed to 32 and the question is can it be put back because it literally is falling apart. So,
I mean, I guess can we have a discussion on the two community facilities ones before we go into water? >> Commissioner Newman, >> just a clarification, when you talk about the Grant Reef Center, uh, it says responsibilities of community partners. Is that the policy
question that we had in the last meeting? Is that what you're referring to there? No, it's it's it's ultimately if the council chooses not to move ahead with this citizen approved um program, that's a policy decision. But if you go
back in the data that was put together before it went out in the bond, it very clearly said that that the adult daycare part of it would be implemented and and overseen by community partners such as
Honor Health. >> And that's what I'm saying is because there is confusion out there, let's do a feasibility study. it. I don't even know if it has to be an actual feasibility study. let's pull together the data that was put together for the proposal for
bond 2019 and then you know um whatever it costs to pull that together in this budget cycle this you know coming up then it would go to the council and a policy decision is made
>> because de facto we are making a policy decision by not putting it in the budget Well, just I want to I want to put a ring around the scope of what a voters vote for when they vote for a bond
issue. They they do get um the idea that you're going to build some things and you need a bond to do that. I don't think they're necessarily signing up for policy changes in terms of of adult daycare and things like that. So, I wouldn't take that to a policy level. Uh and that's when I say policy, that's what I mean by that. And so, that's been
my question last year and this year. As far as the facilities, I completely agree that if they're falling apart, whatever, and there's there's a bond issue for that, of course, we have to take care of what we have. >> Yeah. I believe in 2019 bond for Granite Reef Senior Center, it did specifically
say adult daycare. Well, is that is the context a facility implementation or a a we're going to start a adult daycare program for which I had questions saying that there's going to be state there's other state programs, federal programs to do things
like that. I think that's a that's the policy decision that Scottsdale and the council needs to wrestle with to say should we get into that because that's a that's a whole different expense item which is aside from any bond issue that's ever been approved. >> Yeah. And and I agree with you on that. That's why I'm saying let's get it defined. That's and then the council can
make the policy decision. >> But but but we can we can agree that for this budget here, we're talking about the facility physical part of that, not the program programmatic part of that. >> Well, what I'm talking about for the Granite Reef Senior Center is actually
do the feasibility study for what bond 2019 said and then it can go forward and have community discussion and a council policy decision. for Paute. I'm saying just put the darn thing back in the budget.
>> So, so that would that I would think that that feasibility then would uh explore the legal aspects of does a bond issue start a new operational program where operational expense goes to that and that's where I would that would have to be part of a feasibility discussion as to whether the bond issue has that
kind of scope. I >> I would agree. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Commissioner Stevens. >> Yeah. I wanted to cover a process question now because we really haven't done this. Uh we're we're doing asking for comments now as we complete each area. So I'm okay with that. My picture
in my head and this is what we need to talk about. I thought we would gather the comments, get an initial reaction from each other about whether we thought they had legs and then put it on a parking lot list because there might be some things that happen that cause those things to go away as staff looks at it
and finalizes their budget. So my question is, is that what we're going to do? because then it's like, okay, fine. Carla's suggestions sound reasonable. Let's put that on the list of things we may include in our report at the end when we're done. Or uh Sonia, I think you're you're the one that uh uh said
you wanted you didn't want what happened last year to happen. So, in that regard, are we actually looking towards do you all want to finalize your recommendations now? Uh, I prefer the former where we just get initial reactions from each other and put them
on a list and then we come back later and decide which ones we want to include in our report. >> Commissioner Carla, it was your motion. Do you have an opinion? >> Well, I mean, right now it seems like there are just a few specific things and
that's manageable. Um, last cycle, I'm sorry, we got like >> like 70 and some were just plain batshit crazy and and there was no point in talking about them and in the end we didn't. Okay, but because they asked for
it, everybody threw out everything, you know, what about this? What about this? What about that? This is more specific, you know, and um this has been agendaized for discussion about possible recommendations about the CIP and unless
somebody another commissioner feels that they have a lot more recommendations they want to bring forward, you know, and they weren't given the opportunity to do it. Um, why do we have to do that whole big ownorous
let's make a giant list again? The only reason I mentioned that is if we get to my comments, mine uh could get answered to some degree before things are all done. And so I'd want to adjust the comment accordingly depending upon what happens. So that's that's just
where I was coming from on that. Uh, and I'm a little I I don't object to any of any of your comments, although I will observe that the couple at the end are covered by one of the comments I had that was more broadly saying, "Hey, let's take a look at all the things that
are pulled out." But, uh, okay, where do I want to go with this? Uh my recommendation is that we put things in the form that the proposer would like them and put them on a list and then provide any comments now about whether we think we may want to
challenge that later or whether we think it's okay. But I don't know that we need to vote on each one unless we have to >> I I just guess I would ask Sonia where then where in the process does it fit? I thought right now we're supposed to be
dealing with the preliminary five-year CIP. So, if we push it off, we're not getting it done. Um, Chair Schwiker, members of the council, the agenda item is specifically agendaized to allow the commission to
make recommendations on the CIP as presented. Um, you are free to do that and make motions to make recommendations which would end up in the final uh report of recommendations to council. If the commission so desires, you can also
um not make any recommendations and leave that till the end. However, I do have to remind the commission you have three April meetings to go over the operating budget and one meeting to um finalize all your recommendations for
council. So, um it might be easier to um devote the time tonight that's agendaized for that. uh you maybe have an opportunity in April to amend the motions if you so choose, but it would
um >> and Mark, that's kind of what I was thinking. If we vote on them tonight, we could always go back and amend them or repeal them later on. >> That and and I'm fine with that. I wrote mine in a format that I thought would fit nicely into a report as far as flow
and style. So, I I'll just offer that to you all. But I agree, we can change whatever we want later. Uh, and but when you get we get to my list, I'd like them all uh included in the report after you discuss them.
>> So, um, >> I'll make mine into a motion. >> The one for Granite Reef and P. >> I'll do Granite Reef and PY separate and then we can discuss water. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um, I move
that the five-year CIP include a feasibility study to clarify the project scope of the bond approved bond 2019 project for the Granite Reef Senior Center adult daycare.
Does that cover everything? Attorneys, we good? I I think and I think you could put Pyute onto that same motion if you wanted to. Or do you want >> Do they have to be two separate? Well, because I want Pyute put back in.
>> Separate. >> Yeah. >> So, the first one's just the motion on the feasibility study coming into the five-year CIP. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Okay.
>> Okay. Uh it's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Otherwise, go ahead. >> I I would I would propose to amend that to separate out in the make sure the feasibility study addresses the question about the physical facility rebuild and
the operational policy decision that the city would be taking on. >> Okay. However you want to word it, I'm good with that. >> So, um I'm not sure what to say there. Whatever your motion, we take your motion, but just but the feasibility study would separate out the physical
facility decisions and the polic operational policy decisions of adult daycare, >> but it would address both. >> It can address both. Yes, I can agree with that. >> Second. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I accept the friendly amendment. >> The friendly amendment amendment has
been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Otherwise, all those in favor, please say I. >> I. >> Motion carries. Okay. >> Carla. >> Um second one. Um I move that the Pyute
Neighborhood Center um funding for its rebuild um be restored fully to the five-year CIP budget and not pushed off to um year 2032. >> Very discussion. Uh, Commissioner Newman.
>> Does that include any adult daycare? >> That's my hot button. >> No, there's there's not any. >> I can agree. >> I believe the city manager has a comment. >> Yeah, I was just waiting if there was a second, but um, as one of the colleagues
is still pondering that, I just thought I might offer a little bit of context for this uh, project. We have discussed this since the last BRC meeting. Um I've discussed both of them but uh the ships already sailed looks like on the granite reef. So I would just address the Pyute
neighbor and a little bit to the commissioner's comments and then I would suggest a feasibility study on this. We are we are we are moving forward with a feasibility um because there I think are different interpretations even in the
when people talk about this project. I hear about buildings that are dilapidated, which may or may not be true, but then I hear about redoing them. Then I hear about new construction. I don't know that we have everybody on the same page for this. Are we uh for example, and this is meant to
be rhetorical, are we demolishing existing buildings and building new buildings? That has a different operating cost going forward that has a different expectation. Are we redoing existing buildings? I I think there are different views on this. And so I think a feasibility study would actually
address how we move forward and the cost quite frankly because again we have those are two very different uh or at least three different scenarios and costs moving forward >> and and that's fair enough because there was a proposal which was accepted by council which included housing second
story housing and that went away and I was under the assumption that staff had then retrofitted and had a plan. But if you're saying they do not have a plan, then I could change my motion to say that a feasibility study to identify
um the rebuild of Pyute Neighborhood Center be included in the next budget, not fiveyear cap, the next budget and then implementation in the following four years. that would be in alignment
with the path that we are on now based upon your comments. >> Then that's my motion. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Is there any further discussion? Otherwise, all those in favor, please
signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. Opposed. >> Motion carries. >> Commissioner Carla. >> Okay. Well, unless Mark wants to jump in and we can alternate since he and I were the ones doing this. Otherwise, I will >> I just thought we
>> Okay, let's let's go water. >> Um the removal of the Bartlett Dam funding and the removal of the APRW funding. And I completely understand
where um city manager is explaining that we they need to have better numbers before they want to put it in there. But this is such a foundational issue for Scottsdale and at such a crisis point
with the cutbacks in the Colorado River. Um, and it is long identified that these are two prongs of the four-prong Scottsdale plan to address our water future. So my question is in this case,
can we not put a reasonable amount back in the budget so we know realistically that this substantial budget concern is going to be addressed? it may adjust and I understand why you don't want every
project adjusting and being like in the past where you come back and up upscale every single project. Um, but if we don't put it in there, I go back to the term it is a de facto
policy decision >> because we're not you're you're because you're not budgeting for it. The impression is APRW may not be the way we're headed anymore.
Yet, it's been planned for for over a decade. So, and this goes kind of what to Commissioner Stevens was talking about, which was how can we have a realistic idea of what the budget's going to be if
something this major is just zeroed out right now and yet the city manager saying we're going to be putting it back in later. Um, so those that's that's why I bring this up and ask in this case, couldn't we put some
money back in there to show that the commitment is still there? >> Mr. Mr. Mr. Chair, if I may, I think I' I'd like to take these two projects uh separately because they're I see them different uh not only because the scope
of the projects, but maybe a in the spirit of a a response to the comment. And so for the Bartlett Dam that is a partnership with other folks and I'll look to feedback here from the treasurer
in a minute but we have an annual participation that if we're going to continue to be a part of that partnership which isn't necessarily capitalized and so again kind of a look to the county question here because it's not in the capital budget doesn't mean
that we're not continuing with the potential partnership. So there is an annual and so there's two pieces kind of the annual feasibility of an asset that we will never own which is different in this scenario and the long-term cost of that the long-term cost will be
determined at Bartlett Dam through the feasibility that somebody else will potentially capitalize in the short term um we are participating in a study does a study go in the CIP when you're a partner of something like that and So
that therefore we've had discussions about these feasibilities because we're doing more of them. And so then the question is it really does it go in the capital plan or does it go in more the operating plan? At the current time for that project we are expecting continued
participation and have not funded it in the capital plant but had planned for those costs in the operating. >> So the annual fee is in the operating plan. >> Yes ma'am. >> For Bartlett Dam. I can. Yes. Thank you
for explaining that. Now, APRW. So, Mr. Chair and Commissioner, my response to the uh that item is we when ADQ, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality about a year ago uh developed
some rules and some and they were a little bit uh different than we were anticipating. And so given that significant change, we uh issued a contract to for an outside engineering firm to analyze the capital costs
associated with that project and ongoing operating expenditures. That is not complete yet. And I as the city manager feel like one, I don't know the capital expenditure and I don't know the operating expenditure.
So I can't put it in the budget. If I had had that 90 days ago, it is a perfect time to introduce those types of concepts into the budget. So, I have a what if, I have an unknown on an operating side. I have an unknown on a capital side. And so, that gives me
pause of of introducing any number that's essentially going to be wrong. I don't have the number. And so, that was the rationale behind not including that. And again given the significant uh I continue to look back at the records and
the policy decision of implementing AWP has not been approved by a governing this governing body or any uh previous governing body. Yes, that is true. So >> Commissioner Newman
>> just a clarification waters obviously as Carla has pointed out it's a big issue. Um and so there's water strategy then there's feasibility that goes into what project and the projects become the solution. We have a CIP that starts with the solution is
kind of working backwards. Is that fair to say right now? And and we're kind of looking at our strategy of which the feasibilities would then say what projects out of that make sense or the feasibilities would say what scope makes sense. But you also got other gears that
are that are moving here, right? Is that fair? >> I think that's spot on. >> Okay. Okay. So, so I would say that um even though you're taking some things out of the budget, things are going to come back because you're not going to let Scottsdale run dry and so it's a matter of working through that process
and then you kind of re reconfigure the budget to fit what the what the needs of that strategy and feasibility are. Is that fair? >> I think it is. I would just also just say it an alternative way going back to the Bartlett is the significant capital expenditure
um is outside of the five-year window. So that I wouldn't say been removed per se, but just again not within the five-year window for a CIP. And then I would just explained the AW advanced
water purification project because it's so un we have a a study underway and to your point uh to evaluate this option of generating water as compared to uh option the next option alternative
option and then the concept would be to deliver those uh as comparables for decision makers to council to say okay which route and maybe multiple routes uh and bring that forward and unfortunately
just given a timing of that project is just a little bit behind the budgetary process. >> Yes. Do you have a timeline for this? >> Keep saying spring. So unfortunately I think it's going to be after the budget process might end up after we do our
staff review and understanding and again bringing alternative approaches might be early summer by the time that could come back to city council for consideration. >> So this could be something that comes to the budget review commission next year. Um I was interested in Carla's proposals
um from kind of a big point of view in that if the water situation deteriorates and rates go up, water usage gets cut and everything, I would just hate for residents or or councils in the future
to look back and say, "Well, we didn't do anything because the budget review commission didn't think it was important enough to have it in the CIP project. So if if we have assurance that there will be something next year for the budget review commission to look at
um I'm not wild about that, but I think that might satisfy me. Commissioner Newman, I >> I would just add to that that um taking six to 12 months to get the starting point right and the scopes, cost, and schedule right against a 10-year project
to build a dam or more. 10 or years or more by the time you get all the approvals in construction and engineering. Um, another six months to get that part right and know what you're wanting to build is not going to is not going to be consequential to what you what you just mentioned in terms of uh was the process right in the beginning
in terms of of who looked at it whether BRC looked at it or council or whatever. I think I think giving uh city manager Kate in the room to uh get the scope right is most important thing right now. >> You know, and I I agree with what you're saying because, you know, part of the reason we're here is that projects were
done and they had a certain dollar >> attached to them and it turned out to be nothing close to reality. Yeah, I think we're finding that in a lot of places where we start asking a little deeper questions and there's not a lot behind some of the scopes as scopes and costs and so taking a a thoughtful review of
that is responsible and what we ought to be looking at and and making sure is getting done from a from a budgetary perspective. >> So, let me go back to Carla because it was her motion. >> Okay. Um, can I get a clarification first though? You said that this has not
been um the APRW has not been adopted or by a previous council or anything. >> Advanced water purification has not been uh approved by a governing body to move forward. Well, I'm I'm looking at a
document where on um June 25th, 2024, um then the head of the water department, Brian Beesmmer, had a work study session with the council on the strategic plan, strategic water plan
2025 through 2030. And um he was given direction by council to proceed with this. >> Uh Mr. chair and and commissioner. Um, couple elements. I I I'm not going to be the attorney in the room, but I do think
we might want to keep this conversation narrow because it it might get outside the scope of what is agendaized today. But I will briefly provide it's much I'll use that strategic plan and use it analogous to a master plan. And when we
present master plans to our elected body, they're inspirational. they're aspirational and we don't have funding that aligns with those. That is community engagement. This is if some grants align, this is the the whole
picture. Uh if we could build it at one time, uh what would that look like? So, I use that as and I remember uh and because I was here then and council said, "Is this our approval of that
project?" And the answer was no. That was a high level strategic plan of here are some strategies as we have the impending shortage or uh cuts to the cap. What are you how are you going to fill the gap? Here are some strategies
that we will explore and we will return to the decision makers to determine the analysis and which one's best to move forward with. We still need to do that work. And as was just illustrated a few minutes ago, option A versus option B
versus option C, those need to be determined um by the governing body as presented by us with good feasibility studies of the ongoing costs in addition to the capital cost. And furthermore,
this body a year ago pinpointed the AWP. It was might have been in a different room and said, "Wait a minute, you went from approximately 15 to 20 million and now it looks Yeah. And now it's >> six significantly more than that. You should look at this project.
>> So we we did what you told us to do. So that was one of them. Then uh furthermore, back to your exploration of talking about feasibility study. There was a suggestion of creating the tiger team. Uh Commissioner Stevens, we did the tiger team. The tiger team uh has
developed over the summer periods continuing on. That's just the capital review group and uh and determine the feasibility uh needed to be conducted in a number of these areas as you've identified um they weren't solid uh professional engineering numbers and so
therefore that's kind of why we took a step back. So to your point that strategic plan does not authorize does not give direction forward. um budget does in some instances. However, it doesn't in this case particularly align
with um the current the previous fiscal years or where AWP had been funded. >> Okay. I appreciate the information, but just for clarity because I don't want to misquote you. Are you saying that the city of Scottsdale has never
authorized the APRW program? Uh what I am saying is that we had a pilot and that license is expired. ADQ developed rules that we have to
abide by. We are doing an analysis of the costs on an operating basis for given the new rules and the capital expenditure that's required with that. And once that study
is complete, we will return to city council for consideration of AWP likely is comparable to other water projects that would bring new source and supply. >> Okay. Well, one final question and then
I'll make a motion which I know is going to fail. Um, if the pilot program, if we do not spend the money to to meet the AD,
the federal rules, are we still going to be able to use that APRW? >> Let me see if I understand your question. And if we get too deep, I'm at I may call a colleague
to come up and assist. >> Well, it's a funding question. If we don't spend the money or some amount of money >> to meet these federal new federal requirements, are we going to be able to use the existing pilot APRW
program? >> What I would say is that we had a pilot program and quite frankly beta tested it and it worked. Um but the rules have changed and that license I'll use that or or has been and I'm not using the
right technical terms here for you just give me a little grace um in that regard but there are new requirements now Arizona Department of Environmental Quality we have as was told to me A+
quality reclaim water to take that water source and turn it into AWP P takes additional capital investment that is not in the budget as we've been discussing. We um
are utilizing that right now uh in other ways but are not using it in indirect or direct potable use. And to take it from the A+ the quality that we have now to move it into that AWP will take
significant infrastructure improvements capital improvements that are not in the document as you pointed out and others and then also ongoing operational expenditures staffing let's just say staffing capital expenditure operating expense. We are now studying what all
those costs will be on a one-time basis and on an ongoing basis to bring that forward for consideration. >> So the alternative options to get new water will those be coming forward in the operating budget?
They would they are a significant expenditure and so they would be compared at the same time um in this >> but will they be coming through this cycle? >> Uh we're still evaluating that. >> Okay. All right. Well then I'll make my
soonto fail motion. >> Oh wait a minute. Commissioner Newman has a comment. >> Just a clarification uh for Commissioner Carla. Are there's money that's been spent requirements have changed. you want to go back and take a look at that, which is a fair thing to do to make sure we're spending the money, right? Are you
are you advocating to go ahead and spend the money because something started or because you think that and and we should do that? Because from a business standpoint, if if it was the wrong project and the recommendation is to stop, it's a sunk cost. You know, that that you you move you move on from that and you move on to the alternatives that
would work and I would expect those things to come forward. Or are you just wanting to spend the money because you think that's the answer? No, I'm wanting to put a placeholder in the budget to show a commitment to the continuing use
of APRW, which the city has com >> you're you're presupposing the answer there. He's saying that that might not be the answer. >> Well, with all due respect, um it's been in the city's plan for many many years.
And again, I know the motion's going to fail, but I do believe that we because it is going to number one be such a substantial budget consideration and number two, we're in for it on the water cuts. So, I
don't see why we don't be realistic and say sometime we're going to have to spend some money on this. That's my whole point. And and my point like you go to the Bartlett Dam project that was a $50 million just engineering alone. If that's not the right project
or the right scope or whatever, you just wasted 50 million. You got nothing for it. I would rather him come back with what's right and take a few months to get that right. So because these are long-term projects, these are not tomorrow, right? Next next month project. >> And he explained that when it comes to the Bartlett, we are still part of the
regional. And that's fine. I I can that makes sense, you know, as long as we're part of it. Okay. And we're not pulling back something that's going to cost us more later. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, so we've moved past we've moved past Bartlett and we're running out of time for this. We have to get
>> about that. >> Yeah. >> I I just my my point is is is that >> I think we ought to look at it from perspective of of these are not small projects to think about and getting it right now is really important and slow is fast and fast is slow. When it comes to these things, I do a lot of
pharmaceutical projects. taking the time to get it right because these are four and fiveyear projects is really important right now. And I I I understand what you're saying and you want you want to be able to show that everybody is uh is committed. I think they are committed because they're doing the work and I now I would expect them to come back and tell us about that what
their strategy is here um in the next few months. Um, I move that the BRC recommend to the city council that the there that a certain amount of money as a placeholder
be put back in the 5-year preliminary CIP for the APRW program to show the commitment to its future use. >> Is there a second? So, as somebody who drank that water 30
years ago and I'm still around to to say that I drank it and hopefully no damage. Um, the motion dies for lack of a second. >> Commissioner Stevens. >> Okay. My view on our recommendations is that we're providing ideas to council
for them to consider and decide if they want to adopt them, reject them, or modify them. So, in that light, uh, that's that's where I came up with mine. The first thing I'd like to do because I think I'd like to enhance our understanding is can you put this sheet
up that I had sent over in advance, the one that has, uh, the five-year summary. And what this is, all I did that is I took last year's or I took this year's five-year summary and I just wrote in by hand the dollar amounts we had in last
year's for a comparative reason. My concern here is I want to know how this is going to be dealt with with respect to planning financial sustainability going forward and I don't know that the
answer is available yet. Let me say that uh uh for city manager uh Kaitton for what you've done. I understand what you've done. I understand why you've done it. My observation is what are we going to do about visibility on the things we no longer see? We no longer
see about a half a billion dollars worth of potential runout, but those were also numbers that uh I I think our city manager would probably say were rough enough that I don't know how close they were and I don't like putting something in that I'm not particularly comfortable
with. I believe that I'm guessing that leaves u our treasurer with a little bit of a challenge because what do I do when it comes to knowing that I will have enough future revenue in years 2 through five uh plus debt capacity in order to fund what's reasonably likely to come
forward for projects. So my the one thing I wanted to know is the runout as I understand it here would just be for those that we have a good estimate for that includes the years in which we're going to play pay the dollars that are
budgeted in the budget book and for those that we have only done a feasibility study. There's nothing in there for those capital costs yet. We know there will be some capital cost and we also know there's going to be some capital cost for things that we don't know that'll be added. So, I'm just
trying to do that as a framework for you all to try to explain my comments. So, what my first one does on the 5-year uh sustainability plan, all I'm saying there is, hey guys on the first bullet point, does someone need to at least give rough estimates to us or does
counselor to someone on what we think these extra dollar amounts might be for the purposes of looking at what uh whether we're going to be able to have enough cash available and making all our decisions because you're making operating decisions that are going to generate cash. The second part is
alternatively, and I'm asking questions here, does finance have to say, okay, I've got to use these numbers that are up here now. I know I'm going to be spending a lot more money. I'm going to take another approach. I'm going to say I know I'm going to spend at least this much. I'm going to take a look at my
projections and say, here's the money I'm going to throw off from operations. Here's what's available for capital through ordinary course. And here's what my debt capacity is. And then for each of those out years say, "Oh, that leaves 250 million this year, 300 that year.
Oh, that smells okay to me." And then council council can say, "Okay, that looks like enough cushion that we have going forward." So, I'm not asking for you all to do anything right now. I'm proposing a recommendation that just says, I think you've got some so many
dollars went away. I think you need to address this and how you're going to handle sustainability, which will be an agenda item down the road for us. Uh and and I'll tell you what I'll do. My I've got three bullet points there. Go ahead and take the third one out that
says a final consideration. We recommend there be some broad education. We just separately need that. If someone needs that education, they need it. So, you've got two bullet points here. one is saying uh basically saying, "Hey, does someone need to give us some ballpark numbers so we know what these numbers
really might be or do I need finance to back into it?" And you all can just answer that to us later, but that's my recommendation right now. So, I I would move that uh the bullet point one on the five-year plan fiscal sustainability
uh be included in our recommendation with the deletion of the third bullet point as uh at the bottom the last four sentences. That's my motion. Is there a second for the motion? Yes. Carla, you may ask a question.
>> Yes. I'd like to ask Commissioner Steven. >> Don't we have to have a second before we have a discussion? >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> We have a second, then we have a discussion, and then there could be a modification. >> I thought she was asking you a question to decide if she was going to second it or not, but Okay. >> Okay. F. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
>> Um, just just to make it copathetic, I will second the motion. >> Okay. >> Commissioner Carla. >> Okay. Um, >> ju just for clarity, you're talking about going back to the
previous process of putting in the rough estimates and then look at how those rough estimates are done. >> I mean, is that in a in a in a nutshell? >> Okay. I'm not advocating that the new
methodology be changed. I'm making an observation that this causes a problem for later exercises where you look at the five-year runout and whether we can afford to do all the things that are going to happen. And so my observation is my recommendation is think about how
you're going to do that. You got one of two ways to do it. You throw back in rough estimates or you figure out how much can I afford and is the gap big enough that it smells okay.
So staff has has requested that you um restate your motion because they weren't completely sure they were clear about it. >> Okay. My motion is uh adopting the attachment that says ACIP where it has
five-year plan fiscal sustainability that everything that only that bullet point not the part where it says CIP completeness. So the the part that's bolded five-year plan fiscal sustainability that I move that that be
adopted with the deletion of the last four lines of that section >> which starts as a final consideration in this area. >> Commissioner Carla. >> Um could I ask for
some staff feedback on this please? I'd happy be happy man manager >> thank you so first of all I appreciate the analysis and the thoughts on it from my perspective a couple things come to play what there's been a fair amount of
discussion of what's been removed and and so let me uh reemphasize or say it a little bit different way on some of the things that were removed some were we've captured most of it just didn't feel like an accurate number and some of those but maybe the category we just
glossed over and maybe this helps is improvements we don't need. And so here's an example. Um there's a a capital project. I'm trying to keep it anonymous to save um face with the department, but through the process, we
went through every single capital project. Every single capital project with the Tiger team and ask questions about the status. Are they done? How much how much longer? We're trying that you saw a lot. We're closing them out. We need to close out these projects. Why are they lingering on? So, so we closed a lot out. And then why is this project?
And I asked one of these, it was it was in about year four or so if memory serves me, one of these. I said, "What about this project here?" And it I'll call it growth related. I said, "Well, wait a minute. How do we know we really need that at this pace of growth that
element?" They go, "Actually, you're right. We don't need it." And we removed it. It just wasn't needed. So there are some of those projects that I think it was just get everything on the plate, get it out there, get it out there versus really some analysis. And what we did is we went through and really
analyzed all these projects. And if if growth uh starts to really spike up a little bit, we need that in year four or five, then we certainly add it back in. But at this point in time, based upon the director's response to that question, we didn't need the we didn't need the project. So we removed it. And
there are a good number of those. As you all know, the I think one of the number one rules with budgeting is priorities. And so that's would be my answer to the long-term sustainability on this is priorities. So hopefully that helps the discussion. But I did want to mention
that other category where some quite frankly are just not needed. >> Mr. Commissioner Newman, >> just add to that and just a question. Would you expect on the year three, four, five time frame to either be hard projects like large water, large
drainage, large road projects that are going to take four or five years to do and you'll see big numbers out on the horizon or you're going to see very small numbers because you're doing a feasibility saying I think we have a growth problem out in year four or five. Let's do a feasibility on that and understand what that is. Is would you expect to see that in the in the cash
flow numbers that you would project? >> I think you're right. I think it's a combination of all that. And other thing while we had just to reiterate that for the the audience purposes I know this group knows this but we had significant carryovers from year to year and that's
what we're really trying to fix here as well and that's going to take a few years. You haven't quite uh seen the benefit of that. It's going to probably take next year is going to be a really big cleanup year and then we'll start to add them back in. And I would submit let's just for sake of discuss
discussion say you've got uh you know 300 300 million 400 million we can only produce so much. We can only produce so much in a year. Get in in the door analysis and out the door with cap and again these large ones they're going to roll from multiple years. That's a whole
purpose with the CIP. But a good number of them were rolling without initiation. And so we've really removed that in this new process which will help a lot. Then I would also submit that four to 500 million that we are moving along. We're going to close those out and then we
have capacity to start the new ones that at once we get the feasibility of them. So we're just rec rebuilding and we won't see this issue to this level in future years of a fair amount of feasibility unless projects if you will
that'll get solved over the next two budget cycles. Yeah, we're we're running about a billion dollars a year theoretical budget, capital budget, but maybe three or 4 hundred million as you said. That was my analysis showed that when I went through the whole thing and there's just this rolling bump in the
rug uh depending on what happens, COVID, all that stuff. It kind of went up and down from there. I think you know, Commissioner Carlo is concerned about showing are you committed to something. To me, the answer in that is not a 50 or 100 million project is in the budget. That's a a placeholder. ought to be a
feasibility study saying we're committed to doing a feasibility study and we'll see if that's the right answer and let's devote $250,000 to get the feasibility or maybe it's more you know a Bartlett dam would be different but I would look to see that in the budget as a as line items for
commitment to projects. >> If I may Mr. Chair just add to that and I I think Commissioner Stevens might appreciate this comment too. I I think in to some extent the ongoing uh operating costs have not factored in maybe to the level that uh they really
need to be when we're considering these projects. Um I know of a couple 2019 bond projects for sake of discussion. Well, it's bond money. Build it. Well, they had operating expenditures. >> Fire stations, great example. Okay, building it is only half of part of the
cost, right? And so then so when we have those 19 in and we still have more to produce. So that's just something else to factor in in so we need to factor in that that operating ongoing operating cost is significant. We'll still build it but we that's what they kind of have to align and they've been a little off alignment
if you >> and that gets my point earlier they voted for the thing not the operation of the thing because that's not that's not part of the scope of what's advertised when we vote on these things. >> Uh city treasure. >> Yeah. Thank you chair Schwiker members
of the commission. And I just wanted to add my comments as well. Um, I really do appreciate Commissioner Stevens recommendation to make sure that the CIP provides long-term financial planning and financial sustainability to the extent that we do appreciate the city
manager and his tiger team cleaning up the CIP this year, which was very helpful because we do know that from previous year there were a lot of CIP projects that may um have remaining funds that do not need to be in the CIP or projects that may not need to be done. However, that said, we are a very
large city with complex projects and we do operate on long-term financial planning to ensure financial sustainability. So, as we move forward as a city, I uh we will look to uh continue to work on this CIP to make
sure that this CIP provides the long-term multi-year financial planning that is needed for us to ensure that we have the funding source, have the bond capacity, and have the ability to fund the projects that's needed. So I believe my my feeling is this is the first step
and as we continue to develop this CIP, we do need to ensure that the CIP provides that long-term multi-year planning to ensure financial sustainability. So I do appreciate Commissioner Stevens recommendation. Thank you.
>> Commissioner Carla. >> Yeah. Um just quick question. Um, for Commissioner Stevens, the first bullet makes it sound like we're going backwards. Is there any way to amend that so that it talks about the Tiger
Team process also? Because I I mean, I I don't want to go back to how it used to be. >> Okay. I don't I don't know that everyone understands what I'm getting at here quite as much. Um what what what I'm saying is right now a whole bunch of projects have a feasibility study and if
they happen big dollars are coming. What are you guys going to do about that as far as 5-year planning? Uh the two options are one is hey somebody needs to give me a ballpark estimate so I can feed something to Sonia to our treasurer sorry uh in order to plug that in to see if the math works going out for five
years or uh I need to do it this other way. So that's all my recommendations. You know what? You guys can do something. There's probably a third. There's something else. I want to see what you're going to do. I want to highlight to council that there's a hole here now. I don't think anything's been done that's wrong, but there's a hole
here that needs to be addressed for the financial sustainability that the city's so proud of. Um, Chair Schwiker, members of the commission, if I could offer some assistance, like if you look at the uh transportation
uh totals in years um four and five, for instance, perhaps there will be more project costs that will eventually be added to those. Same with the water improvements. As you can see in years four and five 28.7 million if I may
offer that as an example and year five 34 million those investments do not meet the uh depreciation annual depreciation of those systems and so that is something that our rating agencies would look at and consider as in in in uh
insufficient investment in those systems. So clearly we do know that costs will need need to be added back and to Commissioner Stevens point is how are we going to develop those numbers to ensure that we're looking at the five-year and being able to manage our
finances from a five-year standpoint and understanding the rates we need to charge the funding that we need to reserve or the reserves that we need to build and the revenue sources that we need to maintain for those five years. So hopefully that could help. Um it's
not going back or changing it, but just um making sure we understand what those dollars are >> is. Let me clarify here because I you you touched upon something that um made me think this. The roads is a good example. Right now we built a lot of new
roads, but the maintenance of those roads is now becoming a big budget item. The same thing here. You're saying as the capital gets consumed, it's got to be replaced. And so where does that show up? And so there's maintenance capital, there's new capital. And when we put things in there to show aspirational what we want to do, it's always new stuff. It's not maintenance of things.
That's not that's not exciting, you know. So I I I think I think Mark, maybe your your proposal is to say, how do we capture those things? And because we know that we're only going to be able to do three or 400 million a year in terms of bandwidth and the effect the effective bandwidth. That's all we're
going to be able to do. So if you're if if your whole 300 400 billion is consumed by new stuff, you're doing nothing for the future. So what is that ratio of new stuff to maintenance stuff that you got to have to maintain? Is that is that does that does that start to get at what you're thinking about
here? Because because you're you're you're saying where are those things in the budget? But I mean there's some practical aspects to it of new capital, maintenance capital, and then large projects and when can they be done and that gets to be a matter of priority.
>> I I don't know that it's that complex. I'm really and and city treasur. Don't you need some kind of number to put into your models to say I think this is how much money I'm going to spend each of those out years in order to see if my revenue is going to cover it.
>> Yes, we do. >> Where are you going to get those numbers from? You either get those numbers by getting an estimate from someone which is below 0.1 or you use the numbers that are here and you say, "Oh, there's a gap of 200, 300, whatever$100 million each
year. Does that smell like that'll cover the cost growth and new projects we have going forward?" That's all I'm trying to say. That didn't make it any more clear, huh? >> No. And there's two ways to do it. You could do it. You can build it up that way and then you end up with a number
that that is goes beyond our bandwidth. Or you can say, look, we know historically >> the most we're going able to do is half a billion dollars. So what what's the priority? I went through the budget last year, 287 items or 387 items, prioritize them, and the critical items that we had
to do finishing projects and maintenance ate up the entire doable budget, you know, and it came up to be like four or 500 million. So you so all the other stuff you want to do this new stuff you know that that's below the line and so you you could have a budget that has prioritized by critical things that have
to be done and then there's buyups if you get more money that's a way to do it >> and if that's the case then that's bullet point two and Sonia our treasur just uses these numbers plugs it in >> I'm sorry um Stevens I wonder and listening to your conversation I wonder
if you would be um better served with amending your motion so that it just stops after your first sentence because it sounds like you're flexible to how it occurs. But the more that your motion is really getting at that you
want um a recommendation that formally addresses this issue. Okay. Then I'll I'll um I'll amend the motion to delete everything except the single sentence that follows the words five-year plan fiscal sustainability
because all the explanatory explanatory stuff here appears to be confusing people. But I think our treasur understands where I'm coming from and she'll figure out how she wants to address this. Uh so chairman if you uh want to accept
the modification uh it now is just the single sentence under five-year plan fiscal sustainability. This first sentence only >> I accept second. Is there any more discussion?
just that I think that was an excellent idea because Commissioner Stevens has some good points but there was confusion and I couldn't vote for it as was >> so >> well I tried to get this in your hands earlier but I wasn't able to
>> if there's no further discussion um all those in favor of the motion please signify by saying I >> I >> opposed motion carries >> okay I've got I've got two more things Sir, I'm going to withdraw both of those
uh in the uh interest of an interest of time. And the final thing I want to say in the CIP area is I do have a statement I would like included in the minutes. And it runs to the fact that I wasn't able to in my mind uh look at enough information to be comfortable with
having my name associated with the propriety of the numbers that are in there as far as the calculations of the projects. So, I'm going to start with the word start and I'm going to end with the word stop. And this is I this I would like in the minutes. Commissioner Stevens asked that the minutes include
his opinion that the constraints now placed on the budget review commission members by city legal staff under their interpretation of open meeting laws whereby a commissioner cannot discuss capital project calculation supporting information with the persons who prepared the capital cost estimates.
prohibits an effective or timely review of the propriety of the budgeted amounts and therefore the propriety of the capital budgeted amounts for the June 30th 2027 budget year are excluded from his review. So this is simply a statement about the limitations I felt
and I don't want my name associated with the propriety of something that I don't have adequate time to look at or access to the people who prepared the information. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong. Don't read into that. It's just that I've tried all year to get to meet with the people who put the
stuff together and find out what's going on. And I'm told this 38431 somehow despite my reading of it prohibits me from doing that. And so I've got to go on record for from my good name to say that I was not able to look at those calculations. That doesn't mean they're
wrong. I have no inside information that they're wrong. >> So that that's all I have on CP without a motion. Candidate >> a motion. Yeah, there's no motion. >> We go with summarized minutes now and so I'm just asking that that be included. >> And Commissioner Stevens, I I will share that uh I I share some of your concerns
with you and I I ran into some of this um in Paradise Valley even before I was on the council. And I'll tell you what they told me. Go talk to the legislature. They're the ones who write the rules.
And if you have the stomach for that, you're better person than I am. >> The problem is I've read the rules. I've read 38431 and the definitions. And it doesn't make any sense that I can't go look at things by myself and not and to
prepare so I can do a better job when at these meetings. But I've got to respect city legal council's opinions. I think they're being extremely narrow in doing it so the city doesn't get spanked. And I think uh we're victimized by it. But that's just an opinion that could be
totally wrong and I'm sorry if u that offends anyone >> and you will see that in the minutes for the next meeting. >> Yeah. Thank you. Um >> Commissioner Carla. >> Yeah. I I have a quick technical
question. We received um public comment via email from a citizen. Does that have to be entered into public comment? or do we have to address it or respond to it? >> Okay.
>> Yeah. Let the record reflect that the answer from the uh city staff was no. >> Let's go on to item number three, the preliminary general fund revenue forecasts. Thank you, Chair Swiker, members of the commission. We have a quick presentation
on the state shared revenues because we received quite a few um questions regarding the state shared revenues. So I will start with that and then I will turn it over to our budget director Scott Selene to go over the rest of the general fund revenue forecast. So very
quickly state share revenues has been impacted by the incorporation of Santan Valley as well as other population changes over time. Next slide. Just real quickly, there are a couple of state shared revenues, the largest state shared revenues that are allocated based
on US census population estimates relative to all incorporated cities and towns and that is our state shared sales tax and also our state shared urban revenue which is the income tax. Santan Valley was incorporated um voters
approved the incorporation on August 5th. So the um ADOR started distributing Santan Valley's uh share of state share sales tax September 1, 2025. For urban
revenue share, which is income tax, they will not uh start receiving their share until July 1 of 2026. That's why you see some discrepancy. One of the questions we received from commissions was why was the state shared sales tax impacted by
Santan on the uh December report but not the income tax. Why wasn't that impacted and that is the reason. Next slide. There's two other um state share revenues that are allocated based on county of origin and population. Not
just population but where the vehicle licenses are registered. County of origin and that is the state vehicle license tax and also a highway user revenue or gas tax. The um vehicle license tax the allocation to Santan
begins September 1. But since it's county of origin and population relative to county it does not affect the city of Scottsdale. It affects just the cities within the panel county. for the highway user revenues uh which is gas tax that
is allocated by county or of origin half of it and half of it is by population relative to all incorporated cities. So there will be some impact to the city of Scottsdale's allocation and that allocation starts September 1. Next slide. So very quickly, the Santan
population is current the allocations are currently based on the 2020 census as they're awaiting the certified figures from the US Census Bureau. So right now based on the alloc the allocations are based on 99,894
the um highlighted in orange up above and that is the 2020 population. So when they certify the figures it would likely be higher. And I have put together this slide to show you what the populations were in 2022 when we had our population.
I mean allocation of uh state shared it was based on the 2020 population and the current year 2025 allocation is based on the 2024 population and and as you can see not just Santan but population changes in other cities also affect the
Scottsdale's population. So for example, Buckeye increased by 25%. Um, Goodyear surprise, all those cities have in increased in populations by a larger percent than Scottsdale. Scottsdale's population increased
between the 2020 census population and the 2024 census estimate by 2%. And in total, all the incorporated cities increased by 7.9%. And how that affects our allocation. Next slide.
So in uh 2022 we were receiving based on the population 4.21% and with all the population changes we including the Santan Valley Incorporation we will receive 3.98% and if the population is revised upwards
with the new census certified figures it will be uh little less than the 3.98%. So as you can see the allocation of um state shared based on population increases for the cities like Buckeye, Goodyear um and Surprise and decreases
for some of the larger cities. Next slide. And um as far as the variance, there was several questions on what the real variance was because not only was there the impact of Santan, but we also had a duplicate entry that was corrected in
January 2026. So as you can see for the budget um budget year-to date, um we budgeted 23.2 million for the state shared urban revenue, which is the income tax. And the actual year-to- date
reported in our budget budget to actual report was 28 million showing a variance of 4.8 million and 21%. There was a duplicate entry that we discovered that will be cor was corrected in January without that duplicate entry the
corrected amount would be 24 million. the variance of8 million or 3% was due to a one-time adjustment that the um on the state's final uh urban revenue distribution amount that was not anticipated when the budget was developed.
I think that's my last slide. Any questions? And I can um turn it over to Scott if you don't have any questions. >> Was this on revenue or was this the budget to actual you were going over? >> Both. Both. Sorry. Both. I was
explaining the only question that came to me I just before I didn't get you in advance. Uh one big beautiful bill if there's a conforming adjustment like Arizona's always done that's not happening right now. How bad of an impact is that going to have on you? >> Yes. And Scott will address that in his presentation. Thank you.
>> Good afternoon. Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Happy to be here with you today to discuss our preliminary general fund revenue forecast for the fiscal year 2627 uh budget year that's coming up. Um before I kick off, I do want to emphasize that these projections are
preliminary. It is possible that there may be some adjustments to some of these categories uh as uh new data comes in as there are uh maybe actions taken by the legislature, but uh what you're seeing tonight should be fairly close to what makes it into the proposed budget that
will be released in early April. As we go along, I'd welcome any commentary from the city treasur, city manager if they'd like to provide additional insight. Um, with that, can we go to the next slide, please? This slide shows our general fund
revenue projection of about $472 million for fiscal year 2627. The pie chart shows how that $472 million is broken down by individual category. Uh, we'll take a look at some of the largest categories in this pie
chart in a little more detail. Uh we won't be able to talk about all of the little ones, but our largest is by far the local sales tax at about $200 million. Our three state shared revenue sources combined to be about $103 million. The
orange wedge at the bottom. Our primary property tax, the green wedge, is about 9% of total general fund revenue. Utility franchise fees generate about 25 million. Building permits and fees are about 24 million.
charges, licenses, and fees are about 18 million. I skipped over interest income at about $19 million. Uh between those sources, that covers about 90% of the general fund revenue, and the remaining 10% is encompassed by that halfozen or
so smaller categories. Um right there, could we go to the next slide, please? Before we dive into the details a little bit more, uh we wanted to talk through some of the main revenue assumptions that we're holding right now for fiscal year 2627 and for the 5-year budget
period uh that we are budgeting for. The big picture is that we are cautiously optimistic about the economic environment and about our uh revenue outlook. We're projecting stable growth in our sales tax. we see more modest growth in our state shared revenues uh
due to the higher population growth of other cities that Sonia uh just discussed with us all. We do anticipate about a $ 1.5 million annual general fund loss from the incorporation of Santan Valley. And a big unknown out there is sales tax
conformity. We'll talk about that a little bit more on I believe the next slide, but um I'm sorry. So, uh, for property tax, we are are limited to 2% o of our levy plus new construction.
We see mixed growth in the utility franchise fees and reduction in the cable TV franchise fee. We'll talk about that a little bit. And then finally, some mixed growth and some reductions in the charges, license, and fees. Can we go to the next slide? As always, there are some risks to our
revenue forecast. We wanted to point out a few that we're facing and that we're aware of right now. Uh there are a wide range of uncertainties out there um both on the economic front and on the geopolitical front and the ultimate impact of those uh events and factors
are yet unknown. We did talk about federal tax conformity conformity and the potential impact on our state shared income tax or um urban revenue sharing as it's sometimes called. In our projection, we have not baked in any conformity impact into our
revenues yet. But if the legislature and governor were to adopt a full conformity package, we project about $3.1 million in annual revenue loss as a result of that. Uh, as I said, we haven't baked that in because we just don't know what's going
to make it to the finish line. Um, there are partial conformity scenarios out there. We're just waiting to see what's going to make it and when that happens, we will adjust accordingly. There's always a potential risk through legislative action to our revenues. U
we've got a couple of bills listed there on the slide. That's by no means the only two bills that could impact our revenues, but these are two particularly noteworthy ones. House Bill 2290, which did fail in the House. uh doesn't mean it can't come back, but um that would
make significant changes to the to our TPT and has a new definition of business location. We estimate that could cost us about $18 million in revenue if it were passed and signed into law. House Bill 4030, which would place a freeze on municipal rates and fees, um would also
be a significant revenue loss. I don't believe that's been voted on yet, but uh that is something that's out there. We'll continue to monitor the legislative environment and um and if there's any bills that are passed, we will adjust our revenue projections accordingly. Can we go to the next?
We provided just a few uh economic indicator type slides um to give you a general idea of the economic picture that we're seeing. This slide shows the uh real GDP, real disposable income and real consumer spending growth that's projected um during the fiscal year
2627. Uh these projected percentage changes show kind of a slower steady growth which is um kind of what we're seeing. Can we go to the next? This is the consumer confidence index. uh you'll see that after kind of the big
dip in COVID that gray bar around 2020 for the last few years it's kind of hovered between 90 and 110 um more or less which indicates kind of solid consumer confidence. Can we go to the next? This is the last
economic chart that we have. Uh this comes from the state. It's showing fairly steady growth in consumption as shown by that kind of copper solid line. It's showing fairly steady growth in consumption. As it's kind of pithily described on the slide there, people
keep spending. And what that means, it does seem like rising assets are boosting spending in wealthier households while working families are kind of seeing their their spending constrained due to rising costs. Can we go to the next slide?
So, we have some specific slides to show graphs for these largest revenue sources, these five that are listed. That's about 80% of our total revenues and transfers into the general fund. Could we go to the next? These slides should look fairly
familiar. They're kind of updated from our December meeting that we had. Um, just to reinforce. So, this is our local sales tax, our 1% general fund sales tax. The budgeted amount in red and the actuals in yellow. Again, the budget and actuals were tracking fairly closely
until we got to the pandemic when we anticipated a drop in general fund uh local sales tax. And what we got was an increase. And then even as we tried to increase our budget in future years, we didn't quite keep up with the actuals. And you kind of see that pandemic stimulus bubble, I guess we'll call it.
And you'll see that it's kind of starting to even off a little bit. focusing on fiscal year 2627. All all the data points to the right of the white line are for the five-year budget period with the first one being fiscal year 2627.
We're projecting uh 3% uh revenue growth in fiscal year 2627. And then over the five years we see that growth start to pick up a little bit in the out years as we return uh to our long-term trend um over the fourth and fifth year.
Can we go to the next? This chart shows a breakdown of our individual sales tax categories. This chart is way too busy to go through everything, but um there's a few things that I'd like to point out. Um the bright red line at the top is the miscellaneous retail category. And we I
point that out to show how large that is compared to the rest of our categories. And the next closest is the black other taxable line, which is really a combination of about six or seven individual categories that many of them we've started splitting out over the last 18 months or so, but they're
they're combined in this chart here. Um the next let's let's see the last category I would point out, sorry, could we go back one? The last category that I would point out is the yellow rental line. You may have heard about this, but it was kind of saw some steady increase
over the years. Then you see it start to dive down in fiscal year 24, 25, 26. Um that is due to the elimination of the residential rental tax by the legislature. Uh and I'll just emphasize what's in the upper right hand corner. The miscellaneous retail and the other
taxable categories are the categories that we have showing higher growth. Can we go to the next? This is on to our state shared sales tax. Um Sonia described this earlier, but um just very briefly, it kind of follows a similar trend to what we
looked at for our 1% sales tax uh with actuals during the co years kind of outpacing the budget and now they're starting to align again. These overall projections are based on the state's projections of sales tax collections in the upcoming years. And
then once we have those projections that JBC publishes, we apply population assumptions to um to the state and to the uh Scottsdale sales population to derive those totals. So right now our annual growth assumption upper right
hand corner of the slide about 1.9% in fiscal 27 and that starts to ramp up over the uh 5-year period up to 3.3% in fiscal year 31. Can we go to the next state shared income tax? This one is
fairly predictable as I believe someone has pointed out in the past. We know typically what it's going to be because it's based on income tax collections from two years ago. uh during the pre-COVID era they followed a certain trend and then during COVID it started to pick up again with pandemic stimulus
and capital gains and then kind of hits the top in 24 and starts to decrease once the state adopted the flat tax. So, um, she Sonia described the reason why we're going to see a slight increase over what we originally thought due to
kind of a one-time tax credit that, um, that was that was not part of the calculation and should not have been part of the calculation to the cities. Um, we're about at about 51.5 million in year five in year one, I'm sorry, fiscal
27, the growth of about 7.2% 2% and that increases over the five years till we're at about $61 million in year five. That's about a 4.4% uh increase. Could we go to the next
primary property tax? If you follow the two lines, they're very close together. They're typically very predictable except for the fiscal year 25 due to the famous uh the Quasmir settlement that we've talked about quite a bit here. um that caused it to dip. And then in fiscal year 26, we anticipate it will
align very closely to our budget. Again, again, we are limited to uh in what we can levy in our primary property tax to 2% growth plus new construction. That ends up being about 3% year-over-year uh which is what we're projecting uh over
the 5-year period. Can we go to the next? Moving on to general fund utility franchise tax. Uh this category composes is composed of three different uh fees or taxes. The light blue one at the top
is the enterprise franchise fees. Those are transfers into the general fund that are equal to 5% of water and sewer revenues. The black is the electric and gas franchise tax. Those are taxes charged on revenues from utility companies um to
use city rights of way. And then the bottom one, the red one is the cable TV license fee. Uh there's attacks on cable companies again to use city rights of way. And you see that red part kind of declining over basically going back to 2020. I'd say it's been declining ever
since. Many of you may be familiar, I guess, with the state of cable TV and with the overall environment of that industry. Uh you'll see that it's getting smaller and smaller. Some analysts have wondered if there actually is a bottom to cable TV subscriptions or if it's just going to keep going down to
zero eventually in the future. We're not having it going to zero. We're showing about 4% reductions uh year-over-year, anticipating that there is a bottom at some point. Can we go to the next? Building permit fees. This is a a fairly
large revenue source, almost $25 million in fiscal year 26. Uh this is our projection of building permit fees. The city collects these fees to regulate construction and development activities. The fees are to pay for the administrative work that's needed to
ensure that our development projects are in line with uh code and standards. What drives these fee collections is housing construction, remodeling activity, um commercial development, and some other large project developments. And in projecting these fees, we look at
historical trends uh projects that are in the development pipeline. We track active permits and backlogs and development trends at the federal, state, and local level. These fees are generally speaking sensitive to the overall economic conditions uh like things like housing inventory available
and mortgage interest rates can impact uh these these fees. There is some resilience to that in Scottsdale given the luxury factor that exists within the city. Our planning and development department has said sometimes that the largecale economic factors have
occasionally unpredictable consequences for these fees. For example, I guess during co we anticipated a slowdown on certain types of development which did happen, but there was also an increase in home additions and remodeling with people working from home. Uh so the point is just that sometimes these
economic trends, it's not known exactly how they're going to impact these building permit fees. So, as you can see, we're taking a slower growth projection for this revenue source, uh, 1.1% in 27 and right in that range for the remainder of the five years. And I believe that's the last slide I
have. Could you go to the next slide? Uh, thank you. Would welcome any questions from the commissioners about uh this initial preliminary revenue projection. >> Uh, Commissioner Carla and then Commissioner Newman. >> Uh, yes. I just have a very quick question for the city manager actually.
Has your legislative team said if they think HB2290 is going to come back as a striker? >> We've not received that information yet or confirmation. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Commissioner Newman.
>> Thank you. Um Scott, um I'm looking at the local sales tax. That's probably your biggest number item in there, 200 million. And it looks like in 23 24 25 26 it's pretty flat. Okay, because pandemic stimulus was
coming off but I would expect some growth in there. But all of a sudden we start going to three four four and a half% growth and with local sales tax we've got our population growing at 2% sales tax rate is staying the same. So where does the where does that kind of
growth come from? And then I've got a followup. >> Uh thank you u Mr. Chairman Commissioner Newman. We see some uh performance in several categories that would we believe support a a 3% revenue increase in fiscal year 2627. Um
we've seen some additional um retail activity. Could you go to the previous slide? >> Oh, I'm sorry, Sonia. Did you want that one? >> Yeah, right there. >> Um the most notably the miscellaneous retail. um we believe that we're seeing some activity in that category that
would justify projecting that 3% and also kind of in the in the restaurant category, we've seen some overperformance there and um when taken together those factors we think supports a 3% in year one of the uh of the five-year planning period and then over
time we anticipate returning to our long-term trend which is about 4.5%. >> Okay. So my followup in this is that we're looking at the revenue right now and and I had sent Treasur Andrews an email on this asking okay when are we going to see the operating expense
because if we have all of a sudden we're making an assumption that we get a mild hockey stick I'll call it upward that makes it easier to budget for expenses. Okay. And last year we had operating expense growing faster than revenue coming in and we said we didn't
want to do that this year. So my question is is on the when we come back and we see the operating expense side I want to see operating expense assumed to be flat because you don't know what that that's going to be 2% or three or 4%. And have some room in there and then have buyups for what we want to do. So
that that would be my question because I it's kind of hard to do this and I know normally you would iterate this but we've got a pretty rigid process here so it's not going to not going to be work. But I I I want to look at that because I don't want to later then say oh that line's actually flat and we've got all
this stuff going on and we're spending a bunch more money and now we're having to scramble for money somewhere or something happens where some revenues go away in another category. So I I'd like to understand your strategy there. Um, Chair Schwiker, members of the
commission, you're absolutely right. When we balance our budget and when we work on expenditures, we are focused on making sure ongoing revenues cover ongoing expenditures. That ongoing re expenditures do not exceed our ongoing revenues. So the you are absolutely
right. There will be some operating expenditure increases, but those are offset by operating expenditure decreases. So an example would be we paid down the PSPRS liability. So PSPRS
for police contribution was at 50 53%. By paying down the 50 million we would be bringing it down to 40%. And that's a significant savings for us on the police personnel expenditure side in the five
years. And so that gives us the capacity to provide for um compensation increases or other increases. So the savings offset the increases. So we have factored savings in to offset our
increases. And so by the time we bring the city manager and myself bring you the budget, our um ongoing, now keep in mind that our budget always has one-time expenditures and planned use of existing
fund balance. However, our ongoing expenditures are covered by our ongoing revenues, and that's what we're doing right now in terms of budget balancing. >> I hope that answers your question. >> Thank you. I I just want to be sure that we're we're not taking operating expense
beyond what our assumptions lead to here. >> That's what we pay attention to when we balance the budget. And I can see if city manager Kaitton would like to add many more to it. >> I would just at Yeah, thank you for the opportunity. We started off, it's probably a little premature, but I'll
I'll still plant this seed. We started off the budget development. You always have where I come from a message uh that you send uh the organization, the many people that work on it. And we did that with a very conservative I can talk at a more appropriate time about some of the
specifics, but it was with a conservative framework. And then furthermore, we uh took a strong look at existing vacancies and so look at those personnel costs. And so I'm really pleased we're we're as we reached the the goal line here and what we ended up
with as a a collective team to keep this in in mind as the treasurer indicated. >> Um I think and I could be totally wrong about this but I think I've read some articles. Aren't some of those uh franchise fees under attack in the
federal court system? >> Mr. Chairman, I'm not aware. I I'd be happy to research that point and get back to you, but I'm not aware of that. >> Yeah, it just seems I've read it in the Wall Street Journal or something, but you just might look into that. >> Okay, thank you for that. Um, I don't think we have anything more on the uh
general fund revenue forecast. Let's move on to item number four for the budget to actual report for the quarter ending December 31st, 2025. So, Chair Schwiker, members of the commission, what we thought we would do with this item, we do not have a
presentation, but we did receive about nine questions from Commissioner Stevens, which we handed out responses to. What we thought we could do if if uh it pleases the commission was to go through each of these. >> For me, you don't need to go through. I
like number one and four were the only ones that I thought maybe needed a little additional discussion, but that would depend on whether any of you would like to have some of them talked about further. And I think you already covered number one. I'm sorry, I already covered number one. So the only thing out of all
my questions I still a question about is the ambulance service going to cash basis or something. I'm not really sure what you're talking about there. So maybe just educate us on that. >> Yeah, Chair Schwiker, members of the commission. Um so for the ambulance
revenues we are still ramping up our phase two and next year phase three. So the billings and the collections are still increasing as we're ramping up those operations um for the fiscal year to date uh through December 31. Uh we do
track our um um Chief Shannon who's here. We do track with our fire department and chief Shannon the um monthly gross billings, contract uh allowances and net charges and also
payments collected and receivable balance. So what we what we realized actually through looking at our budget this year was that we've been budgeting the net charges build when we really should be budgeting the payment collections. So, as we're ramping up,
the net billings is less than the payment collections because there's a lead time. It takes six months or more to collect on these complex ambulance billing that has to be built to Medicare, Medicaid, third party, and and
um patient responsibility. It does take a while to turn over the receivable for these ambulance balances. And that's what we're seeing right now. So as we kind of ramp up and each year we should see the collections increase. But right
now what we have is we've budgeted the billing instead of the collections and we need to fix that in our five-year budget and and budget for the collections knowing that we've buil more than we're collecting yet we're recording the collections. I hope I
didn't do this. going to have once you're in the capacity you want it's going to be >> it's going to be close to actual acral then once you get there >> it it should it should so so yes so we we we build uh at a gross billing and
based on the contractual adjustments we don't collect the gross billings we collect the net and the net is about 60% which is contractually what Medicare and Medicaid will pay and then from the net billings we have a receivable because we
don't collect it all right away and that's the timing difference that we're talking about and even some of the receivables may not be collected over time. So what we what we have in the budget and that's why it looks so offbudget is because we budgeted the
billings but we really should be budgeting the collections. So I don't know if uh Chief Shannon wants to add to it. >> U chair and madam treasurer I think you did a great job. So, it's a matter of writeups, write offs, collectibles,
negotiated contracts, and the there's also a cadence of the bills going out and the collections coming in that includes anywhere from a threemonth to in some cases up to a year-long negotiation back and forth as you know in the healthcare industry. So that
coupled with the phasing in of the ambulance program has includes some lead and lag time if you will for what you're actually visualizing. I I think the best and easiest way to say this that we will have a very clear picture of revenue
predict prediction at about the four and a half year mark because then we will have had a full year of phase three and we will be pretty tight in terms of our uh revenue uh our outstanding revenue uh
as a result of collections. Um, are you doing your own billing or are you using one of the third-party billing services that out there that generally takes a certain percentage 6 8% or whatever and they take care of all the billing so you don't have to worry about the different laws and rules among
different states and carriers. >> Commissioner and uh uh Commissioner Stevens. Yes. In fact, we are using a third party biller. Um we work with the city manager and the treasurer very closely to make sure that that's the best uh product for the citizens. Right
now it is uh we're going to continue in that lane. But I would say there could be a time where our system is sophisticated enough to bring that in house but that's not right now. >> And you really build what you what you're expected to get paid. Correct.
>> We build to the capacity that the certificate of necessity will allow. There's an there's an an established state rate that is permissible and we start there and then negotiated contracts, Medicare, Medicaid, all of those things uh reduce that amount to a
reasonable reasonable amount which uh that the treasurer referenced is about 60% recovery on average because I'm one of those weird people that go through my Medicare statement every month and you know just to make sure there's nothing fraudulent on there. I just had my meniscus repaired. You know, my surgeon
built $16,000 and got $1,600. Yeah. So, but you have that all taken care of. Thank you. >> Yeah. I'm just going to give you a heads up on a tip when using these third party building systems. What I've seen them do at this time of year when people are
meeting their deductibles is they will see the EOB come in. They'll see the deductible has to be met. they'll write it off as a contractual allowance and then never give you the ability to collect that. So just you might want to watch for that where people write off
the um deductible instead of uh going after the customer for it. It's a January February kind of thing. Thank you. Um you if there's no other discussion on on uh the budget to actual I think we'll
move on to um agenda item number five for items that be presented at upcoming at the upcoming meeting. >> Thank you Chair Swiker members of the commission. So for the next three meetings April 10th, 16th and 23rd our focus will be on the operating budget.
Next slide. Much like the proposed budget binder we presented to the budget review commission last year, we will have uh in those next three meetings any follow-up items if we made any changes to the general fund revenue projections
that we just shared, we will provide those to the commission. And in our binder last year, we had the item two. We had all those things listed. And we will have the same um documents and same schedules or lists for you, which are
lists of major uh budget assumptions and requests, revenues, and five-year forecast for every single fund. Uh department operating budget details. This year we will also provide you line item detail. I think last year we provided you a summary of department
operating budgets but we will also provide you with line item detail this year and also summary of FTE changes, debt information and internal fund transfers and uh any follow-up items or future agenda items that you might uh
request from us. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Anybody have any questions? Uh, Commissioner Stevens, >> hey, one time you said you were going to meet with us in order to lay out some things for us. Is that now off the table? >> No, that is still happening. We plan to
have the proposed budget binders, all this information available on April 3rd and we will schedule meetings with each of the commissioners the week after that to help you navigate through and explain what each schedule is and what you're
looking at. But we cannot discuss the budget as that will be for public meeting. But just to um help you navigate through all the pages and binders that you will receive. >> Commissioner Carla. >> Uh yes. Uh real quick, can you clarify
the time of the meeting on the 10th because I believe there was discussion about that changing. because originally it was 10:00. >> That is correct. It's listed at 10:00 a.m. >> So, it's still 10. Okay. And then the second quick thing is at which meeting
will the um the the presentation on how um Scottsdale's uh citizen services at Hyote, for example, have been impacted by the federal cuts. >> Yes. Um thank you uh Commissioner Carla.
You did request that. We do have a memo for you from the um human services u manager and we plan to provide that in one of those meetings. I'm not really sure which one right now, but >> Okay. Thank you. to item number.
>> Now we'll go on to item number six, the identification and approval of possible future agenda items. And the first thing on that is through uh my error and inexperience at our last meeting, we had three future agenda items that I
neglected to have us vote on uh which are uh number one, the discussion on how the budget is going to address deficiencies and maintenance. Number two, discussion on how to develop recommendations for reports to council.
And number three, discussion on potential FTE management ideas. Uh those were all things that we wanted to talk about in the future. So the chair would entertain a motion to put those on a future agenda item. >> So moved. >> Second.
>> Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor, please say I. >> I. Are there any other future agenda items, Commissioner Stevens? >> Okay. Um, now, as I understand it, the
the motion and explanation wasn't didn't go out to anyone, right? This my motion and the explanation didn't go out to anyone, right? So, I have to read that. Now, what I tried to do, folks, I tried to do a one-way communication just so you'd have a heads up and be able to prepare instead of
hitting you cold in the meeting, but I was told I couldn't give you my proposed motion and the explanation in case you had any questions. Uh, so I will read the proposed motion to you now and then you can decide whether it uh is something you want as future agenda items. Where I'm coming from is we don't
get to see a whole lot of information. So, you're not going to have a chance to make much of a difference when it comes to the city's budget, but you all have ideas. And so, I would like to have an agenda item that would allow us all to talk about ideas that we would like to
consider putting in uh our future work uh or having the staff look into uh in order to make a difference with the city. Okay. So I'll I'll read you the motion uh and we'll see how clear it is for you. Uh and one of them does include
FTE, but I expanded it more so that this will be beyond that. Uh the motion is that future agenda items for the next meeting include a BRC idea sharing of when and if to have city staff explore the following for current year or future
year budget efforts. One, PSRS police pension additional funding pro-forma impact. Two, incurred cost review of software maintenance subscription cost and round dollar large expenditures.
Three, potential benefit of FTE reductions through job responsibility change analysis. Four, upcoming known retirements upon staff departures throughout the year and for current open FTEES. And finally, the degree to which
AI opportunities exist in lowering cost without impairing citizen responsiveness. So that's the motion. Uh question for the uh city attorney. Can we do all those in one motion or do we need to split them up?
chair, but if people want to vote yes on one and no on another, that could get a little bit difficult. >> Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Carla. >> My question is more about the timing. I believe you said at the next meeting.
Um, so to me, and again, you have some very good points. it that sounds more like something that comes at the end of this cycle to say what haven't we addressed be in addition to what you just listed.
So I guess I would ask for clarification on the timing you expect this to happen. Uh and what I'd envisioned is we had the discussion and then motions would come out of that discussion because this doesn't make anything happen. And that the motion might be uh for example uh we
would like to have an analysis done of PSRS pension and report back to us at the next meeting and we may have a recommendation. Uh we might want to look at all the software maintenance contracts but that's not going to happen next year. Why don't we think about that making that a recommendation for future
periods? But what I'm after, you guys have a lot of good ideas, but you don't really get a chance to kick them around with each other. And since you can't meet with people to find out what's really going on in the city details, you you're not going to make a difference unless you start doing some of your brainstorming among each other. That's
my belief. Okay. Um would the uh because I know we're running a little bit short on time. Would the commission like to address these uh individually or all at once? >> Commissioner Carla. >> Well, it's my understanding the that the
motion says that our next meeting we're just going to discuss are these things going to be future agenda items. So we could on each one of them say no, this is the end of the cycle discussion. Right.
>> Yeah, that that's how I would read it. But I was also kind of hoping you could throw other ideas in, but that might be problematic. So, we'll have to get some advice on that. >> I I'm hoping you all can come up with idea. Okay. If you all have ideas, I don't know if you have to do what I just
did now at the next meeting to talk about it at the meeting after that or whether we can actually get your ideas down. City Attorney, >> Chair Schwiker, Vice Chair Stevens, if your motion is to discuss that all that
stuff at the next meeting, then you can discuss that at the next meeting if that motion passes. >> But but we can't if they had other ideas though, they can't throw those into that. Or is there a way I can reward reward this to say to include uh ideas
for possible future consideration included but not limited to >> if you want recommendations about the areas the topics that you discuss that you are agendaizing. Is that what I'm sorry. Well, I'll tell
you what I what I want is I I wouldn't mind getting this group's opinion on these things because a couple of them you might say that's stupid and I don't want you doing that round dollar thing and and our city treasur might say well we can't go do this other thing. So I wanted an open discussion about these
things in order to see what might be doable. Then out of that we might propose a recommendation for this year or the future year. But I also wanted them, if they were thinking about it, to come up with other ideas to throw into the basket that might turn into future
agenda items. So I almost wanted to word this like have a discussion of idea sharing including but not limited to things such as >> So if you want to have the as you were explaining it, it sounds like your
action statement would need to be there, right? like it would be information, discussion, and possible action if it's going to be about the specific things that you've identified that you'd like agendaized. If you're asking for the members to be able to make up other
topics to be agendaized, then those would need to be agendaized and then you could discuss those at that time in which they're agendaized. >> But so they'd have to propose that as a future agenda item >> kind of like you did. >> Yes.
Okay. So, the motion I would make this motion and then I guess I'd ask you all to think about any ideas you've got to do a similar motion next meeting for the meeting after that because we can't talk about your idea at the next meeting. You know, if I could maybe to help, I I
would really prefer if we could vote on each of these separately so that staff can know what what we need to prepare for because we are preparing for um the operating budget in the next three meetings. So,
>> sure. Yeah. Okay. >> So the very first one for instance uh having a future agenda item on um a PSPs uh pension additional funding proform impact. We could probably work that into
our operating budget presentation that is available to us through the actuarial report. The last actuarial report that we received from the actuaries. So we could probably provide that. Um the second idea, the incurred cost review of
software maintenance subscription costs and round dollar large expenditures. I think we would need some better understanding of what you are looking for. Um I am I'm not sure exactly what uh you would like to review in terms of software maintenance, subscription
costs, and large expenditures. Um and I know that it's we're not agendaized to speak to each of these. Um and so likewise with the potential benefit of FTE reductions, I believe um city manager Kaitton mentioned that he can
address those uh issues when we provide the operating budget and the degree to which AI opportunities exist in lowering costs without impairing citizen responsiveness. Again, I'm not sure what that really means and what you're looking for. So I think it's hard I'm
I'm not sure what we can discuss at this point with respect to these items. I just want to hear what these folks think about these brainstorming ideas and decide what we want to recommend. And I do want your input because your systems might not allow you to do certain things and we might need your
help in faring out whether something is worth it or not. >> Commissioner Carla then Commissioner Newman. Well, I guess two things based on what um the treasurer has just said, maybe it's not appropriate to have this at the next meeting, but to wait and see
what is covered in the next three meetings and then say what have we missed? And then I also have a question for the for Jennifer, which is is the BRC allowed to have a work study for
itself? because it sounds like what Commissioner Stevens wants is brainstorming amongst the commissioners and how could that legally be done in a public meeting. Can we have a work study >> for open meeting law? Your work has to
be done here in this meeting, >> right? But >> but is it a work can you have instead of >> Yeah. >> Can you have one that's termed a work study to brainstorm? >> Sorry, I wasn't understanding you. Yeah,
you could agendaize a work study. I think I'm not that familiar with your bylaws, but I would imagine. >> Okay. It make more sense to go through the next three meetings, see what is addressed on your list, what isn't, and
then possibly schedule after this cycle a work study to brainstorm what hasn't been addressed. Commissioner Newman's come relatively free as a part of the process we want to have discussion
that PSRS the reduction about AI that could be part of those discussions. The other two sounded like they need a little bit more discussion that discussion as a work study type
information but also react >> and Mark if if you want to have these things brought up which which I'm in very I think it's a very good idea but um you I I think your motion said at the next meeting.
Uh perhaps you would consider changing that to an upcoming meeting in case we don't get to it at the next meeting. >> Okay, here folks, we can wait till the end. You guys aren't going to make a difference. I wanted us all talking about these things to give ideas. The staff now sees these things. They can
then decide if they want to embrace any of them right now while they're doing the budget or just wait till later. So um >> because I do think we want them all addressed. >> Then can we just have a discussion on those four points at the next meeting with respect to whether they should be
pursued as future agenda items? >> Yeah. Okay. So we will agendaize discussing these four at the next meeting. Okay. >> Is that >> Yes. >> Well, okay. I modify the motion to
adding an agenda item to discuss the four four points listed in this piece of paper as potential future agenda items. >> Second, >> I think any discussion? >> Um, if I may, I think you might want to
make a slight modification to your motion so that it's not just discussion but also take possible action because it sounds like you might vote and do other things. Sorry. >> Okay. Uh I move that we uh add those four items
as as future agenda items for discussion and possible action. >> Second. >> There any further discussion? It's been moted. All those in favor, please say I. I.
>> I. >> Opposed? Nay. >> Motion carries. Um the chair would entertain obain entertain a motion for adjournment. >> Seconded.
>> You have to vote. >> Do you have to vote? >> The meeting is still in session. I heard about that also.