Can you hear us, Brad? >> I can indeed. >> Good morning. >> Good morning. I'd like to uh call together the uh meeting of the uh April 10th budget review commission meeting. First thing we'll start with is roll
call. >> Chair Schwiker >> present. >> Vice Chair Stevens. >> Commissioner Baden. >> Commissioner Carla. >> Commissioner Latiri >> here. >> Commissioner Newman >> here. >> Commissioner Pulland
>> City Manager Greg Kaitton >> here. >> City Treasurer Sonia Andrews >> here. Assistant City Attorney Jennifer Fernandez >> here. >> So, the first part is our public comment where citizens may address members of the budget review commission during the public comment regarding non-aggendaized
items and on the agendaized items when the item is presented. Arizona law 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 city staff. Public testimony is limited to three minutes per speaker and written public comment cards can be submitted to town staff at any time for the items on the agenda or not agenda 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. We did receive some written comments and that everybody's received, so we won't read those or anything. We do have two
requests to speak, but they're both on item two. So, we will address that when we get to uh item number two. Item number one is the approval of the minutes, which is a request for approval of the minutes to the March 9th, 2026
regular commission meeting. Uh, Commissioner Carla, >> um, the only on the second page um second paragraph up from the bottom. Commissioner Carla moved the BRC um
placeholders misspelled in the second line. >> So noted. >> Thank you. >> Uh if there are no other changes or additions or corrections, um we were to entertain a motion to approve the minutes. >> Motion. >> Okay.
>> Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. All those in favor, please say I. >> I. >> I. >> Now, we'll go on to um item number two, which is the overview of the proposed fiscal year 2627 budget and capital
improvement plan. Before we get started, we do have two requests to speak on that. Uh the first one is from Linda Milhaven. Thank you for your time, chairman and commissioners. I'd like to talk to you about changes in the capital improvement plan related to water. Uh the city's
first and most important priority is the health and safety of its residents. And the number one item in health and safety is our water. both the quality, the quantity and the cost in that direct in that order.
We and we all know that um I'm sorry and then recent polling shows that water is the most important issue facing residents today. Um and we know that the drought drought is getting worse and that we have future cuts to
look at for next year. In fact, we're now having conversations about what does Deadpool look like when the reservoirs are so low that there's no water flowing through them into the Colorado. So, the city of Scottsdale has a long legacy of planning for this drought and has a
strategic plan to try to address some of these issues. And that strategic plan includes advanced purified water, which I know has gotten some conversation in the press recently about uh drinking recycled water. We are already drinking
recycled water. The Colorado River uh the communities upstream in the Colorado are putting their effluent into the Colorado. So we're already treating other cities waste water and putting it into our drinking water. Also the city did a survey of residents about two
years ago when the strategic plan was implemented that showed that residents 70% of the residents were in favor of recycled water. So the strategic plan includes advanced purified water, includes increasing our capacity to pull the water we've been storing in the
aquifer out. It includes automated meter readings so that folks can more uh readily monitor their usage in order to conserve water. pursuing other options which would include the Bartlett dam expansion and then linking the north to the south because we have SRP water that we can't get to the north and all of
those you when we look at the solutions for water the answer has to be all of the above um it is too early in all of these projects for us to eliminate any of them and yet the capital improvement plan eliminated specifically several
projects um specifically concerned about the Bartlett dam and advanced water treatment being removed. Um there are many go and no go decisions along the way with all of these projects and the final commitment from the city isn't until city council approves the
final contract. And so including this while some may argue that including these projects in our plan is authorization. The final authorization doesn't come until the contract is approved. And those decisions may be years away. I'm pleased to see in the presentation today that the city manager
put in source and supply for hund00 million. Uh that's better than having taken it all out. I would my hope would be that this group would recommend to the staff and the city council to put the specific projects out so as to create put the specific projects back in
so as not to create any misunderstanding that we are walking away from some of these very important projects. um you will see um and and then the source and supply is also not until next year. So that means we're postponing some important elements. So my hope
would be that you would recommend that the projects be specifically listed for clarity that the investments not be delayed for a year. And if neither of those things, if you stay with source and supply, that we make it perfectly clear to the staff and the community that we're continuing to pursue all of
the above options to help us with our water crisis. Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker is Dan Isaac. Thank you commissioners for allowing this opportunity. I would like to speak to one of the items in the CIP which is
the crosswalk on CHA. Um I am very opposed to this for three very logical and basic reasons. First, there is no identified need for that crosswalk. When the synagogue was built, the parcel of land was chosen. Um, this synagogue
plans were submitted to the city, the planning commission process. At no point did the owners suggest a need or even a desire for an additional crosswalk. There is one already at 64th and one at 70th. Secondly, despite some misrepresentations made by our city
manager, there has not been a need identified. In fact, the most recent discussion by the transportation committee in 2024 showed that there is not a volume sufficient or necessary to justify disrupting traffic on Chay.
Observant Jews are used to walking to synagogue. This proposal is only going to reduce the walk by two blocks and only for those people who live in a threeb block corridor on the north side of Sheay. For the vast majority of
congregants, this is not going to do anything. Second reason, Sheay is one of the largest arterial roads in Scottsdale, possibly the most heavily traveled.
We are talking about disrupting the flow of tens of thousands of cars every time that that crosswalk is triggered. This does not make sense. Sheay is important. All of the lights are computerized. So if we add an additional crosswalk in
between two existing crosswalks, we're going to disrupt traffic and add to the headaches that people already face. It doesn't make sense. It would also impact the north south arterial roads, Scottsdale and Hayden. Again, our
busiest inter bus busiest roads. This just doesn't make sense to disrupt thousands and thousands of Scottsdale residents for a handful of people a few times a week. And lastly, I question the cost
estimates for this project. We were told that Scottsdale and Dynamite signalized intersection would cost well over $3 million. The estimates for this are only 600,000. We have the equipment, we have the labor, we have the restriping, we have
all of the reprogramming of all of the computer uh linked uh traffic signals in this area. This isn't a $600,000 project, so it is not needed. It's going to disrupt traffic and it's going to cost
more than people are budgeting. This project is cronyism. It is Adam Quasman wanting to look good to a handful of congregants and do something that is not needed for the city. So, I ask you to pull this out
because it is not needed and it's not appropriate. One other quick comment. I don't see a timer up here. Um, we all recall that we removed a roundabout, a proposed roundabout at Scottsdale and Dynamite at the cost of several million dollars because
roundabouts apparently according to the fanatic for were bad for Scottsdale. There is in the CIP a roundabout near Jan Debbasa's house. I haven't heard anybody complain about it. I'm not sure if it's needed or unneeded, but I find the hypocrisy alarming. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Okay, we'll go on to item number two, which is the overview. Yeah. Yeah. A propos the overview of the proposed budget and um uh
our budget director, Scott, is going to give the presentation. Scott. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Morning, members of the budget review commission. Uh very happy to be here with you today to uh begin the process of reviewing the FY 2627 proposed budget and capital improvement plan that was released last
Friday. Before I start, um if I may take 15 seconds and express my personal appreciation to everyone within the budget division for their work in pulling this together, I'd also like to thank the city manager and city treasur and executive leadership as well as every department, many of whom are in this room and many more who are not, for
their participation and support in pulling this together. uh that's before you today. Over the next few meetings, you'll have the opportunity to review all funds within the budget. We've consciously kept presentations as short as possible to provide the commission with time to deliberate and ask questions. And there will be city staff
here to answer any program specific questions that uh you might have. And with that said, I'll get the presentation underway. What you're seeing in front of you right now is the BRC budget review process for the current year. We reviewed the preliminary CIP back in February and
preliminary general fund revenues in early March. Our proposed budget was released last Friday, April 3rd, and that is what we will be reviewing at the next three meetings on today, April 10th, the 16th, and the 23rd. Finally, on May 5th, there will be a joint
council work study to discuss the BRC's recommendations. Can we go to the next slide? I'd like to start with reviewing the most significant changes from the preliminary capital improvement plan um in the proposed budget. There are two
columns of numbers that you're seeing on the slide right now. The first column kind of more in the middle shows the crosswalk from the preliminary CIP to the proposed in FY2627 or just year one of the CIP. And the second column there on the right shows a
crosswalk for the entire fiveyear CIP. The first change I'll talk well the preliminary CIP that we reviewed on February 23rd had a proposed 2627 budget of 960 million and a 5-year uh plan amount of 1 bill780 million.
The first change uh since the preliminary was presented to you back in February was uh adding budget for design for the Paute Community Center. That was an item of discussion here in the BRC back in February. Since the preliminary, there was also the addition of the water new source and supply project for $100
million in fiscal year 2728 or year two of the 5-year CIP. There has been some additional investment in water distribution system improvements during the 5-year CIP. Uh the next row is we uh increased some contingencies in the CIP by an aggregate
of almost $50 million most notably for water, sewer and um m municipal facilities or general fund. And that last line shows the updated carry forward and just some other miscellaneous adjustments at the end. And you see the net changes at towards
the bottom for fiscal year 2627 was a net change reduction of $4.6 6 million from the preliminary to get to a total of 956.1 in the proposed CIP. Looking at the entire 5-year CIP, uh it's the net
change is $105.7 million for a total of 1 bill886 million. Can we go to the next slide? This total proposed budget that you have in front of you is for 2 bill118
million. And this slide breaks that amount up into operating capital and contingencies and reserves. So 838 of the total is for operating, 882 for capital improvements, and then just under 400 million for contingencies and
reserves. Next slide. Overall, the proposed budget, the proposed 2627 budget is a net decrease of 3.8% 8% when compared to our current budget in fiscal year 2526. I want to
take a second to review the first few rows of this table that you're looking at. The proposed operating budget for fiscal year 2627 kind of inside that little rectangle there is $836 million.
That's essentially flat compared to last year of 835. I say last year I mean the current fiscal year. The next row shows that we we do have additional payments for PSPRS. Many of you may remember that the current year's budget has a $50 million deposit into
PSPRS. We do have $2 million in the proposed 2627 um budget for PSPs. Adding in the PSPRS gets us to our total proposed operating budget of $838 million. And then you add in the capital
improvements and the reserves and contingencies and you get to the total proposed budget amount of 2.1 billion which is a reduction of about 85 million compared to our current year's budget. Next slide.
We wanted to take a second and show the proposed changes in FTE count. So the first row is the FTE count in the adopted budget of 2,796.9. Then we have a few of the most significant changes listed down below. Um the major changes there's an addition
of 22 positions for the phase 3 ambulance service. We just want to point out that those positions are funded uh by ambulance build billings and also some general fund support. There will be an addition of 6 FTE for parks and recreation which will be funded by the 0.15% park and preserve
tax. Uh there were some other miscellaneous citywide staffing additions um in the next line. And then the there is a line at the bottom of vacant positions eliminated. You see there was a total of almost 49 total FTE positions eliminated. Um I believe the
city manager will speak to the initiative that resulted in those reductions in a future slide. Um, so I'll save that. But when you add them all together, there's a net change in FTEES, a net reduction of 8.33 FTE to get to the total proposed of 2,788.57
full-time equivalent. And that includes uh both full-time benefited and part-time positions. Can we go to the next slide? I do believe that brings me to the end of my section. Um, I'd love to turn the time over to the city manager to go over some highlights in the current budget. Um,
thank you. Thanks, Scott. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and uh members of the committee. Let me take a moment just to describe kind of the process that our staff uh embarked upon uh with in combination with the budget development team uh and the treasurer's
office and a great number of staff that are in the room today and some staff that uh are still uh on the street, if you will, performing their daily functions. We've have a number of staff members here today to be able to answer your questions when we get into the Q&A
portion of it. We didn't know exactly uh where you might go with your questions and so we've brought the team uh to uh be able to feel that through our discussion process. Let me also just state I really appreciate the budget process. It for me it's one of the most
important things that we do uh for the organization and it's not just about the numbers but it's really what the numbers represent. the numbers represent uh the services and programs that we deliver to our community every single day and we build upon that uh from the previous
year's budget. So obviously you have the funds that we'll go through today which is I will say a little bit of an un unusual u way to look at it that's a little bit uh from my experience more of kind of the budgetary kind of the the budget people look at it by fund we fund
by by fund but also uh departmental is typically how we talk about the budget and really how it's uh delivered so I would anticipate through our discussions today there might be an interplay between uh the funds and how the departments relate to that and how
therefore our services and and programs. So, let me speak a little bit about uh the budget process as we embarked upon this which admittedly is a little bit newer than uh previous years in our process. I would also just briefly speak
to the the capital and a little bit of a recap from our last meeting and then also the process that we embarked upon. Uh, as you recognize from Scott's presentation, some things have been added and some things have changed since the last time we spoke specifically
about the capital budget. And I uh have I pinpoint is that is because of a couple reasons. One, uh, we start this process quite frankly in the fall of last year uh, and start to deliver and have public discussions over the last couple months uh, and then all the way
through spring of this year. And things evolve. we get new information. Uh we know more today than we did 90 days ago and some of that is reflective in the changes. And then also uh we continue to get feedback from you uh from community members and I often say we get feedback
from community members on our our budget every single day. And so of how we're delivering the services and programs and look to adapt those and modify those. That's really what's reflective I believe as you'll see in the proposed 26 27 building upon the strong foundational
services and programs that we have delivered to to this community for years and years and then adding evolving uh finding efficiency and that's really what the exercise so I'll lead into the exercise here we call it the 10% and the 2% the 10% and the 2% challenge if you
will or was really about a process how do you engage 2700 employees es uh to commit to a budget process uh that finds efficiencies. I often say that the folks that are on the front lines uh know
where they can save some dollars and and find efficiencies in many instances uh in combination uh with management staff. And so let me describe the 10%. It's a little bit starts a little bit with a mechanical exercise in my mind. When you
have the line items from 25 26 and you're looking to 26 27, you you have to populate the line items. And so I've seen it where you populate it with nothing. There's zero in there. Some would call that uh zerobased budgeting. That's a misnomer. That's not correct.
You just didn't populate the budget. Zero based budgeting is it a different process, which we did not do. and then you uh roll the same number from previous year or sometimes there's some addition for uh inflations thing of that nature. So you have to populate those line items and so we embarked upon a
process that rolled and populated the line items with a n minus 10%. And so that was really the foundation to build upon and uh we went through extensive discussions uh with the budget office and budget department and treasury of
what is included in in that role of minus 10. So uh do we include enterprise funds? Enterprise funds typically operate a little bit different. There's three of those just so you know than the other funds because they're they're not tax related. They're more fees and customer basis. So sometimes those are
excluded from some budgetary processes such as that. They were not excluded. Uh they were included. We wanted everybody to go through the efficiency exercise. And so we did that uh and and then we would have discussions uh with the departments if they met the 10%
challenge and in many instances they were and in some instances they weren't. And then that was considered a budget package which is kind of terminology that we use here at the city of Scottsdale. And that really embarked upon and really triggered a discussion uh which we did in in December, November
and December of last year with every single department. We had conversations about how uh operations and and how they were being impacted by uh various increase in costs, labor challenges, things of that nature. So really triggered that broader conversation with
the departments. And then let's talk about the 2% challenge. The 2% challenge was to look at 2% of our staffing level of our overall staffing level and see if we could achieve a 2% reduction. Again,
who's included in that? This we carved out uh a pretty significant portion of our organization and referred to that as sworn personnel. So sworn personnel were not counted. Uh police and fire were not counted in that 2% challenge, if you
will. And then what was we this again we included uh enterprise operations because the goal was really uh to find efficiencies and and how that played out just to give that a sense is if you have a hundred staff members in your department then we would be looking to
see if you could find uh an option of reducing two two within so 2%. And we specifically said not to uh include filled positions. So this so then when you get your 2% number and everybody had the number then look at your vacant
positions uh and that's what was achieved and so that's how we hit the the nearly 48 uh positions that were reduced throughout the organization and then uh we have additions and some I've done this in my career it's really kind
of a right sizing if you will that's a common terminology where it's not just a straight net reduction of 48 we're going to reduce 48 overar iety of areas, but we have some increase. We have some increases in service. First and foremost, ambulance is where we'll start
our discussions today. We have a significant increase in service in that area. And so, we need to add resources. I'll digress just for a moment and talk also about streets. We ended up adding a a streets crew, uh a liquid road crew to the tune of five staff and some
equipment. We were able to find that within existing budget and prepare us uh for implementation next year. So we took their they were going to reduce they have about 150 staff members in that function. So their 2% challenge was three positions. We said oh maybe you
can exceed that. They got to five reduced five and then we added five over here for the streets. We kind of swapped we did that kind of right sizing within the same department to meet a priority to meet objectives. And that's really what the budget process is uh prioritization and resource allocation
at its highest level. So that's what we embark upon at a city staff level. and then present uh to you and then furthermore moving on to city council. We have adopted budgets, we have adopted capital, we have adopt those are still in effect and then we have this conversation through this budget
development and then we end up with a city manager's uh recommended budget and then a city adopted at the end. So that describes the 2% challenge. That describes the 10% challenge. But again, the process is what was really important in finding those opportunities and therefore what was required for them to
go line item by line item. And I was not able to do that myself. I'm I'm pretty used to doing that. And I tell you in in smaller budgets, you're not quite able to do that as city manager when you have over a two billion dollar budget. But when we have a great number of these uh colleagues here that really take that
budget process as serious as I do then we delegated and and task that responsibility to them and then the department directors to handle that task and they were required to do that based upon trying to uh reach the 10% goal as an example. So I wanted to outline that
uh process uh as we move forward with the numbers that are before uh you today. So I I would be we would it would be misrepresentation of the budget if I said this was uh a reduction in the
budget in the sense of service or programs. That's not the case. In many areas we are expanding services and programs. Uh the reductions that you see are truly finding efficiencies, finding enhancements, finding improvements. And
so going back to our uh priorities, some of the main priorities uh that has been guiding us is investing in infrastructure, investing in public safety. Those are really important. And as city manager, I inherit uh a phenomenal uh public safety with our FD
and PD and really supporting them and building upon generational investments in that area. So I don't take that lightly. So as we talk about our investment in public safety specifically, it's in the service. Uh it's really about the people. So uh I'll speak I'll start with the fire
department. Chief Shannon and I have a lot of discussions. Uh we even had it at a previous I think a BRC discussion about some upcoming retirements and we've been planning for that and I'm proud to say thank you chief for joining. I'm proud to say uh I I think the level of investment that we are
proposing for 2627 as it relates to the upcoming retirements we have never seen before. Let me say that again. So we've never seen the level investment as in proposed in 2627 in anticipation of the retirements. Chief and I have been
working on this for a long time and I'm really proud about where we've ended up. So we continue to invest in our personnel to remain competitive. First part of competitive in a labor environment is keep the ones you have. We want to keep the ones we have. That's really important. And then also when you
have in vacancies, we want to be a top tier employer to be able to recruit when we have those a little bit more so on on uh well actually both on FD side and PD. Uh and then we talked about uh
significantly our investment in PSPs on the police side last year. Uh we have a modest investment in the fire side for this year. Really quite frankly in anticipation of that upcoming retirement. We can talk more about that as we move forward. Uh and then the
capital investments. Uh really proud. We just con had a a groundbreaking for the ambulance annex down by 601. Uh and so we continue to invest in the the capital improvements for our public safety personnel.
Let's switch to uh roads and water. That's the infrastructure piece that I talk a lot about. Uh again, supporting our public safety uh inherited uh phenomenal uh departments in that area, phenomenal services and programs. Uh the
roads and water particularly the roads uh have been an opportunity for increase in investment. I call that investment in our infrastructure. We continue uh to invest in our roads at a significant level in 2627. As you might remember from from last
year, some of our historical investments have been around $15 million or so on an annual basis into street preservation. We increased that significantly uh in the current fiscal year to the tune of about $40 million. uh and we continue
that significant investment to the tune of about $45 million for 2627. So let me just kind of uh digress for a moment and talk about the landscape in our roads. We have a significant transportation network. We look through growth and
development to add roads, expand roads, but then you also have to maintain what you have. So I see those as kind of two sides of the shop, if you will. expansion, growth of roads, which we still have to do, and have some regional funding and have some local funding dedicated for that. And then we also
have maintaining that asset. I think we're maintaining the asset is where we've fallen behind with the exception of the current fiscal year, fallen behind in previous years. And that's the discipline that it takes in budgeting process. Uh, and we've reinstituted that
discipline. We did an evaluation of our roads. roads uh have a metric anywhere from zero to 100. Zero being a failed failing road and 100 being a brand new uh beautiful road. We have assessed all of our roadways and we had uh in the
lower 60s was our assessment. About a 63 PCI, pavement condition index is what we call that. I would tell you uh most communities that deliver a high level of service support infrastructure have in about the mid70s. Uh and so we have uh
quite a ways to go uh to get to that number. We have embarked upon a five-year program uh to get to uh the the lower to mid70s on a pavement condition index. It will take approximately $300 million of investment to get to that point and we continue
that investment proposed in 2627 to the tune of $45.9 million I believe is the exact number. uh water water uh continues to be discussed and what I really want to emphasize is our approach
which is reflective in the water and also reflective to all of the capital projects. We continued to have the significant rollover or carry forward uh for our capital projects and meaning we were budgeting, allocating, queuing up
and there's in some regards a false expectation I would submit to you that those are going to be acted upon, initiated and completed. It was too uh the carry forward was larger than we could produce. And so what we have
evaluated quite frankly over the last 12 months is what can we produce, what can we uh manage and and move through uh our system and really recognizing if you hadn't initiated some projects that were budgeted in uh 2526
uh then those we need to roll to a future years and that is some of what you saw come out of the 2526 and not in 2627. seven. It's a recognition of some of those projects that were just continuing to kind of carry forward or
were on the plans and really no real assessment that we could in initiate start uh scope and move forward in a timely manner. It's really kind of a recalibrating of our capital projects. So, some have misrepresented that we removed a lot of capital projects. What
we really did is is true. We have uh removed those for special identification for budgeting in future years, but we need to finish the ones that we have initiated and that's really what is representative in the budget before you. There is still significant uh investment
in our capital program all throughout the city and is recognized here uh over 300 million for next year in water and wastewater. So when someone says we've we've got it the water and wastewater, it's just not true. uh that it's over 300 million and that will end up having
a carry forward into 2728 because again we can't um initiate complete $330 million projects in in one fiscal year. All right. Um uh economic drivers I often say I I reference the uh public
safety which is so critical. I I reference the infrastructure uh that's so critical. A lot of people talk about economic drivers. They talk about uh economic development, talk about tourism. And I often say you don't have tourism and you don't have economic
development if you don't have those first two that we discussed. So I purposely discuss those in order. If you don't have a safe community, then tourists uh don't come to your community. So we have appropriately invested in our infrastructure, appropriately invested in our public safety in order to really drive economic
development. We certainly see some headwinds on our horizon as it relates to economic development. We've done a deeper dive uh this through this budget development process than I believe we've ever done is to try to understand those uh drivers of our economic development
and specifically on the leisure market and particularly on our tourism related. We went out and met with hotel years. We met uh with the people on the front lines to understand what they are projecting for next year. It's their industry. What are they seeing? And had a a good number of constructive
conversations of where they see how we sit in the marketplace and how they are projecting for their budget moving forward. That is a tie back to how we develop this budget and how we estimate those revenues coming in in uh 2627.
So in discussions with those people in uh the tourism industry in the economic development area, we talked about our role. We talked about our role with our public facilities uh specifically Westworld, specifically the stadium. I will tell you this uh has received
significant focus over the last 15 months. We created a portfolio under a senior director uh a little over 12 months ago that has been elevated to a deputy city manager that has a portfolio of these types of facilities, functions,
and assets within our organization. That's Miss Judy Doyle that takes a look at these operations with a little bit different lens than other government uh type operations. And so set another way, uh the stadium in Westworld are economic drivers and should be treated that way
as we're managing those facilities and looking to uh gain market share in in those areas. So we continue to invest in these economic drivers that we are responsible for uh highlighted here. So with that, that completes my
presentation overall. Uh and Mr. chair and members of the committee look forward to the continued discussion uh and your questions as we move forward. >> Commissioner, >> um first off, I want to say thank you very much for putting Paute back in the
budget. It's important to a lot of residents. Um second, a couple of questions on water. Um it's nice to see the hundred million, but the idea of having specific line items. Now, I know on APRW you got the first half of the
study which had the the costs for construction, but you're still waiting for the second half, which is operating costs. So, my question is when do you anticipate the operating half being done
and when you have both of them, can it be put back in as a specific line item for APRW? and what is the process to do that? >> Yeah, thank you for the question, Mr. Chair and uh commissioner. I would
anticipate over the next six to nine months, let me let me just back up a little bit. Uh the commissioner is very knowledgeable in this area, but uh maybe some uh viewers at home uh need a little bit of context to this. So, let's back up a little bit. We have been planning
uh for years. Uh the implementation within our water resources function uh for advanced water purification. It has uh every year it seems like it gets a different name. And so that's the latest where we essentially take uh the recycled water and put it into portable
use. And so we have been the innovator in this area for many many years. What really was a gamecher was about a year ago Arizona Department of Environmental Quality had implemented some rules and some guidance and uh they were
significant. They were more than we had been anticipating for years leading up to that and significantly increased capital expenditures. We had been preparing for a capital project of let's call it around 15 to20 million. We
presented at the same group a year ago, which is in this budget here at approximately $67 million, and uh this group said, "You might really want to look at that. That changed a lot." Uh and you're right, it did. And not only is it the capital
increase that in has changed so much, but the implications on the operations, and that, as the commissioner has referenced, is the part two of our analysis. So, we had an outside consultant look at all of the components
uh we've distributed for public consumption. It's still a draft, but that first assessment of the capital improvements. And I'll digress just for a minute to talk about it is in draft. And so I want uh again the viewers uh at home to appreciate that that could
change that and and for you that could change on that capital project for advanced water uh purification. And why it may change is dependent upon how large of a facility we end up implementing. There is a cost for 10
million uh gallons uh 10 MGD or 20 MGD. And there we want to understand uh if we move forward with this what those costs may be. What the what the benefits of a smaller versus a larger. Can you build the smaller and expand into the larger?
What are our requirements in our southern part of our community that send that wastewater to to an outside facility? What are those legal requirements? All of this is complex. uh and so understanding that capital piece which is still we wanted to disseminate
for public consumption pun intended there uh the analysis of this capital project but uh it's still evolving and then specifically to the operations costs over the next six to nine months I anticipate that being completed and let me just give a little bit of an anecdote
on what that may mean some early indications of this uh capital project rolling into operations. The staffing is significant. The the lab work, the quality testing is significant. Uh experts in their certification is
significant. There there are certifications required for this and they haven't designed the test for the certifications yet. So this is still evolving and developing that will come over uh this remainder of this calendar year when that is complete and bring it
forward to discussion in front of city council about that project. I use the analogy of uh the ambulance roll out and give me a little grace here. I I wasn't here when that was presented and so I believe this is the same kind of concept
where it's really taken as an independent work study item uh to city council uh again the advanced water purification we uh lay out the capital cost we lay out the uh which would be more finalized at that point the
operating costs more finalized at that point and then what are the other options uh there could be other options so what do we compare that to to give some context uh to the source and supply and how we move forward. So that is what is anticipated uh from me moving forward
to bring that forward to city council in a work study for a discussion and then that would be just prior uh to initiating the development of the 2728 budget and then that's where we could go through some refinement for the 2728
budget. What we have in the 26 27 budget as anticipation of needing new source and supply as you referenced is that capital is that project and that pro what way we have identified it is to give the maximum flexibility to city
council should they want to implement advanced water purification or should there be an acquisition for sake of discussion as an alternative. the current budget the way is proposed uh for 2627 really gives council that
opportunity for discretion with this placeholder. I think it's also important to note uh that we have aligned uh the revenues we have aligned debt uh to accommodate that type of capital project in uh 2728 and that's the other thing
where there had been talk of a lot of preparation but again we're actually putting the preparation into the budget and implementing that. I I appreciate all that information and you know our group is supposed to be making
recommendations as we go along. So, I would ask the group to um consider um adding to our list of recommendations and I'll make a motion that as soon as
both capital and operating studies and cost estimations are complete regarding the APRW project that it be put back in the proposed and I'll stress proposed um
budget as a specific specific line item. >> Thank you. Before we uh take that motion and vote or anything, uh, Commissioner Newman has a comment. Commissioner Newman. >> Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Dan. Um, City Manager Kaitton, could you elaborate a little bit because I think there's a little bit of confusion here on the
optics because, uh, as Commissioner Carlo just mentioned, um, there's there's the a specific project, but you're talking about a series of options here. And I really think in previous discussions you had talked about there's money working right now to determine
what the proper pathways are and it may or may not be some of these. Now that can be a little bit scary to somebody who wants to see a line item in the CIP uh for this but that may not be the right answer. You're working toward the right answer but that's in the operating budget right now under engineering and
planning expense I believe. Could you clarify that for us because I believe I really believe the work is happening. It's just there's not optics there where people see things. If you understand how a construction project occurs, it nothing happens for a while while you plan and get the right answer as to what
you're going to build and then you start building spending the big money as I understand how this process should work. >> Uh Mr. chair and commissioners. Uh what let me rephrase it a little bit to understand we we are proposing for 2627
is uh a capital project in 2728 that is source and supply to the tune of hund00 million. uh we are evaluating as referenced the complete package I would say of what an advanced water purification implementation looks like
in align in comparison or uh to other opportunities we don't anticipate uh that being finalized before the adoption of the 2627 so then we are talking about preparations for the 2728
and having those uh discussions direction quite frankly by city council prior to the budget development so that when uh we're in this seat a year from now then we have already received policy direction from city council on these
various options so we are actively uh working to understand the the uh operating expense and I would also say that Arizona department of environmental quality is evaluating uh what the rules really meant and we're in conversations
Did did they really uh is there any opportunity to revisit those rules? And we're not alone. That's the good news in this situation as it relates to some of other uh counterparts in cities who are looking at advanced water purification
and then they're trying uh to understand what it would mean on the operating expense side. So we it is very iterative and collaborative uh at this point with Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and that's still evolving. We just will know more in the next 6 to9
months than we do today. Um the other thing I was remiss in not addressing was some other conversations and we can be more specific in a minute on the Bartlett Dam. I think I've mentioned to this group the Bartlett Dam uh was removed out of the capital program uh
but it is in the operating in an annual feasibility support and so that uh is funded. It's just funded in a different area because it's a feasibility study much like uh Commissioner Newman's uh kind of comment about how some of the
prep uh the preparation for these capital projects is funded. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Carla. >> Um, yes, you know, all those things said are valid. Um, but the reality is we have over a decade of community
investment and planning in APRW and the numbers don't lie. It the odds are it's going to be part of whatever goes forward. So my motion is when you have the numbers, when you have
the data, let's get it back in the budget as a specific line item. And that's my motion and it stands. Don't know. >> Do we have a second for the motion? >> I'll second.
>> Okay. So the motion's been made and seconded that uh when the final report is ready for the recycled water that would go back into the budget. Um, is there any discussion on that? Uh, Commissioner
Poland. >> Yes. So, based on what the city manager is saying, chairman, uh, we won't have those numbers until after the budget is completed for this cycle. Okay. So, that that means it would be in the next cycle, >> right? And the and what I'm talking
about is when we have a discussion with council, they're asking us for what our recommendations, not just on this budget, but moving forward are. We've always talked about what's coming forward. And that's what affected, you know, for example, the tiger team and
things like that that happened over non-budget cycle. So, I'm just trying to get this in the queue for future discussions when the data is ready. >> Yeah, correct. So, so you were correct with that. It would be for future
budgets, not this one. >> Um, Commissioner Newman. >> Yeah. Um, just to clarify, uh, Commissioner Carla, I think you're saying we're going to do we're going to pass a
motion to ask the city manager to do what he just said he would do. I'm I I don't get what we're doing. I I would like to let him do his work and come back with a series of projects which would probably I think you're right probably be some advanced water, a dam,
uh a bunch of other infrastructure that needs to be done. But get let him get it right and let's put the trust in him that he will put that in the budget and when we're here next year talking about this all those things will be in there and we will be working toward that. But in the meantime, they are working toward that and doing the work that a normal
engineering process and planning process would take uh to get that done. So I'm not worried about not the money not being there next year. I just feel like it's kind of belt and suspenders to pass a motion to ask the city manager to do what he just said he'd do. >> Well, and and my answer to that is
again, we're being asked to give recommendations and you know there's a saying trust but get it on the record, you know, and that's what I'm trying to do. Okay. So, so the motion is to make sure that this is a recommendation for the
next year's budget for uh that we have money in there. So, is there any further discussion? Otherwise, um we may need a roll call on this one. So, let's take a vote. Uh all those in
favor. I >> I all those opposed? >> No. >> Abstensions. >> Oh, you're for it. Okay. Okay. Great. So, the motion passes.
Um, and we'll move on. Thank you. >> I know. >> Okay. Now, we're going to move on to um >> there's a couple more. on water. Just number two on capital. >> Oh, okay.
>> Just a very quick followup to what the city manager said about Bartlett. Um, I've looked for where it is in the line item on Bartlett Dam and apparently there isn't a line item about the feasibility study. And my question, my
follow-up question is whatever contract we have with the regional partnerships and you know, it's great that we're still at the table. Um, does the contract outline what we have to do to stay a full
partner so that when this does move forward, we will be able to capture a full percentage of whatever water is recaptured. Now, um, and my question That's the first part of the question. Second part of the question is um do we
have any idea when the feasibility study will be complete so we know when we're going to be looking at putting capital back in the budget? >> Introduce Brian water resources. He's the assistant, my senior director. >> Good afternoon. How are you?
>> What was the question again? >> Um the question is two-part. First off, um I can't find it anywhere in in the budget and and I trust that we're still and we're still, you know, we're still I want to make sure number one, we're a full partner even, you know, we don't
have anything in capital now. Um and when you estimate the feasibility study, we'll be ready. So, we know that we're going to have to start putting something back in capital as part of the full regional partnership. So, we'll be able to capture our percentage of this water.
>> So, specifically to the feasibility that projects being run by the city of Phoenix and their their contractors. We can't pinpoint their date on delivery, but we can we can work towards a specific area of that, but it is anticipated after the next budget cycle as Mr. Cadence has said, >> not this, but next. >> Yes.
>> Okay. But we are still a full partner. >> We we speak with this group on a constant basis. We are actively engaged and we look at every opportunity of how we move forward with that. So yes, we are full partners in every aspect moving forward in feasibility and looking at
how it fits with Scottdale. We haven't committed to anything yet, but that's where we're at now. >> But just like the rest of the region, we're still a full partner. Okay, that's what I I needed to know. And then let me add if I sure >> I was just going to add where it is in the budget. And so just for fun, we
actually have the the invoice here to the tune of $144,000. And it came in, it was the end of March. And so uh we have that and then within the budget that is before you, it's on page uh B41.
>> Okay. >> We'll pay that out of contractual uh services. And then also on C56 is kind of where it ends up. >> Okay. I appreciate >> it's a contractual services uh out of the operating budget. >> Okay. I appreciate that that very much.
And I I hate taking up all the space, but I have two citizen questions that were asked. Um number one, you heard someone speak about the hawk here. We've had written communication multiple times about it. Um so my question is um do we
need to because we've not had a presentation on it. We've not had discussion on it. Do we need to do a future agenda item for it if because we're having repeated requests from citizens? >> Yeah, that would have to come under a
future. Yeah, we can't even talk about that because it's not on the agenda for today. So, you'll have to bring that up under the future agenda items. >> We'll do. And then final question on number two. Um, zombie projects. You said that they've been removed, which is a good thing, but we all know that
zombies come back. So, my question is, is it possible just in the next couple of meetings just to get for the commission to get a list of the zombie projects that were removed so if some of them do start coming back, we can track them?
>> Well, uh I wouldn't call that name. I think a commissioner uh referred to that name. So I I I'll let that commissioner keep that labeling of those projects. What we had distributed as part of a list in the beginning of our meetings uh
several sessions ago was the projects that were removed uh from the budget. And I think they were removed for a combination combination of reasons. And let me uh spend a moment on that. I do know one here here's a here's a good
example related to um water and wastewater. I remember as we were going through the budget process there was a project that expanded the wastewater treatment plant and there was an I think this is a good example of removal for
appropriate reasons or removal based upon new information. So, it's not uncommon, particularly in utilities, to plan for that growth and start to put in uh capital projects in the future. I will submit I haven't said it before
this BRC, but the previous BRC members heard me talk about the difference between a five-year CIP and a one-year CIP. I do believe some of the challenges that we have are based upon, and there are lots of advantages to a five-year
CIP. One of the challenges is getting it locked in and uh versus more of a one-year CIP. I'll put a little asterisk there though. I am used to capital improvement programs that are 10 and 15 years. It's really important to have
that long outlook so that so by my one year please don't misunderstand that that I'm uh suggesting a shorter view. capital projects, you need that long view. But the years uh two through I'll use 15 for this example. Years two
through 15 are really more fluid and and move around as uh growth happens as other priorities. What happens with our current situation is the first five years really gets locked in and I think some of the movement of uh existing
projects and current projects in that five years and some of our comment public comment really are illustrative of some of uh the challenges with have a fiveyear that seems so locked in because it's it's just not it it's just not uh
we're not being nimble and adaptive if we think uh the fiveyear is is going to be set and not change whether it's cost or project or priorities. >> Okay. Well, so thank you. So, so the removed list is the zombie list and I appreciate the information and I
appreciate my fellow commissioners patience. >> I was just gonna one let me uh finish kind of the last half of that one paragraph as it relates to that wastewater uh treatment plant. We had a wastewater treatment plant expansion project and as we it was in I believe it
was in the first five years and we we said well why is that there? Well, we have population growth and it we're going to need more. Well, where's our capac where's our capacity at? Where are we at on our capacity and with a big push for conservation, isn't the
conservation going to potentially balance out uh the the growth? And the answer is yes. So we removed that project. That's a good example where it was in all good spirits put out there as a placeholder
and then now as population growth is uh slowing quite frankly and in combination with conservation is not triggering that significant capital improvement project. So that's uh one example and that I know that spent a little time that's one
example of very thoughtful discussion about every single project in this capital improvement plan and proposing what we believe we can get done in the short term in 2627 and which is our highest priority. Thank you.
>> Commissioner Polland. >> Yes. I'd like just to comment to uh Commissioner Carla about I have spoken to several board members of Salt River Project and they have confirmed that this Scottsdale is still involved in the Bartlett Dam plan. >> Thank you very much.
>> And we all know that's a long-term project. You know, be lucky if any of us are around to see it built, but I know it's important as it's going to be done at some point. And I'm glad to hear that we're going to be part of that. Okay, we're going to move on to item
number three now. Um, we do have a hard stop at noon today, so we may not get through all of this. Uh, some of this may be deferred to the next meeting, but as we do each one of these funds at the end, if anybody has any recommendations
that they want to make as a motion, uh, please do that. And I also remind people that on these items, items we've talked about before, at our April 23rd meeting, there's a chance to revisit everything. And if if there's motions we
made that we don't want anymore, or if there things that we didn't make motions on that we want to make a motion on, we can do that on the 23rd. So none of this is locked in stone. So with that, um, >> item,
>> item three. Okay. So, we do have a one request for a speaker on item three and we're 3E. Do we want to wait till we get to three or just come back? >> Yes. So, let's go ahead. Uh Neil Sherer
has requested to speak on item 3E which is the grants fund. But Neil, do you want to come up and make your comments and and please keep them to three minutes? Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. I'm Neil Shear. I
followed Scottsdale City Services for probably 40 years um as a homeowner and also a 30 plus year um city employee in in various areas of city government,
including human services, uh government relations, and the city manager's office. Uh I wanted to speak relative to the grants uh earmarked for human services. In your packet, human services interim director
uh Mary Whitski provided you an excellent memo that identifies six identifies seven um federal grants that we received that support basic human services.
She identified that the majority of those are at moderate or high risk of being uh reduced or terminated. Um
what do these various grants support? Well, if you boil them down, they are generally about helping our citizens stay in their homes, have safe
and secure housing, or in the case of our rehab programs through the community development block grant program, they help homeowners address critical repairs to their homes so they can also stay in
homes that are safe and secure. The importance of these issues cannot be overstated um because they affect typically our fixed
income seniors um our lowincome residents across the board and many of our disabled citizens. I don't want you to look at this with a narrow lens. associated with these seven grant pro
programs because you have to consider the backdrop of what is happening to the sort of the financial environment of of these residents. Um, it's against the backdrop of significant cuts cuts
already to Medicaid affordable care act premium subsidies and nutritional programs from the federal government, including food stamps, uh, wick and school meal programs being reduced. In addition, the president's budget for
fiscal year 27 is recommending that six of these seven grant projects that you have on that memo um be put on the chopping block. So, as we sit here today, we can't just focus on a narrow band of grants. We have to consider the
broader pressures associated with our citizens. So, what I'm asking you uh to consider as part of your recommendations to the city council is that we develop contingency plans that are realistic in focusing on
the not just reductions of safety nets for our most vulnerable residents, but a shredding of these safety nets. And that we also uh consider very seriously the future pressures on our general fund
because the city has relied on a philosophy over the last several decades where we will build and operate facilities with basic support funding and rely on external funds to provide a lot of the services. Well, that paradigm
is shifting and so we need to look at the pressures on our general fund in a very serious way and I would advocate that the human services funding needs to have a higher stature in the city's operating budget as well. Thank you for your time.
>> Thank you for your comments. >> So, we will move we will move now to item 2A for the ambulance fund. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Next slide. So before this meeting we had asked the commissioners separately how we how the commissioners would like to see the
budget and how the commissioners would like us to structure these meetings to be able to review the budget. We heard from all of you you would like to see every single fund and um even though you want to focus on the big picture by looking at every single fund you can see the total city budget. So we have uh
structured these three meetings to go fund by fund. Some of these funds will go very quickly and some of these funds you might want to discuss more on. For today we have seven funds as listed on the slide here. The general fund which is our largest operating fund. We will
start discussing that at the next meeting and that will go over to the um meeting on the 23rd as well. So without further um oh the other thing I also wanted to share with the audience is we did meet with each one of you and give you a lot of background information on
each of these funds. So you do have the background information and we will not be spending time presenting background information uh on each of these funds. We will have very simple slides on these funds and uh save a lot of time for you to ask questions and discuss. So next
slide. So, starting with the ambulance fund, if you would turn to uh page B15 in your binder, that you should see the ambulance funds five-year plan. It should show you the prior year actual numbers, the current year adopted budget
forecast, the proposed fiscal year 26 27 numbers, and also a five-year forecast. We have Chief Shannon here to help answer any questions. The um ambulance fund accounts for direct expenses of the ambulance program
which are funded by uh collections from our ambulance billings and also general fund support. Direct expenses means that it doesn't include any indirect overhead costs or any shared costs or capital costs which are separately funded by the
general fund. Next slide. So on page uh B15 you'll see projected ambulance billing revenues of 10.4 million and general fund support of 4.5 million for u fiscal year 2627.
Those are our projected revenues that will support this operating budget of 14.9 million. The proposed uh fiscal year 27 budget is 4.8 8 million or 47% higher than the current budget because it includes the implementation of phase
three which totals 5.2 million with 22 FTEES. And with that, we can turn it over to the commission for questions and discussions. >> Commissioner Lettery. >> Yes, that's by the way.
>> Okay. question is that you're the gap between gross buildings and net buildings is 39%. And then you're only collecting 80% of that 61%. You can close the gap between revenue
and expenses by improving your collection ratio. So what efforts are you going to make to improve the colle the difference between gross billings and net billings and then just the realization of 80%. From an industry standpoint 80% is unacceptable. That's
too much. You you're you're granting credit to the wrong people. So is there any efforts underway to improve that ratio and lessen your dependency on the general fund? >> Mr. Commissioner, members of the commission, Commissioner Lati, great
question. So, we currently utilize a third-party biller. Uh the the cycle for um uh billing product occurs like this. We we uh engage the the uh patient. We
levy the invoice uh through our billing scrubbers, if you will, that does as much coding as they can get done so that when it goes to the third party biller, they uh are really focused on uh collections and uh making sure that uh
the coded uh information is correct and billable and proper. And so once that occurs uh uh it goes into the hopper and right now given the current state of the federal government we're seeing some
delays in the recovery of uh funds but it is we're estimated at about 64% uh recovery. Um and so what we're doing is we're working with that third party biller to improve frankly their efficiencies. We're also working with the city manager and uh part of our uh
proposed budget had included some consideration of of precisely this and we're looking at that process in this next fiscal year uh for uh potentials for increasing that efficiency by bringing that billing inhouse. Um that
decision has not been made yet. We're still working working with that third party biller to frankly improve their efficiencies to meet your very uh your very interest. Right. I mean for the most part medical billing is complicated very >> and most of the errors are in coding and
that's corrected through education. So maybe you know you need to emphasize training of the people that are doing the coding. Indeed uh I uh Mr. uh chair and members of the commission I am uh very impressed uh by the folks that we
have. Uh they came to us from the medical billing world. uh we made a great effort in in uh hiring veteran billers and so uh we feel uh very confident that they're capable but you are absolutely s sure sure uh that we
are looking at the very uh the very important changes to billing particularly as it relates to Medicare and Medicaid uh and then private pay uh to make sure that we meet that interest. Yeah, Commissioner Badenbach.
>> Yeah. So, um you know, you're proposing a $10.3 million um revenue forecast for ambulance net collections, which is an additional it's incremental $5 million. Um are there any risks that you guys see
um that would prevent the city from collecting that $10 million? Uh Mr. Chair, members of the commission, um, Commissioner, yes. Right off the top of my head, it's the volatility, frankly, of Medicare and Medicaid. Um, the state of Arizona is actually in a in a more
positive uh situation with Medicaid than are most states in the nation. Um, my my uh estimate may be a little bit off, but I believe it's north of 70% um in terms of recovery. Um the reality is is that
as you know Medicare and Medicaid are front and center for funding issues federally and so that is probably our greatest concern. Our payer mix is is is pretty diverse in Scottsdale. And while I don't have that information for you
here, um there is a reliance particularly on Medicare, not so much on Medicaid, but very heavily in Medicare for our revenue recoveries. And so we do watch that very very closely. >> Mr. Chair, it might be helpful also just for this committee to just as a
refresher of the phases and just brief and because the phases don't necessarily align with the budget year meaning we are in phase two. Now this uh authorization allows move phase three. Phase three will not be implemented July
uh 1st at the beginning of the f fiscal year. It's about mid December if memory serves me. That is correct. Right. And so just uh I just think that's important. So we have essentially six ambulances. It's a three ambulances for each phase. So we have six uh uh for the
first half of the fiscal year and then additional three for the second half of the fiscal year. And then with the billing and the delayed in the billing, I just kind of wanted to give context and some expectations for that lag and that timing uh as we uh implement all
three phases uh throughout the next fiscal year. >> Thank you. Um I I have a question not so much about the ambulances. I think uh Commissioner Lati brought that up, but just talking about police and and fire and everything kind of in total. You
know, Scottsdale is a city that has chosen to always be in the top three uh when it comes to salaries and but my understanding is there's five cities in the valley that have pledged to be in the top three. How does that
work out? >> Uh Mr. chair. Uh there was probably uh in history some support for payment for first responders uh at at a high level within comp
competitors. But we've papered that. We've uh through city council's leadership through a resolution uh last year uh implemented a a resolution for first responders that to your point just uh indicates that we would be top three
and we have worked extensively with our senior human resources director and then the two chiefs is the implementation of that. So what we anticipate is an annual assessment uh prior to budget quite frankly of uh what that marketplace
looks like and from my um practice in this field is that that is common to look at labor on an annual basis. Now there might be more significant deeper dives uh into other HR mechanisms and uh
class and and compensation that you people might be familiar with. But an annual kind of touch base on the market is particularly important to do on an annual basis. The what we've saw in the probably 21 through 23
uh time frame 2021 through 2023 is a very hot very tight labor market for a variety of areas that has softened in some fields uh but remains uh tight in many fields that we're in the business
of. I would submit anything uh for sake of discussion. It's just not first responder. Um but there's a lot of uh capital development, a lot of project development going on throughout the valley, right? So uh that we see things going vertical. What's that take? That takes some engineering, that takes other
uh professions to get that work going. And so that's one area where we're in that market for engineers for sake of discussion. And we need to be competitive that and that all across all of our workplace. But there is a resolution that speaks to being an employer uh that we retain our
employees. And then specifically to the top three to your reference, there are some other uh first responder uh or counterparts in other cities that have uh labor agreements that speak to their
placement in the market. And so uh they do that. Some of them do it in the fall after ours has already been implemented. And then our assessment of that would be captured in the following fiscal year. So set another way, um the the city
specifically for first responders is looking at a a compensation and then also looking at in incentives, longevity pay. I'll just introduce that as an example. We introduced longevity pay for the first time ever uh for a police department a year ago. And in this
fiscal uh proposed budget, we're introducing that for our firesworn personnel. And what longevity pay is is recognizing sworn personnel. And that uh is common in other cities for retention
and recruitment of those people. So that factors in to our position and our assessment. So we will assess that in the spring as we're developing the budget and then look for implementation uh in the f in the fiscal year as the budget is implemented and that's in here
uh recognition of being in top three uh for the marketplace. Thank you. Is there any more discussion on the ambulance or any motions that people want to make? Otherwise, we'll move on to the uh special programs fund.
All right, let's move on. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. The next fund that we're going to cover is the special programs fund. That is on page B36 of your budget book. It starts on page B36. It covers multiple pages. What you're looking at on the screen
right now, this fund consists of a series of restricted sources that are collected by a lot of different departments. We have some of the major sources of revenue listed here on the slides. Uh I won't go over these sources in any great depth, but there are representatives from the departments
here that could speak to any of those if there are specific questions. Uh the special programs fund has uh court restricted revenues, Westworld parking revenues. There are some various revenues from the opioid settlements that are currently uh being distributed.
This fund has revenues from the McCormick Stillman Railroad Park, storm water fees, some parking and loophes. The fund does also receive revenues from the Prop 207 Smart and Safe Act uh from Recreational Marijuana. Uh the
fund receives restricted franchise fees uh from certain utilities as well as donations to various departments and these monies are all restricted in their use either by statute, by city ordinance or by uh by contract. Can we go to the next slide? So,
referencing uh page B36 of the budget book, uh just at the very bottom in the gray column shows that we anticipate receiving $24.8 million in revenue uh between all of the different sources within the fund. And then if you
continue down onto page B37, those revenues support about halfway down the I guess twothirds of the way down about $13.3 million in total expenditures. Uh some of the highlights in the fund, the police reco funds were previously accounted for in this fund. They've been
moved to the grants fund. Um the large amounts of transfers out that you see on the bottom of page B37 um is the transfer out for the storm water cip and debt service. And there's other CIP paid for from these restricted revenues.
And uh I guess with that I'll turn it over to the commission. >> Does anyone have any comments on this? Otherwise um this is one where it's not real discretionary or anything. I don't think we need to spend much time on it. So if there's no questions, let's move
on to the tourism fund. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. The tourism development fund is on page B25 of your budget books. quickly. Oh, thank you. So, the sources for this uh for this fund is primarily the 5% transient occupancy tax or bed
tax as it's referred to, which brings in about $35 million each year. Um all bed tax dollars are allocated according to city ordinance, which is listed on the right hand side of the slide here. 45% of bed tax receipts are transferred to
experience Scottsdale for uh contract destination marketing. 5% is retained by the city for their own for its own destination marketing efforts. 12% of bed tax is transferred to the general fund. 9% of bed tax are used to support
event development and retention. 4% for administration and research. And then the remaining 25 is used for other tourism related events. Going back to the revenue side real quick, the princess lease is also deposited in this fund which is about 4 million a year
that is allocated to the other tourism related expenses. So looking at your book on page B25, uh about halfway down, we anticipate about $40.4 million of revenue in fiscal year 2627. And then the expenditures, those
revenues will support the projected expenditures of 25.9 million. Can we go to the next slide? A few highlights in the tourism fund. The transfers out to the general fund and the debt service is repaid from bed tax. There is some operational support
provided from bed tax. Uh for example at Westworld and the Scottsdale stadium. Then the 6 million in transfers to the CIP are for stadium um stadium related projects Westworld horse barns and some other tourism related capital.
>> Thank you. Do we have any comments on the uh tourism fund? Okay, hearing none, um let's move on to the uh one of the big ones, the transportation fund. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. The transportation fund can be found on page B39 in the
proposed budget book. While returning there, um the largest source of revenue in the transportation fund is the 0.2% transportation sales tax. The transportation fund does also receive some state shared revenue from the gas tax from gas tax proceeds from
the highway user revenue fund or HERF as it's frequently referred to. Uh there is some local transportation assistance fund which are lottery proceeds. There is some county sales tax that comes to the fund and then finally some interest earnings. Now all of these revenue
sources are restricted to be used for transportation and street related purposes in some fashion or other. At least 50% of the 2% transportation sales tax is transferred to the capital improvement plan per financial policy.
Um, I guess looking at the U five-year plan on page B39 in front of you, about a quarter of the way down in the gray column, we see under total sources about 51 57.1 million in revenue. Moving down
another, I guess to the bottom quarter of the page under total uses, the revenues support the anticipated $69.5 million in total uses. That's after accounting for transfers out to the CIP. Um, can we go to the next slide?
Just a highlight for the transportation fund. Um, we kind of talked about this $32.5 million in transfers to the CIP for the various transportation projects that are that are and will be underway in the city. With that, any any questions about this
particular fund? >> Um, Commissioner Carla. Um I don't have any comments other than to say um we concentrated on this heavily last budget cycle. So I think that's probably the reason why you aren't hearing a lot this
and we appreciate the CPI and everything that have been done. >> Uh Commissioner Badnock. >> Nope. >> Oh, sorry. I just saw you green light. Um yeah, I I just have one comment. Uh because I know it's people like me that
drive electric cars that don't participate in, you know, her funding and everything. But you question for the city manager. Do you think that 2% transportation tax in her fund will be enough in the long run to carry out the
transportation functions that the city requires? >> Well, I think it's Mr. chair. It's a fascinating question because in many instances and I don't know the history of how the percentages were
developed here, but in many instances the percentages that are developed for specific uses are not in direct correlation with the expenditures. And I'll give you a case in point where on that I'm familiar with I've been eyeing
quite a bit is on the public safety one. So when you look at the public safety and just for fun I'm going to point this out to the group I think of the 0.1 the 0.1 excuse me point is it point.1 thank you and so it's approximately 17 million
if we find that maybe we'll find that page in a minute and so 17 million and then if for for public safety and we spend if you take the police department at 150 million and you take
the fire department at85 5 million. We have $235 million worth of expenditures separate from capital just their op 235 million and we have a re dedicated revenue source of 17. So they're they're not necessarily in alignment. Furthermore, sorry to use
that public safety example, but I think it's pertinent and I was going to mention when we get to the general fund still. I'll probably still reiterate it um when we get to the the general fund discussion in a couple meetings. But specifically related to this, I think there was always an assessment of what
we were working on expansion, what we were working with staffing, and then it probably wasn't taken this literal, but we kind of ran out of funds and then what was left goes towards pavement preservation, and that's not enough. So I believe the number is 10 million if
and so what you see in this budget is we have exhausted the 0.2 2 for transportation and then there are still street preservation dollars that were needed. So there's a general fund support to the pavement preservation of the street work to the tune of $10
million. So it's not enough. >> Well, and it's just something for future thought, I think, because that 2% transportation tax when it was passed, Scottsdale was much smaller and had fewer roads and everything. And I think
that 2% transportation tax is something that we might want to look at for the budget review commission in future years to see if that's something that we should ask the voters to adjust. Commissioner Carla. >> Um I would agree with you. I'll do a
tiny history comment first, which is reason it's 2% is the opinion at the time is that's what the public would tolerate and vote for. And but I will point out it's the only perpetual tax that we do not do those usually because they do not pass. Um but I would say
what that what chairman Schwiker just said. Should we make that one of our recommendations that going forward we look carefully at whether or not PERF is going to be enough and do an evaluation? I mean do you want an actual
recommendation as part of our recommendations? Well, I wouldn't mind it because I just think it's one of those things that will take a a while to figure out and study. So, I think we might be prudent to not make a recommendation to raise the sales tax,
>> but to look >> to look at whether 2% is sustainable for us in the long term. I would welcome that as a motion. >> So, moved. >> Uh, Commissioner Newman,
>> just a comment. I would uh if that if that proposal is to look at all of the proportions of our taxes, I think that's appropriate because and relative to what it actually brings in versus what it's costing us, I would support that because there are others that are way out of proportion as
to what the needs are versus what we're what go in there versus what we're spending. Uh, Commissioner Carla, would you take that as a friendly clarification? >> Yes.
>> Okay. So, the M mo uh the motion has been made to look at all of our mandated revenue funds and and see if they're uh if the taxes are enough to support us in the long term. So, if there's no other discussion, let's take a vote on that. All of those.
Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. We need a second for that. >> Second. >> Thank you. >> Okay. All those in favor, please say I. >> I. >> Motion carries unanimously.
>> Let's go on to the grants fund right now. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Up next is the grants fund on page B44 in your budget books. This uh while you're turning there, the grants fund contains the activity of the
federal, state, and local grants that we as a city receive. Um in the five-year plan, quote unquote, for the grants fund, it doesn't show all five years. We show the adopted and the proposed. Uh but there are several major grants that are accounted for separately
in this fund. We have the um housing choice voucher and the CDBG um are both through HUD and go towards housing assistance. The third listed on the slide up here is the home investment partnership with Maricopa County Home Consortium also provides housing
assistance. There are some public safety grants accounted for um in the grants fund. most notably RICO funding uh we mentioned that earlier is now being treated in the grants fund as opposed to the special programs fund and there are some other grants for DUI
enforcement and bicycle safety things of that nature and there are some other miscellaneous grants. Uh can we go to the next slide? So the the grant fund operating budget um on your in your book is
we anticipate $26.1 million of revenue. Some of the highlights of what those funds will be used for uh well we mentioned this already. The major change is the police Rico funds moving to the grants fund from the special programs fund and uh with
I apologize I'm reading the wrong number. The anticipated revenue is 19.8 8 million. It's about a third of the way down the page. We do keep a grants contingency um in this fund in the event that we receive additional grants grants throughout the year that we did not budget for. Uh that provides the
expenditure authority to receive and expend those grant funds. Um so the total anticipated expenditures are also 19.8, but again we carry that $6.3 million grant contingency. Uh, with that, we do have Mary here that
can speak to uh any of the specific uh home human services related grants. >> Commissioner Carla. >> Um, yes. First off, I um want to thank Mr. Shearer for speaking on this and Mary and her staff for putting together
that excellent memo that answered my previous questions about federal cuts. Um, the reality is that these grants, this this fund serves a significant population of Scottsdale.
And if you're wondering who that is, well, you're looking at one of them. Us lowincome seniors have counted on the utility assistance program called lie heap for many years to help pay our increasing utility costs and keep our homes air conditioned. The fact that it
was slashed this year and it is gone next year, it's no more. That is devastating. Our budgets and I could go through a whole lot of all the other things that are being cut and how the housing voucher folks next year are
going to fall off a cliff or the cliff year after. But instead, because I know our chair has a hard out at noon, I wanted to make a motion for a recommendation, which is basically taking Mr. sharer's words that um the
recommendation is that the city develop a realistic contingency plan for our most vulnerable residents, especially seniors, and to cover these federal cuts, and study the impact on our
general fund. >> Thank you, Carla. Do we have any other comments? You know, I think one of the things and and Carla brings up a good point is, you know, we look at these and most of us sitting around here, you know, people are either working or retired, but there
are a lot of people in Scottsdale that are not necessarily in the same, you know, um, income level. And I think it is a societal problem, but I think it's something that's very important to look at. And those funds from
Washington, I think really are threatened. And it's something that I think we need to pay attention to because I don't know the exact details of of what a city should or could do, but I know we can't turn our back on the most vulnerable
people that are residents of our city. So, I think it's something we need to be aware of. Uh, Commissioner Newman would like to speak. >> Yeah, just a comment there. Um, and Carlo, could you clarify for me? I think we're on the same page. I've long said that, you know, when it came and then
I'll go back to the adult daycare discussion. I've long said that this is a policy discussion the council needs to wrestle with. If you're saying we need to study this and understand it because if we think the federal funds are this and the state funds are that, thinking that and knowing that are two different things. And I if you're saying let's go
find out what that is. I I'm not sold that Scottsdale should be in the business of doing this work because there are other programs out there. Now, if they don't exist, then you know you I agree that there has to be some kind of thought process around that and how we do that. But that's a policy decision.
I'm not ready to commit taxpayers to a local policy on on this if there are other programs that are supposed to do these things. So that that I I fully support clarifying that, but would like to understand if that if we're saying the same thing or not.
>> Commissioner Carla, would you clarify? >> Um, I will clarify. I will answer one thing first, though. Um, and I appreciate Commissioner Newman bringing this up. Um, if you talk about other avenues to go for, and this is a significant portion of our senior
population, especially in South Scottsdale, um, that is impacted by this um, and other places you would normally go. St. Vincent Depal, they have no money now. Foundation for Senior Living that is now called All Thrive 365 that
does weatherization, etc. They have a three-year wait list and very little money. Um, the county, which normally would do roof repair, etc., they have no money either. I mean, these programs that would normally you would then
shuttle people to, they have no money. And these seniors are the people who help build Scottsdale. You know, it's not just folks are coming in and saying, "Let's take advantage of Scottsdale social services programs." These are seniors who live here. And I personally
know seniors who have had to move out of Scottsdale after giving decades to helping build this city because they cannot afford to live here and cool their homes anymore and they are over in Mesa or whatever now and they truly miss
their community. So yes, I will I will clarify that what we need to do is study how to cover these federal losses and still provide a senior, you know, a safety net for Scottsdale's most volume
vulnerable population, most particularly seniors, um, moving forward. I mean, that's if we get the facts, I think, you know, they're really going to slap you upside the head and make it very clear that um
a significant population of Scottsdale, particularly seniors, are going to be in trouble. So, >> so Commissioner Newman, Commissioner Carla's motion is not to to attach money to this, but to study it and come up
with a contingency plan >> uh in the long term. So, does that meet uh what you were talking about? >> Yes. No, that's a cl that's a good clarific I I've I've always I've always said get the facts. Let's put it in front set it down and then us and taxpayers and and council can decide
what they want to fund and what they want to do. But to have the facts rather than a lot of a lot of just conjecture about what we think. Let's find out what we know and and learn about that and then you can make a decision. >> Okay. So, um Carla, do you want to make that as a motion?
Yes. Do I have to restate it? >> It might be helpful. Do you have it down? >> Okay. The >> I was just if I may just add to the discussion. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just add I don't know if this gives you comfort, but within the general fund, there is
this and I look to my budget and treasur colleagues here to support this. There is this revenue loss. There's a kind of a revenue loss line item that could help. So I I I keep trying to understand what are we trying to get data on? What are we trying to get information on?
What and I've dealt with this almost my entire career of this mirage that we're um or that we're going to lose funding. And so then we do all the study and we're going to lose funding and then it's a six months it's a and and then it never comes to fruition that we lose the funding. >> Okay. But I can I can tell you straight
up we lost funding. We lie heap is gone. the seniors like me, we do not have utility assistance funding anymore. Beginning this year, it was slashed more than half. Next year, it is no more. The funding is gone and there is no
community funding anymore. So, that's a reality. But when you bring up the general fund, that goes back to what Mr. Shearer said is when we study this, look at the impact on our general fund because are we going to expect the general fund to come up with a program to make this up? That's what we need
facts about, too. >> I think they're different. It I I just I think clarification on what you want us to look at is different. So, I'll take your first the first item. Is it if there's a loss in funding, is there a recommendation to develop a plan like
existing to to backfill that I'll use that terms that that that feels very different than this develop a plan for the future of loss current like um I just want us >> it's both of them. I think it's both of them, you know. So, I guess I do need to
rework a motion, which is um study and develop a realistic contingency plan um for our most vulnerable residents, especially seniors. I want to stress
that. um and the impact of the reduction in federal dollars and the resulting impact on our general fund. Is that fair, >> Commissioner Newman? Is that fair?
>> Yeah, that that that seems fair. It it as long as we understand the facts and and then people can then decide about that. Um I can support that. Okay. >> Well, that's my motion. Need a second. >> Okay. We need a second. Okay. Uh Bob seconded it. The motion has
been made and seconded. All those in favor, please say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. You know, it's good. We have a lot of different viewpoints and everything and and when we get Brad and
Carla to kind of agree on something, it shows that we're we're really looking for what's doable and what's workable. So, I really appreciate the spirit of cooperation that everybody's showing. Okay. Um, let's I don't know if we'll get done
with this, but let's go on to the water and reclamation fund. >> Okay. Thank you. The next slide. So the water water reclamation or sewer uh fund or operations are 100% funded by water and sewer utility bill charges as
well as specific water and water reclamation revenues. The expenditures, the large buckets of expenditures are their personnel costs, the water purchase cost, which is the uh central Arizona project uh cap costs, chemicals, utilities, debt service. Those are our
major um cost drivers for this fund. And there are some um other operating expenses. We do transfer out and we do charge a 5% utility franchise fee to our water and sewer operations and those franchise fees are transferred out to the general fund and other transfers out
that you see um in the water sewer fund is uh transfers to water wastewater capital improvement projects. So that is on uh page B40 and next slide. The operating Operating budget proposed
for the water water reclamation fund for 2627 is 131.9 million is a 7.1 million increase or 5.7% increase primarily due to the cost of purchased water, utilities, chemicals
and also debt service. We had u issued um some debt uh last year and that increases the debt service as planned for uh water projects. The that surface went from um 20 something million to 30 something million in the
last few years and then the transfers out decreased because of the um some of the reductions in the water capital projects as well. So with that we'll turn it over to the commission for any questions or discussions. >> Commissioner Lati. >> Yeah, just sort of an overview. We know
that the water bill is a large portion of each homeowner's uh budget and I see in the trend is that revenues are going up 6% and mostly that's rate. However, the operating budgets are going up by
8.1%. So your expenditures are outpacing the largest portion of that is your combined personnel and contractual it's going up by 9%. So, uh, is there any efficiencies that
can be had on those line items to potentially reduce the rate of increase that's affecting all our homeowners? I'll start off and then uh look to my uh colleague to assist with the answer. I I want to give an overview uh for the
water resources as well. That's really helpful. Again, one of the enterprise funds, it's only three enterprise uh funds that the city has. Airport solid waste and water resources. And they went through the 10% exercise. They went through the 2% exercise just like
everybody else. I I can't um emp emphasize enough uh that enterprise funds pay into their own way, pay their own way into the general fund. As the treasurer referenced, that franchise fee is not insignificant. It's over $10
million. And so I think that's uh really important to recognize what re water resources this fund specifically is contributing to the general fund. So that's really important through the great work uh that the water resources
staff did put extreme down pressure downward pressure on expenditures. Uh they cut I think it's six positions if memory serves me approximately six eliminated six positions. Also uh what we had is uh some chronic vacancies. Uh
this area in another area I identified in combination with the senior human resources director that we had chronic vacancies in two areas at least two areas of our city and we made uh pol changes to uh address those issues. The
other one was dispatch and then this one within our water resources. So what's a chronic vacancy? It's one where we need to fill it uh and we're not competitive in the market and continue to go out and just not filling those positions. One I'll transition here to my my colleague.
One of the areas that we just do not have control over is uh some of the the chemicals the cap things of that nature. >> Um Mr. Commissioner uh commission yes we we look for every opportunity to be fiscally responsible. We look for
internal savings and and cost savings within our staff. Chemical cost does have a big impact. Uh globally the wars have an impact on our local cost. So we're constantly looking for opportunities to save as far as savings in dosage treatment or methods. So it is
a constant concern. I just want to emphasize go back to the rates and so we worked really hard uh through the efficiency and optimization and there's still more work to be done but again really proud of the work that the team did uh to get it down essentially to a
three and a half and a three and a half% increase on both. So you might say well I just saw a four and a half on the one. The four and a half is the introduction of a 1% for source and supply. That terminology may sound familiar to you.
That's not by accident. That we have a capital project that a source of supply and then we've introduced this specific revenue stream. What we really wanted to articulate to the rateayer and I appreciate the commissioner bringing this up is if I call it a closed system. If we had a closed system, if you will,
that didn't factor in growth, didn't factor in uncertainties to source and supply of our major supplier, which is called central Arizona project water. Then then you would have operational costs very of about three and a half percent. Very common for a utility
because of just straight labor cost. You're not like a sales tax. It's not going up with consumption and pricing. That fortunately as a city really kind of uh escalates that revenue stream. When you have a utility, it's all rate based. Again, continuing to pay out to
the general fund for franchise fees, continuing to pay out for overhead uh throughout the organization. uh but what we have is if a closed system it would be three and a half and three and a half but recognizing that we have stress on one of our major water sources. So when
it and wanted to introduce this new uh pool of funds to help support the water whether it would be through an AWP that we've discussed earlier part of our discussion or a new source and supply of some acquisition. So the team worked
really hard to grind it down as low as possible. Thank you Mr. year. >> Thank you. Um, you know, this is one of those really Yeah, I I think next year this will probably be a much more lively discussion because we're going to know what the federal government is going to
do. Um, but but I just have a couple of kind of general questions and, you know, what is our plan in the face of significant potential CAP reductions? you know, we hear everywhere it could be from 40% to 75%.
Um, how do you go about planning for reductions like that? >> I'll start and then look to my uh colleague to add. It's a strategy that's all of the above. Uh recognizing conservation is first and foremost. And
so we will be embarking on an extensive education campaign on conservation. >> Didn't you just cut the conservation officer in your budget? A staff position the conservation officer.
>> So Mr. chair and commissioner that uh that's part of the efficiency and that uh mod efficiency or reduction in staffing does not uh match or it shouldn't be taken as representative of
the philosophy or the support. So set another way we have a uh we have resource it's not like we have one and we eliminated the only one we have. So, um >> I think it was two if you the the senior one and then farther down the ones that
are in training. I I I'm just trying to find out how you're going to still continue a robust citizen conservation program. >> Sure. So, Mr. Chair and Commissioner, getting into the weeds a little bit here, but I would briefly say a couple.
One, that's not the only staff member we have. We have extensive resources. We have public information officer. We have uh other staff members to support that effort. We also have a line item within the budget uh for external support uh to tap into this measure. So uh the
resources are there. Again, it's an important part of the strategy uh with conservation. It's the the cheapest water uh that you have is the one you never use quite frankly. So that's really important. The other part of the strategy is the advanced water purification, long-term storage credits,
wells, and so on so forth. So that is how we meet as the uh the reduction as the chairperson uh represented. We have had this moving uh target of what are the central Arizona project water uh
reductions. Uh we had anticipated about a 20 or so% reduction. Now we're hearing some numbers that are higher than that. I won't re I won't say those because we haven't heard yet quite frankly. I think it's important to articulate to the
viewer at home that we don't use 100% of our cap allocation. So that's the first fallacy that some people don't understand is you're going to have a reduction and so you're immediately going to have to to cut on that utilization. Well, we're not utilizing
100% of what's authorized to us. So, it's a a six-prong strategy uh that is uh meant to address the unknown quite frankly that to your point uh Mr. Chair, we will know more uh over the next six months. Thank you. >> Thank you,
>> Commissioner Carla. >> Yeah, just just real quick followup. I mean, I know on the rates you've done one or two studies and and and you feel you're good where you where you are. Um, but when we add back in, you know, the additional specific water projects next
budget, it then you'll review again. I I assume my whole concern is just that our citizens don't end up like the ones in Gilbert with sticker shock where you're literally all of a sudden your bills four times. >> That's all. >> Mr. Mr. Chair and Commissioner, the
rates we have the rates that are planned in the budget align with the capital program. So that's important to recognize including that uh new hund00 million uh that is instituted. The other thing to your point of the rate study, we have I would refer to as a bit
outdated sewer study. We are embarking on updating that. We actually have a fairly new water uh rate study. We uh still plan to update that given the changes in the capital plan that are coming and uh the uncertainties that
will become certain over the next six months. So uh I agree uh with your comments. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. And I I I assume that water is one of those issues that kind of keeps you awake at night sometimes. Yeah. I think it's going to be there's
just so many unknowns there. All we know is there's going to be less water, so we're all going to have to figure out how to deal with that. Do we have any other comments on that? Um, I would like to note that Commissioner Badnock had to go to another meeting, so he has left our meeting. Um, we're not going to have
time for the solid waste fund. Uh, so I would propose that we push that off until the next meeting. And then um do we have items to be presented at upcoming meetings?
>> So we will add the uh solid waste fund to the next meeting and the next meeting we will um actually be covering the um healthc care self- insurance fund and the fleet um management and fleet replacement funds and the general fund.
The general fund will be the uh the big one that we will start covering next week. >> Okay, great. And the solid waste fund wasn't going to take a lot of time, but so I think we'll be able to do that easy. Um are there any >> So, uh we will also go over some major
revenue projection changes, any updates that we shared major projections with the commission on any trends in major cost components. We will also discuss the public safety personnel retirement system and um so those other things.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh are there ident identification and approval of possible future agenda items? Commissioner Carla. >> Um yes. Uh the fact that we have had multiple citizens um ask for um a
specific item in the CIP to be looked at. I would propose that we do have a future agenda item for a presentation and possible discussion on the new Shea Hawk project.
Is that enough of a description? >> I think that's enough of a description. Uh we have heard from some other people about that. Is there a second for that motion to get a future study item on it? Um, I think the motion dies for lack of a
second. Okay, thank you. And with that, uh, is there a motion to adjurnn? Commissioner Lettery made the motion to adjurnn. Is there a second? I think >> Commissioner Polland seconds the motion. All those in favor of adjourning, please
say I. I. >> I.