City staff at any time for an item on the agenda or a non-aggenda item. Card 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 have one request to speak. It's on item
three. So, we will take um that when we get to item three. So, the first thing on the agenda is the approval of the minutes. Uh we have a request for approval of the minutes for the April 10th, 2026 regular commission meeting.
>> Commissioner Carla. >> Second. >> Okay, it's been moved and seconded that we approve the minutes. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Now we'll go on to the review of the proposed fiscal year 2026 2027 operating
budget by fund. Um so the the first item on that is continuation of the general fund um discussion if there's any continuation needed. If anybody has anything that we didn't bring up during the last meeting on the general fund
>> when I listened to the replay of the meetings it's you said there was going to be a time for u commissioner badoff and I to ask any questions we might have. So let me know where that would fit into the uh into the meeting. No, that's now. >> That's now. >> Yeah, that's now. Okay. So, Commissioner
Stevens, >> I can go first then. Okay. Uh, and I did present a lot of my questions to staff so no one would be blindsided. Let me try to go through this as quickly as I can. The first one's on the um police uh uh PSRS. You talked about that at your last meeting. What I wanted to make sure
everyone understood and my question is why why we're not funding more of it again this year. The economics of it are uh whenever you do a $10 million advanced funding to it, you get $800,000 of benefit of lower expenses in the
operating fund. The reason is is you're investing that 10 million at 2%, but you can get 8% by putting in the pension fund and lowering future pension cost. You'll also see in the budget they've allocated uh restricted over $50 million for PSRS, which has been their practice
in fund balance. If you did the whole 50 million, that would save $4 million a year in operating expenses in the police department. So, a I want you all to just understand that that's the mechanics we covered last year. We're making 2% instead of 8%. But to do that, you'd be
giving up $50 million. It is designated in fund balance towards that. So I guess my question would be uh what is the reason why nothing has been proposed for the payown of the PSRS when it has such an economic benefit?
>> Um thank you for that question Chair Schwiker, members of the commission. Um the um PSPs contributions of $50 million hasn't been reflected in our actuarial val valuations yet. So we are waiting
for the 2026 valuation report which will include the 50 million additional contributions and the investment earnings of the plan and the economics of it may have changed. Uh we are earning uh up to 4% in our investment
portfolio now not just 2% and the actuarial valuation discount rate is 7% not 8%. So some of that dynamics have changed. We also have a uh fire PSPRS plan that probably may will need
additional contributions. So between the police and the fire and some of this change in dynamics and economics, we need to wait for the 2026 valuation which will come out in December before we determine what our strategy is moving
forward. So we are aware of that um savings and that economics and so um we definitely agree that by uh paying off the unfunded liability you do save a tremendous amount and that's why we uh included that 50 million last year but
moving forward we really need to wait for the 2026 valuation to be able to see what our strategy is moving forward. >> Okay. uh you last year you told me that you had to limit your investment doses because of the arbitrage rebate rules that don't allow you to invest money in excess of some of the lower debt amounts
that you have but that's changed now. >> So um Commissioner uh Stevens that only relates to uh bond proceeds that we borrow and receive that does not relate to all our investments. >> Okay. Then I
Okay. Uh my second question, this will tie into something you talked about at the meeting and I think Commissioner Newman uh mentioned. It has to do with the employee health insurance. You're largely self-insured on a lot of that. Uh you have a $350,000 uh umbrella on that. Uh have you done
any uh sensitivity analysis? I think uh Commissioner Newman asked about that whereby you said what would the savings be if I increased it to a million dollars and what's my historic claim experience been between 350,000 and a million so I can make a judgment about whether that would be a good economic
decision. So that may be a yes or no question and we can think about it in the future. But >> yeah so uh Mr. Chair, members of the commission that would probably require discussion with our benefits consultant. The 350,000 level is recommended by our benefits consultant. They do provide
analysis of different stop-loss um levels. But if we want to if the commission wants to explore further, you probably should uh agendaize a future item so that we can have our benefits consultant here to explain the stop-loss levels. >> My my qu So you so the staff has not
considered whether that would be a good economic decision to do a sensitivity analysis on that. We would have to probably have our underwriters and our benefits consultant run some analysis for us if the Okay. Uh BRC so desires. >> So Mark, are you making a recommendation
for that for future or you just asking the question? >> Well, you you mentioned at the last meeting. Later on we're going to be talking about recommendations. You already talked about it at the last meeting. So that may end up being a recommendation. So I'm not necessarily making that now. We can wait till the recommendation part of the meeting.
>> Okay. And I think Carla had a comment maybe. Was that on PSPR? Yeah, it it dovtales in that. I just want to make sure Commissioner Stevens know that we have a proposed recommendation to look at the PSPs once the data is in and >> remember that. Yeah, I wasn't sure
exactly what that ran to, but uh Okay, thank you. Okay, the other thing is uh I wanted to talk about the um vacant position credit. And again, I just want my fellow commissioners to understand what what that's all about. Last year we
had a vacant position credit of $11 million. What that means is uh the city says we recognize that out of all these hundreds of vacant positions we have, some will never be filled. Therefore, we don't want to pad our budget too much by having the expenses overstated. And so
they actually have a expense reduction in there. Last year it was $11 million. Uh that's not something a lot of cities do. A lot of cities like to not do that. So they have the un uh filled positions there as a cushion. That way the different department people can not
necessarily fill the position go over budget somewhere else and then in total they still look okay. So that's something some cities do. Uh but since they're doing it now what my observation is I heard at the last meeting we said a lot of work was done to eliminate vacant positions and $2.8 million of those were
eliminated. Just so you all know that 2.8 8 went away as an expense, but you also took away $5 million of the credit. So, you actually, despite all the things that were looked at, you've had an increase of about uh a couple million
dollars with respect to personnel in the way they do uh do the reserve. Okay. My question that I kind of uh gave the staff a heads up to is uh can you briefly describe if there's a calculation to the vacant position
credit because you've actually increased the budget by a couple million dollars this year by lowering it from 11 to uh to six and then also you sent a message out a couple of hours ago uh and that indicated if I read this right that actually your percentage of unpled
positions actually has gone up a little bit since the end of last here. So your percentage vacanc would end up being some dynamics have changed within the city whereby you now believe the positions you have vacant are going to get filled at a much higher
rate than has historically been the case. But that's the question is maybe to educate us a little bit on the vacant position reserve that fell by $5 million. >> Mr. Chair, um I'm happy to start off with that and then look to my colleagues
to add it. uh is I would look at them as independent or two separate initiatives. They can certainly have a correlation. Let me take the reduction in vacant positions. So as a reminder, we took 2% of all our positions
uh but so that we wouldn't have layoffs per se or reduction in force uh the positions that were eliminated uh we would look to vacant positions. So to the question uh I think it was actually 2.6 6 million that was saved uh for
vacant positions. So we will end up uh having less vacancy savings because we have fewer positions. And so it's probably a four-pronged answer. One, we have fewer uh positions. We've it's really about 33. It comes out 33
positions. It comes out about 48 because of some uh pipeline positions that we referred to it. Uh so some of the vacant positions that we have vacant are fewer. Those are fewer vacant positions. Other thing we've done is increase wages. Not
just generally across the board, but uh we had what I would refer to as some chronic vacancies. I use a case in point dispatchers where we had a good number of dispatch positions that were uh vacant. We for a long time. That's the
chronic piece. So we raised wages for those positions. So we will have fewer vacancies because of that. So that that factors into fewer vacancies. And then um also the timing of hiring uh that uh
six million if you will in savings. We have to be cautious not to have the 11 because uh sometimes when we have vacancies that we know of the old legacy school of thought was wait till it's vacant you go out you recruit and you
fill in say 60 to 90 days that is not how uh recruitments work in this day and age. Some of them because of the complexity of the positions you have to start before the person leaves. So this allows us uh to call dual fill or
overfill while people are still on board. So I would look at them independently. We have looked uh to reduce our uh position count uh strategically through our organization and just asked for 2% and just to
emphasize uh there were uh positions that were not eligible or not counted in that and that's sworn positions. So set another way uh POS uh police and fire their sworn positions were not in that calculation. Again just to help
everybody with the math I know this group's good with the math but maybe for the viewing audience if you had a department that is 100 people 100 positions then we would look uh to reduce positions and then we would only
look to vacant positions. So if the if the department hypothetically was fully filled at 100 positions then they wouldn't be required to give up any if they had >> we we can we can stop now just in the interest of time so we don't take away too much of our time for questions. It sounds like one of the key answers there
is you changed the dynamics in which you're filling positions and that is causing vacant positions to go away at a higher rate. Therefore the higher the 11 million reserve is not as appropriate now. So that that resonated there. Okay. Uh the other question is a question was
asked last uh la last meeting about uh the dynamics of multiple police departments more than three all wanting to be in the top three and if you can just give me a one or twominut uh observation on that that math doesn't work that's inflationary. If six departments are all trying to be in the
top three you're going to keep leapfrogging each other and that's going to be a problem. Is there are you considering looking at any other way to measure other than just salaries like that uh to otherwise you got to build an
inflationary nightmare here potentially. >> Uh Mr. Chair and Commissioner, it's not just salary, it's also other things such as longevity pay, uh comp time as we referred to it, postemployment. And so there's kind of a matrix of what we look
at. Uh there is one agency that wants to be number one and this is kind of the development of how this came about. There's another agency of our nine or so peer communities that we look at that really tries to be number two. So what we were trying to achieve with the council resolution and our
recommendation for council approval was around this three spot. There is we do not have um separate from the resolution a labor agreement. Other organizations do have a labor agreement. Um, and this resolution for public safety, just to
remind everybody, would cover the sworn police and fire. And the idea is to be third. Uh, we analyze it every spring and then look for implementation. There's certainly the opportunity, I'll call it some leaprogging. As we get to third, then uh through the cycles that
they might have to increase, but the idea is is that we'll end up uh close. will all end up bunched or kind of a a pelaton area if you will. And so there'll be kind of the the one or two and then there's kind of the purpose with the resolution. What we were trying
to achieve is we hadn't gone out to uh check the market so we slid the ninth and that's not acceptable. So we go on an annual basis and then there was this commitment to be third. >> Thank you. >> Uh okay. Thank you. I I guess part of my hope is we're a special department. We
probably have some other reasons why people would want to work for us. So, I see our police chief here. So, uh hopefully our as our sworn people get educated on all these wonderful things we have, the grass is not greener on the other side. And then hopefully we don't necessarily have to be too far into the
top three. Uh but uh I'll I'll let you all manage that. Uh the other thing was I don't recall on on the roads budget. I think there's about $40 million you've put in for every year, but did you haven't talked about the dynamics behind that, have you? And I don't want to take
more than a minute or two, but is there kind of like a plan? Here's what we're going to do next year. Here's how it's going to be sequenced and and then by the end of the year, we think the PCI will now go from whatever up. And then do you have certain metrics for each of the years on the PCIs you want to get to
uh in order to uh get there? And again, just take a minute or two because I don't want to I want to save time for the rest of the meeting. >> The short answer is yes. Then >> yes, you so you do have a specific plan laid out. Okay. Okay. You asked for a short answer. >> No, that's that's fine. And that's something we may want to look at in the
future if we're allowed to. Uh >> before you go further, I think Commissioner Lerry had a comment on something you were talking about a minute ago. >> Actually, no, it's not. It's >> regarding the email that Greg sent out today regarding >> on
Go ahead, Commissioner Stevens. Uh I'm going to uh I'm going to leave the other I'll leave my other questions out. The one thing I was going to mention, I didn't know if this group wanted to look at the proposed fund balance designations because that is in the book. So, just so you're aware of that. So, uh I don't
know if that's something you want to look at. And then the final comment I wanted to make, uh big picture-wise, uh you all were shared this slide that indicated the cost went up by about $12 million when you take out PSRS. Just so you know, that was compared to budget.
Okay. Actual is tracking much more favorably to that. And so if you do the same comparison by looking at the actual forecasted numbers for this year, it's going to be going up by $22 million or 54%. So I know you've heard a lot of things about budget cost and cuts and
everything, but just so you know, it's going up uh from what's expected to be actual by by over 5%. But we haven't had a chance to get into that. I'm not asking that we do. Just be aware of it. Part of this ambulance ambulance is the scope went up. So, that's what's tough about looking at just raw numbers like
that because some of the things that go up have revenue that go up with it. Uh, but that's all I have for my budget questions. Thank you. Um, >> oh, Carla or Bo, I'm sorry, Bob. Now, it's time for yours.
>> Commissioner Latiri. >> Yes. This question is addressed to the city manager. regarding what you sent out today. >> Yeah. Okay. Uh I'm going to focus on page three or four. Page three or four.
>> Sure. >> Now, >> could you speak into the microphone a little bit more, Bob, for the audience? >> 2425 fiscal year. You ended at 7.9. I would assume that that's the starting point for the next fiscal year, which is 2526. Correct.
>> Yeah, I appreciate that. So, >> no. No. But is that correct? that that that's your starting point 7.9 >> vacancy >> for the next fiscal year because in the paragraph above >> it says you started the year with a 6.11
vacancy rate. >> So what I was Mr. chair and commissioner, what I was about ready to articulate is what we tried to message to the memo is that uh we start when we load new positions and particularly the current fiscal year I think it was
either 98 or 99. So what happens is when you take a snapshot on July 2nd it looks like we have a big vacancy rate. So what that tried to articulate is we in the current uh July 1st of 2025
we added new positions significant new positions and so then when we're uh asked about vacancy rate then it looks bigger in July versus when it does in June. And so um I just wanted to illustrate that. I'm still pulling it up and let me bring in my colleague here
senior uh human resources. >> I'm just trying to reconcile the starting point. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, this is a pattern we do see at the start of our fiscal year. If positions are added, the vacancies rate goes up because we haven't had time to recruit
for those positions because they're brand new. And we see a pattern by the end of the fiscal year as we have recruitment activity, we fill positions that it typically goes down to 7.7 7.9%. It just shows kind of a metric that we look at from human resources and in the
organization. and it shows we're having a healthy filling of positions. >> It just looks like you're presenting a moving target, but I understand it's a different point over time to that point. So, it's a great observation because it really is a snapshot. Uh somebody asked
for it today, we'll give a snapshot, people leave today, >> we hired today. It's it's it's always uh constant. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Do we have any other comments?
Otherwise, we will move on to the uh preservation fund. >> Okay. >> Um next, oh, oh, before we move on to the preservation fund, I just wanted to um let the commission know that these are the funds that we are covering
today. the preservation fund, the parks and preserve tax funds, that's the prop 490.15 park and preserve tax, and all these other funds listed, the aviation stadium risk management, those are at the um commission's discretion if there is
time. And if you would like to for us to go through these funds, we can certainly do that. So, next slide. Next slide. So the preservation fund is the fund that accounts for the 1995.2%
McDow Sonor and preserve tax and also the 2004.15 um preserve tax. The 1995 tax expired in June 30 of 2025 and the 0.15 tax does not expire till June 30 uh June 34. Um
the fund accounts for the collection of these two taxes and the uses is the debt service on the preserve debt of which we have 125.8 million of principal outstanding as of the end of this fiscal year and all that debt matures in 2034.
Um it also accounts for any eligible capital improvements in the preserve which are authorized only for use of the uh 0.15 tax. Next slide. So for fiscal year 2526
the expenditures that are uh budgeted are the debt service expenditures of 26.4 million and also the uh I'm sorry the proposed expenditures of 17.8 million which is a change of 8.6 million
and a decrease of 32.6% and that is because of the expiration of the 2 uh 1995 tax. So the the debt related to that 0.2 tax has been paid off and the remaining debt is related to the 0.15
tax and that's it. I >> that's it. I can answer any questions if you have any. >> Commissioner Carla. >> Yes. I just um would ask perhaps Nick can give a quick explanation because in
the budget line item on the 0.15 the 2004 tax it says that projects if projects are completed that and in the budget line item it shows it stopping at a certain point before 2034
but there are projects so I would just ask >> if perhaps Nick just give a quick update on those and possibility that there may be new ones. >> Chair Schwiker, members of the budget review commission, Nick Moliner, senior director over the parks and recreation
and preserve departments and commissioner Carla, that's absolutely correct. We followed the same pattern for the establishment of our capital budget for the rest of the city. And we went over some of those capital, the capital plan in a previous budget review
commission meeting. But really, with the exception of one of our capital projects, which is the Browns Ranch trail head improvements that we plan to do next year, we are doing design for the rest of the projects. So, we pulled the construction estimates out of the 5-year plan,
similar to what we did in the with the capital budget, and our goal over the next 18 months, 18 to 24 months is probably a better time frame for that is to get really good hard estimates for those projects, which were were very general estimates that had been put
together several years ago. So to answer your question direct directly, Commissioner Carly, yes, there's lots of projects that will be funded through the 2004 tax that we are committed to design for this upcoming fiscal year.
>> Commissioner Stevens. >> Yeah, if I'm looking right, I think this is page B16. Uh you have forecasted $35 million of transfer to the CIP in 2028 through 2030. And then you also forecast almost $40 million being in equity at
the 2030 2031. Just uh what what are what what are those all about? Cuz I I thought you were only doing CIP for projects that were known and basically calculable. So what what's that what's that for? The two 17
millions that are out there. >> So the I can answer that. So right now, uh, Chair Schwiker, Commissioner S or Vice Chair Stevens, the two $17 million allocations are what the current
estimates are. And I I hate to use this terminology, but but we we had originally put in as placeholders for the wildlife crossing. So we are in the process this year of conducting the feasibility study for the wildlife crossing, and we expect that those
numbers are going to change. Um, we've already started that process and we've made significant progress in that in that project, that feasibility study, but we had kept the expense budget in the five-year plan for the wildlife crossing. That wasn't a budget estimate
that we had taken out. So, those numbers will likely change. >> Okay. I guess I'm a little confused about what happened this year. It sounds like for some of these things that you couldn't project correctly, you took them out. And for some like this, you left it in even though you don't have a good dollar amount because you don't
know what it's going to look like. >> I can address that, Mr. Chair and Commissioner. Uh, we did it 99.9% of the projects. This is the one. And for the group, I might point out that there were a couple and >> we've certainly heard
>> about pulling those out. So, this is the the one. >> Okay, good. >> Oh, what about the ending balance? There's like 40 million at the end. is the idea there might be some projects in the future that that has to be expended for. >> And vice chair Stevens, yes, there there are several projects that the McDow and
Preserve Commission has asked our staff to take a look at that are qualified expenditures through the 2004 tax. We don't know what those are going to look like at that point. >> Okay. It's appropriately in fund balance. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Lati.
I'm focusing on page uh B16, very top line debt service reserve. Your proposed is uh 17.8 million and the forecast is 115 million and then it disappears. So uh what is that?
>> Mr. Chair, members of the commission, if you look at page B16 under the um transfers out for debt service, you'll see in fiscal year 2728 115 million 115.7 million in debt
service payments. So about two years ago, there was discussions on council to consider terminating the tax early when all the debt can be paid off and if there are no longer any need uh to continue collecting the tax. So the five-year forecast was developed with
those considerations. However, there are um legal considerations to terminating the tax early and council will need to uh to discuss and decide on that and the as we heard the uh preserve commission is also considering any further um need
or improvements that would qualify. But the um drop in that reserve is because we will be paying off early all the remaining debt in 2728. Commissioner Newman, >> along those lines, um I do have a recommendation will come up, but it's
relevant here that once we pay that off, then you have a a tax that's collecting money that then sequesters that and we have other places in our overall budget where there are needs because we have I I really feel strongly we have a mismatch between the revenues and where the money is that needs to be spent like
roads or infrastructure, things like that. And I really think we need to look at that and and decide because I'm I'm convinced that the parks and preserves are going to be well funded with the point 255 or.3% taxes that we have now. But this is a tax where I think we
should we should consider repurposing this. We'll get to that in a m after a bit. repurposing here would be very important and then restructuring some things so that everybody gets what they want. But then we can take those 25 or $30 million of funds each year that are going going to be sequestered at once we pay this
once we pay the debt off and then that's going to be just held and I don't think taxpayers want it locked up in a place where we could use it to put it to good use in other areas. >> Thank you. Uh have any more questions or any more
discussion on the uh preservation fund? All right. Otherwise, let's move on to the park and preserve tax funds, the 2025.15% tax. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh the next section will adv examine the uh various funds that receive revenues from the uh
the new 0.15% park and preserve tax. And we'll start on page B30 for uh anyone following along. Uh could Okay, thank you. We're on the next slide. The first fund that we're going to look at is called the Park and Preserve Tax Allocation Fund. That's that's the fund
on page B30. This fund shows the the accounting of the 0.15% park and preserve tax that the city began collecting in July of 2025. The tax is allocated by council ordinance. And the first allocation is
for debt service for Westworld drainage projects. And then after that transfer takes place, the remainder is transferred out to the various park and preserve tax funds according to the percentages on the slide there. 14% to park maintenance, 18% preserve
maintenance, 7% for the police park rangers fund, 10% to the fire mitigation and technical rescue fund, and then 51% to park improvements. Can we go to the next slide? So if you look at page B30, um I want to just walk through how the projected
revenues are going to be allocated very briefly. If you focus on the gray shaded column at the top, the beginning fund balance of the allocation fund is $0. That is expected because every dollar that we receive will be allocated out to the various uh park and preserve tax
funds that we just went over. Uh if you move down to the revenues, we anticipate receiving about 26.9 million in 2627 and then continue moving down that column. The first allocation in 2627 and this is reflected on the slide as well.
It will be to pay with a debt on the Westworld drainage projects of about $600,000. After that 10% of what's remaining will be allocated to the fire mitigation fund. That's about 2.6. 51% to the park improvements fund about 13.4 4 million.
Uh 14% to the park maintenance, 3.7 million, 7% to the police park rangers fund, $1.8 million, and then finally 18% to the preserve maintenance fund or $4.7 million. Then at the bottom of page B30, again, we project there will be a 0
ending balance since every dollar will be allocated to one of the purposes listed up on the slide there. Uh I believe that's the end of the allocation fund. Uh if unless there are any questions, we can proceed to talk about the individual funds. Uh can we go to the next slide?
>> Commissioner Steven, >> just real quick on it sounds like council had some ability to reallocate. Uh is there any opportunity here if more indirect cost allocation is done into the consuming elements that are part of the park reserve that might create some
more flexibility in uh other elements of the general fund? >> Uh Mr. Chairman, uh, Vice Chair Stevens, my understanding is that the allocations of the park and preserve tax can be changed by council ordinance. Um, but that is currently the allocation that is
that is in the >> Okay. >> Commissioner uh Newman's comment. Uh, that was something that if there is some flexibility, that's something to be address considered. >> Commissioner Carla, >> just a little technical thing. It can
only be changed by a super majority vote of the council, not a regular 43 vote. >> Okay. >> Because what commissioner >> unrecognized? Okay, good. Um, yeah, because I noticed in here, this was kind of intended when we talked about this in
P last year, this was intended for maintenance because maintenance was the big issue. I'm totally on board with that, but only about a third of this is going to maintenance. So, um it seems like the council wants to put it into some other things. Um that might be an area that we need to recommend to the council to to restructure that because
if if this is configurable, then the other discussion about should we be collecting taxes and putting them in a box that nobody can get to later um is probably something we want to try and fix as a as a commission and as a council.
>> So, um Mr. Chair, members of the commission, I'd like to comment on I think the 51% park improvements are the deferred maintenance on all the parks. So that is our m a significant part of our maintenance as well.
>> Yeah, that was one of the big parts behind the uh prop 490 was all taking care of all that deferred maintenance that we'd had for years. Commissioner Carla. >> Yes. And a lot of the preserve maintenance also includes invasive weeds
control and a lot of fire mitigation because there is fire mitigation that the fire department does and the TRT the second TRT team but then in the preserve maintenance you also have additional fire mitigation.
>> Right. Yes. And I uh Chair Schweer, members of the the budget review commission, I'd like to clarify that a little bit as it relates to the allocations of the parks and preserve tax. The 51% for park improvements is for major capital infrastructure repair.
So that is to make major repair and renovation to the aging parks in really in the entire city. So that'll be the 51% is primarily capital. There are some maintenance related improvements that might not be capitalized that would be
captured in the 51%. And then the 14% allocation is strictly park maintenance. It is contractual. It's personnel. It is additional maintenance staff for our parks. >> Thank you for the clarification. >> Any more questions on that? Okay.
>> Okay. Can we go to the next slide? Uh we'll look at the uh the first of the five park and preserve tax funds. Uh the first is a park maintenance fund on page B31. We'll go in order in the book here. Um we talked about the revenue side on the previous slide. If you look at page
B31, move about twothirds of the way down to the total operating budget line uh and start moving from left to right. You see that the adopted budget was 2.2 million last year. I should say 2.2 million in our current adopted budget. And then moving over to the gray column,
the proposed budget is $3.3 million. That's a $1.1 million increase compared to the current year's adopted budget. There are a few highlights listed on the slide here. Um there there are a total of 6.8 new FTE positions funded by this
fund, park personnel and predominantly. And then 0.3 million for uh about five vehicles that will be purchased for park maintenance. And then about a h 100red,000 for some irrigation system improvements. Those are the the major highlights from this fund.
If there are any questions, if not, could we advance to the next slide? Could we advance to the next slide? Thank you. Next is the preserve maintenance fund on page B32 that receives an 18% allocation of the park and preserve tax after the
uh the debt that we discussed earlier. The uh total operating budget line again about twothirds of the way down. The um actuals for the operating budget were zero in fiscal year 2425. In the adopted budget they're 3.1 million and in the proposed it's 3.4 million increase of
about $300,000. Just a few uh highlights here on the slide for this fund. About 300,000 for the various preserve maintenance initiatives and then a h 100,000 for a couple of vehicles to be used for preserve maintenance.
Could we go to the next slide? Next is the police park rangers fund. That's on page B33. Uh the operating budget for this fund again was zero in fiscal year 2425. no actuals, but there's a $1.3 million budget uh in the
current year in the adopted budget and 1.4 million in the proposed budget. Uh very small increase. Um nothing really major going on in this fund in fiscal year 2627 in terms of increases or changes. Could we advance?
Next is the fire mitigation and technical rescue fund. That's on page B34 if you're following along in the budget book. Uh the total operating budget in the current fiscal year is 1.8 million in the adopted budget and proposed is 1.7. The net reduction of about $100,000 is due to the removal of
some uh one-time capital purchases along with the reduction in some contractual services which offset the increases due to personnel. Can we go to the next slide? >> Commissioner Newman, >> um could you clarify? I I saw this what
you sent out this afternoon and I went I had already had the slides from the I think April 20th when you sent those out on slides well 9 11 and 12 the numbers are all the same but the proposed highlights are not
there and there's some headcount and things like that are have those have those details changed in the slides and in terms of what makes up that number >> Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Newman. Uh, nothing has changed in terms of the highlights. It it seems that the version the slides that you're holding simply don't have the highlights.
>> That that was >> this doesn't have the highlight. >> That that was removed today. And I'm just curious as to why that was all taken off. >> Yeah. I I apologize. this the version you have, we added some notes to them to talk about what those budgets support,
but there was a miscommunication when um uh Scott updated his section of the slides. We didn't connect the two. >> So, those are still all relevant. >> Those are all So, those previous comments are relevant. >> Yes, all of those all of those bullet points are
>> because I I I mean, I do have questions about this. I mean, I know we want to do some things to have better protection of the preserves, better fire protection, things like that. I get all that. I'm curious as to what the options are here because I'm looking at this and saying, "Okay, on
slide 11, six sworn park rangers, a sergeant, a real-time crime center technician. I'll be interested to hear what that is." Um, and then on slide 12, three captains and a wildland urban interface position. Like to understand
that. And so the details here, I mean, this seems like new headcount that I don't know if these are intense positions or not, but it seems like these we incremental to our police and fire capabilities because let's face it,
the preserves are not an intense area. Yes, if you have a fire or whatever, it's all hands- on deck or if there's an emergency, there's all hands on deck. But are there ways to cover that either through technology or through incremental arrangement of what resources we already have that would be less costly to do that? So that I mean I
I don't know if we can answer it here, but um the details do matter on this uh in terms of of why we're spending that money in that way. >> City manager Ken. >> Yeah, thank you. We'll have uh Chief Shannon here start us off and uh Chief
Leuk probably on deck here in a minute. Um so we'll start off with the fire thing. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Uh great question. Uh the specific uh answer to your question is the three captains um were had been dedicated well before 490 was passed
focusing primarily on uh the wildland urban interface that NAOS area which is the it is the wick if you will to the preserve and and so if we don't address uh fuel management and prevention
services in that area that's probably our biggest vulnerability because we mostly human starts. >> You also discussed that as a part of the ordinance development to go into NaOS. I remember that. >> Yes, sir. And then uh then the fuel mitigation position is uh going to be a
precision position that will help facilitate all the funds because you've noted that uh there are dedicated funds for fuel mitigation in a lot of the city's uh departments and that person will essentially be the ZAR of fuel mitigation in the city. We didn't have
that position before. uh it's not we haven't expended those funds because we haven't hired that person uh just yet. It's been quite a recruitment process and so we expect to see that all come to fruition in this next budget year. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Any more questions, Commissioner Newman? >> No, I just I I I when I see a lot of headcount being added to areas that are open spaces and things, I get I get the fire mitigation thing the discussion. I just want to be sure that we're properly using leveraging the resources we
already have in place because half our budget is police and fire. So seems like we should be able to leverage that as much as possible. >> Yeah, Mr. Chair, thank you for that. >> And technology. >> Absolutely. And so that my understanding of the intent it was to add staff and when we go back to our additions of the
positions for uh next year, we have mostly with 22 positions related to the ambulance. I'll quickly move that aside. And then the next was really related to 490 was the majority of the remainder. So have chief leuke take it.
>> Uh chairman and uh commissioners. Um we uh it is important to note that what this fund does is support six uh officers, preserve officers as well as one supervisor and then a technician to support it which is is uh a position
that actually uh supports it through drones. Um most of the calls for service that we have in the preserve in our park system are missing hikers or people with medical incidents. So drones have become very valuable. So that includes a what's called a realtime crime technician,
drone pilot. But it's also important to note that these employees not only are assigned to the preserve, but all of the parks within the city. And so we have hundreds and hundreds of acres of not only preserve, but parks that they need to patrol. And it's a very specialized um
require specialized training beyond what our normal patrol officers get when you're talking about search and rescue and different equipment that they have to utilize to ensure the safety of everybody recreating in those parks. >> I would Mr. Chair just briefly add uh I
think this is a good example of how Scottsdale is different from many other communities. Sometimes there are behaviors that occur within the park system that are undesirable and and so it's not by happen stance that we get to enjoy our parks. It's by strategy that we resource it. So, thank you for the
question. >> Yeah, I I appreciate the question too and I'll just add a little bit of context. When we did go through the the process of evaluating the tax before it went to the voters, public safety in the parks was one of the highest priorities that our residents had for use of the
tax. And we did specify that we would expand the park ranger system. So there would be dedicated resources within the parks in the preserve to address some of the issues that we've seen in parks that are common to parks. But but our citizens felt very strongly about that
being a centerpiece of the tax when we went through that process. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Any more questions? Okay, can we scroll to the next slide, please? Uh, sorry, one more. Number 13.
Uh, the final fund we're going to look at for the park and preserve tax is the park improvements fund. This is the fund that receives 51% of the park and preserve tax revenue uh after the WIFFA debt. This equates to about 13.4 million in revenue in fiscal year 2627. Uh
looking at the operating budget on the slide there was in the adopted budget $2.7 million in the proposed it's about $2 million and then looking at transfers out to the CIP5 million in the adopted budget and then another 4.8 in 2627.
Few highlights about $300,000 for the replacement of park furnishings and then the transfers to CIP include um some funding for some sport court replacements uh El Dorado aquatic fitness aquatic and fitness center some design for improvements at Chapperel
Park, Agu Linda Park, Pyute Park, and then the Indian Bendash master plan. If there are any questions about the park improvements fund. >> Commissioner Luri. >> Yes. >> Question is line three on the beginning
fund balances park improvement fund balance. What's driving that exponential growth from 3 million to 49 million? Chair Schwiker, Commissioner Legery, the really it's the the same fundamental
process that we're going through with the rest of our capital plan where and you'll see even a small reduction where we've reduced the amount because all of our money, not all of our money, but the majority of our expenses for the upcom upcoming 2062 27 fiscal year will be for
design. As it relates to the sales tax, it is a pay as you go tax. So for us to complete major capital, for us to to pay for a $30 million investment in let's say Visttor, Elorado parks, we'll have to we have to collect that revenue as we
go. So we'll see periods where we don't have as many expenses and then we'll see really large capital expenses in certain fiscal years in the five-year plan. Thank you. Any other questions or comments?
>> Okay, so we're done with the parks and preserve tax now. Um, now we go on to the other funds which is the aviation, the stadium fund, the risk management fund, debt service fund, PC replacement fund, and special district fund. Um, we put those under there, lumped them all
together. Most of them are pretty self-explanatory, but um, rather than go through each one of those, uh, we'll just discuss them if anybody has any questions about any of them. >> Commissioner Stevens, >> I just have one question. and it's on um
slide 22 for the risk management fund close to $20 million. Uh and I think that's page B24. Uh my question is the were these numbers also reviewed by the loss trust fund commission uh the expense numbers or they just look
at the reserve that you have for the claims and because you do have a reserve for claim estimates and IBNR I believe also he didn't think he was going to have to say anything I'll I was hoping.
>> Thank you, Commissioner, Vice Chair George Woods, safety and risk management director. Uh, yes, our loss trust fund board uh reviews our reserves as well as our uh our fund balances. We do meet a minimum of three times per week. We do seek guidance from an actuary to help us
uh to guide us, excuse me, in terms of how we set our reserves. >> Okay. And then the so the expenses here like 6 million or so was premiums. Is that is that really premiums because you're self-insured for a lot of this too? Or are or is this workers comp and then it's also other litigation type
claims, slip and falls, stuff like that? >> Yes. So, so the chairman the the insurance that the city purchases uh covers or we try to cover all the exposures presented to a municipality. And so when you see the insurance premium line item that is indicative of uh casualty in property, workers
compensation, aviation, uh crime, cyber liability, there's a caveat of insurance uh coverages that we purchase. Um to your point, insurance premiums have uh increased significantly over the past couple years. Uh we are working with our brokers and we have consulted the city
manager in terms of uh in the future examining and analyzing the city's um opportunity to go into a captive market which would help control those insurance premium costs. >> Okay. And have you have you thought of going uh somewhat self-insured on it with a stop-loss cap like you do in some
of the other areas? Is that >> Yes. So the city is self-insured for the first $2 million of of each loss. In terms of workers compensation, we are selfinsured for the first million dollars. We've done a great job in our property damage coverage. Uh we've gotten that deductible down to a h 100,000. And so if we ever have a large
property damage loss in the city, which we had one a couple years ago with the garbage trucks up with the North Corpyard, we are only subject to $100,000 deductible. Uh we are also working uh with the water department to secure uh flood insurance to offset uh the the deductible that's associated
with the buildings up there. Try to bring that down from 100,000 down to 25,000. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yes, sir. >> Mr. Chair, if I may, I'll just take the opportunity. As you can tell from my colleague, Mr. Woods, we hired one of the best in the business. We spent a lot of time in this area. We have a lot of risk. Again, he's we have the best
working for us. Uh we've already started talking about the next uh the captive model that he uh referenced and likely will return a year from now and lay that out a little bit more if we want to pursue that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Cool. Thank you. >> Thank you.
So, do we have any questions about any of these other funds that anybody wants to discuss? Um, I don't see any. So, I would say we move on to item number three, which is discuss the observations and
recommendations on the proposed 2627 budget and CIP and the commission report to council. We do have a request to speak on this one um from Betty Janick. So, I would invite Betty to come up and make her comments.
>> Okay. Hello, my name is Betty Janick and I want to say hello to all the commissioners and to all the staff that I see here today. Um, first slide is a picture of the first page of the 2025
2030 strategic plan. I was on Scottsdale City Council when this was voted in. It is a wonderful plan. It plans for Scottsdale's future and it will continue to be a wonderful plan. I would like to speak about two aspects of the plan that
are under consideration for being removed. Next slide, please. Um, one of the initial pages showed the strategic initiatives. Number one was to continue the advanced purified recycled water plan. And um
I've highlighted recycled water is critical to Scottsdale drinking water supply. It can fill the gap between what we need and what we have. The next one I wanted to pay attention to is number four. pursue additional future water
resources. And right there is ensure a long-term and sustainable water supply. These supplies include, but are not limited to SRP's new Bartlett Dam discussion. Our Bartlett Dam has been in existence for 87 years. These are very
very long-term plans and yes they are very expensive but this is what will propel us into the future to be a sustainable city. Um next slide please. I then looked at more detail and you guys are real familiar with that based
on everything I've heard today and why in 2027 two of the very important um guidelines will be expiring. One of them is the interim guideline that was established in 2027 where we left water in the reservoir and we got water
credits. The other one is the 2019 drought contingency plan and both of those expire within the next year. We are at the bottom of the heap, the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to water rights because we were the last
ones to enter into draws from the Colorado River. Now, the next slide is the one that concerns me the absolute most. Go down to the graph, please. or up to the graph, I guess.
Thank you. Okay, this graph was published one week ago. It shows the water content of our reservoirs. It starts with the end of last year and it is continuing to a week ago. The green
line is the 62-year average flow into our reservoirs. The blue line, the jagged blue line is the actual flow and at the end is the predicted flow into our reservoirs which
we depend upon for Colorado River water. It is currently at 22% of average and if it continues as we expect it to continue it will be the lowest runoff in the history of
measuring water runoff and that concerns me. That concerns me. Now again in the near future we have water credits. We have water credits that will carry us over for a couple years because our water department was smart enough to bank any extra Colorado River water.
Okay. Then the next thing um this is the new budget 2026 27 and I noticed that the Bartlett dam was pulled and I noticed that um the advanced purified recycled water was pulled. Now purified
water, why do we need to keep that in? Um, I was told I could go a little bit over. I asked. I'll be quick. I'm almost done. Okay. Why do we want the recycled water? Number one, it's our water. We don't have to buy it. Number two, we can get it in about 3 to 5 years. And number
three, um, we have the final regulations that we can now proceed to actually produce water. The Bartlett Dam, the federal government's going to be paying for 50% of all the expenses and get 50% of the water. 22 other municipalities
will share the remainder. If we take our Bartlett Water money out of that budget, it is not a good look when the federal government looks at all the information and says, "Whoa, what is Scott still doing?" We don't have to pay for it now.
There is no bill now. There is really little risk to keeping it in the budget, but the biggest risk is what if we get knocked out from those 22 municipalities and nobody else is going to be allowed in because it's overs subscribed. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> And there has been lots of discussion about water and and the importance of it and I think reasonable minds when they come to the end of it are going to realize that water is very important and we're going to have to deal with it. So, thank you very much for those comments.
Um yeah, so city treasure has a quick uh presentation as we move on to item number three. >> So thank you chair and members of the commission. Um before you dive into your discussions and recommendations, I just
wanted to bring a few um recaps. So next slide, please. Oops. Okay. So, I just wanted to recap for the commission and for our audience the meetings discussions to date. In December, the commission looked at and
discussed the financial conditions report, historical revenue trends, and quarterly budget and actual variances. In February, we looked at the preliminary 5-year capital improvement plan. In March, we looked at the preliminary general fund revenue forecast and also the next quarterly
budget and actual variance. and the April meetings has been focused on the operating budgets by fund. Next slide. And these are the recommendations that have been voted on to date. Um I don't
uh not in particular order but from the uh December meetings all the way to uh the April meetings. The recommendations summarized are uh including feasibility study for Granite Reef Senior Center. Uh restoring the APRW project in the
capital improvement plan once the cost studies are complete. Reporting on financial sustainability of 5-year CIP in light of the methodology change to exclude project completion costs when projects are not fully scoped. Next slide. Developing realistic contingency plans
for the vulnerable residents, especially seniors, and determine the impact of reductions in federal funding and resulting impact on general fund. Look at impact of federal funding cuts on Pyute Community Center. Review the city's tax rates to see if current tax
rates are proportioned and provides long-term fiscal financial sustainability for the various needs of the city. Um, and then evaluate sufficiency of the 2 million additional PSPRS contributions for fire and if additional contributions
are needed for police after the the 2026 actuarial reports are released in December. Identify and take a closer look at aging facilities over the summer to ensure adequate funding for the 2728 budget. Report on fund balances and reserve roll forward.
Next slide. Okay. Can so we can go back to those slides. So these are all the recommendations that the commission has voted on. So if the commission wants to revisit any of these recommendations voted on to be included in the final report, we should do so. Otherwise, they
are recommendations that are voted on and they will be included in the final report to council. Can you go back to the slide? So if the commission would like to discuss these uh recommendations again, amend it or change it, uh it's up to the commission
otherwise they are included in the final report. >> Just a commissioner Newman, >> just a question. Um I received some information that about Pyute and a question about that and maybe the city manager can clarify. If I'm not mistaken, that facility part
of it's rented out. Is that correct? And so my question would be why would we spend if it's if it's mostly rented out or or I don't know what the utilization is so I don't know the answer but you can imagine where my mind goes it's if most of it is rented out why would we do a lot of renovations to it and if it's not being utilized.
>> Uh so Mr. Chair and commissioner my understanding so it is a bond issue. It is a 2019 bond item that we have to address and so we were going to do a feasibility study to address that question. And I think it is my understanding it's under lease and full
so it's occupied so it's not vacant. I think part of what I would anticipate with the feasibility is are we fixing up the existing or are we building new? Those are two totally different and I think the feasibility will flush that out from my perspective. >> Just we're we're we're we're
through a mandate we're taking on debt to renovate a rented rent rented out facility. So that surely that's part of the feasibility discussion. I'm seeing my colleague. I'm seeing a commissioner interested in jumping in this conversation. You have uh asked
some good questions there. I look forward to adding once my colleague um chimes in. >> Deputy city manager Kira Peterson. >> Thank you very much. Good afternoon, commissioners. Um and I was under the impression that the feasibility study was actually for Paute Neighborhood
Center in this upcoming um fiscal year. Um 250,000 instead of Granite Reef. Yes. So, just to add to that, that's my all my comments were related to that. I think we just have a an air slide, but yeah, it's PA. >> Okay. Commissioner Carla.
>> Um, yes. And you guys kind of jumped ahead because when we did the recommendation, look at the impact of federal funding cut on Pyute. And then we have the bullet above it about the contingency plan for the vulnerable residents. And then the city manager put
the feasibility study for Pyute back in the budget. So in reality, the bullet about Pyute probably isn't needed because you're looking at the funding, you know, that part on this other bullet
if hopefully that stays in there. And I will caveat all this and saying if anybody tries to take out that bullet, then I want Pyute back in there. Um, but because the feasibility study is in the budget now and it's looking at every it'll look at what you talked about
also, it does seem like a duplication. >> Yeah. Is that a motion to remove that particular item? >> Well, once I'm sure that the above bullet stays in, >> Mr. Chair, if I may just kind of walk through it a little bit. I was going off recollection, not quite aligning. So, I want to go back to Commissioner Newman's
comments. if they were Granite Reef, we're going to do a feasibility but internal kind of a a staff analysis, right? So, so just to put that aside. So, Granite Reef bond issue there or bond item, but we're going to do some internal don't need any dollars for an
outsource. We're going to do some work internally kind of internal feasibility. So there's that situation and then uh to commissioner Carller's point we did add feasibility for PAU community center neighborhood center whatever we're referring to that and then independent
was this emerging issue of vulnerable residents and loss of some funding. We did provide a memo which got some feedback but uh can continue to have dialogue. I um I I would just remind the committee on that that there is a $15
million economic um dip uh for lack of a better term or economic loss uh line item to the tune of $15 million that gives council policy makers flexibility should midbudget year uh some revenue loss. Revenue loss is really the title.
If we have a revenue loss, whether it fund uh be federal funds or whether it be a sales tax, we approach policy decision policy makers and say here's this situation. Do you want to stop the service because uh the support of the money uh is is stopping or do you want
to supplement it with our own dollars. So just pointing out that flexibility within the budget should that situation arise. >> Thank you. Um Commissioner Carla. Yeah, to kind of wrap it up and if you if we keep the bullet in about develop the realistic contingency fund for most
vulnerable residents, especially in the face of the federal cuts that covers um it covers what Commissioner Newman always talks about about policy because it would be council's decision. My whole point is we need to get it out there
realistically because yes, you put out the memo about lie heat, but it's not real. That's not what's happening on the ground to the folks who get it. And I know it sounds good, but um there's no certainty whatsoever. So if we keep this
bullet in here and look at this holistically and policywise and then take out this one about pi because you're already doing the feasibility study that would be my joint my double recommendation
keep I move that we keep the top bullet on the page develop realistic contingency plan etc and remove the one that says look at impact of federal funding cuts on PA community center because it's a duplicate. >> Is there a second to that motion?
>> Second. >> Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Otherwise, all those in favor, please say I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed. Thank you. Motion carries.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah, it does. It does. Um, are there any other recommendations we've had up here on the board that anyone wants to revisit or modify? Uh, Commissioner Stevens. >> Yeah, I I'd like to have just a real
quick discussion among this group because we've never done it. I get really confused about when's it my job to say you should add something back into CIP if I don't know enough about the whole situation and or am I just supposed to be looking at the projects and how they've they put them in there?
like on the advanced water situation. I don't have an opinion necessarily on that. Uh it I've toured the place. It's pretty cool, but I don't know enough about water to know whether that belongs in there or if that's a waste of money and there's other solutions that are available uh for procuring water. So, I
just struggle with what our role is and whether or not there's we, you know, should we be jumping in and understanding what's going on with water? But if I say that, I don't think any of these people in the room are going to let me do that to understand what's really going on with water to make a make an intelligent dis
discussion. So, >> city manager may want to talk to that, but I um I believe that we had a pretty in-depth discussion about uh water and what the various alternatives were. And I I think the the manager may want to talk about that just for a minute. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm happy to talk
about this. This has certainly garnered a lot of discussion uh and I appreciate that. Uh we're in a significant drought. Uh it's been a tough year uh in snow country and so it's good for us to discuss. I I would try to keep my
remarks short on a very complex uh topic and say it this way for the two projects that have received significant uh community discussion or or discussion. One, the Bartlett Dam, and I look up at that and it was $25 million and some
change. And so what happens and that if that's for 2627 as it was then we have to cover those we have to cover those with rates and there's no project for 26 million for Bartlett Dam. So it's really
a ghost project that hypes up rates. There's no there's no project for fe for Bartlett Dam for next year for 25 plus million dollars. So if I have it in there, then we have to cover it with rates that would increase rates um to an
amount that is not needed. So we are under feasibility study right now and we're part of a a membership with 19 other agencies. And so we pay our feasibility study amount. We're we're continue to be a partner in this and there will be a significant dollar
amount. We don't know that dollar amount. And so when that in the feasibility study so we moved it to the operating there's been a lot of discussion whether it's in the operating or in the capital and what so it's in it's in the the operating budget to continue to pay our portion of the
feasibility study. So that's Bartlett. It's been discussed. I wanted to to reiterate that and really the effects that it has on rates because if it were in next year, then we'd have to cover that. To that point, the AWP, so AWP a year ago, ADQ, there's double acronyms
there. So Arizona Department of Environmental Quality changed the rules. We know that. And so then we embarked upon a study to understand based upon the direction from this group. So we listened to this group and the group it said 67 million. The prior to that it
said 15 to 20 million. This group said you increased it to 67 million. You should look at this. We did what you told us to do. We looked at it and are looking at it. So uh we looked at the capital side. The capital
side came back in 2025 hundred million. a hundred million dollars and that's 10 MGD million gallons a day. So then uh it's upwards of 150 million push more if you do 20 million MGD a day. So we're exploring
that. But then we have the operating costs. The operating costs are significant that we continue to evaluate uh what that looks like. We expect that over the next six to nine months. We will present that to our policy makers and say here's option A. Option A in no particular
order. Option A is new source and supply. It could we have some opportunities to acquire acquire some new water that fits the portfolio. Option B could be AWP. Let's just call it pure water. It's had a number of
names. That's the the latest and greatest. And so Pure Water. So Pure Water. And so the $100 million that we have proposed in 2728 give us the flexibility. And by the way, there is a hund00 million worth of expenditures. So we had to back it up
with a hundred million in revenue. So guess what? We have a debt issuance expected to the tune of hund00 million to balance out that expenditure. And so over the next six to9 months, we will return to city council say here are at least two options. Here are multiple
options. And then this budget allows that type of discussion opportunity. And at that time we will have a complete picture. We've never had a complete picture. We will have a complete picture based upon capital expenditures and operating expenditures. Mind you also
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality rules are changing or the potential to change. So we are in this very fluid environment and what this budget does as proposed is only proposed. The existing budget h
is adopted by city council. So this is just discussion until the policy makers and we have the discussion and the policy makers approve based upon discussion and input from you 27 27 2627 budget. So back to ADQ I don't want to
build I'll just use the numbers because it's really important right now in 2025 it's $100 million for a 10md plan. In $228 it's $150 million. If they change those rules I just use the hundred million. if they change those rules
because we had 67 before that remember he had 15 to 20 million so we expected 15 to 20 million they changed the rules the 67 was kind of a holdover we went out and tested it into 100 million now if we're able to slide those rules down a little bit maybe it ends up being 80
million based upon those rules we're going to build a plant the rules are in flux I don't want to overbuild the plant to the tune of 100 million and I actually needed we needed at 80 million that passes on higher rates to the rateayers.
That's the situation we're in. So this budget as proposed allows the flexibility for the policy makers to make that decision when we have more information. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you, uh, Commissioner Carla, and then Commissioner Newman.
>> Um, okay. I will point out first that we have moved from zombie projects to ghost projects, so we're making a little progress here. Um, no, the the ADQ that is frustrating and I completely understand that. Um, what I want to make
sure of is two things. Um, we have an recommendation to restore the line item for the APRW project in the CIP once all these costs are are fully known. And so my question to you is um if the BRC
makes that recommendation to council, you anticipate that this is something that will be discussed at this work study so you can get the policy direction. Um and before months ago when we talked about this, we had said maybe
a work study in four months, but now we're talking six to nine months. So it will in effect be next budget where this happens. So I just wanted to ask for clarity on that timing. And then the final question so I can turn the floor
over to somebody else is Councilwoman Janick um talked about the fact that we do need to have a certain commitment in the budget for the Bartlett capital costs and and you're saying that we don't really. Um so just ask how does
how is that determined? Are any of the other 21 communities, are they keeping a line item for capital in their budgets? Um, I mean, I am trying to understand if we are going to lose our place and
you've assured us before we're not, but I'm just trying to understand how that works. So, that's basically three questions. >> How many questions with three with three parts? Just joking. >> Yeah. >> And so, um, >> all together 12 >> actually. So, uh, Mr. Mr. Chair, committee members, let me introduce my
colleague, senior interim director of water resources, David Walby. >> Commissioners, uh, good afternoon. So, yes, to your question, I'll get specifically for other utilities. I have seen it both ways. Some do have it in CIP. I think that's, um, evident to some
of the communities and some others do not. So as this moves forward, the evaluation, the feasibility study for for Bartlett specifically, once they have a plan in place and it's settled, they will give us time to include monies
back into CIP as they move forward for part of their process to build the dam. They have to go through what's called the NEPA process. And so that process includes a financial component. And when they do get to and we're one of the uh committee members on that um of one of the 22 uh then we will have to be able
to show that at that particular time u that we do have the CIP funding the financial uh backing to be able to uh provide the funding for uh raising Bartlett Dam but we don't need that today in in CIP to to be reflective for that process. So we're getting we'll
need to wait to get through that feasibility study first and then once we have those hard dollars and costs that they will provide back to us then the second part of that is to make sure that they when they do their financial evaluation we can demonstrate and show that capability. So the regional
participation agreement that we have that we are paying into for the feasibility study now there's nothing that says that the people who keep an an acrewing amount in their capital get a higher percentage or anything of water
and then the second part is so in effect we're not going to have the capital for Bartlett till the feasibility and the process is done and then we're going to get a big number Uh that's hard to say as it relates to a big number because they'll break that
that project over a number of years to build. So I don't know how they're going to structure that if they're going to require all those dollars to be shown in one particular year or is it going to be broken out over a 10-year build? And that's what we're hearing now is approximately 10 years to build the dam. So are they going to be asking all that upfront or is that going to be broken
over a 10-year period? That I'm not sure and clear on right now. Um but we'll have to wait to see. But >> it's guaranteed we don't lose our at the table for a full percent. >> No, it is not based on dollars set aside in the capital. That gets us kind of in
line, I think, as to what you're >> Yeah. >> No. >> The other thing, if I may go back uh to the first part of the Thank you. Uh go back to the first part of the comment about AWP. I was remiss in my passionate
uh explanation uh to also illustrate that it this project uh was a casualty of it had dollars for uh 2526 but they were not spent. So again the way we're doing it is actually very transparent
which brings out the questions. I appreciate that. So many times what we have is a project that's funded and there's no work done on it and it's just kind of funded and it just has this life. Um and so therefore we were that was the first step. It was consistent with the other projects and then as we
were regrouping. So I I just wanted to mention that and then circle back uh to uh commissioner member um Stevens uh questions. I think from my perspective this is the exact role or or one of the roles of the budget review commission.
you hear, you have questions, community members have questions and it's our job to be able to answer those and def I use the word defend them and so I actually even though again I get passionate about answering because I feel like we followed a set path and I'm extremely
proud about what the team has developed and is presented and so it's your right to to ask those and it's my obligation to be able to answer them. Uh and so I I am very comfortable in that. Thank you for the opportunity for me to explain, Mr. Chair.
>> Thank you, Commissioner Newman. >> I was just going to underscore what city manager Kaitton just said. A couple of weeks ago, Carly, you put you put through a motion directing staff to do something. We're not directing, requesting staff put certain things back in the budget just so we would see a number there. And I voted no against it.
Here's why. He said, city manager Kaitton has said on three occasions now, here's the plan I'm putting together. I'm going to bring four or five options together. We don't know what they are just yet. I've done a lot of construction projects. The first the first year or so of projects on this
scale, you don't see much. It's all paper. It's all analysis. It's all discussion with people and and coordination. And we're now putting ourselves here in the position of being the project managers rather than the budget review commission. And I'd ask that we step back and have a little bit
of trust in our city manager and our head of water to make the right decisions. I agree with everything Betty Janick said. We need water. We need the advanced water. We need a dam. But we need to get the dam right. We need to get the water right. And because there's nothing more expensive than the wrong
project. And then they become zombie projects. And now you got them hang around your neck for tens, even hundreds of millions of dollars. So I would ask that we step back, let them do their work, be patient, and I trust that they're going to do their job. And that's why I voted no a couple of weeks ago.
>> Commissioner Carla, >> and and I understand your explanation. And if this wasn't such a a heavily discussed topic, um, but if you look at the actual motion, it says in effect what the city manager has says
that once all the costs are in and we know what we're talking about, then restore it to the budget. And I just think that based on all the community feedback on this that if we make that statement, it's important for the BRC to
make that statement. You know, not just well, we'll wait and we'll wait because the reality is that once all these cost studies come in, there's going to be the work study with council and council's going to give direction. But this is
such an important topic and such an important thing for our city and future part of our budget that I think it is fair for the BRC to stick with this recommendation. Um because we are all in a way saying
the same thing. But this way the BRC is on record with making a commitment >> and so I will respectfully disagree. And let me say so far I've not heard a motion to take that out of the uh of our recommendations. So um
>> and our disagreement is on record. So >> yeah, >> on to something new. Commissioner Stevens. >> Well, no, we're not on to something new. Um because I the reason I asked that initial question is I'm struggling with what business we have making certain
recommendations if there isn't enough information out there to make a definitive statement. The way this recommendation is worded once the cost estimate comes in and it says it's $700 billion that means we recommend that they go
ahead and do it. So I I I my thought for a compromise would be that the BRC recognizes the importance and the severity of the current water situation and acknowledges that this and Bartlett Dam may be solutions. However, are not
in a position to specifically ask that they be added back in. The point is more they may likely be solutions. Uh, but I'm uncomfortable recommending them without knowing the cost and what's going to happen. And I'm actually more
interested in what Treasurer Hendrews is going to have to do cuz somebody's got to be planning for whatever these costs are going to be and how they're going to be paid for. So, that's another question. So, it looks like I'm sure Commissioner Carla wants
to talk now, but I would ask if we can consider changing it to we are supportive of products that are economically feasible, such as blank and blank, but do not uh suggest that they be added in the five-year plan right
now. >> Um, Commissioner Carla and then Commissioner Newman, you had more. Okay, maybe. Um, well, with all due respect to Commissioner Stevens, you're the one who said a couple of or month ago that we're
not really doing anything, and if we go by your logic, then we're doing even less. Um, and I'll point out that there's another recommendation that says once the figures are in on the PSPRS, evaluate if we need to make additional
payments. So, but by your logic, we don't get to have that recommendation either. I think we take the information we have and we say this is the intent. And if we're not going to do that, then I agree with you, we're not really doing
anything. But based on all the months of discussion we've had on this, it seems legitimate to say this is an important project. when we have the costs, let's put it back in the budget. But I have a
due compromise. I mean, could we say instead of restore a PRW project once the costs are in evaluate restoring >> and then you're just adding one word and adding an ing on the other and you're in
effect hitting your point. It's similar to the one on PSPs, yet it stays in the recommendations. >> So, I believe this was originally Carla's um recommendation. So, if Carla is making this a a friendly amendment to
her own recommendation, um how do people feel about that? >> I support it. >> Yeah. Uh so, >> okay. I would >> want to make a motion >> that the recommendation which originally
said, "Restore APRW project and CIP once cost studies are complete. Be modified to evaluate restoring APRW project and CIP once cost studies are complete." >> Is there a second to that motion?
>> Okay. So, the motion's been made and seconded. Any further discussion? >> All those in favor, please say I. >> I. >> Yeah. I I feel bad. Um, I don't know if Skyler is voting or not because we've been having problems with his audio. So,
I'm not hearing anything from that, but um, it sounds to me like it was adopted unanimously. And I think, you know, this is good. This is why we have these discussions going back and forth. So, it's really good to have us all here and talking about this. And I I really appreciate
everybody's openness to be willing to look at what we did and make modifications and come out with something that we think is workable. And I also believe, you know, these projects are going to take decades. So, you know, regardless of what council's around now
or in 10 years, you know, I am confident the city of Scottsdale will make sure that when we turn our taps on, water is going to come out of them. >> And it's going to be, you know, I I saw this morning where city of Corpus Christi just uh I I think either last night or tonight, they're mandating a a
mandatory 25% water cut on everybody because they're running out of water. So this is not Scottsdale alone >> on the ocean. >> Yeah, they they live on the ocean and this is a nationwide problem. So I am confident that the city in the future will make sure that we have tap water
and and we all know, you know what, down the road, let's not kid ourselves. We always think of turning on tap water as being free. It's not going to be free in the future. It may not be like gasoline, but the city will recover what it costs to give us our water and and individuals
will make a lot of decisions on how they choose to do it. But, you know, I appreciate the way that the city is looking at these things. Thank you. So, these are the other recommendations we've had up there. Uh, is there
anything else that anybody wants to um discuss or anything from the discussions we had about funds today that people want to make new recommendations? And by the way, also just so people know, you know, we we may all have things that that don't get voted on or
or we don't get them in. You know, every commissioner is free, of course, to email the city with their recommendations. They can't hold themselves out to be part of the BRC, but just as a representative, anybody is free if they were on the losing end of any votes to write an email to their to
all the council and say, "Hey, this is something that I think you should do or look at." So, um, are there any more additions on things that we looked at today? >> Are we talking about new things or things that are already on the slides?
>> Well, any either one. either things that are on the slides. >> Okay. >> Okay. All right. So, we'll pull up >> um the floor. >> You have the floor. Commissioner Newman. Commissioner Lati,
>> I I want to address the treasurer uh Commissioners Newman's first recommendation. Isn't that your normal process when you're preparing the budget to look at revenue and expense and allocate? Isn't that what what Commissioner Newman has
recommended? Isn't that a normal budget process? >> Um, Chair Schwiker, members of the commission, actually, I believe Commissioner Newman is recommending that we look at the proportionality of our tax. So, we have a 1.7% tax. 1% goes to
the general fund. 1% is and the rest of the um allocations are by voter approval. 1% is restricted for uh public safety. Another 0.1% is restricted for
the arterial life cycle program. A 2% is restricted for transportation. A 0.15% is restricted for parks and preserve uh maintenance and improvements. And the last 0.15% is restricted for the preserve u the old preserve debt
service. So I believe what he's saying is that we may be collecting too much in the 0.15 for this uh restriction and maybe collecting too uh too little money in the 0.1 for that
restriction or the 0.2 for the transportation restriction. So we ought to look at the whole allocation of the 1.7 and whether it's being used correctly or adequately. >> I understand that. And you're saying you don't have
>> No, currently our budget follows the restriction that's required. >> Yeah. They just look at at the way those taxes are laid out and everything, but they don't look at whether or not they're laid out in such a way that they really should be. because we've
discussed before that let's be realistic that.1% for streets is not nearly it doesn't really I mean that's the one you I think we're thinking of when you talk about a structural deficit in the amount raised so I think it's just a
let's take a step back and look at these all together that 1.7% and figure out if the buckets are in the right place now you know this is fraught with legal questions and policy questions and all kinds of things, but
um I find it intriguing. Uh Commissioner Carla, did you have something you wanted to add? >> Unless Commissioner Lati wanted to follow up. >> Okay. Right. Um yes. I also find number one, the sales tax structure very
interesting and and I think that's something that if we simplify it and turn it into a recommendation that that's very valid, you know, because But again knowing that legal will have to say well what has to go out you know
what can be changed what can't be changed what are the rules as to how it can be changed because I think it's going to be pretty complicated >> that would be part of the evaluation >> yeah but but I think you know that that is I think it's very valid. I'm going to
skip to number three and save the preserve for last. Um, number three, the bond mandate. Um, >> looking at it, I think if the parking garage discussion taught us anything, it's maybe we should look after all this
time because if the project is still valid, it's going to be valid. But it's been so long, a lot of it because of COVID. The prices have changed so much, a lot of it because of COVID and now oil that
you know, so I could I could support one and three definitely. >> And and just a clarification, this only is in the use of the remaining funds that have been unspent because it's it's debt. And I have trouble putting debt when you made decisions seven years ago
and people blindly just go forward. I'm not saying people are making bad decisions or any, but it seems like there may be projects in there that might need some reevaluation. >> Yeah. And this is 2019 bond. >> The 2019 bond. Yes. >> So, we probably need to clarify that.
But again, that's a legal question, too. You know, it it would probably, I assume, have to go out to a vote of the people again since the people approved it. Um, I don't know for sure on that one. Um now going back >> but that's where he's saying before next
budget year we would look at that so there's plenty of time to >> so I do wanted to clarify that we just looked it up we have um of the 319 million bond authority we have spent about 150 million
to date and that doesn't include any commitments that we have. So we have commitments that we've already made contracts we've already entered into just haven't spent the money yet. So, but we could certainly look at what's remaining to be spent and some of the projects that are maybe in the outer
years that if the commission wants to look at those >> probably add that to the >> and just a clarification is I'm not saying not do the projects but I don't think we necessarily know we're we're we're going everybody's doing everybody's doing what voters said but
do voters still want that? I don't I'm not sure. And my question would be based on what um the city the treasurer just said is at what point in time on the ones that are moving forward and Allison I'm sure knows this cold is do we have to fish or
cut bait? I mean between now and then I'm sure many more are going to be committed or we're going to be at a certain point in a contract where you can't back down. So this would be extremely flexible as to what's left
that could be looked at. >> And I believe that the way he he wrote this is extremely flexible. >> Yeah. But I'm just pointing that out that it's >> just an evaluation. >> Commissioner Stevens, you had a comment, I believe. >> Yeah. Actually, I I like all three of these, but I've got a question. Uh, I
want to know if Commissioner Newman and ideally someone else if possible, but if for now, Commissioner Newman is going to be able to meet with Treasure uh, Andrews uh, and possibly any other
relevant people to understand their output of being responsive to this comment so that when it comes back to this group, it is what he intended. because my fear is if he can't engage with you or some of the staff in order
to make sure you're responsive to this, you're going to come back with your best guess and we're not going to get what we need to go forward. So, that's my question. In doing this, is he going to be able to meet with you and whomever else to get the information necessary
and to see that your presentation would be responsive? Yes, we'll make sure we work with Commissioner Newman to make sure the information is accurate. >> And he and he would be able to meet with people other than you. >> Um, we will have to comply with open meeting laws, so we will have to um
determine how those >> But, uh, and I know he can't direct, he can't make legal decisions, but is he able to ask questions as you're putting your presentation together to see if it's being responsive? Can you say I
think you uh the this this motion or also expected that we would have blank blank and blank in the presentation. >> Chairman Schwiker um and members of the commission as as we have discussed repeatedly we have to comply with the
open meeting law. So you can get information from staff members. You can ask hey Sonia I need this information. That's not a problem. But deliberations as set forth in statute and all the body of law that addresses this have to
happen before the public. So if you're going to have analysis, questions, weighing options, looking at, hey, what do you think about this or that? The public has a right to view all of that. It's codified in statute, in law, and it's in our code. And that has to happen
here as we've been doing it. I know we were talking a little bit about the scope of the recommendations and what I would like to do is bring you back to your enabling statute, your enabling statute in the city code. It specifies what your recommendations, the scope of what your recommendations are supposed
to be for the council. And it's supposed to be that you're supposed to be making recommendations for the operating budget appropriations, the capital budget appropriations, and then budget policies that material materially impact the operating and capital budgets. So that's
what's in the code. So that's where we're kind of supposed to keep the scope of the recommendations. Just like just a comment to that. I I think I think what Commissioner Stevens is saying, I agree with what you're saying, but I think it's even a little
more tactical than that is is the output in achieving the spirit of what is here as opposed to looking at options and all that stuff. Yes, that has to be done publicly, but just making sure that the question was understood and and uh uh Treasurer Andrews and staff bring
information, not just data back to the council, I think is is relevant and there's reasonable interaction there in my opinion. There's reasonable interaction just to make sure that yeah, that meets what what the spirit of this was. And that's not I don't think that's outside of any open meeting law or anything, but you're talking about
options and and optionality around that. I would agree with you on that. So, um, let me add to that. So, Commissioner Newman can work with me as the staff liaison for this commission to make sure what I bring to the commission for consideration is what you're looking
for. He cannot go and start talking to department staff and asking for specific um analysis or or all of that. he will work through me and I will make sure that the information brought back and I will coordinate with the city manager
staff to make sure the information brought back to the commission is relevant >> and so he can look at your presentation that you'll put together and let you know any areas that aren't responsive to what his request was
>> because I it'd be nice if I knew because Brad I don't fully understand everything you're doing here but you know what if the presentation comes back and you believe that it covers what you asked that it cover. I would love that because that would save us a ton of time. >> All I'm really asking here is go back to
my original comment about give me your calendar and give me your checkbook. I'll tell you what your strategy is. What we're doing is different than what we're collecting. And I I think this is an opportunity for us to really have a good solid real budget discussion here and align this because there's a lot of structural things that are frustrating
have frustrated us in the past because Bob as you just asked um you know there are things that no matter what that money has to go in that bucket has to be used for something like that and we may not we may not intend that anymore >> and I think it's important for us to kind of step back and say do we need to
have a bigger discussion as a community to make sure that those things are relatively aligned so we don't end up in a corner where we got money sequestered that we just can't use anywhere because it's locked up in a locked up in a mandate that nobody cares about anymore. >> So, um, Chairman Schweer and, um, Commissioner Newman, using your metaphor
about the checkbook and the calendar, you can ask Sonia, I want the records for this date on the calendar. I want the invoices to support this entry in the checkbook. What you can't ask her outside of a public meeting is, "How
come this invoice is this amount and not this amount?" Or, "Well, on this calendar date, I see that you met with city manager Kaitton. Who else was there?" It can't be that. It can be strictly information gathering, any sort of analysis, opinion forming, any of
that has to occur in the public meeting. >> I don't see any problem in being able to achieve that based on what the spirit of this is. Commissioner Carla. >> Okay. Um to sort of wind this up because we still have to go over presentations.
Um again, I think one and three have validity and everybody seems to be agreeing with that. Um number two, the the preserve um tax, the one from 2004. Uh, one clarification. It says this may
require a voter referendum to repurpose this revenue stream. This will require because I helped write it and it would require because we wrote it specifically for a specific purpose and it would have to go back to the voters. >> But it doesn't require a voter
referendum to do the evaluation. >> No. But what I am saying is that on this particular one there may be validity to this but I think it's premature in 2728 because as Mr. Moliner said earlier they're doing
evaluations now. They're doing cost estimates on quite a few projects. Plus there are the preserve commission has already started a process where um staff is starting to evaluate are there any outstanding issues tied to the preserve
plan that we have not evaluated yet and we do not have in the pipeline for cost estimates. And one of those big ones is land acquisition because there are 2,000 acres left up east of Puma, west of the
power lines, south of Stage Coach, north of Dynamite, around Legend Trail going in an upside down triangle that can be bought with preserve tax dollars. This preserve tax. Now it will be astronomically expensive but what the
commission is talking about is starting the process for the evaluation about should any of that land be considered for purchase. Now, because of the price, if if the choice is yes, we should consider some and the commission goes to
council in a work study and council gives direction to look at it, then this would definitely push this off, you know, by a couple of years. Um, I'm not saying that that the money's needed till 2034.
Um I am saying that to say to evaluate the preserve tax in 2728 is premature in particular because of the potential land acquisitions. So I would say that this one you should hold until next budget
cycle or you need to change the dates because you're not going to have the data you need to make the evaluation. Um the the proposal does not uh say at the end of the 28 budget cycle 27 28 budget cycle the tax sunsets. It doesn't say that all. It says what's the evaluation.
Now >> I've always supported buying land that tax that's what it was mostly for. So I completely agree with that. >> But if we're not going to buy land or we're not going to use it. Now you're starting to sequester money in an area where those resources could be used elsewhere. And I like to remind everybody we send.1% to roads and.3% to
preserves. That's extraordinarily out of balance. Preserve I mean preserves and parks.3%. So we have plenty of money coming in for preserves and parks if you're not buying land. >> But the issue is that that's the big discussion that's going to start
happening in the fall. So if you say this 2728, >> it's premature. I'm just saying bump your time on this one so that we actually know the reality of potential land. It doesn't it is and the end spirit of this is not to make a
decision. I would just say between now and the summer the question is what are we going to do over the summer other than take vacation. So hey we can we can sit down and we can go through the evaluation. Certainly we could get the evaluation done before the next cycle. And that might say hey 2030 is when we sunset when we need to sunset this
because of this that and the other thing. That's fine. But the we shouldn't be afraid of the evaluation in any way. Well, again, I will respectfully disagree that I think the dates on number two are premature because you will not have the data. You will not have the costs.
>> You won't have the cost before next January of what the land costs or what you want to do. >> No, on the decision because what is happening right now is and I don't know if Mr. Molineri wants to speak up about what the preserve commission is doing right now. They have literally just
started the process to look at what other projects are still needed to complete the preserve plan. >> We're getting in the weeds. Can I can I have the floor? >> But if he wants to make this
recommendation, >> I just make a comment. I just make a comment. This tax has been around since 2004. I would hope we know what to do with it. Um, before we go further on this, um, you know, we were scheduled to end in five minutes, which I don't think we're going to meet. Um, I'd like to wrap it
up as soon as possible, but is everybody okay if we stay a little bit longer than six o'clock? >> Oh, yeah. >> Okay. You know, me, I I have a short attention span, so we won't stay much longer than that, but we need to get this done. Um, Commissioner Stevens, I believe you had a comment. >> Yeah. Yeah. I I I actually would like to
make a motion that all three recommendations be uh adopted as written. Okay, that's my motion. In doing that, I highlight the words evaluate and identify. Evaluate and recommend, evaluate and recommend. So,
all we're asking for is information. So, even if some of this isn't workable, then they will tell us it's not workable. So, that's why I made the motion that way. >> Motion's been made. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Motion's been made and seconded. We have discussion. Carla,
>> I would like to make a friendly amendment that one and three stand as is, but number two that the prior to the 20278 budget cycle change to prior to the 2829 budget cycle,
request staff to evaluate for review and recommendation. Because how can we as a budget review commission make honest evaluations of things if we do not have any idea of what the numbers are? Didn't
we learn that on APRW? We need six to nine months on that one. Well, on this one, we're going to need a little bit longer because you're dealing with the state trust land department. >> Commissioner Stevens, uh, do you accept that as a friendly amendment?
I'm debating whether to do that or to call the question. Uh >> in the spirit of compromise. >> Okay. Uh yes, I'll accept it. >> Okay. So So the amendment has been made. Uh is it still seconded?
>> Motion made discussion. Otherwise, all those in favor, please say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> So, and the amendment was to just change 2728
to 28. 2829. I got I got right here. You can take this. >> Yeah, she's got her. Okay. Okay. >> Thank you, Commissioner Newman. Those were good recommendations. >> One minute.
>> Uh, Commissioner Stevens. >> Yeah, I'm going to I actually I'm not going to put it up there. I have several recommendations. I'm not going to put them up there. I'm going to possibly just go directly to council with this, but I just want to let you all know there are things I've talked to you about before. I'd like the FTE reductions to be looked at a little bit
differently and I'll go separately to the staff and the city manager on that where you don't automatically replace people. I'm going to make a recommendation about software license maintenance contracts and things be evaluated for whether they're still being used before they uh automatically go forward and also the sensitivity
analysis on stop loss. So those things I'm going to go directly to you people or council with those recommendations. >> Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. Um, so if there's no more discussion on item three, let's go to item number four, which is discuss the method of report
presentation to the council. You know, last year we did a long report that I don't think anybody was really happy with the way that that came out. Even >> even all of us who who adopted that, I don't think we're happy with the way that came out. >> So, um,
>> I was really happy. >> I think we're looking at doing it differently this time. uh more of a yeah right a bullet point a power presentation. So um >> yeah so
>> yeah so next slide so I just wanted to um bring this section of the ordinance for the budget review commission where we added the language where it can be either a written report or a public presentation to be presented to council
no later than the first regular meeting in May. All recommendations must be reviewed, discussed, and approved by a quorum of the commission at a public meeting. So if we didn't discuss this at the public meeting, we cannot we should not we cannot put it into the
recommendation for as the BRC for council. Um, next slide. Um the uh council meeting that that we have scheduled for the budget review commission to present its recommendation and work to council is on May 5th. The
May 5th meeting starts at 5. staff will have our presentation of the proposed 2627 operating budget and capital improvement plan to council and the work study session will be after the regular meeting where um the council will
receive the uh commission's report on its work and recommendations. Next slide. So as a proposed uh presentation to council, next slide. We will start by introducing the commission members. Next
slide. Uh we will also provide council with a recap of all the work that the commission has done. Next slide. And this is the slide where we will insert all the recommendations that the commission has voted on. So does anyone have any
>> does anyone have any discussion about that? >> So the uh commission should talk about um who should be presenting this if you would like the chair and vice chair too or if you would like individual commission members. Uh so for example,
if you want Commissioner Newman to speak to his recommendations, Commissioner Carla to speak to her recommendations, and the commission should decide the method of presenting this re uh report to council, >> Commissioner Carla.
>> Um I I like the bullet point slides very much. Um it makes it simpler, it makes it cleaner. Um, I think that the chair and vice chair should work out a presentation, you know, between the two of them with the chair taking the lead.
And then when it comes to specific recommendations, what we did last time that seemed to make sense was if a council person had a question on that specific recommendation, then the person who made the recommendation handles the ing in
the explaining rather than bouncing around from commissioner to commissioner per recommendation. >> And I think that went really well last time. >> And then at the very end, um, commissioners who haven't been able to speak, you know, have a, you know, a minute to if they wanted to add
anything. Um, that would seem fair. >> Are you making that as a motion that that's the way we should proceed? >> So moved. >> So can I please clarify your motion? Are you um is your motion to have Chair Schwikert and Vice Chair Stevens work
with staff to prepare this presentation with the bullet points of the recommendation and for the commission to all be at the table with the council and for each of the uh commission members to speak to their recommendations
>> if the council questions them about the specific recommendation. Otherwise, the recommendations will just be presented as part of the presentation. And then the only thing else I want to
stress as part of the motion is that no changes to the recommendations or major additions or deletions from what's on these slides will be made. the only
exception being a possible truncation of Commissioner Newman's um recommendation and that I would ask that that then be sent out to the commission ahead of time so we see it and we know what it is.
>> Yeah. >> And >> is that workable? >> Then at the very end if a commissioner hasn't spoken if they want to add anything they can. That's my motion. Is it complicated enough?
>> Is there a second to that simple motion? >> I'll second it. >> Okay. Uh recommendation has been made and seconded that we uh one comment. >> Okay. Sorry. >> Just for a clarification. Uh like Brad's comments are pretty long. So my thought there is we could do it a little more
brief but then have an appendix to the presentation that would have the full comment as written. I agree with that because I wrote it here just so we would understand it. But for presentation purposes, a fine bullet point and then commentary to that is is the recommendation. And of course,
what's on paper that's that's that will be in their book and all that, but we don't have to we don't have to walk everybody through that, you know, torture by PowerPoint. >> Yeah. >> But all the bullet points should be truncated like all the ones that currently exist. >> Yeah, those are pretty good. the the
ones we already approved. >> That's what I'm saying is that they his his recommendation should be truncated to match those. >> Right. Right. And then his full one will be an appendix. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Just a talking point and then you can
explain it. >> Oh yeah. >> Okay. In that regard, uh, are we okay with, uh, once once the chairman and I are done with the presentation with staff, letting Brad Commissioner Newman look at his portion, but then No, we
can't interact with anyone else so we don't violate the rules. >> You'll see it. You'll see it, but yeah. Or an alternative, I could put the relevant bullet points on a p on a piece of paper, send it to Sonia, and then you guys can work it out from
there. >> Okay. >> Does that make Is that Is that okay? >> That might be cleaner. >> Yeah, that works. Okay. >> So, I think we have that. Did we vote on it? Yeah. >> No. >> Okay. So, uh let's vote on that. All those in favor of that method of
presentation, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. Um we just have quickly go on to propose future agenda items and um we have these are future agenda items that we had already discussed from
last time and I think those we need to vote on each one of these as to whether or not we want these as future agenda items. Not not for this budget. These would be meetings for the summer and the fall. So, so the first one is a report on loss
of federal funding impact on budget for human services and how the city will address the potential deficits. Um, is there any clarification on on making that exactly what is it we're looking for with that?
>> But this is actually part of a recommendation, right? It was both a recommendation and also agendaized as a future discussion item. So we just want clarification on what discussion you would like the staff to bring to the commission.
>> So So Carla, I believe what you're saying is since it's already recommendation, we don't need this as a future agenda item. >> Well, I guess that leads to a very quick question, which is based on the recommendations that go to council. If council accepts them all, then are we
scheduling all of them for discussions at the appropriate time based on when numbers come in? >> Yes, based upon when numbers come in. Yeah, we would schedule these for future meetings. >> Well, then it seems premature to try and
schedule it right now. >> It was just a motion that was made to so you can take it off. Well, I I like it because it takes so long to get things done. I'd rather keep this in here and then that'll be one of
the first things we cover next year. And and if and if you need to skinny it down because something's not ready, use your judgment on that. Don't take too much time. So, we could vote on each of these individually or we could just vote on this as proposed future agenda items
and and take it all in one motion. >> We actually need specific um discussion on what you're looking for. So, for example, the commission voted on agendaizing, for example, the commission voted on
agendaizing um incurred cost review of software maintenance, subscription costs, and round dollar large expenditures. We don't really know what that means. So we need specific discussion on what the commission is looking for and what you
would like to discuss so that we know what to bring back to the commission for a future agenda item for discussion or the degree to which AI opportunities exist in lowering costs without impairing citizen responsiveness. I mean that that's just way too broad for us.
So uh some of these are very very broad. We have um a lot of software contracts. Are you looking at software contracts over a certain dollar amount? Um, same with the police public safety additional funding pro-forma impact. I mean, we we
need more specifics as to uh it's very broad. >> Well, and and some of these are a lot of these are mine and we haven't really talked about them a ton. What if you just said future agenda item to discuss the degree to which the following item should be considered in the budget
process? That way what the meeting becomes it just becomes going through each category talking about it and if everyone goes hey that's stupid or hey internal audits already doing that then we won't do that. If not we'll talk about what level of scope what should be
done and then that would become the frame for the action item for the next meeting. you. Okay, you look troubled. What is it? >> Um, all you'll be doing is talking about what you would do and you would be
welcome to say, I think this is a dumb idea and here's why or or here's why I don't think it's necessary. >> Okay. All right. We'll we'll agendaize it for discussion at an at a later meeting and then we can
bring back to you what we think you might want to hear. >> Yes. >> As as it relates to our budget. >> Yeah. Not like the next meeting. This is at an undetermined future meeting. >> I want the next meeting now >> because we don't have any meeting scheduled other than the work study with
council, right? On fit. >> Correct. >> Because then the first the A and C on this They are recommendations. And for example, C, you can't do that till the numbers are in in December
anyway. And A, you can't do that probably till September because we don't know what the funds are coming from a federal level until then. >> Um, unless I'm wrong on that, Cara, but I think that's correct. So, um, those
would be delayed anyway. Yes. >> So, we don't have to identify what meeting these are going to be talked about. These are just future agenda items that we will address at some point in the future. >> Commissioner Newman.
>> And just a comment to that, I'm probably the father of AI on this one. Um, in this in this discussion, not the father of AI originally, but in this discussion, I don't want to send you off on a wild goose chase, but it's such a ubiquitous issue in in our in in
technology and society. It does raise the question, should we be doing something like that? Now, I'm sure you're already doing things like that. It may be just a matter of saying, here's what we're already doing, and here's what we might do in the future. And and it or you might come back and say, it just doesn't make sense with some of the things we're doing, or here's where it does make sense. and
then that satisfies it. But I I'm not I'm not wanting to send anybody off on a wild goose chase because we've got other things like sales tax and things like that to talk about. So, >> Commissioner Carla, >> but there really was just a cool show about how they are using this in senior
centers to to for people especially with Alzheimer's and they were but anyway so cool stuff. But my question is after the work study session based on what direction we get from council then you will pull us all on dates over the summer. Okay, just to clarify. Thank
you. >> So, does this take a motion? >> I don't think so. The chair would entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> It's moved and seconded. All in favor say I. >> Did you vote on the adding the future agenda items? Did
>> No, we don't have to. >> Said we don't. We don't have to because these are just be because these are just things for future agendas when we get around to meeting again. >> But when you and you both prepare the first agenda, you can put those in there.
>> Yes. >> Cuz there's when there's when you do the first meeting, you two >> Yeah. There are things we're going to talk about. We just don't have to move them forward. >> Go ahead. Close the meeting. >> Are we Did we Everybody voted by getting up. >> Yeah, right.
We lost our quorum. They voted by killing the quorum. >> That was pretty good. >> What's that? >> It was pretty good overall. >> Oh, yeah. What What was good? What was helpful for you? Well, I just really didn't understand
procedure process. >> Oh, it's >> not real efficient. >> You know, we don't get to audit. We don't really get to like poke your fingers into things, look at stuff and ask questions. >> That's what I'm struggling with is making a difference and where's the
substance at? So, uh, you