Budget Review Commission - April 11, 2025

Welcome folks to the
budget review commission
of what are we in April 11th.
Um let me have someone do a roll call.
Chair Smith present. Vice Chair Schwiker
present. Commissioner Carla
here. Commissioner Newman here.
Commissioner Ransco here. Commissioner
Sites, she's here. Commissioner Stevens
here.
All present unaccounted
for.
Um just as
a preamble. Well, first of all, let me
uh uh deal with the possibility of
public comment.
Um somewhere I think I
have a script that I read from that
tells me. Yeah, there it is. Uh so
citizens may address the members of the
budget review commission regarding items
on the agenda and items that are not on
the agenda. Uh, in order to do that, you
grab a blue card from the table over
there, fill out your name and address,
and uh and then we'll call on you.
Um, public comment is obviously reserved
for Scottsdale citizens and business
owners and um well, you know, all you
all know the drill. Um, I do have one
speaker who has requested I guess public
comment or perhaps it is comment on an
item specific to the agenda. Okay, it's
not public comment. She wants to talk
when we get around to item number
two.
Um, the next order of business
is my report. Um, I don't have any
report, but we're obviously here today
to try to digest some of the comments
that have been submitted by the various
commissioners.
Um, those of you who have followed the
process know that each of us indiv
individually submitted comments to staff
and we'll see them uh tonight up on the
screen or this afternoon and we'll try
to figure out which ones are unanimous
recommendations and those that are
something less than unanimous. Um, and
all of that will be noted in a final
report to the city council which will be
done at a work session on April 22.
Um, the process here, making sausage is
not a pretty process. And that's what
we're going to be doing a little of here
tonight is trying to figure out uh how
do we digest these multiple items into a
coherent report.
Um, as we keep track of where
commissioners stand on these various
items, um, either I or the staff or
somebody is going to try to generate a
report that
captures both the specifics of the item
as well as perhaps the the
flavor rationale of the commissioners
uh, to try to put together some report
for the council. And I'm assuming at
some point that will be circulated to
the members and then if one of the
members up here says, "Oh my god, I
didn't agree to that." or something,
then we'll make adjustments. But we do
have a very short timeline
because our report to council for the
meeting on the
22nd actually has to be publicly posted
next Tuesday, I believe. So, not many
days between now and
then. And we're going to try to we're
going to try to do this in an orderly
fashion and and get through it. Um the
first thing which should be a lot easier
than anything else on the agenda is just
the approval of minutes from March 27
which you each of us have received and I
don't know whether anyone has any
comments,
corrections. If you do speak
now, seeing none, then I will entertain
a motion
to Oh, Commissioner Newman, I'm
sorry. Commissioner Newman. Yes.
Oh, thank you. Page four, second
paragraph. No, third paragraph. I'm
sorry. Um, I made the comment that I
felt the street maintenance projects
should be prioritized in the budget
because they are essentially guaranteed
to happen. But it goes on to say as
should pension payown issues. Um, that
kind of implies that pay pension payown
is guaranteed to happen. So, I'm not
sure of the proper English there, but
um, it it I was making the point that
pension um, payown is important as well,
but not necessarily guaranteed to
happen.
Are there any other changes or comments
to the
minutes? Seeing none, then I will
entertain a motion to adopt the minutes
with those corrections. With that
correction, motion made by
So moved, vice chair,
second and seconded by Carla. All in
favor, press your yes, no, or maybe
button. And it is unanimously approved
the minutes of March
27. Jumping right into the
um second item. This is when we will
discuss the recommendations that have
been submitted by the
commissioners and try to
um reach some commonality of view on
these
recommendations. There is no uh overhead
slide to display except um except the
written document that we have. We have
that in front of us. You all uh can
follow on the screen.
And so my my uh strategy here, we're
kind of in unchartered waters, but the
strategy will be in a sense to try to
talk about the items and see if there is
commonality. For the most part, looking
if if someone does not want to sign on
to a particular
recommendation, then now is your time to
make that known as we discuss each item.
and we'll try to wrap up the item with
some consensus
uh statement of what the final document
will actually
say.
Um the the first item here
um is uh refers to an attached
presentation. It it it it's not it was
not my intent that we would have
attachments to this report that the
council is uh getting from us, but
certainly the recommendations
um that were implied in that document.
And it's we're talking about in this
case the um wildlife crossing
recommendations and the document that
was reviewed with uh the public and this
commission just
yesterday. But it ended with the
um recommendations that number one to
move approximately
$250,000 from the preservation
department's
funds up to the coming budget year for a
feasibility study regarding this Rio
Verie crossing.
The second recommendation that was
stated on that sheet was that the
current 35 million in the five-year
preserve improvement plan for the
projected Riovery overpass become then a
future budget item when a feasibility
study is conducted.
Um, so I guess
um, any of you that want can chime in on
the several comments that I've made
here. Number one, that I would prefer
for our commission not to have
attachments, but merely recommendations
to council. And in that regard, the two
recommendations associated with this
particular item are those that I read.
And you can comment that uh on the
process that I've stated or you can
comment on whether you agree with these
recommendations. Uh you can comment on
the weather outside. Commissioner
Stevens. Yes. I like the idea of not
having attachments and I had even
written something up. more more
importantly as far as whatever we decide
today, let's say we approve this entire
thing, who's charged with turning this
into a report that will be comfortable
with that'll be presented. Is that
something you expect staff to do? Is
that something a member here is going to
do? Because right now there's
conflicting comments and there's uh very
different tones and styles to what's
written.
Um I don't know that we have a decision
on that. Um, my recommendation would be
that I take the first crack at it. Um,
and I don't know mechanically whether I
can then pass it back to the
commissioners for comments or whether I
go through staff and they pass it back
for comments.
Um,
but absent any other direction, I was
going to take the first crack at writing
the thing up. Uh to your second
question, will it be something that
everyone's comfortable with? That I have
no
idea. But why don't you comment uh if
you think we should be following some
other approach or Well, I I've had some
thought in it. It's just it would be
really nice if we had a clean report
that followed a similar tone and that it
was comfortable and and I in doing a
little bit of discussing the one thought
was someone should go ahead and take
whatever comes out of this meeting turn
them into something that would be as
professional as possible looking
comments with a consistent flow and then
I would have liked if it could have then
been sent out to everyone and said hey
let me know what your if your area looks
okay or if you have but I think that's
borderline a problem with open meeting
laws so it's got to happen real fast.
So, it's either you do it all or one of
us do it all or two of us do it all. And
then we're probably going to have to
live with whatever that judgment is
presented at the uh is going to be ready
for the meeting with council. And then
at that time, if I don't like the way
somebody changed some of my comments, I
believe at that meeting, I could then
say, "Wait a second, that's still a
draft form. I probably would like to
propose some changes in an open meeting
we would have before we finalize it."
So, my thought is whatever we present
will end up being a draft and we we
might need the pros to weigh in on this
one, too.
Commissioner Newman,
I was going to change topic there, but
to that point, I would might suggest
that you and David work together to comm
I agree with you on that. I the one that
threw some slides in there
inappropriately, so to synthesize that
into um something that looks
professional, I think that's a very good
idea. And I would I would think that if
you worked with David to come up with a
first draft that would be appropriate.
Okay. I'd be happy to do that. I was I
was
gonna talk about the wildlife what we
did yesterday. Yesterday we presented
and you do you want to say something
first?
The next speaker is Commissioner Carla.
Were you going to talk about item number
one also? If if so I'll f first I would
like to point out
Just an FYI on that.
And now, Commissioner Newman.
Okay. So,
um, are we ready to move on to number
one here on this on the
screen? Okay.
So, I think it's slide, it's page 13 in
the word document. You don't need to go
there, but we presented this yesterday.
Um, Carla and I worked together to come
up with a feasibility proposal in that.
So, it's a prop, as David said, it's a
proposal to spend $250,000 to define
that project because there is uh widely
widely differing opinions and views of
the need for that project and the scope
of that project. And so the proposal is
to put some facts and data together with
that, take the appropriate time to do
that, and then put the bud project as a
future project right now. Um, and that's
why I would make a motion that we um
that we adopt the recommendations that
we proposed yesterday on that into a
feasibility study and uh and and go
forward with that with the funds from
the reserve budget. Commissioner Newman,
what ex what exactly is the
recommendation number two on that
uh presentation you made yesterday? It
says the current 35 million in the
5-year preserve improvement plan for the
projected overpass becomes a future
budget item while the feasibility study
is conducted. What what what is actually
your motion then? The motion is to adopt
those two points. One is I I motion
to move approximately $250,000 to be
used uh for the feasibility study as
scoped and then to move the $35 million
in the that it's currently listed for
the Rio Varity wildlife crossing to a
future
project and in the budget classification
there pending the results of the
feasibility study. And I think I
understand that I was reading the same
thing. But is the um is it your intent
that the 35 million will just keep
moving out in time or do you want that
plugged into a particular year or uh as
I recall in the documents there was a
category of future project that's off
the five-year horizon. And so that would
be a future project waiting, but it's
not it's not listed in the five-year
horizon of the budget at this time until
the feasibility study says what to do.
And the budget director wants to weigh
in and perhaps clarify. Just confirming
that, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newman,
that you're correct that currently the
funding for this project is in years
three, four, and five of the five-year
CIP. And your proposal would take that
that amount and put it into the future
column, which would then no longer be
counted in the 5-year capital
improvement plan. Correct,
Commissioner Carlin? I would like to
second that, please. Thank you. Uh, and
by the way, we're not probably going to
have first and seconds on all of these
items. This one just happened to be a
little bit complicated. Uh,
uh, Commissioner
Stevens, let me let me see if I
understand this right. Uh, like if I
were to write this up, what I would
write would be consider performing a
feasibility study of approximately
$250,000 to address the need uh for the
wildlife crossing and assess the cost
optimization options, including as a
standalone project or in conjunction
with the road widening project.
Sorry. Thank you
all. I would write exactly what these
two bullets points say because that's
what we have agreement on. And you can
put the word consider in front of it,
but let's be, you know, real specific
because it it took a while to get here.
Okay. Okay. So, on this one, we actually
do have a a motion and second to um put
these two recommendations
from the report that was done yesterday
into the document. Um I will also
entertain comments from anybody. Uh now
if you want to in terms of whether you
want to be signed on to this either or
both of these recommendations
um if anybody wants to comment do
so and if you don't I will jump into the
breach here and say uh I I'm not going
to be supporting this item um as a
recommendation to go to council with
because I'm not unless it is coupled
with the
caveat that this may not be an
authorized expenditure from the preserve
department funds. And I hearken back to
some of the discussion that we've had in
earlier sessions here that there is
um ambiguity or maybe no ambiguity about
what the allowed expenditures are from
the preserve fund. Um but I I won't be
on recommend on on board with
recommending 250,000 be spent from the
preserve fund even for a study uh unless
it is somehow coupled with a caveat to
the extent it's legal according to our
study charter.
And if you want to amend the motion to
say, you know, spend 250,000 on the
feasibility study if it's determined to
be a legal expenditure from the fund,
then I'm good with
it. Commissioner Carl. Um, first off,
before I speak, Commissioner Sites had a
question and then I would like to speak,
please. Thank you.
I was going to bring up
I was just going to bring up item number
two referenced and comm chairman has
already addressed it right and my my
suggestion is because I don't think that
we should be making these contingent
upon another one contingent upon another
one I am very comfortable with the
second thing up there which I assume you
suggested very comfortable as a
standalone you know and I'm quite sure
the city attorney will tell city staff
if she gets a legal opinion that is
contrary not to spend the money. Um I'm
quite I have faith in that. Um but I
have a problem with coupling them as
contingent upon as contingent upon I
think city policy is going to do that
for us anyway.
So if I understand what you're saying,
you would be okay with the motion as you
have made it if it says comma
uh if it is determined to be a legal
expenditure from the preserve
department's funds.
No, I did not say that. I am comfortable
with the motion as we made it and it go
and knowing that city policy will say if
the city attorney determines through
number two that it is not a legal
expenditure that she's not going to
authorize staff to do it.
So, I mean, I I guess I would call a
question on this motion and then let's
move to the second one which addresses
exactly what you're talking about.
Well, I'm not going to entertain the
call the question yet. City attorney.
Thank you, chair. I I don't have a
concern with uh the motion as worded um
with the recommendation as worded on the
screen. I think I think it's fine and
appropriate if the commission wants to
forward this recommendation on to
council. I'm sorry. What recommendation
are you talking about? We're still on
number one.
Well, I it was my understanding you were
talking about one and two jointly and
whether there's a legal concern with the
recommendation
um moving forward to the city council
based on the charter restrictions uh
related to preserve funds. And I just
want to clarify I I do not have any
concern with the commission making this
recommendation to council.
And to clarify, this is going real well,
don't you think?
Um, to
clarify, in item number one, period, in
item number one, the recommendation is
that we move approximately 250,000 from
the preserve department's funds up to
the current year's budget for a Riovery
crossing feasibility study.
And all I was saying is that I am
reluctant to do that. I'm reluctant to
be supportive of that unless it has the
caveat to council if it is determined as
a legal expenditure of the preserve
fund. I'm not incorporating number two.
I'm just saying if it's legal, I'll sign
on for it. Okay? If it's not legal, I'm
not uh I don't want to be associated
with recommending it.
Um, Commissioner Schwiker, did you want
to say something?
Yeah, I I'm comfortable with what I'm
hearing from the city attorney that if
we recommend this, no money will get
spent if it's determined that it
violates the uh charter. So, subject to
that, I'm very comfortable with it. City
attorney determines it to be legal. and
Commissioner Newman.
It kind of goes without saying that any
recommendation or consideration has to
be legal. So, I'm I think it's it's if
you want the language there, I'm
completely fine with that. So, I can
amend the motion to say that um all the
things I said before, but it has to it
has to be legal under the under the 420
rules. I I don't have the right words
there, but I have words. Okay, Carly can
do that.
Commissioner Carla. Okay. So, the motion
is those two bullet
points and then
say when this is determined by the city
attorney to be
allowed, do we have to say legal or to
be allowed? Which do you prefer under
the proposition 420 or the city charter?
Which do you prefer?
Uh, Chair Smith and Commissioner Carla,
I I have no opinion on that. It's
fine. However you decide to word
it. Okay. Then how about just moving
forward when the city attorney
determines it to be a legal use of the
funds?
I really think it can be stated as
simply
as the motion that you have made if it
just says comma if determined to be an
allowable expenditure from the preserve
fund.
Um, and okay, if determined to be an
allowable expenditure from the preserve
fund, that goes at the end of these two
bullet points. Yeah. Or at the end of
both of them. I mean, whichever you
want. No, because I don't really I don't
really think the second bullet point has
that kind of issue right now. It's just
you're immediately asking for 250 from
the preserve fund for this study. So
you're comfortable if we put it after
the first bullet and then we leave the
second bullet at is as is. That would be
my recommendation. But
sold.
Okay. I guess I should now ask if
there's anyone that disagrees with that.
Uh speak now or forever hold your peace.
And what I really mean by that
procedural question is I don't really
want to go through the process of vote
vote vote vote vote 400 times here. But
if somebody has a problem with it, let's
thrash it out or state your
opposition. And seeing none, that's what
item one will be. And now I have to
apologize to the public because we did
have someone that wanted to speak to
this item. And I don't whether you speak
before, after or during um
but uh Miss Sonic Curtly will address us
now with her
thoughts.
Am I live? Good afternoon, Chairman
Smith, Vice Chairman Schwikert, and
commissioners. My name is Sonni Curtley.
I'm representing COGS Coalition of
Greater Scottsdale. Our address has been
on file for 18
years. Thank you for this. I'm looking
forward to your vote. Hopefully, all the
text is the way you want it because
COG's board strongly strongly 90
supports this. We have so many members
that work in that preserve. We have so
many members that use the preserve, not
only equestrian such as copper, but also
for family events. It's extremely
important that we take care of this
preserve and that feasibility study is
golden. So, let's get it done. Thank
you.
Thank you, Miss
Curley. All right.
Now hopefully moving into an easier uh
group of items
that number two on the list and you can
read it for yourself. It is um raising
the question of whether
um the preserve expenditures that that
have been talked about specifically the
projects that are shown
there are allowable under it says
section 13A it's really the totality of
section 13 I think in the in the city
charter because subsequent paragraphs B
and C talk about exceptions to item
A, but it's really just proposing that
we raise the question with city council
and ask them
or suggest that they make a
determination uh from legal council as
to whether these kinds of projects are
allowed
under the Scottsdale City
Code.
And Commissioner Carla
Um, I'm comfortable with the way it's
written, but I don't like the term and
these kinds of projects. I mean, I think
we need to ask them specifically. So, I
mean, the way it's written there
and I'm sorry, are you saying you're
okay with the way it's written or you
want something else? No, I'm saying just
don't add the words and these kinds of
projects. Say that. Well, no. He said it
as he read it. And I was just want to
make sure it's sticks to that.
What's she telling me?
Does anybody else have a problem signing
on to this as a commission report or
commission recommendation?
Seeing no objection, item number
three, again associated with the
preserve,
um is that we have an evaluation of what
development is allowed and being
planned in parts of the preserve there
and then evaluate creating a preserve
reconstruction recovery fund.
Commissioner Carla, and I promise I
won't speak on all of them, but since I
put this one in there, and I'm fully
well aware we have not talked about
this, so this should probably more
properly be a a next cycle discussion,
but I wanted to bring it up because so
many people um are approaching and
saying, "We didn't realize that there's
an additional 3,000 plus acres that are
eligible to be bought with the preserve
tax." And the reason this is coming up
is because people are now discussing
sunsetting the second preserve tax and
specifically the people in Legend Trail
who are realizing all of that state
trust land around them has a very
intense zoning and they're going is
there anything we can do? And the answer
is, well, you are eligible under the
2004 vote for that land to be considered
for purchase. And the previous council
said, let's use some of this money for
strategic land purchases because that
land is going to be exceedingly
expensive. And my whole point behind
this was this needs to become a
community discussion so the council can
decide um if it wants to you know talk
to the community talk to and it's also
coming up because there is now a
developer approaching the state land
department about a planning permit for
this land. So that's the first part. The
second part I had never thought of
before, but then the catastrophic fires
in California happened and then the cuts
to the federal budget happened. And the
reality is, as wonderful as the
Scottsdale Fire Department is, when
something happens up north, be it a
idiot construction worker or a lightning
strike, if a fire starts running, our
our folks need the help from our
surrounding partners, most notably the
TANO. And the TANO is being severely cut
back as to how many people they're going
to have, how much help they're going to
be able to give us. So the reality is
it's not a matter of if, it's
unfortunately a matter of when we're
going to have severe fire damage. And a
few meetings ago, I asked Mr. Andrews,
is the amount of money in the preserve
fund for contingencies and reserves, if
we
get severe fire damage and we have to do
a major revitation effort and we, god
forbid, have to rebuild an access area,
is there enough money? And if there's
not, where do you go? Well, you go to
the general fund. So, I just would like
us to discuss being responsible for the
budget um review
that before we get rid of this
guaranteed income stream, let's discuss
whether or not we could have a recovery
reconstruction fund set aside for when,
god forbid, this happens. And again, I
realize this should be parking lot, you
know, on the list for the parking lot
for discussion, but I just wanted to put
it out there so you all could um maybe
add it to the parking lot. Thank you.
Okay, I'm going to mark this one um to
be a recommendation to council if well
not a recommendation but a that they
consider uh having our group or some
other group study this one in the months
to come and define the assignment to us.
We're going to have some others in here
that fit into what we're calling the
parking lot group of items, things that
we may seek authorization from the
council to study in the future, and this
will be one among those unless others
have other thoughts. Vice Chair Swagger.
Yeah, I I agree with Carla that this is
something important to talk about.
However, I do agree with the chairman
and with Carla that this is something
that should be looked at after what
we're doing right now, next fall or
sometime. I think it's the appropriate
time to look at it. Interesting idea,
but I think it's just premature right
now.
I'm sorry, city attorney.
Thank you, chair. I just want to make
sure um I'm understanding the procedure,
the process that you're intending to
take us through today. At some point, I
I want to make sure that there is a
motion with a second and approval of the
commission about the recommendations
that the commission is going to be
making. You want that on every item?
If you want to group it in a motion, um
that's fine with me. I just in order for
it to be clear in the record what the
commission is a agreeing to and what the
vote count is at some point we need a
motion a second and a vote to record on
recommendations moving forward to
council.
Okay. Well, the two people that want to
speak, let's back up a step uh to item
number one. Let's do this uh with the
voting. It's going
to take a little bit of time, but on
item one, I think we reached an
agreement to put the language in here
the way it was from the uh presentation
on the wildlife crossing before.
Exception to that is that item one would
have a an addendum to it that says comma
if determined to be allowable
expenditure of the preserve funds. If
that indeed captures the motion,
somebody make it and somebody second.
We'll all vote.
I I can't press the button, but I have a
question.
Um I when that's up there, Commissioner
Newman, did you want to make a comment
before we vote?
I I I'm If we were were to vote by
category, that would be fine with that
because we just went through the third
item. And one of my comments would be to
for the preserves commission to consider
what's most important because we already
spend.3% now on preserves. We spend.3%
on or in terms of re revenue on roads as
a comparison. Um now we're talking about
buying land. I actually support buying
land over a wildlife crossing. So if
we're going to go through this in order
I talking about all of them. You know I
there's new things. When does it end?
There's more and more and more coming
up. And this is a new one. We've never
talked about it. So um I get it that
there's someone wanting to buy the land
but if that's most important to you buy
the land. But the wildlife crossing has
to wait. So that's I'm I'm a little
frustrated by that. So um you know I
would I would say we vote on the
category, but I support what we've
already talked about. But number three,
I would say parking loted or whatever.
But if you want land, you got to
prioritize that rather than other and at
some point we're ran out of money.
Bail me out. Vice chairman.
Why?
Um, yeah, I I think we can I I think
there's broad agreement that what Carla
was talking about as number three is
something that should be deferred and
not part of this. So, I think the motion
we're going to be talking about is
really um a motion to approve number one
and number
two and uh with the corrected language
that the chairman came up with. So, I
would make that motion that we approve
number one and number two with the added
language.
Second.
All in f uh Commissioner Stevens, do you
want to talk before we vote? Say no.
It's just a process thing. Are we going
to I thought we were going to be
approving the conceptual point that was
within each comment so that we could
then rewrite a report that would in a
nice way describe everything. So it I
guess I'd prefer our motions be
to approve the intent or the concept or
as opposed to word for word. Otherwise,
we got to do word for word every single
one of these things to go into a
report. Speaking for myself, I'd like
for it to be the intent that we're uh
approving the intent and with capturing
the feedback here. But maybe that's not
good enough for the city attorney. I
don't know. she can chime in or if she
wants. Oh, good. She's not pushing the
button. Commissioner Carla,
he said that with such
enthusiasm. Um, I I understand the idea
of the intent on a lot of these that are
going to be combined because they're
very, very similar. The only thing I am
asking about number one under the
preserve is it took us so long to get to
this agreement on this one. Can you just
have those two bullet points exactly as
written? You know, and I don't think
there's any others in here that went
through that lengthy process to reach an
agreement. So, that's all I'm asking is
on that one, can you just write it like
it's written and then I agree with the
idea of combining things for intent
if everyone's okay with that?
you know, um I agree with doing the
intent of all of these, but I think the
people that are going to be drafting
this have heard from us that the intent
on this one is to be pretty much close
to the exact language. So, I still
maintain my original motion.
Okay. Now, somewhere we have a motion
and um a second, I think, and we're
voting then on the acceptance of item
number one and two. on this first page
with the understanding that number three
is deferred to the
future. Okay, we have almost unanimous
approval and now we do. Thank you.
The next category are some of the water
and uh reclamation
projects and then also other capital
projects. But I guess we'll do the water
and reclamation first.
Um the first item um is a recommendation
that council consider and ascertain the
and ways to mitigate the ultimate uh
financial liability for the Bartlett Dam
project. You can see the language up
there.
Items number five and six on the screen
are really very similar questions being
raised about the uh advanced
purification recycled water system. And
I think the spirit of both of those is
um
to our advice to council would be to
consider carefully whether you take a
$17 million project and increase it to
$68 million full scale
concept without reassuring yourself that
uh um this is that this is something you
really want to do that this is something
has a good return on investment
whatever.
But the two projects are very sim the
two items are very similar
submissions. Commissioner Carlin.
Yes. I have a question especially the
way it's worded on number six. It says
requirements. Um and I assume those are
legal requirements under this whole
project. My my main question is what is
the impact of not doing
this to the water department to the
whole water
project? What is the impact of not
doing? Let me interject here and ask a
qu procedural question. Um, it was not
my thought that we would be going back
and asking staff for clarification on
items or uh representation. It was I
thought just to review and consolidate
and edit the comments that we've
submitted, but somebody may push the
button from staff there and advise me
one way or the other.
Mr. Uh, chair, happy to assist there. I
think we're we could take it either way.
I probably had anticipated it being much
like what you had that we would really
not necessarily relitigate each item.
I'm happy to address that. I'm familiar
with that and looks I would feel
comfortable with the staff that we have
present. We would uh venture over um
doing pretty well answering any
questions that could come up. But I
think for time uh quite frankly um I
might consider suggesting the approach
that you were on uh and that these are
just thoughts and discussion for council
to consider moving forward. We have
answers uh to actually even the ones
that you uh discussed for quite a bit of
time there. So I I think there's keep in
mind there's for lack of a better term
an always an alternative view or I see
many of these is maybe just a portion of
uh part of a larger picture. Um and any
one of these could have a a lengthy
additional discussion uh to confirm
whether they should stay or not or the
legitimacy of it. So thank you Mr.
Chair.
I think pariing the sentence there it's
um you're willing to answer but let's
understand that these are just our
advice to the council. It's not a
mandate that you do anything and it's
just um in this case it is our advice
that you make make sure that there is a
costbenefit consideration. Um the
wording of number six is probably more
to the point than number five.
Um,
and rather than asking staff for, you
know, give us the justification all over
again kind of
thing, let's focus on number six and see
if that captures the essence of what we
want to give as advice to council.
Commissioner Stevens. Yeah. Uh, what I
wanted to share on this was I I couldn't
I tried to get an answer this morning,
but I I didn't have enough time to do
that. The comments are identical except
that one says five says full it's going
from test to full scale. What I heard in
comment six was that it was all
regulatory requirements. So I just
wanted to highlight to staff and that
and that number six is what we actually
put in our presentation. What I if I
were to do this if you approve them both
as a concept I would want to find out is
it going to full scale or is it just new
regulatory? get the right words in there
and then the point is, hey council, it's
going from 17 to 68. Are you still happy
with it? So if you approve this in
concept, that's the direction I would go
if I was writing it. I just want it to
be more factually correct,
Commissioner
Swer and Mark, I agree with you on that.
And I believe in the briefing that you
and I did on the CIP projects when they
were talking about regulatory, I believe
they in I could be wrong about that, but
I think they said it was state and
federal regulatory changes since they
first built that plan. It might just
only be state regulatory changes, but I
believe it was state and federal. But I
agree with where you're going on that.
Yeah,
Commissioner
Carla. Yes. The way Commissioner Stevens
just reed that. I'm comfortable. The way
Commissioner Stevens just rewarded that,
I'm comfortable with it because it makes
it much clearer, you know. So, but I do
want to follow up on a process question.
Okay. And because the next thing coming
up I have a huge issue with and am I not
allowed to ask questions about it here?
um because we very you know we didn't
discuss it a lot and we reached no
resolution when it was presented to us
but now you know it's going forward you
know for for council to consider this.
So are we allowed to add extra verbiage
that says consider it but also consider
this part too. I mean I want to be clear
on what the process is here. Do we just
sit here and shake our heads up and
down, no, vote yes or vote no? Or are we
allowed to actually have
some dialogue? Let me chime in with my
two cents on this. I um if we go back
and re-evaluate every project and ask
for clarification, is this really a new
regulatory environment? Is it really
going from this to that? Is it because
of this or that? We're going to revisit
every single item on here and we'll be
here till midnight. Um, and I'm not
really concerned about the the time as
much as I
am. These are the collective thoughts of
the individual commissioners. If you
agree with them, by all means, say yes
when we vote. Uh, but I don't think we
can
uh I mean I'll follow the lead of the of
the commission in its entirety, I guess,
but uh we can't get into word smithing
every every item that's that's here
unless there's a gross error or
whatever. People can't support it as is.
Can we ask for a couple of additional
words to one of these, you know, to
these thoughts as they come up?
Yeah, I I would suggest you can do
whatever you want among ourselves. I
just don't want to have staff responding
to questions as
they've representing an item or
re-explaining an item. Okay. And I
promise I don't have comments on every
item. It's just these were right in a
row.
Commissioner Stevens, just real quick,
I'll tell you I assume if I was one of
the people that had to put a report
together, I will be sitting here keeping
and I don't have to be. I'll be sitting
here keeping notes and whatever comment
you make about these things when we
approve it in concept, I'm going to have
those notes and then I would incorporate
those notes in it. The thing I think you
need to remember is whatever draft
report we come together with, you get
another bite at the apple. So if there's
something that we don't put in there
that you don't think captures what you
like, then that's probably the best
meeting to go ahead and do more of the
worth smithing to get it specific.
But how are you going to fit that in
between now and next Tuesday?
I'm just going to do it. Okay. So then
the problem here's the problem. you
won't be able to see what it is cuz I
thought I was going to try to get it out
to everyone and then see if you can give
feedback and it sounds like that's an
open meeting violation law because I did
kick this around a little bit. Uh so I'm
afraid what probably has to happen is we
have to get whatever maybe chair and I
are comfortable with as a report and it
goes out there. So you just have to
trust that a couple of people uh are
going to be able to capture it correctly
and then if you don't agree to it then
you just when we're having the
presentation and joint meeting with
council then you have the right to step
up and say hey by the way this might
change.
Okay. every other task force whatever
I've been involved in the report is
drafted and then a meeting a quick
meeting that has to be is scheduled and
because the meeting is scheduled a
packet goes out you know that includes
the report goes out to the entire
commission and then you have a meeting
where everybody signs off on it or
acquiesces to it and then they don't
freelance or if they have a huge problem
it can be discussed and we're not going
to apparently have time for that But
that's how it's supposed to go. Yeah,
I think we're going I don't need to
write this thing. I don't need you part
of this. If you want me to do it, I'll
do it. But if someone else wants to do
it, I'm happy. I very much want you to
be part of it.
And let's try not to have u
conversations on the fly here. Uh, if we
do this in an orderly fashion,
my Did we ever vote on the Bartlett Dam?
The item number four. Did we ever deal
with that?
No.
If I can circle us back to item number
four on the
screen. I'm going to
ask somebody to make a motion to accept
that item and second it. Let's see what
kind of support we have for that going
forward as part of the um advice to
council. Commissioner
Sites, I'll make a motion that we
recommend to the city council they
consider how to ascertain and mitigate
the city's ultimate financial liability
for modifying and raising Bartlett Dam
as in project W104.
Do I have a second?
Second.
Do I have comments on it before we vote?
Seeing none, let's vote. Yes, no, or
maybe.
Number five.
It is unanimous.
I think we agreed to look more at the
language of number six rather than
number five on the
screen.
Uh does somebody want to change that
language and make a motion or I just
want to get a motion and get a vote on
something here so we can move on.
Commissioner Swiker,
did you really mean number five or
number six? Well, didn't we just approve
four? We approved four. We said number
five and six were virtually the same.
They're both dealing with the water pur
purification recycled
system. And I thought we were saying
that item six captured more of the
essence than five.
Second. Is there a
second? Second.
I have a second from commissioner and I
do we have any uh commissioner rans go
and do we have any items any people to
speak having none let's
vote item number six is approved
by six going on seven going once going
twice commissioner Carla are you voting
yes no or Maybe
commit. That item is approved six to one
and will be so noted in the uh in the in
the report to
council. the other capital projects that
are discussed. Now, uh two submissions
came in with regard to
this. The first item number seven
regards the uh Granite Reef Senior
Center with the advice to council that
they should make a determination of what
the programmatic implications
of building, staffing, and operating an
adult care facility.
Um Commissioner Cara
I would like to ask if we can add on to
the end um and the community impact to
the surrounding senior community of not
doing it.
Anyone else want to speak or
Commissioner Swager? I would accept that
addition.
Then is one or the other of you making a
motion in that regard?
So moved. I have a motion. Do I have a
second?
Second. I have a second from Vice Chair
Swagger. But I think for the public
um read back what the additional
language is that's on this on your
motion or commissioner myself. Okay.
And the community impact to the
surrounding senior community of not
doing
it. Okay. Motion made and amended and
seconded. No additional speakers
stepping
forward. Push your button for yes, no,
or
maybe. Motion passes unanimously.
Item number
eight. Item number eight has to do with
uh the cactus pool parks and building
replacements. The recommendation was
that it's a proposed 30 $31.2
million. I'm not sure how this is uh how
what our advice is to council. I might
ask the submitter of this to in 10 words
or less tell us what the recommendation
to council
is. Okay. It's me and I guess I've got a
bug about this one because I think this
smells like a future disaster and I
don't think it's been looked at hard
enough. So the comment here is that this
project needs to be looked at a lot
harder to decide exactly what needs to
happen. I can try to skinny this down a
little bit in a final report, but the
point I just think we ought to flag that
this one could be a problem that needs
some serious attention.
Are you recommending this be a future
item or or current recommendation? Okay,
that's that's a good point because one
of the things I thought I wonder if we
should be putting this report together
where we have it. Here's the comments in
each section that require immediate
attention before this budget's approved
and here are the comments that should be
considered for future action.
And so that this would be uh this one
needs immediate attention though because
we're going to start planning this thing
right now. But it's not needed for the
current budget because they did based
upon our meetings pushed the big part of
the project out one year. I think it's
going to go out further.
I think the intent generally was that um
the future items is actually going to be
um a different part of the report, but
still
um I was thinking that was going to be
on item number three of our
recommendations
uh of our agenda for the evening.
um when we would talk about these
additional recommendations would be
future study items that the council may
or may not direct us to
undertake. And so that was my note as
we're moving some of these things to
future consideration. That's where I
thought they were going to
be. We would bring them all back up
under item number three of the agenda.
Commissioner Carlin, h how about we
actually we leave it in here, but we say
that we recommend to council that staff
do a feasibility study about this
project because then it's still moving
forward, but you are going to get the
answers because agreed there's a lot of
issues
here. What if we do that?
Um, city manager wants to talk. Okay.
Because I think they know what's going
on here. Yeah, if I may, uh, Mr. Chair
and and commissioners just to help the
deliberation and probably could have
mentioned this on previous items, but
we, as you could imagine, were paying
very close attention to the discussion
and in for the last many, many uh, weeks
and meetings. And in some regards, I'll
just say quite frankly where we agreed
uh we've already worked towards
implementing and this is one of those.
And so uh we are making
modifications. We were just having some
uh sideline conversations whether it
looks like on May 6th or May 20th, but
at the latest to May 20th to city
council, what we'd would anticipate
seeing is a feasibility study for
approximately $250,000 for the next
fiscal year. And then the total project
is actually removed out of the five-year
and put into a future. Um much like
actually the previous item there's a
comparable situation there as well where
again we heard the deliberation heard
the point uh where we need to do a
feasibility need to understand what the
number may actually be and it's really
to some extent misrepresentative to
continue to use this legacy number as I
would refer to it was really just
identified my understanding through a
bond discussion over five years ago and
that's the only kind of uh reason why we
still hang on to that number. And so
we've in this particular case put it to
the future. And so I I believe in most
regards we've actually done uh what I
understood was really the intent of the
conversation and the suggestion and the
dialogue. I just thought I would add
that uh to your deliberations, Mr.
Chair.
Thank you. Thank you, city manager. Um
to the author of this item, do you want
to abbreviate it, move it to the future,
drop it all together? Those are your
choices.
I I don't want to drop it because I I've
got a bad feeling about this one and
they they've moved it I think just one
year. You've moved it
again because the last book I said had
it moved into fiscal 27. Uh yes sir. I
just want to clarify Mr. chair and and
commission. That's where we were having
a little bit of a sideline discussion
and the intent from uh my direction and
again we need to implement this was to
move it out of the five-year and put it
in the future. Okay. that that has not
uh been effectuated yet and it may not
be by the May 6 because we're timing
we're already printing so to speak if
you will but by the May 20th when it
goes to city council what I anticipate
that they will see again is for next
fiscal year a feasibility of 250,000 and
then in future uh so it'll be out of the
fiveyear any construction if you will
okay so so I I noticed that it did move
to 26 20 from 2627. So what I could say
is we do know that the project is being
moved out to the out to the beyond the
five-year or how do I say that? You just
say to the future. Is there more
technical? Yeah, that's correct.
From okay to the future. See, they have
right they put a future column.
Okay. To the future column. Okay. Okay.
And then I then I think it's okay as
modified, but then I'm still a little
fuzzy as to how what you want to do with
some of the future type items. And I if
you just want a mirror thing with the
same categories and we sort them front
and back for what's immediate action and
what's the future,
uh that's just format I guess we can
work out
later unless you need more clarity now.
And I don't care where this goes. I just
care that it's in the report.
What I'm really trying uh Commissioner
Stevens, all I'm really trying to do
is eliminate some of the um commentary
in some of the items when it says it
appears that it may be unlikely that
this project and it may require further
consideration at the level of ever blah
blah blah.
Um we'll put the council to sleep if we
have a bunch of recommendations like
that. It our advice has to be a little
bit crisper than than that. It just has
to say I actually have a note to myself
that I'm looking at and I put this here
this morning. Okay. Skinny down if
needed. So I'll just I'll just cut this
thing in half or more and try to get it
down to the salient points possibly
similar to the feasibility study what
you mentioned on the uh preserve
path. So
then tell me where does that leave us?
Do we have a motion?
I I move that item 8 be adopted as a
concept with uh it being presented in a
more concise
fashion. Everyone's going to get to see
this again, so I'm just trying to keep
it loose enough so we try to knock
something out. Okay. Commissioner Sites,
I wonder if we should
add something at the end of that about
the project being
considered in the future. Just something
a little more
concrete. You follow? Just we're going
to say it's being moved to the future.
I'm going to put that in here. Okay.
What you read off if you didn't say
that. So, I didn't hear that. Sorry.
Is it is it sufficient to say that you
just um consideration of project BK06
cactus pools blah blah
blah be moved to the future? I mean, is
that
Commissioner Swagger. Yeah, I would
agree with that because I think this in
essence becomes one of those parking lot
ones. I mean, nothing's going to happen
from what we hear from the city manager
with it for this year. Um, and it's
being moved out to the future. So, I
think we could we could do that and just
move it to the parking lot for the
future.
Go ahead. Someone make a motion for what
you want.
Commissioner SC, I think you had tried
to capture the motion. You want to try
that again?
Thank you.
I move that in with respect to item
number eight, we recommend to the city
council that um the actually we're not
recommending to the city council. What
we're going to report on is that we're
going to agree that this project will be
moved out to
future and uh not considered in the
current budget.
Do I have a second to that motion?
I second. Vice Chair Swager second the
motion. Any further
discussion? Then let's
vote. That item is accepted. 70.
The next uh three or four items are
other capital funding project or capital
project funding
considerations. The first one being and
it's numbered
uh 2-1 on the screen. Consideration
should be given to increasing the water
rates with justification.
Um, and I I think uh the advice to
council would be summarized with simply
that first
sentence that council give
consideration. Commissioner Ransco,
as the author of one, two, and three,
these were meant as concepts for future
conversation. So my uh apologies that
they made them onto the actual
recommendation list. So my as the
author, these were meant for future
conversation amongst the board, not
necessarily presentation to council at
this juncture. So I throw that out there
just uh to my commissioners as they read
these. We could easily
uh cancel them off this report at this
time.
I think we should probably still take
them individually, but uh your
recommendation is that all three
eventually may go to the future
um
actions. Commissioner or Vice Chair
Swagger? Yes, he's making that as a
motion to combine the three of those and
move to a future agenda item. Oops.
If the re if the recommendation is that
we make that a motion and move all three
of these to a future agenda item, I
support that. Well, and I don't even
mean future to the future column. I we
could take these off. I could they don't
even go in. It sounds like we're going
to have a future component to this
report that we hand in. I wouldn't even
put them on to future. Just delete them
at the moment. Oh, so if you're
recommending we delete it, then I would
support that also. There we go.
Uh since we seem to be talking about all
three at the same time, I do have a
question for either legal or the city
manager or whatever regarding the second
item shown up there, which is that
advice to the council to consider
increasing the permissible maximum
property tax
levy. I don't I don't think we really
have control over that. Um, we can go up
to 2% on the rate each year, but other
than that, we can't make a change to the
levy, can
we? And I'm talking for the primary
tax. So, Mr. Chair, I I believe this is
uh referring to the policy limitation
that we are limited to 1.5 total um rate
on our property taxes
combined, not the 2% levy that you're
speaking about. That is a state
limitation. Is is that
right? So our policy that this council
adopted limits us to a combined 1.5
property tax rate.
Let me ask the author what uh what was
his intent here. That was the intention,
but it sounds like council adopted 1.5,
thus council could revisit 1.5. Okay. So
that was the intention was to suggest
possibly revisiting such a decision. But
again, Commissioner Stevens,
sorry, I am super confused about how
this report's going to come together and
what's future action items are. So are
are we voting only on like right there,
those three sound like three interesting
observations? are is it going to go into
the report under a section called future
recommendations or is it not going into
the report and we're only voting on
things going into the report and also if
it's going in the report since we didn't
talk about number two I'm not sure I'm
comfortable with that so I'll probably
just abstain on that but I because I
would have rather we talked about it so
I understood it better
but process cover among your multiple
comments um in my opinion the report
will have a section at the end that says
in lame payments terms. Um, we were
briefed on this item. Let's talk about
increasing water rates. We were briefed
on increasing water rates and this is a
item that we would this among others is
an item that we would want to study
further in the future if so directed by
council.
Um, if you want to if you want to simply
get rid of the item, then let's vote to
do that. If you think it does require
further study by this or some other body
in the future to make a sensible
recommendation, then let's talk about
moving to the
future. But other than that, since it
was a submitted
uh submitted as a comment that should be
made to council,
uh I was dealing with it as a where do
we think what do we think of this? And I
was going to do it not moving them all
out to the future unless you all want to
do that. But
um I
think somebody chime in here. What do
you want to do? I my inclination would
be if you if you feel strongly about
this item that council should be given
consideration to increasing water rates
with justification.
Um,
that's that's a comment we could make to
them. It doesn't have a lot of substance
to it without further study perhaps,
but Commissioner Sites,
thank you. I'm not comfortable
um in that rate setting and tax setting
and impact fee setting is something for
us to
be spending our time on when we have
plenty to do.
Um I guess that's enough said. I I don't
know where we are with Do we have a
motion on the floor?
No, we don't currently have a motion, I
don't think.
Well, I will move that we strike these
three and uh we are not prepared to make
any recommendations on these items.
Second.
Does somebody want to second that?
It did get second. Commissioner Ransco
seconds it. Does anybody want to talk to
the
item? And you'll have to signal because
I don't have your name on the screen if
you do want to talk to it. And I guess
no one does. So, we'll vote yes, no, or
maybe. And it is that motion is
approved. 70
We have then um a series of several
motions having to do with individual uh
capital projects as well as the
management and process in general.
Um Commissioner Newman, you want to talk
to this anyone or all? I I would like to
withdraw number one. It's because it
it's redundant to some of the others
that are better stated in the list when
I read it. So, I'll just withdraw number
one. Second,
Commissioner Stevens. Uh, on this
section, one of one of one of the things
I was going to suggest you all, there's
a whole bunch of these comments that
come kind of tie into comment 16.
If you all believe comment 16 is a
relevant comment about encouraging uh
the city manager to put together a group
to really kind of take a good look at
overall processes for how they estimate
budget and manage projects. A whole
bunch of these comments can all roll
into one as I as our president would say
one big beautiful comment. Uh and we can
put that all
together. Now if you got a problem with
16 then then that changes everything.
Commissioner Carla,
sorry, I don't know why I'm doing that
today. Um, yeah, I just wanted to say
especially 11 through 14, these are such
good points and as long as they're, you
know, 16 touches these, then I'm fine
with that. And I I would like to make a
motion that um our report
authors roll all of these excellent CIP
ideas
into one
um
one what's the correct word? One one
item for the council to discover to
consider.
Yeah.
second.
Okay.
Sorry about that. I just want to make a
motion that all of these very good CIP
suggestions
um be rolled into
one suggestion to council done by our
authors for council to consider.
Second again.
That may be a challenge to the author,
but uh you know obviously
um I'm trying to think how are you are
you I mean item number 16 basically is
saying at the end of it um
that is is a recommendation that a task
force be established which is is kind of
you know seeking future guidance or
seeking a future assignment. ment from
the
council. Maybe that maybe you envision
all that being put into the capital
section.
Um, but if the motion is, and I guess it
is, to for all 16 of these items, or
yeah, all 16 of these items to be
somehow smashed into one capital project
management process and general
recommendation to council. Um, that can
be done, I suppose. Commissioner Sites,
thank you. I uh agree that many of these
overlap and sound the same. I do not
agree to form a task force. I think the
staff has gotten a lot of clear
direction from the commission and the
council will get some direction.
Um there's a lot of work to be done in
all the other 15 items. So, uh that's my
position.
Commissioner Stevens.
Okay, just so you know all all where
where I stand on this. Um to me, I've
got two comments I care about the most
and this this is one of them. And after
being through all the things that we've
been through, my observation is there's
um there's a lot of people in this city
that are really talented. And I don't
know that they've have had an
opportunity recently to get together and
say, "Let's just talk about how we do
this stuff." And I think there's some
great ideas in there like the I don't
know if you ever read the book, It's
Your Ship. There's a lot of great ideas,
I believe, that are out there within the
city. And my recommendation uh and it's
a recommendation so the city manager
doesn't have to do it but my my
recommendation would be that you know
let let's take a few of our people that
are engaged in estimating projects and
managing projects. Let's get them in a
room. Let's say there's this type of
project and that one and let's just have
a brainstorming session about how we're
doing these things and let's think about
what needs to change so we have minimal
we have mitigate the number of surprises
that we have because that's one of the
biggest concerns that's been here. So
that's what I mean by that's what I'm
picturing by a task force. It would be
that the city manager and treasurer kind
of decide who should be on this and
let's just re-engineer this whole thing
over a several month period and see what
needs to change. And then the only other
observation, a couple of these are kind
of standalone comments like uh the
comment 9's an interesting comment on
title 34 and there's a comment 10. A
couple of these really do maybe stand
alone, but otherwise I'm um I I guess I
just I I just And again, it's a
recommendation so the city doesn't have
to do
this. It is indeed a recommendation or
at least our advice to them that they
consider it. I'm just trying to figure
out what how do we put it in the king's
English to say what our advice to them
is.
Vice Chair Swagger.
Yeah. So, Mark, I think rather than task
force, what you're, you know, a task
force almost sounds like an intern
external organization, I think you're
really talking about the city internally
pulling all of the affected people
together on capital improvement
projects. the people that need them
done, the people that are going to
manage them, the people that are going
to bid them and get them together so
they make sure that it's transparent and
that everybody knows what they need
before they start going out and working
on the projects.
Yeah. Yeah. It's that and then also the
project management piece about once you
get get going. But I was worried about
my task force word because I really did
mean it to be a
citydriven city manager assigned group
of people. However you want to do
that. And then as far as how you write
it, I would just approve that the uh
item 16 be approved in concept with an
integration of the other comments in
that section that pertain to it. That
way you can just leave it broad and see
what I come up with.
Commissioner Carla. Yes. I would like to
withdraw my previous motion and if the
second would draw it too and then we
just adopt what Mr. Stevens just said.
Make it a motion.
Yeah. Okay. I I move that we um adopt in
concept uh comment 16 to be integrated
with other comments within that section
that pertain to it.
Oh, as a and and uh and it to be
modified to be a city
directed second project project team.
I would point out uh item number 16 has
an AB and C on the following
page. What are you doing with that? the
the A, B, and C are probably the guts of
the direction for what what the process
review might look like. Yeah. Yeah. And
there there might be now a D and an E or
something as we look at the nature of
the other
comments. I think regarding item number
C, for example, we can delete that.
That's not advice to the council. It's
just saying we we stand ready to serve
or whatever it's saying.
Um, okay. If I need to say something, I
I can delete number three, but those
words I will offer to you directly if
you want to use
me. It's up to you, though.
So, if anybody can uh second that motion
and and restate it or whatever before we
vote.
Commissioner Stevens, are you pondering
how to restate your motion or or you
stand by what it was? And if so,
uh will you share with your fellow
commissioners what the motion is? Oh, I
have to do it again. Um, is it possible?
I don't know. Um, okay. I I uh I move
that comment 16 be adopted in concept
and integrated with the other concepts
in that section that relate to it with
the further modification of uh subpoint
C being deleted and that the task force
comment be modified into a city manager
selected team. Second, third, and
fourth.
Carla, did I hear you seconding that? Or
who? Commissioner
Ranskow. So, does anyone wish to speak
to this
item? Seeing no requests to speak, we
can move to vote on the motion.
And it currently has five people voting.
Six, seven people. 70
approval. We're going to leave it to
you, Mr. Stevens, to craft the language
for that
motion. The next
series of items that
um are being considered are for trans
related to transportation
projects and the ALCP which is the
alternative life cycle program.
Several of these
um relate to the state current state of
our streets. An item that we talked
about at some length
um particularly I think that's true of
item number one. It does not use the
phrase PCI, but it's uh it's talking
about the roads
program, and maybe it's more inclusive
than just uh talking about improving the
state of the
roads. Items four, five, six, and seven,
some of which do not show on the screen.
Why don't we move the screen up a little
bit to look at items four, five, six,
and seven.
four, five, six, and seven are all
dealing um with the current condition of
the roads.
Um item number four talking about how uh
the road pavement at 75 to 80 on the PCI
scale and whether we use in-house or
outside contractors. I think the motive
the purpose here is to talk about item
five says return to an 80 PCI. Item six
says uh uh citywide streets
PCI and suggesting that it be separated
and the streets be separated
into tranches of the worst third, the
middle third, and the best third.
uh probably realizing that um if you
have an average of 80, somebody's going
to be really good at 100 and somebody
else going to be really
bad.
Um and then item seven is similarly a
recommendation to move toward a PCI.
So,
um, is it sufficient to
say that the authors of the report will
try to say something regarding the PCI
that captures the essence of items
number four, five, six, and seven?
And does the commission want as a group
to make this an
advisory to city
council? I'm assuming that they do, but
I don't want to assume anything.
Commissioner Carla, um, in concept, I'm
agreeing, but I think there's perhaps
another way to do it. And I do question
whether 80 is too high. I mean 75 might
be more realistic, but what I mean what
if you did um because these are kind of
separate, a one and a
six and and then um four, five, and
seven go together. I and I think two and
three, which are very
much, you know, let me let me clarify. I
wasn't uh I really wasn't talking about
one, two, and three yet. I really
skipped ahead to four, five, six, seven.
I'll come back to one, two, and three.
Uh, well, I'm just there's a way to
there's a way to combine this into three
that makes all of these really good
points. I just wanted to make sure that
two and three stood out on their own
from four, five, and seven. And I think
six goes with one. So, that's just my
suggestion.
Commissioner Sites. Thank you. Um, I
want to ask the commission number two
and three may very well be covered by
the item 16 we just moved. I Does
anybody else see
that? I I see it in in concept. I just
think that, you know,
transportation sort of stands on its own
because it has its own funding. And
that's why I think for transportation it
needs to also be called out. That's just
my thinking.
Vice Chair
Swagger. So I am comfortable if the
people who are writing this report and
thank you for volunteering for that. Um
kind of combine 1, four, five, six and
seven into one. they understand our
preference, which is to get the PCI back
up to where it should be, whether it
should be 75 or 80. You know, the the
council and the city will determine
that, but I'm comfortable putting the
three of those together um into kind
of one
item. And I think that I think everybody
up here understands the direction we
want to go with that. So I I'm
comfortable um making a motion that the
uh report encompass uh items one, four,
five, six, and seven
combined.
Um well, we haven't done two and three
yet. So I right now let's just do I
would prefer to do 1, four, five, six,
and seven
combined into one item. So I have a
motion to make 1 1456 and seven as part
of the report to council. Do I have a
second?
I'll second.
Somebody said that. Mark. Okay.
Commissioner Stevens. Any comment on
that
recommendation? If not, prepare to press
your buttons for yes, no, or
maybe. And the item is
approved
unanimously. So we will try to smash
those into a single advisory to council.
Uh now returning back to number two on
that list uh which
was to do with the scoping allowance for
large projects, large capital
projects.
Um, why don't I have the author of this
item, whomever that may be, talk to it.
So in looking at the uh
projects, the CIP projects that go over
budget, it it just looks like the
project that ultimately gets built is
very different than the project that was
originally scoped. And so that seems to
be the driving force for a lot of the
budget increases. So the concept is to
spend more time scoping, spend money
scoping up front on large projects which
some threshold could be defined. So
that's the idea here is is spending some
money on homework upfront should better
delineate the the project scope and what
is getting built and not getting built
for that matter.
In some respects that ties to the
following action item which is uh again
suggesting that projects
u be properly scoped or whatever. So
that uh and also suggest that um that
would eliminate some of the scope creep
uh or if it did creep it would be
defined as an entirely new
project. Is there any way to put all
this together in a recommendation to
council?
not a recommendation but advisory.
Commissioner Carla,
that's what I was saying before. I think
two and three are very combinable. And
because they're making a great point, I
would just love to see the sentence in
number three about the repeat overbudget
environment is not a good model for go
forward project budgeting included in
it. Whatever it ends up being,
Vice Chair Swagger.
Yeah, I I'm comfortable with the
language actually of those two and I
think they should be combined into one.
And I think the people that write the
report can also reference the fact that
that this is also um incorporating some
of what we talked into about number 16
before. So if the authors of this are
comfortable with combining those 16 well
not combining them into 16 but just
making reference to 16
then then I would make a motion that we
approve number two and number three
together
second
motion made and seconded. Anyone wish to
uh talk to
that? Carla, what was your uh what you
made some statement of preference of
what you would like this combined item
to do or not do? Uh simply and you know
I trust that Mark will know how to
combine the two. I just think that one
sentence is a very important thing to
for us to put in our report that you
know the repeat overbudget environment
is not a good model. I think that needs
to be called out.
Okay. So that you weren't deleting any
language, you were just adding an
emphasis to that. I appreciate that,
Commissioner Stevens.
Yeah. Would you prefer that this be
added to the prior section where that
comment 16 was because that more broadly
relates to all capital projects?
No, I I don't because I truly think
transportation tends I mean I agree you
know the city manager's got to pull pull
together an internal city discussion
etc. But transportation because they
have their own funding tends to be
sometimes in a world of their own. So, I
think they need to be called out again.
Okay. Then we're going to vote on the
recommendation that
we forward to council as an advisory
number two and three and combining them
in some way to um put the two together.
All in favor say I or rather push your
button and the it is unanimous
approval. The next the next section of
potential recommendations to city
council, not recommendations but
advisories to them that they consider
uh have to do with major operating
budget
revenues, taxes and otherwise.
Um the first two on
uh the item here are both related to uh
the sales tax on food
urging the council to give consideration
to suspending the tax on food or more
correctly the tax on
groceries.
Um so at a minimum number one and two
can be combined and then people can talk
now to their thoughts on this.
Commissioner Carla.
Um, I know that this is something the
chair feels very strongly about, but
honestly, our group did not discuss
um the ramifications of this
um the facts surrounding is some of the
data still accurate. So, I'm
uncomfortable making it as a
recommendation,
but bearing in mind that it's a
recommendation that council
consider.
Um, it's different than a a firm
recommendation, but well, I I
just I am I'm still uncomfortable
because we did not really talk about the
ramifications of this.
Vice Chair Swiker. Yeah, I'm comfortable
leaving these in as consideration. Um,
bearing in mind that the last I knew
there the bill is still alive in the
legislature to to get rid of uh sales
tax on food. So, it may be taken out of
the city's hands entirely. So, I'm
comfortable with making a recommendation
for the city to consider doing it.
Uh, Commissioner Stevens. Uh yeah, I had
similar problem with uh Commissioner
Carla because I didn't know the dollar
amount that was involved here. So I was
uncomfortable kind of making a
recommendation, but I do think it's an
interesting observation. And then also
in the first one, you said uh sales tax
since Scottsdale is one of the lowest
tax cities. Uh but you said it should be
sunseted because we're one of the lowest
tax cities. I don't understand the
direction of that comment. It would make
sense if we were a high tax city and we
were trying to lower taxes by getting
rid of the sales tax on food, but that's
more semantical if it stays
in. I'm
uh I'm not sure. I personally was the
author of number one, but
um the
um that sentence doesn't seem to make
much sense.
if you maybe it got lost something in
translation uh because it really doesn't
relate to the fact that we're the lowest
taxed city in Maricopa County. It's the
reality is
uh I would interject editorially by the
way that uh the city doesn't have to
eliminate the tax entirely. you can take
it down to, you know, 1.3% all of which
would go to the general fund and none of
the food tax would go to the preserve
fund or the ALCP or whatever. But so
there's a a variety of things that the
city council can do at their own
discretion and other cities have done
that. But
um maybe there's a way to
um maybe there's a way to call on
Commissioner Sites and see your
thoughts.
Thank you. I think these are all good
ideas to consider. I don't see that
these will change anything in the
decision about this year's budget.
Um perhaps it's something we could table
till fall and we can then understand the
dollar ramifications of what would
happen to the next year's budget and the
next year after that and have a better
understanding of it.
Um, Commissioner Swager, Vice Chair
Schwiker. Yeah, I I didn't write number
one, but number one actually, if you
read the whole thing is about
consideration given to sunsetting the
sales tax on food as a give on an
increase in the sales tax. So to me, I
don't know who wrote that, but that
almost seems like they're talking about
replacing getting rid of the sales tax
on food with increasing the general
sales tax to offset the revenue. But I'm
very comfortable with postponing these
to that future parking lot because I
really think the legislature is going to
take it out of our hands.
I would point out, I don't want to lose
our place here, but if you can scroll
down, uh, whoever's got charge on the
screen there, scroll down to number
five. Um, number five suggests, uh, that
the council might assign our commission
or any other commission of
citizens to study. Um it says the
adequacy of current
revenues but perhaps it's the whole tax
structure including things like food tax
and all other tax components. So maybe
this
is one component of a future study of u
the revenue
structure. Just a just a
thought. And by the way, if we did
combine it, I mean, number five becomes
what we've
called parking lot item. In other words,
a future action that may or may not may
not may or may not be authorized by the
council. Commissioner Ransco,
I think I can consolidate everybody's
thoughts correctly, possibly. I make a
motion to move item two to the future
category and cancel Item one.
Do I have a second for that,
Commissioner Stevens? Well, no. But I'm
so confused on the report. If we move it
to the future, if we if we approve this
and we move to the future, that means
we're making the recommendation of
number two.
I thought future was moving it to the
next cycle as something we as
the commission will consider parking lot
for ourselves. I don't I don't know that
it's a future consideration for the well
that that means it's coming out of the
report. So anything we said future
earlier would come out of the report.
So, I guess I'm still really confused
about what we've approved to go into the
report and what's what what's uh because
we keep saying the future or we say
future agenda items and those are two
very different things. It's if I can
clarify if I were writing this and I may
end up doing it along with you, but I
would use number five's language which
is consider assigning to the business uh
the budget review commission or another
appointed citizens uh group to study the
adequacy of current revenues to ensure
long-term financial sustainability the
city
including the language from number two
above including consideration ation of
eliminating the 1.7% tax on
groceries.
Period. And that becomes an item again
where we would be seeking direction
from city
council. Does that make sense? Is that
in the report or is it a future agenda
item? This is going in the report.
Then the the report will have a whole
section of besides these specific
recommendations on the budget in front
of you,
we as a commission have these future
things that we seek your direction or
authorization or commandment to study.
Okay? And this would be one of those
future items.
Commissioner Ransco, you you make a good
point. I think future
means not actionable in this current
budget cycle. So the idea that we
suspend the grocery tax is not
applicable in the next 30 days. So the
future category is things that we think
we can discuss. So you were bringing
them to their attention as things we'd
like to continue to consider,
investigate, talk about that might be in
next year's package. So it it's it's
sharing our
thoughts without trying to push it into
this cycle's budget if I'm hearing
correct. I think that's right. and uh by
moving it down
into a future potential action item if
if approved and directed by council. By
moving it down there, we are taking it
out of
the arena of a current consideration for
this particular budget, the 2526
budget. If that's what you want to
do, I think it really doesn't matter.
The state legislature is going to beat
you to it anyway. But
anyway, whether you want to
um I I was the author of one of these
items here. Uh I think number two, so I
will speak to the my own personal
motivation. I would like to
uh keep that as a recommendation even
germanine to the current budget. I would
like to say, you know, council, I would
like you to
consider suspending by council action
the 1.7% tax on
groceries. Leave out the rest of the
editorial comments.
Um it may also be true that I mean it is
true that when you get to number
five which is saying that we should be
studying the adequacy of current
revenues or current taxes or whatever it
is as a future action item. That's also
true.
My preference is to keep item
two as a
current
advisory to council
um germanine to the
current budget that they're looking
at. But let me just make a motion. Um,
item one, I think we can skip that's
kind of the same thing in item number
two. And so in item number two, I would
say the uh advisory to council should be
consider suspending by council action
the city's 1.7% tax on groceries.
Period.
I have a motion and second on item
number two as phrased.
Does anybody want to chime
in? Commissioner Stevens, you just I'll
be voting no, but it's just because we
didn't discuss it. I think it's worth
talking about in the future.
Commissioner Carla. Um, Ditto, I I feel
the same way. We didn't talk about it.
We didn't talk about the
ramifications.
So,
Any other speakers want to address
this?
Um then let's
vote. And it is 5 to2 that that will
move forward as an advisory to council.
They can do with it whatever they
want. Item number one we dispensed with.
If everyone is in agreement with
that, item number three on this list was
consider advise the council that
consideration should be given to raising
property taxes to correlate with
increased home
prices. Um, I think I would have to ask
uh
staff, city attorney, or whoever wants
to respond. Is that even possible for us
to do? Can we quote unquote raise
property taxes to correlate with
increased home prices or is that a count
Maricopa County determination?
Chair m maybe I'm not the Sher Scott
from the legal department. I may not be
the best person to answer this question.
um the the way I
understand the system, when home prices
go up, our percentage of property tax
goes up. Um so I'm not sure I I fully
understand the intention behind this
comment. I'll turn it over to the
treasurer. Maybe she has a deeper
understanding than I do. Mr. Chair and
commissioners, we are not able to raise
our property tax levy each year to
correlate with the uh increase in home
prices because of the 2% limitation. We
can only increase each year our property
tax levy by 2% plus new construction.
And that's why I asked the question.
That's my understanding as well.
Um so maybe I'll ask whoever the author
of this was if they
what their desire was uh within the
constraints
of property tax law.
Commissioner Carlin,
I'm not the author, but wherever this
goes or doesn't go, I just wanted to put
on the record that we need to be very
careful about doing things that are
going to make it so seniors who were the
backbone of this community and live here
aren't priced out of their homes. Um, I
mean, think about Hawaii. Think about
all these other places that the
long-term residents can no longer live
there even if they own their homes
because they can't afford the property
taxes.
Commissioner Ransco, I think we can
delete number three.
You're deleting. Delete number three
without without claiming responsibility
for it. Commissioner Ransco is
suggesting we delete number three.
Number four, uh says that we advise
council to
um uh consider suspending by council
action the 2004 temporary 0.15 preserve
tax once all preserved debt has been
repaid or provided for with preserve
fund cash
reserves. Uh to ensure that future taxes
are not collected from citizens for no
approved obligations.
Um, Commissioner Newman,
as I stated earlier, I support this U
because we we have a tax that's going to
run till 2034. We are going to pay it
off here. As we discussed yesterday,
we're going to pay off the land we have
here. And it's apparent that there'll be
more and more projects that just get
added in because there's an endless tax.
At some point, you have to you have to
put some discipline around it and end
it. and it can and if the council
suspends it then if there's a need
that's justified then it can be
restarted to pay for that but um I think
you have to you have to put some
discipline around this because we
already have.3% dedicated only to
preserves and then we only putting 3%
toward roads which I think we would all
agree is a emerging extreme need in our
community to improve the roads so I
think by comparison we have to kind of
consider where the money's going for
where the money where the money is being
sequestered and an endless tax like
this. Um, and and another one that was
just approved. I think we have to we
have to put some reins around it.
Commissioner Carla,
um, I agree in concept with a lot of the
things Commissioner Newman just said. My
only question is, is this legal? Can it
be
done? A
suspension? I mean, doesn't it go along
with the whole question about um
sunsetting the tax? The question is the
voters enacted it. Don't the voters have
to amend do any amendments to it? I'm
just curious if it's legal to do
suspension.
Yeah. You know, while you've uh while
we've been talking about this, there is
an item later on that talks about this
0.15 tax, I think. Is there not? And I'm
trying to find where that appears in
this laundry list of
submissions. Um I'm not sure this is the
right point
to interject this
item. Um,
Chair Smith, while the Sher Scott from
the legal department, while you're while
you are looking for that, is is it okay
if I attempt to address that question?
Absolutely. I think if the if the budget
review commission uh recommends to the
council to consider this uh suspending
the tax as set forth in paragraph 4 that
you're currently reviewing. Um that
that's fine. We'll we'll provide legal
advice to the city council as they
consider that about the parameters of uh
doing something like this. So I'm
comfortable with this recommendation
moving forward to council and providing
the council with necessary legal
advice. I think it's uh probably as a
minimum in this item four is currently
written. We should delete the words by
council action. Uh because whether the
council can do it or whether it has to
go to the voters or how it happens is
uh I think we just want the intent of
this is just to say consider
suspending this temporary tax.
Um and it says uh parenthetically
um once all preserved debt has been
repaid or provided for it probably
should say all liabilities. I mean there
may be other liabilities out there for
projects that have been approved by
council. So, it probably should say all
preserved debt and other
liabilities.
Um, with that notion or with those two
changes,
uh, would someone like to talk to this
item
or or not? And if not, do I have a
motion?
Commissioner Newman.
I motion that item number four uh
consider the consideration of suspending
the
0.15% preserve tax be uh adopted by the
board and with the language that uh
commissioner commissioner Smith just
gave in terms of liabilities. So, it's
once all preserved debt and other
liabilities have been repaid or provided
for with preserve fund cash
reserves.
Um, so I guess that was a motion. Do I
have a second? Second.
Second.
I have a second. Uh, Commissioner Carla,
you now want to talk to the item? Um, I
just want to make sure that the whole
um, sentence goes in there. Are not
collected from citizens for no approved
obligations.
I'm sorry. You want that in there or you
don't want that in? No, I want to make
sure it's included in there. The motion
will will capture everything that's in
number four. Thank you. Um, on the
screen, so I'll I'll read it again.
Consider
suspending the city's 2004 temporary
0.15 preserve sales tax parentheses once
all preserved debt and other
liabilities have been repaid or provided
for with preserve fund cash reserve
closed parenthesis to ensure future
taxes are not collected from citizens
for no approved
obligations. And to that we have a
motion and a second. Do I have any other
speakers?
Seeing
none, that item will move forward with a
70
vote. And now we have uh a group of
items that were submitted under the
general heading of other revenues,
funding, and spending.
Um the first item number five is kind of
what we would call a parking lot item
which
is when we talked about it briefly
before but uh some group to study the
adequacy of current revenues to ensure
long-term financial sustainability of
the city.
It is presumably the submission of this
item was with the thought that
we
can't give our advice to council right
now based on the limited review we've
had of the budget, but it's something
that should be considered by us or some
other group in the
future. as a quote unquote parking lot
item. Do I have a vote of
approval or vote of recommendation or
that would go to council
commissioner sites? Thank you. I think
you said parking lot item. I kind of see
for the some of these are more detailed,
but for the most part, these are the
kinds of things I expected we would get
into as we go into the next budget cycle
when we have more time to do some of
these reviews. And is that what the
intent is then of saying these are
parking lot items?
Several of them are parking lot items. I
could see us
um you
know, not to be jumping around, but you
know, item number eight is an
observation that we could make a
recommendation that we could make to
council right now that that they just
uh consciously be mindful that we uh
realize cost recovery for programs that
are benefiting special interest groups.
Um, but some of these are parking lot
revenue items. You're
right, Commissioner
Carlin. By the way, I need to announce
that
um, Commissioner Newman
has left us with uh, he's try trying to
go down and catch a plane and so he had
to leave us early. So, we are now a
commission of six.
Commissioner Carlo. Um I was going to
ask similar to uh Commissioner Sites for
some clarity about what you're asking
for here. I
mean what's not parking lot what
is? Because if it's all parking lot
sure because it need it all needs more
discussion.
But now I'm not clear what you're
asking.
I don't know that I'm asking anything u
except do we want to include this as an
advisory to council.
Um
and as we have listed several things
that the council
may decide to give us as future
assignments.
The council may indeed give us or some
other citizen group the assignment of
looking at the revenue in a overall
sense to ensure that it supports
long-term financial sustainability.
Well
then so are you talking about including
all of these in that request? Because if
so I have a question about number eight.
Who's defining what a special interest
group is? I personally was just asking
for approval on item number five.
Commissioner Sites was saying maybe we
could incorporate some of the others in
that future
assignment. Um but right now I was
really just
seeking approval on item number five.
I'm fine with number five.
Commissioner Stevens. Uh yeah, I I kind
of didn't bother me on number five. The
thing is, we're saying, "Hey, council,
why don't you either assign us or go
find another group to look at the
adequacy of what's going on in the
finances?" And it to me it reads like
that's that's our job. So, it's almost
like we're telling them to go, are we
doing okay or do you need to go get
someone else? So, I'm not sure we need
five from that standpoint. And then
you're not at six and seven yet, but
when you when you get to those, I don't
know that we need that'll be part of our
job next year. And I don't feel
uncomfortable with the way staff's been
doing revenue projections. So, but I'll
I'll wait for any more on that. So, I'm
not sure you need five.
Well, and in fairness, you know, if if
five doesn't need to move forward in the
commission's mind,
um or some of the others, I mean, I
think even item six doesn't necessarily
move forward. It's uh it's just saying
it would be nice to see a 10-year
history of the tax revenue or the growth
in revenues, whatever source.
um these are not really
um insightful advisories to give to the
council
necessarily. And maybe you're right, the
um reviewing the adequacy of revenues to
support long-term sustainability is
uh is not so profound that it has to be
said,
Commissioner Carlin. or why don't we
just do it like Commissioner Stevens
said we take responsibility for it say
it's one of the things that we want to
look
at next goround or before next go around
over the summer because it should be
this group one
thinks so let's just take responsibility
for it
okay all who want to give Carla
responsibility for this
way. Vice Chair Swagger.
Yeah, I agree with Carla. I mean,
remember, we were appointed for a
three-year term. So, it's not like they
expected us to only do this one thing
and then forget about it. So to me um
five 6 7 8 9 10 and 11 can just be
agenda items that we would like to look
at for the next budget year and for
future years and make recommendations.
So I I would make a motion that items 5,
6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 be added to a
future agenda for this commission after
this current budget year
and not part of our report to council at
on the 22nd. Correct. Yep.
I'll second.
And we have a second to that. Anybody
wish to talk to it? Commissioner Carla.
Yes. I just again have a concern with
eight in that who's defining what a
special interest group is. I mean that's
already a point of contention that word
special. Um I mean my mom always told me
I was special but you know I'm not sure
that
um I just have a real problem with how
that's worded.
Well, I think in the manner of the uh
motion, we're not you're not going to
see this memorialized in uh in an
assignment sheet in the future. They're
just being deleted from consideration
for the upcoming council report and what
happens to them. We we'll debate the
special interest groups and all that
kind of thing in the future when we
Well, as long as long as the report
author is aware of my sensitivity to
that.
Yeah. The other thing that's true, I'll
just observe uh on item 11. I mean,
we're eliminating it along with the
others, but the item was saying that the
city should have lobbyists keep them
updated. I think this is something we do
as a matter of course anyway in the city
of we have
a an Arizona lobbyist group and use
people outside for Washington. So So the
motion before us is items 56 7 8 9 10 11
uh will be deleted for consideration for
the report to council on April
22. Motion made and seconded and no
other speakers noted. So let's make a
vote on
that commissioner and it is approved
6. The next group of recommendations are
relating to the uh operating department
budgets. some of the items that we heard
and advisories we might want to send to
council.
Um the first item and it may be
combinable with some others but at least
the first item at the moment says
recommend a review of contractual
expenditures in the budget to understand
a incurred costs or increased cost
rather
um and b the opportunities to bring the
services performed inhouse.
um as an advisory to council. This is
really
perhaps saying that this is something
they should have us do or something we
should elect to do in the future as we
march through our three-year tour of
duty
here. There's not much, in other words,
that they can do with a recommendation
like this regarding the current budget.
Is that true?
And I'm
um I think perhaps we
should mark this one as something that
we will assuredly do in the future. Um,
unless there is a number 14
and I'm seeing that number 14 on this
same
grouping
is more or less the same item. It's it's
again on contract services. Number 14 is
saying uh we understand the city staff
plans to do an extensive res review of
contract services.
um all the much better took it off our
list.
Um but I think at best this is something
that we will undertake
uh post April 22 item number
one. And so let's delete it. Or
um or again if we are enumerating things
in our report to council, enumerating
things that we may do in the future,
perhaps we can keep this as an
enumerated item for the
future. I'm looking to my co-author down
there.
Um my observation here just like the
comment 14. I I think since we made the
observation, it's fair to put it in the
report, but I also added that other part
about the city manager is planning on
looking at it because I wanted to
acknowledge that that came out of our
whole discussion. So that's why I like
14 being there because it still says we
came up with it and 14 and one are the
same.
Commissioner Sites, you had your button
pushed. Yeah, I was
uh I was trying to sort out whether we
were heading towards dropping it like
the last group or stating it as an item
for the council to recognize. We
considered
it. It I heard the future task and I
agree with that too. I don't know where
we're going.
Commissioner Stevens. Yeah. I I just
think it's good that we we did
collectively say, "Hey, why don't we
look at these contract services to see
if we should be bringing some of this in
house?" So, I think that's good that we
include that in the report for right
now, but I think it's also important
that we acknowledge the city manager is
already planning on doing that. But it
it it's we're weighing into council that
we think this is important. So, I guess
for that reason, I'd like it in here.
So we are regarding number one on the
list. We're basically xing that out and
putting it as a a future thing that we
may do and it may be phrased in
uh in the manner of a later item.
Um item number two are it deals with
FTEES
and we've had some discussion
of some other discussion of FTEES
throughout this
um the various submissions here uh
talking about FTEES currently and could
we eliminate them and what about if
they've been open for open for more than
a year or whatever.
Is there a way in somebody's mind to
consolidate some of
these
FT discussion items into a
recommendation to
council? Commissioner Carlin. Um I think
this is unless I'm wrong. Um, similar to
what Commissioner Stevens was talking
about with 14 with contract services is
something the FTEES, you know, we've
been talking about. We talk about
contract services. It's my understanding
the city manager is looking at both the
FTEEs also. So maybe we combine some of
these FTE things, but also acknowledge
that just like contract services that
the city manager is already starting to
look at
these, you know, so it's it's something
to be supportive of and and monitor.
Commissioner Stevens. Uh yeah, I'll just
call to your attention that the comments
similar to comment 11 and 12 actually
more specifically relate to the FTEES
and one is for them to we're reinforcing
that hey you got to look at these things
and see if there's some restructuring or
combining that can be done to make it
more efficient and then comment 12 again
it's just a recommendation they don't
have to do it is more about whether
there should be a more act uh a review a
monitoring taking place uh to the extent
it isn't happening now and maybe it is
now but1 and 12 I think were both touch
on this more comprehensively.
Vice Chair Swiker.
Well, I authored number two and I agree
with number 11 and 12. The reason I have
number two in there is that 11 and 12
seem to me to be more focused on on
eliminating
uh FTEEs. And I'm saying there may be
things along with eliminating FTEEs,
there may be things that we're not doing
that we should be doing. So I want us to
look at the FTEEs kind of holistically
and say maybe these should go away, but
maybe there's things that we need to be
doing that we're not doing. So if you
want to combine uh number
two into number 11 and 12, Mark, I I'm
comfortable with that. Okay. because
you've got a key point at the bottom
where you're talking about the benefit
of tourism and residents. So that that
concept should be rolled
into not just eliminated it should be
rolled into as you assess FTE. Yes.
Okay. Yeah. So uh the motion would be to
combine the essence of comments comment
two into either 11 or uh
into 11. So 11 will make open FTE
instead of elimination it would be
evaluation or well darn it or assessment
assessment.
Okay. Commissioner Stevens, your request
to speak light is still on. Is
that
okay? Don't let him get exhausted down
there. I We need him as a a craftsman of
this
document. What are we up to? Number
three here.
Um,
this number three is saying that due to
the current volatility and uncertainty
on federal funding, blah blah blah.
Um, I'm not sure that we uh I'm not sure
that that's a a very insightful advisory
that we can give the city council, but
I'm willing to entertain comments.
Commissioner Carlin. Um yes, this is
actually something that we discussed
twice before, not in great depth, but we
discussed the fact that it is something
due to federal cuts we're going to have
to deal with. And uh it was the city
manager who suggested an ongoing threat
assessment. And I just think that this
is important to call out because we have
a lot of community members that if
funding for Pyute and Vista is cut,
they're going to fall off a cliff and we
need to have some idea of the policies
to respond to
this. I think it's important.
I don't disagree with you that they're
important. Uh I wonder if our advisory
to the council is going to be as this
says
that these needs continue to be provided
for. I'm not sure
that I'm not sure I know what the
um potential exposure for.
Well, my my whole point was that we need
to have, you know, some
procedures in place that are at least
going to look at how do we
provide? That's the whole point is if
the funds go away and they go
away without much
warning, what are we going to as a
community going to do?
Commissioner Stevens, you want to weigh
in on this? Uh, yeah. I thought we got a
great presentation and the city's got a
good handle on it. Having said that,
there's no harm in this recommendation.
So, I don't know why we can't put in the
report. So, I'll I'll move that number
three be included as written.
And I presume you'll second that. Yes, I
will second that. Thank you. I have a
motion and seconded. Anybody want to
speak further on this item?
Um, seeing none, we'll go to voting. And
um, the
U little voting machine doesn't seem to
be working very well
here. Well, just tell me, does anybody
object to this? Can I record it as
unanimous? Oh, we're now live. Okay, it
is u approved six to zero. The
unanimous number three will go forward
more or less as more or less as it is
written. City manager request to speak
uh chair. Uh thank you. Maybe we missed
it, but um we didn't hear a motion for
one, two, and I believe 11, which you
had discussed. And I thought there was
some consensus from the
board. And before you get too far away
from that discussion, I was wondering if
you wanted to take a motion on that.
Um Commissioner Stevens, I think you're
the one that Okay. And I I make a motion
that we um adopt the substance of
comments 11 and 12 and include the uh
elements of two with with those.
I second.
So we have now a motion uh made and
seconded and we can vote on that.
And it is again unanimous 6.
I think
um we decided I think that number one
was something that we would do in the
future with or without council
direction. Is that true? In other words,
we're basically deleting number one or
well 14 kind of covered one
and I'm being told that it's uh it like
trumped it subsumed in number 14. Is
that what you're saying? Yeah. Yeah.
So number one as now written will
be will not go forward as written. if it
goes forward at all, it be part of
number 14 that we're coming up
on. But before we do that, number 13
deals with the subject of
overtime. Um, and it's really suggesting
a consistent process of review by the
city manager and city treasurer on a
quarterly basis. Is there
um do we presume this is happening? Is
this new found soil we're to turning
over here or is this sort of a variation
of what's already done?
Commissioner Carlo, excuse me. What
happened through 4 through
10? Are we
We did get a little ahead of ourselves,
didn't
we, in our unparalleled excitement to
move forward
here. Um, let's back up and go back to
number four, which is
u in in this case charging the school
district more
money. I think uh if you look at number
four and number five which is making
sure fully charging for events
um even number seven which is urging a
payback period for
ambulances. Number eight which is saying
that city programs and related expenses
uh should be
reviewed. Um, a a lot of
these a lot of these are just saying
that somehow assure ourselves as a city
that we are being properly compensated
for some of the special services that
we're providing.
I would like to see a a single
advisory that says that.
Um, by the way, number nine on this
list, which is talking about the
uh senior centers and the scope for
those centers. Maybe that's part of the
same thing. It it it ties into a capital
project that we talked about earlier
that was making sure we had a recognized
the expanded scope before we approved a
capital expenditure.
But let me suggest
that we take 4567
8910.
Um probably not number 10. Number 10 is
a different item. uh 4 5 6 7 8 9. All of
which have to do with the subject of
making sure that we're adequately
charging other
parties for the services that we are
providing
uh and adequately recouping our
expenses. um except for I would say
general
city slashcitizen
services. Um, but the intent here is
when we were hearing about some of the
special services that some of the
departments were providing, the police
was talking about they were
providing support for school districts,
uh, providing support for Westworld, so
on and so forth. There was, I think, a
general concern with all of these items
that we make sure that we are are being
compensated or receive recognition of
what the cost is. Enough of my rambling,
Commissioner Carla.
Well, actually, I was going to say the
first sent two sentence you sentences
you said should be a motion. um
that but what I was then say was number
10 490 kind of already addressed
that so it could be taken out and then
you could do your motion for adequate
compensation for the 4
through9. I make a motion that item 10
be deleted and items four through nine
be
combined in under a heading to ensure
the city is adequate adequately
compensated for the services it provides
in all departments.
Second.
Motion made by Commissioner Carlos,
seconded by Commissioner Ransco, that we
combine in some way number four through
nine, all of which deal with assuring
ourselves of adequate compensation for
extraordinary services that we're
providing. Extraordinary just meaning
out of the normal run of business.
and that number 10 be
deleted. And I have a second to that
motion. Do I have anybody else that
wants to talk to it?
Yeah, I do. But my request to speak
button isn't working. Can I go push your
button if you're going to talk?
Oh, now it's on. Before it was just on
the voting thing. Uh four, five, and 20
are the same thing as far as cost
recovery, but the ambulance one's kind
of different in nature.
Uh, and I the other ones just seem like
they're different in nature as far as 6,
eight,
nine. So, uh, really I I was going to
propose that four, five, and 20 be
combined into one comment. And then I'm
not sure what you want to do with the
the other ones, but they seem different,
like expediting payment for an
ambulance. And then I thought eight,
someone whoever did eight was talking
about looking at legacy programs, which
would be something different than cost
recovery.
So, you're are you making an alternative
motion? Well, if I can, I I guess I'd
like to have I'd like to move that items
uh four, five, and 20 be accepted in
concept as a cost recovery comment.
Six too. Maybe what's in four, five, and
20.
Yeah, six. Okay. four, four, five, six,
and 20 be merged as a in concept as a
cost recovery
comment. So now it's four, five, six,
and number 20. Uh for those of you that
can't see on the screen, number 20 is
just saying requiring full cost recovery
for services to private groups
or so four, five, six, and
20 be
combined
eloquently by the associate drafter
here. I will accept that amended motion.
And that is accepted by the original
motion maker, Commissioner
Carla, and accepted by the original
second. Second. Done. And do we have any
further discussion on this proposal?
This secondary motion or primary motion.
Now, seeing none, let no request to
speak. So, let's
vote. So, it uh is again
unanimous
6.
Um, which leaves us then with uh four,
five, six, 7, 8, and
nine. Does somebody want to talk to
number seven, payback period on new
ambulances?
I'm sorry, Commissioner Sites.
I might be a broken record.
I
7 8 N I think these are budget reviews
that we need to be doing next year.
And and in doing so, we could make a
more specific
recommendation. How do I make it a
motion?
Um, we don't have future. We do.
Do we are you suggesting we move this to
our report and say this is an enumerated
future collection of things we will do
or just be mindful that we will do
this the latter or the former
the choices are do we actually put this
in writing in our advisory to the
council saying at the tail end of it
here's a collection of other things that
we will do in the future or do we just
presume that that's what we're going to
do and march forward.
Yes. I move that these items be
uh phrased in a way that we acknowledge
that we're going to be working on them
in the future.
And that was items 7, 8, and
nine. I second.
and
um to the scribe at the end of the
table.
Um I think what she is suggesting uh
Commissioner Stevens is that these items
will be on that laundry list of things
that we will simply enumerate will be uh
future action items that we'll be
looking at
um and not particularly needing
direction for council. this will just be
part of our work product in coming
months and years.
Uh is as I understand it then it's going
in the
report is in the back part about the
future considerations and then the the
only comment would be I don't know why
we're saying give expediting the payback
of the ambulances because the whole
ambulance projection was trying to get
to breakin operating wise soon and then
having that paid off in due course. So,
I'm not really sure that I'd prefer to
withdraw uh eliminate seven from that
and just do eight and nine in the back
of the report.
I don't know, Commissioner Stevens,
while you're talking about number seven.
I mean, I I'm really not keen on
including number
seven as either a current or a future
item. I think
uh the
um it's not like we can expedite or even
ask staff to expedite the recovery on
these. The charge for this ambulance
service will be I think market driven.
Um and I'm not sure how we will assess
much less implement item number seven.
Commissioner Ranskow, I have motion that
we delete number seven. We move eight
and nine to future and we delete number
10.
So the alternative motion now what are
you doing with uh seven is deleted 10 is
deleted n are moved to the future.
So the motion by Commissioner Ransco is
basically to delete item number seven,
delete item number
10, and move seven and eight to the tail
end of our report as being one of the
myriad of things that we will
contemplate in the future.
Second.
And I I accept the changes to the
motion.
I think uh Commissioner Carly, did you
second that or I seconded it and and I
accept those changes also.
So it was let's say com seconded by vice
chair Swiker and
um so the motion before us is to delete
number seven delete number 10 and items
eight and nine will be in summary form
included among the myriad of things that
we'll advise council we're going to be
considering in the
future. And I keep looking at the
primary scribe to my left making sure
that he is
uh comfortable with
that. Okay. And we have voted on it. It
is 6. It is unanimous. We will do
that.
Um we now come into a discussion of
overtime which is
uh on item number 13.
Um
the phrasiology on the submission here
is that we were not able to review over
time other than at a very high level and
I think that's true. Um perhaps we could
say something with regard to our
confidence in the departments that
actually incur a lot of overtime and
that's the pirate police department. But
um it does it does conclude with a
recommendation that says consistent
process might consideration might be
given to a consistent process of city
manager and treasurer review of overtime
on a quarterly basis for those
departments with large uses.
Um, I got the sense that this already
happens.
Um, primarily in the departments
themselves, but then I presume funneled
up to city manager
and treasurer for periodic review.
Um, it doesn't hurt, I suppose, to say
that this is our advisory to uh
council, but I would probably shorten
this item if we're going to submit it
and say that our advice is that council
and then pick up this last two, the last
two lines. Our advice is that council
give consideration
to establishing a consistent process of
city manager and treasure reviewing
overtime on a quarterly
basis. Anybody share excitement over
this
item? Vice Chair Swagger. Uh I agree.
And if you want to restate that exactly
how you have it, I would make it a
motion.
The uh statement of it would be simply
bargain in the last three lines there or
the last two lines really. Our advice to
council that is that they might uh
establish a consistent process of city
manager and treasurer reviewing overtime
on a quarterly basis for those I
wouldn't even put the last part in on a
quarterly basis. Period.
So moved.
I'll second.
I have a motion and seconded.
Nope. Commissioner Stevens, you wish to
comment. I I just don't follow what you
deleted. Just so I get this right.
That's all. What parts did you delete?
Uh the motion is that or simply we will
advise council that they give
consideration to
establishing a consistent
process of city manager and treasurer
review of overtime on a quarterly basis.
Okay. Okay.
Having no other speakers, we can vote on
this
inclusion. Commissioner Carla
I and it is unanimous
6. Item number 14, contract
services.
Um I'm not sure that this is anything
other than a statement that uh we
encourage initiative. We did that
already.
In what way did we deal with it?
Yeah, we we combined it with number.
So it is combined with number one and
two or number two.
Item number 15
um
uh seems to be just a statement
uh rather than a direction.
Um maybe it's an advisory to the council
that the budget is not sustainable. It
says in so far as expenses are greater
than expected increase in revenues
um against declining revenues
uh personnel services not personal
services but personnel services
increased 21.8 8 million contractual
services 23 million and commodities 8
million.
Um, I guess that
um combines with the item below on
number
16, which would be a recommendation that
the city manager submit a balanced
general fund budget
identifying the exent expenditures
exceed revenues and thus requiring a
draw down of reserve
funds and identify the specific one time
non-recurring expenditures to be funded
with those reserve
withdrawals. Um I think some of this was
covered in the
um presentation that we had at the tail
end of yesterday's meeting
um saying some of the draw downs in the
reserves were going toward payment of
the $50 million proposed payment uh for
pensions. um and the extra payment
transfer really to
um the CIP budget from the general
fund.
Um is there an advisory on 15 or 16 that
we wish to uh send to
council?
Um, and I see Commissioner Stevens, you
have pressed your button. Yeah, of
course. Um, I'm still drinking from a
fire hose when it comes to understanding
the details of the city budget. But from
what I can discern, if you were to ask
them if they have a sustainable budget
and if it's in balance, I think they
would probably tell you that yes, it is.
And from the pieces I've looked at, I
believe everything I can tell, I think
they do have a balanced budget. What
they've done that we've highlighted is
there's a big draw down a lot of the
fund balance buildup that came from some
one-time events. And I think they're
doing a decent job of matching one-time
fund balance drawd downs with one-time
expenditure type things. So I don't
think they're creating a structural
deficit. And so maybe you just need more
presented to us. But my I I'm hesitant
to say these things about 15 and 16
because I believe the city prides itself
in trying to be uh structurally
balanced.
Commissioner Carla,
um I will follow up on that. I I don't
think I don't think these are
appropriate to say. I just don't
So, what's the recommendation here? The
um I could move that we delete numbers
15 and 16.
I'll second.
I think the
um I think it may be
worth observing I just don't know how
you observe this without making it some
kind of an advisory but I think it's
worth
observing if these numbers are right
that you know personnel services are
increasing 21 million contract services
23 million and commodities 8 million in
these various percentage amounts
while we're in fact looking at a budget
that on a revenue
basis is somewhere
between modest positive or negative.
Um, and it's it it may be a true
statement that that's not sustainable on
a long-term basis. You can't keep having
personnel services increase 6.3% and so
on and so forth if the revenues are not
keeping up with
it. Um I don't think we went into it in
enough detail to know.
Um and so maybe it's just a
precautionary uh statement to council.
Uh I would like to I personally would
like to see some kind of a statement
that says you know this level of
increase in expenses is not
sustainable if you don't have a
commensurate level of increase in the
income period.
Um I just don't know how you say that.
Commissioner Carlo,
sorry. I would remind the chairman that
earlier we did have an item about budget
sustainability, you know, and perhaps
it's rolled into
that because we're we're looking at how
do you do a sustainable budget. And so
it would be appropriate what you're
talking about to be rolled into that as
opposed to let's call out a separate
item that without
context perhaps gives the wrong
impression.
Can the commission scribe find the
earlier item that is being referred to
Mark, do you know what? Do you remember
what we did with
number two? Number
seven, consider ways to determine if the
budget aligns with the goals of
financial
sustainability on on page six. I think
in a in a sweeping move we
deleted items five 6 7 8 9 10 11 on that
uh in that category.
Um next
maybe we got a little carried away with
ourselves but
Commissioner Stevens. Yeah, let me make
a recommendation. I I I wish I
understood it exactly better, but
something that might work is if we make
a recommend and because I have noticed a
lot of the operating expenses have gone
up. I think we're funding it with uh
revenue because we were favorable to
budget last year and some of that
stuff's covering it. So maybe the thing
to do is we recognize the importance of
a structurally balanced budget
uh and in light of the increased
operating
expenses recommend that that remain a
priority uh for the city.
Right.
The sad part of hand and it's always
instead of
um
Okay, I got to remember to write it down
too. Um
Commissioner Sites. Oh, okay.
Thank you. Um on number 15, that's where
we are, right? The uh recognizing that
carry forward funds are being utilized.
I think by restating this as to what's
positively happening even though it may
create something not as uh structurally
sustainable as we'd
like. So recognizing that this
budget has expenses greater than the
expected increase in revenues by drawing
down funds from uh carry forward. Right.
No.
Um, if that was a question, I'd love to
jump in. Uh, Mr. Chair and, uh,
commissioner.
So, just maybe the parliamentarian in
me. We do have a motion in a second and
on deletion of 15, which I might suggest
is we were kind of pleased about over
here. I speak for myself. And then we
kind of ventured into some dialogue
and I we just I I don't know that I
agree with the latest interpretation. So
I'll just leave it at that. Thank you,
Mr. Chair. The motion was for 15 and 16.
So yes, thank you if I didn't say that
right.
[Music]
City Treasurer. Um, thank you, Mr. Chair
and commissioners. I just wanted to
remind you that uh the presentation
yesterday on the general fund provided
you a chart that shows how we balanced
our budget for the fiscal year and how
we continue to believe that we have a
sustainable balanced budget moving
forward in the five years. And um so I I
wanted to just remind you of that.
Commissioner Carla. Yes. I mean earlier
when we were talking about
sustainability which was number five,
six etc. you know we said we're going to
be the group to look at sustainability.
We're going to take responsibility for
it and there may be a a mention of that
and what we're doing next. And it just
seems that what you were calling out,
um, Chair
Smith, that would be part of that as
opposed to just a call out on its own
here.
That kind of
doesn't to me it doesn't fit. And and
the fact is that 15 and
16 I still feel firmly need to be
deleted because they're not giving an
accurate representation. But the things
that you're saying are worth discussing,
but it should be discussed when we're
discussing the
sustainability which we already said we
would take responsibility for.
I think uh Commissioner
Carla the first discussion of
sustainability was on page six of all of
these recommendations. It was
BI number seven. Um
It it's the one that was says consider
ways to determine if the budget aligns
with the goals of finesse and also five
considering to study
adequacy to ensure long
term financial sustainability
and I think if unless I'm mistaken I I
think we voted to delete all of those
items from the report to council. We
voted to say that we would take
responsibility for
them over the summer
perhaps. We we would be the ones working
on that. Well, I think we're always
going to be responsible for
u assuring
that the budget is sustainable. this
budget, future budgets, whatever. Do we
not want to make a statement about this
budget that we're currently looking
at other than it's a balanced budget?
That's different than saying it's a
sustainable budget. There there is a
difference in the two.
Commissioner Stevens, let let me make a
recommendation that I think might solve
everyone's concerns. Uh I would propose
modifying eliminating 16 and modifying
15 to say recognizing that this budget
has increased operating expenses greater
than increased revenues. We recommend
that city staff monitor this trend to
continue to produce a structurally
balanced budget. If we say that what it
acknowledges expenses were up more than
revenue, we think you're structurally
balanced. Now, let's watch that trend.
But I would I agree with your language
except the last four words.
This this is not trying to create a
structurally balanced budget. is trying
to create a sustainable
budget
to well okay I guess I'm indifferent as
to that so you'd rather the rest words
be a sustainable budget instead of a
structurally balanced budget okay
and I think additionally you might go
back to the item that Carla was talking
about on page
six of these
recommendations. Item B2
uh B2
um number
seven and it's maybe saying some parts
in the same or different modestly
different ways but that was considering
ways to where the budget might align
with the goals of financial state
sustainability, quality of life and
promotion of tourism.
Do do you want to add the first sentence
of seven to this?
Yeah, let's put it I mean even the
second sentence of number seven is
relevant. I think every council agenda
report should have an affirmative
statement assessing the impact of the
requested initiative on financial
sustainability and tourism. The point is
um financial
sustainability has been talked about u
at nauseium here um and oftentimes it's
called fiscal sustainability except
everybody spells it wrong and says it's
physical instead of
fiscal but financial sustainability
long-term financial sustainability of
the city is um an
important criter
criteria, an important assessment,
important awareness, whatever you want
to call it in in all the decisions that
are made at the city, whether it's, you
know, is it fiscally
sustainable
to keep building roads without money to
repair them? Is it fiscally sustainable
to it? it really it comes into all the
decision making and then that's what
the that's the caveat that uh I think is
worth mentioning
to the city council.
Got an idea. Commissioner Carla
What what if we
um delete 15 and 16 and then we go back
and resurrect B7 and put that
that recommendation in the report
what you just read. I personally don't
think you need B5 the the number five in
the earlier page uh in there that was
really talking about a looking at the
revenue structure. I'm saying B7 the one
that you read and B7 I think should be
yes. So we
delete 15 and
16 which is the current motion on the
table and then we come back and
resurrect B7 and add it to the report.
to the commission
scribe. I think rather than accept and
delete and whatever, can we make sense
of just merging um the old number
five
and or the old number seven, I'm sorry,
the old number
seven off of page six.
I I I was going to add at least the
first sentence of seven to what I
modified on 15 if I can mod you know
read that again and then that meets your
desire to recognize that operating
expenses went up by more than revenue
and that's a concern of yours and then
reminding them the importance of a go
going up at a more rapid rate than
revenue. Right. Right. Uh and in
absolute dollars too uh and then as far
as seven I the first sentence seems
okay. I'm a little bit uncomfortable
with telling council they should do a
report in every one of their meetings
reaffirming something that they probably
feel they're watching already. But and I
think we made a big enough point by just
saying it with the first part of item
seven and with saying, you know, they
should have a sustainable budget.
But you're you're going to reward it so
it's not such a negative.
Uh I thought I did. Well, I just want to
make sure of this because we've been
jumping all over the place because I I
did say continue to produce a
sustainable uh sustainable. So, the word
continue is in there. If I um Okay, let
me try it again. Let me try to read a
modified uh a proposed modified motion.
Uh it would be that uh number on page
eight, number 16 is eliminated and
number 15 is modified to say recognizing
that this budget has increased operating
expenses greater than increased revenue,
we recommend that the city staff monitor
this trend to continue to produce
sustain a sustainable budget
uh and consider ways to determine if the
budget aligns with the goals of
financial sustainability quality.
quality of life and promotion of
tourism. So that at least acknowledges
that we believe they do have a a
sustainable budget right as of today.
But it's a we're warning. We're telling
them we're concerned about a trend and
we're deleting 16. And we're deleting 16
and adding the first sentence from seven
from page six, item seven.
Can I ask
um city staff a question, please?
Go for it. Do you feel that that
accurately represents what you've
produced?
Uh Mr. Chair and Commissioner, thank you
for the question.
We were having some conversations over
here on sustainability as it relates to
fiscal sustainability and I can
appreciate how some uh uh may really
appreciate that. I I struggle with that
and the potential interpretation. I'm
more familiar with structural
um that that type of verbiage versus
sustainable
because you might have from year to year
where your personnel will increase at a
higher rate than let's just say your
revenues. I'm going to put hypothetical
for sake of discussion. And your
personnel one year will increase at a
10% which is only a component of the
budget, not all of the budget, but yet
your revenues would increase at a lower
level, say 5%. Well, is that
sustainable? I don't really know I don't
really know what that means, but I what
I believe when you look at a structural
balanced budget, I would use that term.
I think that's fair. So, a structurally
balanced budget would look at a trend of
revenues and how they compare to
expenditures and particularly a
five-year trend since we're
identifying uh that and have a budget
process that really locks that in. I do
appreciate the comment the kind of the
verbiage of trends and being mindful. I
I I think that's good. That's awareness.
Um so, that's where I would land. I
think it's uh helpful again just kind of
picking up on that verbiage where it's
it's good to be uh mindful uh when you
have a trend I'll just continue to use
the same and it kind of exaggerated it
out if your personnel were increasing on
a trend of say five to eight years at a
doubledigit rate uh and your revenue
stream would be increasing at a
singledigit low singledigit rate that
could be a trend that uh could be
alarming something to be mindful of. So
that um I think is good advice is good
guidance for us as we're developing the
budget. Uh so to come full circle that
sustainability I'm kind of struggling
with practically how do we implement
that? How do we measure that as I
understand that term and um versus some
other terms that I think um in the
financial world or in the accounting
world might be a more or budgeting world
for that matter might be a more
appropriate for us. Thank you. Um
Commissioner Stevens, can you work with
that? Well, I you know, I started with
the word structure. Let me let me before
we get the conversations going every
which way here. Um, let me make a
comment um to clarify in in my mind the
difference between sustainability and
budgeting. you know, balanced
budget. A balanced
budget, not to be cute about it, but a
balanced budget, you figure out how much
revenue you're going to have next year,
and you spend
it. And then you come and say, I've got
a balanced budget. This is how I'm going
to spend all the revenue coming in.
A
sustainable budget is one that looks at
the at the liabilities, at the
exposures, at the costs of the city on a
long-term
basis and says how, you know, how can I
manage those long-term liabilities?
Forget the revenues. How am I going to
manage those
liabilities? The fact that we have year
after year after year passed a balanced
budget, i.e. spending all the revenue
that comes in is exactly what has led to
the deterioration in the park service
because we kicked the can down the road
or the deterioration in the roads
because we kicked the can down the road.
That's what it means by
sustainable. Kicking the can down the
road is not a sustainable way to run the
city.
even responding to the periodic squeaky
wheel, if you
will, as we're doing now because, you
know, people are greatly concerned about
the condition of the roads. So, we're
going to do work on the roads. They were
greatly concerned about the quality of
the parks, the condition of the parks.
So, we dealt with that. We went to the
voters and said, "Give us another 15
cents and we'll take care of the parks
separately as an aside."
But these kinds of uh
neglect of the needs of the
city is is the s is the is what I mean
by sustainable uh budget. have we really
um
so that's the um that's what I mean by
sustainable and it and it should be it
should be in the mindset of council as
well as staff but it should be in the
mindset of everybody when we make a
decision
here is this going to adversely affect
the
sustainability of the city the financial
sustainability of the city. Um, and so
that's what I'd like to get into the
vernacular into the mindset or whatever.
Um, is is that a separate deferred
maintenance concern type comment that
should stand alone?
Well, it's I mean maintenance is
obviously one of them, but it's uh you
know, if you're subscribing to a brand
new service, for
example, saying we are now going to
have, you know, three policemen every
place we had two before or something.
Any initiative that you undertake, you
should look at the at the question, is
this is this really sustainable in a
financial sense?
Um, I'm sorry. Vice Chair Swagger.
I believe there's a motion on the floor,
isn't there?
I call the question.
I'm sorry. We're having trouble hearing
um Commissioner Stevens.
Oh, I didn't have um No, I just said he
he said he called the question. I said
we need four people, right? Twothirds.
We can vote on the question. What What
the hell motion do we have right now? Um
I thought we had a motion that said we
were going to pick up item B.
7
B27 on page
six. We were going to pick up that
language and merge in some of the
sustainable language
from items 15 and 16 on page eight. I I
did a proposed modification to a motion
that was going to delete 15 and 16 and
my proposed modification was not
accepted by the original motion. Is that
right? Your original motion. Yes,
correct. So the original motion of
deleting 15 and 16 is still on the table
and vice chair Swiker just called the
question
here and I only did that because we
spent an inordinate amount of time on
this and we need to keep moving on. So
um uh since I made the original motion I
don't know if if if there's a friendly
amendment to it. I
would welcome that. But we we can't
spend hours on this one thing.
Can you
No one can restate the motion. I I can't
I can I made the original motion.
Commissioner Sight seconded it and then
Vice Chair Schwiker
um called it. The motion is to delete
items 15 and
16. That was
it after all that short and
sweet. Well, I'll make an alternative
motion and that is to go back to page
six to item number
seven which talked to ways to make the
budget fiscally and financially
sustainable.
and went on to say that every council
agenda report should have an affirmative
statement assessing the impact of the
required initiative on the financial
sustainability and
tourism. I would like to keep item
number seven and incorporate the essence
of items number 15 and 16. You don't
have to talk about the numbers, but just
to the extent that they're talking
about having a fiscally sustainable
city. Commissioner
Stevens, I haven't read Robert's rules
for about 30 years, but just so we don't
get sideways here, you the question's
been called. So, don't we have to vote
on whether the question can go to a
vote? And if twothirds of the people
agree to call the question, then we have
to vote on that. And if it doesn't, then
it'll fail and we can do modifications.
Is that is that how Robert's rules
works? I believe you're correct about
that. Okay. So, we'll vote on that.
We'll vote on the original motion.
Are you
voting um excuse me, Chair Smith, it's
fine if you're just willing to go ahead
as the chairman to vote on the original
motion as opposed to vote on calling the
question. That's that's allowable and
that's fine.
Anybody have any idea what we're voting
on?
So vote on that motion.
And that one, um, we need a vote from
Commissioner Sites. We have, uh, five
affirmative and I voted no simply
because I preferred a different motion,
but that motion passes. 15 and 16 are
now dead. Um,
So, I can make a motion, I guess, now,
an alternative, not an alternative
motion, but a brand new motion that we
go back to page six, item seven, and
include it as a recommendation to
council or an advisory to
council and leave it as written with no
incorporation of the items that were
just deleted.
So, you're making that motion? I'm
making that motion that we include item
number seven from page six.
I second. Has a second. Anybody want to
discuss
that? Seeing none, we vote on
that. And Commissioner Stevens votes
no. Uh, and there otherwise passes.
I have to ask Commissioner Stevens, um,
since you were the scribe, uh, with what
vengeance are you going to assert your
no vote? Um, what what was there a
reason you were not in favor of putting
item number five back in?
On page six, number seven.
I'm sorry. I I just didn't really think
that added that much and I liked what we
were the path we were going down
cautioning them about expenses going up
more than revenues. I like that better
and I didn't think seven added that much
and I didn't like the idea of telling
the council they have to do an
affirmative statement every meeting.
Well, just fix the language when you
write it. you'll send it back out to us
and we'll see what we think for for the
alternative or yeah, fix that. Put
number five in and do it in a a way
that's going to be agreeable. We're
talking about number seven on page six,
right? Okay.
I'm sorry. It's number seven on page
six. I keep calling it number five. It's
number seven on page six. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Uh, Commissioner Sites has to leave and
wondered if we could go up to D3 before
she
leaves. The request has been made to go
to page nine of our comments. Uh, it is
D. Which one is it? Uh, three. D3. It's
also a repeat of 18 right here.
18 same.
or 18 on page or 18 before. It's the
same thing.
Okay, let's go to number 18 on page
eight. Anybody wish to talk to this
item?
Um, the advice to council would be to
not make a $50 million prepayment
against the PSPs pension
liability, but reserve those funds
instead for higher priority initiatives
for approval by
council.
Um, take out the parenthetical as I see
pension discussion
above.
Um, as a matter of fact, you can
probably delete all the rest of that
item. It's just
a bookkeeping of how the cost is kept.
Commissioner Carla,
um, I have a huge problem with this. I
think that this was something that staff
worked hard to be able to do and I think
it uh
addresses a need we have in our budget
and I don't understand why we would want
to
not get up to speed or where we need to
be on the
PSPs just to spend
money on other
things. it it it doesn't seem fiscally
responsible.
Commissioner Stevens.
Uh yeah, my my observation, in fact, I
almost want to make a motion to delete
it, but let me explain myself. Um I told
you there are two things I cared about
that and then on page nine, you're going
to see my comments on supplemental
pension funding. That comment actually
was done in such a way that it doesn't
tell them we have a recommendation, but
it tells council that they should look
at it and they should consider the
economics that are available if they did
do some accelerated pension funding
because our understanding is that if you
did pay 50 million, you save 4 million.
If we adopt this comment 18 and take 50
million out, you've just added four
million of expense back into the budget
that needs to be dealt with. And I
thought I had pretty carefully written
that comment nine on supplemental
pension funding. So it just said that
council should understand the economics
that are here and make a decision and it
didn't necessarily say you should do 0,
20, 50 or 100 million.
Commissioner Stevens, which item are you
referring to that you wrote differently?
Oh, page um page nine, number eight,
supplemental pension funding. It
actually covers what we covered at a lot
of our last meeting where it talks about
uh what my comment actually said was we
talked there's talk about fund balance
possibly being used for the pension fund
and also we notice road deterioration
and there might be other ways to use
that money and then uh we just said it's
important to note that it's not a firm
recommendation of the commission but
rather an observation that a
considerable advanced funding appears
planned and then we just wanted council
to look at the pluses and minuses of
that. So, comment 8 was written in such
a fashion that says look at the
economics of it, but I'm not necessarily
telling you should do 50. And from my
standpoint, I don't know if they should
do 50, 100, or zero. Uh, I wish I
understood and trusted the actuarial
information just a little bit better,
but I I thought that would be worth them
looking at since there is a big number
they're thinking of funding.
Um, Vice Chair
Schwer. So, Mark, I actually like the
way that you wrote
um number eight on that. And I'm leaning
towards that we should delete number 18
and number
D3 and adopt number eight.
You can add five to that. I'd second
that in a heartbeat. You want to add D5
to that?
Oh, and and add D5 to that. I'm sorry, I
missed
that.
D3 D5 number 18 from page 8 and adopt
number eight from page
nine.
Second. Uh I have a motion and a second
which would leave us with number eight
from uh page nine. Uh I would urge as we
draft this uh using the term we loosely
um that we do it with a lot fewer words
than what we have currently on number
eight. I think
uh you could
probably just stop with what uh go
through the bottom of page nine. I I I
think the it's not necessary to
Could I ask quickly what happens to nine
D9?
Okay.
So, we're not combo on it.
Commissioner Stevens, I'll turn the
floor over to you. But I I'm okay with
what you did. The only thing I'll
mention is that who the comment uh five
I'm not sure who who that was but it's
an interesting comment. I don't know the
degree to which it could be done. So
that's something we can look at next
year anyway. So I guess I'm okay with it
being deleted but that is a different
nature of a comment.
Yeah. What we're left with as a
recommendation is that we rather than
deleting the items that number n the
item number eight D8 on page nine will
be uh will remain our advisory to uh the
city council but in a much
abbreviated
verbiage. I don't know that the original
motion had the much abbreviated
verbiage, but no other speakers on that.
Let's vote on
it. And we have um
I I abstain. I guess it doesn't work. I
can't. No. Oh, frick. Okay.
I think you need to press your yes
button or no button. Okay. So that one
is approved 5 to one with Commissioner
Carla
voting negative
and Chair Sher Scott from the legal
department just noting for the record
that uh Commissioner Sites has uh
stepped away from the meeting.
So be
it. Uh
Should we
u the
[Applause]
um Okay, making sure we don't leave
anything out here. um on page
eight and it was item
C number
17 advising the council
that w that they wave the proposed cola
wage and salary adjustments as well as
the class and comp pay adjustments to
demonstrate consistency with the bud
with a budget of declining revenue
projections comments. Vice Chair Schwer.
I would recommend we delete 17.
I'll second that.
I'll third that.
Was that a second?
Motion made uh Vice Chair Swiker and um
seconded by Commissioner Carla that we
delete item 17.
Seeing no other public discussion, you
can vote on
that. And it is
approved
five to zero. We now have five members
um still with us for the duration here.
I'm not sure that we dealt with item 19
on page
eight. Uh 19. Item 19 was uh our advice
would be to direct the city manager to
identify productivity improvements each
year in each department.
parenthesis as identified in the police
department with their use of drones or
the use of AI for writing departmental
reports, but look for these efficiencies
uh that will foster flat or declining
FTE
requirements. Anybody want to speak to
that item? Commissioner Ransco,
uh we'll delete the word interim. Uh are
we already doing this? Is this
suggesting something you're 100% already
doing?
There's actually quite a bit there. So,
let me reread it and see if I can unpack
it a little bit.
Um, I would I would say we kind of take
it in portions here. Certainly
identifying productivity. I think the AI
is a good example.
This is one specific element that's
mentioned here on staff reports. It's in
its infancy. So I think the answer is
yes that we continue to explore
technology in those areas. Uh the
drones just to utilize that item. I
don't know if it's there's a tremendous
amount of benefits officer safety I
might submit things of that nature but
um so effic I don't know if it
productivity maybe that's productive
yeah well certainly productive sorry I'm
talking out loud here a little bit but
um and then the last part maybe that's
probably more of a question so yes to
the first half and then the last maybe
still kind of evaluating that piece
I think probably
the we can delete item 19 if I get a
motion to that effect. really the um the
spirit of 19 must have been to
say let's continually be looking for
productivity improvements that
will lead to a flat
FTE count for the city or maybe even a
declining you know how can we do things
in every department with efficiency I
think probably the police department was
the only one that talked about specific
initiatives that they
have a motion motion to delete 19.
Motion has been made to delete number
19. Somebody must have seconded that
motion. I second. Vice Chair Schwiker
second the motion.
We dealt with uh item number 20 at the
top of page nine earlier this evening or
earlier this afternoon. Um and now we
talk to uh the question of pensions,
pension cost and
whatever.
Um item number one is uh returning to a
policy of funding the unfunded actuarial
liability for pensions as any other debt
obligation. Paying the prescribed debt
service assigned by the pension
actuaries to ensure other priority civ
city services are not deferred in order
to accelerate early repayment of pension
debt. That's
really the same item that we've praised
somewhat differently
before. Um, I would accept a motion to
delete number one. So
moved. Second.
And if you're in favor of
that, register your
vote. And that again is
uh
unanimous 5 Z. Item number two
um is really an accounting question
probably more than anything else is just
saying report the pension liabilities to
council as any other long-term debt
obligation.
uh treating normal costs as a payroll
expense uh but treating the amortization
of long-term liability as debt service.
Um, I think this was probably suggested
because treating it as a percent of
payroll in the police department gives a
distortion from year to year of what
police payroll is actually doing because
it it may be going up or down from the
prior year based on what accelerated
contribution to the pension plan is is
included there.
I doubt that the I doubt that the uh
council is going to get excited about an
accounting treatment.
Um and this doesn't uh deal with a cost
savings as much as it is characterizing
the
expense. I would entertain a motion to
delete this
item or keep it whatever you all
want. Motion requested.
Motion to delete number two. I have a
motion to delete from Commissioner
Ransco. Second. Second from Commissioner
Carla. And if you affirm that uh it will
be
deleted and it is affirmed with a vote
of five to zero
unanimous. Item number four or yes four.
Um, I'm not sure that uh item four item
number four is doing anything more than
we had said
before. Um,
motion to delete number four.
Motion to delete number four. Second.
Seconded by Commissioner Stevens. All in
favor?
Let it be known. And it is Commissioner
Stevens. Yes. Five to zero. It is
affirmatively deleted.
Um item number six says consideration
should be given to keeping the unfunded
pension costs close to 80%.
Um, is that something we really want to
give as advice to council or is that uh
an item which we can now delete or or do
you have comments on it?
Um, I I think that could now be deleted
with number eight in play. I think we
can roll that kind of rolls into eight.
Yeah.
Second. So we have a recommendation to
delete item number six.
And if you agree, press your button.
Item number six and eight, isn't it? No.
No. Item number eight. We actually have
a comment, I think. Um, yeah. Item
number eight, the big one where we
um item number seven, uh the actuarial
inputs. The recommendation was that we
advise council to give consideration to
reviewing key elements of information
provided to actuaries with respect to
compensation and so on and so forth. I I
should ask staff. I think we probably
already do all of this stuff as a either
we do it or the actuaries do it. It's
not like we
can exercise any discretion over what we
submit. We concur, Mr. Chair. Motion to
delete number seven. Motion to delete
number seven. Do I have a
second? Second from Commissioner
Carla. And so if you agree with that,
press the button. And I I did have a
comment on that. I'm going to let you
delete it, but there are elements of
this that I'll take up separately with
them next year because there are still
ways that you could be under reporting
compensation. So I'll uh I'll go ahead
and and go along with y'all on deleting
it though. A second.
So it is uh affirmative and approved
five to zero which in this case is
unanimous. And that brings us up to item
number nine on the following
page. The last item under section D
which is recommendations on pension
costs and it is dealing with
the
PSRS health plan
overfunding and it is saying that
um
um it's saying we didn't look at it but
what else is it saying?
Um perhaps it's saying we should explore
ways to withdraw these funds from the U
health plan
overfunding. Uh comments, Commissioner
Stevens. Yeah, we we can we can pull
this if you want. All it is you've got
an overfunded plan. Corporations often
settle overfunded plans to get the money
back and use it elsewhere. It might only
be a million dollars or so here. Not
even sure if we can do it. We didn't
investigate it. We didn't talk about it.
So, if you'd rather pull this out, if
you're not comfortable with it, we can
do that.
He's He's waiting for you to do that. I
I make a motion that we uh withdraw item
nine.
Second number nine. Motion to delete.
Second. Seconded by Commissioner
Ransco. Record your
vote. And now we are looking at a
collection of recommendations regarding
fund balances, reserves, and
contingencies. Uh the first one under
there being consideration should be
given to how funds are
invested while being held for future
approved project spending.
Um let me ask staff there are I know
some constraints uh on what how we can
invest the money. Speak to that if you
would. Yes. Uh Mr. Chair uh
commissioners we have to invest
according to state um laws which
restricts us to fixed income investments
and no more than five years and also
double A or better. So our investments
are very limited. We cannot invest in
equities or um foreign investments or
derivatives or anything like that and
that is by state law, public funds
investments. Thank you.
Yeah, I think our hands are somewhat
tied on this item and I I can't think of
a recommendation that we would actually
make to council
uh that could be implemented for more
aggressive investment. Motion to delete
number one.
Second. Motion to made to uh delete item
number one. Record your
vote. And that one again is 50
unanimous. The second item uh having to
do with fund balance activity.
Um Mark, was this yours? And can you
tell us? Yeah, it it's mine. it. To me,
that's a big deal because that's how
you're drawing your reserves down. And
all this is is let's give visibility to
council on exactly how reserves are
being moved around and fund balances
being moved around. It's kind of similar
to something we touched on in an earlier
comment we deleted and you've seen some
of these presentations and I think
they've been helpful to us as far as
what's moving around within fund balance
because that also runs to
sustainability. seeing if you're drawing
down what elements of fund balance and
making sure you're expending those
things on things that are structurally
consistent.
I would observe that that may be
although said with many fewer words uh
item number four which is urging the
establishment of a financial policy to
set forth guidance as to when how and
where additions as well as withdrawals
to reserve refunds might be made.
It is an important item, but it's
um our advisory to council may be no
more than what number four is saying,
but you tell me, Commissioner Stevens,
whether
that fits part of
the objective you were having
here. Yeah, we we can make a motion to
merge those two comments and skinny down
number two. Second
Motion to strike number two.
Merge with four. No, strike two. Pardon.
I think what he's saying is merge four
and two into a shorter sentence. Was it
I'm sorry I misstated the motion. It is
to merge number four and number two
um and still do it with 15
words. Perhaps I added that last part.
uh we'll strike that. Okay. So, that's
the motion. Uh pick the best parts of
number two and four and have the scribe
merge them for us. And the vote
is five to zero unanimous again.
Um item number three uh was suggesting
we advise council to establish reserves
with the consideration to factors other
than just the levels recommended by debt
rating
agencies and/or adopted by other
communities to ensure that Scottsdale's
levels of reserves take into factor take
into consideration all factors unique to
Scottsdale.
Um this might actually
be subsumed in what you write for number
four and two
combined. It is again talking to
um the level of
reserves. Number four was suggesting we
have ways
to prescribe how we add to or reduce
reserves.
This is really addressing the question
of the absolute level of reserves and
what are the factors considered
there. Okay. I I can move that uh
comment three be merged into the
previously approved comments for two
being merged with
four. That's the uh that's the strategy.
Yes. Somebody want to second that.
It is motion made and seconded that
number three will also be merged with
number two and four from this
list. All in favor press your yes button
and it
is unanimous five to zero.
Item five on this list is um not so much
a reserve fund
u or perhaps it is I don't know
requesting a presentation on how impact
fees are reserved and under what
circumstances they are used.
Um, again, it it may be um we may end up
merging number five with everything else
you have here because
um does anybody remember submitting this
item? Commissioner Ransco, talk to it.
So, number five uh up above and five
down below on page 11 probably could be
merged. There was a discussion of a
neighborhood down in middle Scottsdale
that was having flooding issues and the
neighborhood was developed in the 80s.
So a lot of their flooding issues is
coming from lands above to the north. So
the question is are impact fees truly
being measured downstream enough so that
neighborhoods of built in the 80s that
are developing new flooding issues or
resurgent flooding issues. So I think
that's the intent of five and five is to
just reanalyze impact fees, make sure
they're fully downstream for length into
other neighborhoods. didn't know if you
had anything to add on from staff level.
Mr. Chair and Commissioner, I think I
hear a couple different things in there
that I think we can take up maybe and
I'll call it the off season maybe in the
future. So, one is impact fees in and of
itself and what those go to. Those don't
fix existing deficiencies but yet build
our infrastructure. And then that sounds
like a a storm water uh issue uh storm
drainage and they and and those types of
requirements. So I hear you. I think we
can certainly tackle some education in
the offseason on that. Okay. Um I make a
motion to delete number five and five
and move them to future conversations.
Not future, bring them up in another
time. Yeah.
Carla, did you want to talk to that?
Well, are you merging F5 also? We're
we're deleting We're deleting both
fives. Both fives. Okay.
Does anyone else have any comments on
that? No.
Otherwise, otherwise we can go to a vote
on
it. The chairman is temporarily out of
the room.
The motion passes four to
nothing. So now we're going to F1.
Consideration should be given to
analyzing the cost benefits of
maintaining a AAA bond rating. What are
the impacts of an AA or even an A
downgrade to bond pricing?
Um, I think this is probably the
chairman's recommendation. I'm not sure
about that. Oh, it's yours. Um, is this
something that is for this budget cycle
or should we look at it in the fall?
Fall. Okay. Motion to move this off the
list.
Delete. Is there a second?
I actually have a question. I want This
is not being moved to parking lot. This
is being deleted,
right? Is that what we're doing? What's
parking lot nearby? The things we're
going to put at the end of our list to
say we want being deleted because we're
going to talk about it next season.
As long as it goes away. It's going
away. Thank you. So, that's a second.
I'll second it.
Okay. Carly, you haven't voted yet.
Okay. This motion carries four to
nothing. Now, now we're on to um
F2. Consideration should be given to
possible redefining of the various fund
definitions. Fund capital have to be
spent on very specific budget items.
Perhaps revisiting the
definitions to what make up these
specific budgets would be prudent.
Question to
staff. Do you amend definitions ever? Is
that is that even something you guys
visit year-over-year? I assume some of
these fund definitions are old.
Commissioner uh Ranskow, the fund
definitions are set by our government
accounting standards board and they are
fixed by uh accounting standards. We do
not have the ability to change the
definition of funds. Um, we are required
to account for things based on the
accounting pronouncements and rules that
we have to abide by.
Motion to delete number two.
Is there a second?
Second.
Okay. Uh, all those in favor?
Motion carries four to nothing. What am
I voting on? You're out.
We are now up to
F3. You've eliminated the rest of our
agenda. So, um, what are we up to then?
F3. Item number three is to uh recommend
to council that
they or advise them that they should
have an annual report on compliance and
of with financial
policies.
Um I guess I would
ask the city manager or the city
treasur, do we already do that?
Um Mr. Chair and commissioners, we
report to council if we have to deviate
from the policy and we require their
approval from deviating from the policy.
Otherwise, all our um practices, our
financials, our budget, everything
that's in the policy we comply with.
Um this might be a worthy thing to to
leave in even though it may be
redundant. I mean in in December they
may vote on a particular item to wave
the policy on
uh this that or whatever but uh it might
be useful on an annual basis to have an
annual report on compliance with
financial policies.
Um, anybody want to make a motion to
keep this in or delete it? Either way,
Commissioner Stevens. Yeah, I've got a
comment on that. These poor people kind
of get audited to death because they
have a financial audit, they have a
single audit, and they also have an
internal audit person here. So, I would
rather delete this one. And if there's
any value to it, we, you know, can
encourage the internal auditor to
include that in there. But I think
they're getting a lot of their policies
looked at pretty extensively.
I think the notion this was not an an
internal audit request. The sort of the
person that's in charge of financial
policies is the city treasurer and is
just giving her an opportunity to make a
report to council on an annual basis
that you know you were in compliance on
all policies or you know you waved it on
this or whatever. Just as a summary
annual reminder,
um, Commissioner Carla,
I I
just we're we're giving extra I'm sorry,
busy work because the fact when she
gives her her budget every year, when
she when she gives us all of these
updates, it's implied that she's
complying.
and and she's already said that by law
if she
deviates she has to report that to
council. So if she's not reporting it to
council she's
complying. So why do we need to put this
in
there? I move that we delete number
three. I'll second it.
All in
favor and unanimously agree. It's a
goner.
Um number four is adopting a
recommending that council adopt a
financial policy to prohibit levying
temporary taxes dedicated to funding
permanent operating
needs to ensure that the temporary taxes
do not have to be renewed upon
expiration.
I uh I will admit in the absence of
conversation here, I was the one to put
this in. Um and it's I just I think it's
a the vote we had last November to
approve the 0.15 extra tax. And I have
no problem with the voters's directive
there to to do that.
But the reality is they're doing it for
30 years and 29 years from now we'll be
back asking them to renew it again. I
just don't think it's a good management
practice or good financial
governance
to pretend to the voters you just need a
temporary tax when really most of these
costs
uh for personnel and maintenance of the
preserve and parks is an ongoing need.
uh it will be there 29 years from now as
well as
today.
So this is not demanding that anything
do anything. It's just advising the
council. It might be a good
discipline that
they never ask the voters to approve a
temporary tax for something that's going
to go on and on and on and
on. Commissioner Carla. Yes. And I will
say that on the protect and preserve
task force, vice chair Swikert said
basically the same thing that it should
be permanent. But the political reality
is people do not like voting for a
perpetual tax. And so I work very hard
to convince the group that we should
stick with the 30-year model because we
needed to go for the win. So, I don't,
you know, this is I don't know where the
people will be in 30 years, but you
know, they're going to have to deal with
it. But the reality is people don't like
voting for permanent taxes. So, to
recommend something like this to
council, I just don't see the point.
Commissioner Swagger.
Yeah, I I was pretty vocal about that on
the 490 and and lost that vote. Um, what
I was trying to do was protect future
councils from having to pick up the can
that we kicked down the road to them by
making this a permanent tax. Even though
it was going to be harder to sell it to
the voters, I thought it was the honest
thing to do. But,
um, Carla did convince me that sometimes
it's just harder to get people to vote
for a permanent tax than a temporary
tax, even though those parks and
recreation needs are never going to go
away. So, this is a a I call it a
permanent temporary tax.
Commissioner Stevens, you have a
thought? Yeah, all I'll add to that is I
looked up the word temporary tax in
Webster's dictionary and what it said is
no such term exists.
So, I uh I don't um I I don't care what
you do with this one, but it's and I
don't mind you leaving it in either. I
move we
delete
this item number four.
Motion is to delete item number four.
Seconded by
anybody seconded by Commissioner
Ransco.
Um record your vote.
And that uh recommendation delete it
passes with a vote of three to two.
Chairman myself and vice chairman
Schwiker voting against the action. It
is
deleted.
Um number five is to develop a financial
policy for prescribing. No, we did
deleted that one. Oh, you deleted that
already.
I shouldn't have stepped away.
Okay. So, what are we left with here
then? Um,
and six is actually a repeat, I think,
page four. Item six is a repeat from
page four. I'm make a motion to cancel
number six because it's caught on page
four, number 16. I second.
Did you also do number seven? We didn't
do seven. No, we haven't done seven yet.
We have six. Doing number six. We're
voting to delete number six because it's
captured.
Okay. The motion is to delete number six
uh from the list. Number six was to
institute procedures and policy to
ensure more thorough or better budget
projections for capital projects,
especially in areas with aging
infrastructures. The argument being it's
sufficiently covered elsewhere. And that
deletion is approved five to
zero. And finally, number seven on this
page, update the policy or policies
which state that the overall community
goal is to have a new development pay
for itself. And alternatively, restate
that to say that the community
requirement is that new development must
pay for itself. Goal versus
requirement. Include that as an advisory
to
council. Delete or modify.
action by
motion from anybody. Uh, this is not one
of mine, but actually I kind of like it.
I I move that we adopt number seven.
Second,
Commissioner Carlin. Oh, I was just
going to say it is mine and I hope you
move it forward. Thank you.
We are voting to keep it, right? Yeah.
voting to keep item number seven as an
advisory to council and the vote on that
is again five to
zero.
Um we have
uh water sort of flows downhill. So
we've sort of delegated a lot of this to
you commissioner Stevens. Do you need
clarification or
I I do uh not to belabor it but um back
if we can go back to page three. I'm not
sure item nine and 10 uh whoever wrote
those those were kind of standalone
comments and I don't want to offend
anyone because that's not going to get
rolled into the other capital programs
because one was talking about rei
revising title 34 and the other was
about metrics reports.
So, I feel better if you'd go back to
page three, items nine and 10 and and
act on those uh
individually or together. I if someone
here wrote those, I just I don't want
because right now they're probably not
being included. So, number nine uh had
to do with some bidding restrictions for
design, building, and construction
manager at risk.
Are we is council allowed to amend title
34?
This is page three number nine. It It
just sounded like a good comment to me.
That's why I wanted to make sure it
wasn't ignored.
That so title 34 refers to a state law.
So we want to get that canceled. That
may answer it. Okay.
unchangeable. Thank you for your precise
answer, city attorney.
Okay. Did we ever vote to delete this
item? I don't know. Number nine.
Um I think we were coagulating this
entire page into one is what we
approved. My records reflect that one
through actually. Yeah.
through.
So, yeah, two through 16. Let's review
title 34 real quick.
Seymar and design build staff mentioned
that they can't bid design build fees.
So, they're you're you're awarding
design build and Seymar solely based on
qualifications. You're not asking them
to give you a markup bid. You know what?
What would they mark up subcontracts by?
What would they mark up change orders
by? What would they what's their
overhead and profit? Things like that.
And you negotiate those after you've
picked a
contractor. So the reference was that's
what we're retire required to do from
title 34, which might have been a
incorrect assumption. So, is there a
reason on a design build project you
can't bid out the markups and the fees
to prospective biders in addition to
qualifications? It sounds like right now
it's just based on qualifications.
Um, Chair and Commissioner Ransco,
uh, that's a difficult question for me
to answer. Uh I I think
the the easiest way for me to try to
answer that question is with a design
build, it's a phased process, right? And
so first they have to design it and they
certainly can't price it out before they
have the design and the designs
approved. So my general understanding of
that process is it's phased and so when
they're looking at who they're going to
award that to um it it can't be
obviously on the basis of price. There
are other ways to approach it there.
There are a few ways under title 34
where you can um you know go through the
process to uh figure out who's going to
design something, who's going to build
something. So we don't have to do a
design build process. Um but if we
decide to do a design build process, we
definitely have to follow the format
that's in title 34. Got it.
Oh, and we had an expert in the audience
and I tried to I tried to answer that. I
Please please correct me if I'm wrong
about anything I said. Allison,
I I think that was good enough. And then
just for the record, our records reflect
two through 15 were deleted. So just for
Okay. Yeah, I think we were rolling them
into a
revised number 16.
Mark, I think we can capture a sentence
out of here that doesn't touch on title
34 that you can roll into 16. So, right
now, title 34 is un amendable.
So, we we have previously canled number
nine in favor of rewriting and expanding
number 16. And wait, wait, tell me the
page and everything. Sorry, page three.
Page three. Yeah. And item what? Nine.
Oh, item nine. Okay. What are you saying
there? So, item nine, title 34 is not
something we can amend. Okay. So, we
might want to just capture the essence
of this into your revision of number 16
on page four.
Okay. Okay.
We may be uh there were two attachments
to this section also. Uh and I think I
saw somebody start to scroll down to
them. Uh I think those are mooted by uh
the action we've taken. We had a an
attachment on the preserve presentation
but we borrowed the recommendations from
there and brought them into the
um into the report. We also had an
attachment on capital projects
and
we are picking up the recommendation
language on those capital projects along
with all other capital projects we're
doing on page
three. it it uh on page three. It was
item number
one at the top of the
page that was alerting people to a
preview of coming attractions. Wherever
my page three
went. There you go. Page three, item
number one was to consider the guidance
on capital plan prioritization and it
was referring to an
attachment. And we swept item
one in with all other
capital rewrite that we were going to do
on several items related to the capital
planning and execution.
Well, I'm waiting for the scribe to
confirm that. Uh, okay. I my my notes I
had at one time said that that could be
a standalone comment. So, right now I
don't have that didn't I had that as a
possible standalone and the nine and 10
I
mentioned. So,
um, you just want that worked into 16.
Yes. Okay. And there are two or three
recommendations at the bottom of that
pres that slide presentation that he
attached and those we will incorporate
it.
Okay. Just the parts in the
boxes because I did my best when I did
the reading to determine what the
recommendation really was.
Yeah. because the recommendation was to
just like prioritize things better which
is kind of embedded in the comment.
Yeah, I think you have all those
recommendations in one form or another
elsewhere, but uh yeah. Okay, I'll go
through it and just make sure 16 has the
key. Commissioner Carla, just want to
clarify these attachments both um at the
end of the report. They're not going to
be in the report. Okay. All right. Just
make sure. Yeah, the attachments will
not be in there, but the recommendations
will be incorporated.
The recommendations on those attachments
will be incorporated in the body of the
report.
Um, if we have finished making sausage
here, we will uh go on to the next item
on the agenda, which is to discuss and
consider additional recommendations to
council.
Um, and we have nothing here unless Any
one of the remaining commissioners wish
to recommend anything
here? I think this item was added in
case we found something from yesterday
that we thought was compelling
to add today, even though we had no time
to get the report in.
Um, I How do we How do we skip an agenda
item or how do we kill off how do I get
past this city attorney? I'm sorry, uh,
chair. H how do you get past? We're
we're we're down to item number three,
which is consider additional
recommendations, and I think we have
none to consider.
Well, as the chair, you just get to move
right along to item number four.
We will now on advice of city attorney
move on to item number four which was
discussed and approved the finalizing
report and the method of presentation to
council. Um, in that regard, you have in
front of you,
um, a suggested preamble, I'll call it,
uh, which Commissioner Stevens, uh,
graciously
prepared. And unless any of you have any
recommendations for changes to
that, the assumption is
uh, that we will stick with that as the
preamble for the final
report. Carla has a chance.
I'm not recognized.
Commissioner Carla, it's just
grammatical in the title and in the
first paragraph. The legal name of our
commission is budget review commission.
So you need to add the word review in
both of
those. And then down under members, it
is vice chairman Schwiker, not assistant
chairman.
And then in the last
paragraph, you need to uh capitalize
council
twice. And other than that, I would
thank Commissioner Stevens very much.
Last paragraph, um, recommendations for
future periods. You need to capitalize
council
twice. And thank you very much for doing
this. It's very good. And yes, thank
you. Do we have to make an official
motion that um Commissioner Stevens
takes lead in drafting our report?
Yes, I I would prefer that that you do
that. He will then be the designated
representative
um working on the report with staff on
behalf of the budget review commission.
Okay. Well, I make that motion then.
Second.
and we're going to pay him.
It's It's only now dawned on him what he
voted
for.
Um, by the way, I was told by the city
clerk that this will be agendaized.
um on
Tuesday on the council agenda for
September or September for April
22 and it will um it will be agendaized
as the budget review commission
recommendations and uh by explanation it
will say this is the presentation
discussion and possible direction to
staff regarding the results of the
budget review commission's work and
recommendations to council. for their
consideration related to the proposed
fiscal year 26 2526 budget
um and related items whatever that means
and the presenters are the city
treasurer Sonia Andrews uh myself vice
chairman Swiker and uh he advises that
you know we can add other people as as
necessary we'll kind of wing that when
we get there right now we're just trying
to put the report together commissioner
Carla
Yes. I just have a suggestion um that
the recommendations that are going
forward if there's specific
recommendations that one member or two
members took more responsibility for
that the chair basically assigned them
and if council has a question you would
call them up to help do the answering so
that we have some sort of
format. Thank you.
Chair Smith, may I get a motion on I I
understand that the city clerk um
explained that usually it's the chair
and the vice chair presenting, but if I
could have a motion so that there's no
question that you are the official
representatives presenting on behalf of
the board and including um any
clarifications that Carla just mentioned
that you wanted to have in that motion
as well.
Can it be something as ambiguous as just
saying, you know, the the chair, the
vice chairman, and and such other
members as they
designate and their design? Yes.
Well, if I could remember what I said, I
would put that in the motion. Just say
so. That's good enough. Somebody can say
so moved. So moved. Second.
And that also is affirmed uh if Carla
presses the button by five the majority
the u the totality of the commission
right
now. Next item on our agenda as a matter
of procedure is to discuss and approve
I'm sorry identify and approve possible
future agenda items. I don't think any
of us can see past uh uh April 22, but
if any of you have anything to put on
Oh, Commissioner Stevens, why did you
press the button? Just before before we
adjourn, can we have clarity from uh
from city staff about what time we need
to have the draft report done for
submission to wherever it's going to go?
And then also if there's a presentation
at the joint meeting when that needs to
be prepared, who's going to do that and
uh when it needs to be done by just so
we're kind of all on the same page.
So, we're we're conferring um amongst
the staff because our normal turnin time
is
Tuesday. I understand that's a lot of
work for you um Mr. Stevens and it's a
lot of work for staff as well preparing
the powerpoints. We may be able to arm
wrestle the clerk to get a little more
time if if Tuesday doesn't work. Um but
the the standard turn-in deadline is
Tuesday. And so the things that would be
published though would be whatever this
revised report looks like, but also a
PowerPoint that would be the
presentation. The report's not going to
be presented, so to speak, but a
PowerPoint's going to be presented with
the key points embedded in the report.
Yeah, the Yeah, the PowerPoint we can
hold off on. It's the report that's that
is
um Sonia's looking up the the
deadlines. It doesn't.
So, the city has a policy to try to post
things um so many days in advance. The
open meeting law allows the city to to
post things within 24 hours. We try not
to do that to our
citizens. So the the this the city clerk
would want me to say that the deadline
is Tuesday
um for the report. I think that there's
more time that we're allowed for the
PowerPoint. Um so let us work with you.
We'll work with the clerk and we'll work
with you offline about that, Mr.
Stevens. And what we can do is have a a
report that has been prepared with all
of the comments and motions. And I if
there need to be some corrections
because we're on such a condensed
timeline after that report is submitted
and posted then there are ways for us to
make those corrections as well. So does
that give you a little more relief? No,
that that that that's helpful. And then
maybe if you can give guidance to
everyone here about what they get to see
and if they what if if they get to make
comments to someone. So let's let's say
I work on the report uh with Sonia and
we decide we're done and then at that
point does the chair the chair would
also get to review that report because I
think he assigned both of us to look at
it. So the three of us come to terms
with it then at that
point do I'm I'm guessing no one else
gets to look at it. They just have to
trust that we did it right and then
that's what's going to go out on the
website and then when we go to the
meeting if they have a concern that's
when they have an opportunity to do it.
Uh and then same thing with the
powerpoints and we put the powerpoints
together who's
putting you know because our chairman's
making the presentation with whoever
else he wants. We also he would I assume
have to look at it who gets to look at
the powerpoints and make comments before
it goes on the website.
So, so there are a couple of things that
this body can do. Um, they have
appointed
you, Commissioner Stevens, as their um,
you know, their designated
representative to write this report
based on all of the feedback. I think
they trust you to do that
properly. Um, and no correction, we
don't trust him. We just don't any of us
want to do it. and and you're working
with the chairman on that as well. If
you have a question, you could you you
could call one other member of the
commission. The commission once we
published the report could also uh let
staff know if any single commission
member had a a serious concern, they
could let the staff know. We could
figure out how we might be able to
address that concern. The other thing
this body can do if you all want to
really see the report and vote on it
before it's moved forward to council is
to have a special meeting for the for
for this body to do that. That that is
another thing that you could do. Don't
want to take that away from this board.
I would propose that we start working
that with you um on this
report and u staff can certainly send it
out to the commission and if any member
of the commission has a serious concern
we can look at we can um think about
calling a special meeting at that time.
Does that work?
Okay. Just saying back what you told to
me. So, let's say that uh we all get
done with this report by well, I'll say
Tuesday for now and and then Tuesday
night it goes out to all the
commissioners. If you get a bunch of
calls from commissioners saying, "I got
a problem. We need a meeting." We might
be able to call a special meeting for
Wednesday or Thursday to actually act on
changes to the report. We would work on
calling a special meeting. We would need
24 hours notice for that. We could look
at even calling a special meeting um
that's electronic that provides
electronic attendance so it would be um
more convenient for members of the board
who hadn't planned for it. There's a
variety of things that we could do. Yes.
Okay. And under that scenario though
that means it wouldn't get posted
possibly until Thursday or even Friday
which is not ideal but that would be our
worst case situation that might be
acceptable.
Yes, I I think whether or not the the
draft report gets posted and then later
gets amended before it's presented to
council or whether or not it just waits
to be posted altogether.
Um would be something we'd have to
consider and think about. But certainly
we I I want to try to work to take a
little pressure off this body in terms
of the time pressures that you've been
under. But I do also want to say that
the sooner we get this to council, the
better. The sooner the public's allowed
to see it, the better. It's hard for
council um to find the time to read
through and be ready for a work study.
um if they have very short notice on the
report. So you want you do want to try
to give them some time to digest it.
Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And that may be why if
there's an issue, we may go ahead and
post the draft report and then make any
necessary corrections after the fact.
Okay. Final question then. Uh if we were
to set a meeting now in case we needed
it, are they easy to cancel or is that
hard to cancel? like should I set we set
a meeting for Wednesday afternoon just
in case, but then if everyone's happy,
we cancel it Wednesday morning or
Tuesday 24 or whatever. That would be up
to the commission. We can set a meeting
and cancel it. That's a little harder um
on the citizens. It's a, you know, it's
it's hard to know who's planning on
coming.
Um but it's just up to the commission.
We can set a meeting and and cancel it
if it's unnecessary or we can um call a
meeting within 24 hours notice. Both
both are not optimal. Well, I'll leave
that all up to you because I'll be happy
with the report. So, but you'll all see
it and you would have the the heartburn
if anyone
some of we're good with you right now.
Anybody want to speak? I you know
I have considered your report and I
think it's excellent. U I've read it
already. It's wonderful.
Commissioner Redskco agrees with
everything. Um there should be some way
to circulate it to us and you know find
out what
everything cause heartburn, but there's
always the option at the night of the
council meeting if somebody says well
you know I just want to go on record.
This is not what I meant. Um they can
say whatever they want at the council
meeting.
Mark, I suspect you're if you have a
question or you're in doubt, it's going
to be on two paragraphs. So, that's
probably the part you're looking for
some feedback. You're a lot of this I
don't think you're going to have any
feedback requests. I don't know if she
can circulate two paragraphs for proof
reading, but sounds like we have to have
a meeting to do that.
I mean, what what understand what do you
what do you tell me? Like, let's I
You're going to write this up and I
think there's going to be two paragraphs
where you're like, I hope I got that
right. Oh. Oh. And I'm wondering if we
can just circulate those two paragraphs.
Whatever comes to your mind. The problem
is I can't circulate. I know. Well, you
can't, but I can she.
Oh. Oh. So, what I could do is if I was
concerned about something, Sonia, I may
ask you to see if you could check this
out because you would know who submitted
the comment. You might be able to
correspond with them.
Yes. staff will assist in in sending the
report out before it's posted to see if
we solicit any additional comments and
then we'll problem solve that if there's
a problem that erupts. We we can help
problem solve that. But if there's a
significant problem,
uh, we want this body to be comfortable
with the report as well. And and we may
end up having a meeting to make sure
that the the body can discuss it, okay?
Because we can't do for you what you
can't do. Meaning, we can't have a
discussion among a quorum on something
that may return to this public body. If
if Mark has a question about two
paragraphs and it comes to you guys, you
have our authority to send it to Carla.
And if Carla's good with it, then I
promise the three of us are good with
it. Okay, that's good. That's your
third. Then that's
fine. All right. I think we're going to
work this out. Okay. Okay. Thank you.
Mhm.
Um, seeing no other business, I before
we adjourn, I would just like to thank
the staff very, very much
for being here, for your endurance, for
your patience. Um, it's not lost on us
that you all have a regular job that you
do in the daytime, too. And we
appreciate the time commitment, your
help in in this whole endeavor.
Seriously. With that, I will take a
motion to adjurnn. So moved and
seconded. We vote on it and it's going
to be unanimous, I'm sure. Thank you all
very much. Thank you all.