 Welcome and good morning to the reconvening of our study session from yesterday. So Mr. McBride, I believe we left off an organizational structure, slide 28. And for members of the public and also for Council, the way we're going to do this, so we'll do the, there's different stops along the way. So we'll do the organizational structure, stop any questions from Council and then each department will do another stop and for members of the community that would like to comment at the end of the entire presentation, we'll accept public comment. So with that, Mr. McBride, you're on. Thanks, Mayor, members of the Council. And just as a reminder, we did actually update the slide on the organizational structure in legislature. So if members of the public want to refresh their slides, if they're using slides from yesterday, it has been updated with a minor change to the organizational structure. So at this point, we'll pick up from yesterday. We're going to go through today, talk about organizational structure. And then we're going to get into the cuts that we talked about in January. And then we're going to get into an overview of the budget, departmental budgets. And then we're going to end up the day with Director Nutt's going to take us through the capital improvement program. So at this point, I'm going to turn it over to the city manager, Mr. McGuinn, to talk about his organizational structure. So one of the things I want to prelude this conversation with is thanks to a lot of the senior managers who spent long hours working on this. With a couple of things in mind, how do we become the most efficient, effective organization we can have and actually start to demonstrate some cost savings within the organization and not minimal cost savings, but significant cost savings. And that's the change you have in front of you. The change would effectively create, I think we'll flip to the next slide, and then we'll flip back. The big headline items are creating some assistant city managers. Currently, as the positions are structured, they do not have reporting responsibilities, which becomes challenging in accountability conversations, but also effectiveness in managing teams. Currently, the assistant city manager position is geared to a project-based assignment, and it would also include the elimination of the deputy city manager. And I can't say that that is not a significant sacrifice because it is. That position has been key to actually helping break down silos within the organization, essentially developing a pathway for us to make a change on our garbage hauler, helping essential work being done, reforming, and changing our purchasing processes that you will be entertaining shortly. But it also, it's time to actually address some long-term issues that the city's facing, and I think that's the exchange that we're really looking at. What the change allows us to do, there are two other changes which I'll come back. What I think the change allows us to do is continue to address, and I think I can't compliment the entire organization on the rate at which we do get work done and try to address the tier one priorities in all calls from the community. I think the speed with which this city moves is pretty remarkable, especially when you compare it across the region and across the state. And it's effectiveness of actually addressing issues that the council has placed in front of it. And meeting the timetables of a very aggressive work plan that council has laid out. I know you all said, we understand we might not be able to meet all these goals, but I think you know that staff's intent is to try to meet as effectively and efficiently all those things that you've laid out in front of us. I will say that I pointed out to the mayor the other day there's a lot coming due in August, and I have some concerns about that, but we'll sort through it. And again, the commitment is to try to get this as much work as done as possible. It also allows us to effectively manage the recovery process. We've done that internally. I think this team is actually, I can't say enough about how this team has supported our colleagues and partners both on the local level, the state level, and frankly, on the national level. It's this team working together that has gotten legislation included working with our federal partners, our federal electeds in reauthorization of FEMA. I think it was essential conversations that got to the 9010 split on the cost share of debris removal and has made, continues to make significant progress and challenging FEMA and our state partners to think outside of their normal parameters on how they apply their solutions to recovery. But it also, it was illustrated yesterday, becomes a way for us to make sure that we're supporting all our colleagues. You heard there were different levels of assessment going on in the organization. I think this new structure allows us to look at things as asset management tools. We're not dividing it up based on territory. We're trying to make sure that we have a reliable program to address all the needs within the organization and have some accountability and be able to answer those questions directly, not just of the council, but of the public in general. It also creates, frankly, succession planning. As I've told council members individually and some that, you know, the lifespan of a city manager is five years. I will have reached average lifespan of five years. I have reached that lifespan come this September. I'm not planning on going anywhere, but you always should have a succession plan in place. With this, with this realignment, there is ability to look at these individuals. They can maybe aspire to become your next city manager if changes happen. You know, I could get run over on a bus tomorrow by a bus tomorrow. Not a city bus, mind you. But it also ensures that we're starting to talk strategically about how the organization adapts to what our structural issues are, both on the asset side and the financial side. This year is the beginning of a conversation. As you see, the red continues. It's not something we're going to escape immediately. We need to do strategic planning, and that strategic planning has to have questions about what's essential services to deliver, how we're going to deliver those essential services, and we're going to have some tough questions about service delivery over the next two to three years. We also have to start planning for a bunch of measures that are going to unfortunately reach their maturation point at the same time. We've got the original measure, the public safety measure coming up in 2024, and that's timed exactly with the expiration of the gift the voters gave us last November, almost coinciding with that, with the additional $9 million per year they've given us to do the organizational adjustments that we need to do so that we're not depending on that quarter since sales tax measure that just passed. And then I think the other thing is to ensure that we're communicating and engaging with our constituents effectively. One of the things that's come out of this process, and again we're threading it together, I may be actually bending some rules about what people can and can't do to make sure this happens, but I think you've seen the benefit of this collaborative team effort, which we can only codify. You're seeing it happening in the planning department. I have listened in this chamber as council and members of the public have talked about how notification and community conversations have evolved. That work is a work between teams and we need to bring those teams together, and so they're really actively working for the same common goal. And also the I think the proof was in the pudding with what happened on the community conversations around the Coffee Park master plan. Again, it was a concerted effort to get that kind of engagement and that kind of communication going on. And by that turn, as other things come up, we'll be able to be platformed for that conversation moving forward. I think if we switch back to 30, the 30 slide, you know, that's why we need to to focus on community programs and engagement. They work with a message. We actually have a tool that helps us out there that the Violence Provincial Partnership has worked on that looks at areas of need within the city. What we need to do is figure out how to take that tool and adopt it into decision-making moving forward. So we're making decisions not just on criteria that include the need that have been outlined and the challenges that the community is facing, so we're addressing those holistically. On the Director of Communications and Government Relations, you know, that was clearly a challenge for us in the last disaster, not having a Chief PIO not being able to staff that, not being able to support that. I think the things that I referenced earlier are benefits of that. We're having an unprecedented way of communicating and other people may have other organizations may have received awards for their work. We continue to do the work without seeking the awards. I don't usually get that blunt about it, but I will say this team has worked really hard and we need to codify this team and we need to make sure the team is supported and the individuals who are managing the team actually have clear responsibilities and clear reporting structure. This will clear this out, clear this issue out. There will be a Chief PIO. The teams will report to that PIO and we will service the departments that are in need of those services and those messaging. But we're, again, we can't be everything for everyone at one time, but I think we can be a more effective team leadership. And some of you have seen firsthand where I'm very concerned about burnout if I don't do some of these realignment steps. So that's one of those places where it was reinforced in the after-action report. We made initial steps, but this codifies that and gives us the ability to respond to any issue and make sure our communication is crystal clear. You know, this person has been working not just on these issues, but things like welcome home packages, working with our state elected officials and our federal elected officials, and we need to support that type of position long-term within the organization. But I'm not sure we'd be here totally in this environment without substantial savings. And as I said, there's, by making these changes, we've got about $350,000 of savings that we're going to be able to apply long-term to the organization. So as a benefit of realignment to meet the goals and desires of our community, but at the same time, it's a fiscally responsible thing to do in realigning the organization and taking the necessary cuts and changes as we move forward. And that concludes this part of the presentation. Councillor, any questions for the city manager over what he just shared? Seeing none, thank you. Okay, continuing on, the next two slides are just kind of an overview of how we're looking in the general fund. So that's kind of setting the table for for a lot of the discussion today. So I think you, council, seen this slide before when we did the April workshop. But just to remind you, the funding sources are on the left, the funding gaps are on the right. So we have an additional $10 million that we got for six years from the new temporary emergency funds or the new measure O. We have unassigned fund balance. We talked to you yesterday about our general fund reserves and we told you that based on this year's budget, we've got about $7 million in additional reserves that we could put into, you know, preferably one-time uses. We're going to talk next about staffing solutions. So again, going back to the discussion we had in January, we'd offered council an opportunity to cut 49 and a quarter FTEs. We've got a new proposal that takes that down a little bit, but still provides us a lot of those savings. And those are ongoing savings. And then we had the pension obligation bond fund dollars that we talked about yesterday and we'd offered council an opportunity to put that money towards the unfunded liability. And then our gaps there, we have the general policy reserve gap. We don't have a gap right now. We've met our 15, 17 percent. We've got the deficit of $12 million. And then we've got infrastructure needs that Mr. Nutt talked to you about yesterday. Minimum of $3 million was the ask there. We have resiliency, local match needs of about $7 million, really plus. We have some other infrastructure projects on top of that that we haven't identified funding sources for. And then the pensions we planned, our plan is to, with council's approval, put about $4.2 million towards that. And then just this kind of shows how that works out graphically. So you've got that general fund deficit at the top there. And the green boxes and arrows are kind of ongoing sources of revenue. So if you do the staff reductions, that offers you $5 million. You've got $10 million from the new measure O dollars. And then we have one time money there, those excess reserves. So you could put that towards recovery and resiliency and infrastructure. And then the one time money is a $4.2 million in the pension bonds that could go towards the pensions. And that little $3 million at the top there underneath the general fund deficit, that's if you put those reductions in the new measure O revenues against the deficit, that leaves you with $3 million that drops down to cover those recovering resiliency and infrastructure boxes. Not a terrible amount of money for some big ass there. But again, as we've kind of reiterated here, this is going to be a multi-step process or a multi-year process. So these are things that we'll try to fund in future years as we have one-time revenues available. So now we're going to move into the proposed reductions. I think there is one question about some of those figures, Ms. Gomes. On slide 31, I'm wondering if you can clarify the heading for funding gaps because it was pretty clear to me after the conversation about infrastructure yesterday that the gap is greater than $3 million. And I find that this slide is misleading. So perhaps if this could be corrected or come back to us so that it's clear that what you're suggesting is not that these are actual gaps but that this is the amount of the gap you're proposing we fund. Possibly, just to make it clear, it concerns me that a person looking at this slide might misunderstand what the actual situation is with regard to these funding gaps. Absolutely. We'll come back as we revise this presentation and make sure it's clear that this is our proposed solution for a greater, larger issue. We'll find the right terminology. Either that or add a column of what the actual gaps are. Thank you. Okay. So this is a chart that you've seen before. So in the left-hand column there, you've got the reductions that were proposed in FTE's full-time equivalent positions by all the departments in the city. So we initially asked for a cut of 49.25 positions for savings of about $6 million. We've gone back and made some adjustments. So in that center column there, you see what the adjusted reductions are by department and then we call out what the changes are in the right-hand column there. So the reductions, the reduction adjustments there on the far right with the little arrow bullets next to them, we eliminate one director in this and that's, as the city manager just talked to you about the reorganization plan that allows us the opportunity to get rid of a director as OCE and Rec and Parks roll together under the ACM. The six firefighters, we thought it was best to put those back as we talked to council in January when we made this proposal. This was the only way that fire could get to any cut levels. However, we fully realized that there's plans for additional fire stations in the future. So this probably isn't a realistic long-term solution to get rid of those vacancies. We're also, PED had offered five position cuts and then we'll talk about these individually, but in our plan, we plan to give back an associate civil engineer out of these cuts. We had a number of positions, I think eight positions that were cut in the police department. Two of those were sworn. That was that police sergeant and a police officer. So under this plan, we put those back, but we continue to take out the six non-sworn positions. And then we're adding back an accountant in finance. The reason that we did that, we gave up four positions as the city manager talked about. Resiliency is something that we're going to be tackling in-house with the exit of Ernst and Young. So in order to offer some staff capacity, we'd like to add back that accountant. And then an IT tech is also being added back in. We had originally cut two. This is a position that'll be funded 50% water and 50% fire. So we'll go through individual departments here. The city attorneys up first, these are just done alphabetically. So the city attorney had offered to cut an assistant city attorney position. This is not the chief deputy position. This was a position that was going to be added for cannabis. So that savings would be about $207,000. And then you've got some ancillary savings there of $30,000 that are the cost to go with that position. So I would like to add the city attorney and I have discussed this position. There may be opportunities as we build some revenue capacity during the course of the years. For example, Reynolds special program to bring this back. So I just want to assure you that we, the city attorney and I have talked about this position specifically because there are potentially needs down the line. But again, we're trying to, everybody tries to share in this conversation. And unfortunately we're all, I'm having to take a hit in my office which is big and Sue has volunteered this position. But I understand that this was a point of concern before. So we're all ready to hear that conversation. All right. Next is the city manager's office. And again, as the city manager talked to you about in this reorganization plan, the big savings here is from the W city manager. There was also an admin secretary that's been vacant for a year. I believe that position actually was moved to another department. So we called that vacancy within this. And the note there on the bottom is just that the DCM position is the only one within this proposal that's actually a filled position. Finance department, as I mentioned, we'd made a number of cuts in vacant positions. I'd cut a revenue manager. We're working with management partners in ways to realign our reporting so that we can do without that position. I think that's doable. We also cut down our payroll department. So the way we are structured, we had a supervisor reporting a manager with four payroll tax under them. We thought that was a little bit heavy. So we eliminated that payroll manager position. We have not had that for, I think, over a year. And it seems to be working out okay. We also got rid of a senior admin assistant and then an accountant. And the accountant, again, the change that you see there is that we're asking under this plan as we bring back the resiliency work from E&Y that we add that back for some staff capacity. Fire department, as we mentioned, FIRED offered up six firefighters. This plan gets rid of that. They'd also offered up three-quarter-time admin assistant. So current staffing for admin is 4.75 FTE. That just means that more work gets spread out to those remaining FTEs. Housing and Community Services, we had a reduction of 1.5. So one of those is a community outreach specialist for the neighborhood revitalization program. That was split between 50-50 between General Fund and Measure O. So that's one of the eliminations of that vacancy. And then there's a senior admin assistant and code enforcement that was part-time, half-time, that we get rid of that also. So that brings you to that 1.5 reduction. Human Resources had, I believe it was Management Partners, it had looked at their structure a little over a year ago and recommended restructuring by which they were able to get rid of a employee service manager position and restructure the way the principal analyst reported now, I think, directly to the director. I think that's working out. And then under the non-personnel solutions there, we had talked to council in January about getting rid of the wellness program just for miscellaneous, not for safety personnel. That was something that the council had directed us to do. So this budget actually reflects a reduction of $150,000 for the wellness program. That's not in the general fund, that actually goes through an internal service fund, through our risk management fund, but those costs are allocated out to departments. So there is savings in the general fund. Information technology is a little bit different. All of these reductions that we're showing you are not part of the budget that you see. We haven't actually put these changes in there because council told us to freeze these positions when we met in January. Because of the way that we do the budget, we have to do the internal service funds first of which information technology is, and internal service funds just provide a business service to the departments within the city. So we have to figure out what the rates are that we're charging out from those. So we actually did build those two cuts into information technology, to IT tax that we'd eliminated. And part of the impact from that was going to be longer service times when you have tickets. We've, with working with Water IT and Fire Department, we want to add back one of those IT tax. And so that's one of the proposals, as part of this cut proposal, is to actually add back one of those two IT tax that we cut. Planning economic development originally had five reductions. So if you remember three of those, a building inspector, a city planner, and a program specialist were part of the cannabis program. They were added, I think, last year. It might have been the year before, but they were added recently as part of that. And those are vacant. We decided to cut those part of this program. There was also a development or review coordinator that was cut as part of this. And then we had offered up an associate city planner or PED had offered that up. And in discussions with them, we would like to add that back in. The cannabis positions, we are monitoring the revenues that are coming in from that. So if you remember for the general fund, we had projected we had about two and a half million dollars a year is what we thought we would get from cannabis revenues. We haven't realized those numbers. I think to date, we're not quite through the end of the fiscal year, but I think we're a little bit over $900,000 in that program. However, there are a number of retailers, distributors, etc. They're in the pipeline in the permitting process. So we actually worked with our consultant at Muni Services to take a look at that and see what they thought the future revenue would be. So they worked with PED to decide what that would look like given what we have in the pipeline, what we have existing. So during this budget cycle, we actually took the revenue from that from 2.5 down to $1.3 million per year is what we're normalizing that at. We're in a little bit of uncharted territory here, so that could turn out to be markedly higher. The reason I tell you all that is that if those revenues are increasing in future years, this is something that we could come back to and address whether we wanted to add these positions back. Police department, as I said, they had originally offered up eight full-time equivalent positions. Two of those were sworn. It was a police sergeant and a police officer that was retiring in December. Under this plan, we put those two sworn positions back in into the police department. The other positions that they eliminated, they'd gotten rid of a police personnel supervisor that was retiring, handled recruiting duties and management of weaves. That work would go back over to the ASL for the department and to another end to an analyst. They also eliminated three CSOs, community service officers under this plan. One of those was for graffiti abatement, so police has been working with two other departments that are also involved in graffiti abatement and I thought they could get rid of this position. The other two CSOs were actually for patrol, so what that means is that non-emergency calls would actually have increased wait times or service times. They also eliminated a research and program coordinator. That position was mostly responsible for analyzing grants and a police tech in the records division and that will increase to reduced lobby hours. Recreation in parts had an elimination of eight full-time equivalents and a lot of that is due to the reorg that the city manager talked about, so that aligns now with OCE under ACM, so there's some duplication of duties in there that will be eliminated. Rec coordinator is eliminated under this. There are two frozen positions right now, but I think that Park and Rec is looking at the structure. They believe that they can do without that one Rec coordinator. There's also four groundskeepers that are eliminated in this. There are six total groundkeepers, I believe. Two of those are being are unfrozen being filled now, and then the four here were actually, those duties were promoted to maintenance workers, so the maintenance workers took that groundskeeper work with them to the maintenance worker level, so it just means that some of the maintenance workers in Rec and Parks are actually doing some work that they ordinarily wouldn't do as maintenance workers. A park superintendent is being eliminated under this plan that's a vacant position. That was actually the city harborist. Senior maintenance workers also being eliminated. This will result in increased reliance on contractual services, specifically tree trimming, and then admin secretary was also eliminated under this, and part of that was that the department went to auto attendance, so phone service is a little bit, it's not the even touch anymore. Transportation Public Works offered 10 full-time equivalent positions for reductions, and I think this is something that they had been anticipating for quite some time just for cuts overall within the general fund budget. So I think most of these positions are vacancies. A deputy director was part of the plan, and this will be absorbed with the consolidation that'll occur with OCE and Parks maintenance. There's also skilled maintenance worker, so what that leads to is elimination of hours for special events, and particularly the banner program downtown. There were also a number of civil engineering techs, three of those that were eliminated, and that means the survey crews dropped from three to two, something that Director Nutt thinks is doable. There's also a senior admin assistant that was eliminated, city surveyor, another senior maintenance worker that addressed roadside and roadway conditions, street crew supervisor, and civil engineer tech two in the traffic division. So that is the proposals for the reductions. 39.25 reductions resulting about $5 million in cuts if the city council is amenable. Thank you. Council questions, Mr. Eisenhower. Thank you, Mr. McBride. I'm actually going to jump forward in the presentation just for the question, but if you'd go to slide 56, please. So like I said, I know you'll get here to explain it, but I think when we talk about some of the positions that are being put back in at the moment from our previous discussion and then knowing that this slide is coming up in our discussion, are the cuts, are some of the positions that we are potentially saving from our previous hiring freeze likely to still have to be eliminated next year or the following year to hit a sustainable point? So if I'm understanding your question, Vice Mayor, first of all, the cuts that we're talking about here, the $5 million in frozen positions, these are not included in this. The expenditure shown here on that orange line don't include those cuts. Long term, we showed you a $12 million deficit. We have some additional revenues from the TEF or the new measure O coming in. These cuts help to bridge that $12 million gap, but I think what you're asking me is if this is all the cuts and I don't think these are, I think we're going to have to, I know we're going to have to go back and look at departments and see strategically long range what we can cut to structurally fix this budget deficit. So I don't think we can guarantee that we won't be looking at some of these positions. There are always attrition models that are out there as well. So as we go through this conversation, there will probably be openings. Part of the realignment is to get us into these types of conversations about the long-term issuance of these positions. There was concern about not moving forward on some of these areas, and so that's what the staff went back and said, where can we move forward? We know we're going to have to have other conversations in the future. We haven't wrestled with the staffing study yet for the fire department. That's going to be its own conversation when that ripens. This allows us to advance these areas, but at the same time, with the realignment and the question, we are going to be in this conversation for the next few years, and there's going to be some difficult conversations about service levels. What's the right choice? Realigning allows us to take some initial hits. The five million gets us to a good starting point, so we're not spending beyond our means. In fact, we're actually starting to recruit some savings and gives us some flexibility to take this longer pathway. I think the council just has to realize that this is going to be an ongoing conversation for years. We're not going to take the structural deficit out today. We've got revenue questions at the same time, but conceivably on that list are positions that may not be the final position of that person. When we get into any exercises, obviously, we're always going to try to find a place for someone to land within the organization, but I can't promise that we won't be looking at some of these positions next year. With that in mind, we're hiring some positions as limited term, not as full term positions, because then we can find as we go through and we get a better run, more efficient organization, a good place to place those individuals within the organization. You're hitting it. It's really two questions. The first is, does this get us sustainable for now? The answer is yes. The other question is, does this make a sustainable long term? I'm hearing no. Then I guess the third question is, does this make a sustainable long term without the emergency measure that the voters approved? That's an absolutely not. That would be correct. What I'm hearing is that this gets us through this year, but we still have, we still have to figure out $10 million worth of reductions over the course of the next five years to make sure that we keep the promise to voters to get rid of the emergency measure. And to your point, Council Member, this is actually, we're actually asking to take a cut this year. I think that was the point that we can, there's some additional one-time revenues that would come out of that cut that then we can apply to some urgent one-time needs that are coming through. Either that's through the asset infrastructure conversation or frankly our local match requirements. Yeah, I get that. And I do appreciate having talked with Mr. McBride, understanding that he treats the new measure as one-time funding that happens to come in for five years instead of just trying to build the budget around that. I do appreciate that. If you could talk a little bit about the cannabis positions, I know you mentioned that there are quite a few projects that are in the pipeline. Have we been able to develop sort of the sweet spot between putting resources in to get them up and running and understanding what to expect from tax revenue coming in? Because this is an area that the Council has talked quite a bit about where upfront investment might have an opportunity to long-term help us with our budget situation. And as you can see, Mr. Gouin's coming down to answer that question. Good afternoon, David Gouin, Director of Planning and Economic Development. Good morning, sorry. The question about staffing and front loading is a good one right now because we haven't seen the revenue come in and we based those positions off that revenue coming in to support them. We've been using existing planning staff to do that work. So as you could imagine, we have all sorts of projects, housing projects, business projects, hotels, other things coming in and cannabis. So we're using the staff we have and any additional revenue that we can see come in through permit fees and putting that towards consultants and existing staff to try to get this work done. But we know it does add to the mix and it does add to the overall volume of work that's coming through that department. But we're doing it with consultants and staff that we have currently available. Okay. And then Mr. McBride, well I guess this is also City Manager. One of the programs you mentioned was graffiti abatement. I'm going to use that as an example. In the Open Government Task Force report, one of the recommendations was for the City to figure out a way to utilize volunteers throughout the community, both from a community and cost-saving perspective. Graffiti abatement again sounds like one of those things where if we invested a little bit of time in developing the volunteer apparatus that we would be able to continue to deliver those services without. Have we looked into that at all? Well I think what you're seeing is an understanding that we're going to need to address the problems in different ways and again part of the realignment conversation comes with some of these questions like what are we actually able to do? I mean part of this is that some of these services have been split between three departments and it's been a hodgepodge approach to this. We really need to understand what the issue is and again are there innovative solutions to getting to the finish line? Is there a third party we might be not for profit we might be able to work with? I don't know. I think that those are all legitimate questions and things that we can now in this new way of operating actually begin to answer some of those questions more fully. So I think that's our goal. You're going to see in specific budget presentations the ramping up of some community-oriented positions, especially a limited term position in the fire department that's exactly around building community conversations, COPs, but also working with businesses so that they've got evacuation plans and general community education. We have longer term event horizon with that position as it relates to the JPA I referenced yesterday and hopefully that'll be stood up and some of those responsibilities might be folded under a regional umbrella and so they were all speaking the same language that's one of the challenges right now, but so we're thinking in those sort of stepping stone terms, but back to that question that's exactly some of the things that we want to be able to answer. Where is volunteer power that we could use to address some of these needs or are there other avenues where we can contract with local agencies to get to the finish line on some of these issues? Yeah, I appreciate that. I know that there is some of that happening. We signed up for a softball team, went through the Rec and Parks softball program and they put out the call for volunteers to come and help maintain the playing surfaces and they did that. I think it was last weekend that they had folks come out there, but then I also know community groups are already trying to do this as well. I know that the West End neighbourhood is doing a Bachi court cleanup this weekend because they want to use the courts and they're not properly maintained. So I do see that there's capacity for us to do that. It would be helpful if we would engage with those groups and be a part of it. Other questions? Ms. Combs? Thank you. And I think this might involve Director Gouin again so you may want to not jump out of that hot seat. It may be that it's transportation and public works, but I think it's been shifted. So I'm looking at the data we received yesterday on parks and recreation and that data from the National Recreation and Park Association effectiveness ratios indicated that our FTEs for parks is at 4.3 where the national average is at 10.5. We have what $50 million of deferred maintenance within our park system. I am looking at that. Four park workers are roughly equal to two police officers in our budget. And I didn't receive data yesterday on how significantly under staffed our police department was. And I'm willing to believe everyone is stretched. But I'm betting the police department is not working at half of the national average. And I'm trying to figure out. And I appreciate that there are many conversations about what core services are and what they mean. But I think that we're really missing something if we don't recognize that having people doing maintenance in our parks, our eyes on the park are providing deterrence to crime, are helping us to maintain our parks. So I'm keenly aware of having had this conversation a long time, being really pleased that we got park workers funded and then they were not filled. Well, there was a lot of positions frozen in the budget. I don't want to isolate parks, but as you saw yesterday, also councilmember, we have a deficiency across our public works portfolio in terms of the number of people that should be servicing even our facilities versus what's a requirement. It's significantly documented with regard to parks and we continue to cut parks. We've been the first one to point to that issue. I think the thing that I'm going to let Kelly and Jason respond to maybe some short-term and long-term conversations, but remind council that unfortunately we're going to be engaging in a conversation about additional resource, specifically for parks. We have some hurdles to go through and some verification on how that resource, but remember there is measure M coming up into the summer. So why would we cut positions now that are not filled when we have measure M funds coming? Because we are trying to figure out how to do those positions, but I'm just putting it out there that we are going to have another conversation in the summer, but we have to make cuts somewhere. And again, so what we will need if we're not going to take the cuts here is where would be an acceptable place to take those additional reductions? Well, I think I just said instead of putting back two police officers, I think it may make sense for us to support our parks department and I appreciate that that is an incredibly difficult decision to make politically, but it is also likely in the long run to cause a reduction in the need for the police officers because we will have effective parks programs that are a deterrent and to have eyes in the parks. It's a cheaper method of solving a problem in our parks. So I'm just going to jump in quickly and talk about measure M. One of the challenges we have is we need to be able to do strategic investment. The measure specifically states we can't supplant for positions. That doesn't mean we can't repurpose positions with a new strategic investment that furthers the cause of park maintenance and park management. So those are the things that we're going to be discussing among the group and bringing back to council is how can we develop potentially a targeted or different program where it may incorporate additional staff members or it may incorporate different products that we're going to be implementing in the parks? I will say if we're going to attract people to our community, businesses, et cetera, we really need to have that quality of life factor there. This is a piece of economic development as well. So we have a safety element. We have an economic development element. Our parks do tremendous things for our community, and we keep not putting personnel there. Again, all I can say as part of the realignment is to actually have us support each other mutually. Unfortunately, we were in conversations. We still remain in conversations about who's, for lack of a better term, turf a particular item is. And unfortunately, we can't have that conversation move forward. We've got to collapse our resources. We are actually saving money by doing this because the positions are not filled and have not been filled for some time. So I'm trying to figure out why we're taking it as a cost savings when in fact we're not spending that money. And I'm hearing you say that there will be some positions that will be doing some of these when the new monies are coming in. I think that's what I heard. And we're going through a realignment. So then we just come back and do the paperwork all over again to re-establish these positions. Councilmember, we can't, you know, we won't necessarily be as, as you heard the Jason say, we're not going to be establishing the same position. We're going to be looking at a new way of doing business. I'd just like to clarify too. I'm sorry, Councilmember, go ahead. I guess part of what I also would like to have made clear is when we're in the process of shifting something from being in-house that we provide and when we're making the shift to contracting out services. So if the, I guess I want to make clear each of the steps on the way through when we're making a decision that instead of having employees, we're contracting the service out, is this a position, set of positions where the plan is to contract services instead? I'm just asking that because I want to keep that in my mind also. There's a tendency when we talk about 21st century models to talk about contracting out instead of keeping it in-house. So I just want to make sure I understand that too. Hi, I'll try to jump in here. Kelly Magnuson. Thank you, Kelly. Interim Recreation and Parks Director. A couple things. Just to clarify, we have six vacant groundskeeper positions we are going to be filling two of them this summer. We also have a plan to help out. We have a recruitment going on for a seasonal worker park aid position and we're hiring several of those right now to fill in. We also have a program we're going to be working on to hire more permit monitors. Those are seasonal folks that will be out helping with event monitoring, sports field monitoring, picnic area monitoring. It is difficult to hire seasonal people at that level, but we do have some and we want to expand that program a little bit. The six groundskeepers that were hired when those positions were created several years ago. Let's see, four or all six of them were promoted to maintenance worker, which created the six vacancies. So the four vacancies are what is on the board to be eliminated today, but we do have some plans to help fill in those blanks and I'm not saying it's not going to hurt us, but we're trying to expand. We're trying to partner with volunteer groups and I understand that and very much appreciate it. I'm excited to hear that we're hiring in the fire department so that we can expand that kind of volunteer coordination in the fire department. So I'm not, I'm not, I'm liking that. I'm just, perhaps it would help me if we had a conversation at some point in the future with regard to what our goals are for staffing in the parks department in a way that recognizes the needs of the parks department and the desire of our community to have a well-functioning parks department. We seem to regularly have conversations about the parks department that involve the elimination of services and I appreciate that some members may, some members of the public may think that it's not a core function, but I view it as a core function within our community. And we absolutely want to get into those conversations, not just for Rec and Parks, but for the entire organization. So yes, we will be back with that conversation. Okay, I mean in our general plan we have very specific policies and goals about how many parks per thousand people within the city, but we don't have as a standard process or standard threshold for how many employees we have in order to maintain those parks. And so that's what continues to fluctuate and without having a standard to be able to target and to say that that's what we're going to go towards, it makes it very difficult for us to not incorporate cuts like this into our proposed ward. The 4.3 FTEs where the national average is 10.5 per 10,000 is a shocking number. And it means that the folks who are doing our parks work now are doing amazing job. I mean they're doing more than twice the load. And I would also say that's part of the reference that you saw yesterday. You know, we need to assess these assets too. That's one of the first things we want to do with the new resources so that we get a real understanding of what it's going to take to maintain these assets and what the strategies are moving forward. We have to do a better job understanding what we own and how we're going to manage it. I am, as I sit here now, still listening, understanding the need to cut possibly four FTEs there. I'm not understanding the need to cut eight. So I don't think you need to answer. I'm telling you that personally I would not be willing to cut eight FTEs there. I'm just to add in, I will say that there are a couple of positions that the consolidation of park maintenance and street maintenance, we're actually able to cover a number of a couple of those vacancies. It's the groundskeeper positions that are the hardest to cover. And they're very inexpensive positions relative to a lot of other positions within our budget. So we get a lot of bang for our buck when we have somebody who's in the park doing maintenance work and keeping an eye on how it's going, getting to know who stays in the park and who doesn't and who's new and who isn't and who causes trouble and who doesn't. I know that our park maintenance workers do that and I consider that very helpful. Thank you. I think I made my point but I mean I get my way but I can make my point. Thank you. Other questions? Ms. Fleming? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So my questions are around being strategic in terms of how we we do and don't cut these programs. What I'm trying to figure out here, specifically on cannabis and permitting with both legal and yeah probably back over here. So are we having situations where people are applying for permitting and they're being held up in any way because we haven't filled that staff position either on the legal side or on the pet side? So Councillor Fleming, the the shorter answer to that is that things are moving forward probably not as fast as individuals are hoping. We to Vice Mayor's point it's a front in investment that we're having to make and what we're doing right now is utilizing fees that come in for people to do that work trying to access those fees put that money to consultants or existing staff to get that project moving. It is not moving as quick as possible because we don't have additional staff to move it through. We just for example yesterday we open up the doors or Monday we open up the doors for retail again and we received I think 24 new applications that are coming in over the next few months so we have to schedule and get them moving. So that's another body of work that we're having to manage with existing staff on top of everything else so it will slow things down but we're again we're trying to utilize that fee revenue to put towards consultants to help us move that forward as fast as we possibly can. Right so what I'm wondering here is are we going to are the revenue projections that Director McBride provided us with going forward are they downwardly adjusted in large part because we are not fully funding this service and further you know are we signaling to our business community that we're going to change course on something that we had made a priority to invest in and then we change that and and it takes a long time to hire planners and hire good attorney good legal staff so you know it seems awfully early in the process to be changing course. Yeah I think it's a combination of two things on the delay one is the industry itself is struggling getting through both the state and local permitting process using and learning the process we're also finding that it's been a learning experience for some of the cannabis industry to implement and actually go through the building permit process in the way that most businesses do we've streamlined that quite a bit we're to the point now we're holding because of our staffing levels we're holding pre-application meetings with individuals and actually doing one almost over-the-counter permit review with some of the retail sites to try to make sure that that we're utilizing our staff the best way possible but also expecting that people are coming in with good work so it's we're trying to utilize the best we can we understand the the revenue projections are not going to be realized until those businesses are up and operating and so we recognize that we're trying to get them moving as quick as possible once they get the approval from the planning commission any appeals and get them up and go in as quick as possible and then my additional concern is about freezing or eliminating unfilled vacancies both in your department and in the city attorney's department about how long does it take i've had the pleasure of working with a number of staff in in both departments and they're clearly very professional and hard to come by staff at that level about how long does it take to fill one of those positions for a for a planning position we see it takes it's a good three to six months by time we can find somebody and get them up and running and i would say a similar time frame probably on the more in the six month time frame for engaging an attorney they often have to appropriately give extended notice to their current employer so and again then you're talking about learning curves once often once folks get in the job if council wants us to go back and look how we can do short-term injections part of the reason we've we've we've worked the way we have is to be reflexive to the to the business needs we'd be willing to go back and look to do some additional work with consulting services because that again that's why we structured this department the way we did when when i got here the department was on life support quite frankly i didn't understand it i was asking the similar questions you were council member but you always have to you have to ride these ebbs and flows the the industry tells us that we're going to be rolling in in money around the state i will say that those those projections are not as as realized as folks do for a lot of the conversations that that you heard from the director so but what i think we can be willing to do is when we come back in the final plan is look how we make sure that there's an additional resource free if council so desires of one-time investment to to to make sure we're getting over this particular particular hurdle so if that's the desire and and the that's a general desire from the body we can look at that part of the conversation and that would be i think staff's recommendation because that is actually what made us successful to respond to business needs what it is it's sort of understanding as the director as director guin said we're trying to track where that business is coming in that's why we went back out and did another study with with the consulting firm to try to better understand what's going on the state what's going on locally so we can revise those projection but hearing the concern if that's the council's desire we'll come back in the final budget with some proposed contract services so we can get that work going right now and to follow up on that in your mind our contract service is the only way to manage this this need this is the way this department has been successful to have a core group of team and then we contract out as we see business bumps come up so it can deal with it without taking on the long-term liabilities associated with certain permanent staff right my concern about that is that you know we have really great in-house staff and we have some great consultants who are able to help us and this seems to be a fairly i understand that it may be a temporary thing but it's also a fairly sensitive thing and to get it done right and to work out some of the structural issues is very important so i'm wondering but but i think the counter is what you heard is by the time we would hire that staff and get them up to speed we were talking could be six nine months which i think the issue that folks are facing are the critical now wanting to jump start with 20 new businesses coming in the door our quickest way to do that and then evaluate to see if we need to do something more permanent and we can get those revenues to rise is to contract for that service meet the immediate need and then do an assessment after that to see what we need to do long term if those funds are are sustainable and i do appreciate the the notion of us being nimble and flexible and able to respond to business and industry in a way that doesn't encumber us in the long run but i do want to express my support and appreciation for our city staff and the work that they do and that you know my desire is to long term invest in people who are with our organization and have the protections there and as well as provide predictability for all of our industries thank you any other questions i just asked some comments just as um hearing what my colleagues are saying this is the third time we've had this conversation i've got one question for you Dave just to agree from um it's the third time we've had these discussions and having been on that side of the table when we have to do cuts you know the subject matter experts of staff capacity are the folks who presented this and going back even if one of our goals was you know let's make what's going on in room six let's say we want that for the rest of the community from now on i'm guessing one of the responses would be that we need to hire fill in the number of personnel that we would need there which i'm guessing from our cfo would say that's in conflict with the financial stability that is a tier one priority for us so it's that constant balance and again this is the third time and i'm just very hesitant you know i'm appreciative of what you've done in support of you took heard some feedback and after i think our second session made these adjustments you presented it to us here um and i'm just very cautious to say start tweaking it some more because looking at the system as a whole you were the subject matter experts who are saying this is what we think we can do like what director nut said about yeah we're combining different departments unless you're actually in the weeds knowing how they're doing it they know what they're talking about and just being supportive of that and i'm just very cautious as we move through this if we start do a position here put priority on this department versus this department it's a tough position to be in so my one question for you mr groen was with the cannabis retail open door i think that started monday right does that door close soon and is it the can you share with me the capacity of your department with this unknown so the decision was to open the door and and not close it so at this point we've we've eliminated the competition element of what we've seen in the past at this point we saw a immediate rush of individuals that want to get into identify sites because once the site's been identified that establishes the buffer that establishes how many can go in in that area so what we're probably going to see is a normalization of these permits over time that's the whole open goal of opening the doors and not closing them again is this will normalize and we'll start to see a normal flow as business opens and closes like a typical process so we think that this initial rush will obviously take resources and staff time we're working through all of our planners to try to give every planner a little bit so we don't take over all one planner completely but over time we're going to have to figure out our staffing model but realistically what will happen is that business will fall in line with all the rest of the businesses a restaurant a grocery store a hotel anything else will it'll be in line when it comes in the door you know work through the system just like any other permit okay and then just for the city manager's process wise because i know east of the department has and everyone in the city is trying to anticipate the future so we have extender dollars we need cut for our financial stability slide 56 shows you know the deficit increasing what role does a mid-year budget adjustments play in what if we got a little bit wrong with predicting the future well i think we've we've established a track record that we do come back we've had that several times where there have been significant variances in the mid-year and we've brought back for council consideration what to do about that i think if we're seeing significant variances in the pro we're going to be coming back to say this is how you deal with your structural issues quite honestly if we're seeing in the negative we might be resetting right now it's unknown there's some anxiety about the general economic forecast i i share that anxiety because it seems like in dc there's a change a minute of going on and what's what what what's going to be the local driver so i i you know if we're seeing significant um um slippage in sales tax that would be one of the reasons we'd be back in front of this council asking for a revision of current expectations and that would also go to from the actual operations if whether it be police fire wrecking park any of those departments if the impacts are unacceptable from a staff or community perspective you come back maybe absolutely and say here's the adjustments we're recommending absolutely okay great thank you mr. McBride if you continue slide 46 i think yeah and i would just like to um to add to this discussion a little bit one of the things that we've been examining particularly with planning economic development is ways that we have at during the year to actually expand their budgets if we need to because they they kind of some of their revenue sources are really up and down depending on what's going on with permitting and building and all that kind of stuff so um we're we're exploring a model if we can if we can write into the budget resolution this year where we can actually um increase their contractual services uh if we have increases in in those in those kind of revenue sources so that's that's one of the things we're looking at to give them some relief in that area thank you mr. mayor i think i've asked a couple of times maybe more subtly not maybe as outright as i'm asking this time that uh we get a staffing that shows the peaks and balances and what the appropriate staffing level would be so that we understand what percentage or how many or how much we need to spend i appreciate that those are widely varying cycles but i know mathematically that you know i keep saying root mean square as if it means something to anybody um it it's possible to predict a little bit how much staffing is a is a good staffing level within the context of a varying set of requests and we don't ever get that information from you and i appreciate one of my my the the mayor's comments that you all are the subject matter experts and we should trust you um my concern is that you are under a great deal of pressure to show reductions because we have this problem and we're in the position of needing to understand how much the service will be diminished by the reduction and that information does not typically come with the packet we get so we aren't able to balance service reduction with staffing reductions because we aren't given the quality of service reduction so without understanding the quality of service reduction we're left questioning what your decisions are and i appreciate that we should trust you but our job is to be representative of our community and its needs and wants often we need and want things we can't afford but we have to represent that to you and uh i appreciate the hard work this is for all of us on both sides of the table um but i do want to receive at least from the planning department an understanding of at what point are we hiring somebody instead of continuing to contract it out and what is the service level reduction that we're going to experience in this department in the parks department you know have we experienced a service reduction in other departments are we fully staffed in other departments are we increasing feels like we're increasing staffing in departments that already have in many ways re met their 2008 staffing cuts have been returned whole and yet we are continuing to reduce departments that did not meet their 2008 and i understand that 2008 is gone we have created a new model of uh how the city is going to move that 2008 is maybe not a good measure anymore but i'm not understanding when is a department staff to provide the services at the service level we anticipate and i'm not seeing that data here so that's causing me difficulty and i appreciate uh i appreciate that this is very hard work to do i think i've suggested not just today but in the previous two times this came before us that it bothered me that we were continuing to cut parks so be that as it may i i can count thanks so i hear you i will say that that would be a to do that kind of quantification and tracking would be a major workload in of itself and i will say this team and this team when i say this team i mean from every level the organization is constantly MacGyvering their way into solution sets to try to provide service levels that the community finds acceptable but it is a challenge to answer that question when we are constantly trying to perform a level of task that would require a level of analysis some organizations do invest in that but that's a discrete team doing that sort of measurement work and so if council wants that we're going to have to invest in that work to do that work mr mr mayor uh if if i may i just want to make a couple comments as well uh i came out of the council in 2008 uh and i don't think i've ever i've gone through a process of the budget process where it was fun and exciting uh i came in during the recession uh council member Sawyer has been on much longer and i don't know if he recalls any time when it was really a lot of fun there might have been times in the past where we were able to pass budgets where we were able to have things that were nice to have not necessarily just things we absolutely needed i remember those days as an employee but having uh lived and survived through the recession and remembering that we made significant cuts back then to make things work and i know that departments have been busting their butts to make things work ever since uh so i think we need to put that in perspective that we've already gone through a lot of cuts and we've made we've done a lot of retooling of the organization as well to try to meet the needs um and there's we always seem to be having a problem that we can't avoid and and we continue with that whether it's a fire or whatever the case may be and these these cuts and the budgets will continue to be difficult and i think we need to appreciate that but i think we need to i i guess my point is putting things in perspective as to where we've been and where we're heading it's hard to predict what's going to happen next uh hopefully someday we'll be back on our feet we have uh local tax measures that are helping us to get by you know we we have to have those to be able to get by and try to close some gaps but it's it's not going to be easy uh so again i just want to put that in perspective that they have already been a lot of cuts have been made um and and sacrifices but the workload continues it's still a heavy workload on our staff and i think we need to appreciate the staff that is doing that and i too appreciate the work that our departments are doing as far as being those subject matter experts in some of these things there does have to be some level of trust in there too uh i don't see a big raid here trying to overtake uh major budgets from different departments because we have significant needs whether they're public safety the things we're doing as as relates to our council goals uh but i just again my point is as we move forward today and maybe beyond is to put things in perspective where we where we've been where we are and of course hopefully where we could be someday but it's going to be uh there's still a long haul to get there thank you all right now we'll move into an overview of the proposed budget for the city so here you see a revenue breakdown by fund on the top there's general fund revenues and we've actually seen a big change 18.9 million dollars in revenues for 1920 and remember we kind of discussed this at the april workshop some of that is ongoing revenues that we've added back in so we cut about five million dollars out of the previous budget thinking that we'd see big downturns and those major revenue sources from the fires those didn't materialize us those revenue sources are actually still pretty pretty stable uh and then we continue to have some one-time monies coming in so um so general fund revenues are are up about 11 percent the enterprise funds um that includes everything from uh water to storm water wastewater uh the golf fund is in there um the parking department is is in there also and revenue sources there are also up about 5 percent um special revenue funds went up by 4.2 million dollars or 17.5 percent so um part of that increase of the 4.2 million dollars there's that additional 1.9 million dollars that we're getting from the new measure m for parks also includes the old measure m for streets and then measure o again the the old measure o uh that uh that is for um fire police and and vpp housing authority has gone up uh markedly 7.4 million dollars about 22 percent increase and we'll talk about that with their departmental budget but a lot of that's due to hud section eight they've seen them it's seen about 25 percent increase there so that's gone up on the revenue side and then the successor agency to the rda that's just the wind up of our uh formal redevelopment agency we're still um have debt service on on two bonds outstanding so we're receiving money from the from the successor agency and we're we're servicing those two bond issues and I think uh I think the last of those bond issues will mature in 2034 so we still have a number of years um on the wind up uh expenditures by fund type uh general fund expenditures have gone up 5 million dollars or 3.1 percent in this budget um again that does not include the discussion on the cuts that we just had um that's just kind of a status quo budget a lot of that as you would imagine we have two and a half percent colas that were were built into that um per the mo use so that's a lot of what's driving that 5.2 million dollar increase uh enterprise on the operating side uh expenses are almost flat at 1.7 percent um the cips cap improvement programs for the enterprises are down 40 million dollars or 56 percent a lot of that is um because we did not have the large uh cleanup project or the cleanup project for water um the elimination of those uh those toxins wasn't as expensive as we'd anticipated in the budget non-enterprise cip cap improvement program uh that's up by five and a half million dollars i'm not going to go into that detail now because at the end of the day uh director nuts going to give you a presentation on the cap improvement program so we'll talk to that and detail at that point uh special revenue funds those ones that we mentioned um pretty much flat 3.4 percent and again a lot of that is staff time that that is uh that is where you see that two and a half percent colas increase um and then we have other other funds uh the other funds are mostly debt service we have debt service in there and then we have the special assessment district and that's in there comprise those funds so those are almost totally flat uh housing authority is up by 10.4 percent or i'm sorry 10.4 million dollars or 31 percent uh and again that's that's mostly due to the to the increase that they've seen in section eight and then the successor agency the rda is is just a wind-up fund so that's flat so this is how it breaks out um pictorially so you got 431.4 million total expenditures uh um you've got that split out uh fires 11 percent uh housing community services 11 percent police is 15 percent of that city-wide budget waters 33 percent those are really the big ones administration there's eight percent we kind of glob together a lot of things um like uh city council city manager's office uh oc the attorneys finance hr into that uh into that category and then um non-departmental is kind of those things it's it's a very small portion of budget but those are kind of the things that we can't fit into any department so they're things like our contract with the animal shelter or we pay the county admin fees for administration of our property taxes so those go into that category so now we'll start breaking down into the general fund which is really our focus for today um so by category uh you can see what the differences are here first of all property tax um came in very strong last year uh when we met with you in april we revised our estimates and we taken those up markedly um however uh part of that was about two million dollars we got in two years of backfill for property tax so taking out that one time source that's why you see a little bit of a drop of one million dollars next year because we don't anticipate getting that one time source again uh sales tax um that's going up by 8.2 million dollars again a lot of that is due to the uh te for the new measure o so we didn't have that before so that's built into the budget now um but uh sales tax is one of those ones that we talked about yesterday with the reserves it's a more volatile source we are seeing with our last meeting with muni services some um some market downturns in new auto sales so we're keeping an eye on sales tax that probably i'm anticipating won't be as strong going forward especially if we hit an economic downturn utility users tax is pretty much stable that's one of the ones that we took down by a million dollars in anticipation of lost revenues from the fire that didn't materialize uh the ut saved uh almost identical to what it was so we're just anticipating that continues that trend next year uh vehicle license fees are staying um are staying uh totally stable other taxes is a mix one of those things being transient occupancy tax tot we expect that to to uh remain strong in the coming year we've also got the real property transfer tax that's built into there of uh four million dollars and business taxes of about four and a half million dollars in that other tax category permits fines and charges you see that's going down by about six point two million um and a lot of that uh was kind of uh i think one time activity related to fire rebuilds so we anticipate that that'll start slowing down a little bit in the coming year and and bring that down by about 30 percent and then the um interfund charges are uh are is comprised of a bunch of things a lot of that when you see the departmental budgets you're going to see this general fund admin fee that's charged to them so that's for some of the services that we do like payroll that we that we through the through the cost allocation plan we charge out to these different departments some of that also is real charges like utility billing so my department does utility billing but that function is actually done for uh water wastewater water utilities so we actually um we actually charge those uh charge those funds for that service uh recreation revenues are pretty much totally stable uh if you factor in that 2.5 percent coal other um the 2.9 percent that's really flat line and then intergovernmental governmental interest another a lot of that decrease that you see is because we got one time funds in last year from FEMA um so uh we don't expect those one time funds again at least just going into the general fund they may be earmarked for for other purposes and again just breaking this down graphically the revenues by category for the general fund we plan to anticipate taking in 1.178.7 million dollars um big chunk of that uh 16 percent comes from property tax which which is kind of unique about the city of Santa Rosa I think is is we actually taking more 35 percent of our revenues from sales tax um which is our which is uh which is unusual um and good that it gives us a lot of diversification uh utility user tax about six percent this vehicle license fee is about eight percent um recreation revenues about two percent interfund charges that we talked about about eight percent permits fines and charges about eight percent so general fund expenditures by department we're going to start um delving into the departments now uh administration again we kind of uh uh conglomerated city council city manager's office O.C.C. attorney's human resource and finance per the note at the bottom there um those are those are uh expenditures staying relatively flat just $100,000 increase in those uh housing community services uh is going up by about 10.5 percent um and again this is just the general fund portion of housing community services they also have the housing authority fund so that's just a small portion of their budget uh the fire budget is um anticipated to go by three million dollars um and about seven and a half percent so again if council remembers in this last year we uh we uh negotiated with fire on a contract that expired in 17 years so there was some base building as part of those negotiations so that's why you see that large seven and a half percent increase there that's primarily in in salaries compensation planning economic development uh relatively flat at four percent police are very flat at 1.5 percent uh wrecking parks again flat $100,000 increase very small increase in wrecking parks uh and and just to kind of reiterate as we've gone through this budget process this year the departments were asked to hold budgets uh as flat as they could while we kind of wrestled with this structural deficit problem and and departments have been very good about doing that uh water uh $100,000 again that's the stormwater portion that's just a general for portion general fund portion of water and then non-departmental uh is down by about $300,000 so again graphic depiction of the expenditures in general fund uh 174.9 million dollars um as as you would imagine uh fire and police are are are the ponderance of that 23 percent per fire 32 percent per police for a safety services uh PEDs and about eight percent uh housing community services just that general fund portion of housing community services about one percent administration those departments that we lumped together that we mentioned are 12 percent um and then uh wrecking parks at 9 percent and TPW uh at 12 percent general fund this is this is kind of a another lens to look at the way we break down that general fund budget of 175 million dollars so as you can imagine there's top two categories there salaries and benefits uh the salaries as I mentioned mostly is due to that two and a half percent coal increase um just one thing I point out there you know we we've had discussions on on how to cut the budget we always come back to discussing mostly salaries and benefits and you know right now uh CalPERS unfunded liabilities is a big portion of that but if you put together those two top lines there in the general fund salaries and benefits that's 80 percent of our entire general fund budget which is um which is high so if you're looking to cut budgets those are the categories where we where we really have to look professional services uh up about 300 thousand dollars um that vehicle expenses that's the charges that we get from our fleet uh there's a relatively flat at four percent and we'll talk about those when we when we get into TPW's departmental budget operational supplies are flat utilities are flat information technology um is is that uh internal service fund charges out to all the departments for all of your computer needs software needs uh and that's actually gone down by a hundred thousand dollars uh however that says you're going to see within the departmental budget it varies department to department most departments have seen decreases but some departments specifically city council have seen some increases in their information technology charges why building property charges are just a portion that the departments pay specifically for their property insurance or how that's allocated out to them for property that they own uh and then capital outweigh there's usually one time outweighs that we do within the operating budget and those are as you would expect uh flat or down a little bit uh cip and on m projects we'll get into when we get into the capital improvement program budgets so now kind of moving into the forecast um we showed this to council when we met with you in april so um this is a picture that you've seen frequently uh the way that it's changed from last year the starting point is better i think we were starting this year with an 18 million dollar deficit when we came to council last year now we have a 1.8 million dollar deficit um so that's that's good um however the trajectory of these lines is not good that's the that's this is this is the crux of the problem that we're trying to solve with the structural deficit i should also add that um as the vice mayor brought up before the 5 million dollars in fte cuts that we discussed for the journal fund are not factored into this um what is factored into this on the revenue side is the new te for measure o funds at 10 million dollars that's built in here so if you take that out you really have that's where we get to that 12 million dollar deficit if you pull that 10 million dollars out um so right now we're we're kind of treating that for purposes here of an ongoing revenue source um which may not be a uh be an accurate surmise all of that um we don't we don't take into account any economic downturns in this so this this picture uh could could look worse um and then we have funding sources that expires the city manager alluded to in 2024 2025 uh the the old measure o um will go away and that's actually has fte costs associated with that in police and fire and if if that is not um uh if we don't get an extension of that then that's going to be an additional cost that we're going to have to deal with here that's not covered by that revenue source so um i hate to be doom and gloom but i always am but we're we're facing a lot of challenges that uh that aren't necessarily represented in even this bad graph so general fund baseline calculations uh this is for the measure o calculations um so as you can see uh police is um is just over their baseline the 60 million dollars is the baseline calculation at 34 percent there's 60.2 million dollars uh fires over their baseline um by 1.6 million dollars uh the violence prevention is actually under the baseline by 61 thousand dollars however again this um this does not bring bring into account those cuts we make if we take uh even a preponderance of the cuts that we're proposing that will bring down the general fund budget and that will also bring down the baseline for violence prevention so that will bring us um bring us back into compliance with the baseline okay and this is um just a staff summary by department so i won't belabor this uh city attorney as you can see is um is basically stable and you can see that the uh the personnel that have been added over the years since 1516 i also have a graph in here that i think goes back to pre 2007 eight to kind of show you what the city-wide staffing has done over over a number of years cmo is stable uh community engagement stable finance we're giving up three and a half positions we'll talk about that in the in the uh departmental budget these are not the three and a half positions that we talked about in the fte cuts these are positions that were planned for reductions so again we're going to more detail that with that when we talk about my department fires stable um hcs stable human resources stable it is down by two and again it's a little bit unique because we did their budget earlier than the rest of the budgets those proposed to it text that we we proposed cutting the cuts are actually built in here and as part of this plan we're recommending adding one of those back in and water we'll talk about when we talk about the um about their departmental budget they've cut uh five positions i think that were part of of kind of reorganization they did um and this is what your fte staffing summary looks like so we've had council uh asked before when we've met uh where we were prior to the recession you can see that we hit a high point there uh city fte's at 1376 .9 and then we dropped down as we went through the recession we cut cut cut until we got a low point there of 1197.9 then we've we've added back about a hundred positions uh since the absolute low point there in 2011 12 2012 13 i think 20 of those were added back in the last year position changes um in the general fund uh just some additional data for you uh there's one position that was eliminated in the city manager's office as part of this budget um however that was uh that was kind of a strange one we we actually budgeted the fte within the city budget but this is actually work that's done by the county for us for the public safety consortium so we eliminated this position the county is still doing this work but we moved the budget for that work over to the police department so that's now part of their budget long-term meter specialist that's um that's funded by water but is within my department it's part of that utility billing we eliminated that we also eliminated a long-term customer service representative that's funded by water those were planned eliminations we have the uh advanced metering infrastructure the AMI program uh so those positions were vacant and they were they were planned eliminations okay and we'll get into most of these when we talk about the departmental um the departmental budgets uh finance we reduced a parking citation review officer that's a halftime it was just hours so we're eliminating that that's been taken over by one of our parking supervisors that work it technicians we've talked about we're eliminating two of those part of this budget however we we if the cut scenarios adopted part of that cut scenario is adding back when it tech they'll be funded from water and from fire equipment mechanics were reduced in tpw those were vacant positions been vacant for a number number of years and we'll we'll delve into that in the departmental budget water resource tech and water utility supervisor operators two of those in skill maintenance work and water and environmental compliance inspector were eliminated and again those were um were planned eliminations thank you check uh mr. Davis you have a question yeah thank you mayor uh check really quick you know on page 56 you're showing the forecasting in the future if you could add a line to that showing us what that what what happens to that line if we were to make the staff changes the reductions that and the reorganization that you're seeking you know i to me it seems um like it's pretty obvious that if we are going to uphold what we said we were going to do with the temporary funding that making those reductions as hard as it may be is going to be part and parcel to that keeping that promise but i still think that for us and for the public and anybody looking being able to visualize that and understanding the difference it could make is going to really you know give us a well informed decision when it's time to make that decision absolutely and we'll bring that back to council with the adoptive budget on june 18th that that's other questions i'd want to check on slide i think it was 55 where is overtime embedded in this that's in salaries so and when we get to the departments because i had this question for several of the departments um i've always looked at as overtime as a resource that needs to be managed just not you know open when or how would council get the information about how departments are managing their overtime budget because i also recognize that during the cuts there isn't that in previous years that has been a source of cutting that fund how would we see what so we can we can amend that moving forward and we will supply information that's well we'll get we'll take that as a note and and see where we are and being able to supply that information currently great thank you any other questions on this portion okay okay now we'll get into um departmental budgets and i'm going to uh try to walk through all of these um i'm by no means a uh operational expert in every department in the city so we've got all the department directors subject matter experts here that can answer any of your specific questions um we've tried to kind of cold this part of the presentation down a bit um from previous years just because as i said most departments have not made a big additional ask so first we're going to start out with the administrative departments city council community promotions city manager's office city attorney's office human resources finance we'll talk about the non-departmental budget information technology budget um and then uh we'll move into um office of community engagement planning economic development uh recreation parks housing community services fire department police department transportation public works santa rosa water and then finally when we're done with all of that uh we're going to move into the capital improvement program which will be done by uh by director nut so the first first budget is is the city council so you see a four hundred and forty thousand dollar decrease in your budget and professional services and as you would imagine that's because it's a non-election year so uh so we don't have to budget that we did have to budget in the last year uh sixty thousand dollars same comment for that with other miscellaneous was for printing services excuse me so this is a breakdown by major object for the council so you can see that your salaries have stayed stable at seventy two thousand dollars over the previous year you see a line there for non-council member salaries that drops by seventeen thousand dollars or twenty seven percent that's for the for the sworn officers that you have for the council meetings we've we've planned on using less of those in the coming year so that's why you see the drop there council member benefits those have gone up a bit um up by eight point one percent and again uh a lot of that's back to that benefits uh discussion that we had uh health benefits uh go up by six seven percent and then we've got per's cost that have gone up markedly so that's what's driving up those benefit costs non-council member benefits um we see uh a reduction there uh forty three percent and I would imagine a lot of that's because uh instead of using regular time we're using uh we're using overtime uh officer time for that which would bring down that benefits line your professional services as we mentioned have dropped and that's primarily due because it's a primarily due to the fact that it's a non-election year so in election years we have to add in that additional funding uh utilities have stayed stable operational supplies stayed stable uh as I mentioned you are one of the areas where information technology charges the internal service charge has gone up most departments have seen a little bit of a decrease in that uh and kind of looking at the way that cost allocation plan is done it looks like what's happening there is that we're the IT department now is covering a lot more um committee uh in board meetings now uh in the council chambers uh and um and uh broadcasting those so that's what's driving up your cost that's one of the drive one of the drivers for the departments is is how much they spend on that and then other other miscellaneous sixty thousand dollars that was that was those print services that we talked about so overall the council's budget is uh is down by four hundred and thirty three thousand dollars um this is a snapshot of the community promotions funding request um I uh I'll just show this to you I'm not very familiar with the individual requests uh I know that uh council member Sawyer has been uh instrumental in this uh in the past but you can see there what was uh what was requested from these um uh individual uh agencies on the left and then you can see what the recommended funding is within the budget for this year of a hundred and twenty five thousand dollars and I think last year uh that that was actually temporarily bumped up for five thousand dollars uh to accommodate an additional request and then this year we took it back down to a hundred twenty five thousand dollars which is the baseline for that budget I know may may we also know how much was requested overall and not just from the entities that received the funds I'm assuming that there were entities that did not receive any funding that applied and I would have that in my memory we can get that information for you though we have a full recording of that are there other questions on the city council budget from in there so I have questions how was the hundred twenty five k established and how long has that been the amount allocated for community promotions I'm going to defer to council member Sawyer on that one if you know council member I'm sorry American request or repeat the question a hundred twenty five thousand it sounds like it was allocated it seems kind of interesting that that was allocated prior to this budget so we couldn't give feedback about could we maybe increase that and I'm wondering how long has it been at a hundred twenty five k you know it's been quite a while we we increased it a number of years ago but we are having a I'm meeting with staff in the next number of days to discuss some of our challenges with that with this particular with the community promotions funding there are some ongoing challenges that we want to try to clean up we agree that there it is always very frustrating to have to have the limitations but given our our fiscal situation we should put off the the request for more funding what we want to do is to hone the process and to become more accurate for instance if someone asks for city services there seems to be there there is a question as to whether or not some of those services are being adequately tracked and what the what the true cost is so we're looking at creating a a clearer picture as to the actual costs of those requests and we're going to be those those conversations will be had in actually the next few days and we'll be back with a report to the council in as to any substantive changes that we make to this process thank you and then I had a question regarding the it budget with the you mentioned videotape and I know pegs funds are used for that can you tell me how we balance general fund versus peg funds to fund the filming and the it for the city council yeah I don't know if I have the this is just general fund I think we talk about the peg funding within within the it budget but I don't know what the breakdown is how much of that was used for council chambers if that's what you're asking me ma'am well I'm interested who makes that decision it's my understanding there's amounts of money regarding peg funds and is this a relatable expense that we could reduce our general fund obligation if we're doing all the tasks and duties at an outside nonprofit used to do I'm just interested in who makes that decision how how do we balance that yeah and that the peg fund expenditure is part of the is part of the departmental budget so so they ask for funds out of that so I I can't remember whether in the it department I've got that information but we can we can get that if I don't and then is the it also for this does that include all the boards and commissions or laptops and all the it for all of our boards and commissions is included in the city council budget yeah I think all the all the laptops if they're if they're purchased by the city are included in that budget okay thanks miss money yeah thank you um one point of clarification or curiosity here is why are we going down in in police or security services from 64 000 to 47 000 in going next year when the council is concerned about security or I'm concerned about security I think that decision was made based on their actual experience so they they didn't need the amount that they budgeted there so based on what they bought on their actual experience from the last couple of years they took that budget down by that amount we'll do some follow-up on that okay I just want to ask if it has been considered to staff the security services our study sessions so I think we're looking at security there'd been a request holistically I think this line is simply a reflection of actual expenditures versus budgeted line item I think so I think there's two different comments so I think staff looked at what over the last couple years has been expended I think council has asked some other items so we'll look at policy decision this is a snapshot of what's happening it's happening it's a snapshot but I think you're right to raise the point because there is I think some disconnect here and we need to look at that so thank you any other questions please next one okay now we're going to the city manager's office so the city manager highlights they had a large decrease in professional services $500,000 decrease for Ernst and Young for the post-fire recovery efforts so that was part of the discussion we were having earlier so Ernst and Young contract expires in May however there may be an ask as part of this budget actually asked for an additional $300,000 to keep them on for through the summer as we transition a lot of this work to internal staff and then there was also $150,000 increase for lobbying services and we'll get into that here in a moment so this is the city manager's breakdown here salaries are up by 6.4 percent those were primarily due to sorry COLA increases and then we we move the fellowship program from water into the city manager's office so that is is why you see that 6.4 percent increase likewise benefits also went up and a lot of what's driving benefits is is the addition of that position but also just the just the the increases that we're seeing in health UAO and all those kind of things professional services as we talked about our overall down we've got decrease in the Ernst and Young contract but then we've got increases in some other contracts so for general disaster related lobbying we actually added $108,000 and then we added $50,000 for the R3 contract and that's for for the waste management contract sorry and then operational supplies have stayed basically stable the information technology budget for the city manager's office has actually gone down by $28,000 and then other miscellaneous went up by went up by $19,000 and some of that is for advertising and for print services and those are related to the community intergovernmental relations okay questions on city managers Mr. Vice Mayor thank you Mr. McBride for the city manager and the city attorney in their contracts there's built-in cost of living adjustments does this though that hasn't come before the council yet does this proposed budget build that in so with a proposed budget if we didn't know for a general fund employee we built we built in a two and a half oh sorry we we built in a baseline two and a half percent if we didn't know so you're good was that your question miss combs thank you i see the increase for the lobbyists which may may be fully appropriate i'm not questioning that we need to increase our lobbyist funds at this point but i'm unaware in the last year or so of having gotten reports back from our lobbyists about things we need to be kept apprised of and so i'm wondering if the contract for lobbyist services will improve their communication with our council so i think it's a good point and we're that's part of what we're working on on the restructuring of the pio the pio intergovernmental because that is a key conduit to that information and that's going to come with this reorganization you will get much more direct notice thank you any other questions on city manager's office all right thank you okay now we'll move on to the city attorney it's another relatively small budget within the general fund uh so salaries in the city attorney's office um we're up a little bit by three percent again that's pretty much in line with that with that coal increase to two and a half percent benefits uh at 12 percent increase is is again the the almost identical thing that you're seeing across the departments uh due to those those factors that we talked about earlier utilities it looks like it's up by 66 percent but that's a very small dollar amount to begin with so it's only an 800 dollar increase and then where you see operational supplies other miscellaneous that's just the city manager is is moving money between keys not really increasing their budget much so their overall budget goes up by five percent but almost all of that is due to the salary and benefits lines um and then you see uh you see uh cip and and on m projects and that's that's where the city attorney actually budgets a lot of their training so that's what's within those lines so just for a point of clarification i am not moving money between keys i think he meant to say the city attorney's office is adjusting their their their items within their budget that's correct the city manager did not move money the city attorney did this comes thank you this office and rightly so does yeoman's work with all the other departments my understanding was that over i don't know six ten years we've been having conversations about how to increase automation within the department how to uh change some of the processes but i see a decrease in information and technology so i just want to make sure that we're still moving toward the uh efficiency improvements in the department that we had discussed especially if we're going to not increase staffing uh yes we certainly are and indeed um we're working closely with finance uh and with it and just earlier this week um uh staff reviewed some we've set out an rfp we've received responses for some automated automation improved automation um samples were reviewed earlier this week and i would expect we'll be making a decision on a recommendation um very soon i don't know the exact date but i would assume within the next couple of weeks will that is that taken into account within your um within your training budget also no that number is not in our budget um that number because that service is going to provide services across the city um that is in i'm not sure if it's in your budget or it's that hasn't been quite figured out um i just want to make sure that we're funding that people understand how to use the technology we yes um that is and we there may be additional um automation that that happens as well um which would be within within our allotted budget and so there's a couple of different pieces yes i appreciate seeing the the that desire come to fruition thank you any other questions on the city attorney's budget nope let's move forward all right human resources budget um budget highlights for hr uh we had 250 000 increase for professional services um that is uh that's for renny slung law group to assist with negotiations uh we saw 150 000 decrease for the wellness program so again that was one of those ones as part of the cuts that were brought forward to council uh the council allowed us to cut some of the non-personal costs and that was one of them so that's the miscellaneous wellness program not the safety program um and then 23 000 decrease in other programs in our risk management fund uh and then uh one of the things that that the city's seen is a market increase in the city health care program and a lot of that is because the participation so i think we added 159 participants participants in the city which almost 10 increased just in participation so that's what's driving a lot of that cost they also saw 13 premium increase on the team teamsters health care programs for calendar year 19 and then seven percent projected premium increase in all of the health care programs um which is in line with which we usually project and when we're doing our forecasting so to kind of dissect human resources by fund they're comprised of two funds the general fund portion uh is about 10 percent or 250 000 and again a lot of that sound like a broken record but it's due to that increase in uao and the increase in the colas and then risk management fund of 35 million dollars that's about three and a half million dollars or 10 percent again part of that is is due to personnel costs but risk management comprises a number of things they've got general liability for the city so so the insurance for all of our city facilities city city assets um they also have workers comp it's under that and then we also put a lot of the benefits line is actually budgeted within the risk management fund so those kind of three major components are what make that up okay and then another look at the human resources and this is the expenditures by by the category uh so salaries um are up by 1.2 percent um which is a little bit uh under the cola um and then they've got the uh they got benefits they're up by about nine percent um and then professional services uh are are are up uh by um 77 000 and a lot of that uh is is uh due to increases in um uh 240 000 increases for the uh renties loan contract that we talked about on the on the cover slide uh and then utilities like most the other departments are pretty much stable operating supplies are stable uh information technology um charge again for the uh for the HR department actually went down which is the experience of most most departments uh insurance premiums and you saw that that in the previous slide where we showed you the risk management fund insurance premiums and claims are what's uh really driving a lot of that increase uh so when they um when they set the rates for both general liability and for workers comp they look at usually it's the past seven years of your experience and that's how they set your rates so we've had some increased uh insurance uh experience that's just driven those rates up as you would probably expect and then uh their indirect costs have actually gone down and a lot of that's for the allocation program from the general fund don't you have one more slide after this i do sorry uh risk management fund um uh city health uh has gone up overall by 21 and again that's back to that cover slide that you saw we saw an additional 159 employees that have come into the uh system and then we've seen an increase in in the uh teamsters health care plan about seven percent increase in other health plans uh perz health has actually gone down and that's because actually some um uh we've actually seen some reduction i think a reduction of four members that are in that plan uh so that actually brought that cost down a little bit workers workers compensation as i mentioned similar to the conversation with general liability the experience that we've had with workers comp is what's driven that up so that's gone up by about 12 percent um other employee benefits is uh is is pretty much everything else that's gone up by about five percent liability insurance uh for general liability has gone up based on our claim experience earthquake insurance has gone down a little bit so overall the uh risk management fund within the um within the hr department is up by about 12 percent so check i don't know if it would be under the workers comp but i know when we had some discussions about the wellness program that we're hoping to impact some of these numbers so i know we're in this budget recommend miscellaneous we would drop that wellness program but has the wellness program had an impact on any of these risk management numbers um i i think the simple answer mayors we don't know uh when we brought this to council in january and we made the proposal of dropping the miscellaneous wellness program we couldn't get any data any hard data that showed any correlation between those things um you know we can't really tell we had the program in effect up until you know up until we dropped in the next budget system and we don't see any reduction workers comp compensation but you can have one workers comp claim that really drives experience up so it's really hard to correlate those things without years of data and my understanding was that the wellness program was a relatively new program for miscellaneous so yeah council questions about the hr miss combs i'd like to follow up with the wellness program because we also had a disaster and we would have anticipated seeing increases in stress and associated health impacts workers comp impacts health services use impacts um i understand that the wellness program has been providing more data and information as best as is possible under the short term that it has been here um and would like to again request that we look for resources for allowing our miscellaneous employees to have access to a wellness program i know that we're seeing a number of increases in is a community in stress related effects following the fire it's not uncommon for those effects to come 180 you know 18 months after a disaster like we've had uh it seems to me this is we have this program for police and fire it seems equitable to provide it for all of our staff and i just wondered if the wellness program folks could the hr folks could address the new data that they seem to have now available good morning mayor and council members i'm amy rave the director of hr uh we do have an eap an employee assistance program that does provide counseling sessions and addresses things like mental health issues um that program provides a number of sessions that are at no charge to the employees and that's been a resource that we've offered uh we did have some claims and we would refer those through our workers compensation process and i will have dominique introduce herself and talk a little bit about that morning council donate krihar risk manager um so yeah we do have our workers compensation program for um affected employees by the fires there's um psychological services that uh we schedule and there's also camps there's a whole program so we work very closely with the departments that are seeing um or having outreach with employees that are suffering or having issues related to the fires and they do they've been showing up 18 to 24 months past so it wasn't immediate i would say them they keep happening more frequently now than the initial incident so i'm i'm concerned that we're eliminating a a wellness program based on workers comp not going down at a time we've just had a disaster and workers comp is likely to go up in use of services is likely to go up and the need to recognize i mean my recollection was that that wellness program staff uh really shifted the focus towards stress reduction processes um exercise a proper diet um that these are important elements for our for our this lady's employees and i'm just wondering if this is the time it 18 to 24 months after disaster doesn't seem to me to be the time to be diminishing or decreasing that kind of service the wellness program does have a variety of great benefits um you're correct we do have similar services offered to employees through their individual health plans and providers as well as through the eap so our plan on a go-forward basis is during open enrollment when we have the health fair for employees that we would kind of capitalize on those plans that are offered through eap or other resources um i think the mental health issues that you mentioned as a result of the fires will continue to be taken care of proactively through the eap and workers comp miss leming i appreciate that however the majority of our employees um get their health services from some providers that are well known for not providing great mental health and in timely fashion and um that that is an ongoing issue and i i just want to make the point here that the cost of this program compared with the the potential risk or the potential liability of not having it seems to be even without data questionable um and so what but what i'm really left with here is the challenge of if this is a dispensable program why are we dispensing of it for the vast majority of our personnel but not for fire and police well that is a that that item is so i was the one who brought the program into the city i proposed the program for miscellaneous employees again the other ones are embedded in the mo use and so they are a matter of negotiation and so that's why we started this program at this point we're not seeing any evidence or correlation between the things that we had said initially that it would impact and it hasn't impacted those it is at the council's discretion to determine that this isn't a place there always as i said tough earlier tough decisions we didn't go into slightly and the city manager is the one who brought this into the fold to begin with three years ago so um but we haven't seen evidence to inst to say this was going to influence the indicators that we we argued the investment for happy to take direction on this item thank you just again um you know as a mental health provider i'll say this you know eap is not um and services with one of our major contractors for health um and mental services are not adequate to meet our needs and i think that we will see a bump in in crisis severity ptsd after we hit the two-year mark we're likely to have staff continue to feel the effects of of what's happened i'm not trying to push necessarily on this one particular program but we see health premiums going up we see the the cost overall and i think we need to be measured and fair and it's wonderful that our safety and and fire services are so good at negotiating but this is an area that we have to look out for our employees who you know are strewn across a number of different bargaining units and this may not be the right place or the right time or the right fight but i think that we need to acknowledge that many folks who are not getting the same annual increases the same pensions the same you know benefits that we confer upon them when there is a crisis when the fire did happen they were working 12 hour shifts and i wasn't there you were you know what they went through and i just can i'm concerned that we say well there's eap and and and there's you know health services available so so again again the staff fully agrees with you and that's why we're trying to figure out programs to actually continue to do this this one was just not correlating to the there was no demonstration that it was making a change council is welcome to tell us to advance the item um it it staff is just saying they're not seeing any any return directly on the investment that was forecast and in an era of tough decisions this was a decision that was brought forward by the department right and and i do appreciate that there it is difficult on in this area to collect data and to report it out and so forth i do see that there are other areas where we could be making investments in revenue and we don't and vice versa so i just would like the the logic to be consistent across our cuts and our investments and to look at it holistically you know not just apply that set of logic to this particular position mr chibbitts thank you mr mayor um mr mcglenn are we seeing a high usage rate of this program across the employee groups is it pretty equal across employee groups um no this one um safety side has a really high participation um only about 300 employees on the miscellaneous group actually utilize this program on a regular basis so the utilization really wasn't there to the cost and also to address the mental health issues this wellness program doesn't address those so the psych services and everything else are done through our workers comp program and we partner with our tpa so we have those services available but again it's not this wellness program doesn't address psych services and the current program even okay thanks for answering that question you know i i think that some good points have been brought up about making sure that we're addressing the needs of of our staff especially after a stressful event um but what you're telling me is that mental health is not actually a component of the wellness program um it's got a low utilization rate so i'm what i would propose or at least what my thinking is so you're aware is that we we just basically keep it in the budget but we look about where we can spend it more effectively um that would be my suggestion because i do believe there's there probably have got to be some some need right now going forward in the community our community within the organization where this money can actually make a lot more focused and acute difference in those people's lives than just broadly spending money on a program that has a low usage rate miss columns so i'd like to be clear that there's a difference between eap and psychological services and stress reduction and wellness services and you get stress reduction services at a low cost to prevent the need to use the psychological services that we're talking about i know that the program did stress reduction exercise and diet and i consider stress reduction to be a mental health service even if it isn't with a psychologist or a social worker so the assertion that it is not providing mental health services is is misleading at least because i know that it provides information about stress reduction and did so actively following the disaster i'm sorry that that we have only 300 folks participating at this point i consider a relatively new program and they may have some outreach issues that need to be corrected but i i am i i'm going to continue to to request that we find 150 k somewhere to provide stress reduction that doesn't require someone to report themselves as needing a psychiatrist psychologist or a social worker which you can go get meditation services for example or something similar mr tubas there's a follow-up question on that you know it's my understanding that a lot of programs like employee wellness programs if people are participating actually has a positive impact on the health premiums that you pay does this program if you're a participant reduce the premium cost to the city now it doesn't how we look for any programs that do they could potentially also meet the exercise stress reduction mental health needs of employees i don't know that we've explicitly looked for that i will say that in meeting with the wellness program coordinator she did provide general statistics about how health and wellness influences medical usage relating to things like stress which can result in other issues or how weight for instance would result in diabetes which would result in additional raised health care costs but i'm not aware of an ability to track that explicitly so that we could give you statistics that we could stand behind so yeah i guess i'll just affirm my position that we may not want to remove that from the budget just yet but let's maybe look for a more steeper some of these in the budget where you would like us to look to i will come back with proposals but if there is a preference of where you want us to look for those savings it would be very helpful to have that instruction at the same time as you're if you're not contemplating adding something back any more mr tubas yes just as a point of order then on that question procedurally are we today at the end of this presentation going to be discussing what to do with that seven million dollar unassigned fund balance or will that be will that come in a subsequent conversation when the public's able to attend so councilmember that'll be the last slide of the day is is to get direction from council on what you're expecting of us coming back for a budget adoption so that is okay i appreciate that but i would also really strongly suggest that you know after the two years i've been on this council that's a huge question that is of interest to a lot of people in the community that you know at 12 o'clock in them the afternoon can't participate in and voice their support for so down the road i may ask the council to actually consider doing that during a five o'clock public hearing time that one slide but and again there will be a public hearing on exactly the adoption but we're looking for guidance from this body at this point okay just one minute i'd like to also support councilmember tibet's question about can we find a way to incorporate the savings into our insurance i think that data is is really critical to this given the you know it's a fairly small amount of money and i understand that data collection is onerous and takes away from staff time or our contractors time i will offer anecdotally that different departments from my limited experience have responded differently i try to visit a different department every week and transportation and public works you know i bring a dozen donuts and those folks were the hardest sell in the world i could not figure out why i could not you know get rid of 12 donuts you know but it's because those folks were participating in a wellness program to and competing to be healthier and lose lose weight so i'm not convinced that there is no long-term savings to our premiums i'm just convinced that we're not able to track it i'm also not convinced that there are i'm just saying that i saw direct evidence of participation on a fairly wide and somewhat time-consuming on my part scale so any other questions mr. mcbride thank you and just to correct myself on the per's health i said there was a reduction of four employees it was a reduction of 14 employees okay finance department so a couple of budget highlights as i mentioned we got rid of three fte's the meter specialist and the customer service representatives those were by design so that was the phasing in of the am i program those were vacant positions that we eliminated we had a halftime hours for a parking citation review officer that that work has been picked up by the supervisor and we are we're just eliminating that in this budget we had a capital outweigh increase of $57,000 this is part of the ghost vehicle cleanup that we talked council about within my department we had a number of very old vehicles that we were keeping keeping on site we working with fleet got rid of those vehicles however it did result in us having to purchase a few more vehicles to put into to put into service we also have cip projects an increase of $736,000 to repair garages 1312 and there's also some ongoing cip's for other garages i'm not going to delve into that here because again at the at your last presentation of the day we're going to be talking about the capital improvement program we'll be talking about those in detail so as with the other departments we break down the finance department by fund we have a general fund is the preponderance of our funding sources that's up by 3.7% and again same same comments that i've made earlier on salaries and benefits parking district fund is up by about 7% that's kim and her crew and then we also have the pooled investment fund for the city so what you see represented in that line is the amount that we paid we had discussion yesterday on on custodial banking services that's what you see in that line item we also pay a consultant pfm to to help us with our investment activities so that's that's also including that line item and then we have the successor successor agency to the former redevelopment agency and as we talked about in the budget overview that's just a wind up of the redevelopment agency we're receiving money from the county through that and just paying off the two existing bonds that we have left over from the redevelopment agency and that'll go away in 2034 another look at the finance department this is our breakdown by line item you can see that our salaries are actually almost flat and yeah we have the the 2.5% coal increase in there however you recall in the first slide that we have also eliminated positions from the department so that was an offset there that's also what's driving that benefits line item we did see some increase in professional services so a couple of things that we're seeing there we have armored car services for our revenue division so we've seen those costs go up we also have the the banking charges and merchant card processing for for credit cards within our revenue division so we're seeing some increases in that and our cities a little bit unusual and that we don't cap how much you can charge or how much you can pay on a credit card so we've seen those costs go up a little bit our vehicle expenses overall that's the charges that we get from the fleet are down utilities are up about 5% operational supplies are are relatively steady we said we saw a little bit of an increase in operational supplies do the installation about 190 smart credit card reading meters that we did citywide so that's within kim's division see why building property insurance we've actually seen a little bit of a decrease in that that's that's the proportion that we paid to risk management we've also seen a a decrease cost in our other other miscellaneous costs and some of the things that we put in there are advertising and leases so we had a lease termination of $26,000 and decrease in the advertising of $12,000 and I assume the lease terminated nations the parking lot on which that modular hotel is now being built and cip and o and m projects as we mentioned we have those garage projects there in there but i'm not going to delve into those now's we're going to be talking about that within the capital improvement program budget and then I have a breakdown of the enter fund enterprise fund summary this is a kim's group parking revenue coming in of 4.9 million dollars plus transfers in those transfers in are from the general fund so the way we are set up we the the money that we collect on on meter enforcement goes into the general fund general fund transfers that money back into the enterprise for parking their expenditures were $5.8 million cip expenditures of million dollars and transfers out of $121,000 I think we talk about this in a later slide but that $121,000 transfer out is for the is for the downtown benefit district and that that means that this this next year we propose using about a million dollars out of reserves which does not mean that we're not covering our operating budget that's just one-time monies that we've built up for cip projects like like parking lots that we're dipping into uh so there's just a timing issue with the with the revenues and expenditures there take questions on the finance department miss gomes I forgive me for taking us back to the wellness program briefly but I thought I had heard and do see an email that I received indicating that the actual budget of the wellness program that they had reduced their contract fee by 10% that it's $135,000 now and that they have offered to reduce it an additional 5% and I'm wondering if you can update the information on what the cost information went to the HR director in mid-May so we don't do negotiations in the chamber here with contractors in the chamber this email was sent to the HR director in mid-May I'm wondering why we didn't get that information in our budget we will follow up with that but we don't typically bring those types of contract negotiations to council in that form I'm just asking why I got 150 k instead I'm really concerned about this particular contractor who's out there actively advocating to continue their relationship with the city and I will say we're likely even if council continues to go out to do an additional solicitation because this is not good practice to be doing this behind the scenes and this has happened on more than one occasion with this contractor thank you any questions on the finance department presentation mr. Sawyer thank you just a curiosity question I was not aware that the funds from the enforcement of the parking enforcement ultimately got transferred back into the the parking enterprise fund is that 100% or is there I just didn't know that was happening I thought it was when it went into the general fund and that's where it stayed I mean I'm pleased that this is that it comes back but I didn't read I don't remember seeing this before and I'm going to have my subject matter expert Kim come down here and answer that question for him good morning so how it works is the parking program provides parking enforcement services for the city the city receives all of the parking fine revenue and then the city the general fund reimburses the parking fund for the cost to provide the parking enforcement services so not all of the money returns back to the parking fund just that which is required to reimburse it got you thank you very much Kim could you introduce yourself just so sure I'm Kim NATO I'm the parking manager great thank you any other questions on the finance presentation see none thank you all right now we'll move into the the non-departmental budget so again this is kind of a unique budget where where it it's made up of things that we can't really put within other departments so budget highlights general fund administration offset increased by $825,000 that's basically those those city services that we provide through the general funds I think things like payroll the city manager's office for review of staff reports those kind of things we we we build a cost allocation plan and we spread those costs out to all departments so that when they're looking at what their costs are they're actually capturing a fully burdened cost so that's up up this year animal control contract also increased by $307,000 that's another contract that we roll into non-departmental because it wouldn't wouldn't likely fit anywhere else and a lot of that's due to to the inclusion of the roseland area so here we break down the non non-departmental by the major objects and as I mentioned you can see that animal shelter contract going up by 16 percent the county admin fee is staying is staying stable county admin fee is just what would pay to the county for administration of things like like the collection the distribution of our property taxes citywide general fund insurance has gone up by $175,000 and this that's just for the for the portion that is general fund facilities and assets that's what they paid to our risk management Sonoma Kansas county transit authority that has stayed basically stable at $105,000 general fund administration again that's what we what we what where we offset that charge so we we we put this as a charge to the department so that their costs are are are fully burdened however we don't actually charge them there's no actual transfer of money there so we put this credit into the non-departmental to offset that so that we're not kind of double counting general fund expenses expenses we also have a city manager contingency fund there $50,000 that's for one time uses that the city manager finds needs for where those be contractual services professional services that they need we also you'll see a line item there for separation expenses so essentially what happens is that throughout the year we have employees that retire or separated from service and they have payouts they'll have vacation payouts you know whatever kind of leaves that they've accrued they have to pay out and those can be substantial depending on how long they've been with the city so instead of instead of budgeting those within the individual departments where it would be a highly variable budget you can imagine from year to year whether depend on what level of employee you have that leaves or how many employees you have we've that could bounce all over the place so what we do is we just we just budget that within the non-departmental and we pay it out of there unspent appropriations that's essentially the turn back that you always hear about so we we put a credit in there to account for money that we think's going to be turned back so like this year where we put together a proposal to eliminate vacant positions as you can imagine those positions have been vacant for the whole year so we know that we're going to have some savings out of that so instead of having the budget bounce all over the place we try to account for that within the within the non-departmental and then debt service we have a component of debt service included in there part of that's the pension obligation bond that we talked about earlier part of that is the debt service that we have on the courthouse square that capital lease so the only debt service that isn't included in here would be debt service that's specific to the enterprises like the water fund and then I have I have the successor agency debt service within the finance departments so that's the way the non-departmental budget breaks down question is from council mr vice mayor hey mr mayor so just to make sure to clarify when we talked yesterday about the reinvestment of that 4.2 million for pension obligations how it would free up about 700 thousand a year that's coming in here on the debt service side correct correct so so that's being collected from all the departments this is the expenditure side of that so so the debt service is being paid through non-departmental but it's being collected from all the departments correct thank you any other questions I had a question on the separation expense because I don't believe I saw this line in last year's budget presentation can you tell me the difference I totally get when employees retire but some of those separation agreements that are negotiated I've never seen any data not necessarily on the names but who does that and how much is that costing the city can you talk a little bit about the separation on that line yeah so the separation expense this this I understand mayors is more for for like retirements regular separation so it's those it's those ancillary costs that we would be associated with it so if you've accrued your your full hours of vacation you're retiring and you're going to get that paid out to you this is where we pay it out of I'm not I'm not sure that separation agreements would be included as part of this I think those are normally charged to the departments and I'll just I guess my question where would we see that funding and I know some go to closed session but the majority when it comes to employees we we never hear about it an employee may be gone and my assumption is there's a separation agreement but I have no idea where that money is coming from so as we're going through the budgets what information can we have we can we can we can caucus on that front and figure out where to have it but that is usually a negotiated item that that is negotiated based on the if there's a contract that's an apartment but the city attorney and I can look at that issue and figure out but this this is cure purely about the routine matters of of of when somebody's coming to retirement and making sure that there's enough available to pay out as the as the cfo said pay out or you know vacation accruals and so on that there's routine but we'll we'll look at that issue and we'll figure out what the pathway is on that item thank you it's not I want to also make sure it's not a frequent occurrence so no I guess it's a frequent occurrence but absence of understanding of it or it's gotta be coming from somewhere and I just have no idea where it's coming from because we heard it's typically charged it's considered part of the salary base within a department because it's a contractual issue and an obligation that's typically where we'd be handled okay thank you any other questions hope if I turn on my microphone next up is the uh is the information technology department so as we mentioned um a little bit unique with them and that we took out those two FDEs that we recommended in the cut list just because we were building their budget earlier but we're going to recommend adding one of those back um it did convert a limited term technology application specialist to a regular full-time position there was also 190 000 decrease in professional services for license and support support costs uh main with cicrata and Hanson software uh let's see here uh O&M project decreased by 383 000 so there's your 300 000 decrease in peg projects that we talked about earlier to line with the actual revenue that we're getting from the peg program and then there was an 80 000 decrease in miscellaneous uh miscellaneous technology upgrade projects and right now on the peg program um we have about $795 000 that's available in balance in that fund if there's any uh one-time capital projects uh that um that can be done with that money so the breakdown for information technology uh salaries are down primarily because the reduction of those uh two IT tech positions um and then uh we see an increase in uh retirement liability on that arc there of $150 000 in the benefits line but that's offset again by the decrease in the number of FTEs uh professional services as we mentioned um have gone down a bit um enterprise software was taken down by $90 000 uh as we replaced cicrata with with esri um we also had a Hanson contract that's paid for by IT of $80 000 and right now uh the city is embarking on a new software program that'll replace that that city works and the first few years of that city works contract will be paid for by another department so that's actually allowed our IT ISF charge to actually go down by $190 000 or the the expense to go down by $90 000 vehicle expenses so those charges that come from fleet those have gone up by a small percentage uh or by a small dollar amount $4200 utilities um have gone down uh for IT um part of that's because we've moved some of their utility costs to um to uh water pump station circuits uh and to water overall so they've kind of reallocated that expenditure to where it's actually being spent um indirect costs are just uh they're the same as the um as the general overhead costs except that these actually are a transfer of dollars so um if you are an ISF or an enterprise fund then we actually do charge you for those general fund services it's not just a uh it's just not just a a accounting light on them and then again um CIP and O&M projects those are down $382 000 but we will uh we'll touch on those the end of the day when we hit CIP projects council questions on the IT budget miss combs i'm looking at slide 91 my recollection is that peg stands for public education and government and that it was a strong interest in the part of uh the national government to federal government to ensure that cable had access folks on that the public had access to the cable channels um do we still stream on cable this cable channel was it 26 28 32 i think those were our three pig i haven't looked because i use our live stream process do we still stream on cable and what percentage of our peg funds are we now using to ensure that there's public access to cable we still broadcast on cable um these meetings are broadcast on is it 28 i don't know the exact channel we're moving them around but we do have four four peg channels which we broadcast on an 18 that's also an AT&T uverse we also at the same time stream on to uh youtube and sometimes facebook live as well right i knew that we streamed some places but i wondered if we streamed cable or or not still we definitely broadcast yeah it's actually broadcasting we definitely broadcast the cable do does any percentage of this go toward public access to cable production or are we now only doing government access and education access maybe we are primarily doing government access a portion of our peg funds council a couple years ago agreed uh from county libraries the santa rosa based libraries and they're using some of those peg capital funds to put in media access and creation centers and santa rosa libraries that actually is happening is that happening yeah it is they're quite pleased with it and we do review about once a quarter with them on their progress thank you i just wanted to make sure that that my understanding is that the director had changed and i wasn't sure if the program had continued yeah definitely has thank you for the information eric can you identify yourself too just for those folks that are listening on tv apologize eric McHenry it director great thank you any other questions we're going on the it budget thank you and mr mcbride we would uh plan on taking a break right around noon so as you time in the departments okay absolutely in there thanks all right next up is the uh office of the community engagement uh office of community engagement sorry there's no done there uh they're 1920 budget so some of the highlights um so there was a a limited term community outreach specialist that was planned on uh being uh eliminated in the next budget cycle however the position the position has got some additional funding from calvi vip grant that expires next august and county probation grant that expires this coming september so they were able to to extend that limited term and then we had some some increased on m projects or i'm sorry decreased the snow and m projects by 120 thousand dollars due to the expiration of the sonoma county probation grant uh and then we had some professional services that increased by 150 thousand dollars for choice grants just on the measure o side that's not on the general fund side so if you remember as part of our uh cut discussion i think we actually took 50 thousand dollars out of choice grants on the on the general fund side in our earlier discussions so to break down the department by fund their general fund and measure o funds um uh general fund portion has dropped uh by about 154 thousand dollars um that's primarily due to a soco probation grant that ended uh that ends in the first quarter of fiscal year 1920 um and then the uh we had some uh measure o fund increases so as you can imagine measure o is as sales tax has gone up in the last year measure o also goes up as it's just a add-on to the sales tax uh so we had increased salaries and benefits there um and we had uh that uh increase that was proposed of 150 thousand dollars in the choice grants so to break them down by the major objects uh salaries are up by 6.4 percent so those salaries are up uh that's remember we have the cola driver and then we also have the extension of that limited reign uh limited term c os position so that's adding to the salary line uh benefits is the same discussion that we've had before with all the other departments um professional services uh are up um part of that is a uh is an increase for um translation services uh for the sunshine ordinance um so they added money into that for professional services uh and then professional services also includes that increase for the choice grants there uh utilities was stable uh operating supplies saw about a 40 percent um increase however the dollar amounts not great 6700 dollars there and that's just for funds for neighbor fest uh empowered communities collaborative promotional materials and for the open government task force uh information technologies just that internal service charge um so that's gone up quite a bit uh from oce um and i would imagine that's probably the same driver within that allocation plan that's driven up councils costs and that's just that they're having to cover and broadcast meetings uh for oce other miscellaneous went down quite a bit um there's been a decrease in the cab meetings uh and print services for councils direction to discontinue the cab neighborhood newsletter printing so that's some of the decreases that you see there and again c.i.p. and o and m projects we will uh we'll discuss that uh once we get into the c.i.p. budget sorry okay all right questions about office community engagement mr. ishmer this is a quick point of clarification you mentioned the increase in professional services based on uh translation services in the sunshine ordinance uh is this in in anticipation of what is being proposed coming forward and being approved so it's an element of that i would say it's not the full thing staff is current as you know councilmember staff uh is currently evaluating the elements within that um we're tracking to july to bring that cost allocation this is one of the things that we've heard consistently so there's an element in here but it is not reflective i don't want to make it seem like it's reflective of all costs that might be associated with items that are proposed in the sunshine ordinance i just want to make sure that this is uh looking at implementation of some of those not just because we've been doing them on specifically the open government task force uh that you're not talking about just the increase for that subcommittee but actually if some of these elements were implemented again we have a long way to go staff is evaluating that i that's why i was like when the nod was given there's translation services being put into the way i would phrase it is there's an anticipation of a neat additional translation services you're seeing that reflected in the budget it is not a full analysis of that item that's going to come at a later date once we we have the complete item staff is unfortunately wrapped up in this process then they'll have to go through the process to evaluate the requests or the mandates potentially within the ordinance and we'll have a conversation directly with the subcommittee on those items and i and i would just reiterate that i would look at this budget item as a budget item to increase translation services and i would not necessarily link it with the sunshine ordinance given that sunshine ordinance is still in process and has not yet been brought to the full council and there'll be a full analysis of the impacts both operational and financial impacts of that proposed ordinance for the full council to decide yeah understood and when it comes back to the subcommittee it'd be helpful to parse out what funding have we previously increased in anticipation or that could be applied versus what's going to be needed on top of that and i think with the timing as we're seeing it you'll this would be an example of where we you know there's already resource to do some of this work the question is what's the extent of the work so i think the timing will work out to that great on that front thank you other questions all right thank you so i think given the timing we'll uh we'll try to get through uh planning economic development i it's go ahead start because okay there's some other things that need to be in place before we adjourn okay got it okay so um some of the budget highlights for ped the art program transferred over from wrecking parks to pd during 1819 so we actually trans transferred over the ft art coordinator and then we had a professional service budget that went with that and an onm projects budget that went with that of 305 thousand dollars uh we also had 137 thousand dollar increase in taxes uh for the community benefit district assessment so breakdown planning economic developments uh budget the uh general fund portion increased by 4.4 percent again that's primarily due to increases in colas and benefits that you've seen with all the other departments the art and art and woo fee um that uh that was transferred over to them as part of that program and these are uh our our developer fees that are used for the arts um and then we have the santa rosa tourism bia funds and uh if you recall on top of our nine percent tot base we have a uh santa rosa um uh to tot bia of three percent um 30 percent that goes to economic development and 70 percent goes to the chamber of commerce so that's what you're seeing represented in that 500 four thousand dollar line item for santa rosa tourism bia uh and then we'll take a look at pd uh broken down by major expenditure sources so as i mentioned um there's just a couple things are driving salaries most of that's that two and a half percent coal increase and then also the addition of the one fte uh arts coordinator uh and then benefits um same uh same comment as we've had with every department uh some increases professional services um uh the uh pd also uses garda armored car services we've seen some increase in those uh there's also an increase of 20 uh 20 000 there for the setup and breakdown of the live at julia juliard concerts um and then saw and then that additional uh professional services budget that we saw come over 39 000 dollars you saw that in the front slide and that was for that arts and woo program uh they saw a a a decrease in um vehicle expenses uh which is just that charge from the fleet utilities actually went down um operational supplies um went down but i think that was actually with the uh the pd department moving some money uh two other keys for other programs information to technology went up for them uh that's just that cost allocation plan other miscellaneous went up by 138 000 uh almost all of that is the increase for economic development for the downtown community benefit district property assessment um and then a portion of that's the there's the cost split that's is paid by uh parking also and then general fund administration uh went up by 11 percent and cip and on m projects um we'll talk about those when we get into the cip projects but that was only a 24 000 increase so it's basically flat okay ped questions about ped mr sorry thank you mayor and this is really more comment or a number of comments um it's interesting that it's that cd is back community development because that's what it was when i first came onto the council um then that name alone suggests the importance of this particular department and i really thank both the city manager and the council support of this department as it's um uh the many projects that it has control over um have increased over the years and they seem to be uh there's never a shortage of responsibilities for this department to to deal with i mean looking at slide 29 that speaks to some of the issues coming before the climate action plan the general plan update which is going to be a major uh effort and the specific plan update as well i think of the planning department as the the gatekeeper of the evolution of our city and we've all discussed the importance of having a strong and vital downtown and all of these things fall uh on the on the planning department that the analogies are countless i think of it as a steam engine and and reducing the fuel for that engine as we at the same time are trying in so many ways to not only focus a lot of attention on the downtown but also this council and and the region and the state in general has been looking at housing as such an important piece um and all of these funnel through the planning department and i i was speaking to i was in portland last week and speaking to an individual um portland is is dealing right now and everyone seems to compare us with portland or maybe compare every city in the state with portland um they have their own challenges and one of the challenges is some unprecedented growth that they're experiencing uh this gentleman when we were talking about uh some of his disappointment about some of that growth that seems to be uh really rapid and is is indeed changing as and some would argue negatively but most are looking at it positively um changing the um the cityscape of portland and he said by all means whatever you do do not reduce your planning department um because of some of some of the what he considered errors happening in his city so what i what i i have heard from uh over the the development of this budget um our ability to be uh to deal with increased um demands on this department um as time goes on um 11 years ago um we went through the same process and there was a plan in place to amp up after if there was a change in the um in the activity in that department um mr mcglenn you mentioned that that when you came on cd was on or the planning department cd was on life support um i would suggest that part of the reason it was on life support was some of the some of the actions that was the the budget actions that were taken place that did uh in some ways eviscerate certain parts of that department so my my i'm i i offer a caution uh i am very concerned in in this case um that we are um starting down the road of changing the or compromising the ability of this department to handle all of the the jobs that they have to do not to diminish the the responsibility and the importance of all of our city departments but this particular one i i see as an engine and i am very concerned about um the uh reducing the fuel for that engine to function um and to be and to be nimble and responsive um and uh speeding so far with so much of the work that they're doing and now um what appears to be the possibility of compromising that effort with the reductions proposed well the only thing i can respond is that based on the budget they're actually going up currently a million dollars what we're talking about is not at filling in positions that we hadn't filled today and so they continue to rise and and and the staff continues to find as i said resources and part of the realignment is to to bring all these things into a a unified vision of how we're trying to tackle these big issues which you've illustrated council member um in that reference back to that slide um but you know there's still going to be choices because we don't have the resource to do everything for everyone i think we can we can you know you're this is the thing that i asked for at the beginning was was investment in this organization so anytime that we go through a conversation what we're talking about um managing that investment we are very conscious of that you know there's a new conversation as you heard before between um finance and ped to really try to get to the bottom of where those relationships are um and how that we can bank on revenues but we would be we cannot spend money that we're not going to get and so that's always the question we have to balance in this conversation so we are committed to investing in this community and making sure that the processes are as easy as we can do we're not trying to trade draconian but i will say the future is going to be tougher than even the conversation today so or the next few weeks because we still have a sizable issue to wrestle with within the structure of this organization and hearing this is going to be the important part of this conversation about where we continue to do investment so um you know the team is committed to to doing these things we're trying to structure the organization to do that but we're still going to need to go through belt tightening as we do that conversation i appreciate that and i do understand it and there are these are tough choices as mentioned by uh councilman borough of eris um and actually councilmember fleming also spoke to some anxiety around some of the some of the cuts and they aren't painful they're always painful um it's not um and these cuts there were even more they were draconian a number of years ago what i would hope and what i ask for is that we and i'm sure that you will but i i have to emphasize that we watch the effects of our decisions we make today and that to allow that department because of because of the nature of its duties um that we not wait too long to bolster if if because of this this um three to nine months waiting time to to bring someone up to speed um what we did before was there was a plan to do that and it didn't work and um we were really behind the eight ball when we were trying to recover after the the great recession um and the plan to do that although um at the time it was thought to be well thought out uh did not function the way we had hoped so i'm just hoping to keep a really good lens on that department and if they if things start to slow down and the and the those that are out there that we have that whose opinion of that department has changed dramatically a hundred has been a complete switch um from being one way to being responsive and respectful or respect respected as it is now that we just monitor it really closely because like it is it is there's a lot on their plate and it's a very what they do is very very important at least to me and i i don't think anyone would argue that so what you just watch what you heard was one of the things we're going to bring forward in a bud in the budget is the more flexibility so we can respond we've positioned this organization because it is one of those things that goes up and down with the health of the overall economy and we can't we can't continue to staff something that does not have revenues coming in but what we will be looking for in the actual budget decision is some flexibility to actually apply those revenues in a more active way part of the challenge right now is that we have to go through a long process to tap into those revenues so if council will give us license to be as as council member Fleming said more nimble we're going to go to respond that and those relationships actually become the foundation for building future employees within the organization quite frankly there they're the stepping stone for bringing folks in but that's been the long conversation here is how do you be with this particular agency and i think that was some of the shortfalls before was you just shut it down and then you bring it up you can never bring it up fast enough to respond to the environments that are out there we need flexibility to actually do that to do the assessment that you're saying and actually respond to that so that we're not constantly coming back and you have revenue streams attached to that we need flexibility to tap into those revenue streams to respond to the business and we can report that out but that's what we're going to be looking for in the in in the june conversation is to give this the team the flexibility to respond to the business environment we're seeing based on what we're what the revenues are we have to go through the long gated process it takes it takes a considerable amount of effort to keep going on to the agenda to expand and contract that budget that's going to be critical for us to being able to respond to the environment or counter we encountered so that's that's a big question i'll come on the june 19th and 19th conversation thank you for that other questions miss for me yeah and thank you this is a tag on to council member soyer's concerns i see that here that we we do have a million dollars roughly that we're increasing the budget but none of these increases are reflected necessarily in staffing and we have a 3.2 percent increase in salary which is consistent with probably a cost of living adjustment and not in regard to additional personnel what what i find missing in this discussion is not a sensitivity to the importance of this department as the economic engine that allows us to fund so many things that are important to us but rather an analysis of the income versus expenditures in this department that doesn't reflect the secondary and tertiary incomes that our community gets as a result of having a predictable efficient and fast planning and economic development team and so to that end you know nothing that we do here if we were able to recruit about 75 of our expenditures in this department i would challenge that no other department is recouping 75 and that's not even accounting for the the tax or the jobs or all the other revenues that we don't see immediately so in my mind it's a little bit like cutting off cutting off the power supply because we don't want we because like the lights are going to go out this this year but we're not able to build the factory now so i i don't need i get that you're sensitive to it and i don't think that my concerns are unique or unheard but i just want to really be clear that that we are not quantifying the economic benefit of this department in this assessment so so that's exactly why we're going through the reorganization we can so that we can actually have some of those conversations in a more direct way with the community and that there's clear there's a clear conversation about that within the organization some of these conversations are spread to disparately but we got to figure out how to maximize resources to actually address what your concerns are councilmember i mean it actually that's where we were four or five years ago was actually shutting the lights out in response to revenues i think i think the teams make significant progress and sometimes you get your you are a victim of your success people want to maintain that level of success staff is committed to maintaining that level of success we now need to take that next step and and really understand where revenues are potentially coming and the risks associated with that revenue is a holistic agency and bring you all into that conversation so that's the next step in our evolution i think we've gone from switching the light on and off now we're in this we all value this what this does and it is the future revenue conversations for in the future growth conversations but we have to take that next step to your point how we evaluate each revenue what can we count on that revenue and and i love my industry partners but sometimes they they will give you a number that is really encouraging that's the word i will turn and we've got to vet that and then come into a proper response to that number we want every business to succeed in the city of santa rosa we want to be the pathway for those businesses to succeed and so i think we've made that leap what we're asking is to make the next leap which looks at these things to your point as a future and what can we really bank on and how are we going to encourage that conversation and thank you for your response and i do i do believe that you and mr. mcbride truly understand this i i always come back to this point and and i'll leave it at this is that the there's a cost opportunity cost everything and getting to a balanced budget this year might be more expensive for us in future years i'm not saying that we shouldn't balance the budget this year we have to do what we have to do but that we need to be very conscientious you know i mean if you had ten thousand dollars in 1998 that you're going to put an amazon and you thought well you know why would i spend my money there well if you'd left it there you'd have you know five million dollars now now i don't believe that any of us have crystal walls but i do think that we can see the logic behind strategic investment and and i'll leave that to you guys to to take forward this comes thank you sometimes it's helpful if you hear from multiple persons rather than just one or two of us i am not an obvious spokesperson for this department but want to speak up in in its behalf as well this department functions almost as an enterprise funded in certain areas we do have a discount rate in this department i think it it might fund it 75 percent in some of the areas where instead of a hundred percent that may be appropriate that may be a wise decision for us to to stimulate but we did we would have the opportunity to look at fees in this department again and and consider whether or not we want to offer the discounts that we do offer i don't have a problem with that we're offering the discounts we offer just suggesting that rather than when when i talk with individuals in the community they are they would love to have things be discounted but they are more interested in having fast and accurate reviews and inspections than they are in paying just a little bit less because time may be more valuable than the money i am concerned that we have the general plan coming and that this department will be very busy with general plan work we're doing a station area plan which we received funding for adding that to the general plan we have charter review coming will that be in this department which department will be doing the charter review we have yet to determine the full where the charter review will lie but that should be in the 1920 budget i would think council has not given we're not at this point we're not planning to do charter review until we get the the data from the unless council wants to change that plan but i don't know where the capacity will exist to do charter review at this moment and and yet our 10 years is it will be in 2020 yes and we'll have we'll have data at that point about about about the the from the census which we're working on right now this department is involved in that the city clerk's department is involved in the census conversation okay so i'm i'm really concerned about that and as we grow i'm at least on in my social media there is a very vigorous conversation going on now about design review elements historic building elements and how we are interacting with historic and design review there's a very vigorous conversation going on i'm seeing that we are going the design guidelines that we have now are quite old and i'm seeing that that's a coming factor so i'm agreeing with council member soyer one of the ways to be predictable is to have clear design guidelines and then you can go you know that's a great way you could have the administrators doing design review because they have strong guidelines and then only special buildings have to come through a longer process so i am agreeing with my colleagues that this is a department where we really need to think about it in terms of that there is an enterprise fund here and when we cut this department we are cutting income and engine to our community so i'm just throwing that voice in so that you know you have a good count for that any other questions great thank you for that presentation and it would now be the breaking point almost got it right on the nose jack so we will take a recess for a lunch break reconvene at 12 30 12 30 Mr. McBride why don't we reconvene and i think we're on slide 101 recreation parks we are mayor okay so recreation parks some budget highlights here so as we mentioned in the discussion on PED we transferred one FTE art coordinator from rexon parks to ped during the mid-year budget golf course enterprise fund that falls under parks and rec there are a couple highlights there we had a $55,000 increase for maintenance actually that maintenance is mostly for an HVAC system on the building the building i think was put into service in 2007 so it's getting kind of aged so we had to do a little bit of repair on that and then i'm sorry my mistake $80,000 was for the HVAC and then and then $55,000 was the second half of a tree removal program based on arborist appraisal that have been done before so they're getting rid of some some of the trees that are dying on the course. Rec and parks breakdown by fund general fund was up by 1% and again same comments that i've made on almost all the departments that's mostly due to salaries and benefits measure of funds funding was up by 3% and that was also due to the 2.5% co increase golf course funds were up by $201,000 and a lot of that is due to those two projects the tree planting and the HVAC for the building that we talked about that's $135,000 of that and then other funds you see that drop by $163 and that's just the transfer of the art and law funds and the capital improvement program will be going up by $741,000 due to various park projects and those are going to be discussed when we talk about CIP later in the afternoon. Okay recreation and parks broken down by their by their major objects so salaries we had that 2.5% co increase however you see a decrease because we moved the arts coordinator over to PED we also had we had an increase in benefits and again $194,000 increase was just due to the PERS liability so you're seeing the effect of that UAL on the individual departments and then partial part of that was offset because the movement of that personnel professional services there you see it decreasing by $76,000 but you see operating supplies going up by $71,000 so that was just mostly a movement of $72,000 and they moved operational supplies to for software costs and professional services. Vehicle expenses went up by $133,000 those were just fleet charges up by 29% there by building proper the insurance went up primarily due to premiums associated with the golf course enterprise funds. Let's see general fund administration that's just the cost allocation plan that we talked about before and then in CIP and ONM projects part of that is $135,000 maintenance projects and then $90,000 and estimated donations that will be spent by parks and rec and then we had that large increase of over $700,000 that we talked about in CIPs that we'll discuss later. The golf course enterprise fund broken down revenues came in at $536,000 with expenditures going out $656,000 so this leaves them with a reserve of $1.3 million for the enterprise fund so they're part of what's causing that $120,000 use of the reserves is for the ongoing trees project. The fund has also got debt service of $395,000 that bond matures in 2030 that's the golf course bond that's outstanding so that's also contributing to that expenditure side there. Operators contracts for the course come up in 2022 so I think at that time they'll be doing an RFP for course operations that is it for Rec and Parks. Thank you. With that last comment that you made about the operators RFP so if it expires in 2022 when would that be going out for competition or recruitment? Usually that'll go out at least a year before so it'll probably be going out in about the next year correct year and a half okay 2021 yeah okay great council questions on record park mr. Sawyer thank you you're just a curiosity question and it's only 14 grand but I'm curious how you how the utilities went down any any obvious thing that that it could be attributed to it's just unusual to see utilities go down I don't know what to attribute it to and I don't have a note on it that's okay it was just kind of spoke to me I kind of was a little bit curious and I don't need an answer now or at all actually but do you want to it sounds like it's a fire impact and I wouldn't based on what Jason says I think it's a loss of meters so there once those meters are restored you're likely to see those costs go back up so I wouldn't I wouldn't say it's an operational thing it was a more byproduct of loss of metering services mr. All there's thank you mayor more curiosity I think this is right time to ask this Kelly can I have a couple questions related to recreation parks I think since you've come down here I forgot one of them but maybe it'll come up since all the recent budget etc how has all this impacted our recreation programs mean our paid programs you know that we that we provide every year are we doing okay are we meeting the needs in the community have we had to cut back on some of those is your mic on there Kelly oh sorry as far as recreation programs are going participation's good enrollments are going up slightly the rentals of our rooms in our community centers are slightly up so we've seen an increase in participation since the fires thank you and the rental was my second question is how we were doing there and so financially then we're okay we're meeting the needs we're bringing in the revenues that we need to address that or we were slightly down right after the fires and we're we're headed back up now okay that was the major impact was the fire that caused the reduction exactly we were finley center was closed for six weeks as well as all of our field programs because the schools were closed so it did impact our revenue okay thank you Kelly any other questions for recreation parks thank you all right next we'll move on to housing community services so budget highlights 247 thousand dollar general fund continued programs for 1819 we had $150,000 for secure families fund up from $35,000 in 1819 and the there's $75,000 for for two years and that provides immigrants with legal defense had $87,000 in the legal aid contract and then $10,000 applied for the non-discrimination ordinance that was talked about in in council goal setting we have $784,000 in homeless service continued programs from 1819 $534,000 in the housing trust fund $100,000 for family support center $100,000 for homeless service expanded hours and $50,000 for domestic violence violence shelter beds and all of those funding sources there for that $784,000 are funded through that transfer that we do from the general fund for the for the real property transfer tax so those are funded through that and then as we'd mentioned when we did the highlight we have a $7,000,000 increase in housing authority for rental assistance so they've saw about seen about a 26% increase in that so that's where you see the increased expenditure and increased revenue on that side the housing community services department broken down by fund general fund is going up by by about 14% part of that is for the secure families fund that's one-time funding and then $100,000 in salary benefits due to due to due to their salaries and and less time that's being charged to the admin hearing fund so that's driving that up the admin hearing fund has dropped by $137,000 so the admin hearing fund was used when there were code enforcement violations such as nuisance those were taken to that hearing and then those if there were fines that came out of that those could be actually leaned on the property tax bills as I understand there was a court ruling that that contested that and so that's why this this program is being used less that's why we're seeing that the 31% dropped in the admin hearing fund the department right now is working on on other ways to recover those kind of fine so this is probably just a temporary drop homeless services of $3.2 million that's that's state stable and $2.9 million of that $3.2 million is from that transfer from the general fund remainder's contributions from the county and private parties we have the mobile is mobile home rent stabilization of $167,000 virtually flat funded by the rent control ordinance fee and then we have the housing authority funds that went up quite a bit there you can see that $10 million or 30 increase and again $7 million of that is is rent is rental assistance and then from the housing impact fee fund where we where we offer loans for production that's gone up by two and a half million dollars there so that's that that ten and a half million dollar increase that you see in that fund homeless services you see the real property transfer tax of 30% that's that $1.2 million but we were obviously transferring a lot more than that we're transferring in total $3.6 million council remembers that we met earlier this fiscal year and we discussed the transfer of those real property transfer taxes so I think right now that we're stepping that up at 5% per year until we get to 100% but right now we're actually transferring over almost all of those real property transfer taxes to be used for homeless services and affordable housing so the breakdown of housing community services by line item salaries there's no change in FTEs we do have some coal increases there we also had step increases that are driving that up by six and a half percent you see the increase in the benefits again in line what you're seeing with other departments and that's mostly do primary the most of that's due to that increase in the annual required contribution to PERS professional services up by $5,000 virtually flat and some of that's just a little bit of movement between objects that the that the department is doing vehicle expenses up by 8% or $5,400 and again that's just as you'll see when we talk about TPW fleet rates have actually increased so most of the departments are seeing some increased even though they've there had no change in the amount of vehicles that they have utilities went down there's a slight that one was a slight decrease in telephone costs by $800 operational supplies have increased so they added additional $30,000 project administration for the community development block grant fund IT rates went up slightly and that's what you're seeing with almost you're seeing some decrease in most departments and slight increase in some and that's that's just based on what the drivers are for the cost allocation plan and how it budget is allocated out to the city liability insurance did go up we have other miscellaneous that went down there was some movement there between between the different keys by the department sub recipient funding is basically is basically flat loan activity as we mentioned there's spending down $2 million reserve that they have in the housing and in in woo housing impact fee so that's production of more loans in that in that in that fee and then indirect costs are up by about 3.7% that's just the cost allocation plan that we talked about with the other department capital outweighs there's just those one-time things there was a they purchased a vehicle for a code enforcement officer last year so you just see that there was no new purchases this year so that fell off and then CIP again we'll talk about there's more when we get into the CIP program council questions from for this department Ms. Gomes thank you it is the rental inspection program initial costs being held aside in any way so that if we vote in the future to start that program we have the initial resources we're in the process of evaluating that and so that's going to come back in September so it is not in this budget okay and may I ask on slide 108 the mobile home rent stabilization fund my my recollection please correct me is that that's a fee that we collect but that we don't spend out and so I'm wondering if we should continue to collect that or what's the status of of that fee it's an old fee from a while ago and it just I'm I'm wondering what we're using it for now and if we can use it for something else at Dave Gwine housing and community services this is in the ordinance the mobile home rent control fee it's on per space basis and it used to fund arbitration should there be a dispute between rent increase or park improvements and what's the total amount that's in the account now because it this is isn't this number is how much comes in but what's there now it's more than one year's worth yeah I'm sorry council member I don't have that number but I certainly can get it to you thank you please is is it I understand it was for arbitration does that mean it's specifically limited to arbitration or is there a way that we can expand it to other legal services for mobile home park residents that's certainly up to the council if you wanted to review the ordinance and see if you wanted to expand it into other purposes I think that we need to either stop collecting money that we're not using or use it in a way that benefits the people that we are collecting it from and I am open to suggestions we have folks in mobile home parks who could use repairs to their structures to help keep them housed who could use legal services we have a whole slew of people in manufactured homes that are that were affected by the fires that don't have a place to go because their units are not easily movable to another site my understanding is that there may be over three hundred thousand dollars in this account so so what we'll do is for the June hearing we'll bring back some understanding of the funds get a preliminary legal determination on what those funds could potentially so we could start that conversation if there is a direction we'll do some research get the fund amount and bring it back to try to figure out where you would want to where council wants us to go with that and I'm very open to suggestions into hearing from my fellow council members it just feels odd to collect money that we're not doing we'll come back and give you some rules of what we understand the fund and the restrictions or opportunities thank you yes and I will acknowledge it's been some time since there's been a request for arbitration but when there is that's paying for the attorneys and for court fees and everything else thank you any other questions from cousin mr. always hey mr. wine can you give us a the state of nrp neighborhood revitalization program and how does this budget impact that so the neighborhood revitalization program is impacted by the loss of the 1.0 fte the community uh engagement officer that's been vacant for some time it's on the reduction list so i would have to candidly state that what we refer to as a neighborhood revitalization program is really a neighborhood inspection program it's resourced by half time code enforcement officer and half time fire inspector so it's literally scheduling uh inspections of multifamily units primarily in the west ninth and corby al corby out of neighborhood but it doesn't have that organizing component anymore so i would say that that the program is dying well i would say one of the things that we want to do with the realignment is look at that program we're trying to bring a lot of those programs together to understand and come back to council and propose alternatives so at this point we would say it is not it is definitely not what it was and that included reductions that happened before this team was working on it but that's exactly one of the questions we want to ask council member is what does the program fit how does it fit into that community engagement and programs directive and then bring back maybe how we reach finish line on that front when we go through the realignment process okay because i would assume that the needs are still great in some of these areas you look at our website and it shows that it's still alive and well so we need to make some of those adjustments but still even with the annexation of rosalind i think there's still a great need for having a program like that and it may not be the same as it was before when it was at its height but i don't think it could really afford to lose something something like that in our community and to add to the city manager's comments part of our evaluation of nrp includes component in the rental inspection program right thank thank you and chuck mcbry just gave us the fund balance for the mobile home rent control it's five hundred and forty one thousand dollars thank you did i have a question about the rental assistance increase seven million dollars i think i heard from chuck yesterday that this was head funding what led to that was it a formula change or what's that increase and should we expect it next year also yeah what we're doing is we're we're trying to get our rents increased from roughly an average of nine hundred and fifty dollars a unit to over twelve hundred dollars a unit and so it's a request into HUD that our rents are increasing to help our family stay in their homes and then we would like HUD to resource us to that amount and so they've said yes it's they usually do throughout the year and quarterly increments so that's how they operate so again what would we anticipate seeing this figure be for next year i mean will it stabilize or are we anticipating additional increases it's hard to predict mayor but it would be at or near the same amount and then what about the other HUD funding for the cocs you know the home hapwa and cdbg um are there any other discussions about changing that formula to address what the needs are in some of our communities the uh for for state home a state homeless assistance program that would be ideally through the homeless leadership design to advocate for more resources for that issue um there isn't anything currently about the block grant portion or the home formula allocations so how or when would we have that conversation so i recognize leadership council for that my interest would be having that discussion with that group but still the city of san rosa gets some HUD funding directly at what point would we have the discussions about increasing or changing the formulas so that it's more proportion or proportional giving those experiencing homelessness numbers in our community versus other communities are receiving more per capita than we do yeah that's a good point we would have to develop a strategy in partnership with you as a way to approach HUD with that case statement because you're absolutely right we have the homeless issues that we're under resource for in our construction rehabilitation costs are going up as well so i think this was actually a really good topic for the leadership you all that are on the leadership team to open that conversation come back to us with to the body and the staff with some of the answers to that questions and i think we have we're primed to have that advocacy conversation at a different level than we've ever had before in in washington so i think if we could get some input from the leadership council on what their desires are then i think it'd be very easy to start to fold that into our overall advocacy efforts on behalf of this community great because these are encouraging numbers i'd like to keep them a minimum going so thanks any other questions miss flummy um so we have a approximately five hundred forty one thousand dollars in an account for legal services for our mobile home residents about how frequently do our residents need these services and when they do what is the average cost per the last arbitration was two years ago and i don't have the cost of what that moment more less than fifty thousand dollars it's more than fifty thousand dollars less than a hundred i'd have to research the number and get back to you so i think we again i think now that the questions open council member will come back and report out on the fund how was generated any restrictions and exactly to your point what we'll look over history and see if there's how many times it's been tapped into what the average cost is so there's any flexibility for you to apply those funds in different ways we can start that conversation so my questions are coming out of a broader concern over having a half million dollars and not knowing perhaps director McBride you can tell me where that money sits if it sits in a savings account if it's occurring you know if it's occurring a cd what what the type of situation is because we're here that we're in dire financial straits but to have a half million dollars laying around not working for us maybe it is i just don't know yeah that's that's going to be restricted funds though that's why it's broken out in its own fund within the department so you couldn't take that money and use it say in the general fund you can't move like that so right now as far as the balance it sits with the city portfolio earning our our two percent return okay i just want to be transparent with the people from whom we're taking the money what we're doing with it and again i'm not sure we'll be able to reassign the funds we'll have to look at that i'm not driving at reassigning the funds what i'm driving at is is transparency and and you know managing the the monies that we collect in a way that benefits the people who pay the money miss goves and just to add extra information the community has approached me and at least said can they pay less each month or nothing each month if we're not going to be using it but i think they would not mind it if you know within legal constraints if we could find a use that benefited persons who are manufactured homes i have a question because uh if we ask had to increase the amount we can spend per unit does that increase the total amount we receive based on the number that we receive or does that decrease the number do we receive the same dollar amount but we can spend more per unit and excuse me that i i don't already know the answer to that but i'm going to ask our program manager rebecca lane to help out with that answer it's sort of a mixed blessing because we get people into units because they can suddenly afford a unit they couldn't afford but then we make if we have the same dollar amount we have fewer benefits yes thank you council member my name is rebecca lane i'm the manager of the housing choice voucher program here for the city of san erosa so as dav mentioned what this is a reflection of this is a budget knowing that our per unit cost so the average subsidy that we pay per family on the program has increased and so when we budget for that amount then it allows us to to meet those costs within the funding that we actually do receive from hud so it doesn't always increase the funding when they increase the amount we can spend per household correct so we increase the amount that we spend per household because we're required to under the limits of the program and then gradually we will hope to receive the increase that we're actually spending in the meantime it might mean that we are able to help fewer families with the same dollar amount that's what i was trying to understand thank you very much and does that apply to project-based vouchers as well yes it's it's reflective of the entire funding pool so all of the special purpose vouchers thank you for filling me in sure any additional questions from this department great thank you all right next department is the fire department so some budget highlights we had 2.3 million dollar increase in salary and benefits for the fire department so you saw that increase of seven and a half percent for the department wide part of that was some base building that was done in the prior negotiations with the fire bargaining units and then there's a two and a half percent coal increase for 1920 there's also 350 000 increase in strike time over time strike team over time and that's just based on the experience that the fire departments had in the last few years more strike team usage so they're asking to increase that increase that over time and that has with it related offsetting revenues and then there's a 135 000 increase for professional service for contract work for building plan review and again that's offsetting revenue too and that's to do much of that's to do with the rebuild efforts so breaking down the fire department by fund general fund by far is their biggest source of funding general fund has gone up by seven and a half percent or three million dollars and again that's that's based on those those salary changes that we've seen in the last negotiations measure of funding went up by 10 304 000 that's primarily it goes up in lock step with the sales taxes is just an add-on the admin hearing fund dropped to zero went down by 25 000 in talking with the fire chief on this one my understanding is that this was a hearing fund that was set up for for hazmat and it's just been defunct it hasn't been used in the time that he's been the fire chief so the department's just getting rid of this of this funding source and then the capital improvement fund is going up by about 10 or 90 90 000 there and on the cip projects part of that is is a decrease associated with fire station five from funding last year of 240 000 and then some increases for new south santa rosa station and rebuild new rebuild efforts associated with fire station five so that's why you see that capital improvement program budget moving around a little bit breaking down the fire department by its its major components as we as you would expect salaries are are up markedly 13.3 percent in total about three million dollars benefits did not go up quite as much there was some increase in workers compers costs uh but there was also some increase in the portion the fire was playing paying for the for the employer's portion of per so that's why you you don't see quite the corresponding increase within the benefits line professional services went up by 191 000 and as we said 135 000 of that's related to building plan reviews for the rebuilds conducted by coastland and um we have some uh ancillary costs such as new estimate for general services such as laundry that increased by 55 000 in the next year's budget um vehicle expenses went up by nine percent and again that's you're seeing those those fleet costs are going up for all the departments uh utilities pretty much stable at four percent um operational supplies uh were stable uh down by eight percent but it's a relatively small number decrease of 23 000 and most of that was just to due to historical experience they weren't spending that so they took that budget down a bit information technology that charge out has stayed stable uh liability and property insurance has gone up um that's the portion paid to our risk management fund and that's pretty much the experience that uh all the departments are seeing as some of those premiums go up uh other miscellaneous went down um and that's just a hodgepodge of things some of its conference and training um some of its equipment rental and repair just some of those things that were probably one time that were done during the during the fires uh indirect costs actually went down a little bit for the fire departments um just based on the cost allocation plan uh general fund administration actually went up a little bit and then the cip and on m projects went up by 56 000 um and uh part of that is uh rebuild a fire station five uh and then a micro graphics project which i honestly do not know what it is um and those are the uh there's the increase that we've seen within the fire department so overall the budget went up by 7.6 percent and as i said most of that and the journal fund is is due to salaries benefits and then there will be some um additional asks from the fire department uh we talked to you about recovering resilient really resiliency efforts um specifically on the capital side but there's also going to be some operating costs associated with that so the fire department in this budget is asking to add add two new positions one's an assistant emergency preparedness coordinator uh and then the other one is the community outreach specialist so the assistant will focus on internal emergency response plans training and exercises they also work with county and regional partners on the preparation and coordination plans for future emergencies also develop an update emergency operations plans and then the community outreach specialist which is a a a new position also um was at one time originally a full-time position within the department but it was reduced and eliminated due to budget constraints so they're asking to bring this back and part of the duties that that outreach specialist will will do is assist residents residents in the community based groups in education training and exercises vegetation management fire safety and evacuation and then services and supplies that are related to that are an hour thirty five thousand dollars they're also asking for one additional vehicle it'll be forty thousand dollars and then we'll be added into the replacement program so that's about an additional request of three hundred thousand dollars for the year all right thanks if i can just ask one quick question um why would the community outreach specialist just be a limited term in this arena because this that's where we're exploring this new partnership with the region and we want to understand where the where the full what that regional entity will look like and then we'll make some decisions about whether this is a permanent position or or a short-term position as we work into a partnership great that makes sense okay questions for fire department miss flaming this is just a question for clarification um a quick overview of the departments that we've gone through um previously show that uh on the the benefit side of things that we've got uh increases for reckon park at five point four percent pet at twelve point five opposite community engagement at sixteen point two it at seven percent hcs at ten point three percent and then when we jump to fire i believe we're looking at point seven percent and skipping a little head to police we're seeing point six percent i'm wondering uh what what can account for those pretty significant variances yeah so as i mentioned that the the benefits didn't go up in lockstep like they did in other departments and i think the biggest reason for that is in the last negotiations i think fire picked up an additional percentage of the employer's contribution to purrs so that brought down that line item cost so that kind of offset the the other increases in the benefits thank you can you um elucidate a little bit more why we might see a department like um office of community engagement having uh a three fold increase over something like reckon park in which which specific line item i'm continuing on just trying to reconcile the the variances in the budgets i understand the reason why our our sworn officers and our fire fighters are contributing more money so therefore the benefits wouldn't go up but that doesn't necessarily account for the holistic overview when i see that some departments are you know double or triple other departments in their their benefit expenditures in the last year and i'm just not it's not a criticism i'm actually just curious about what what might account for it so remember employees get to choose the benefit packages in some levels and those can differentiate so one of the things that can come out of is his personal choice and so individuals especially in a small department you're likely likely to see much more fluctuation based on the individuals in a small department making choices on their benefit package so that's one of the reasons that that you can see that fluctuation department to department especially in small departments thank you any other questions miss combs this isn't really a question this is a comment thank you these two positions that are being added i very much appreciate that you have brought on folks to do internal and external community prep preparedness work so i really appreciate this thank you very much for adding this to the budget thank you so you know the question thank you that's all we have for fire okay so the next department's police so the highlights we had actually touched on this um earlier in the in the budget presentation when we talked about the city manager's budget but you remember that we had that one fte that was was within our budget but it was actually a county position so that's been eliminated um and then that we're still receiving those out those services from the county so the budget was actually moved over from city manager over to the over to the police department uh so that you'll see a corresponding increase in their budget when we do their line items and professional services and then uh if you recall the the um police department had come to you earlier in the fiscal year and they talked about the new regional communication system that they're that they're embarking on they had gotten they had cobbled together some funding uh from sources such as measure o for the initial phase of that they're starting to think about phase two as they build that system out and that's what this money here of 1.2 million dollars is so again they're they're kind of using uh different funding sources to cobble that together uh $700,000 from supplemental law enforcement fund and then from their state and federal asset forfeiture funds they're they're budgeting another half a million dollars for this project so the police department broken down um by fund uh as you would imagine most of their funding comes from uh comes from the general fund and that's up by about 1.4 basically flat increase of $841,000 no significant changes on the general fund side measure o went up by 3.4 some of that is a lot of that is salary and benefit increases so we actually budget a number of police officers within the measure o within measure o funding we had federal narcotics asset forfeiture that's flat at $150,000 that's I think a little bit unpredictable year to year so we just budget that at a flat amount uh same with supplemental law enforcement um part of that however will be appropriated for the radio upgrade uh and then the state narcotics asset forfeiture fund uh part of that will also be used for the radio upgrade and then that money is actually being shifted you see there at the bottom into that 1.2 million dollars in capital improvement fund and that'll be for phase two of the regional communication system and the police department uh by the line items so there's actually a uh a minor drop within the salaries um there's uh eliminated uh 100 $100,000 for s s c p s c a which is offset and professional services so that's that that's that item we talked about before they're moving that into professional side services um and then benefits uh only went up by 0.6 percent um professional services went up by $230,000 $160,000 of that was the consortium fees that we are uh they were offsetting by salary savings uh and then there's some increase in background investigation contracts uh fingerprinting alarms wireless services uh vehicle expenses again just being driven by the increasing uh increasing costs that we're seeing in uh fleet maintenance so those are being passed on to other departments utilities as flats uh operational supplies was flat um information technology actually went down by $51,000 and that's just based on the drivers that are used for that cost allocation plan uh small increase in other miscellaneous and this this was just a movement of object codes part of which was moved to professional services up above there that increase of $230,000 um general fund administration that's just the uh the general fund services that are allocated out to all the departments and then you see that increase in c i p and on m projects so uh so over a million dollars of that is for the for the radio communications project phase two um and then there were some uh increased contractual services and one of the reasons that um that council member flaming had pointed out before where where we see some of these kind of different experiences in the departments with their benefits you see here the that uh police's benefits only went up by by six tenths of a percent and part of that is because um their worker comp experience uh drove down their cost by actually $200,000 so that kind of offset any of those other increases within the benefits line questions on the police department budget i have one question just noticing the big difference with the general fund administration cost just comparing police to fire uh fire was like one percent this is 17 percent i didn't see any listed for community services the department before that and if it's a cost allocation uh rec and park was 4.6 can you share with me why police department 17.6 for general fund administration if it's so the the cost allocation plan mayor is based on a whole bunch of different drivers for the different departments so basically what they don't go go down and identify how they're going to allocate these things out so for example you go look at the city manager's office and decide that you're going to allocate out their cost um or a portion of their cost based on how many staff reports come through so if you know 30 of the staff reports are allocated to the fire department then 30 of that particular cost center is going to go to them and we have these hundreds these cost centers or make up this this cost allocation plan so it just depends what those drivers were in there so if some of the departments are using services of general fund departments less they're going to get less of an allocation if they're using those services more they're going to get a bigger bigger allocation so this is outside the control of the department and it's more of a tell from finance or the city manager's office it's it's totally outside the the control of the department other than what their usage is so you know unless they could decide to stop writing less staff reports next year but really it's it's not something that's thank you any other questions miss foaming thank you mr mayor can you help me reconcile the the differential in um and perhaps you already went over it why the salary went down by point five percent for our police department yeah so my understanding is is when they when they move this sonoma county public safety consortium administrator over they moved 160 thousand dollars into the um into the salary line when they moved it and what police is doing in this budget is moving that out of the salaries line because we're really paying the county for a service and they're moving that into professional services so that takes that line item down so it kind of skews their what what you'd expect to see the normal you know cola increase it skews that downwards the the issue that i'm just trying to to come out here is that the departments have such different variances in in their salaries with you know negative point four for reken park and then you know with hcs we're at 6.5 and then with fire we're at 13.3 and then with police we're at loss of half a percent and and i understand that each department is really different but i'm just trying to see if you can elucidate a little bit for me about why we're seeing you know such variances from our projected budget to our actual budget yeah and this is well this is the actual budget number that you're seeing there for 1920 you're going to see variances like where we talked about the arts coordinator that we moved that's going to that's going to bump up over the baseline cola what that department's going to see in their salary line likewise with fire you're going to see a much bigger increase because we went back and negotiated with fire this last year their contract expired in 2017 so we had a couple of years of base building i think at three and a half percent and then we had a two and a half percent coal on there so fire compared to other departments is going to show like they have a much bigger increase in the salary lines so thank you that's helpful one last question about salaries when we're looking at the cost of salary is this the cost of a base salary excluding overtime or is this inclusive of all expenses that show up on a person's paycheck so the salaries will include will include overtime if you have any extra pays that you get as a firefighter or police officer those are going to show up in the salary line so that's going to be anything that that you get paid minus all those the benefits line okay so are those those two departments are the departments that typically incur the greatest amount of overtime services i'm guessing okay and would you i'm curious if you believe that that would account for a fairly stable i i understand the fire negotiations played large part into it but we that the police didn't have such a situation would you say that that's might account for the the significant variance between the safety departments and our other departments yeah and if anything overtime would kind of skew the the spread between salaries and benefits because overtime doesn't have the full burden that regular time does so it's it's it's not going to have as big of a benefit associated with that and remember too that that are some of the things you see when you're looking at between police and fire department you know keep in mind that fire actually added overtime to their budget this year for the strike team so yeah that that could could skew you know the comparison between the salaries absolutely thank you for your patience and explaining no i mean and again that's that's going to be something that the the public wrestles with i mean you're dealing with two frankly two estimated count columns and two i mean you're comparing estimated columns across years these are really legitimate questions it really does the nature of some of these businesses is so divergent looking for consistency i think the public needs to recognize that it's going to be really really difficult and that's why we try to go and do some review of significant change and what that significant change represents because it is mightily confusing and folks are looking for consistency and sometimes the way the business operates is very very divergent from another another play these services are quite different one from another and i'm not driving toward consistency what i'm driving toward is transparency where where questions might arise so that our taxpayers have a clear sense of what their money is going to and why but it's not a criticism of the inconsistency oh no no and you know and i and i appreciate the questions i think those are really important questions that's what we're trying to say is ask because there's probably other folks following exactly the same trying to understand this so we appreciate those questions okay thank you any other questions for police see none thank you and next we'll move on is transportation public works so uh budget highlights um there's going to be a they're asking for a $50,000 increase in operation supplies for the city owned libraries if you remember uh some time ago they came forward with a request for one of the libraries i think was $50,000 to pay for i think it was a a screw compressor if memory serves so they're asking to to up this budget to address those those type of events transit enterprise fund the falls on our tpw saw $111,000 increase in salaries for overtime to our previous discussion and then the 1920 estimated revenues for our sufficient cover expenditures which was a little bit different than last year when they had a deficit there so they have some ideas this year they actually will talk about transit specifically at the end of this department but they've they've got a little bit of surplus this leftover it's not really surplus they want to put that aside for some for some capital requirements that are going to have in the future and we'll talk about that more in a moment equipment repair and replacement internal service fund so we've told you throughout this presentation and you've seen within the departments that there's been some increases in the in the charge out from the from the fleet maintenance this hit in the departments but here you see a a two fd reduction equipment mechanics those are vacant positions that have been vacant for quite some time that that they're getting rid of in this budget so you that you you also see a $295,000 decrease in operation supplies for parts and materials so I think what what they're doing is is kind of right sizing what the costs are for that cost center for that internal service fund but they've also not been recovering enough in the rates they charged the departments in previous years so that's why you're seeing you're seeing some reduction costs here but you're also seeing an increase in what they charge out to the departments and that's because I think they've been charging out too little in the past years and they're kind of right sizing that now we're also seeing a $493,000 increase in capital outlay for vehicle replacement so those first two bullets they're pertain to the to the fleet maintenance fund and then that last one there pertains to the replacement fund and that's just going to fluctuate based on the number vehicles that they're replacing in any given year based based on their time and service and other factors so breaking down transportation public works total budget of almost $70 million so general fund is a very large portion of that $21 million that went up by by about a half million dollars transit special revenue funds those went down slightly and again this is the budgeted expenditure side that's not the revenue side capital improvement fund went up by two and a half million dollars utility admin fund up by almost a hundred thousand dollars municipal transit went up by $1.2 million and we'll talk about this a little more within the transit slide a pair of transit operations are stable at $1.5 million stormwater enterprise fund is basically stable at $538,000 and as we talked about with the equipment repair fund there those bullets on the previous slide that's down by $472,000 and then equipment replacements up by by $447,000 and that equipment repair fund previously before they did this adjustment the rates they were actually funding a lot of that funding any deficit that they had out of fund balance so that's that's what they're kind of fixing within within this within this budget breaking trans breaking transportation public works down by by line of salaries here you know previous discussion this this department's pretty much staying right in line with what you'd expect you see those two and a half percent colas that's most of that $500,000 increase that you see there and then the 6.6 percent increase is primarily due to increases in the in the required contribution that we have to make to PERS some increase in professional service $28,000 and they also use guard armored car services they have hazardous removal landscaping alarm services there's been some minor increases in those professional services so they bumped up those budgets vehicle expenses for for TBW have actually gone down a bit and a lot of that's primarily due to parts and labor that they need to build new vehicles specifically things like light bars and gun racks they put on to onto police vehicles utilities is essentially flat at $2.6 million operational supplies did go down and again that's driven by that initial bullet you saw on the front slide where we've got what we've taken down the cost for parts and materials for the city fleet information technology charges down again per our conversation with the general fund administrative services that's something that's kind of outside of the of the purview the department that's driven by those drivers how many computers they have and things like that that affect how that cost is liability and property insurance is basically flat at $347,000 so this next line item other miscellaneous is a little bit difficult to explain so essentially what happened was that we had a deficit within within transit in the previous year so the way that they balanced that deficit was to build the savings or a credit into that other miscellaneous slide item now this year when they when they actually have had revenues cover expenditures they get rid of that so that line item goes back to positive and that $557,000 you'll see here in I think the next slide where we talk about transit what what the plan is for that usage transportation purchases up by 1% essentially flat at $1.4 million dollars general fund administration we've talked about with other departments that's essentially flat and really outside of the purview of the department's control and then CIP and ONM projects there's an increase of $2.3 million dollars there part of this is due to the Sonoma Avenue payment rehabilitation project we've got street overlay increases in there and then a Hone Avenue washout replacement so that's driving those CIP projects up and I think director nut will talk about those a little bit more when he does his portion as I told you this is that enterprise fund summary we've got revenues coming in at $15.2 million dollars covering expenditures $14.6 million dollars so so again there's there's some it's it's it's term surplus here transit want to be very careful and and not and not identifying surplus is kind of free cash flow what they want to do with this money is actually start start building the capital outlay fund for the buses so the buses aren't part of the replacement fund so so $553,000 that really represents like the cost of one diesel bus if they want to replace one of their 50 plus buses that they have if you you'd go to a high bridge or queen air vehicle my understanding is that's more around $800,000 so you know as they have these kind of revenues exceeding expenditures they're hoping to kind of build that fund up in anticipation of replacing those vehicles in the future thank you council questions for TPW budget Mr. Rogers so I have a quick question I think they're called tip funds I think we've only seen in my two and a half years it come before us once but they're typically the dollars that are used for they come from PG&E and and we've used them before for undergrounding of utilities and I'm just curious where those are in the budget how much we have for those currently and sort of what projects we could potentially fund with them good afternoon Jason that director of transportation and public works so the rule 20a program which is PG&E's underground underground program doesn't come to us in our budget it's actually a credit source that PG&E keeps within their own budget we believe we currently have a balance of roughly around five million dollars within that a large portion of that's going to go towards the Fulton Road widening project that's currently in the budget and it can only be used towards undergrounding with PG&E being the primary contract design and contractor so it it it's not something that'll show up in our in our list how did those accumulate a percentage of the bills paid by customers reverts to the rule 20a program it's probably more complicated than that and I know that the PUC is in the process of reevaluating a potential complete overhaul of the program all the way from doubling the investment that PG&E needs to make to eliminating the entire program all together so those are currently under underway with the PUC they had a couple of hearings a few weeks ago and I haven't heard the outcome of those hearings yeah I just I remember two years ago Mayor Corsi and I had dinner with the chair of the CPC and we asked specifically about those funds and undergrounding and he said he didn't recommend it because earthquakes were far more prevalent and then you have the opera the awkward moment of trying to dig up your utilities to fix them when they've been damaged haven't had a chance to check with them and see if he's changed his mind at this point but it is something that we hear a lot about from the public is why aren't we undergrounding our utilities and then particularly if there's a funding source and and that's really quite frankly the only way we end up undergrounding is utilizing those rule 20a funds and they they are limited to quite a bit limited we only utilize them for our major arterials we don't have enough funds even perceived into the future to be able to expand beyond the arterials yes go ahead as long as you have a question yes I have a couple of questions one is about the the library expenditure when we were asked to approve this screw compressor it became clear that we didn't have a standing lease with the library are we do we have any intention of getting a formal agreement with our libraries before funding before committing funding or just sort of ad hoc committing funding so so the intent is to begin that conversation you saw the beginning of that conversation we need to sit down I had some preliminary discussions with the mayor setting up a joint council library board committee to actually look at this long term and so yes that is it but we do have needs that come up and we'd rather be working with them to make sure that the process and procurement process is followed in the interim but right now we are not funding any of those in an active way and we're beginning a conversation for how do we get into a long-term sustainable agreement with defined parameters so yes that's under way it's good to know because the the concern that came up for me before was we all love our libraries and we all want to do everything we can for them and at the same time you know we'd be hard pressed to to fund anything else without a specific agreement and I think that that's well understood by everybody and so I'd like to both provide transparency to our taxpayers and predictability to our libraries which I'm hoping we can achieve with a lease agreement additionally on a back to the surplus that comes from the revenue funds is that surplus independent of of tbw in general is it specifically housed within the enterprise fund yes it's entirely it's trans it's tda funds that will end up going back to me for asking what tda yeah transportation development act funds they are part of a gas tax set aside that's specific for for transit services and those funds are generally housed and distributed by mtc in the metropolitan transportation commission they are the keeper of our reserves and that's where our our tda funds tend to live and so the ideas these funds would would be housed at that location for future use we've traditionally used that for our bus buys that's our or where our expenditures exceed our revenues in any one given year that's sort of that that is the reserve program that that enterprise fund has established and so mtc holds the financing but the tbw or our transportation department more specifically has some leeway over the expenditure of the funding those expenditures need to remain within the enterprise fund they can't be I understand that but I'm just asking if if they can say you know we're going to do this part of tda funds are one of the nice things is they're flexible they can be used for either operating or capital expenditures within the transit enterprise and and they've been critical if council will remember this group has really utilized those funds to assist us as well as doing operational changes two years ago we were asking for a million dollar loan to continue operations Rachel and her team have done phenomenal work but part of the toolkit has been able to utilize these funds to help us smooth and keep this system operating there was some real fear about how we were going to be able to sustain a bus system two years ago we've got future questions to answer on that front and some rule changes which are going to make our lives even more complicated about service delivery but it is a critical tool and then being able to manage through and not taking a general fund loan which is where we were two years ago thank you and and this comes from a broader concern about our most vulnerable citizens who rely on the bus system and hoping that when when these funds are available that we make the the most advantageous investment whether that's in in charging stations or in when additional routes or in capital improvements or or acquisitions and just wanting to voice my support for the amazing job that you guys do and just hoping that we can continue that in a predictable and hopefully increased way for our residents this comes the question thank you and while we're on this please extend I suspect our but definitely my appreciation to Miss Ede for the work she's done I believe that there's an award coming her way soon and it is well deserved I I have a question that's more general about budgeting and how we do accounting if you don't mind me asking it now looking at this budget as the as the sample budget if we're paying the city attorney's office to review something does that appear here as a fee is that under general fund administration is that where that cost for the city attorney's office to review something comes I think that's going to be dependent on the fund source and who's charging enterprise funds are going to be treated differently than a regular departmental work so it's going to vary depending on the on the on the department and the and the source of of what those funds are restricted to help me figure out how to follow the funds that we pay each other's departments internally because I'm having trouble doing that I think it also has this issue and I'll tell you what's behind my concern is that I don't understand when I finally add up the numbers at the bottom of all the different departments budgets how it is that we aren't counting certain departments salaries twice and I know that sounds funny but if we're paying them here and we're listing the salary under the city attorney's office salary then we've counted it in a way twice there must be a place it's coming out it's not funny because that is one of the challenges in the situation we find ourselves in one of the things that I've asked Chuck to do is try to help us simplify some of these processes and look how we're calculating some of these issues and I think moving forward we need to do a better job on that front in clarity I'm going to let Chuck pick it up from here but it is one if you'll remember in some of the budget presentations before we've actually pulled out these internal services and presented them an entirely different package the reality is they have any impact upon the overall operation so we vacillate back and forth so your concerns are our concerns about again trapping back to councilmember Fleming's about transparency and organization and we have some questions to ask and I'll turn the rest over to Chuck thanks so yeah it's a good question so if you notice on this slide here you'll see two line items one's the indirect costs and one's the general fund administration the reason these are broken out within an enterprise specifically is that those they're the exact same things okay we're charging you for stuff that the general fund does when it's an enterprise and it's a separate fund we're actually going to charge you we're going to hit you with 1.9 million dollars and you're going to pay that that's going to transfer to the general fund the general fund administration is the same thing but it's only applied to to general funds general fund departments so so if you remember when we talked about the departmental fund and we had that I think 14 million dollar credit in there when we add all these lines line items together we remove that so that we don't double count because to your point that's exactly what would happen if we did this general fund departments we would just be charging the city attorney's time twice so we take that out there that's how we do that so where is it taking being taken out because it's being taken out so if you go back to your to the non-departmental slide you're going to see a big credit in there and that's where that's being taken out and the reason that's taken out is from an accounting standpoint like I told you I want to know what my actual costs are because the city attorney charges me but if I really took the money out and moved it from me to the city attorney I'd just be moving money within the same fund I'd be taking out my left pocket put in my right pocket so from an accounting standpoint doesn't make any sense if I charge if I charge transit that money or water that money and they're actually an enterprise then I'm actually moving money between funds and I I get it for enterprise but when I look at our total city budget and I say our city budget is x dollars it it looks as if it really isn't x dollars it's x minus the doubling of the city attorney or the it's department salaries no that money will be taken out through that through that line item within the within non-departmental I appreciate it it is probably one of the most confusing things that we do thank you any other questions about tpw thank you okay and finally on the departmental side we come to santa rosa water so I think as I mentioned earlier in the presentation we actually had a reduction of five fte's within the within the water budget for the most part those were planned so you can see that the the top two bullets the technician and the operator I'm sorry this the skilled maintenance worker and the two utility service utility system operators those were part of a study that was done by cough classification that was done last fiscal year these positions were studying recommended for reclassification and as a result of these reclassifications those three fte's there were eliminated the sustainability tech that was that was eliminated due to water improving staffing efficiencies and then the environmental compliance inspector that was removed because there's actually been changes in the way compliance inspection have been done a lot of regulations of tight and surrounding chemical use so the businesses that previously required inspection don't require that anymore so the water department was able to actually eliminate that position the water department also refinanced two bonds during this last fiscal year if you remember that discussion and they've saved six hundred sixty thousand dollars of interest savings going forward and then we also returned money to back to the reserves so twenty four million dollars was released back to the reserves and most of that was due to that contamination that required coming in at a much lesser cost than what was initially budgeted it out so breaking down water by category so first of all salaries you can see those increased by one point four percent and again this is kind of underlying council member Fleming's point that you don't see total uniformity in the increases so you expect to see that coal increase at least of two and a half percent but again where we went back and we removed those those fte's in the previous slide that's that's countering that coal increase and taking down the cost so that's why it's a little bit different exact same comment on the benefit side let's see professional services those went up by almost five percent up by a hundred seventy nine thousand dollars a lot of that was increasingly reclamation so vector vector control irrigation incentives and maintenance and those were also based on experience under budgeted in past year so that was bumped up a bit utility billing services those went up by a hundred twenty twenty three thousand dollars so part of that is because that service is done by finance so our costs actually went up by colas but then we had some offsets in those three positions that we showed you that we eliminated so overall utility billing went up by a little bit under three percent vehicle expenses as we talked about with our fleet maintenance program have gone up for almost all departments even with even with status quo fleets so i think that increase there is based totally on the increase in fleet rates utilities for Santa Rosa water stayed pretty constant under two percent increase ninety one thousand dollars purchase of water that went up by four point four percent which is pretty much in line with the four and a half percent rate increase that water presented to you and the bpu earlier operational supplies are up about five point seven percent there's really no single significant increase there that decides that this probably increases that we're seeing in cpi it costs went down a little bit again back to those drivers that we talked about something something within those drivers probably brought down the allocation of those it costs to the water department debt service went down three hundred seventy three thousand dollars we showed you a six hundred sixty thousand dollar interest savings but this is probably I would imagine just for one debt service payment that was decreased within the fiscal year liability property insurance is flat other miscellaneous there were no significant changes down by seventy five thousand dollars but that's three and a half percent decrease relatively modest and then indirect costs that's noticed here you don't see any of those general admin costs because there there's no journal fund here that gets charged or that's worthy of charging out any general admin too but those indirect costs go back to that conversation that we just had on tpw so that's actually the cost of city attorney and other general fund functions being charged out to the to the water department the enterprise capital outweigh went up by eighty nine thousand dollars looks like a markedly large percentage increase but that's a purchase of a portable generator and and budget for vehicle purchases so as a dollar amount as a percentage of their budget it's relatively small and you can see the cip projects dropped quite a bit and again most of that is due to that due to that that decreased cost for the cleanup that that was originally budgeted so talk individually about the about the enterprise funds that make up water so the storm water is two point six million dollars in revenues transfer in comes from facility fee fund for creek restoration that's the twenty five thousand dollars that you come see coming in on them expenditures about two point six million dollars and then you see transfers out of nine hundred sixty thousand dollars and that's to the cip fund for stormwater projects i think the specific project within that is colgan creek and then they're drying down on reserves but they have one point six million dollars in estimated reserves at at the end of fiscal of the next fiscal year at the end of this budget cycle water we've got forty eight point nine million dollars coming in revenues expenditures going out of forty eight point nine with o and m expenses cip expenditures and transfers and transfers out majority fifty million dollars of that thirty four point one million dollars is in the purchase of water for the commodity and then the thirty million dollars that you see in expenditures is that's for the majority that is for water mains so you see some small portion reserves being there being used they're very small portion compared to the overall budget for the waters for the water enterprise at the end of fiscal year 1920 the budget year that we're looking at however they'll have fifty three million dollars in reserves so reserves in the water fund appear very healthy wastewater enterprise got seventy three million dollars in revenues coming in two and a half percent increases represented there for the usage in a fixed charge and then we've got seventy two point seven million dollars that's course seventy two point eight million dollars that's going out in expenditures the o and m expenditures you see twelve million dollars going out for cip expenditures most of that is for sewer mains and then you see a transfer out of forty eight million dollars twenty seven million dollars of that forty eight million dollars goes to the sub regional partners permit and then another eighteen million dollars of that amount goes out for debt service so that fund is estimated to have fifty six million dollars in estimated reserves at the end of fiscal year 1920 and then sub regional my understanding is that we're part of five agencies for sub regional services we take in nineteen point five million dollars from our sub regional partner cities that excludes Santa Rosa we have transfers and a forty six point six million dollars that comes from wastewater and sub regional partners payments and then we've got sixty five million dollars there in outweighs fifty nine point nine million of that in o and m services of which twenty five million dollars is debt service and then that's six million dollars that you see in cip expenditures that is a plan expenditures for i believe the laguna plant council questions on water not seeing any so this point before you go into the capital improvement projects would like to offer a public comment at this point if you're our member of the public fill out a card we'll also have another public comment period at the end of the cip presentation which may or may not happen today so first we have Gregory furan followed by ray holiday make that ray holly sorry while i was waiting my laptop died i was trying to get some work done and i kept working and then it died and it has my statement in it i transferred the statement to uh if there's anybody else you might want to call before me ray are you ready to go yes sir yeah let's go ahead ray holly we'll come back to you Greg thank you mr mayor and council members ray holly community relations manager for the sinoma county library first thank you for decades of support and partnership of free free public libraries i've been attending your budget and goal setting sessions since february listening to you and your staff do the hard work to balance the needs of the community and the realities of your resources and i commend you for your dedication what strikes me today is how deeply embedded the library is in santa rosa and how we support your goals we provide access to information about civic engagement we have safe places to gather and learn we help veterans immigrants and the homeless we provide literacy and enrichment programs we're even hosting some of the city's recent planning and outreach meetings in our community rooms while our financial partnership is sometimes unclear our community partnership has never been stronger to respond to council member fleming's question about the lease situation we welcome any conversation with the city that supports and clarifies our valuable partnership keeping the focus on how we serve your constituents and ours would be a valuable effort that provides certainty for both the library and the city also in recent weeks the council has been receiving information from staff about the city's costs in providing library services and i'm here to offer additional information yesterday staff pointed out that the city has invested about 1.5 million in community libraries over the past 15 years that average investment of about a hundred thousand dollars is appreciated by the community and it makes a difference we appreciate your staff's suggestion today to boost that annual budget under transportation public works i checked with our finance department and in 2018 as an example we invested more than nine hundred thousand dollars in Santa Rosa library facilities that includes both routine and one-time maintenance activities and does not include books magazines dvds cds backpacks and other assets that we make available to the community it also doesn't include staffing the largest part of our budget i also wanted to offer additional information about the city's assessment of the santa rosa library facilities in the northwest branch located in codding town was giving the lowest rating by city staff based on a 2017 assessment i wanted to let you know that the northwest branch is now one of the most modern branches in the city we spent 662 thousand five hundred dollars in 2018 on an extensive interior refresh that included new lighting carpet paint and shelving that came from our measure why sales tax funds as often happens when a branch is modernized foot traffic in that branch increased immediately afterward and has been sustained we value your partnership and we want to point out that while go ahead finish your sentence i'm almost done while you have many needs to compete in your budget running libraries is our full-time commitment we invest 31 million a year in providing free library services to sonoma county and we appreciate our city and county partners great thank you thank you are you ready great i'm ready thank you and then we'll be followed by chandler jordana greetings we all want to work together to assist our community to provide safer and healthier living for those who live in the city and have no permanent housing long ago you responded to our request to set aside a small amount of general funds 20 000 to help support the use of underutilized parking lots mostly owned by our churches to provide that safe harbor for some of our most vulnerable citizens most who have been involved in the implementation of that program which we call chap will admit that it does not met its goals we think the good news is that we think we know what went wrong and we think it can be fixed we ask you to continue your support for it and to commit to our re-examination of the design with the objective of adopting new rules which can improve its chances of working specifically we want permission to explore sites in non-commercial zoning and we think we need a bit more funding we believe in our community's capacity to respond to this need and we hope you will continue to extend your partnership to the community in that effort thank you thank you is chandler here dwayne do it lana holderman thank you mr. mayor and council members my name is lana edlawan and i'm the with the sonoma county library for the last few months you've heard library leaders and supporters talk to you about the need for increasing library services in roseland you've also heard us ask you to commit 150 000 a year to an interim library while we all take the time necessary to work together to create a more permanent library in roseland i'm here to share with you how 150 000 would impact roseland for 150 000 investment in a partnership with sonoma county library you'd provide continuous library services to roseland residents the city of santa rosa the city of santa rosa and his residents would receive a 55 increase in hours available to residents from the current 27 hours a week to 42 hours a week we would increase hours after school add more literacy early literacy programs and again for stronger connections with our local schools and teachers studies show that children who are reading at grade level in fourth grade are much less likely to interact with the criminal justice system and much more likely to be successful in life the library can make that help make the library can help to make that happen with your partnership for every hour the library is open where the public and freely access technology receive job assistance take part in literacy programs and borrow educational materials for all ages the city will spend 68 dollars and 68 cents in that hour the city in the library at a minimum will serve at least 18 people probably more for every resident that visits the roseland library in the next fiscal year the city will have spent about three dollars and 62 cents per visit that's cheaper than a gallon of gas for unlimited access information and empowerment to an area of santa rosa that needs it more than most for the price of a grande vanilla latte at starbucks we can change the life of a roseland resident with your partnership for $150,000 the city of santa rosa will allow about 6,200 rosin residents to participate in free cultural programs in an area lacking a community center and a cultural hub for residents and it will happen year a year year after year again with your partnership for $150,000 the city of santa rosa will help a rosin resident check out an average of 15 books an hour in the roseland area supporting lifelong learning and literacy for entire families in santa rosa's newest neighborhood the cinema county library is not asking you to do this alone every year the library will invest more than twice what we're asking the city to invest we believe in roseland and we ask you to join us again as our partner thank you thank you gail simons hi i'm gail i want to um just talk a little bit about the program the chap program that gregory mentioned for the last six months i've been involved in helping a safe parking project here in town um there are very few of them because as greg mentioned there are some problems with the chap uh requirements that require a church or a private person to jump through quite a few hurdles before allowing their parking lot to be used for safe parking the word safe parking is a little misleading uh some of the people that park um in our safe parking lot say that they were not um unsafe out on the street particularly but what i've noticed is out on the street they did not have access to a bathroom the chap program will provide um uh access to a bathroom um to people that are parking overnight this is a sanitation issue for us and a health issue for our city very very important otherwise that affluent would not be treated properly would be going into the creeks or into the gutters so i really ask you please to consider refunding the chap program and perhaps increasing the chap money and working with us to make it a viable program right now we have only about 25 people parking in the city and safe parking lots only half of those are in church parking lots and we'd like to appeal to the church community with a reasonable program to increase that um possibility for the people that are struggling there are too many of us we have too many people that are homeless right now and need our assistance um just one more side a note the security the supervision of these parking lots is all volunteer basically the money goes toward porta potties and trash pickup so please don't forget us thank you thank you daisy that's all the cards we have okay check back to you for the cip program okay thank you mayor and at this point i'd like to turn it over to jason nut jason nut director of transportation and public works uh i heard after yesterday's meeting i put someone to sleep in the audience yesterday so i'll do my best not to do that today we'll point it out for you if we see it occurring perfect and i could get some to throw all right this is the 1920 capital improvement program as you can see and we kind of talked a little about yesterday we have a substantial amount of assets about five billion total dollars worth of assets throughout our throughout our community that we're responsible for maintaining and keeping in good operational condition um the projects that we develop as a core as part of our capital improvement program come from a number of different resources um we learned several years ago that people didn't understand how we develop these projects and it's not just a bunch of engineers sitting around saying this is how we want to do it although we like to believe we have that much power but it's really comes from all of the master plans the council documents the area plans the general plan all of those different major initiatives that this community undertakes those develop the series of capital improvement projects that we end up proceeding with this year we're looking at it in a capital improvement program about 58 and a half million dollars you can see from the slide it's it's divvied up in a number of different ways with the two largest chunks having been or being the Santa Rosa water department and the three funds that they have as well as the transportation and public works department on the general fund side we're about we're looking to invest about 2.2 million dollars the 1.2 million of annual investment into our ADA facilities you can see the three major investments that we're intending to do looking at fin liens steeling community centers trying to provide the best possible access we can to our recreational facilities we're looking at trying to improve our pathways in our parks this is an ongoing effort and we've been working on that over the last several years and making substantial progress and then there's some some in-house repairs that we're going to make in and around a number of different facilities we do set aside ask to set aside about $50,000 a year for our capital improvement team our capital projects team to assist other departments in doing some pre-development work as as chuck talked about with the overall budget our capital projects team is 100 percent reimbursable and so that general government overhead tends to hit every project that we end up working on this is a way to try to make at least the initial identification and work on a project a little less expensive to an apartment so that they feel comfortable coming to us and using the expertise of the engineering team to vet the viability of a project as part of the deal we did last year with the council we split what we thought was the last year of the led replacement program into two years this will be the second year of that program this $300,000 investment and we believe actually will complete all of the replacements in town and so we're looking forward to seeing that all finished and then of course the other pieces the $662,000 that we receive from the county every year for the next few years to improve pavement surfaces in roseland now looking at some of the specifics within the different departments the fire departments continuing to work on trying to locate two stations in the south part of town relocating station eight and a new fire station in south santa rosa they've that's i'm pretty sure this is identified as fire station number nine and that's probably going to end up more towards the taylor mountain area and then of course putting together some funds to continue to help us with our rebuild of fire station five as chuck mentioned during the budget presentation the 1.2 million dollars in police is all going to try to enhance their communication services to replace their radio system that's that is is now overdue for replacement in the finance department which is which is the parking team they're looking at doing repairs in three different garages in garage three we're talking about ground doing some pavement pavement improvements painting a little bit of epoxy overlay some facade improvements garage one is some concrete repairs some waterproofing improvements and again painting and some improvements in and around the conduit that support the electrical systems within the garage in garage 12 again some additional concrete repairs and waterproofing and so some critical components for them with their 1 million dollars of investment this upcoming year on the recreation and park side you can see what we talk about zones when we receive park development fees those are specifically identified for certain zones within the city the next slide will show the map of how those zones are split up throughout the city uh we bring those funds in and we start to delegate those those funds towards either projects or accumulation account and so items like the finley community park we have specific identified projects that we want to accomplish within this year's capital improvement program but when we look at a place to play we're looking at putting money aside as an accumulation so that we can do a much larger project moving forward such as completion of one of the two major ball fields up front or a news hawker field so they're looking to delegate that 3.2 million dollars the way they've shown it here in an effort to try to move forward with very specific projects with some parks and just setting us up for future investment with some of the others and then this slide shows how each of that 3.2 million dollars is or how that 3.2 million dollars is delegated throughout the city these are the four zones um with zone one being in the northwest zone two in the southwest zone three in the northeast and zone four in the southeast four santa rosa water uh we'll start talking about storm water um it's the smallest of the funds storm water and creeks um they're looking to invest about 1.5 million dollars um with the lower colgan creek being the predominant project that they're that they're hoping to invest in this upcoming year some of the other storm drainage improvements include things like pacific avenue and folton road franklin avenue and poppy creek a lot of those are in advance of pavement work that's going to be coming forward uh so that we don't have to so it's completed all the underground is completed prior to when when we're doing our resurfacing project on the water side uh we're as as you heard we're looking at investing about 13 million dollars um and it's it's split up between about six million dollars for water mains um the hazard mitigation grant projects about three million dollars so that would be the local match in an effort if we're successful in receiving funds from the state and federal government with the hazard mitigation uh this would be the local match setup for that uh and then smaller amounts with pump stations facilities public assistance uh and then two and a half million for our groundwater improvement projects for the wastewater improvements similarly we're setting aside about 2.8 million dollars or just under 2.8 million dollars for the hazard mitigation grant program projects uh just under six million dollars for the sewers and services that's really the pipeline improvements uh and then the sewer trunks lift stations public assistance and master plans and smaller amounts in an effort to kind of round some of those things to kind of round out the portfolio of the cip improvements on the sub regional side the predominant component of the six million dollars really is invested in the plant with small amounts going towards the continued maintenance of the geysers and then future master plan improvements for transportation and public works more on the uh road side of the house we've got about an 18 million dollar portfolio that we're putting forward uh with about 11 million in street rehabilitation um and then uh about a million and a half for capacity enhancements miscellaneous um uh street lights traffic ADA and bicycles and small amounts uh to kind of round out the entire uh program miscellaneous kind of includes pre-designed planning budget and GIS costs uh that help support a lot of the programs uh within the capital improvement program budget some of the specific projects that we're looking at our Sonoma Avenue pavement rehabilitation uh that was something chuck mentioned we're excited to be able to finally get in and do this work on Sonoma Avenue between bobby bobby lane and east street we think it's going to be a project that's going to be valuable to our community we hear about this road all of the time and then we're also going to be looking at finally getting in and doing the hoan embankment repair as you recall several years ago we started to see the embankment slip out just along hoan avenue just to the west of farmers lane which caused us to reduce the road by half in the effort to protect the community we're finally going to get out there and get that work completed we've got two projects with our pedestrian uh bicycle and pedestrian gap closure uh on piner road and dutton piner road we're actually going to be between cleveland avenue and uh industrial we're going to be taking the actually between cleveland and coffee we're going to be taking the shoulders and we're going to be repaving those to provide for a smooth safe bicycle route and then on dutton avenue there is a sidewalk gap just to the south of jennings avenue and it's our intention to move forward with that we're going to continue to put about eight hundred and fifteen thousand dollars into our fulton road widening project this is a critical component it is measure m funded for a majority of it but we do need to provide a one-to-one match for our measure m dollars and this will help us continue to move with our rule 20 a project in working with pg and e and then lastly on the list here and again this is just a sampling of the type of projects that are going on is our san rosa avenue corridor project we're looking at investing tda article three funds to help us move forward and get that project complete that is the reconfiguration of san rosa avenue between maple and sonoma avenue to accommodate class two bike lanes and improve circulation in that area for bicyclists and pedestrians i will say earlier this well yesterday council member requested that we provide additional information on bicycle and pedestrian enhancements a little more detailed information about that that was sent to you earlier today in an email and with that if you have any questions about the capital improvement program i am happy to help everyone's still awake just fyi perfect any questions from council i've one if you can go back to slide 141 the parks to be honest i find this kind of misleading because tennis court resurfacing going back to the documents that's actually not in zone one but being paid for by northwest development fees i think those are gallant park tennis court resurfacing which is not in zone one and peter springs park the 200k that's actually africana springs which also is not in zone one northwest and i know sometimes different zones get funds borrowed from other zones my questions are especially when you show the next slide shows the balance in those zone three's got more than enough money as to zone four to cover those two projects who's tracking that and who makes those decisions what zones to tap from and so we're lucky to have jen santos who's the deputy director of recreation and parks to answer that question good afternoon council members i wanted to clarify with that we do tend to move funds around as needed we've done the same thing with the southwest zone we've moved if you look at um rosin clea community park on slide i'm guessing this slide nine i'm sorry slide 141 we do move zones around to help complete projects and we do track that and get back those funds back to the zones that they originated from so we have a master excel spreadsheet in the recon parks department where we track what is happening from one zone to another so we can be sure that we're providing equal opportunity for those zones so for instance zone four does not typically collect as much funding as the other zones but we have a high need in zone four i'm sorry zone two the rosin creek area for for projects down there with our large rosin clea community park that isn't quite ready for construction yet so we're preparing for those projects and we do track them and when we do receive funds in the future for those zones that didn't have them originally we will move them back so what role does council or the board of community services play in tracking and i guess the priority i have a question about that because i would make the assumption on slide 142 it shows northwest has got over two million dollars those funds come from developments in northwest which in essence are supposed to provide recreational resources for that development that's correct and we do work with the board of community services annually and recently been moving that up to every six months to keep them informed of what we're how we're using the funds how we're getting the funds back to those original zones so they can be reused and keeping them informed of the tracking that we are doing and the projects related there it is correct that those zones that we collect the money we collect in those zones typically stays there we do the general plan does allow for moving of zones if it's for if for instance if it's for a citywide benefit so rosin creek community park and other parks tennis resurfacing projects that serve a more larger citywide use we are allowed for the general plan to move and so we do that occasionally i guess i would struggle to see how taking 50k from zone one for the community might benefit to play tennis in zone four when there's funding for zone four and i guess the the question for me when you say keeping board of community services informed are we working with them and they have some input as to what the priorities are or you just telling them what you're doing and they don't actually have a voice in the prioritizations of which projects and get funded in which zones are paying for the community benefit of all of us we do seek their input and feedback on our recommendations and so yes i do feel that they have a voice and so does the community when we do go over these projects we are keeping everybody informed and up to date and if there is a concern or something we absolutely will respond to that but it's cumulative you know like jason director net said earlier a lot of these things are collected cumulatively so at the time that the 50 000 you know for instance 50 000 has moved it might have been a financially beneficial to do that and then we can get it back to the originating zone the following years as needed so could that data be provided to the council and the board of community service because i guess it what i'm hearing you say that the ultimate decision is staff it's not the board of community services or the city council right we do we do look to the board of community services to provide feedback for us for our recommendations that we take annually to them on using the funds for for parks and we can decisions are already been made and i don't want to get in technicalities here but what you're saying there's one thing you said this is what we're doing just want to let you know versus we want your input and decision-making ability about where we're going to prioritize which projects because i'm also somewhat struck obviously you're participating in many of the discussions on coffee park i know rink and ridge park which would be in zone three there's no projects here but my understanding that it experienced significant damage from that i guess i'm an advocate of getting board of community services more engaged and where the city council especially in light of measure m so i saw on the cip funds 1.9 million will be coming our way i know we don't know how that can be dispersed beginning that community input and you know no disrespect but if it's still and just staff driven i'm not sure that's the intent of what the voters wanted for supporting all the parks so i don't know and this might be a city manager decision i don't know if it's a policy change or if you need is this another city session feedback from council to the city manager how would you so so we'll we'll caucus on exactly this point and the message is totally received again just going back to echo some comments from my colleagues about the transparency in this some of us living in zone one would say man i know there's a whole bunch of park projects in zone one that could use some upgrades and again going back to the slide 141 that doesn't appear if one were to read this and not know where the zones were it looks like those zone ones are getting a whole lot of improvements but that's actually not the case the the funding is coming from zone one but the project is not in zone one so clarifying that would also i think be beneficial for all members any other questions or comments from council okay we have a couple of cards here and we'll give one oh sure yeah any of the cip presentation can can i just ask um are the costs for our hopeful costs for jennings in here somewhere or is that something that because we don't know for sure we're not saving up for it yet so we currently still have funds remaining from our original project we haven't depleted them nor have we eliminated the project itself it is not adequate to it is not adequate if we have a project moving forward and we will have to come back in the future to request additional funds for council from council okay and i'm not sure if this is cip or not the community advisory board also has cip in the charter as something that they look at did this go through the community advisory board so last year and i know jason carter's in the room or has been i see him last year with the cab did not collect data and information because we had to defer and delay most of their community meetings this year they're beginning their collection process now as a component of the wednesday night markets and so we will take that data and information and can and move that into next year's process okay and if i may ask the city manager um i recall that there was a we paid some funds for a strategic plan for the community advisory board but i'm not sure that we've approved you you and i'm not sure if we're implementing that and just the funding for the implementation of that in here and i missed it because i could have missed it yeah we have an uh in that same process i just wanted to confirm that funding for implementing their strategy in here in the budget because we did it okay yes just making sure thank you very much we also had a couple of public comments earlier asking about the chat program is the 20k for the chat program continued through or not in this budget yes it is is it at 20 or 30 it's a 20 it's a 20 20 and we're council we're going to be coming back in um in august i will just point out that that's a big date in august have august currently on the schedule is scheduled for a follow-up conversation on august 27th about the program and the the components of the program in august some things are going to have to move thank you i appreciate it other question we're going to see ip mr tibbetz thank you mr mayor i apologize but i didn't see in here anything about the portland lou what was what's the status on that i know it made it into our budget priorities last year i'll bring the man in charge of the lou staff so i'm wondering what i just unearthed you had to ask um the portland lou project is currently moving forward following council's direction last year to identify a location in the downtown uh well first was to solicit um vendors to see who had products that would be applicable for our downtown area and then to focus on identifying locations um purchasing went uh went out and did a solicitation um they it was brought it open they had a number of different companies that pulled the information but only the portland lou submitted information uh so they are now the vendor that we're okay to talk about and to work with um we are you'll be seeing here fairly soon a product or a staff report item coming to you um to purchase the lou it has about a 10 month lead time so we want to go ahead and buy one now because we know we're going to install one and we are in the process of working with uh staff members uh and the downtown community to identify potential locations within the downtown that we believe serve the community and population that the council directed us to try to serve and so that uh is actively working it's our intent to try to go to the downtown subcommittee uh here in the next uh three to six weeks um and we'll uh we'll see what kind of additional direction we get at that point i will say that um i've had some direct feedback from some property owners downtown that was um it should be a um interesting um downtown meeting we'll tell them to open their bathrooms and there'll be no problem i'm just i'm giving everybody a heads up but in all seriousness i do want to say thanks jason i know that that was like this odd thing that got thrown in the budget last year and the fact that it's actually come this far a year later is impressive and i appreciate it thank you once we get to a point where we think we've got some consensus or where we think we understand the direction that the at least the three council members that sit on the downtown subcommittee have as consensus we're going to come back to council for final approval on the location um because there there may be a portion of the public that wants to speak about that location okay for a conversation any other questions about the cfp and again there'll be more opportunities for comments on the rest of this presentation after we take public comment for before we do take public comment i think the we have one more slide to show because we do there's some direct feedback we need from council as you go through your comments so okay did you have a question mr phoney okay i just wanted to let anybody who is interested in supporting or whatever interested and involved in the process of the the portland loot to come to the downtown subcommittee and voice your your opinion one way or another about it should be noticed online soon so is this just what the next question's gonna be these are uh this is just to lead the discussion just some of the things that we are want to get some input from council on for putting together the budget for for the adoption for june 18th so well actually i would like to take public comment before this they can maybe comment on this before we actually make comments so we have all the information to provide any comment to you okay so with that we have two cards channeler dorjana are you here great and dwayne do it has return daisy do we have any other cards release the two great good afternoon my name is channeler jordan i'm the senior program manager for the secure families collaborative of sinoma county i have met a couple of you but i have not had the privilege of meeting all of you the city of san aroza generously contributed thirty five thousand dollars to our fund last fiscal year and we're asking for fifty thousand dollar donation for this upcoming fiscal year and the year and the following year as it is a three-year program thank you for allowing me that the time to speak i i'm in recognition especially that it's a tight budget year so thank you for your continued cooperation there's i as i've been here for the majority of the either here in person or watching via teleconference of the budget hearing one thing that i keep hearing about is the economy the economy and the economic recovery including via the recovery and resiliency program and i just like to share some some facts about why the council should should support this fund and why it's important the the unemployment rate in sinoma county is 2.6 percent and the press democrat reported that several economists have reported a labor shortage just threatening san aroza and sinoma county potentially into economic recession the unemployment rate of 2.6 percent is 1.3 percent in the state average and one county winery has reported that they they received about 15 applications last year for the uh picker positions as opposed to about 700 10 years ago uh there's an estimated 20 000 undocumented immigrants in san aroza and um the between 2005 and 2014 the hispanic and latino population of sinoma county increased by 36 percent and the tourism via the accommodation and food services bringing an estimated one billion dollars to sinoma county and we're asking for the city of san aroza to support our endeavors in light of the fact that it's the largest city in the county and that it's the sinoma county has already contributed a hundred thousand dollars and we're very thankful for the contributions that the city has made already i'm sorry i just realized that i forgot to properly introduce the secure families collaborative the secure families collaborative provides a pro bono deportation defense for people in removal proceedings for sinoma county immigrants and in addition to the pro bono defense component there's also affirmative legal services and social wraparound services it is a it's an unprecedented non-profit collaboration and it has the opportunity to really put the city of san aroza and uh sinoma county as a whole on the map um so apart from the economic reasons there's also socio-cultural reasons um also the fear inciting federal rhetoric of the um of the federal government has been proven untrue and um again it has the potential for national recognition for the city of san aroza and the economic benefits i believe i've already spoken to them and and they're quite self-evident so uh thank you for your time thank you duane deway hello my name is duane dewitt i'm from roseland and i'm not here to ask you for money i'm here to help you try to save some money with the upcoming tight budgets this slide is really important in a way i hope that mr rogers will remember a couple of years ago when the parks department came back to talk about an already completed master plan for roseland park it was done in 2010 they sat on it for five years didn't approve it there was some tom foolery that happened and the recreation and parks director left along with an assistant and also the city manager so the parks department came back and they said hey we need five hundred thousand dollars because we're going to revisit this plan well now i see here that they're asking for six hundred and sixty one thousand more dollars and i'm like wait a minute what is going on i'm hoping that this study session is about discussing and finding answers that dialogue with the community that you talk about i'm real concerned because essentially the approach doesn't seem to be geared towards actually doing what the community has said they wanted and thought the plan was finished in 2010 and then has gone through the meetings and has tried to advocate in the popular local way with those folks that live there but the kind gentleman mr nut and the kind lady miss santos that work for you folks have told us pretty much it's their way or the highway so i'd like for you to get the explanation as to why it's costing another six hundred and sixty one thousand dollars for something that's already in a sense been done if they were going to do the environmental impact report that could have been done a long time ago and it neglects in the study here to point out that two and a half million dollars was spent by the ag and open space district to get the first five point nine acres already done spent nine full years ago fenced off not being utilized by the community i i talked with advocates for veterans and they'd be like you know they could put those houses to use at least and bring some income forward they could also perhaps move them off the site and save the money that you might have to spend to demolish them it doesn't seem as if you're really trying to save money though it seems it's pretty much like they give you stuff they spoon feed it to you in a way and then it's like okay we'll just go with what we can i hope in the next session you'll allow the public to be part of this session instead of just this one little request for information please find the information thank you thank you thank you mr McBride hi mayor and council one of the things we'd like to do is get some council direction on these specific issues that we that we've talked to you about so you remember we've kind of broken this into pieces the first thing that we that we had were the um were the discussions on kind of the top level financial stability pieces so one of the things that we want to do as we move forward with the budget is is get council direction on how you'd like to move forward with payment of the unfund liability our recommendation right now is to um is to pay down that liability using that 4.2 million dollars our hope is to to do that and then we could we could as one time monies become available discuss implementing you know some sort of a stabilization fund or something like that in in the future but either way however council wants to wants to handle that one we had some recovering resiliency asks so so we had the disaster project funding those had some big dollars associated with them and we don't really have a ton of one time money to use on those things so i think in the slide that i showed you we had about three million dollars that we could spread between this and infrastructure and i believe the ass on infrastructure was three to three and a half million dollars we also have some operating ass that we'd like to get council direction on we told you we'd like to extend the instant young contract for i think three months at a cost of three hundred thousand dollars i think we could find a way to probably we could probably pay pay that through uh through fund balance or or just through turn back money so i'm gonna i'm gonna cut in unfortunately um the entire pa process will grind to an unfortunate halt i i hate to say i'm not sure you have an option on that one but the reality is you don't because we don't we won't be able to sustain the effort on the public assistance process so um we are trying to get through this but they bring a contingency support so that we can manage and bring this internally so the the cfo's being kind i'm just saying i i need you to affirm that because we will be in a very difficult situation because we cannot absorb that internally at this point if i may are we looking at for example slide 31 in the first one not the capital improvements one um is that is that the 26 million that we're looking at as we're having this conversation about where funds will come from or how we might allocate funds it's it's not clear to me from this picture where your 4.2 million is coming out of unless i for example go back and look at slide 31 right and actually i think i'm looking if you're looking 31 i think i'm looking at 32 it's that kind of graphical depiction that we did with the journal fund deficit at the top it says at the top of mind funding sources and funding gaps which actually should say suggested right and that's sources are totaled 26 million right so is this money coming from that 26 million so it is and remember though with the calpers one was a little bit different because that money was collected for that purpose so we can really only apply that towards calpers so that's an obligation right funds money exactly back into right four million and in some form council can choose not to million and not 4.2 it's 4.2 yeah it's for i rounded it four on the document just for ease of conversation thank you but council can choose to uh to apply that to purrs in a number of ways you could also decide to uh set up a stabilization fund you don't have to pay off purrs that was just our recommendation do you have a question because then yeah so oh i'm sorry go ahead mr chibis yeah really quick so this 4.2 to be clear i raised a question yesterday about um one was basically betting on the market the other was more of uh i mean to use a market analogy feathering the dollar in is that safe to say that a pension stabilization fund is more like feathering money into this this equities market that would be a fair um look at it it's it would be um it would just allow you to write out any annual increases due to gains or mostly gains or losses probably totally gains losses within the within the within the calpers asset so it'd be a more uh reactive approach the approach that we were recommending actually gets you savings and starts to pay down the ual so that's a more i guess proactive approach it just depends on how you want to how you want to tackle it but that that latter example is i mean what timeline of of purrs because i mean let's as i understand purrs is that it's it basically tracks the the national economy the national economy tanks purrs returns tanks yep so what timeline are we looking at here how long is are we going to see that savings get generated i think it was six million something that we would save in the long term i'm i'm supportive of using the purrs money for purrs but right now i'd bet against a successful market yeah so here's here's the deal if the market takes a downturn that's going to negatively affect our costs either way if you put this money into purrs um you you're going to you're going to still have the savings from it but that savings may actually get hidden by the fact that you have a big loss in purrs so i could come back next year and you could say where's my six hundred and eighty five thousand dollars savings and purrs could have had a loss or could have just missed their target return it would completely paper it over but if we hadn't done that our increases would have been even bigger so i don't know what it means yeah it does and i appreciate it and i think the council needs to really look clearly at this question um the can the purrs money be put into our our reserve could we i mean how does there a time period that we can hold on to it um and again the reason why i'm asking here is that i i recognize if you throw money into an equity account you build your principle that principle is going to change with the changing market and over a 10-year average your principle is better off with the contribution than without it but i'm just wondering when is there is there an optimal time to assuming this this purrs money can only be used for one of the two options you just laid out is there a way to do get the savings you realize but maybe hold on to it while there's uncertainty in the market oh you could do any number of things that that would be middle ground solutions you could tell me to take two million dollars of this throw it at purrs and keep 2.2 reserves i i would you know caution council against using this money for any other purpose but you could do not if you did nothing we would just leave the 4.2 million dollars uh there to service purrs in some you know maybe in the future we could call it a stabilization fund so that when when we do have a year where we have a big increase in our arc we could dip into that to pay that and and uh or you could go you know full monty and pay the whole 4.2 million to purrs and and you're right i mean you do have to think about the flip side of this coin i'm trying to pay down purrs and and and attack that ual but that's the finance side of me you are putting 4.2 million dollars at a risky market the only problem is you know if you're asking me to hold on to it and tell you when to get in uh i can't time the market i couldn't tell you when yeah we're we're not i mean that's one of the the challenges is us managing the portfolio it's not it's not something that's going to be in our regular regular wheelhouse of management in terms of market chasing is not going to be a successful thing for a city to do what i what i think we could maybe do is bring back a sort of global picture of what communities are doing for june you know say say this is this is the choices across the state that are going on and if you're feeling comfortable at that point we can delay the conversation i think our staff's chief's concern is we've gone the fire's been a big detriment we were supposed to have this conversation about this item two years ago specifically about getting a strategy i think what the community is going to look for council member is a commitment to a strategy and what that strategy is yeah and so what i what i'll say is we'll come back in the june and we'll give you maybe a better picture of of what communities are doing around the state how they're approaching this problem to give you some guidance um and then you can make a decision about where where you want to go with the 4.2 but we just wanted to make sure that there's an opportunity the opportunity for this session is closing and so if we don't take it now we're going to have to wait until a full year right to take this opportunity again and so we just want to make sure that your comfort if that's the choice you're comfortable with that choice so mayor to answer your question and get this what are our comments on that going my suggestion would be is we give chuck 2.2 million right now to get in on this year but then keep 2.2 for us to have that conversation because if we're going to be doing this sort of thing this organization needs an investment policy statement um and maybe we have one but it's it feels to me like we're just saying we see savings now based on current returns let's throw it in and without there being an established policy around that it feels a little bit like we're being cavalier with a lot of money just to me and that's not a value statement on the work that you're doing I think it's great I just you know to be to be prudent with it it makes sense to me that we pay some of that down get some savings and then we keep some as a stabilization fund or at least keep some to have a conversation to tell future councils what we're going to be doing going forward all right so let's try keep it to questions first and then we'll go around for the final comments so be victoria chris and then julie thank you director Mcbride I asked you this question yesterday but the languaging keeps going up again when you say pay down purrs you don't mean that we're paying down purrs as far as I understand you mean that we are investing the hope of getting a return that's better than what it currently gets in in our portfolio um so let me say yes to all those things so when I say that we're paying down purrs we have that 338 million dollar unfunded liability that liability is spread among three different plans police fire and miscellaneous if you go into those plans you will see a page that lists out line after line of amortizations and and the best way I can explain those things is they're like seconds on your house so every time they have a loss we get a new 20 year amortization line the next year they have a loss we get a new one if we change benefits which we haven't done a long time that gets new amortization it's like block of line items that makes up that 338 million dollars what I am recommending is we go in and we pick those line items when we picked three of them one in each plan and we're knocking out a piece of that and unlike you know my my mortgage analogy if you went in you paid additional principal on your home it wouldn't lower your mortgage you still have the same monthly payment this lowers your actual mortgage purrs will actually go back in and reamortize it and you will get those annual savings and then you also get those those are savings your other question um yeah I am because purrs is assuming a rate of return of seven a quarter percent on those amortizations that's how they build our cost so we are essentially taking two percent money and throwing it at a seven half and seven a quarter percent problem so in that way you are actually using the money I think to to a better use but again you know I can't talk about that without talking about the risk that we have of putting additional money in a purrs asset that is susceptible to to very volatile market conditions but I and so that's where I'm going with this is that it's not as though we're paying down part of a mortgage we are investing in in in our system you are paying down part of a mortgage when we put if we put that 4.2 million dollars in your ual your your unfunded liability goes down by 4.2 million dollars do you feel confident with the current leadership at purrs to manage that money going forward if we were to make that decision do I have to answer that I do they they have investment professionals I think they're I think they I think looking at what the returns have been over the years I'm not I'm not suspect as time goes by and they will start to de-risk this portfolio and get into less risky assets I think that'll be better I will like that investment policy better but you know as per the way it will increase our costs you know temporarily but but over time I think it'll be better and more realistic I think part of the problem that God is here is that we haven't really felt the feedback of what our actual cost of these programs are so I think I think what they're doing is is correct Mr. Rogers thank you and I think I think your explanation kind of went where I was going to go with this which is the way that I think about this is you've got five credit cards each of them of different interest rates you get one-time dollars if you pay off the one that has the highest interest rate you're still owing what you owe on the credit card but long term it's going to cost you less because you've gotten rid of that call it that credit card you use the line analogy so we can talk more about it but I'm comfortable putting the 4.2 in because it does actually in real terms think of it as debt financing thinking of it as interest rate gets rid of $700,000 that we would have to owe towards it each year okay thank you and before you ask your question Ms. Combs Mr. Sorry staff has asked for direction on this so what I'd like to do is ask you a question we're just going to go through the order starting with you Ms. Combs work our way around so Mr. Sorry can get caught up but this is the information that staff would like to hear from council go ahead Ms. Combs thank you mayor it's I think I recall asking a question yesterday along these lines of why would we do one over the other what I'm remembering you mentioning is that is it correct that currently if we were to invest four million dollars or four point two million dollars ourselves in a in a fund uh section 115 yes um then we would earn roughly two percent on it oh yeah so um council member that that my comment there was that when you talk about stabilization funds which is which is one of the ways to handle this and actually was a recommendation by pfm you can do it in a number of ways one is that you can invest the money in what's called a section 115 irrevocable trust there's a couple things I don't like about that the irrevocable part I don't like and you know what that allows you to do those invest in things like equities so you can chase a higher rate of return but again I'm a little bit uncomfortable in that arena the other thing that you could do is just have your own stabilization fund where the money is just pooled as it is now with the city's investment portfolio so you're not going to get a seven percent return on that but our current investment portfolio yields about what about two percent okay so that's where that two percent comment came from if we put it in CalPERS although it is possibly too much that they're suggesting they earn what is the ballpark that's about seven percent at CalPERS right now seven quarters what they use right now for okay and so even if they drop to six somewhere in the sixes um that's better than two that is better than two okay um I have a couple of questions about the recovery and resiliency now I'm still looking at page 31 which may be confusing me um is that the seven million dollar r and r local match that's listed on page 31 that was that was a part of that yep okay so is the 300k extension of Ernst and Young part of that seven million or is that on top of that's on top of so we'd actually be though I I should kind of separate these out so if you look at the yeah the disaster project funding that's really kind of capital projects that we're looking at so the fire station five rebuild um you know that's that's that 15 million we talked about street light replacement I think was a million dollars and then tree removal I think uh is over two million dollars but the immediate ass was 250 I'm a little confused and some of what I'm confused about you need to help me with okay um you're asking for council direction if I sit here and say I would like to see us fund some program I'm asked to show where the 100,000 or whatever fund amount is coming from but you're asking for these without showing clearly where you're taking them from and I'm I thought that it was on page 31 but now I'm not sure so the 4.2 on page 31 was the POB funding source yes so where is the recovery and resiliency coming from and what is the total amount so that's what we what we have to get council direction on so we have about three million dollars to spread on that and infrastructure okay so under funding gap here on that same page 31 I'm seeing a three million dollar infrastructure yeah that was that was the initial ass but if you do three million dollars in infrastructure per director nuts presentation yesterday that uses up all that money so that means that right now you don't have anything for for recovering resilience so I don't so that's three million on this page doesn't cover the recovery money not if you give it all to infrastructure now okay now there's something that says our and our local match on page 31 for seven million yep is that this or is that covering something else that's part of this that's part disaster of projects funding okay and then I'm showing a deficit of 12 million on page 31 right so remember the way that we covered that that deficit was was from two sources so you had deficit of 12 million dollars unfortunately I can't flip back and these are separate slideshows otherwise I go to my other slide but so you so you got 12 million dollars so we had 10 million dollars in additional funding from the new measure or the TEF as we're calling it and then we had assuming council's amenable we had five million dollars in in savings from those from those 39.25 positions we showed you so that's 15 million dollars to address a 12 million dollar gap that leaves three million dollars rough math there left over to address infrastructure and resiliency one time funding sources the bottom two bullets that you're seeing there that are the EOC personnel that's an ongoing operating cost however I think and and I'm this is just me tying two things together doesn't mean council has tied them together but the reorganization that the city manager proposed to you if you recall had a savings of about 350 thousand dollars in in ongoing savings so you could feasibly if we implement that in the budget that you adopt we could move money to the EOC for that ongoing operating costs and those would roughly offset okay but that's operating myself pretty good at math in my head and and I'm having a little trouble keeping up and I'm betting others cannot keep up I walked into the room sort of thinking there was seven million dollars of unassigned general fund balance somewhere and thinking about what we would be doing with that it looks as if if we approve what that's 32 not 31 at least on my page if we if we do what you have asked in your slide we use all of the 26 million funding source dollars we have yeah and thank you correct yeah and hold on there council member because thank you you just you're right I was missing missing a piece of this so that other bubble there that one time excess is what you just brought up so we said we had 26 million dollars were required for fund balance we have 33 we had 70 so you're exactly right you do have seven million dollars that you can use it yeah so out to the cfo with your math skills very well done so you have three million dollars that drops down from those ongoing portions right that you can use for those and then you've got that additional seven million dollars if we take that from excess reserves and we apply that to those two bucks so yes you do have that available to you does the proposal that you have asked us to comment on use the total of the 26 million dollars that's on page 31 yeah it does it does why I can add one is hard on everybody can you go to page 31 yep thank you so on the left hand side of page 31 there's a list of sources of income right might have and a list of how we might think about using it exactly if we use it in the way that your final counsel decision question is framed we're doing the funding gaps on the right side of this yes okay that's where I'm trying to get and does are the Ernst and young in this or not so the Ernst and young is an operating cost these are really the answer is no the answer is no okay so we have to find an additional 300 000 for Ernst and young we do and there's a second one that's about 300 000 that my brain has just lost so that was for the EIC EOC personnel the two fte's and so that's also not in this that's that's part of the operating budget so that would be ongoing costs there's another 600 000 that we need to find that's not on this page so that operating costs for the EOC what you could do is if you tell us to do the reorganization the city manager recommended that's going to save you 350 000 in operating costs per year then if we add in 300 000 in the final budget which is what we're asking it's kind of a wash okay so we still have to find the 300 still have to find another 300 000 but that 300 000 for E and Y would be one-time money yeah that's only for three months so that we would you know probably go and look for turn back or something like that I want to help fund the roseland library none of these dollars are available to do that there isn't in the unassigned general fund balance of seven million dollars to do that because it's being used here no no councilmember this is only a proposal you can decide to do it you could you could you could take that local match of seven million dollars and reduce that because we're using general fund you know above a excess over our required reserve 26 million dollars that's seven million dollars this is just a proposal that doesn't say that's what you have to do you you could you could you could do this what do I not fund if I do that so that's so that's that's the 50 that's that's why we're asking for some direction we'll come back with a proposal if there are things you want us to fund okay the the the the 150 000 for roseland library is is an ongoing cost so we'd have to factor that on into the ongoing support mechanism for the organization and likely I think the outcome is where we're going to be looking to to crunch the numbers as the right now is over infrastructure right it's in this proposal but that's only three million it's only three million we already know what the need is and so where we would be looking to to to chase the costs at least at a higher level is to start to depress what we're doing to invest in our infrastructure which again defers that conversation longer so I think that's the likely outcome because the local match you're going to need you're going to need to get that I mean and again this is why it's not a single year issue that's why we're trying to understand we need we're going to be back here in this tough conversation next year some of these monies will be sort of circling where it's way back into our coffers because some of its admin costs that we'll be able to get some of it back but right now we need to know what we're fronting up up front and so that's why we're trying to understand are there priority things that we need to go between now this budget and the final adoption to add in what we would what we're telling you is likely if you add stuff in the infrastructure is going to be the thing that we're going to push back and that has implications across the organization to not address our ongoing infrastructure you saw that where our facilities are in a five to ten year period where they're going to start to head towards failure so and so that's the question are there things that we want I think there's a lot of things that got handled in the budget yes and secure families we're trying to understand what the real request is we heard 50 here we've we had understood 75 we'll sort through that and see what the real number is and come back in the final proposal and and answer that but currently in the budget it's tagged as a $75,000 request so at what point do we tell you if we have things that it concerns us that we aren't funding for example the library this this is the point that's so do I do that well I'm questioning okay um so I'm interested that we fund the library I think you know that I'm interested in funding some kind of miscellaneous wellness program without it being necessarily the specific wellness program that we may have some concerns about so can I ask a clarifying question on that there was and again I don't want to put words in other council member's mouth but there was some concern about um uh mental health issues and and and is so is it a wellness program are we looking at both I just want to make sure that that issue gets some conversation here because there are different programs I think I'm looking for parity with what our fire and police have that our miscellaneous employees have access and if we change what our police and fire have with regard to wellness which includes stress reduction which I consider to be a great mental health benefit um then I would expect that our miscellaneous employees have it so I'm looking for parity across employees I'm concerned if we have not put aside the funding to implement the CAP strategic plan the community advisory board excuse me staff has told me that we have set aside that okay making sure I did that um I have a strong interest in increasing our parks maintenance grounds maintenance I mean 175 200 000 for a couple of parks people I think we need to look there I I know where I would take it but I don't think I have four votes for where I would take it from so you may want to find another place and I'm also concerned that we need to have some ability to call on resources for the rental assistance program in order to get it started because while it pays for itself that initial startup cost will we will feel that so that's my that's my list and your feedback on the 4.2 million I think we have to do the 4.2 million and into uh purrs because that's where the current best return is um and we haven't had every conversation I've heard is that we're not going to buy out of purrs and into social security okay do that in general the question can you put up that other slide just so we can kind of sorry right yeah so I appreciate that okay I'm just wanting to give a feedback to the staff based on those presentations with when the slide appears yep okay so um in terms of the 4.2 million pob I'm in favor of investing it with purrs I would be most in favor of investing it not based on the three different classifications but based on the worst credit card that we have if there is one if they're all the same then fine but I think that we owe it to our taxpayers and our employees to look at the global picture and so if that's an option that's what I'd like to see have happened it's a leap of faith going with purrs on this um and so I think we need to really do it strategically as possible I'm uncomfortable conditioning um a funding allocation for the Ernst and Young and the other contract that both the $300,000 ones based on a reorg that we haven't had a full public conversation of at this point in time it doesn't speak to my feelings on the reorg but I don't want to tie two things that are not really related to each other so the $300,000 is not tied to the reorg it is something we have to get done we have to keep accountants employed so I want to make it clear that we're going to have to look for a resource when we come back in the budget to address that I don't have any options around that I understand the if you don't want to tie the other things together we can get through that conversation yeah I just think it's a cleaner conversation to say you know these are priorities we have and here's how we're going to fund them and this is a reorg that is recommended and evaluate that separately that would be my request there and then I echo the sentiment around funding the rosin library as a high priority and and then requesting parity with regard to wellness for employees where possible and finally you know just a continued long-term approach to where our investments are going to give us the best bang for our buck so thank you mr titties thank you mayor and I apologize I'm going to be a little bit long-winded one of the things that I was hoping to bring up earlier but I apologize I was absent when housing and community services came up was actually two things first was looking at carving out funding for a homeless services attorney just like we have an attorney a housing services attorney and the reason why I want to paint a picture that I've learned firsthand a lot of people who are experiencing homelessness in our community today are easy easy applicants for social security disability insurance but to be able to go through that process they have to have an advocate it can be it somebody who's certified to handle their HIPAA records or it can be an attorney attorneys are better because it gets them through the appeals process but as we're doing all this work with housing locators and navigators this is one of those investments that's relatively small that will really complement all the work that we're doing vis-a-vis housing locators because if we compare people with their ssdi that's another 800 dollars a month in their pocket so I really hope that we can look at that in this budget cycle if there's support for it on the council if not certainly as we proceed looking with our comprehensive solution to homelessness the other question I had was on page 109 and it was around the real property transfer tax we went through that resolution back in August I tried to solicit a copy of the resolution because I couldn't quite remember how the funding appropriations were supposed to be made I noticed on the page 109 slide that we're currently allocating 30 percent but that seemed a little bit low to me but then again I remember I think it was 75 percent in 2022 so when you bring this back to us just know that I really want that resolution a copy of it and understand how that resolution is supposed to play into this budget process as I believe it was written we were supposed to be presented with a question about that and the council was supposed to make a decision about funding appropriations consistent to that resolution or holding off due to economic circumstance and I don't believe we got that question through the last two days so it was discussed I mean and I think this is the input I think we'll bring it back we still are funding RPTT is the actual dollar amounts outstrips the percentage of investment but we'll bring that back okay just a copy of the resolution too if somebody on staff could send that to my email I'd appreciate it um the for me the roseland library if there's one thing that we walk away with for the community from this budget process I plead that it be the roseland community library I would preferably like to see two years of capital outlay so that they can move into their new lease space but if we want to just look at one that's fine because I recognize there's economic uncertainty ahead but just making sure that we help facilitate that library getting relocated because that is our responsibility now it's our sphere of influence and when you walk into the library in its current state it looks like what people always feared it would look like and that is the city of Santa Rosa and the people on the east side are ignoring it and I know that's not the tenor of this council this council achieved well actually prior council achieved annexation but we have to make a really clear value statement about that library the the other one that I actually thought we had the opportunity to achieve that would be low hanging fruit is the rental inspection program that was 1.6 million I think when it was quoted to us a year or so ago and the reason why is if we do have this unanticipated 21.6 million surplus this is something that gets paid back through the program as it was designed I don't know if it's since changed since miss Howard sat me down and told me about the program but I think there was landlords were going to be paying a per door fee and I thought boy what would an easy way to get that inspection program going and then we can recapture that those funds for whatever else the city priorities are at the time but we have money to catalyze it now I would suggest that we do that I think that that about does it for me the you know the parks thing I just want to chime in on this it is to me a little bit sad that we're well below the national average I'm sure a lot of California cities are given our UAL situation but I I do think there might be a middle ground here with seasonal employees when I look at a lot of other cities they're looking at seasonal employees to come out during the spring and summertime tidy up the parks when they're at peak usage then there's no UAL significant you know fiscal obligation of those folks because they're non-pension positions so you know I could come around to or at least as I understand it I could be ignorant to that but if that were the situation as I understand that I could see setting aside and supporting some funds for seasonal park maintenance positions and that's it and I do want to thank everybody and definitely you Chuck for making this budget process pretty straightforward thanks I thought you're almost going to say fun but straightforward I'll go with that Mr. Oliver is this is never fun as as relates to the unfunded liability yes I support that we do need to do something about that it's been a problem for a long time will continue to be a problem so we need to address that when we can support the others as well overall I think there's still more information that I need to make final decisions as we move forward and I'll go back to to the pet and the cannabis issues also related to the housing I want to make sure that we're nimble enough as we start seeing what we're getting as far as applications potential businesses potential revenue coming from that can we be nimble enough to bring on the staffing that we need when when it's time that will be very important and the other piece is public safety with police we have some reductions I know some of these are non-sworn positions but those non-sworn positions allow the opportunity for our or sworn officers to be readily available to respond to urgent and emergency calls for service and also try not to impact response times I need more information on these real impacts because again we've made reductions in this department quite a bit and it's hard to bounce back and start hiring officers right away it's it's it's tough now all over the country and recruiting officers to come to work for any department and I don't want to get caught short and I do not want to jeopardize public safety as we move forward because it it means a lot it means a lot to our efforts as relates to tourism making this a safe and it'll be placed to live and all the other things as well as relates to housing and community engagement of things called or whatever it whatever it is I need more information on nrp what are what is the plan then if we're if it's going to die what's what's the new nrp going to look like we annexed a big piece of of land in roseland in 2017 and for me I haven't seen enough yet to demonstrate that we're actually doing more with some of these communities that are in great need so I look forward to that recreation and parks I mean primarily the recreation again I need more information I know we have some index numbers it's and such but from my perspective I think our parks are doing pretty good as well so it's where's that separation with programming and parks I know we're moving maintenance folks over to public works so where is the issue I think you know we talk about it but I need to understand what the real issue is before I start making serious considerations about adding more back to recreational parks and again considering as citywide priorities and looking forward into the future not maybe something we can address this budget year but we have to and it's going back to roseland we have to look ahead as to what our needs are and one of the greatest needs that I see regardless of the open government task force is our bilingual needs and helping that community how are we what are we doing to make local government accessible to those who don't speak the language and it it's trouble some to me when somebody has to drag in an interpreter for themselves or when there isn't anybody to do the interpretation for them while they're here so I'm not saying we need it now I'm just saying we need to start thinking about that because we've already annexed that that property which brought in a lot of I believe monolingual Spanish speakers but we need to make sure that we meet these needs in the future the wellness program is again I don't have enough information I don't think we we had the right information here today we need to have a better understanding of what those programs do what each of the individual program does because I don't believe that we are making a negative impact on the needs of our employees needing behavioral health assistance whatever the case may be I believe this is something that's kind of what we're getting maybe cutting back on it's something that's nice to have and maybe available someplace else so I'm not ready to make a commitment with that because I don't believe we have enough information to make that decision here and to the extent that we can I do agree that we need to put make the library a priority and how we can make that happen and I know it's going to be tough because it's not just a one-time cost but I'm interested in looking at that as well Mr. Sorry thank you mayor well over the many years of going through these budgets I've learned that one-time funds are some of the most difficult to spend I am in favor of the 4.2 going to that as proposed by staff going to CalPERS as although it does make me a little nervous most investments make me nervous so I think that's that is prudent there you know I think councilmember Oliveris highlighted public safety and that is something I consider an absolute core service that we provide I would it would be easier for me to to move forward with that recommendation to if I were to get a much clearer picture as to what how that impacts our police and their their ability to do their jobs the the our homeless issue has placed a great deal of pressure on that department and the city in general all of our employees are affected as are the citizenry and of course the homeless themselves so I know there's been any reduction in their staffing does concern me I'd be willing to do it but I would like to hear what what the what staff is is suggesting will be the impacts on their ability to do their jobs as far as the rosin library we the there we have heard a lot of testimony about the importance of the library the ongoing commitment concerns me given our our budget situation and I am not convinced and it's very difficult to take the the temperature of the neighborhood especially when the size of a small city as rosin is and we annexed it but I'm not sure if we that that I have that I have a firm sense of what it is the residents of rosin what is most important to them I've heard the library mentioned a number of times and that is we are used to hearing a fairly large number of constituents that are that are interested in a particular endeavor to come into the chambers and suggest to us that the entire community is behind what they are behind I'm not convinced of that and I agree that is a library is a very very important they are much more meaningful in a way today than they were 20 or 25 years ago they they have changed rosin needs a library I'm not prepared today to commit an ongoing support for that if I knew that that was the most I just have this feeling that that rosin is going to is going to identify in the not too distant future some real needs that we didn't identify when during the annexation and that we'll be needing some additional support fiscally and so at this point I would I would want to hold back before I committed our funds on an annual basis to the library so I'm willing to take this recommendation I would like to hear more about the public safety issue but I have come to the realization that we have many more wants and that the list could go on forever and but I'm going to concentrate on the what I consider absolute needs on this budget thank you Mr. Vice Mayor thank you Mr. Mayor you know I think that one of the challenges here for me is how we look at the different pots of money that are coming in and while it's easy for us to put in additional things that we'd like to see with the three million dollars of found money I can't look at that as found money in fact I don't see us with a three million dollar surplus I see us with a seven million dollar deficit because that's still what we owe to the public when it comes to the emergency measure that's come forward for me it would be really challenging to add in anything to the budget that is an ongoing programmatic number as opposed to a one-time investment so when I do look up at the 4.2 that makes a lot of sense to me that's one of our biggest long-term liabilities that's one-time dollars that we have that we can put in to try to address it not an ongoing addition when I look at some of the recovery and resiliency projects that's what we asked the public to fund with this emergency measure is one-time dollars that we knew over the course of the the five years that we'd have that measure we needed matching funds and we needed some other strategic investments I look over at room six where we took eight million dollars from our reserves and it was a bit of a risk but we drew drew down our reserves to make a strategic investment that we knew was going to help the community to respond and to recover and we knew that it wasn't going to be an ongoing thing past recovery and so that was an appropriate use of those as a one-time investment and fund when I see the 300 000 for Ernst and Young that's the same thing that I'm saying is it's a one-time investment that's going to help us to recover better what we have not discussed over the last two days except tangentially is what exactly our reserve number is we know what the policy is we know we're meeting the policy but we don't know where we're actually at we haven't talked about that or if it would be more appropriate for this council to use some of those reserves to actually make some more of those strategic investments in recovery and resiliency that will help us to recover faster to me the contract extension for Ernst and Young falls into that category so even if it meant that come June you had to come back and say we're actually going to take that 300 000 and take it from our reserves understanding that the service that they're providing is going to allow us to recover more on the pa side that's fine with me where I'm having a little bit of a difficulty with this conversation is looking at the three million dollars for ongoing expenses or ongoing programs at the budget and I'd hope that we wouldn't add too much more into that again understanding that we still have seven million to get back to the voters and if you want to go even further back there's an additional quarter cent sales tax from far before my time that was billed again at that time as an emergency measure that is still in place as well thank you so let me just try to go in that order the 4.2 million go directly to purrs and again I like the way you offered it off of the miscellaneous police and fire I'll leave it up to the sub-matter expert to invest it the most what you know wisely way and I totally get there's no no guarantee um specifically with our unassigned general fund balance I too um support a one-time commitment for the rosin library and that's where I think it should come from at 150 k because we are in the middle of having the discussions about our other three libraries and how we funded those because one of the things that we said when we incorporated rosin we're going to treat rosin like the rest of the city we're also not going to have a negative impact on the city when we do that incorporation and I've shared that with many members that I spoke into regarding the library until we know how we are actually funding those other three libraries with the leases I would really like to have much better clarification on that within the next year so that we can again whatever however we choose to do the other three that's the way we should do the rosin library so I see it not as an ongoing funding source but a one-time and I think it's appropriate for the unassigned general fund balance additionally regarding rosin the initial cuts that we heard in october then again january were two police officer positions they're going to be added back I do have the same concerns that some of my colleagues expressed with the civilian positions there because again they free up some time for our public safety officer the sworn officers to do what they're trained to do but as we had that position back I would ask that that position would be the SRO to rosin again treat if I'm I'm making the assumption it was an oversight that when we did do the annexation that the additional police positions we have SROs at every other high school and it's a glaring omission that we don't have one in the high school that we have located in rosin so if the police department had made the adjustments that they're going to do without that position now that we've given that position back I would ask that it be assigned to the SRO and rosin because it's a huge preventative community benefit that I think that campus deserves I'm totally comfortable with the the reorg and again one-time costs with the Ernst and Young and then I I'm in agreement with the the reorg that 350k does pay for the EOC or emergency preparedness one I think that is a sound strategy those I think are all the comments I have and do you have the direction that you need from council there's enough there's another page we didn't talk about some of us have included that in your comments or in our comments did you include sam jones hall in your comments by not including sam just sam jones hall I don't think there's any feedback I need to give direction to because I think that is going to work itself out we received that funding we've received funding we have some questions about the terms on that funding but we're working on our contingencies if we knew but we believe that that the leadership council will have a conversation around that and we are we are optimistic of the questions my my concern was whether or not that included the former senior center navigation facility we're looking at that but we need to get through some of these other conversations that is that is the second thing on the on the agenda to look directly at that as an activation point within the system and any activity on that piece properly would come back to the council absolutely great go ahead if I may I'd like to ask a follow-up question my recollection I'm following up on a comment by council member oliveris my recollection was that we were so pleased with the neighborhood the nrp that we were wanting it to go city-wide and that that was the direction that our conversation had been taking and before we started having these conversations can you clarify for me so so again what the direction so what we want to do is get into this real you know get reorganized and and is as the council member alluded we have city-wide issues and start using that as a measuring stick for investment especially upstream investment how are we shaping our programs to meet those needs within the community many of which have been outlined here as resource management especially around the rosalind library support of that new part of our community so that's the reason we want to organize in that way is how do we gear to meet need and provide programs for the general public but also really meet those needs in the community thank you so did you need any additional feedback from council or have you received enough so mayor just keep my current state of mind let me walk through what i'm going to bring you back in june i think okay so on june 18th let me tell you what i'm bringing back to you and you tell me if this is if this is capturing what you want so we are going to go ahead and and plan a budget that invests the 4.2 million dollars towards the unfunded liability with purrs we are going to look at moving uh seven million dollars in one-time money to the disaster projects funding that are up there we are going to find a way to fund find one-time money to fund the earn instant young contract we are going to appropriate three hundred thousand dollars for the eoc that will be an ongoing operating costs the organizational structure i'm not sure i heard is that am i doing that that's i'm going to do a budget a proposed budget for the 18th that has that in it okay and then we are also going to build in the staff reductions that we talked about today and we will come back with additional discussion on what those impacts are to the departments that councils asked about is that is that what's expected for the 18th just for you you said all seven million dollars that came from the unassigned general fund balance correct right right so my assumption the comments that i just want to give to you i would you know seven million if you took 450,000 that's your 300,000 for earn instant young one time and 150k for a rosin library if that's the figure that's the bucket of money at least for me that that seems like it's not having any impact it's unassigned okay mr. Taylor did you had a question i realized i didn't comment on organizational restructuring i wholeheartedly support that okay miss lemmy i'm uncomfortable with restructuring the organization without having a robust conversation about it we went through a lot of budgetary items and we heard about cost savings we did not discuss in any sense sort of detail the restructuring and when what i want to know is when we are going to do that because i can't sign off on something that places a council of six people who are not representative of the city of santa rosa at the top of our leadership structure without having an open honest conversation that the chances of having six caucasian straight men running our city the probability of that is 0.7 percent and i think that the public deserves to have an open honest conversation about what type of organization we run and and where we're going and where our values are and that can be rolled into this conversation i think steamroll is something that i've been pretty clear on going up to this point it doesn't mean that i'll say no but i'm very serious about us having a conversation so there's there's there's no we were planning to bring this back to the have a decision on the 19th we are preparing a budget that's going to reflect that if the council doesn't want us to do that the then and change plans this is the time to give us direction to not do that approach i heard comments from other council members were okay with the the proceed as staff is recommending i'd invite other comments so that the direction is clear i i understand the importance of the reorganization and i also understand my colleagues concern about having the leadership not be as diverse as we would like i understand how we've ended up there but i i appreciate my colleagues comments with regard to diversity within the leadership and i just i get it that this is going forward regardless but council members combs and oliveras won't be on our council in two years i'm looking at being the only woman and no people of color on the council and at our senior leadership that is not the santa rosa that i'm here to represent and so i descend any other questions for council just one last mayor and um we also as part of what we're going to bring back on june 18th will be three million dollars one time money towards infrastructure uh per director nuts presentation did you get the rosalind library i counted yes we he listed that any other questions for council so i i just want to thank you and all the staff that's been here over the two days this tremendous amount of information and the volume of information for all of us um i really appreciate the um the way it was presented in the um the answers to all of our questions and i think it's um it's a nice step in the process that will finalize these decisions this discussions third week in june so thank you and with that meetings adjourn