 and with a roll call please Chloe. Present. Council Member Brooks. Here. Council Member Brown. Present. Vice Mayor Keiser. Here. And Mayor Story. Here. And Chloe do you want to make a preliminary announcement for us? Sure. With California Senate Bill 361, this meeting is not physically open to the public. Council and staff are meeting via Zoom and there are several ways for the public to watch and participate. Information on how to join the meeting using Zoom or a landline or mobile phone along with how to submit public comment during the meeting tonight is available on our website cityofcapitola.org and on the published meeting agenda. The public can also live stream the meeting on our website and our YouTube channel. As always, the meeting is Cablecast Live on Charter Communications Cable TV channel eight and is being recorded to be rebroadcast on the following Wednesday at 8 a.m. And on Saturday following the first rebroadcast at 1 p.m. on Charter channel 71 and Comcast channel 25. And our technician tonight is Olivia. Thank you so much Olivia and thank you Mayor Story. Yeah, thank you Chloe and also thank you Olivia for handling our technology tonight and welcome to all those future viewers that may tune in. So at this time we'll have a pledge of allegiance and I may I'll ask Council Member Brooks to lead us in the pledge of allegiance. My pleasure. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Do we have any additions to the agenda this evening? Now there's no changes to the agenda this evening. And any additional material? Mayor Story. Now we'll have oral communication from members of the public. This is an opportunity for members of the public to address the City Council on items that are not on tonight's agenda or on the consent agenda for this evening. If you would like to speak, you can raise your hand and zoom or dial star nine. The moderator will give you three minutes to speak. You may also send an email to public comment at ci.sfo.ca.us. And Larry, I'm noticing that we have no attendees. I don't see any attendees at this point and we do not have any emails. Okay. I'm gonna move us forward then on to the next item, which is staff and city council comments. Do we have any staff comments? I don't believe we have any comments for the Council this evening. Okay. Thank you, Jamie. Council member Cummins. Council member Bertrand. You're on mute still. Yeah, thank you very much. Yes, on the AAA advisory board and yesterday I was at the meeting at 10 o'clock in the morning and some very distressing news was related to all this. I think it came about a day earlier but we had discussion about it. So a lot of you are aware of the Mitt County senior services. There's senior network services. A whole bunch of other things that are senior related. The most big one is the one that delivers food to people around the county. And so they're being evicted. The land, the buildings is owned by Live Oak School District and they just received a six month eviction notice. A lot of the mayors are getting together around the county. Sandy is reaching out around Santa Cruz. So this is very important. The fact that the facility is to prepare food and the Congress is setting their senior network services which provides a lot of counseling to people who are going on to Medicare and need to figure out which program to take. They provide many other services but this has been a critical senior service hub in Santa Cruz County for a long time. It's part of the district or the county plan. So as you can imagine the scramble and I have no idea what the future is. People are meeting I believe like Moner, Zach and others are trying to come together with the school district to figure out how to move forward. I'm not part of the discussions but I do think that we should get involved on some level. Jamie, if you could reach out to other city managers because I don't know how many hundreds of people for instance in Capitola are receiving food and other services from these facilities but it's a great concern to me and I think it's gonna have a huge impact on the county of Santa Cruz. It's not just Capitola but it's all of the county. Food deliveries are from the sonnet all the way down to every single city, Watsonville, Santa Cruz all over the place. So it's gonna have a severe impact for seniors in this whole county and I think I just don't know how it's gonna be moved forward to deal with this issue. I really don't. So. Thank you for bringing us that sobering news. That's pretty sobering actually. And just that location is the central kitchen with the meals on wheels, both under the dining center and those are all of them throughout the county as well as home delivery meals program. So that is gonna be a personal service that we need to make sure that it's not interrupted and if this needs, does need to take place. But yeah, I would certainly like to get involved and see what I could be and to kind of bridge this transition. I think just to continue, I did get a sense that the mayors of the various cities are gonna try to get together because they're the heads of basically the city and provide the services and try to keep things going. So I know that's happening. So it's sort of letting you know. Thank you. And I expected to come up through the mayor's select committee. So I'll do other council members have any comments or announcements? Seeing none, I just, I wanted to make one, I think acknowledgement, recognition and praise to Chief Valley under the capital of PLA was sponsoring the state cola event last Saturday, May 14th at the greater park. It was a spectacular event. There were dozens of young kids there showing off their athletic skills. They were all very impressive. And they were, of course, there were many parents who were intended and so it was a fabulous event. It was very well sponsored by local businesses. I know the Santa Cruz boardroom was a sponsor and the Santa Cruz apparel was a sponsor. I don't wanna miss anyone but there were many different sponsorships that made the event happen. So I just wanted to encourage the city council to support this event. As it comes around, hopefully it can be an annual event and because it's great to support the kids and their skateboarding skills and it's also great to see our police officers interacting with these kids in that environment through that sport. So I just wanted to say congratulations to Chief Alley and to all the PLA and the officers who were there and it was wonderful. So is there, was there Chief Alley? I don't, was there a major sponsor that I should have mentioned that I maybe missed that you want to acknowledge? Thank you, Mayor Sperren. Thank you for your comments. I know the council supports it and the city supports it. Really, another big sponsor was our own rec department, Nikki and her staff really helped out and then Josh from the working title. So he's been man of many hats and so he donated his three up front and Sasha's works and his daily grind. So those are kind of, with the boardroom, Santa Cruz apparel, they were kind of the keynote sponsors but definitely a city sponsored event and the PLA was in huge support financially as well. So great event, we're gonna keep it going and so thank you so much. I appreciate it, I will let our staff in as well. Yeah, all right, thank you. And so with that, if you know other council comments, I'm going to- Just one more comment. Okay, go ahead, I'll come in with a question. Hey, aren't you gonna say something about your organization's participation? I have salad in my teeth. I'm sorry, what organization, what thing? Well, you know, I was there too and I met two ladies there and they said that they were part of your organization and had a table there for reaching out to youth. So I was very impressed with your staff members and very enthusiastic and they gave me a description of what your organization does and it sounds like it's really a wonderful thing to have in this community. Thank you, council member Bertrand. Yeah, your future is our business. It's doing great things in the community supporting students and to what was at the event, Chief Daly, you also have a youth action network there tabling and they are one of our partners for a capital of city council in engaging youth in the community and really collaborating right now with your department, Chief Daly, and with Parks and Rec. So thanks, council member Bertrand, for reminding me. Thank you for the shout out. You can't forget, can I see where we're going to? Well, aside from the little kids, aside from the kids that were showing their stuff, they were very enthusiastic. And just after New York, first of all, I saw someone earlier, if you're inside a ghost somewhere, so, but the little kids that were doing their best and the parents watching them, it was really a treat, very much a treat. That's great. Thank you, council member Bertrand, for bringing that to our attention. Thanks for telling us and council member Brooks. So, you know, are the council comments? I'm going to take it to the consent agenda tonight. There's only one item to be approved in minutes for the May 4th, 2022 special meeting. And the committee council member want to pull this item for more discussion. Seeing none, is there a motion to approve? I can move to approve. One second. Yeah, there's a motion by Vice Mayor Kiger and a second by council member Brown. Can we have a roll call vote, please, Ms. Chloe? Council member Bertrand. I approve. Council member Brooks. I. Council member Brown. I. Vice Mayor Kiger. I. Mayor Story. I. Thank you. The motion passes unanimously, which will bring us to item seven A, which is the order of business for this evening, which is the presentation of the proposal of this year, 22-23 budget for the City of Capitola and the capitol of the Professor Agency. And just to confirm that our recommended action is acting as the city council and as the Professor Agency is to receive the proposed budget and provide staff direction. And we can either continue these budget deliberations to the next regularly scheduled joint budget hearing on June the 1st or direct staff to prepare the documents for final budget adoption at the regular meeting in June and council future plan budget hearing. What is that? Can we have our staff presentation, please? Sure. I'll just take things off really quickly before turning it over to Appliance Director Jim Mulder. Mayor Story, I think you gave a pretty good summary of what we're doing this evening. This is an opportunity for us to circle back on some of the questions that were identified at the first budget hearing, provide a little bit of sort of staff level cleanup and also a few little tweets based on the council feedback we got last meeting. Identify any additional items that council would like us to cover and then we'll talk to make a decision if we're going to go to another budget hearing or if council will be ready to adopt later on in June. So with that, Jim, I'm going to turn it over to you. Thank you, Jim. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Let me take the involvement so you share my screen. Is that okay, Larry? That was great. Thank you. I think both the mayor and MRC manager gave a good overview of what we're doing tonight. I'm going to go ahead and get started with the summary and recapping our last meeting and then kind of get into what we're talking about tonight. So the proposed general fund budget as it sits right now, we're estimating an ending fund balance in June of 2023 of 1.3 million. As a reminder, we also have $385,000 set aside in the resiliency account. So there is a potential to utilize fund balance in this coming fiscal year, whether we do that through this proposed budget or whether we come back mid-year, we will have the ability to do that at some point this year should the council choose. As a reminder, we have a little over $3.5 million allocated for city council goals. And on our five-year forecast beginning next year, we start using measure F to balance it out, which works until measure F sunset in December of 2027. So as far as the multi-year budget projection, these are the top of blue box area shows our revenue projections. So fairly conservative revenue projections going out. Also down towards the bottom is the measure F to operations. I'm starting there in fiscal year 2024, 155 and kind of increasing there until that sunset. That gets to say this year in fiscal year 2023 we're out of balance, especially out of balance by design as we program available resources to city council goal. But we are balanced fiscal year 2024 through 27 and then you'll see them measure up expires, everything and we come out of balance. So we'll have to address that in the coming years. As far as the general fund summary, we're at 19.6, almost 19.7 million of revenues. That's slightly from the last meeting and I'll get into that on the 22.2, almost three million of expenditures is up slightly also from last time. And I will cover that as well. And our impact on fund balance is that we're gonna spend almost 2.6 million more than we're bringing in but that's by design. And we'll still leave us with a 1.3 almost 1.4 million dollar budget fund balance. And then when we account for the resiliency accounts that takes our estimated ending fund balance to 1.75 million in June of 2023. As far as some of the key items we covered on May 4th, staffing, if you recall, we're requesting to return two and a half positions that were frozen during the pandemic. We're also requesting to add 128 positions, one in public works and then be 1,700 hour in that coordinator position that I'll do by hurrying to your very first state but we are maintaining one frozen three-quarter time position and three partially filled positions that total 1.75 in whole of the animal together, excuse me. Our early childhood and youth program or ECYP funding we're estimating revenue this year of 60 or this year, 2023 of 61,000. We also are estimating the beginning fund balance of 51,000. That's down from the first hearing since the first budget hearing I've got together with our recreation manager, Nikki. And there was $30,000 of the ECYP funding for the current fiscal year. And I'm working with Nikki to get that allocated out to the things that it was allocated for. So we'll get that 30,000 out. We also adjusted our revenue estimate up a little bit. So the net of those two changes is taking that fund balance beginning next year at 51,000. And then again, the general fund balance that's made in June of next year at 1.3 with the resiliency accounts. So my are budget adjustments that we've made since May 4th. So if you recall, when we put together that proposed budget, I didn't have a really good feel for what the outdoor dining program was gonna look like after May 31st. Council's kind of set the parameters up for that. So we pumped up Village. I'm calling it parking revenue. That's really the revenue that will be generated from the parking spaces dedicated to outdoor dining. Right now we've gotten applications for 24. So I'm running the 24 stages. Police department staffing. So this is the kind of cleanup that Jamie was mentioning. I had a map there and I had two positions reversed. So cleaning that up is an increase in the budget of 315750. But what that is is really more cleanup. It's representative of the current staffing down in TV. It's not building up. I think we're bumping, asking to take the admin analyst on a permanent basis to full time. But that was in the request last time was just more cleanup. City council training. We had missed this one last time. So we're bumping that budget by 7,000, which returns to our pre-pandemic level of 2000 per council member. We've also increased our training budget by $5,000 for implicit bias training. We're putting that into the personnel position within the city managers department. And it is a single line item that we will budget for every year for transparency and that's to provide the ongoing training to both elected officials and staff for implicit bias. Regional homeless response. We're decreasing the general fund contributions to half by $30,000. And basically what we're doing is we contribute just under $40,000 a year to half, which is the homeless action partnership. 30,000 of that is for homeless shelter costs. We're moving that from the general fund into the special revenue fund, which is an eligible expense out of that fund. So we're moving it, but not, we're still funding the program. It's just not coming out of the general fund. The art and cultural budget, we're increasing by $1,500 for to program individual commitment to the event. And then also universal park design. We'll have some more info on this later, but that's the accessible play structure moving that project from the library to the J Street Community Center and Park area. So we do have some additional items to cover that were mentioned in the staff report. And just kind of a summary of those is listed here on the slide out. I think I need to read each one, but basically the first eight, we will have deeper discussion as we go through the presentation this evening. The bottom two, the report on the city's liability risk, is gonna come from a memo outside of the budget hearings from the city council from the city attorney and city council compensation will also be outside of the budget hearings and the fact had a meeting on Tuesday of this week. And we put that on the agenda for our regular meeting in July. So with that, I'm gonna get into some of the additional items and turn this over to city manager Goldstein. Thank you, Jim. So there was a question at the last meeting about how online sales tax works for the city of Capitola that we've seen impacts from the shift from brick and mortar sales to online sales. Short answer is yes. You can see here in this table in 2017, we were getting about 170 to 180, $7,000 a quarter online and used auto sales. And in 2021 that shifted up to between 250 and gosh, 370 it looks like. So the way online and use auto sales works is that all those sales that take place in the county, so any online transactions by anyone in the county goes into what's called the county pool. And then what happens is the county pool gets distributed back to the city based on our percentage of brick and mortar sales. Historically, Capitola has been around 15% of the brick and mortar sales in the county. And you can see that back in 2017 where our percentage allocations in the pool fluctuated between 15.6 and 14.4%. That has trended downward in recent years. And you can see this last year in 2021, it was between 11.8 and 13.8. And the downward trend is probably just another symptom of the longer term trend we've seen in Capitola where our sales tax hasn't kept up with inflation. So that probably county wide it is and ours is sort of gradually eroding to some degree. An explanation of how this came to be, I think used auto sales historically were difficult to pin to an address. So that was, I think, the origin of this county pool. And then when online sales first showed up, the state board of equalization just said, this is the way to do it, we'll dump it in the pool and then just allocate it. Obviously, it's becoming a larger and larger source of revenue, which has resulted in more and more focus by different cities on this. So it is actually something that I'm working actually at a state level for a lead committee that's looking at sales tax because there was a push by some cities to reform this mechanism for distribution of online sales recently, which would have a pretty significant negative impact on Capitola. My based on the estimates that we have done internally, we think that if this mechanism was shifted, we probably would end up getting between four and 5% of the county-wide pool. And so you can see, that would be a pretty significant hit to our budget if we shifted from averaging around 12 to 13% to four to 5%. So it's something I'm definitely tracking. And there's, and there is probably gonna be an ongoing issue as more and more sales shift online. Next slide, Jim. And then the other question I was gonna cover tonight was about the Monterey Bay Self-Insurance Authority and how our premiums this year for liability in particular has gone up pretty significantly. So just a little bit of background, Monterey Bay Self-Insurance Authority, we call it Mbeja, in the partnership with nine other cities where it's a 10 city joint powers authority. And basically it's an insurance and work cop insurance entity for all the member agencies. So we effectively operate as our own insurance company, if you will. We also Mbeja provide programs to purchase property insurance, crime, cyber, some of these other kinds of policies that the city buys. The costs, the premiums basically get distributed to the cities based on a city's size and a city's history, your claims history, call that experience. And in general, our costs as member agencies will change because either A, the overall budget for insurance has gone up, which is happening, and I'll talk more about that in a second, or as an individual city, you're having a lot of claims, in which case your costs can be rising because your experience factor is going up. Well, here we go to the next slide. So the first little chart up there, this isn't our data actually, this is from a JPA of JPAs that provides excess insurance coverage called Prism. And Prism often will cover cities for Mbeja for claims beyond a million dollars. And you can see that 10 years ago, statewide there was about 60 active claims of a million dollars or more, and that number is almost up to 160 today. And it's not necessarily due to more claims, more problems in cities, it's almost exclusively due to claims escalation that particularly over the last three years with so much attention on policing and public safety, the jury awards, what may be historically previously was a two million dollar award, is suddenly a four million dollar award. Or maybe what a five million dollar award is about 10. And in addition, there's been some just astronomical claims that have been paid out, particularly by some public agencies, more of the universities around sexual harassment or misconduct. I believe that there's been some claims, USC I think had a billion dollar claim and the University of Southern California, University of UCLA had multiple hundred million dollar plus claims, which has the effect of basically freezing out the insurance market. That the people that provide this insurance are like, whoa, we can't get in this market to provide coverage for these things because these costs could just be so, so derivative. So on the liability budget in Invasion, we share, we split the costs up 50% based on payroll that's the size of the city and 50% based on experience. Capitola, we represent about 10.3% of the Invasion payroll. We are essentially the average city with 10 cities with 10% of the overall payroll. And that's a pretty constant number. Our claims history on liability is the variable. This year we're 11.5 of the claims history during the period of time that we look at. And interestingly, that has been relatively constant during my tenure on the Invasion board. Sometimes we'll get below 10%, sometimes we've gone a little bit above, but we're pretty close around that 11, 10, 11, 9%, which is actually a little bit interesting if you think about the Invasion membership, which includes a lot of cities that don't have the same risk profile that we do. There's Sweeney Valley cities, Scotts Valley, Marina. And those cities generally don't have the same level of tourist traffic and the same level of commercial activity taking place in the city. So it is interesting that we tend to be an average claimed city, even though in some ways we probably have a different risk profile. So what we increased, we saw a 19% increase in our premium this year. And overall our Invasion liability budget increased at 16%. So we were tracking pretty close there. We got a little teeny bump, a 3% bump from experience and we'll look at that in a second here. And the 16% budget up in our overall budget is because our excess carrier, we don't use Prism, we actually use Karma, but I got the Prism data more easily. Karma, that's our cost for excess insurance, went from 750 year ago to next year's budget. We think it's gonna be 1.6, 1.7 million. So Karma is kind of blowing up. They're looking for way more money because they have so many high cost claims coming in. And so in addition, we've also, the Invasion Board moved our, how confident we are in our fund. So each year we get an actuarial report that says here's how much money you should put aside. And there's recommendations, like if you want to be 50% sure that you have enough money each year, you fund it level X. And if you want to be 60% sure you fund a little bit more, 70% sure you want to fund a little more, we actually move our confidence level up this year because we don't seem to be catching up as fast as we would like in our overall financial position and trying to get ourselves stabilized as an insurance company basically. So those are the reasons for the 16% increase and that's the primary driver between our 19% overall liability budget increase. Next slide. Can I get the next, uh-oh. Thank you. Can folks hear me okay or am I frozen? You can hear you but we can't see you. I can hear you and see you again. Okay, you guys can hear me and see me. Yes, and heard you. And heard me. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, let's back up one slide, Jim, for whatever reason, everyone was frozen there on my screen for about a minute. So this is how we look at the, basically the loss runs to generate the experience doctor. Losses were 902, which made up 11.5% of the overall claims experience. You'll notice, maybe the second from the through. Yeah, Jamie, you're cutting in and out. Oh boy. Yeah, maybe just go audio. I'm afraid I'm still frozen. Jamie, if you can go just audio, turn up your video, sometimes it helps. Well, am I back? You're back. All right, I'm not sure what's going on. I will keep forging ahead and text my family to make sure they're staying off YouTube. So the second type of increase that agencies can experience, and we did experience after 2011, is just a rash of claims. In 2011, we had a lot of claims associated with the flood. And so you can see the city second from the bottom there represents 28% of embaises overall claims. And that's when you gotta pay attention and figure out what's going on. And we've seen that over my tenure on embage of sort of claims histories move around from city to city. Sometimes they're associated with police departments who are having issues. Sometimes they're associated with sewer issues, those kinds of things. And they're always, it's a different answer about what's going on and whether it's just bad luck or whether it's management issues that can be corrected. Next slide, please. On the work comp budget, we share to work comp is insurance that we buy to cover the costs associated with injuries in the workplace. Those costs are 25% payroll and 75% experience. So the more heavily weighed experience in Indonesia. And again, on payroll, we do payroll a little bit different on work comp than we do on liability, which I don't totally know why. We're at 11.3% of the overall payroll, which is constant. And we are about 5.6 of the embasier work comp claims, which that number moves around. Interestingly, capital has historically been low on work comp, which is a good thing. So you'll see that we are half basically of our expected work comp claims history. And overall work comp claims increase at 11%, primarily due to medical costs. And our premiums this year only increased 4% because our claims history got even a little bit better from where it was before. Then next slide. This is, sorry, the numbers are teeny here. This is again, how we look at kind of the work comp budget, the claims history, you can see our total there is 5.6% of the total incurred losses over the period of time. And that's how we come up with that portion of the budget. But that, I think, includes the embasier budget review and online sales tax. Mr. Mayor, if you'd like to pause, I can answer questions or we can keep forging ahead. Let's see if there's any questions that could come in a minute. Council member's that question? Yes, Council member Bertrand. Yeah, do we look at our embasier costs and, excuse me, our experience, sorry, and internally try to manage that better during effort, city management side, effort on that? Yes, simple answer is yes. We have programs that embasier that help cities reduce liability. And so we actually rolled out a program that our public works department is working on right now where we have an overall contractor who's doing sidewalk assessments and grinding for all the member cities to try to reduce trip and fall liability. And I'm always monitoring. We're always monitoring the claims. And if we see patterns of the claims, we'll investigate. I will share with you one story where King City, you may remember from the news, maybe seven or eight years ago, had a terrible problem with their police department. There was a federal investigation, I think a number of officers, and I believe the police people were caught up in a system where cars were being taken from residents. And we saw some huge claims coming out of King City Police Department. And actually we ended up at Ambeja as a board, basically putting them on probation and saying unless you make these following corrections to your police department, we're gonna stop, we're gonna kick you out. You're not gonna be insured anymore. So both at a local management level and at the Ambeja board level, we are actively monitoring and when cities run into trouble, there's often conversations about what needs to be done to fix it. Yeah, thank you for that. I'm glad you're involved with that on both levels. Great, thank you. Did any other council members have questions? None? Why don't you go ahead, Jenny? Okay. So we're gonna move on to the early childhood and youth program funds. The, these are restricted funds as you're all well aware that can only be used for early childhood and youth programming. There is currently an ad hoc community grant committee that recently reviewed potential uses and I believe is recommending utilizing the reoccurring ECYP says finding and that funding of $61,000 for our community grant program and then utilizing the $51,000 of fund balance in our recreation division. So that'll come back towards the end of that to get from council direction on those two items. And then just as a reminder that community grant strategic plan will be considered next week at the city council meeting. I think I saw Nikki is on the call. I think for these next few bullet points, I'm gonna have her go through those because she's way more aware of some of these than I am. Yes, thank you. Good evening mayor council members. I'm here to talk about the recreation division proposals for the ECYP fund. Before I dive in though, I don't want to forget that council in our last meeting had also requested an update on recreation meetings with the library around programming. And I wanted to let you know that the library and I have been in communication but we've had trouble scheduling in order to have that meeting. It is planned for next week and staff will return with an update when there's more information later. So onto the recreation division proposal. So currently recreation receives any level of scholarship funds that goes to youth from different organizations such as the school district or the community foundation and all of those funds are restricted to specific programs such as junior guards or after school. So staff's proposal for the largest amount is to allocate $39,000 for a scholarship fund for youth programming in a more general sense. So this would be funds that would be available to anyone that would apply for and new to recreation would be youth classes through our class program. It would continue to have after school camp capital and junior guards as well but also would go towards any youth park RX request that we might have. With this current amount, I would anticipate that this would be about two years, slightly less than two years of complete funding based on our current activity of requests if there was no other source of funding. We do continually get funding from the capital community foundation. We've got to have a conversation with the school district as to whether or not they will continue funding after school, even on a different level than what they've done in the past due to the pandemic. Another portion of this fund staff would request a proposal to have $10,000 allocated to a swim lesson equity program. So currently, junior guards in order to participate in the program, they need to know how to swim. They need to have enough skill and confidence to be able to start a program on the first day and get through the basic swim test appropriate for the age in order to continue in the program. And so staff is concerned about that barrier and would like to have a small amount of money in order to help under resource youth have access to swim lessons and help to break down a lot of the barriers that prevent those youth from getting two swim lessons. Staff intends to involve agency partners within the county in order to try and get this program of a running and a lot of the funding would go towards staff hours, school rental and any equipment that would be necessary to serve those youth. And then the final smaller dollar amount of $2,000 would be to provide some additional resources to recreation's current job skills programs. We currently offer two for team youth in our community our Capitola junior leaders as well as our Capitola junior guard captain course. Both of these programs have parts of the program where they are shadowing staff and they are getting volunteer hours working directly with youth. This funding would go towards providing services much like how staff currently provide contracted services to train visual staff. So for example, we've had an ongoing partnership or positive discipline, then they train staff in order to have this resource and connections with youth that they work with. So this would help to extend those resources and our job skills training program. And with that, I am able to answer any questions or are you able to continue on with the lecture. That's Amanda Bertrand. You're on mute. Yeah, I'm mixing up programs. So you also had a program for a summer camp is that going to be reported on later? Or is that just not part of this? I'm just trying to understand. The summer camp program you started last year. Are you thinking about the family camp program? The family camp, okay, not summer, the family camp during the summer. Yeah, it would have happened in the summer. Yeah, so the family camp program we came upon some challenges in order to be able to operate. The first one that we had attempted to run did not hit the minimum number of enrollment. And so we were not able to run that one. We did continue it in the budget, but with the staffing resource that recreation had in order to get it up and running, did not feel confident that it would be a successful program. Currently, it's not in this budget, but I've had conversations with staff in the city of Watsonville, as well as the county. And we're going to over the year explore a partnership in order to attempt to bring this back as a little bit more of a county-wide initiative. But those conversations will need to happen. Well, thank you, Nicky, for attempting, I mean, attempting that originally and then being there with some stumbling that you're trying to find another solution to that. So I appreciate that, thank you. Questions from any other council members? Nicky, I had a question about the scholarships and the swim, what's an equity? How many scholarships and how many swim lessons do you think you'll be able to provide for that amount of money? That's a great question. The challenging part about it is it's a little bit cart before the horse. Based on some preliminary feasibility for this, I feel that we would be able to get a handful of youth from within the schools that are in Capitola or that sort of Capitola, so like Soquel, Santa Cruz Gardens, Main Street. I would need to identify if we would be transporting them to the pool. And so that's the limiting factor is we were doing the transportation, which is a pretty strong barrier for individuals in order to learn to swim. Then that would create a smaller number of individuals. If we are not providing the transportation, then that opens up the door to us significantly more. We are also, I've been in conversation with Soquel High School and the county. The county is currently under construction, so there's not much of a conversation right now. But Soquel High is definitely interested in having that, but there's still a lot of steps that we need to happen as far as the rental cost, where we fall within their page here and that sort of thing. So it is a moving target, but the feasibility I feel like we could definitely get a handful of kids. I would shoot for 20 within this first year, but I would hope for more. Thank you. Yeah, Dan. Council Member Brooks. Thank you, Mayor Storey. Nikki, I guess I just have a comment about the scholarships and what I'd like to see or encourage you to explore is the accessibility to the scholarships, meaning that we were so restricted in who we could give scholarships to prior with the funding from the county that when we look at what a thriving community is or a successful community, a healthy community, that's when these kinds of services are free to everybody. And often, of course, I want us to serve those very low, low income families, but I would like to see that extended to the medium income families or even just everybody in our community. That would just be a goal that wouldn't it be great for all kids, every kid in the city of Capitol is to have these for free to them, no matter what household they come from. So that's the type of dream, that's my big dream, but until then, with this type of funding, I would encourage you to open this up to many because we know what a livable wage is now and it's not the low, low income that we're seeing all families affected by price increases for a lot of things. So, but thanks for everything you're doing. This all sounds great. Yeah, so I think you'll be happy to hear that. So with our partnership with the county, that was a very unique circumstance and the way that our scholarship program operates, we're not under the same restrictions. So we currently work with the Capitol Foundation and they review our scholarship applications and provide scholarship on a percentage base. So we have individuals that are currently enrolled in our after school program or will be entering into campus senior guards who have received a 25% scholarship, they've received a 50% scholarship or if their economic picture warranted, they would have received 100% scholarship minus a registration fee that is a small nominal fee. So we're very excited about that partnership with them as they review our scholarship applications and it has served us well for a couple of years now. Thank you for that. Go ahead. Okay. So I have just a couple more slides on additional items before we get into the capital improvement program. So at the May 4th meeting, there was a request to provide a, I guess a clearer picture, a cleaner calculation of how we come up with the reserve fund. It was kind of all ruled up into one line on it. So our reserve fund targets for the contingency and emergency reserves are a percentage of general fund expenditures that do not include internal service charges or transfers. So those expenditures include personnel, contract services, training and memberships, supplies and grants. And you can see across the top there, by fiscal year, what those amounts were. So just going left to right in fiscal year 1920, those total expenditures were $13,362. So for the contingency reserve, the 15% target was $2,000,000, just slightly over $2,000,000. We were at $2,061, so we were $57,000. The end of the year, $57,000 above our target. And then kind of the same calculation for the emergency reserve only at 10%. So the target was $1,336. We were at $1,374,000, $37,000 over. For this fiscal year, the proposed 2223, we have added some of the council goals. I think I'd like to say it's around $650 to $700,000, kind of general fund expenditures, which is causing our reserve target to kind of creep up above where it would be next year. And then so what we did was we looked at what was the target at the end of 2324 and kind of made level contributions this year and next year and make sure that we're on target by next year rather than put a bunch of funding in this year to pull it back out next year. And then the last item I have is a measure F summary. So measure F went into effect January 1st, 2018 and you can see across the top there are fiscal years, 17, 18 across to this fiscal year, revenues, what we budgeted and then what we actually received across the top. So through fiscal year 2021, we had budgeted $2.6 million, received about $2.5 million. So we were about $160,000 below what our budget was. But we don't spend so that's kind of on the revenue side. On the expenditure side, we program, we budget basically every dollar that is in the budget, but we spend more in line with what actually comes in the door so you can see by fiscal year what we've budgeted and what we spent each year. The first three projects that are worth, Jetty and Gloom are multi-year projects. Jetty and Gloom are complete, came in under budget so they're actually kind of returning some of that funding back into the measure F pool if you will. The remaining things on the bottom there, the 2017 and 2020 award repairs, the purchase of the beach loader and the Grand Avenue craft repairs were all one-time things. That's why those budgets are pretty much on spot on. Grand Avenue craft did return just about $8,000 back into the measure F pool. And then what that does is it just, we adjust the work budget based on what the actuals are. So I will do a true up at the end of this fiscal year. I suspect that we have a total budget since the Infections and Measure F started of just under 4.6. I think we're gonna be very close to that over the long haul and that we've all had many adjustments to make this to say the work budget basically. But this is something that the back has also asked me to return with once we have our final numbers for Measure F receipts which will be August. So I can, if there's any questions on those last two slides, we can take those right now or we can move on to the CIP budget. Any questions, can you count some numbers? Jim, on the Measure F slide for the year 2021. Oh, yes. It shows separate Measure F funds going to public safety but that isn't replicated in any of the other fiscal years. So with that, we think this is a one-time expenditure for public safety? Thank you for that question, Mayor, I kind of glanced over that. So in response to the COVID pandemic, fiscal year 2021, we left all of Measure F in the general fund and applied it to operations. And that was basically to avoid layoffs for our biggest expensive personnel. If we had to make deeper cuts, if we had full Measure F out, we had to make deeper cuts that would have probably resulted in either greater concessions from employees or actually layoffs. So that was the one year where we left that in the general fund to cover operations. I think, yeah. Thank you. And with that, I'm gonna move on to the CIP budget and turn it over to our public works directors. Yes, Mayor. Sorry about that. And that's what broke on me. Good evening, Mayor and Council. I'm proud to present our capital improvement program. As we do, typically we'll review projects that are constructed or under construction and kind of go through what we're still working on and then our allocations from this year's funding. So that we have three projects, all reasonably large that are under construction right now in various phases. First is the traffic signal adaptive control project on 41st Avenue. The budget there you can see are the $760,000 Air Board grants, actually two grants, and $100,000 in the general fund. That project is the capital side of it is complete and it's gathering data right now. So we can go to adaptive controls probably in the next couple of weeks. The Caltrans side has been delayed, so it's not getting Caltrans to review and approve plans. They're working on it and I anticipate that'll be done in the next six weeks. Clairsworth traffic calming is currently out to bid. We have an estimated budget of $1,153,000. We have, as you can see there, a total funding of $1.24, $1.25 million. We have a little bit of cushion there, about $94,000 in cushion. We're hopeful that bids will come in lower than our projected estimate and provide us a bigger cushion for that project. If we have a big enough cushion, we may try to add not necessarily to this project, but to the project below, the pavement management project, which is we've built in cases. The phase one, the city completed and we did digouts and pavement repairs throughout the roads that are getting worked on. Then we partnered with the county to do the road resurfacing. That project is beginning early in June. I don't know if it's beginning June 1st or the week of June 6th. It's all over the county. The work in Capitola is part of that. They haven't given us a final schedule, but it's certainly early in June to the end of June. We should be seeing work in Capitola with that. The total funding for that project is $622,000. We have a current projected cost of under $580,000. We have about $43,000, $42,000, $43,000 balance. As you know, from previous training projects, it's always difficult to exactly nail down the quantities that will be used on a project with your debt. We feel comfortable that that contingency will allow us to complete the project without adding additional funding if we get to the end. Next slide, Jim. These are the projects that have been funded in previous years that are currently underway. Some have been on the books for a while and some were working on, seriously, getting very close to putting out the bid. First is the Monterey Park Avenue pedestrian pathway. This is the pathway that goes from the upper parking lot here behind City Hall up to Monterey and Park Avenue. We've been through very multiple design efforts on this. We're trying to coordinate which let the county is designing for segment 11 of a trail, rail trail, whatever you want to call it, and where they're starting and stocking and how we can interface with that. I think six weeks ago, we went before, before council and recommended that we look at a new route because basically it follows the roadway behind the curb. That'll take us out of any work that the county is doing on the rail corridor and allow us to proceed quicker. All the designs have impacts on oak trees. Our design engineer is working right now in the redesign to try and minimize those impacts to the oak trees. We anticipate having a preliminary design from him probably in the next three to four weeks. If we do those sidewalk, we do anticipate the funding that we have of about $220,000 will be sufficient. If we get into a lot of retaining walls or other work, we may need additional funding, but we won't know that till it's finished the design that's acceptable to the council. Kristen Park is what we're working on the hardest right now to try and get it out to bid. We're in front of the design. We've had a lot of workshops on this and a lot of design drawings shown. Having those and what you put out to bid are always a little different in the specifications. So I know my staff and my car owner are working on that very hard. We hope to get that out to bid in the next month based on our estimates. We do have sufficient funding. I don't have a large contingency there, but we do have. We're hoping we come in under budget on that. Next project's probably one that's a reach. We have funding right now to do public outreach on the roundabout at Bank Capital Avenue. We have not started that work because in order to do it, we need to complete the project under it, which is the utility under grounding. PGNE is working on this project. It's been difficult to coordinate that project with them. They work in shifts and stops and go. So we had a meeting maybe six weeks ago with Caltrans and we kind of expressed our frustrations with the project that seems to have gotten them going again. We did get some preliminary design plans finally just this week, but they're needing to finish up and figure out what their final cost estimate is. They are kind of telling us that they don't think there's sufficient funding in our Rule 20A money to build the project. I think about $2.1 million in that fund. PGNE health fund. But they're saying we could be off by as much as the million dollars. And we keep asking them why, what's wrong, how to get here, and that's where we're having trouble communicating with them. But anyway, we will end up with a real estimate not a PGNE estimate, probably in the next month. Once we have that, we'll have to make some decisions. Maybe there'll be easy decisions, maybe there'll be hard decisions, we don't know. But we'll keep the council informed on that. So getting back to the roundabout. Until we know what we're doing with the undergrounding, we're not proceeding with any public outreach. I don't want to expect any expectations that the roundabout is feasible in the next short period if we're still trying to negotiate with PGNE. Next project is emergency power at City Hall. We're trying to get proposals with all the problems getting things made these days. There's a shortage of just about everything. We have a request for proposals out. We're trying to get responses. Still working with that. The project has been continued by Cal OES. It's provided the funding for $300,000 in terms of the problems with getting delivery in parts on these types of projects. If all goes well, we would have it built by the end of this calendar year. The following is the work project. As you know, it's another project we're hoping to get out to bid. We plan on getting it out to bid this summer. This is the summary of the existing funding that's in the project. We also added additional funding in the mid-year review, if that was what it was. That we'll show on the next slide. But the takeaway from this, that shows the measure actually of about $2.2 million. Grants and other, we have about $3.7 million. So right now, we have about $5.9 million. We had an extended, close to $1.2 million. So the $4,732,140 is what we have. So we're carrying forward as we work on the project. And I'll show up in the next slide, Jim. Thank you. So these are the appropriations from this year's funding. A lot of it was taken into, when we reviewed the mid-year or did the council vote, that's the last piece. When we did the council vote and we allocated funding that was available at that time. The first project on the list is the City Park Universal Design Project was originally identified for the library, but I think councilman Brooks asked to move it to Jay Street. I've kind of left it and just made it here. But certainly, I agree with that. The project just kind of makes no sense to do this. We have $150,000 of general fund measure F money in there. That project, I'm gonna give this, when we finish these slides, kind of a quick snapshot of what the Universal Design is for a park. We are also met with the county parks, friends of county parks, who get fundraising for the park on Shanta Clear. It's indicated of willingness and interest in helping us raise money for our parking, for improvements at Jay Street Park. So once we kind of know what our funding level is and determine what we're going at Jay Street Park, we will formalize an agreement with them, bring that to council, and kind of kick this project off. The next project that received funding during the Council Bulls was the Stock Navajo Bridge Protection Project. This is, as we're talking about, flooding is probably the primary issue of the three section on the scansions that come into the creek, or the piers that come into the creek. We completed a study three or four years ago about best ways to address that. Obviously the best way would be to replace the bridge without any in the span piers. The cost of that and the impacts to that are huge. So we've kind of deferred that solution. We came up with a solution to put some protection on the estuary mend that would deflect the trees that are coming down and hopefully prevent them from being caught. We're looking at a $350,000 project. This is when the budget's approved, we'll kind of figure out the best way to move forward. We're also looking at potentially the fact that we need additional funding. There are grants, seem to be quite a few grants out right now to address flooding or sea level rise issues, and we may be looking at that once we get a better firm idea of what the final cost may be. That's a project that's going to take a while, as you can imagine, building in the creek. It's going to involve quite a few permits, resource agency permits. I anticipate going through the environmental review. Right now, I would estimate that's probably a three-year project to complete. City Hall Maintenance, the next two City Hall Maintenance and the Community Center Maintenance are both figures to try and identify work right now, although the Community Center would have a better idea of what we want to do. Just make repairs that have been long outstanding and we've been kind of waiting to try and figure out what we want to do with the City Hall and the Community Center before we invest large amounts of money. But just to point out what we feel, we need to do some repair work just to keep the building open and operational. So we'll be working on that. Obviously, as we move forward with some of the other ideas going through on the Community Center, this money will be available for seed money if we go for a larger project. Finally, going back to the capital work improvements. During the goal-setting session, we get allocated another $1.5 million to the project. Some of that, I think $400,000, that was general fund and $1.1 million was measure F. So adding that funding to the $4,732,000 we have is $6,212,000, $6,212,000 for the project. Right now our construction estimate is $700,000, maybe it's about $767,000 short. That's of a whole project. I want to stress that we have a $6 million project that we can put out to bid and that's actually what we're working on completing the plans for right now. The larger projects includes redoing the floating docks and installing the bathrooms. Those can certainly be done as a later project. They're in fact different contractors that will probably do them if we put them out together. If funding is added, it's possible we could change order of this as you all are aware we have a three and a half million dollar ask of Senator Haneda's office, I'm sorry, Congressman Haneda's office. And we should know about that. Their budgets are approved in September. I think we would know sometime probably in August whether that's gonna be successful. So what I'm proposing is we move forward with the $6 million project now, get that out to bid, get that project rolling. It's gonna take nine months to build this. We're gonna have the closed work during that time. We can start doing that over winter rather than next summer, that would be best. And the final project here is data management for next year moving forward. Resources we have for that right now is Measure D and Senate Bill One, they have about $587,000. I know we had said we'd be talking about streets at this meeting, but I apologize. We are planning to come forward with a poll payment management report. We did a re-study, re-evaluated all the roads and that consultant is also working up a draft five-year plan and that'll be coming to the council on June 9th. So at that point, we can talk about what streets they're recommending, streets you guys would like to see brought into the program. I will say that when we applied for a grant with the RTC, back three months ago, we did indicate we wanted a project on 41st. We were received a half a million dollars, which is part of the Santa Clara's project and the other part will address the intersection 40% capital road. But at that time, we also pledged as match money next year's Measure D and SB One. We're unclear, we're trying to work with the RTC if we don't spend all that on those two intersections if we can use that on other projects, and we will. So we'll have that information when we report on June 9th. So going to the next slide, I just wanted to talk about inclusive park design or universal design. The universal design that kind of learned is a term used by architects for not just parks, but all public spaces that opens them up to everybody. When I've looked at individual parks, they call it inclusive park design. So I'll start with the inclusive park design at this point. As we move forward to all the play equipment is identified as inclusive. So inclusive park design is really taking apart beyond the ADA requirements and making it open and easily accessible by everyone of all abilities. ADA, I mean, Jake Street right now meets ADA requirements. It has a slope ramp down to the woodchips. It has some features that can be used, but as you know, a wheelchair or somebody on crutches trying to work on those woodchips is difficult. So it's not really as inclusive as we would like. So the inclusive design is designed to have multiple play experiences developing motor skills, physical skills and cognitive skills. So it's more than just swings and a slide and a climbing structure. It's all sorts of different elements that are easily accessible. It's designed for all children and graduated range and usually when we talk about children these types of parks that are from three to 12 years old. It has different play areas and different play structures or elements and organized areas so that you find your level of what you want to do that day and you can stay in that area. Probably the biggest thing is the improved accessibility. It does require the rubber matting like we have at the top of the library that it replaces the chips. That is a much better pathway and much easier to walk around and get around. So and it's completely level so that there's no transitions or gradual transitions only. It also includes safe areas. Not all kids are comfortable playing and being loud and playing hard. So it does include quiet, safe areas where children can find their own space and do whatever they want. And it's also becoming welcoming social areas. So children can play alone. They can mimic what they're seeing other people do by watching them or they can play in groups. So if we look at the next slide, this is Leo's Haydn which I think is the first all-inclusive part in Santa Cruz, it's on Chanticleer. So I'll start with the walking structures. The green, the light brown, the dark brown areas are all the rubberized mat material and they're all level. So you can get around this park easily. It's all level, it's all easily accessible. And then you can notice all the different elements around it. Yes, there's a big claim structure but you see on the left-hand side there's a ramp up to it which allows people with difficulties in mobility getting there without having to climb the steps or anything like that. That ramp continues so that they can access the flight essentially or different play areas. But beyond the large play structure there's the swing, different types of swings depending on your ability and your age. You can swing on them. There's a tractor here on the right-hand side that you can go climb around. And one of the biggest things is there's a fence all the way around it just for protection. So parents feel safe taking that consider. So it's really a park designed for everybody to use. There's lots of support and praise for the Leo's Haven. There's several other parks like it did around in different areas but I thought this was the best one to post to us. So I think that's my last slide. I'd be happy to answer any questions I can at this time. I want to remember Brad. Thank you. Thank you, Steve. I was wondering in regards to the City Hall maintenance do we know at this point how that money will be allocated to different projects or if this will be decided at staff level or at council level or if it'll be one big project or a bunch of little ones. Is there any insight as to that yet? Our biggest goal and we're helping to take care of it through the solar project on the roof is to take care of the roof here. If we need anything, we need a roof that doesn't leak every time it rains. Besides that, I don't think there's any specific allocations. I know in the past we talked about reparpeting, we talked about painting and potentially remodeling the bathrooms downstairs. But as we move forward, we will, the council will have the final say where that money's spent. Okay, yeah, I appreciate that. We received an email from a former council member, Stephanie Harland, who had asked about the bathrooms, the floors of the bathroom. And I know that that's something that even she was concerned with when she was on council. And of course it's one of our public areas that members of the public will go into and kind of get a feel of our city's facilities. So it's probably a good idea that you do it in terms of that and looking as nice as we can. Do we have an idea of how much the roof might cost? I have no idea how much it costs to replace the roof. The roof, the flat part of the roof is about $50,000, but we, I think most of the leak keeps tapping on the mansorts. And so what I'm hoping is we can take care of the flat part with the solar project and then have the mansorts which I think will be about $20,000 to $30,000. But that's an estimate on my part. Okay, yeah, that's all I can expect. Okay, perfect. And you said pavement management, we're gonna go into detail on all the roads and whatnot on the night, correct? That's correct. All right, great. Thanks so much, Steve. Welcome to the break. Thank you, Mayor Story. Thank you, Steve. So at our last meeting we talked about or I suggested we increase the city park universal design project to 300. And we were waiting to see what information it would bring forward. And one of the kind of basic things that Friends of Parks, I would say are wrong, Santa Cruz Parks and Friends suggested was the quick fix with the squishy stuff. Were you able to figure out how much that would cost to do if we did do the basics and let's say this partnership and the fundraising effort wasn't enough? And we just wanted to do that one piece. Should have. Go ahead. I'm sorry. I just might have to be about $260,000 to $300,000 just to remove all the chips that are there and put in that rubber matting that's there. We've actually got two proposals on that so I'm pretty comfortable with that price. But I just, I think you know, if we're gonna put new equipment in there then we wanna wait to do it again, okay? Thank you. That was my hope is that if, and I know this was one of the concerns of our mayor, you know, if we just did the basic, which is the squishy, we would need more. And then should the partnership and the fundraising efforts go really well then we can see it looked like a potential Leo's haven. But if it doesn't, I really would like Council to support just the basic funding for squishy stuff because that does alleviate. I wish I knew what the squishy stuff was called, but it would alleviate a lot of those problems of children having access with wheelchairs or you know, whatever they need to get to the play area. Okay, great. I actually don't know. So it's a question maybe for Jamie about next steps to requesting something like that or getting the buy-in from Council. What would be the best way to go about asking for that? Could I know in this direction tonight? Yeah, so what we'd be looking for this evening is if Council does, we're gonna get all the way through the presentation or we had kind of the key points, but it would ultimately be a motion about directing staff of where to either make changes or allocate funding in this year's budget. Okay, so wouldn't it require a formal motion? We would do that formally in June for the final budget. I think if you were gonna be making direction on the budget, I think we would like a motion this evening, but I think we do have a spot for that sort of here at the end of the presentation. Okay, thank you. Any other questions on Council members? Steve, I had a question and this is actually about a prior Council employment project, the library and it's related to our current project. And I was noticing in our library page 102 of the budget that and of course we had our $732,000 fund balance left over from that project. And it appears from the budget that the fund balance is just being maintained in the library reserve. And I was wondering why that is and I thought that excess money was gonna come back to the general fund at some point. But are there future needs for the library that this is being held for? I'm gonna ask finance director Mulberg to answer that because I was under the impression that there's been reallocating. You are correct, Steve, it has been reallocated. That's a good catch. I need to get that money out of the library fund and return back to the general fund. That was part of the city council goals. We had that money included when we allocated the 3.5 million. So we've already fenced it. It's been allocated. I'd have to go back to the budget goals. It was kind of put into that big pot of money, if you will, and then reallocated the city council goals. I used to need to move it out of the fund and back over to the general fund. But it is being counted in what we're doing this year. In projects that we've already, I did it. Correct. Okay, thank you. Are there other questions? And I'm also, I mean, just, I'm noticing that we have no attendee this evening and Larry just confirmed there. There are no email. Mayor Story, we, nope, we have not received any emails on the final. Okay. So I'll check again before we include this evening, but why don't we go ahead with the staff presentation? Okay, I just have a few more slides to go over. So I wanted to touch on the equipment replacement fund. We didn't really talk about this during May 4th. I actually didn't bring up much with the fact the other day. But just to kind of recap our equipment replacement fund because we have a lot of activity, we're estimating that we're going to start the year with about $850,000 in there. Part of that is, well, a lot of that is to build up for the electric sweep sweeper. We're also going to contribute another $105,000 in ISF charges to the department's purchasing equipment this year. And then we, as you're all aware, we received the $250,000 grant from 3CE for the electric sweep sweepers. So as far as proposed purchases for this year, the total is $105,000, which is like that ISF revenue charge. And they include a new lifeguard tower, a new motorcycle in the police department, and a traffic speed sign, one of the solar traffic speed signs. We do have a couple of things remaining from 21-22, the street sweeper that we talked about. I believe that we have placed an order for that, but it's probably nine to 12 months out. And then we had a public works truck, three-quarter ton truck with a dump bed approved last year that because of supply chain issues, we haven't even been able to order yet. So that was still kind of hanging out there. But assuming we did all of these purchases, we would still aid the year with an estimated fund, but let's just send her $409,000 and then we'd go make the replacement plan. A couple of remaining follow-up items. Actually, Mickey already touched on the first one. There was a question about the youth programming at the library, and if she mentioned, she's in current staffer meeting with library staff on May 26th. There was also a request for the local business groups to provide a report on their use of restricted TOT. The BIA will bring their resolution of intent to levy assessments along with their annual report to the June 9th helpful meeting. And I'm working with them to kind of elaborate a little bit more within their annual report on how restricted TOT funds are used. We've also reached out to the chamber and we're attempting to have them provided updates at the same meeting, so it's kind of a nice little, they're on the same meeting and it kind of flows together with what they're doing with the restricted TOT, so hopefully that flows will happen on June 9th. As far as next steps, obviously we have a budget hearing this evening. Our next budget hearing is scheduled for June 1st if we need it. We have a regular scheduled meeting on June 9th. The FAC has a special meeting scheduled for June 14th if we need it. And we have a final fourth budget hearing if we need it for June 16th with the intent of bringing the budget for adoption of the city council at June 23rd. We were pushing a little bit for June 9th, it's possible that I think we need to hear from the BIA and their budget before we can adopt our budget. So we're still targeting June 23rd. And then the slide that Jamie was alluding to earlier to kind of tie all this together is recommendations. So our recommendations this evening is to receive the fiscal year 2223 proposed budget and identify any additional questions that we have that we can either answer tonight or a future budget hearing. And then to provide direction to staff on a proposed budget. On the first part is funding for the ETYP community grant and our recreation programs. We're looking for input on both the ongoing revenue of 61,000 as well as the 51,000 fund balance. And then I have listed here maintaining 1.3 million general fund balance. If there is a desire to add funding to either the universal design play structure or any other projects, this is probably where we would pull it from. And then the final recommendation is either to continue budget deliberations on June 1st or cancel remaining budget hearings with direct staff to prepare the final budget for consideration on June 23rd. And with that, we are open for questions and discussion. Jim, on that last point on that slide about continuing the budget deliberations of June 1st, I in speech before you mentioned that we were going to be presented with a more detailed phase of management program that I'm meeting on, I believe it said June 9th. And so I just, does that management program should we wait before completing the budget until we hear that? The details of that or? I don't believe we need to wait. The funding that we're using for payment management as you'd be and SB1 or RMRA or are restricted to street projects. So whether it's payment management or some other kind of street projects, that's fine. If we were going to, that's revenue coming in. If we were going to do payment management, I'm assuming he would come back following the June 9th meeting with a detailed plan on which payment management streets we're going to hit up for 22.23. But I think as far as adopting the budget, whether it goes to payment management or not, those are in restricted funds and we can do that after the fact. They're not getting commandoes with the general fund at all. Yes, okay. All right, thanks for that, glad to get it. So yeah, Council Member Brown. Thank you Mayor's story. I would like to take this as an opportunity to request that I, while I should first say that I am in agreement with all of the recommendations as presented with one change that I would ask for council's approval on which is an additional 125,000 from the 1.3 million general fund balance to add to the park project. And that's to simply just do the basic spongy grounds for the park structure there, which I think is necessary. So 125 should be a good starting spot. And then that will also allow for us to contract and partner with County Parks and Funds. Yeah, Council Member Brown. I did it, I was on mute. Am I still on mute? No, okay. I was just wondering if we, I have concerns about some budget items that I don't know if we're gonna be able to determine tonight or in the next meeting. I know we still need to, for example, like how much funding we might need to put for repairs for our community center. And so I'm wondering if we don't move forward with Councilman Burke's suggestion for an additional 125 tonight. Will there be another opportunity to do that at any other meeting? The simple answer is yes. What's the not simple? Is there like a more detailed answer? I'm nervous that you're saying it that way. No, the simple answer is yes. There will be more opportunities. What we're hoping is, is I think as was mentioned tonight, we're gonna find out about the federal funding for the war coming up here, we think by August, hopefully sooner. That would give us a clearer picture of whether there's a shortfall in the war. And as you know, we're working on a new lease for the community center with the school district. And once that's hammered out, I think we have a clearer picture about kind of when and what improvements we might be making for community center. So our hope is to narrow that those things knocked out this summer, which time then I think we'd be in a great position to sort of talk about the fund balance. But yes, we will have an opportunity to do that, whether it comes up in August or September or it's October, November, I can't say for sure right now. Okay, okay, thank you. I love the idea of this inclusive park. And I would like to put more money towards it, but I'm not prepared to do that tonight because I just wanna make sure that we are in a good situation to ensure that the other projects that we can't quite determine yet if we're gonna be able to cover, that we'll be able to get all of those things squared away first. Jamie, just to clarify though, I mean, we would need to take action on the budget budget first. So to be clear, our recommendation is to adopt the budget. And what I was trying to suggest is that we can come back and talk about fund balance, allocations out of fund balance, whether it's for the war or park design for the community center, hopefully late summer. Okay, so we would need, whether it's tonight or June 1st, we would need to adopt the budget before we get the confirmation about those other events that will affect the fund balance. That's correct, thank you for clarifying. Yeah, that's the issue is those things are gonna come after our deadline to adopt the budget. That's why we're suggesting, maybe keep some of the fund balance in your back pocket because these other things are gonna be developing over the course of the summer. Okay, good, thank you for that clarification. Council member Bertrand. Yeah, I have rather small items that I'd like to request as a project for city council to consider. First a question to Steve though. This would involve you. How much is it cost to do a flashing light when the pedestrian wants to cross? And my concern is the senior housing area on Bay, there's a lot of people over the years that complained about that intersection at Bay and Hill. And most recently I think all of us got an email on that. I certainly got a phone call recently too. So how much is a flashing light thing so especially the seniors could cross with safety. For that intersection, we actually have pricing and it's about $8,000. We've actually allocated some gas tax money, it's a special reserve fund we have or not a reserve fund but a special revenue fund we have to purchase that equipment. So we'll probably be placing the order for that now and there's a need right now for more money. Okay, so you are budgeting already for that? Yes. Okay, great. That's all I'm concerned about at this point. Thank you very much. Yeah, and I have no problem with the spongy stuff but there's going to be calls. Let's do a research project get the right day before we order. Rubber eyes play surface. Okay, rubber eyes play surface. You know if I was a kid and that was in my part I would see how far I could jump and bounce, I would do all sorts of things like that. Hey, is there another discussion on the other recommendation? And in the sense that we get the funding for the ECYP community grant recreational program. Mayor Story, did you want me to make that as a motion or the recommendation? I was still confused Jamie if you want me to approve the recommendation with the 125,000, I mean I can make that as a motion is that what you're looking for? I think that would be best, yes. Okay, so I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve recommendations presented with staff with an additional $125,000 to the towards the rubber eyes play surface for our inclusive playground project. I'll second and maybe then so we have a motion in the second regarding the additional and 25,000 for the RPS surface of J Street. And before also both on that, but I was noticing that the staff is also looking for direction on the early childhood youth program funding. Am I correct on that? I believe it's on the recommendations listed the funding for ECY community grant 61,000 towards revenue and the fund balance goes to. Okay, so that was the recommendation from the subcommittee and yeah staff is recommending the subcommittee's recommendations. So $21,000 to the community grant program, $51,000 for RAC and we have some Nikki outlined some proposed uses for those funds. So if that looks good, staff, please include that in the motion. And also seems to me to prepare a budget too for the 23rd. Yeah, well, I think we're going to, we're gonna come to that in just a minute whether or not we're gonna conclude tonight or move on to the June 1st meeting. I'll call on staff member Brown. Thank you. I just have a question and then possibly a request if it would make sense or maybe an opposite order, but I am in favor of all of these recommendations. And as I mentioned, I'm really nervous about continuing to allocate more funding from the fund balance right now towards other projects that we already have funding allocated towards, frankly, that when we are trying to determine some other projects, so would it make sense? And if so, would the maker of the motion be willing to separate this into two different motions because I would really not wanna have to say, vote no on all of these recommendations that I approve if it's all rolled into one. Would it be appropriate? Would it make sense? And is that something that the maker of the motion would agree to? Absolutely. And I just also wanna be sure that I'm reading that we have 1.3 million in general fund balance. That is what I'm seeing here. And that 125 would be coming from that general fund balance. Okay. All right, so I'll go ahead and withdraw my current motion that's on the table. Slowly, and I will make a new motion. And I'll, to, for, well, we'll start with the recommendations and then once that passes, I'll make the second motion for, to utilize that general fund balance. So I'll go ahead and make a motion to move forward with the staff recommendations as presented on our slide here, including the direction proposed for the ECYP community grant and, and recreation programs as Nikki presented. I'll second. Okay. So we have a motion and a second. And before I call for a roll call vote on that motion, Larry just wanna confirm that you have not received any emails that's email, attendee. They're sure we have not received any emails. Okay. Let's go ahead then with a roll call vote on the motion on the floor. Council member Bertrand. I approve. Council member Brooks. Aye. Council member Brown. Aye. Vice Mayor Keiser. Aye. Mayor Story. Aye. The motion passes unanimously. Council member Brooks, we wanna go on to your next motion. Sure. I'd like to make a motion to allocate $125,000 from our $1.3 million general fund balance to increase the, to go towards, excuse me, the inclusive park project as presented in our 22-23 proposed budget. Larry second. I can say that. That's seconded by Vice Mayor Keiser. Just a question to the city manager. In the, if we were to allocate this additional money, would this be added in with the other pool of money that's being directed for the community center? So my recollection is that there was $150,000 that was allocated originally towards the top lot. And then based on feedback at the last meeting, we made that to a universal play structure design. So my understanding based on the motion is that there'd be 150 plus 125 that would give us 275 for play structure work at Jade Street to kick off presumably a partnership to fundraise for a larger inclusive design for the play structure renovation. So this funding is separate from the part from the monies that we had devoted to the community center for capital improvement at that location. Yes, that's my understanding. That's the way we have it structured right now is that then there's a separate pod of 150 that is set aside for the community center. You'll recall that there's estimates that the community center needs probably around a million dollars of improvements, maybe 700K worth of infrastructure and then maybe 300,000 to $400,000 of more functional improvements for the building. Right, the playground, sorry for the laboring, it's a playground that can not be to the largest community center or projects or allocations. So staff's understanding of so past council direction is that there's separate projects. So there's a community center project we've identified and effectively a play structure project we've identified. We could change that to the council want us to but that's the way we structured it so far. Or if I may, Mayor Story, that let's say we fundraise enough money to cover everything. Of course that's general fund money no matter what and we can reallocate that to any project including the community center or anything else. But the way our priorities read today is that there are two separate projects, each one with 150 as of today. I'm off to hear if you'd like to have a quick review on this. Yeah, I'm getting some verbal feedback from someone there, I'm not sure who. But I guess what I'm trying to get to, you know, under the community center we're subject to a lease and which is being negotiated. But if the lease terminates, I'm assuming that the children's playground would be a part of that lease termination. And we would lose access or possession of that playground. And so, and if that's true, it seems to me that we should maybe think of making this extended cure incorporated into our lease negotiations. So, you're absolutely correct that we were in negotiations with the district about a lease extension and that obviously the place structure is included in those negotiations. How we include the lease extension how we include, you know, this obviously real property negotiations that we do in closed sessions. But I can tell you that staff is aware of the plans for a place structure and it's been taking that into account in our conversations with the district. But you are absolutely correct that if there is no new lease in 2032, the city's rights to occupy and use the park expire. Absent a new lease. Yeah, okay, I won't deliver this point. But yeah, I think that if we're putting this additional amount of money into that particular project, we should probably be sure to get credit for it and they preserve that value. If the lease should become terminated. So, but I'll delay to that point any longer. And if there's any other questions on the motion on the floor, it's being done. I'll ask Chloe to take a roll call vote. Feel like I want to clarify, I apologize. This is for the motion to allocate 125,000 from the general fund balance towards an inclusive park project at the community center. Correct? Okay. That's my understanding. Okay, excellent. Thank you. Council member Bertrand. Agreed. Council member Brooks. Okay. Council member Brown. No. Vice Mayor Keiser. Aye. Mayor Story. And I vote aye. The motion passes four to one. So, and I think our last order of business in here is to decide whether or not we're going to adopt this budget or continue this item until June the 1st. And as one point of clarification, you actually don't have the materials in front of you this evening to adopt, but if this is the final, if you're ready for us to adopt, then we would bring back the materials on a regular meeting and we should cancel the remaining budget hearings. Correct, yes. I mean, I think essentially the budget would be approved and it would just be a matter of, we would have one final, I guess, look at it on a regular meeting on June 23rd. Correct. Yeah, Council member Seven, you talked about the, just one budget here in June the 1st. Mayor Story, just have a question for clarity. Yeah, I'm sorry, I just saw your hand, that's Council member Seven. Okay, I just want to make sure that any of the decisions we make for regarding the CIP projects and things like that won't affect or the decision of us saying that we'll go to the final budget for June 23rd. I'm just trying to see if those moving parts all interconnect or do we need more conversation about that, just in case we want to allocate the $1 million to fix and clear street or something like that. So I think the simple answer is that you can find a simple answer. Simple answer, I'm sorry. You have a simple answer tonight, Jamie. I know, I know, I'm not sure where this is coming from. So we're gonna basically, if you give us the direction tonight, we have effectively a budget package and you will still have, I think it's $1.175 million of remaining fund balance. Then we're gonna be getting the presentation at our next meeting about the pavement management report. And you obviously in this budget, as Steve alluded to, we have a bunch of restricted road funds to allocate to different projects. And Council could at that point say, let's throw another couple of hundred thousand dollars into road projects once you see what the list looks like. So I think you're totally fine at this point giving us direction to adopt, to prepare the documents to adopt the budget. And then we'll be taking a look at the road projects coming up here in June. Thank you. Okay, with that here, what's the Council's will? We're assuming that, yeah, we would have to need to have a formal motion if we were going to adopt the budget tonight and Council be for the budget deliberations and doing the post, okay? Yeah. I guess, so are we, is everybody okay with skipping the next budget or do we wanna revisit on June 1st with a more direct conversation? I believe if we're going to skip June 1st, we would need to adopt the budget tonight. If we don't. No? No, we. No, you would give us direction to return on June 23rd with the final budget for adoption. And at that point, we would, if we make any changes between now and then as Jamie alluded to, if we add money after June 9th to pavement management, we could bring that back and discuss that on June 23rd and incorporated into the budget tonight. It's just simply either continuing the budget hearings June 1st and June 16th or canceling them. Okay. I am comfortable keeping a higher fund balance here like we've sort of been discussing. So I am okay continuing without June 1st if we wanna then adopt on the 23rd, if that, I could make that a motion if we're comfortable doing. Okay, there's a motion to Council but June 1st budget deliberations are still meeting, is there a second? I'll second. Yeah, I'm second by Council Member Brown. Any further discussion? We none, can we have a roll call vote, please? Council Member Bertrand. Agree. Council Member Brooks. Aye. Council Member Brown. Aye. Vice Mayor Keiser. Aye. Mayor Story. Aye. The motion passes unanimously a budget hearing of June 1st is canceled. And just checking in that you need anything further come up this evening. Sorry, I was having trouble on meeting. You're good for the evening, everyone. Thank you so much for the direction and feedback. J.B. having problems on mute. Thanks for all your hard work, you guys. Yeah, it was great meeting. Thank you. Thanks, I'm going to turn us now then until our next regular schedule meeting on May the 26th at 7 p.m. Thank you, everyone. Good night. Good night.