 We're all set. All right, everyone. Good morning. I'm gonna call the meeting to order. Thank you all for attending this morning. It's a beautiful first day and recording secretary will now take roll. Roll call, board member Anderson. Board member Futral. Present. Board member Renteria. Present. Board member Rumble. Present. Board member Myers. Present. Chair Rivera. Present. All right. Let the record reflect that all board members are presents. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Yeah, so I have this public item too, public comments. This is time when any person may address matters not listed on the agenda, but which are within the subject matter of the jurisdiction. The public may comment on agenda items when the item is called. Each speaker is allowed three minutes. Kaya, can you please review how the public may comment? All right, if you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you are dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute once called upon. You have three minutes. Chair Rivera, there are no members of the public on Zoom nor in person. All right, thank you, Kaya. We move on to item number three, approval of the minutes and 321 are the minutes from the March 23rd meeting. I'll move to approve the minutes. I lost that sheet. Oh, I got it for. The minutes were prepared by the board secretary and are now available for review by the public. Does anyone have any questions about the minutes? If not, I will move to approve the minutes with a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. The minutes should show that I'm abstaining because I wasn't present at the meeting. Okay. Kaya. Thank you. Okay. And now we move on to the next item, which is the new business. Item 4.1, approval of the final draft 2022-2023 annual report and 2023-2024 work plan. So based on the definition in ordinance number 3946, the annual report means the annual report required by section 36533 of the ordinance that you have in front of you. By law, we're required to prepare the annual report each year, and it doesn't specify exactly when we have to do it together, but basically the annual report details, both activities and services that are carried out as well as programs throughout the year by the city center and the contractor, which is in this case, is the center slash metro chamber. The final draft of the report was incorporated onto this agenda. However, we have some significant suggested last minute changes and edits that we have made on the report that you're now out in front of you. And we will just seek approval with the amended changes, right? So before our motion is made, are there any members of the public wishing to comment on item 4.1? So just a quick comment. I think that for VSR's budget in this we can do two things that are not reflected here. One is to show reserves similar to what the city is doing. So, Santa Rosa carries a reserve that's not reflected in the budget table here. And the other is to put a footnote in here to explain some of the more meaningful differences between budgeted and actual, which are primarily driven by how we are budgeting rather than big swings in costs and investments, right? So we are capturing all of our personnel, just as an example, capturing all of our personnel costs within admin and operations and prior year, including the 22 budget, personnel was scattered throughout the budget. So just what I felt to be a more transparent way of budgeting to capture the costs where they're a little bit more appropriate. So that would explain the big difference between budgeted and actual, for example, in admin and operations and that line item. So just to be clearer and more, I think aligned with how the city is presenting its budget. I have a question for you. When we look at the work plan for city of Santa Rosa, the prior document had a 221,000 unallocated reserve and a $330,000 carry forward number over and above the $500,000 budgeted for the current fiscal year by the city. That number is now shown as a carry forward numbers of 312. What are the encumbered funds that the city had from the BID going into the current fiscal year prior to budgeting additional dollars? Okay, I thought we had, well, incorporated. I think we didn't deduct anything, we just got the, so this is a revised table based on some of the suggestions that were provided, but I'm not sure if I'm answering your question, but. Well, I'm sorry to interrupt you, Rafa. What I'm a little unsure of is that the report before appeared to show that there were 500 and about $540,000, $550,000 of in essence reserve funds over and above the expenditure plan, whereas this is showing, if I understand correctly, 312,000 over and above the council approved budget. I'm sorry, I didn't bring the old report to it, to look at it. Yeah, I'm looking for the old report now. No longer carry forward was $330,000, it looks like. Yeah, and there's an asterisk in the lower left, Todd talks about, if I recall, $211,000 or $221,000 of additional dollars. Yeah, right there, 221,347, yeah. What's, all right. It was page 19 of the former report, yeah. Yeah, we have a carry forward 330, 293 and the reserves 221,341, 47, right? Right, so obviously those two numbers add up to about $550,000. Correct. Resistions carry forward 312, so I'm just curious whether $200,000, $210,000, when? Yeah, I think we've got the budget, our budget person here, because I thought we just had combined those two and then place them on the council approved 500, carry forward 312, okay, I see where you're saying it. Now, maybe the number is 312, it's just, it's not consistent with what was in the other report. That's why I'm asking the question. Well, why don't I seek clarification on that one and can I get back to you, as soon as I have a clear response as to whether the difference is there or less? Yeah, okay, I see the discrepancy. Well, what I would suggest maybe for the consideration of the board is there are some changes that the ESR is gonna be doing anyway. Perhaps that can be clarified along with anything else that comes out of today's discussion because I'm a little uncomfortable with that clarification just coming to me as opposed to coming to the whole board. If it's an accurate number, then there's nothing further to say, but if it requires a revision to this page for clarity, then that would be a different story. Yeah, and for comfort, we did meet with our finance analyst yesterday and we went over this data and the numbers and this is what she ended up, sending back late last night. So I'm pretty confident that the numbers are accurate. Perhaps there may have been some minor revisions, but I'll definitely get clarification on that. And then as soon as the chamber changes come in, I'll confirm that update. And I also noticed that the work, I'm a little bit confused. This would this, and actually let me, I guess, ask you, Peter, talking about on page 20 of the work plan. Since one of the changes here is that the city of Santa Rosa work plan changes to a calendar year to coincide with the way revenue is received and visit Santa Rosa was already on a calendar year, should not those two years coincide so that this would be a 2024 visit Santa Rosa report, you know, as well. The only issue we have with that, of course, is we don't have an adopted budget until January of 2024. Right. So it's tough to put in a budget that's representative of being final, right? Six, seven months before it's done. Wouldn't we want the BIA budget though? First, for the chamber budget, knowing that if the chamber budget is different, this budget can be accordingly revised. But I mean, in theory, the BID budget should be, should be the master budget, although it may not have all the line items involved. Otherwise, the BID budget is being changed to reflect the chamber budget. Well, it is the chamber's budget, right? I mean, the chamber has, because those funds are coming in to the chamber, the council doesn't approve visit Santa Rosa's budget, chamber board does. Yeah, but it approves the work plan, right, which includes a budget. So. Oh, we wouldn't have Q3, Q4. Well, I know when you're making a transition, you know, between fiscal year and calendar year would be, you know, wise. I mean, there's going to be a transition and there's already a transition on the city side because the city side is obviously a 23-24 budget through June 30th, 24, whereas this is calendar year to the end of the year. I mean, we could put something in there for sure, so long as it's presented in context or caveat it, right? To say, this is anticipated 24 budget or something like that. I mean, we get in the same case, right? Because regardless of how it's presented in this document, the city's going to have, the city's always going to be on a fiscal year, on a fiscal, on a July to June fiscal year, even if it's presented separately in this document. So theoretically, there's only six months of 24 that's actually budgeted as well. Correct. The difficulty is that we're, if we adopted 2023 work plan for visit Santa Rosa, and we understand that the chamber essentially makes those decisions and not allocated installers, but if we adopt a 2023 work plan for visit Santa Rosa, and it goes to the chamber and end of August or September, the years of 2023 is almost over. So from that standpoint, it actually doesn't communicate anything except it's more of a historical statement. Here's what it was, as opposed to here's what it is or should be. And I don't have a big dog in that. I just think it's important to be consistent. If it's a 2024 plan, it should be a 2024 plan. And then the chamber's going to go through its process. And if there's variants, I mean, it just would revise the, make a notation that these dollars are subject to the chamber, chamber budget process that comes up at the end of the year. We've got also switched the timing of the annual report and it's presented. So I guess we could be reporting on 2023 earlier in the year, following year and present the budget for that year. 2024 budget, right? I did get an approval from finance to officially get rid of that 2022, 2023, blah, blah, and then just call it the 2023 annual report. And of course, if we have data from 2024, including the chambers, officially change it to the 2024 work plan. Well, is it possible just to change under visit Santa Rosa 2023 to 2024 and add the ask risk that dollar allocation of dollars among line items is subject to chamber budgeting process? Yep, certainly fine. Going back quickly to page six and recognizing that this is a new table showing the administrative fee and the split between the city and visit Santa Rosa or the chamber. Yes. So I appreciate that and I think it helps clarify what was already in suggest it was in tax, right? But I think it helps clarify just a note though. I mean, two plus 30 plus 70 is 102. So in reality, right? I mean, the city receives more than 30% it receives 32% and the chamber visit Santa Rosa receives less than 70% or receives 68% based on that 2% administrative fee. It's the 30, 70 split is absolutely true. Yes. After the 2% is taken from the city. So. 38%. Yeah. So now I also realized that the 30, 70 numbers are in the ordinance. So I don't want to create, I don't want to, right? I don't want to create any inconsistencies with the ordinance, but in reality it's 32, 68, not 30, 70. So however we want to walk that tight rope with being consistent with the ordinance because the ordinance also calls out the administrative fee. I'm not suggesting anything in the proper, right? I'm just, if we present it like this we should probably make that clear. Yeah, probably add up to 100% rather than 102%. And then on that same page, and thank you for calling that out. There's also those reformatted tables based on the suggestions we received on Monday where you can plug in. What I think I could do here just to be clear is because our reserves are not within our operating budget. We don't use reserves to fund ongoing activity. We use reserves as reserves as when a pandemic comes or a wildfire comes to help cover precipitous decline in revenue to carry on costs. So on this table, I think it would be fine if we just footnote that we have a $500,000 reserve for Visit Center's budget and highlight a couple of the why's behind the differences between budget and actual. So no changes to the table is what I'm saying, but we can get you language that would be a footnote to the table. If that's agreeable to the board itself. On the switching back to page 20, I think here is where we could probably try to more closely align with your table so they don't look so completely different. Okay. So we can, we'll send you, the numbers aren't gonna change, right? The numbers are what they are, but we can send you information for both. And for clarification, member would try out, we added some bite notes such as staff 40%, 40 CD, full-time employees, including sellers and benefits, studio B is the professional services as others. And then like I said, I'll seek clarification on the discrepancy between those other figures from the previous report. Great. The numbers here are still a little puzzling on the city side. I don't mean to be, you know, belaborate, but the revenue was 9.55 in the prior fiscal year. And expenditures were 7.33, but only 4.21 was spent. That's a $534,000 difference, but there was, you know, that's not accurate. I'm understanding it better now, I see. Okay. The actual revenues that came in were, you're showing 500,000 for that period. You can't really track what was actually received here. We don't need to belabor it. Maybe something can be looked at more thoroughly. Numbers don't quite add up and link to the prior year and then the next year. Because this is a calendar year, this is... Yeah, that's a possibility. And I'd be happy to schedule a conversation with either Kate or our new finance analyst for the department and just go over those figures. We also quickly, and for I forget, we did add two bullet points on what it says here, page 18. Looking ahead, work plan for 2024 and continue to create economic development and impact through media mentions, education and sourcing and services revenue for those opportunities for our business community. And then the last bullet point was continue participation in professionals' unemployment. I think there was some additional suggestions that you had made that were relating here related to ongoing and or one-time projects that will support the hospitality industry. I think you're maybe look at the open circle bullets under strategic plan development Yes, thank you. The last two there. Yeah, thank you. Evaluation of economic tourism business, evaluation and potential TBIA funding special. Thank you for that. Positively effect on hospitality demand, leveraging other programs of funding. The other report has always had room for improvement. So I do appreciate the feedback. And as we continue to better the report, this is very valuable feedback and we can definitely make it more robust and more complete and more accurate. That's been a little long. Rafael, I do see the question I've got. If you look at page six, I see where the 312 that is shown in the 2024 work plans come from. That's the council approved budget plus carry forward funds, less actuals for the year. That equals 312, but it still leaves open the question of the 221-347 which is shown as available reserves on page six from 2022-23, where that money went. Because it's not reflected in the work plan. Okay. I'll see clarification. You're calling, we'll go ahead and readjust that the 2%, 30%, 70. Yeah, however you wanna indicate that, I mean. Yeah, it's confusing. It's certainly true that after the 2% is taken, then the split is 30, 70, right? So I'm not arguing that point at all. Yeah, and I don't want to get us out of whack with the ordinance either. So, how are we gonna reflect that? You know, like a, I don't know. So going back to that one minor clarification, if we decide to call it the 2024 work plan and then for that table near the end, the Visit Center on South Work Plan calendar year 2023. So we're going to just put a side note for. Well, that would say 24 now and not 23. Okay, 24. To align with the city, right? So if the city is saying this is the work plan for 24, right? Yeah. We would wanna reflect the same. And I think that there's a note on the table, put note on the table saying that, you know, this is an anticipated budget. Anticipated budget, okay. That is subject to change based on the Chambers calendar year budgeting process or something like that. And truly, I mean, very unlikely. I like this change. In any kind of significant way, right? But I mean, just from my responsibility of meeting, the legal requirements for the chamber, right? I don't wanna take away the fiduciary responsibility of the board. I don't wanna complicate things, but did you say that we could actually push this work plan to the end of the year in future years? I'm just, just because for our planning purposes, that's how we plan, you know, so I don't. Yeah. That would be, I don't know. So potentially we would be pretty quick up then for doing another document in January or February of 24. So not pushing this one out. I think this one still needs to go to the council, right? Yes. Oh, right, right, correct. Yeah. But we would need to do, we would need, instead of framing it as pushing this out, we would need to pull in next year's report and do it. I know sooner. Quicker time frame. I'm not quite following. So we'd have to do another one in six months, basically. Well, I'm not following why. If this were 2024, 2025 is. Oh yeah, you're right. You're right. So next year's wanna be quicker, it would be at the end of the year. It doesn't have to be in August, it could be in like October, November, or even December. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, you're right, you're right. I mean, that would be more in line with our planning. So we'd be able to give better information. Yeah, that's just. And that would also allow planning of time and opportunity for us to work together to see how we can definitely, I mean, I definitely wanna see something a little bit more professional. This is just me using word and back and forth and little pictures here and there and then pulling the data. But, you know, it is. That's some of my stuff. The formatting is outdated. You know, ABB puts out a very nice report. So the Sonoma County tourism, we should be, you know, money that comes in, we should be able to create, produce something professional. And we can probably have some support for them. Yeah. All right. So does anyone wanna make a motion in support of the approval of the annual report and work plan in recommendation to the city council with the amended changes that we have discussed in today? I'll make a motion and we blah, blah, blah. Send this through with the amended changes that we discussed today. Thank you, a member. Is there some? Do I have a second? I'll second. Is there any further discussion? Would we need to call for another vote at that 221,000 reserves is something significantly different than what we're assuming it is? Or, I'm just kinda curious. You should be able to clarify that matter pretty easily, but I would suppose so. Well, might I make a suggestion that if the 221 is our dollars that aren't shown here, just understand and the minutes could reflect this that the motion assumes that will be a minor edit on its way to the council. And if it actually is already subsumed in the 312, then you don't have to do anything. Just leave it as it is. Yeah, okay. Thank you for the clarification. According to the secretary, we'll now take a roll call. Yes. Roll call vote, board member Anderson. Aye. Board member Futrell. Aye. Board member Rancheria. Aye. Board member Rumble. Aye. Board member Myers. Aye. Chair Rivera. Aye. All right. Let the record reflect that the risk that this item is approved with unanimous eyes. Thank you. All right. Item, thank you. Item, like I said, it's a department reports. We do not have any department reports. Item six is to adjourn the meeting. So we're gonna go ahead and proceed and adjourn the meeting. I'd like to thank you all for attending today. Thanks, Rafael. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you. Was there a late correspondence or is that just a placeholder? Under.