Jun 09, 2026 Committee of the Whole

[Call to Order]

[00:00:04]

GOOD WAY TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. THIS IS THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR JUNE 9TH, 2026.

IT IS 4:02 P.M. WE HAVE PRESENT COUNCIL MEMBER JACOB COUNCIL MEMBER HARRIS, A COUNCIL MEMBER.

WHITELOCK IS ON THE PHONE AND SHE. AND WE HAVE ON ZOOM. EXCUSE ME. WE HAVE CONFIRMED SHE IS PRESENT. WE'D LIKE TO EXCUSE CHAIR BADER AND COUNCIL MEMBER LAM AND COUNCIL MEMBER SHELTON TODAY. OKAY, WE WILL GET STARTED. OUR FIRST ITEM AGENDA IS THE THIS FUND BLURB

[a. Property Tax Impact Schedule for Fiscal Year 2027]

[b. Discussion of the Fiscal Year 2027 Tentative Budget]

CAN'T WE CHANGE BETWEEN INTERIM AND FINAL? IF IT GOES DOWN? YES. OKAY. OKAY. SO THESE ARE THE SAME OR GOES DOWN SHUFFLE STUFF AROUND. YOU'RE SETTING THE CEILING OF THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT THAT YOU COULD WORK. GOT IT. I PERSONALLY DON'T FEEL THAT WE SHOULD DO ANYTHING MORE THAN WHAT THE MAYOR. JUST PUT THAT ON. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR DENISE AND OR JIM BECAUSE HE'S

[00:05:08]

BUT I NOTICED THAT IN THE 26 BUDGET WINDING UP, WE HAD PUT THIS EXTRA $50,000 INTO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR BUSINESS OUTREACH DURING CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS. RIGHT.

IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THAT GOT SPENT. COULD SOMEBODY TALK TO THAT AS FAR AS WHAT IT WAS ENVISIONED TO BE, WHY IT DIDN'T GET SPENT, AND WHY WE'RE NOT ASKING TO DO IT AGAIN. I'M IN.

DENISE OR JIM, I MEANT. WE. A YEAR AGO, WE WERE STILL IN THE THROES OF 90TH SOUTH AND UDOT AND THE WIDENING THERE. WE HAD POTENTIAL PROJECTS WITH PHASE ONE OF 13TH WEST. SO THERE WAS A LOT OF STREET, A LOT OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION THAT WAS HAVING SOME IMPACTS ON THE BUSINESS.

AND LEADING UP TO THAT, WE WERE FEELING LIKE WE WANT TO DO A BETTER JOB COMMUNICATING WITH THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY ABOUT THE IMPACTS OF THESE PROJECTS. THEN THEN UDOT WOULD DO A LOAN OR THEN THE PROJECT ALONE MIGHT JUSTIFY IT. SO WE ASKED FOR THAT MONEY TO BE IN THERE, SO IT WOULD HAVE IT AS NEEDED, JUST IN CASE. WE GOT THROUGH THIS LAST FISCAL YEAR AND WE HAVEN'T USED IT. SO WE HAVEN'T HAD A PROJECT THAT WAS THAT IMPACTFUL ON THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY. THE ROAD PROJECT WAS THAT, AND WE'RE NOT ANTICIPATING PROJECTS BEING IMPACTFUL THIS YEAR. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE WE HAVE PHASE TWO AND THREE OF 13TH WEST. BUT THERE THEIR IMPACT ON THE BUSINESS BUSINESS COMMUNITY IS NOT QUITE AS SIGNIFICANT. THERE'S FEWER BUSINESSES. AND SO THAT'S FELT AN EXTRA NEED. BUT WE REALLY LIKED HAVING THAT FUNDING AVAILABLE IF NEEDED. BUT THAT'S NOT WHY. THAT'S WHY IT'S NOT IN THIS NEXT BUDGET. WE MAY HAVE MORE TIME, BUT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS WHERE THE ORIGINAL INTENTIONS, IF WE DIDN'T HAVE THE NEED, WE DIDN'T WANT TO SPEND THE MONEY. CAN YOU EXPAND ON WHAT WHAT THAT ENTAILS? THE BUSINESS OUTREACH? YEAH. WHEN I SAY COVID-19. SOME THINGS THAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT WOULD BE LIKE FLIERS, LIKE GENERATING BANNERS THAT WE CAN HELP WITH, LIKE MAYBE TEAMING UP WITH THEM AS FAR AS LIKE ADS GO AND LIKE OUR NEWSLETTER OR LIKE DOING LIKE A BUSINESS SPOTLIGHT. OKAY. WHAT I CAN ALSO ADD IS, AND I DON'T KNOW, BECAUSE CORBIN'S RIGHT. I MEAN, WE DON'T, WE DON'T REALLY HAVE THAT MANY UPCOMING PROJECTS THAT WILL IMPACT BUSINESSES AS MUCH. BUT THE TOOLS THAT WE HAVE NOW KIND OF MAKE IT EASIER TO DO THAT. SO THINGS LIKE WHERE WE CAN TEXT OR CALL OR EMAIL, THAT MAKES IT A LOT EASIER. SO WITH 70 SOUTH, WHEN WE HAD LIKE THE CLOSURES FOR THE BRIDGE, WE WERE ABLE TO TEXT EVERYBODY IN THAT AREA, NOT JUST RESIDENTS, INCLUDING BUSINESSES. SO I THINK WE'RE KIND OF COVERING IT THAT WAY TOO, IF THAT IF THAT PROVIDES MORE INFORMATION TO HELP DIRECT TRAFFIC TO BUSINESSES. YES.

HELPING. YEAH. TO JUST SAY, HEY, THERE'S STILL OPEN DESPITE THIS OR, YOU KNOW, HERE'S LIKE INFORMATION THAT'S HAPPENING. THEY JUST FELT LIKE THEY WEREN'T GETTING THAT INFORMATION. THE CONSTRUCTION TEAM. YEAH. I HAVE MORE QUESTIONS, ALL I CAN. OKAY. SO NO GO THERE JUST FOR YOU. COUNCILMEMBER WHITELOCK, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS AND SOME COMMENTS. MADAM CHAIR, WHEN YOU'RE READY. BUT IF COUNCIL MEMBER JACOB HAS STUFF, HE'S WELCOME TO FINISH. NO, GO AHEAD AND I'LL WRAP UP. PROBABLY BY THE TIME YOU'RE DONE, MY COMPUTER WILL BE READY FOR ME TO DO SOMETHING ELSE. OKAY, FIRST I APOLOGIZE. I FORGOT MY HEADSET, SO HOPEFULLY I'M COMING ACROSS OKAY. YEAH. YOU'RE GREAT. YOU SOUND GOOD. I JUST WANT TO READ SOMETHING AND THEN ASK A FEW QUESTIONS AS WELL. I WANT TO START BY THANKING ALL WHO HAVE WORKED ON THE MAYOR'S BUDGET AND THOSE WHO HAVE ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS.

I'M GRATEFUL WE EACH HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE OUR THOUGHTS AND HOPE THAT WE CAN BE RESPECTFUL OF EACH OTHER'S OPINIONS. FOR ME, MY VOTE MATTERS AND I TAKE IT. I DON'T TAKE IT LIGHTLY. I ALSO DON'T BELIEVE I SHOULD SAY I TO THINGS I HAVE CONCERNS WITH.

[00:10:04]

AREAS I STILL HAVE CONCERN WITH ARE ADDING STAFF. I LISTEN TO COUNCIL MEMBER SHELTON LAST MEETING AND HE TALKED ABOUT THE PASSPORT OFFICE AND PERHAPS YOU CAN ANSWER, BUT WHEN I READ HER LETTER IT SAYS THAT SHE HAS A FULL TIME, THREE PART TIME AND A SEASONAL. SO BY CONVERTING THE TWO PART TIME WHEN I'M LOOKING AT. SHOULD HAVE TWO FULL TIME. A PART TIME, AND A SEASONAL. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. SO I DON'T SEE THE NEED TO ADD AN EMPLOYEE THAT SHE HASN'T ASKED FOR WHEN SHE STILL HAS. BASICALLY, WHAT HE WAS SAYING HE FELT SHE NEEDED ON PARKS. I DON'T REMEMBER WHEN IT WAS IN MY MIND. I THOUGHT IT WAS WHEN COREY WAS HIRED, BUT SPEAKING TO SOMEONE ELSE, THEY FELT MAYBE IT WASN'T THEN, BUT AT THAT TIME WHEN WE ADDED A STAFF MEMBER, WE WERE TOLD IT WAS TO HELP WITH PARKS PLANNING. SO WHEN I LOOK AT THE PARKS EMPLOYEE, I LOOK AT THEIR SALARY AND THEN I LOOK AT THE VEHICLE THAT IS WELL OVER $100,000, AND THAT CONCERNS ME AND I UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE. I JUST THINK THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT CLOSELY. AND REMEMBER THAT WHEN WE'RE ADDING POSITIONS, MANY OF THE POSITIONS COME WITH A VEHICLE TOO. SO WHEN WE LOOK AT AT THAT PRICE, WE NEED TO ALSO ACCOUNT FOR VEHICLE. THESE DAYS I SUPPORT THE DAVE THE CONCEPT OF IT. I STRUGGLE WITH PUTTING $100,000 INTO THIS BUDGET WHEN I HAVEN'T HEARD WHAT THE PLAN IS FOR THAT 100,000, AND THAT 100,000 GOES INTO OUR BUDGET, IT STAYS THERE UNTIL WE TAKE IT OUT. SO WITHOUT A PLAN, I WOULD RATHER USE ONE TIME MONEY HEARING A PLAN THAN GIVING THE MONEY TO SUPPORT THE PLAN TOWARDS BEAT DAYS AND SEE WHERE THAT GOES. ALSO, LAST TIME WE HEARD MR. LEE EXPLAIN THAT SOME OF THE FUNDING THAT CURRENTLY GOES TO OUR WESTERN STAMPEDE WILL BE FUNNELED OVER TO BJS.

SO FOR ME, I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT AS A TAX INCREASE. I WANT TO DO THAT AS A ONE TIME EXPENSE AFTER THEY'VE GIVEN ME WHAT THEY WANT TO USE THAT MONEY ON. MY OTHER CONCERN CAME UP WHEN I LISTENED TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING AND HEARD THIS TALK ABOUT THE TRANSFER, AND I REALLY AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER JACOB. I'M CONCERNED NOW. IT EITHER IS OKAY OR IT ISN'T OKAY. IT SHOULDN'T BE OKAY IF IT'S NOT SOMETHING THE LEGISLATURE IS GOING TO SCRUTINIZE. BUT IF THEY'RE NOT, THEN IT'S OKAY. SO I AT THIS POINT FEEL WE NEED MORE INFORMATION FOR THAT TRANSFER. AND I UNDERSTAND IF WE DON'T TRANSFER, I'VE ALWAYS BEEN IN FAVOR OF IT BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE IT DOES CREATE MORE STABILITY IN THIS BUDGET, BUT I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED AFTER THE LAST MEETING. SO IF I COULD CLARIFY, THIS IS DENISE. THE REASON THAT I PULLED UP THE STREET LIGHT. ONE IS BECAUSE PART OF THE LEGISLATION WAS VERY SPECIFIC, THAT IT COULD BE ONLY SPENT. THE TRANSPORTATION UTILITY FEE COULD BE ONLY SPENT ON THINGS THAT WERE SUPPORTING THAT TRANSPORTATION. AND WHILE I THINK THE TRANSFER IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE TRANSPORTATION BECAUSE IT'S PAYING FOR THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE STREET LIGHT POLES TO BE IN, I WOULD BE CAREFUL OF GOING AGAINST THAT BRAND NEW LEGISLATION. WE HAD. MR. GARDNER. IT'S ONLY THE TRANSPORTATION, ONLY APPLICABLE TO THE STREET LIGHT. THAT'S NOT THAT SAME LANGUAGE ISN'T APPLICABLE TO WATER, NO SEWER.

[00:15:01]

WHATEVER THE LIMITING LANGUAGE WAS. THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS, WOULD THE TRANSFER OUT OF THE TRANSPORTATION UTILITY FEE TO THE GENERAL FUND TO PAY FOR THOSE INDIRECT COSTS OF THOSE OTHER THINGS THAT THAT PAYS FOR BE CONSIDERED BEING SPENT ONLY ON TRANSPORTATION AS THE LEGISLATION REQUIRES? THAT'S THE QUESTION. SO THE QUESTION IS, CAN WE TAKE THAT MONEY, TRANSFER IT FROM THE WATER PORTION OF IT, OR NO, INTO THE WATER SEWER OR ANYTHING ELSE? IT'S ONLY THE TRANSPORTATION. SO THAT UPON TRANSFER TO THE GENERAL, LET ME READ HOUSE BILL 425 ON PAGE NINE. NINE D SAYS NOTWITHSTANDING SECTIONS, BLAH BLAH, A CITY MAY NOT TRANSFER MONEY IN A TRANSPORTATION FUND TO ANY OTHER FUND OR TO A SEPARATE ACCOUNT. THAT'S WHERE I WAS LIKE, THIS IS PRETTY SPECIFIC. SO I CHOSE NOT TO INCLUDE IT IN THE BUDGET. SO AND THAT'S THE QUESTION. DOES THAT INCLUDE PAYING FOR OTHER STUFF THAT IT DOES ALLOW FOR ADMINISTRATIVE FEES? COUNCIL MEMBER WHITELOCK SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DO WITH ALL THE OTHER UTILITIES, WE HAVE NOT DONE WITH THE STREETLIGHT FUND. WE DON'T CHARGE THEM FOR ANY KIND OF COUNCIL TIME OR MANAGEMENT TIME OR FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OF THAT UTILITY AT ALL, AND THAT MAY BE SOMETHING WE WANT TO LOOK INTO, BECAUSE IT WOULD ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE STRESS ON THE GENERAL FUND AS WELL. I LIKE THAT IDEA. IF THEY'RE BEING THAT EXACT IN WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT DO, THEN I THINK THAT IF THEY ALLOW US TO DO THAT AND ALL THE OTHER FUNDS HAVE TO PAY INTO THAT, IT SEEMS LOGICAL THAT THE STREETLIGHT FUND WOULD AS WELL. YEAH. AND

[00:20:04]

IT'S JUST QUIETLY TAKE IT OUT OF THE ONE. JUST KIND OF LEAVE IT AS IT SITS AND EXAMINE WHAT WE NEED TO DO. WE NEED TO FIND OUT IF THAT'S THE TRUE INTENT. LIKE IS WHAT, WHAT BROUGHT THAT ABOUT? WE DON'T WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR END OBJECTIVE IS. RIGHT BACK TO MY FROG SCENARIO.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT FROG THEY'RE REALLY TRYING TO BOIL. YEAH. SO WHAT WAS THE TRUE INTENT THERE? WHY WAS THAT LANGUAGE INCLUDED? THAT WAS THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO KNOW. WHAT MY QUESTION WAS.

WHAT WAS THEIR JUSTIFICATION FOR CREATING THE WHOLE REASON THAT THEY'RE FIDDLING WITH THIS IS BECAUSE TRANSPORTATION, UTILITY FEES. SO THERE'S BEEN A IT'S BEEN A TOPIC OF CONVERSATION NOW FOR A FEW YEARS. IT STARTED IN 2016 WITH PLEASANT GROVE. YEAH. DECIDED TO CHARGE THE RESIDENTS FIVE BUCKS A MONTH OR WHATEVER IT WAS FOR ROADS ON THEIR UTILITY BILL. AND THEN THEY GOT SUED. A LOT OF CITIES DID IT. PLEASANT GROVE GOT SUED. BY, YOU KNOW, ANTI-GOVERNMENT AND LIBERTARIAN KIND OF PEOPLE, PUT LAWSUIT TOGETHER AND SUED. AND WHAT CAME DOWN WAS, YOU KNOW, THEY SAID, SORRY, THAT'S A TAX, NOT A FEE. YOU CAN'T CHARGE IT THAT WAY. AND I REMEMBER WHEN IT CAME UP, I SAID, WELL, SUPPOSE OUR STREETLIGHT FUND IS EXACTLY THE SAME THING. AND BUT WHAT ENDED UP DOING IS THERE'S LAWSUIT FAILED. THEY ENDED UP RULING IN FAVOR OF THE CITY. YES, YOU CAN DO THAT. THE LEGISLATURE IS LIKE, OKAY, IF CITIES ARE GOING TO DO THIS, WE'RE GOING TO PUT UP SOME GUARDRAILS. AND THOSE GUARDRAILS HAVE BEEN TALKED ABOUT NOW FOR 3 OR 4 YEARS. AND THEY FINALLY PASSED THE BILL THIS YEAR WITH ALL THESE GUARDRAILS. AND SO THEY THREW UP SOME EXTRA GUARDRAILS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN IN STREETLIGHT FUNDS AND OTHER THINGS BEFORE. I MEAN, I THINK OUR STREET LIFE COULD HAVE JUST AS EASILY BEEN CHALLENGED AS PLEASANT GROVE. IT'S IT WAS EXACTLY THE SAME THING. JUST HAD A DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, COMPANY, YOU KNOW. OKAY. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? SORRY. KEEP GOING. KELLY. THAT'S OKAY. LET'S SEE, WHERE AM I AT OVERALL? I JUST I WOULD LIKE TO SEE LIKE, WHEN IS THAT DATE? SOMETIME IN JUNE THAT WE FIND OUT WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY GETTING. GOOD QUESTION. IT COULD BE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN TODAY. I LOOK TODAY AND IT'S NOT THERE. AND JUNE 16TH. SORRY. WHAT DO YOU MEAN THAT IT'S THE NUMBER OF LIKE NEW GROWTH OR PROPERTY TAX RATE. WHAT REVENUE WILL GENERATE. GOT IT. IT'S REALLY HARD BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO ASSEMBLE THE BUDGET WITHOUT KNOWING THE NEW GROWTH. AND YEAH, WE HAVE TO GUESS. YEAH.

IT'S CRAZY. I DIDN'T TRUST THAT WE GOT A REALLY GOOD GUESS. NOT THE TROUBLE. THE GOOD THING IS WE GOT A REALLY GOOD GUESSER. TWO REALLY GOOD GUESSERS. AND THIS YEAR WE SHOULD GET FOR OUR ANNEXED AREA, RIGHT. THAT SHOULD BE IN OUR NEW GROWTH. YES, YES. AND HAVE WE CONSIDERED THAT AMOUNT IN THIS BUDGET? WELL, IT SHOULDN'T IMPACT. IT WOULD AUTOMATICALLY

[00:25:05]

OKAY. NO. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. I JUST REALLY THINK WE NEED TO RECONSIDER THE WAY WE'RE FUNDING IT. BECAUSE THE WAY THAT WE COULD TAKE DOWN THE DOLLAR AMOUNT. BUT HOPEFULLY WE'RE ALL CLEAR NOW BECAUSE TAXING IS VERY CONVOLUTED AND IT'S DONE THAT WAY ON PURPOSE.

ISN'T THAT WONDERFUL? YES, BUT ALL WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW FOR ANNETTE AND JESSICA IS SETTING THE TOP DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT WE CAN GO FOR. YEAH, THAT'S ALL WE'RE DOING UNTIL AUGUST. SO WE HAVE BETWEEN NOW AND THEN TO LOOK AT NUMBERS WHEN DENISE FINDING OUT WHAT IT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO BE. AND WE MIGHT NOT NEED TO HAVE US ALL INCREASE BECAUSE WE MAY GET ENOUGH OR WE MAY SAY, SHOOT, THAT WASN'T QUITE ENOUGH. SO AND THEN THAT'S WHEN THE HARD DECISIONS WILL COME. SO THANK YOU. AND COUNCIL. OH, SORRY CHAIR, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY LAST WEEK THE CALCULATION THAT WE CAME UP WITH IS IF YOU FUNDED BEAT DAYS A DIFFERENT WAY THAN THE TAX INCREASE, THAT WOULD LOWER FROM 2.26 TO 1.8 OR DROP IT ABOUT $1.79 A YEAR. YEAH. GO TO ABOUT I DON'T HAVE AN EXACT LIKE TWO DECIMAL POINTS, BUT YEAH, RIGHT AROUND 1.8. AND I WOULD, I DON'T KNOW THE NUMBER BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW THE NUMBER, BUT IT WOULD LOWER APPROXIMATELY $1.79 A YEAR FOR A HOMEOWNER. YEAH, I KNOW SHE SAID SHE HAS DONE. COUNCIL MEMBER JACOB, DID YOU? YES I DID. IT IS SO NICE AND SMOOTH NOW. I JUST HAD TO WAKE IT UP AFTER, YOU KNOW, PUTTING IT IN THE CAR AND DRIVING DOWN HERE. YEAH. AND FELL ASLEEP, TOOK A NAP. I HAD A QUESTION ON. FEE SCHEDULES. THE FEE SCHEDULE. THIS IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE OR I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE AND I SHOULD CARE IF WE HAVE EACH FEES REVENUES FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THEY'RE NOT IN THE BUDGET DOCUMENT. YES WE DO. COULD I SPECIFICALLY SEE SO THIS IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO THIS IS WHAT I'M THINKING OF AS A SORT OF BUDGET RELATED. BUT IT'S SORT OF ALSO POLICY RELATED. SEVERAL YEARS AGO, I THOUGHT PET LICENSING WAS KIND OF DUMB. AND I STILL KIND OF DO. AND IT'S LARGELY. I THINK, THE ANALYSIS THAT I DID 5 OR 6 YEARS AGO WHEN I LOOKED AT THIS WAS IT'S 93% NOT CONFORMED WITH LIKE 7% OF ANIMALS IN THIS CITY ARE ACTUALLY LICENSED. YOU KNOW, AND THIS IS THE LIBERTARIAN IN ME SAYS, WHY SHOULD THE CITY CARE IF I, MY DOG IS WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO ASK THE CITY IF I HAVE TO? YOU KNOW, I CAN HAVE A DOG. SO WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY IS NOT ELIMINATING THE LICENSING PROGRAM, BUT PUTTING THE COST BURDEN ON THOSE THAT END UP USING WHAT THAT GOES TO DO, WHICH IS THE IMPOUNDING AND THE ALL OF THAT, THE MICROCHIP READING AND ALL THE STUFF THAT YOU HAVE TO DO WHEN YOUR DOG ACTUALLY GETS OUT AND GETS LOST, WHICH IS WHY YOU HAVE LICENSED IN THE FIRST PLACE, RIGHT? SO INCREASING THE FEES ON IMPOUNDING CATS AND DOGS AND REDUCING THE FEES OR ELIMINATING THE FEES ON ACTUALLY LICENSING THE CATS, THIS WOULD HOPEFULLY INCENTIVIZE PEOPLE TO ACTUALLY GO AND DO IT. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S BARKING AT $10 A YEAR.

MAYBE THEY ARE, I DON'T KNOW. BUT HOPEFULLY INCENTIVIZE PEOPLE TO GO AND ACTUALLY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE PROGRAM TO GET THE LICENSE AND GET INTO CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE. AND THEN THOSE WHO ARE TAKING UP THE RESOURCES ARE THE ONES WHO ARE PAYING FOR IT. IN OTHER WORDS, THOSE WHO STOP THE DOG CATCHER CATCHES ARE THE ONES WHO PAY FOR THE DOG CATCHER.

AND NOT EVERYBODY WHO'S DOG MIGHT BE SOMEDAY CAUGHT. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE EXACT NUMBERS WOULD BE BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT REVENUE NUMBERS. WHAT COMES IN FROM.

ABOUT $34,000 FROM ANIMAL LICENSES, AND WHAT DO WE GET FROM IMPOUND? CLAIMED ANIMALS, CAT OR DOG? I'M NOT REALLY $45,000, 45,000. SO WE'D HAVE TO INCREASE THE IMPOUND FEES BY

[00:30:01]

THERE'S A SENIOR DISCOUNT. YOU CAN PAY $15 ONCE FOR LIFE. THAT'S THE OWNER'S AGE, NOT THE DOG'S AGE. OR $15 PER YEAR FOR UNALTERED. DISCOUNT. WHEN THERE'S A LATE FEE OF $25. AND THEN THE IMPOUND FEES ARE $45 PER CONFINEMENT. SO THE FIRST CONFINEMENT IS $45, SECOND IS 90, YOUR THIRD IS 135, AND YOUR FOURTH IS 180. SO THOSE WOULD GO FROM 45. I'M JUST GOING TO DO BACK OF THE NAPKIN IN MY HEAD MATH 45 TO 70. LET'S JUST SAY, AND TAKE THE. TAKE THE LICENSE FEES. WOULD BE 71, 42, TEN. A LITTLE SOMETHING TO THAT. BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES WHEN ANIMAL CONTROL WILL FIND AN ANIMAL, THEY MAY NOT TAKE IT IN AND BOOK IT AND THE PEOPLE HAVE TO PAY TO PICK IT BACK UP. SOMETIMES THEY'LL READ THE CHIP AND THEN TAKE IT RIGHT BACK AND NO ADDITIONAL CHARGE. RIGHT? SO THAT MEANS THE LICENSE FEE PAID FOR THEM TO FIND THAT DOCUMENT AND RETURN IT. EITHER FEE FOR THAT. CHAIR. GOOD. $10 TO THE ANIMAL SHELTER OR YOU WON'T EVER SEE THEM AGAIN. BUT IF THERE IS NO IF THEY DON'T GET A LICENSE, THEN IT DOES GO TO THE ANIMAL SHELTER AND HAVE TO WAIT FOR SOMEONE TO COME IN. AND COUNCIL MEMBER HAS JOINED THE MEETING FOR ABOUT 15 MINUTES. HE'S GOT A LITTLE BIT RIGHT NOW. AND THEN COUNCIL MEMBER WHEELOCK HAS RAISED HER HAND. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER WHITELOCK, THANK YOU. WASN'T IT? IT SEEMS LIKE MR. EDSEL HAD MORE REASONS THAN JUST THE LICENSE. LIKE HE HAD A RATIONALE WHY HE FELT LICENSURE WAS IMPORTANT. I'M NOT SAYING IT'S NOT. I'M JUST SAYING IT SHOULDN'T COST MONEY.

I'M SAYING IF IT DOESN'T COST MONEY, YOU'LL GET MORE PEOPLE DOING IT TO DO IT. YEAH. OKAY.

AND THEN THOSE WHO DO HAVE THEIR DOGS, ARE YOU PAYING FOR THOSE WHOSE DOGS ARE JUST MICROCHIPPED AND RETURNED? THAT'S TRUE. AND THOSE THAT DON'T GET LICENSE FOR BETTER OPPORTUNITY WHEN THEY COME AND GET IT RIGHT, AND THEN THEY HAVE TO PAY TO GET THE SHOTS UP TO, I THINK THERE'S PROBABLY A WAY TO DO THAT. BUT WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS TO SEE WHAT THE RATIOS ARE, THAT WE CAN RECOVER THE COSTS THAT IT TAKES TO ADMINISTER THE PROGRAM.

TO MAKE SURE I WOULD WANT TO COME WITH A RECOMMENDATION BASED OFF OF THAT. YEAH. AND AGAIN, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT HAS TO GO IN THE BUDGET TODAY, NECESSARILY SOMETHING WE CAN LOOK AT DOWN THE ROAD. BUT THAT'S SINCE WE'RE TALKING BUDGET SCHEDULES IN THE BUDGET, SHOULD WE BRING IT UP? AND IT'S SOMETHING YOU'D WANT TO A FEW TIMES. YEAH. SO IS THIS YOUR PET PROJECT? OH THAT'S GOOD IS MY PET PEEVE. WHO GOT ONE IN VICE CHAIR? JUST A REMINDER, YOU CAN ADJUST THE FEES THROUGH A BUDGET AMENDMENT MID-YEAR, ESPECIALLY IF IN THE FEE ADJUSTMENT YOU'RE RAISING ONE AND LOWERING ANOTHER. AND IT'S NET NEUTRAL. THAT'S RELATIVELY EASY BUDGET AMENDMENT TO DO. SO I JUST WANT TO AGAIN REITERATE WHAT ZACH'S WHAT COUNCILMAN JACOBS SAID. IT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU HAVE TO DECIDE NOW, BUT IF IT'S SOMETHING YOU WANT US TO STUDY, WE CAN LOOK AT IT. I'M A LITTLE WONDERING IF IT WOULD CREATE BEHAVIORAL CHANGES THAT WE CAN'T ANTICIPATE OR THINGS LIKE THAT. SO WE WANT I THINK WE WOULD WANT DAN ETCHELLS WISDOM AND GUIDANCE IN THIS DISCUSSION. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER WHITELOCK, WERE YOU DID YOU HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS? SORRY. IT JUST WHILE WE'RE ON THE SCHEDULE, I THINK I HEARD COREY SAY THAT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, MAYBE THAT I WASN'T THERE, BUT I LISTENED TO ABOUT CEMETERY FEES. I DO AGREE THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT FEES AND RAISING THEM AGAIN, ESPECIALLY SEEING AS HOW HE SAID WE'RE ONE OF THE LOWER COSTS. AND WE ACTUALLY HAD SOMEONE COME TESTIFY THAT WE WERE, AND THAT'S WHY THEY FOUGHT IN OUR CITY. AND, AND THOSE ARE A LIMITED RESOURCE.

AND UNLESS THIS BODY FEEL DIFFERENTLY, OTHER COUNCILS HAVEN'T BEEN REAL EXCITED ABOUT

[00:35:02]

I HAVE A QUESTION. WHAT ARE THE PROS AND CONS OF USING ONE TIME MONEY FOR WEEKDAYS VERSUS PROPERTY TAX SECONDS? CAN I GO? IT'S PROBABLY IF IF IT GOES WELL, IF IT GOES THE WAY WE WANT IT TO, IT'S GOING TO BE AN ONGOING EXPENSE. AND GOING WELL MEANS PEOPLE COME AND PEOPLE LIKE IT. PEOPLE WANT TO KEEP DOING IT. WE DON'T WANT TO GO BACK TO WHAT IT IS NOW. 4TH OF JULY CELEBRATION. I THINK BOTH BOTH POINTS ARE VALID BECAUSE IT'S THE FIRST ONE. AND THIS FIRST KIND OF WRAP UP IS GOING TO BE A LOT OF ONE TIME EXPENSES, PROBABLY MARKETING SPECIFICALLY TO TELL PEOPLE ABOUT AN EVENT WE'VE NEVER HAD BEFORE WILL PROBABLY BE MORE MARKETING THAN WE WOULD NORMALLY DO FOR AN EVENT LIKE THIS. SO THERE ARE PROBABLY SOME ONE TIME EXPENSES IN THIS INITIAL INFUSION. YOU KNOW, DOING AN RFP FOR A CARNIVAL, IF THAT'S GOING TO BE PART OR WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE COULD BE. IF IT BECOMES ONGOING, THEN WE HAVE TO SET ASIDE MONEY EVERY YEAR AT ONE TIME. THEN WE MIGHT NEED TO WELL, OR WE MIGHT NEED TO DO A TAX INCREASE THAT'S THEN LARGER BECAUSE, OH, THIS IS GOING REALLY WELL. AND WE DIDN'T WE DIDN'T ALREADY BUMP THE THE ONGOING MONEY, THE ONGOING MONEY STATED ZERO FOR THIS PROJECT, SO TO SPEAK. SO NOW WE'RE RAMPING FROM 0 TO 250 OR 0 TO 350 INSTEAD OF FROM 100 TO 2 50 OR 100, BECAUSE IT WOULD, I KNOW YOU'RE JUST THROWING OUT NUMBERS, BUT BECAUSE IT WOULD TAKE THAT BIGGER AMOUNT THAN $100,000, $100,000 TO, YEAH, IT'S GOING TO TAKE MORE. THE REASON WHY WE'RE ONLY LOOKING AT 100,000 NOW IS BECAUSE THE EVENT WON'T TAKE PLACE IN THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR. SURE, THIS IS JUST THE RAMP UP TO THE EVENT, AND THEN THE EVENT WILL TAKE PLACE IN THE, YOU KNOW, AFTER JULY 1ST NEXT YEAR. YEAH. I THINK THAT'S THE PLAN, RIGHT? TO DO IT IN, I DON'T WANT TO SAY. AUGUST 2027, LIKE A CALENDAR. IF I CAN JUST ADD IN, COUNCILMEMBER JACOB IS SAYING IS TRUE. AND THAT'S THE THING. WE HAVE THAT MONEY IN OUR TAX INCREASE. NOW WE TAKE IT OFF. IT TAKES OFF ABOUT A 0.5% OF THE TAX INCREASE, WHICH PUTS US UNDER TWO. BUT NEXT YEAR, IF WE GO UP SAY WE NEED TO GO 300 000, BECAUSE THAT 100,000 THAT WE'RE USING IN 2026, IN 2027, THAT 100,000 WOULD BE THERE AS WELL, PLUS ANY OF THE MONEY THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE NEEDED IN 2027 TO

[00:40:01]

WE JUST HAVE TO BE READY. IF WE THINK THAT BEAT DAYS IS SUCCESSFUL ENOUGH THAT IT WANTS TO CONTINUE, AND WE DO SPEND THE MONEY ON IT, THEN IT DOES BECOME PART OF A LARGER TAX INCREASE FOR NEXT YEAR. AND THAT'S THAT'S WHERE IT'LL SEEM LESS OF AN INCREASE. IF WE LEAVE IT ON. IT'LL BE MORE OF AN INCREASE IF WE TAKE IT OFF. BUT EITHER WAY, IT'S REALLY NOT GOING TO CHANGE MUCH OF WHAT HAPPENS NEXT YEAR. IF THIS IS SUCCESSFUL, IT'LL JUST LOOK BIGGER. COST OF IT'S GOING TO BE THE COST OF IT. YES. IT'S JUST LIKE WHEN I GET A FLIER IN THE MAIL SAYING THAT THE CANDIDATE FOR STATE LEGISLATURE IS GOING TO ELIMINATE PROPERTY TAXES. DID YOU. IT'S NOT YOUR DISTRICT. YEAH, IT'S GOING TO ELIMINATE PROPERTY TAXES. AND I'M LIKE, OKAY, ARE YOU GOING TO ALSO ELIMINATE A LOT OF THINGS FROM CITY GOVERNMENT SPEND MONEY ON? BECAUSE, YEAH, IT'S GOING TO COST THE SAME WHETHER YOU TAKE IT FROM THE LEFT HAND OR THE RIGHT HAND. SO. I KNOW WE DON'T HAVE TO DECIDE TODAY. I KNOW WE'RE JUST SETTING THE CEILING FOR FOR THE PROPERTY TAX INCREASE IN THE BUDGET TODAY, BUT I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO THINK ABOUT THAT MORE ONE TIME VERSUS PROPERTY TAX. I'M FEELING A LITTLE UNSURE ABOUT BEING TASTE IN PROPERTY TAXES. WELL THE AND I'M SORRY, I APOLOGIZE. I WAS WORKING ON OUR PRESENTATION EARLIER TODAY. THE THE CON IS THAT I IMAGINE COUNCIL MEMBER JACOB PROBABLY SAID THIS, BUT THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO A LARGER PROPERTY TAX INCREASE THAT WOULD HAVE A DIRECT ACCESS TO ME DAYS. RIGHT. YOU'RE GOING TO DISCLOSE NEXT YEAR IF YOU'RE LIKE, THIS IS A GREAT EVENT, BUT WE'RE GOING TO NEED $300,000 TO PULL IT OFF. YEAH, IT WILL BE MORE IMPACTFUL AND PROBABLY HAVE MORE PUBLIC. RESPONSE. SURE, SURE. GOING TO HAPPEN REGARDLESS IF WE DECIDE. THAT MAYBE WHAT WE HAVE TO START LOOKING AT DOING IS PUTTING MORE THINGS TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. COUNCILMEMBER WHITELOCK HAS A HAND UP AS WELL. COUNCILMEMBER WHITELOCK WELL, YOU KNOW, WHILE IT'S TRUE THE COST OF IT WILL BE THE COST OF IT, I STILL FEEL LIKE WE NEED MORE INFORMATION OF WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO WITH IT. AND WE WON'T KNOW THE TRUE COST AND MAYBE WHAT WE'LL DECIDE NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET IS THAT WE DON'T WANT TO DO SOMETHING ELSE, BECAUSE WE WANT TO INVEST THAT MONEY IN THESE DAYS. MAYBE, YOU KNOW, SOME OF OUR OTHER EVENTS. MAYBE WE SAY, WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. MAYBE INSTEAD OF HAVING THE ART THING WHERE YOU EAT A TREAT AND DO IT, MAYBE THAT GOES AWAY BECAUSE WE'D RATHER HAVE BIGGER EVENTS THAT DRAW THE BIGGER CROWDS. I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF WAYS TO LOOK AT IT. I DON'T THINK IT'S JUST IT'S GOING TO COST MORE LATER.

MAYBE IT'LL COST MORE LATER. MAYBE WE DECIDE TO CHANGE WHAT WE'RE DOING. I THINK THERE'S MORE THAN ONE OPTION WITH IT, AND I DON'T WANT TO BURDEN CITY STAFF WITH MAKING A FULL PLAN BEFORE WE APPROVE FUNDING SOMETHING. SO THAT'S I THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT I WANT TO DO.

YOU KIND OF HAVE TO FUND A LITTLE BIT. YEAH. SO THEY CAN MAKE A FULL PLAN. RIGHT? RIGHT.

I DON'T I THINK IT'S TOO EARLY. THESE THINGS TAKE TIME. I MEAN, I'M NOT AN EXPERT, BUT I JUST TRUST THAT THE CITY STAFF KNOWS HOW TO DO THAT. BUT YEAH, LIKE HOW, HOW MUCH WILL BE SAVED IF WE DON'T DO THE CARNIVAL FOR WESTERN STAMPEDE? AND COULD COULD THAT MAKE A DENT? I'M NAIVE TO THAT SORT OF THING. SO I JUST THINK I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THAT MORE ONCE WE GET THROUGH THIS TENTATIVE BUDGET TIME. MR. LEE, I JUST WANTED TO REMIND YOU THAT BY THIS TIME NEXT YEAR, IT STILL WON'T HAVE HAPPENED ALSO. SO. IF YOU'RE THINKING, OH, I'LL PUSH THAT OFF TILL THE DECISION OF THE FY 2018 BUDGET, WE STILL WON'T HAVE THE RESULTS WHEN WE'RE PREPARING THAT BUDGET ON HOW IT WENT, BECAUSE IT WILL STILL BE IN THE FUTURE. JUST WE'LL GENERATE SOME REVENUE, BUT WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH SALES. WE DON'T KNOW. THAT'S WHY I'M OKAY WITH $100,000 ONGOING IS IT'S SEED MONEY. IT'S IT'S STARTED UP. IF IT ENDS UP THAT WE DON'T

[00:45:02]

BECKY AND I ARE BOTH LIKE, WHAT'S THE TAX INCREASE? ON THAT? ONE OPTION JUST FOR YOUR DISCUSSION IS YOU COULD KEEP IT AT 2.26 AND STILL SETTLE AT 1.8 IN AUGUST. YEAH. OKAY. THAT'S YOU STILL HAVE TIME TO LIKE HAVE DIALOG OR WHATEVER IT IS. OR WE CAN GO LOWER, YOU CAN GO LOWER. BUT IF YOU HAVE THINGS YOU WANT TO FUND THAT NEED ONGOING REVENUE, IF YOU NEED TO GO HIGHER THAN THE TWO SIX, I'M NOT PROMOTING THAT. YOU HAVE TO DECIDE THAT TODAY. SURE. YOU CAN'T GO HIGHER, BUT YOU'D GO LOWER. WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU MEAN BY YOU DON'T KNOW YET? I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING THE JOKES ABOUT NOT KNOWING. OH, NEITHER DO WE. I JUST I CAN EXPLAIN. SO THE TAX RATE TRUTH IN TAXATION MEANS YOU GET THE SAME DOLLAR EVERY YEAR, NO MATTER WHAT THE VALUE OF THE CITY IS. RIGHT? YEAH. SO THAT'S THE COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE CLAIMS THAT THEY CANNOT GET ASSESSMENTS TO US EARLIER. FOR US TO BE ABLE TO HAVE EARLIER THAN, THAN LIKE JUNE 16TH. OKAY. YEAH, LIKE SIX DAYS BEFORE IT'S DUE, RIGHT. FOR US. AND WE HAVE TO DO ALL THIS CALCULATION, BUT THEY GET THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE, GETS THE INFORMATION, THE COUNTY AUDITOR'S OFFICE, THE COUNTY AUDITOR'S OFFICE VETS THAT INFORMATION, AND THEN THEY CALCULATE WHAT WAS OUR PROPERTY TAX REVENUE. PREVIOUSLY, COUNCIL MEMBER WHITELOCK WAS RIGHT ON. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL VALUE COMING FROM THAT ANNEXED AREA. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, BUT THERE'S ALSO SERVICE LEVEL INCREASES TO THAT AREA AS WELL.

SO THE VALUE WILL BE WHATEVER WE GOT LAST YEAR TO THE DOLLAR PLUS WHATEVER THE ANNEXED AREA IS AND NEW GROWTH. OKAY. BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT OUR NEW GROWTH IS. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ANNEXED AREA IS. WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE VALUE OF OUR OWN CITY IS. QUITE HONESTLY, DID WE EVER GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THAT GARDENER REPORT THAT SAID WEST JORDAN ONLY GREW BY 80 BY 80 PEOPLE? YEAH, YEAH. NOT YET. WE'RE STILL PUSHING ON. YEAH. OKAY. WHAT IS IT? MAYBE INSIDE.

INSIDE. ANYWAY, SORRY. I THINK I DISTRACTED FROM THE STAFF ASKING QUESTIONS. OH YEAH, I CAN, I CAN WE CAN VERIFY. I CAN CLAIM ONE OUT OF THE EIGHT. YEAH. THANK YOU. THE OTHER ONE LIVES IN INTERRUPTED. NO, NO I MEAN. ALAN SAID THIS MEETING IS FOR US TO ASK QUESTIONS. AND SO

[00:50:05]

YES. BECKY. DENISE TALKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, KIND OF OUR UNDERLYING QUESTION ABOUT PROPERTY TAX RATE WILL LAND FOR THE TREATMENT TAXATION PROCESS. LAST WEEK, COUNCILMEMBER SHELTON MADE AN IMPASSIONED PLEA FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE EXTRA HALF A POSITION AN EXTRA $25,000 WILL BE A PART TIME PASSPORT AGENT. SO YOU ONLY, YOU KNOW, WE GET INSTEAD OF TRADING TWO PART TIME FOR ONE FULL TIME, IT'S. TRADE ONE PART TIME FOR ONE FULL TIME AND KEEP ONE OF THOSE. THAT WAS A $25,000 BUDGET INCREASE. IF YOU GO WITH WHAT COUNCILMAN SHELTON WANTED. COUNCILMAN WHITELOCK TONIGHT MENTIONED, I'M NOT SURE I SEE THE NEED. VISION. THE DEPARTMENT JUST ASKED FOR TRADING TWO PART TIME FOR ONE FULL TIME. I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHERE THE COUNCIL'S GOING TO LAND ON THAT. LIKE THAT. THAT WILL HELP US, RIGHT. AS WE TRY TO BRING THIS IN FOR A LANDING. IF YOU CAN GIVE US GUIDANCE ON THAT AND ANY OTHER, YOU KNOW, DIRECTION ON THE STAFF PROPOSALS, RIGHT. PARKS PLANNING POSITION, PARK MAINTENANCE POSITION, OTHERS, COUNCILMEMBER, CAN WE ASK DENISE HOW MANY OF THOSE POSITIONS IN PASSPORT ARE FILLED AND HAVE BEEN MOSTLY FILLED ALONG THE WAY? YEAH, TWO OF OUR PART TIMERS ARE ALWAYS FULL AND THEN OUR FULL TIMER, OUR SEASONAL AND OTHER PART TIMERS ARE DEPENDING ON WHAT KIND OF ACTIVITY WE HAVE GOING ON. THANK YOU. WELL, AND THAT'S THAT'S ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS, THOUGH, FOR GOING TO A SECOND FULL TIME PERSON IS TO REDUCE THAT TURNOVER. YEAH. YEAH. IT SEEMS IT SEEMS LIKE I GET AN EMAIL EVERY OTHER WEEK SAYING JOB JUST, YOU KNOW, JOB POSTING FOR A PART TIME PASSPORT AGENCY. IT'S LIKE MAYBE EVERY OTHER EVERY OTHER WEEK, BUT IT'S FREQUENT, IT'S VERY FREQUENT. SO IT'S NOT EXACTLY A JOB THAT'S NOT FLIPPING BURGERS, RIGHT? IT TAKES A MINUTE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO THAT.

RIGHT. AND YOU HAVE TO GET CERTIFIED. AND THERE'S A LOT OF INVESTMENT BY THE CITY IN THAT POSITION. YEAH. SO SO IF YOU REDUCE TURNOVER, YOU END UP SAVING A LOT OF THAT EXPENSE.

ON THIS IS MY MY OPINION ON IT. IT'S I, I DO FEEL GOOD ABOUT HAVING THE FULL TIME PERSON AND ELIMINATING THE TWO PART TIME ACCORDING TO THE BUDGET. YEAH. ACCORDING TO THE BUDGET, WHAT I MY CONCERN OF ONLY HAVING TWO FULL TIME IS WHAT IF ONE IS OUT ON PTO AND ONE IS SICK AND I KNOW THAT I WAS A. COREY WHO SAID THAT WE USUALLY. CUSTOMER SERVICE AND THEY'LL DO THAT, WHICH IS FINE. I DO BELIEVE THAT PTO IS VERY IMPORTANT. AND SO I WOULD I DON'T WANT TO DEPRIVE ANYBODY OF THAT. BUT THE CONCERN AND I MEAN, IF WE DO HAVE SOMETHING WHERE IT'S PRN THAT WOULD BE IDEAL, IT'S JUST AS NEEDED. AND I THINK, DENISE, YOU JUST SAID THAT WE, WE DO HAVE THAT ABILITY TO WHERE WE CAN PULL SOMEONE IN IF, YOU KNOW, IF THAT SITUATION ARISES, IF SOMEONE'S ON PTO. AND SO THAT THAT'S HOW I, THAT'S MY FEELING ON IT. SO I'M NOT OPPOSED TO ADDING AN ADDITIONAL, YOU KNOW, DOING THE FULL TIME AND THEN ANOTHER PART TIME, BUT ONLY IF IT'S THAT WE DON'T HAVE SOMEBODY AVAILABLE YET. THAT SITUATION. AND I CAN'T IMAGINE IT HAPPENS A LOT, BUT IT I'M SURE IT HAPPENS. I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF THE ADDITIONAL. FULL TIME. THE WAY IT'S PROPOSED IN THE BUDGET, IN THE BUDGET IS WHAT I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF. I'D BE I'D BE OKAY WITH EITHER SCENARIO, LEAVING IT UP TO DISCRETION. HOW I WOULD DO THAT IN THE BUDGET. I LEAVE THE TAX INCREASE THE SAME. AND IF I DECIDE SHE DOESN'T NEED THE PART TIME PERSON, THEN I'D TAKE 25,000 OUT OF THE BASE, 100,000 TAX INCREASE AND SLIDE IT OVER TO PASSPORT SO THAT WE'RE DOING 75,000 FOR THREE DAYS. AND WE CAN SUPPLEMENT THAT IF WE NEED TO WITH 25,001 TIME FUND WITH A BUDGET AMENDMENT DOWN THE ROAD OUT OF RESERVES IF WE NEEDED TO. I JUST THINK WE SHOULD SEE WHAT TWO FULL TIME IS LIKE. AND IF THERE IS AN ISSUE, I GUESS I'D LEAVE IT UP TO YOU TO DIRECT YOUR DEPARTMENT. EXACTLY. YEAH.

BUT BUT HAVE THE HAVE THE HEADCOUNT AUTHORIZED. AND THEN IF SHE NEEDS IT, THAT'S HOW WE FINANCE IT. INTERESTING IDEA TO PULL FROM BECAUSE I HAVE THAT SAME THOUGHT AFTER OUR LAST MEETING. I'M GIVING YOU A FUNNY LOOK, COUNCILMAN JACOB, BECAUSE WHAT YOU WERE PROPOSING, I WAS

[00:55:03]

OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THE THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL WOULD SUPPORT? DEPENDS ON THE NEED. LIKE IF I'D WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT WHY THE MAJORITY. FUNCTIONALLY, I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE. COUNCILMEMBER. OH, COUNCILMEMBER, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M CLEAR WHAT I WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS SHE CURRENTLY HAS A FULL TIME EMPLOYEE, EITHER A SEASONAL OR A SEASONAL AND PART TIME OR TWO PART TIME EMPLOYEES CURRENTLY, BUT SHE CAN ALSO HAVE ALREADY HIRED ANOTHER TWO PART TIME EMPLOYEES, WHICH SHE DOESN'T HAVE HIRED, AND THEY'RE NOT USUALLY THERE. SO REALLY, WE'RE JUST CONVERTING THE TWO THAT SHE DOESN'T HAVE INTO A FULL TIME AND LEAVING HER WITH A FULL TIME SEASONAL AND A PART TIME. CORRECT. OKAY, SO SHE'S ALREADY GOT BASICALLY WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER SHELTON WAS SAYING, ACCORDING TO HER EMAIL.

IS THAT RIGHT? YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. WHAT ABOUT THE FULL TIME PERSON THAT CUSTOMER SERVICE AT PUBLIC WORKS? I I'M FINE WITH THAT. IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S YEAH, I LIKE THE SUPPORT ON THE WEST SIDE. YES. I'M GOOD WITH THAT TOO. THAT'S THREE. DO WE NEED TO GO THROUGH EVERYTHING ONE LINE BY LINE? YEAH. I WAS ASKING ABOUT STAFF. SO IT WAS THE THE PASSPORTS WHICH YOU JUST TALKED ABOUT, THE PARK PLANNER WHICH YOU PREVIOUSLY TALKED ABOUT. ALTHOUGH COUNCIL MEMBER WHITELOCK EXPRESSED SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT. GOOD QUESTIONS. PARK MAINTENANCE POSITION, THE CUSTOMER POSITION, CUSTOMER SERVICE POSITION AND PUBLIC WORKS. AND I BELIEVE THERE'S A COURT CLERK POSITION. THOSE ARE THE ONLY. I DON'T THINK THERE'S A POLICE LIEUTENANT CONVERSION, BUT THAT'S NOT A NEW FTE. YEAH, MOSTLY I'M ASKING ABOUT THE NEW THE NEW FULL TIME EMPLOYEE ACCOUNTS. WHAT ABOUT THE CROSSING GUARDS? CROSSING GUARDS? OH, YEAH. CROSSING GUARD SUPERVISOR. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. PROBLEM.

COUNCILMEMBERS WHITELOCK OR SHELTON? DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? THAT'S NOT ON. OH, I THOUGHT HE SAID HE WAS IN MY MIND. HE'S HERE IN SPIRIT. HE IS? YES. OKAY. SO COUNCIL, SINCE IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE EXTRA TIME, WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO OVER THE BUDGET AMENDMENT THAT WILL BE PROPOSED TO YOU TONIGHT FOR THIS NEXT FISCAL YEAR? SURE. IF THERE CLEAR ON WHERE WE'RE LANDING ON THE TAX INCREASE NUMBER, I THINK EXTRA TIME. YEAH. THE UPPER LIMIT.

YEAH. YES YES. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE REAL ONE WILL BE THE NICE WAY. THE NICE THING ABOUT THE WAY YOU'RE DOING IT THIS YEAR, WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN WE'VE DONE IT IN PAST YEARS, IS YOU'RE NOT PUTTING A PERCENTAGE ON IT. YOU'RE PUTTING A DOLLAR AMOUNT ON IT. AND WHATEVER PERCENTAGE THAT WORKS OUT TO BE IS THE PERCENTAGE THAT WORKS OUT TO BE WHAT WE'RE SAYING. WE WANT THIS NUMBER OF DOLLARS FIVE. I CAN'T REMEMBER FOR 18,000 500,418 WAS REALLY CLOSE.

YEAH. I MEAN, IF I'D SAY THE NUMBER IS 500,418, I DON'T KNOW WHAT PERCENTAGE THAT IS AND NEITHER DO YOU. YEAH, I GOT IT. YEAH. BUT 500,000 FOR 18 IS THE MAXIMUM. WE'LL GO. YEAH. SO YOU CAN WE WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO PHRASE IT IN TERMS OF A RATE RIGHT. WE'RE SUPPOSED TO PHRASE

[01:00:02]

THANK YOU. DO YOU WANT TO BRING UP TABLETS. OH, WE DON'T HAVE THE POWERPOINT. YEAH. NO, I DIDN'T SEND IT TO YOU. SO THAT WOULD BE A PROBLEM. RIGHT. SHARE EMAIL. WHAT ELSE DO YOU WANT ME TO SEND IT TO? IT'S A HACKER. SEND IT TO CINDY. OKAY.

DROP IT INTO. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY GO. DO YOU KNOW WHAT? THEIR BUDGET. I'M GOING TO GET A CALL. WELL, SHE'S. WELL, SHE'S PULLING UP THESE SLIDES. JUST SOME INTRODUCTORY INFORMATION. AS WE APPROACH THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR. WE HAVE A LOT BETTER IDEA OF WHAT REVENUES COULD COME IN WHERE EXPENDITURES ARE LANDING. WE'D LIKE TO DO A FINAL YEAR END BUDGET AMENDMENT, WHICH IS QUITE LARGE AND TOUCHES BASICALLY EVERY FUND IN THE CITY. WHICH IS WHY IT TAKES A LOT OF TIME TO PREPARE ALL OF THIS. BUT DENISE KIND OF WANTED TO GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW RIGHT NOW. SO THAT HAD A REALLY SLOW TIME OF YEAR. EXACTLY. SO IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, YOU CAN KIND OF ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE NOW AND MAKE THE PROCESS A LITTLE SMOOTHER AS WELL. SO WE VOTE ON THIS BUDGET AMENDMENT TONIGHT. YES. AND YOU CAN PICK AND CHOOSE ANYTHING IN OR OUT. LIKE YOU CAN SAY, I DON'T WANT TO INCLUDE THIS THING OR THAT THING IN THE BUDGET AMENDMENT. AND I CAN LET YOU KNOW, HASN'T IT ALREADY HAPPENED? NOT ALL OF IT. YEAH. SOME OF IT. YES. AND I'M GOING TO APOLOGIZE BECAUSE WE JUST FOUND THAT I HAD AN ERROR IN LAST NIGHT'S MEMO ON THE LEAD CONVERSION COST. SO CLEVELAND WAS RIGHT. SO HE'S LIKE THAT AMOUNT WAS REALLY LOW. AND I'M LIKE, I KNOW THAT'S REALLY LOW. AND NOW WE KNOW WHY IT WAS LIKE LOW. SO IT'S COMING. THEY'RE DRIVING FIVE DIFFERENT COMPUTERS. THE NIGHT ITSELF. AN AMENDMENT. I DON'T KNOW. SO YOU HAVE PLENTY OF. I THINK IT'S IN THERE. YOU HAVE YOUR BUDGET. I THINK WE'RE OKAY. WE SHOULD BE OKAY. YEAH. YOU'RE CLOSE. YEAH. THAT'S EASY FOR YOU TO SAY.

THAT'S A PRETTY BLUE, WHATEVER THAT IS. YEAH. MICROSOFT WINDOWS. MICROSOFT. IT'S COMING.

DON'T USUALLY DO THAT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO THERE ARE SOME LARGE ITEMS. THEY'RE RECOMMENDED TO YOU JUST AS FINANCIAL FOR FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT THAT WE'RE PROPOSING.

SO ONE OF THIS FIRST ONE YOU KNEW ABOUT, WE TALKED TO YOU INDIVIDUALLY IN MARCH OF 2026 ABOUT THE CONVERSION OF GOING FROM A TRADITIONAL SICK LEAVE PLAN INTO A PTO PLAN. AND THE FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THAT. OH, I'M SORRY. GOING FROM A SICK AND I CAN'T SPEAK TRADITIONAL SICK AND VACATION LEAVE PLAN TO A PTO PLAN. MOST OF THE ALL VACATION HOURS CONVERTED INTO PTO, BUT WE PUT A CAP ON PTO AND ANY HOURS THAT THEY HAD IN THEIR SICK BANK THAT WAS IN EXCESS OF THEIR CAP. WE PAID OUT ABOUT $0.10 ON THE DOLLAR. OKAY. SO THE VALUE WAS $0.10 FOR EVERY HOUR FOR THEIR HOURLY RATE, OR 10% OF THEIR HOURLY RATE TIMES THE NUMBER OF HOURS THAT WERE REMAINING IN THEIR BANK AFTER THE CONVERSION. THE COST OF THAT CONVERSION WAS $820,125 LESS THAN WHAT WE THOUGHT IT WAS, BUT. BUT STILL A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER. THAT IT WAS CONVERSION WAS DONE WITH ONE TIME FUNDS. SO IT WAS NUMBERS IN EXCESS OF WHAT WE BELIEVED WOULD COME IN, OR SAVINGS IN THE GENERAL FUND AND OTHER FUNDS. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ONE? OKAY. AND THIS ONE HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE. SO YES. SO I CAN'T SAY I

[01:05:03]

OKAY. I MAY THIS IS HEARD ABOUT THE MOUNTAIN WEST CASE, HUGE FINANCIAL WIN. THIS IS THIS IS GOOD TIMING. THIS. AGREED. SO THIS IS A REDUCTION OF COST TO ALL OF THE FUNDS. AND THEN IN THE RISK MANAGEMENT FUND IT WILL SHOW AN INCREASE OF COST. RIGHT. BECAUSE WE'RE TAKING OUT SOME OF THE REVENUE THAT WOULD HAVE COME IN OTHERWISE. SO YOU'RE RETROSPECTIVELY ADDING FUNDING TO EACH DEPARTMENT. YES. JUST KIND OF IT'S KIND OF LIKE A BIG BOULDER EXISTED. AND THE NON-DEPARTMENTAL FOR $1.2 MILLION JUST BROKE IT AND SPREADING IT OUT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT THING IS, IS WHAT I WHAT I'VE DONE AT YEAR END. AND WHAT WE DO AT YEAR END IS WE EVALUATE WHERE EVERYTHING'S GOING TO LAND AND THAT THERE'LL BE SOME SAVINGS IN CERTAIN DEPARTMENTS. SOMETIMES REVENUES ARE COMING IN BETTER THAN WE ANTICIPATED.

AND HOW DO WE WANT TO USE THAT? TYPICALLY, WE'VE JUST USED IT AS A TRANSFER TO THE CIP FUND, AND WE LOAD THE CIP FUND AND DO IT FOR PROJECTS. BUT THIS YEAR, WE'VE KIND OF EVALUATED A COUPLE OF OUR OTHER FUNDS AND SAID, WHAT DO THOSE FUNDS NEED FOR RESERVES? IN ORDER TO BUFFER INCREASED COSTS, THE FLEET MANAGEMENT FUND. AS YOU KNOW, VEHICLE COSTS INCREASE FASTER THAN WE CAN KEEP UP WITH. AND SO I'M RECOMMENDING 1 MILLION. AND BECAUSE OF ROUNDING, IT'S $1,000,002, $2 CROSSES THE LINE OVER BACKWARDS. I WOULD BE MAKING THAT $1 MILLION. I'M OKAY WITH A MILLION. SHE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST $1,000,002. RECOMMENDED $1 MILLION CONTRIBUTION OF ONE TIME REVENUE SAVINGS TO BUILD UP RESERVES IN THE FLEET MANAGEMENT FUND. HOW WILL THAT HOW THAT GETS THERE IS THAT IT TRICKLES THROUGH THE DEPARTMENTS. SO WHAT WE DID IS WE USED THEIR ALLOCATION METHOD. HOW MANY VEHICLES DO THEY OWN? WHAT ARE THE VALUE OF THE VEHICLES. WE APPLY A FORMULA TO IT. AND THEN WE BROKE OUT THAT MILLION DOLLARS AND PUT IT INTO ALL THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS THAT CONTRIBUTE. OKAY. SO THIS ISN'T JUST GENERAL FUND CONTRIBUTION. THIS WOULD BE THE WATER FUND, SEWER FUND, ALL OF THE FUNDS THAT HAVE VEHICLES. OKAY. AND IT'S ALL THOSE LITTLE PIECES THAT GIVE YOU THE EXTRA DOLLARS. THERE YOU GO. PROVIDES A LITTLE BIT OF A BUFFER AGAINST RISING VEHICLE COSTS.

AGAIN, AND IT'S CALCULATED BASED ON VEHICLES OR EQUIPMENT ASSIGNED TO EVERY DEPARTMENT.

OKAY. SO WE'RE ASKING FOR ONE TIME FUNDS ALLOCATED OVER INTO THE FLEET MANAGEMENT FUND, WHICH TOUCHES EVERY FUND BENEFITS MANAGEMENT, SAME THING. WE ARE ASKING FOR $1 MILLION CONTRIBUTION OF ONE TIME REVENUE AND SAVINGS TO BUILD UP THE RESERVES AND THE BENEFITS MANAGEMENT. AS YOU KNOW, OUR PLAN IS SELF-FUNDED AND HEALTHCARE COSTS ARE RISING QUICKLY. THIS IS CALCULATED BASED ON THE PARTICIPATION OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THE DEPARTMENT.

SO DEPENDING ON WHAT KIND OF PLAN AND WHAT THE EMPLOYEE MAKEUP, THAT'S HOW THIS CONTRIBUTION WAS, WAS CALCULATED. DOES THAT AFFECT WHAT WE PAY FOR HEALTH CARE FOR NEXT YEAR? NO. WELL IT CAN YES. GOOD QUESTION. THE RESERVES SOMETIMES ARE USED. THIS YEAR, FOR INSTANCE, OUR BROKER CAME BACK AND SAID YOU NEED TO DO A 19% INCREASE. AND WE FELT LIKE THAT WAS TOO AGGRESSIVE AND THAT WE USED WE WERE CHOOSING TO USE RESERVES TO BUFFER THAT INCREASE. SO WE WENT WITH A 10% INCREASE. AND WE'RE GOING TO RELY ON RESERVES IF NECESSARY.

WE'RE HOPING THAT OUR HEALTH CARE COSTS ARE GOING TO GO DOWN THROUGH SOME OTHER MEANS OF

[01:10:02]

DON'T FORGET. ALRIGHT. IN THE GENERAL FUND, WHAT WE ALSO DO WITH ONE TIME MONEYS IS WE TRANSFER OUT. THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FUND IS LOOKING LIKE IT WILL BE ABOUT $1 MILLION SHORT OF GETTING TO A ZERO RESERVE BALANCE, UNLESS SOME KILLER SPRING PERMITS COME IN.

WELL, SUMMER PERMITS COME IN, BUT I DON'T KNOW OF ANY. SO I AM REQUESTING $1 MILLION TO BE TRANSFERRED TO THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FUND. IT WILL BRING THE ESTIMATED RESERVES TO ZERO, AND THAT WOULD ALSO BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE PAID BACK TO THE GENERAL FUND. IF THERE WERE A POINT WHERE THE RESERVES WERE IN THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FUND AND AVAILABLE TO PAY BACK THE GENERAL FUND FOR THAT. OKAY. $147,808 TO THE RDA FUND.

PAYPAL HAS AN AGREEMENT WITH THE RDA FUND TO RECEIVE BACK A REBATE ON THE ENERGY TAX THAT THEY PAY THE CITY. AND SO WE TRANSFER THAT OVER TO THE RDA BECAUSE IT COMES INTO THE GENERAL FUND. IT WAS WAY HIGHER THAN WE THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE. SO WE ESTIMATED WHAT THAT TRANSFER WAS, AND IT CAME IN $147,000 MORE THAN WHAT IT WAS. SO TRANSFERRING THAT OVER TO DH.

HOW MANY MORE YEARS DOES THAT HAPPEN? HOW MANY WHAT YEARS? THREE. 2 OR 3. THE PAYPAL AGREEMENT. AND THEN THE LEFTOVERS ARE GOING TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND JUST TO BE HELD IN RESERVE FOR FUTURE PROJECTS IN THREE YEARS. EXPIRES. YEAH, I CAN'T IMAGINE THEY WOULD DO THAT. HIMSELF. $30,000 FOR BUSINESS OUTREACH. JUST SAYING. I GOT AN IDEA AND I WAS LOOKING AT ME LIKE THAT. I'M LIKE, YOU DIDN'T. KNOW? YEAH, I THINK IT'S IS IT 22,000 FOR BUSINESS OUTREACH THAT WE DIDN'T SPEND? YEAH. YOU KNOW, WE GOT THREE WEEKS. JUST JUST SAYING MAYBE SOME PEOPLE A FRUIT BASKET. YES, A FRUIT BASKET, A FRUIT BASKET THAT'LL WORK. MAYBE MINI MUFFINS. I HEAR THOSE ARE. DON'T GET CRAZY. DON'T GET CRAZY. THESE ARE LOCAL. THERE'S $2 IN THE VEHICLE FEE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. PAYPAL. I THOUGHT I PUT IT IN HERE. I CAN'T REMEMBER. I'M SORRY. BUT IT EXPIRES IN 2028. SO THAT WOULD BE AN INDICATOR, RIGHT? TWO BUDGET YEARS. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TRANSFERS OUT FROM THE GENERAL FUND. SO NOW WE SPENT $4 MILLION. EXCEPT THOSE TRANSFERS JUST GO BETWEEN PLACES. ALL RIGHT. SO IN THE GENERAL FUND THESE ARE THE ITEMS THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR AN

[01:15:02]

SO SO THIS, I THINK IS SAYING THAT WE GOT 4 MILLION MORE THAN WE WERE EXPECTING. YES. OKAY.

YES. SO WHAT WE JUST SPENT THERE IT IS. OH I SEE. YES. SO OUR REVENUES IN THE GENERAL FUND ARE COMING IN AT ABOUT 80 DEGREES. YES. CAN I ASK ON PAYPAL. SO WHAT WHAT IS THE AMOUNT FROM PAYPAL THAT WE BRING IN. WE GIVE THEM THE 100 AND SOMETHING. SO WHAT ARE THEY CONTRIBUTING. THAT'S PROPERTY TAXES. YEAH THAT'S RIGHT. SO THE WAGES AND THINGS THAT THEY PAY. RIGHT. ISN'T THAT SO 63,000. WE RECEIVE ABOUT $460,000 IN PROPERTY TAXES. AND OUR TAX INCREMENT INTO THE RDA, WHICH WOULD REPRESENT PAYPAL AND ALIGNED ENERGY. THAT'S THAT AREA. 460 K, RIGHT? YEP. AND THAT AREA, THAT AREA WILL EXPIRE IN TWO BUDGET YEARS. AND IT WILL COME BACK INTO THE GENERAL FUND. AND A LINE DIDN'T GET ANYTHING RIGHT. IT'S JUST WHAT THEY'RE GETTING FROM PAYPAL. NO ONE GOT MONEY TO DAY. WHAT ARE WE GIVING THEM. I THINK THE LINE GOT IT OFF. OH A LINE IS THE ONE WITH THE ENERGY REBATE. PAYPAL IS GETTING A REBATE OF THEIR TAXES. SORRY, I MIXED THEM UP. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. ANYBODY KNOW WHAT A LINE IS GETTING? ABOUT 425,000. AND PAYPAL IS GETTING ABOUT $400,000 A YEAR. OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. TRANSFERS IN. I'M REDUCING THE TRANSFERS. AND THOSE TRANSFERS IN ARE FROM OUR UTILITY FUNDS. THE SEWER FUND REVENUE IS COMING IN LOWER THAN IT DID LAST YEAR. EVEN WITH THE 5% INCREASE THIS HAPPENS IS THE DIRECT RESULT OF US HELPING PEOPLE FIX THEIR LEAKS, WHICH IS NOT ALWAYS GOOD FOR OUR SEWER FUND BECAUSE THE SEWER FUND, THE SEWER FEE IS CALCULATED BASED ON A RESIDENT'S WINTER WATER USE. IF THEY HAD A LEAKY TOILET ALL WINTER, THEIR SEWER FEE, WE HAD LIKE $100 A MONTH SEWER FEES ON CERTAIN PEOPLE. BUT WE REALLY BEEN PROACTIVE ABOUT LEAK ALARMS AND GETTING OUT THERE AND TALKING TO PEOPLE TO STOP THAT. BUT THE CONSEQUENCE IS THAT IT REDUCES OUR SEWER FEE WHEN IT'S RECALCULATED EVERY YEAR. THE OTHER THING IS THE FOOD PRODUCTION IS A BIG CONTRIBUTOR. CONTRIBUTOR TO OUR SEWER FEES. SO DEPENDING ON WHAT FOOD PRODUCTION GOES THROUGH THE SEWER LINE, IT DEPENDS ON HOW MUCH MONEY WE GET. SO TRANSFER IN IS BEING REDUCED TO BY $27,000 BECAUSE OUR REVENUES ARE REDUCED IN THE SEWER FUND. OKAY, I'M A I'M A SUPPORTER OF A SEWER FEE FOR RESIDENTIAL SEWAGE AND SOME COMMERCIAL SEWAGE THAT DON'T HAVE METERS ON THEM. BUT I KNOW THAT THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES TO THAT AS WELL. RIGHT? LOW, SUPER LOW WATER USERS WOULD HAVE A FEE INCREASE IF WE WENT TO A FLAT FEE. HOWEVER, OUR COSTS FOR THE SEWER FUND ARE DON'T FLUCTUATE. THEY'RE THE SAME NO MATTER WHAT. NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE USE IT. EXPENDITURES, WE'RE INCREASING EXPENDITURES BY $1.4 MILLION OVERALL. AND THEN ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO.

NOW, THIS IS ONLY THE GENERAL FUND, WHICH IS WHY IT DOESN'T EQUAL THE MILLION DOLLARS AND TWO $1,000,002 OR WHATEVER ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE GENERAL FUND ARE AT ABOUT 1,056,000. AND THEN TRANSFERS OUT REPRESENTS THAT MILLION DOLLARS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND $147,000 TO THE RDA, AND THEN THE CIP TRANSFER OF 514,000. THE AMENDMENT OVERALL IS REQUESTING $15,000 USE OF RESERVES, BECAUSE ONE OF OUR AMENDMENTS PREVIOUSLY FOR THE

[01:20:01]

WHEN SOMEONE RETIRES, THEY GET PAID FOR THEIR LEAVE. IT TENDS TO BE CHANGES IN BENEFITS. AND THERE WAS THERE'S ABOUT $150,000 IN THERE THAT I SAW A DEPARTMENT COMING IN, A COUPLE OF DEPARTMENTS COMING IN A LITTLE HIGHER THAN I'D ANTICIPATED, AND I NEEDED A LITTLE BIT OF BUFFER THERE. SO THIS DOES HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF BUFFER. AND I ANTICIPATE THAT SAVINGS TO BE ABLE TO BE TRANSFERRED TO THE CIP FUND AFTERWARDS. THE OPERATIONS AT 177,000, THERE'S VERY LITTLE CHANGE THERE. AND THEN THE TRANSFERS OUT TO CAPITAL LEAVE CONVERSION AS A RISK ASSESSMENT FLEET AND BENEFITS. SO YOU CAN SEE HOW THAT CHANGED OVERALL.

FUNDS. WE ARE ASKING FOR $150,000 TO BE BUDGETED FOR INTEREST EARNINGS. WE DO NOT BUDGET FOR INTEREST EARNINGS BECAUSE IT'S ONE TIME REVENUE. WE NEVER KNOW WHAT IT IS. RIGHT? TWO YEARS AGO, INTEREST IN THE TIF FUND WAS HALF A PERCENT, AND NOW WE'RE AT 3.5%. SO IT FLUCTUATES ALL OVER THE PLACE. AND THEN FLEETS AND BENEFIT MANAGEMENT CONTRIBUTIONS ARE THAT OTHER $18,000. THERE IS NO CHANGE TO CLASS ZERO FUNDS OTHER THAN THAT. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. WE'RE BRINGING IN ADDITIONAL PERMIT AND PLANNING REVENUE OF 1.3 MILLION. I'M SORRY, WE ARE NOT BRINGING THAT IN. WE'RE BRINGING IN 332,000, AND THE OTHER MILLION IS COMING FROM THE TRANSFER FROM THE GENERAL FUND. OKAY. BUT THE GOAL IS TO BRING THAT TO A ZERO FUND BALANCE OF AT LEAST I WOULD LIKE EVENTUALLY TO HAVE THAT HAVE SOME RESERVE, BUT IT DOESN'T RIGHT NOW. AND THEN THE -$310,000 IS ALLOCATED COSTS FROM OTHER FUNDS. SO AS SOON AS WE INCREASE THE FINANCE BUDGET, FOR INSTANCE, THE PORTION OF THAT GETS DISTRIBUTED OUT TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, WATER, SEWER, STORMWATER. THE BIGGEST HIT ON THAT IS ENGINEERING FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, BECAUSE ABOUT HALF OF ENGINEERING'S TIME SUPPORTS THEM. SO ANYTIME I CHANGE ANYTHING IN ENGINEERING, IT WHIPS RIGHT OVER INTO HERE. ANY QUESTIONS ON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. OKAY. HIGHLANDS WE OUR ASSESSMENTS ARE COMING IN STRONG ON HIGHLANDS. WE HAVEN'T CHANGED THIS HOA HOA FEE IN A REALLY LONG TIME. AND WE HAVEN'T HAD TO BECAUSE THEY CONTINUE TO DEVELOP AND CONTINUE TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS THE FUND. SO IT'S HOLDING ITS OWN. WE WILL NEED TO BE LOOKING TO RENEGOTIATE THIS CONTRACT EVENTUALLY BECAUSE IT'S IT SAYS THE CITY WILL CONTRIBUTE 20% OF THE TOTAL NEEDS OF THE FUND, AND THEN RESIDENTIAL WILL CONTRIBUTE. 75% OF THE 80%, 95% OF THE 80%, AND THEN 5% OF THE 80% IS FROM DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S COMMERCIAL. AND THEN 3% IS FOR UNDEVELOPED LAND. WELL, EVENTUALLY THERE'S NO UNDEVELOPED LAND. SO IN CASE THE 3% AND WE'RE GETTING THERE IN HIGHLANDS. BUT AS AS GROWTH CONTINUES, OUR ASSESSMENTS ARE CONTINUING TO COME UP. INTEREST EARNINGS WERE REMOVING THE BANKING FEES AND OPERATING BENEFITS MANAGEMENT CONTRIBUTIONS. SO YOU CAN SEE THE RESERVES IN THE HIGHLANDS IS ABOUT $100,000. NO CHANGES IN THE CRAFT MADE SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT. IT HAS $1 MILLION TO BE SPENT IN THAT AREA OVER BY THE BOEING PLANT. CDBG. NO CHANGE YET, BUT WE WILL BE BRINGING THIS TO YOU

[01:25:01]

REVENUE AND $50,000 EXPENSE. THIS IS A FUND THAT JUST SAYS POLICE GRANTS AND FIRE GRANTS. WE JUST TAKE THEM IN AND THEN WE SPEND THEM IN THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT. OKAY.

CAPITAL PROJECTS, THIS IS A BIGGER CHANGE. SO REVENUE IS $5.56 MILLION. THAT IS 2.3 MILLION IN ADDITIONAL IMPACT FEES FOR PARKS AND ROADS, 2.56 MILLION IN INTEREST EARNINGS.

BECAUSE THERE'S QUITE A LARGE RESERVE BALANCE THERE. AND SO THE INTEREST THERE CONTRIBUTES TOWARDS FUTURE PROJECTS. WE ARE ASKING FOR YOU TO ALLOCATE 177,000 OR I'M SORRY, TO RECEIVE $177,000 FROM A LAND SALE THAT WE DID, AND THEN THE 514,000 THAT YOU JUST SAW FROM THE GENERAL FUND COMING OVER IN THIS FUND. OKAY. SO WE SOLD A LITTLE BIT OF LAND FOR THE TRANSFER TO THE GENERAL FUND, INTEREST AND IMPACT FEES. WHAT. WAS THE LAND SALE RIGHT AWAY? WASN'T IT? BRIAN WAS LAND SALE. DO WE KNOW? I'M PRETTY SURE IT'S RIGHT OF WAY. YEAH. RIGHT AWAY OUR RIGHT OF WAY. WE SOLD TO A DEVELOPER. OH, SORRY. IT WAS THE STRIP OUT AT MERCED CREEK. YEAH, IT WAS THE NORTH END STRIP. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT PROJECT? I DO, IT WAS RIGHT AWAY. IT IS? YEAH, A LOT, BUT NOT EVERYTHING WAS ALSO LARSON'S. SORRY. I DON'T KNOW.

THEY ASKED, BUT WE DIDN'T. AND WE'RE ASKING FOR SOMETHING I CAN SAY NO TO EITHER. WE DON'T WANT.

MONEY. NO. NO MONEY, NO MONEY. NO. WE ALREADY SAID YES TO THAT. YEAH. THIS IS JUST A MATTER OF WHERE I JUST. I'M JUST KIDDING. EXPENDITURES. SO TWO $2.5 MILLION OF ADDITIONAL CIP SPENT A VERY SMALL AMOUNT, $4,200 FOR PRE-PLANNING FOR THE FIRE STATION. NUMBER 56 WASN'T A VERY BIG PIECE. WE'VE PURCHASED ONE MORE OF THOSE LOTS ON 70TH SOUTH AT NORMANDY ESTATES, WHICH IS FOR CORRIDOR PRESERVATION. YAY! WELL, TONIGHT. OH, WE WILL TONIGHT.

THAT'S ON CONSENT FOR TONIGHT. YAY YAY YAY! THAT LEAVES LIKE FIVE MORE PIECES. LET'S VOTE FOR ONE PIECE OF THIS AND NOT THE OTHER PIECE AND JUST SEE WHAT HAPPENS. THE CHECKERBOARD, THE COURTS REMODEL. SO THE REMODEL OF THE COURTROOM AND THE REMODEL OF THE COURTROOM, REMODEL OF THE COURT CLERK'S AREA, AND THE ADDITION OF THE NEW COURTROOM FOR TAYLORSVILLE.

THAT'S I, I PAD IT A LITTLE JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT ANYTHING THAT CAME IN AT THE END, I WAS, I WAS UNAWARE.

OF. CURRENTLY, IT'S ABOUT $820,000 OF SPEND. I'M ASKING FOR A MILLION IN THE BUDGET AMENDMENT JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT I DON'T KNOW WHAT I DON'T KNOW. OKAY. KEEP IN MIND, COUNCIL, THAT ONE. IT'S NOT SHOWING HERE BECAUSE WE'RE BUDGETING THE WHOLE THING. BUT NEXT FISCAL YEAR, WE'LL HAVE A REVENUE FROM TAYLORSVILLE REIMBURSING US FOR HALF. YEAH.

I ADDED $300,000 FOR NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME THINGS IN THE WORKS FOR THAT. THAT IS THE DAVE MCGOUGH PROJECTS AND 90TH SOUTH LANDSCAPING. THAT'S $550,000. THAT'S A CARRYOVER FROM LAST YEAR'S BUDGET TO THIS YEAR'S THE CEMETERY COLUMBARIUM.

SORRY, THAT'S DONE TO YOU CANNOT SAY NO TO THAT. IS IT ABOUT $250,000? AND THE DOG PARK IS ALSO A CARRY FORWARD OF $150,000. SO ALL THOSE PROJECTS ARE ONGOING AND MOVING FORWARD, BASED ON DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'VE HAD OR CARRY FORWARD FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

THE WATER FUND, WE HAVE SOLD WATER FOR SURE. LIKE LAST.

SUMMER. LOTS OF IT. LOTS OF WATER. YES. WE HAVE $303 MILLION OF ADDITIONAL WATER SALES THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE AMENDING IN THE BUDGET, AND 1.5 ADDITIONAL IMPACT FEES, 1.5 MILLION. SO AND THEN $1 MILLION OF OTHER REVENUE, WHICH WOULD BE INTEREST INCOME AND MISCELLANEOUS WATER SALES, THAT KIND OF THING. SO $5.5 MILLION IN THE WATER FUND. WE'RE ASKING

[01:30:01]

EFFICIENT WAY TO DO THAT. ALL RIGHT. THE SEWER FUND, WHICH WAS ABOUT SIX SLIDES PAST IT.

SO I'LL JUST KEEP GOING. SO THIS IS WHERE I WAS SAYING WE CAN'T. WE'RE COMING UP A LITTLE SHORT, $320,000 REDUCTION IN THE SEWER FEES FROM LAST YEAR'S COLLECTION TO THIS YEAR'S COLLECTION, $200,000 IN ADDITIONAL IMPACT FEES AND $370,000 OF ADDITIONAL REVENUE.

WE'RE REDUCING THE TRANSFER TO THE GENERAL FUND AND THEN THE RISK ADJUSTMENTS, SO THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL ADD FOR EXPENSES OUTSIDE OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF SOME OF THE OTHER DECISIONS. 25 SLIDES AGO. SOLID WASTE. WE HAVE COLLECTED $385,000 OF ADDITIONAL COLLECTION FEES AND $33,000 OF ADDITIONAL DUMPSTER FEES AND $100,000 OF ADDITIONAL REVENUE, BRINGING IN ABOUT HALF $1 MILLION INTO THE SOLID WASTE FUND. AND THE OTHER ADJUSTMENTS ARE RELATED TO THE OTHER CHANGES THAT WE'RE MAKING. STORMWATER. WE HAVE $200,000 OF ADDITIONAL FEES, $500,000 OF ADDITIONAL REVENUE, OTHER REVENUE, AND THEN ADJUSTMENTS THAT WERE CONSEQUENCES. SO WHEN YOU'RE SEEING THIS ADDITIONAL REVENUE IN THE UTILITY FUND, WE DO A REALLY GOOD JOB OF ESTIMATING THAT BASED.

ON THE PRIOR YEAR'S COLLECTION AND THE PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE FOR THOSE UTILITIES. BUT WHAT WE DON'T KNOW IS HOW MUCH NEW GROWTH WILL HAVE, RIGHT? HOW MANY NEW HOUSEHOLDS ARE COMING ONLINE. THAT TELLS ME THERE'S MORE THAN 80 HOUSEHOLDS THAT WERE ADDED TO THE CITY. 80 PEOPLE? YEAH, 80. SORRY, THAT WOULD BE 2020. YEAH. ANYWAY, FOR A FAMILY OF FOUR. YEAH. I THINK THAT UTILITY ACCOUNTS WOULD BE A GOOD INDICATOR. LIKE A COUNT OF UTILITIES WOULD BE A GOOD INDICATOR AS TO GROWTH I THINK. THE STREET LIGHT FUND THE RODEO OR THE GARDENER THAT DENISE I SHOULD YEAH. I MEAN, IT JUST MAKES SENSE, RIGHT? I MEAN, IF YOU'RE ADDING A UTILITY ACCOUNT AND YOU ADDED A HOME, THEN YOU'VE ADDED A POPULATION. I JUST DON'T GET IT. YEAH. ME EITHER. BUT SOME PEOPLE MOVE OUT. THEIR UTILITY COUNT IS STILL ON THE BOOKS AS A UTILITY COUNT. IF SOMEONE'S ABANDONED THE HOUSE, RIGHT? NOPE. I MEAN, IT GOES TO YEAH, IT GOES TO THE NEXT OWNER ON THE HOUSE. BUT IF IT'S SOMEBODY THAT STILL OWED, WE PUT IT ON THEIR PROPERTY TAX. WHITE HOUSE, I'M SAYING IF THEY'RE THERE, IF DIRK MOVES TO SOUTH.

JORDAN. IT'S ACROSS THE STREET. IF HE MOVED ACROSS THE STREET AND NOBODY TOOK HIS HOUSE, WE WOULDN'T BE SUBTRACTING A UTILITY ACCOUNT NECESSARILY.

BUT IF SOMEBODY ELSE BUILDS A HOUSE, THAT'S NOT ADDING ONE. SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS IF 80 PEOPLE MOVED IN, IF 120 PEOPLE MOVED IN, BUT 40 PEOPLE MOVED OUT, THE GENERAL ISSUE WE'RE FIGHTING AGAINST IS OUR GROWTH AND OUR OUR EVIDENCE OF GROWTH AGAINST DECLINING HOUSEHOLD SIZES. YOU'RE SAYING WE HAVE A BUNCH OF OLD PEOPLE THAT ARE JUST EMPTY NESTERS, WHICH IS TRUE. YEAH. YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM. I'M AN EMPTY NESTER UNTIL FEBRUARY. HOPEFULLY WE'LL BEGIN IN AUGUST. GOOD LUCK. ALL RIGHT. THE STREETLIGHT FUND, WE ARE REDUCING REVENUE. AND THE REASON IT'S REDUCING IS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE UTILITY ACCOUNTS. IT HAS TO DO WITH THAT. WE RECEDED A LIGHTING GRANT IN THERE AND WE SHOULDN'T HAVE. SO WE'RE TAKING IT OUT, PUTTING IT WHERE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN, WHICH IS IN THE CIP FUND. SO IT'S REDUCING THE RESERVES IN THE STREETLIGHT FUND. AND THEN THE OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL EXPENSES. WE MANAGEMENT FUND, WE'RE GETTING THAT $1 MILLION INFLUX OF ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS, AND THEN $450,000 OF THE SALE OF ASSETS. SO VEHICLES THAT ARE RETIRED AND WE PUT THEM OUT FOR PUBLIC AUCTION, AND THEN $150,000 OF INTEREST INCOME, BRINGING IN $1.6 MILLION INTO THE FLEET MANAGEMENT FUND. AND THEN EXPENDITURES ARE AGAIN, THE CONSEQUENCES OF ALL OF THE OTHER CHANGES. NOTE AGAIN, RESERVES LOOK REALLY HIGH IN THE FLEET FUND. KNOWING, THOUGH, THAT WE'VE GOT A FOUR YEAR BUILD ON THAT TILLER TRUCK AND WE'VE INVESTED THAT MONEY AND WE ARE JUST KEEPING IT, KEEPING IT THERE UNTIL WE PAY OFF THAT TILLER TRUCK. OKAY, SO RESERVES ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO GROW AND LOOK LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF MONEY IN THERE, BUT IT'S

[01:35:03]

IT'S A STRETCH. ALL RIGHT. THE IT MANAGEMENT FUND $150,000 FOR INTEREST EARNINGS. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WE'VE MADE A DECISION KIND OF ON THE FLY ABOUT. ONE OF THEM IS THAT WE HAVE A SERVER THAT THAT ISN'T SUPPOSED TO COST AS MUCH AS IT COSTS, BUT BECAUSE MEMORY COSTS ARE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ROOF BECAUSE OF AI AND THE EXPANSION OF AI, THIS PARTICULAR SERVER NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. IT'S TEN YEARS OLD, BUT IT IS ONE THAT WE HAVE RELIED ON HEAVILY. WHEN WE GOT A COST ESTIMATE, IT WAS $850,000 AND WE ALMOST FELL OUT OF OUR SEATS. THAT WAS LIKE WAY MORE THAN WE EVER EXPECTED FOR THAT SERVER TO COST. BUT THEN THEY CALLED US A COUPLE WEEKS LATER AND SAID, WE HAVE A SHORT WINDOW. WE HAVE ONE SERVER WE HAVE, IT'LL BE HERE IN A MONTH AND WE'LL SELL IT TO YOU FOR HALF A MILLION. AND WE'RE LIKE, SOLD. THIS IS THE ONE WE MENTIONED LAST WEEK. YEAH. SO WE'RE ASKING FOR $310,000 FOR THAT SERVER REPLACEMENT. WE HAVE $200,000 THAT WE CAN PUT TOWARDS IT, BUT WE'LL NEED A LITTLE BIT OF INFLUX THERE. AND THEN $100,000 FOR COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATIONS.

AS YOU KNOW, CELL PHONES, WI-FI, PUCKS, RADIOS, ALL OF THOSE ARE INCREASING IN COST. SO THE PLANS ARE INCREASING IN COSTS. AGAIN, A LOT OF IT'S RELATING TO MEMORY. BUT WHAT WE'RE DOING NEXT YEAR IN THE BUDGET IS WE'VE ASKED FOR YOU TO FUND A $50,000 IN FOR A CONSULTANT IN THE IT FUND TO REVIEW OUR COMMUNICATIONS PLAN, MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE USING THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE PLANS, BUT ALSO THE MOST EFFECTIVE PLANS, RIGHT? WE NEED COVERAGE THROUGHOUT THE CITY. OUR EMPLOYEES NEED THAT COVERAGE. BUT WHO REALLY NEEDS A PUCK VERSUS A PHONE VERSUS A CELL PHONE VERSUS A RADIO VERSUS A TWO WAY? ALL KINDS OF OPTIONS ARE OUT THERE. SO WE HOPE TO BE ABLE TO REDUCE THAT COST IN THE FUTURE. BUT RIGHT NOW, WE NEED ANOTHER $100,000 IN THAT COMMUNICATIONS BUDGET. RESERVES AND THE IT FUND ARE STRONG AT $3.4 MILLION. BUT LIKE WE SAID, EVEN ONE SERVER IS LIKE $800,000. SO WE USE A LOT OF CLOUD MANAGEMENT, WHICH REALLY SAVES A LOT ON THAT SERVER COST. BUT THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT NEED TO JUST BE RUN ON A SERVER. BENEFITS MANAGEMENT. THIS IS THE THE EMPLOYEE SELF-FUNDED HEALTH PLAN. WE ARE ADDING $1.1 MILLION IN EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS. 1 MILLION OF THAT WAS FROM THAT ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTION, RIGHT, THAT WE ALLOCATED OUT TO ALL THE DEPARTMENTS $50,000. THE EMPLOYEE, THE EMPLOYER, EMPLOYEE HERE, I THINK WE GOT THE EMPLOYEE EMPLOYER MIXED UP. SO THE EMPLOYER IS CONTRIBUTING THE 1.1 MILLION, AND THERE'S A $50,000 REDUCTION IN THE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS. AND THAT JUST HAS TO DO WITH WHAT PLANS ARE CHOSEN AT THE TIME AND HOW MUCH THEY'RE CONTRIBUTING TOWARDS THE BENEFITS MANAGEMENT, RIGHT? IF THEY'RE SINGLE VERSUS MARRIED OR TWO PARTY, $80,000 IN REIMBURSEMENT FROM OUR STOP LOSS INSURANCE CARRIER AND $50,000 OF INTEREST EARNINGS.

SO WE'RE BRINGING IN 1.1 MILLION INTO THIS FUND. AND THEN EXPENDITURES, ALL THE LEAVE THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT HAS ALL BEEN PUT INTO THE DEPARTMENTS AND NOT MOVED INTO THIS FUND. SO I'M ASKING YOU TO REMOVE HALF $1 MILLION OF LEASE BUYOUT FROM THIS FUND, BECAUSE WE FUNDED IT THROUGHOUT ALL OF THE OTHER FUNDS, AND WE'RE ASKING FOR AN INCREASE IN COST TO THE CLINIC. WE'VE PICKED UP PHARMACEUTICAL IN THE CLINIC IN THE LAST YEAR. IT HAS BEEN A GREAT BENEFIT FOR THE EMPLOYEE AND FOR AND FOR THE CITY OVERALL, BECAUSE IT SAVES US MONEY WHEN WE'RE GOING TO A PHARMACY VERSUS BUYING IT WHOLESALE, RIGHT? SO WE DO NEED AN INFLUX OF MONEY OF $350,000 INTO THE CLINIC. COSTS FOR PHARMACEUTICAL SPEND. BUT THAT SAVINGS IS ACTUALLY COMING OUT OF OUR CLAIMS AS WELL. OKAY. SORRY. CAN YOU GO BACK TO YOUR ID ONE? HOW MUCH WAS THAT SERVER? ABOUT 500 000. OKAY. DID YOU JUST SAY YOU HAD 250 FOR IT? I DO, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR 310, 310 AND 250 IS MORE THAN 500 AT LEAST.

OH WELL, YEAH, IT MIGHT BE 550,000. I KNOW I DID THE MATH FOR IT THOUGH. WHATEVER THE

[01:40:03]

YEAH, THIS ONE'S GOOD. LET'S SEE. IS THIS THE ONE? OR THIS ONE? THIS ONE, THIS ONE. THAT'S CIP TRANSFER NUMBER. YES, THAT'S CIP TRANSFER IS THE AMOUNT OF GENERAL FUND MONEY THAT WE COLLECT MORE THAN WHAT WE HAD BUDGETED FOR TYPICALLY, RIGHT? YES, YES, CIP, CFP FUND IS HEALTHY. I'M NOT TOO WORRIED ABOUT CIP FUND NOT HAVING ENOUGH IN IT. THIS IS GOING TO SOUND WEIRD COMING FROM ME, BUT THAT'S 500 ISH THOUSAND DOLLARS. AND OUR PROPERTY TAX REQUEST THIS YEAR IS 500 ISH THOUSAND DOLLARS. THAT KIND OF. I THINK THOUGH, THAT THIS IS ONE TIME SAVINGS, RIGHT? VERSUS ONGOING REVENUE STREAM. SURE. BUT IT'S AGAIN, IT'S THAT WHOLE BASELINE VERSUS BASELINE PLUS NUMBER, RIGHT? OUR BASELINE, IF WE DON'T TAKE THIS OUT, OUR BASELINE IS, IS HIGHER BECAUSE, BECAUSE OUR PROPERTY TAX CALCULATION WILL BE BASED OFF OF WHAT WE GOT. RIGHT, RIGHT. WELL, OUR NEW RATE WON'T BE BASED OFF OF WHAT WE BUDGETED FOR, BASED OFF WHAT WE RECEIVED. AND IF WE RECEIVE $500,000 MORE THAN OUR BASELINE IS GOING TO BE $500,000 MORE TO START WITH, WHICH KIND OF CANCELS OUT TAKE IT OUT. RIGHT? SO. THIS IS NOT A LINE OF THINKING THAT I'VE GONE DOWN BEFORE IN MY HEAD. SO I'M STILL TRYING TO WORK THIS OUT, BUT I'M TRYING TO YEAH, IT'S ONE TIME SAVINGS BECAUSE IT WAS MORE THAN WHAT WE BUDGETED FOR. BUT IT ALSO JUST HAPPENS TO LINE UP SO NEATLY WITH WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR MORE.

WE'RE SAYING, OH GOSH, WE OVER COLLECTED BY 500 000. OH, PLEASE, CAN WE HAVE 500,000 MORE? AND I'M LIKE, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? IT'S KIND OF LIKE OUR WATER FUND DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD A COUPLE WEEKS AGO ABOUT HOW, OH, LOOK, THE WATER RATES WERE COLLECTING A LOT MORE THAN WE THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO, AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO END UP WITH MORE RESERVES THAN WE THOUGHT WE WOULD. AND THAT'S ALL ONE TIME SAVINGS TOO. BUT WE'RE GOING TO NOT RAISE RATES IN THE WATER FUND BASED ON THAT OVER COLLECTION IN THE PAST. RIGHT. SO IT'S KIND OF A KIND OF A SAME PHILOSOPHY THOUGHT AS FAR AS COLLECTING GOES. AS YOU KNOW, I AM A PROPONENT OF ACCOUNTING FOR INFLATION AND MAKING SURE OUR PROPERTY TAX IS KEEPING UP WITH OUR NEEDS.

RIGHT. AND I, AND I THINK IT SHOULD I JUST THINKING THAT MAYBE IT IS RIGHT NOW. AND SO I

[01:45:01]

I MEAN, YOU CAN GO TO THE ABILITY TO DO THE WORK, BUT WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO HIRE YOU GO TO THE CIP FUND AND THE CIP FUND, THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND, SLIDE AND SEE, SEE WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THERE. LET'S DO THAT. LET'S LOOK AT THE CIP SLIDE CAPITAL PROJECT, SLIDE THE AMENDMENTS TO THAT CIP SIDE. YES, FORWARD ABOUT FIVE FIVE YEAR PLAN FOR THE CIP FUND FLUCTUATES THE CIP FUND BETWEEN. YOU CAN PUT THE SLIDE UP FOR NEXT YEAR. FORWARD THE SLIDE TO THE CAPITAL PROJECT SLIDE, PLEASE. OKAY. THAT WAS. YEAH. SO WE'RE SPENDING $47 MILLION IN CIP. 50 MILLION AFTER AN AMENDMENT. BUT WE'RE PATTING THE CIP BY $3.1 MILLION WITH THIS AMENDMENT. AND IF THAT WAS 2.6 MILLION, INSTEAD, THE GENERAL FUND. YOU'RE RIGHT.

THAT WOULDN'T BE THAT WOULDN'T BE A MATERIAL CHANGE IN WHAT WE CAN ACCOMPLISH IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR WITH CAPITAL PROJECTS. SO I'M THROWING THAT OUT THERE FOR DISCUSSION AND THOUGHTS. I MEAN, SOMEBODY TELL ME WHY WHY MY THINKING IS WRONG. SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT INSTEAD OF DOING THE TAX INCREASE. YEAH. KIND OF OR MAYBE IN A WAY, OR MAYBE MEET IN THE MIDDLE OR SOMETHING. I DON'T I DON'T KNOW, I'M JUST SAYING, IF WE LEFT THAT IN THE GENERAL FUND, INSTEAD OF TAKING IT UP TO CAPITAL PROJECTS, WOULD WE NEED THE FUND? THIS IS THE FISCAL YEAR 2026 BUDGET, THE 2027 BUDGET. SO WE WOULD USE RESERVES IN 2027 RATHER THAN BALANCING THIS BUDGET ENDS IS WHERE THE 27 BUDGET BEGINS, RIGHT? YES. SO YOU'RE WHAT YOU WOULD BE SAYING IS, IS TO FUND THINGS FROM RESERVES VERSUS A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE. YEAH.

BUT YEAH, IT'S TECHNICALLY RESERVES BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THAT'S GOING TO GO. IF IT DOESN'T GO INTO CIP, RIGHT. IT'S RESERVES, RIGHT? IT'S PULLED BACK OUT OF RESERVES BECAUSE IT WASN'T IN RESERVES BEFORE. RIGHT. AND IT'S NOT PLANNING ON GOING INTO RESERVES.

NO. SO THEN ZACH, WOULD WE NEED TO YOU KNOW, HOW WE HAVE THE SALES TAX WHERE WE SAY WE'RE GOING TO. I THINK OUR NUMBER IS 5%. RIGHT, RIGHT. AND I THINK WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THEN WE WOULD NEED TO SAY WE WANT TO CHANGE THAT. RIGHT? WELL, KIND OF. YEAH. BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS NOW BECAUSE THAT GENERAL FUND SURPLUS, LET'S JUST CALL IT THAT $580,000, WHATEVER IT WAS, GENERAL FUND SURPLUS, LET'S JUST CALL IT THAT FOR PURPOSES OF THE DISCUSSION IS THAT'S NOT JUST PROPERTY TAX MONEY, THAT'S PROPERTY TAX AND SALES TAX AND SERVICES AND ALL THE OTHER TAXES AND THINGS. RIGHT. SO YOU'RE RIGHT, MAYBE THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY TAX INCREASE THAT WE THAT I WOULD PROPOSE MAYBE REDUCING WOULD BE THE PROPORTION OF THAT THAT COULD BE ATTRIBUTED TO PROPERTY TAX. AND I WOULD JUST THINK THE GENERAL FUND PROPORTIONS, WHICH IS THE PIE CHART THAT WE HAVE FOR 27%, IS PROPERTY TAX OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS, AND SAY 27% OF THAT WAS PROPERTY TAX THAT WE OVERCOLLECTED LET'S JUST LEAVE THAT IN THE PROPERTY TAX RATE, SO TO SPEAK, AND RAISE IT BY X -$0.10. SORT OF.

[01:50:02]

I GUESS I PROBABLY SHOULD'VE DONE THAT WHILE I WAS WAITING FOR YOU TO GO BACK 26 SLIDES, BUT WHATEVER THAT NUMBER IS, WE TAKE THE $500,000 SURPLUS AND WE SAY, LET'S ALLOCATE 25% OF THAT 125,000 AS EXCESS PROPERTY TAX. AND LET'S START WITH THAT NUMBER. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT OUR NEEDS ARE FOR THE NEXT YEAR. AND SO WE DO A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE OF 375 INSTEAD OF 500, BECAUSE WE'RE TAKING 125 OF THAT EXCESS GONE INTO RESERVES SLASH CAPITAL PROJECTS.

AND WE'LL PUT IT BACK INTO THE PROPERTY TAX BUCKET. THIS DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL.

THIS MAKES SENSE IN MY HEAD. CAN I RESTATE WHAT I THINK YOU'RE SAYING, PLEASE? I DON'T EVEN KNOW. AND THEN AND THEN I WANT TO SPEAK TO IT FOR A SECOND. WHAT I HEAR YOU SAYING IS, HEY, IF WE HAVE HALF $1 MILLION AFTER WE'VE DONE THESE REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS, WE HAVE A HALF MILLION DOLLARS OF GENERAL FUND REVENUE. AT THE END OF THE DAY THAT WE CAN PUT IN CAPITAL PROJECTS. THE CIP ISN'T THAT EVIDENCE THAT WE UNDERESTIMATED OUR REVENUES. THEREFORE, WE HAVE A HALF $1 MILLION MORE IN CURRENT BUDGET. THEREFORE, DON'T DO WE REALLY NEED TO INCREASE NEXT YEAR'S PROPERTY TAX BY HALF $1 MILLION OR SOME PROPORTIONAL AMOUNT? BECAUSE, LOOK, YOU HAVE EVIDENCE FROM THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR THAT WE OVERBUDGETED THEREFORE, CAN WE REDUCE THE PROPERTY TAX INCREASE THAT'S BEING USED? THAT'S WHAT I THINK YOU'RE SAYING SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THAT. YEAH. THE CHALLENGE WITH THAT IS WE'VE ALREADY WHEN WE MAKE THE FY 2011 BUDGET, WE ADJUST ALL OF OUR REVENUE ESTIMATES AND THEN WE BUILD THE BUDGET BASED ON THOSE NEW REVENUE ESTIMATES. AND WE BUILD NEW REVENUE ESTIMATES FOR THIS NEXT YEAR BASED ON WHERE THOSE REVENUES ARE COMING IN, FRANCHISE TAXES, SALES TAXES, WHERE WE PROPERTY TAX, WHERE WE THINK THAT'S WHY WE DO ALL OF IT. SO BUT WE'VE ALREADY WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS WE'VE ALREADY ACCOUNTED FOR THAT IN THE NEW REVENUE ESTIMATES IN THE BUDGET. SO YOU'RE SAYING IF WE DIDN'T HAVE THIS CALL IT OUR PESSIMISTIC PROJECTION SLASH OPTIMISTIC RESULT, RIGHT? IF WE DIDN'T HAVE THIS OVER OUR TURNS OUT TO BE PESSIMISTIC PROJECTION OF THIS OVERAGE OF COLLECTION FROM WHATEVER SOURCE, THEN WOULD YOU BE NEEDING TO ASK FOR $1 MILLION IN FUNDING THIS YEAR, NOT 500,000. YEAH. KIND OF. RESTATE IT BACK TO YOU.

YEAH, YEAH. YES, WE WE BAKE THAT IN. YEAH. WE BAKE THAT IN. YES. OKAY. SO MAYBE WHAT WE NEED TO ASK OF DENISE IS TO HAVE HER BRING US BACK THE LAST FIVE YEARS TO SEE WHAT WE'VE DONE YEAR OVER YEAR, AS FAR AS NEW CAPITAL PROJECTS, WHICH WE'VE ACTUALLY TRANSFERRED A LOT. SORRY. LISA'S PURSE IS RINGING. MY THOUGHT IS THE ONE THAT WE ADJUSTED. WANTING TO BE CAREFUL WITH SALES TAX, AND I THINK IT WAS 5% YEAR OVER YEAR. YES. AND AND THAT GOES THAT ALL GOES TO THE GENERAL FUND. SO THAT'S THE ONE THAT TO ME SEEMS THE EASIEST TO ADJUST TO SAY WE DON'T WANT TO BE QUITE THAT CONSERVATIVE ANYMORE BECAUSE WE'RE SEEING, AND I THINK WE ARE, I THINK YEAR AFTER YEAR, WE'RE SEEING THAT MAYBE WE'RE BRINGING IN A LITTLE MORE THAN WE NEED TO. WHILE, WHILE WE DEFINITELY WANT TO HAVE THE CIP FUND, RIGHT, I THINK WE ALL AGREE WE HAVE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS WE WANT. BUT ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I THINK WE NEED TO ASK OURSELVES IS, DO WE WANT THE PEOPLE LIVING HERE TODAY TO PAY FOR THOSE PROJECTS IN FIVE YEARS AND TEN YEARS? OR DO WE WANT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE COMING INTO

[01:55:04]

WELL, YEAH, WE DO BECAUSE WE GET IMPACT FEES. WE GET INTEREST EARNINGS. SOME OF THAT'S IN THE BUDGET. RIGHT. OR DO WE NOT BUDGET FOR ANY OF THAT. WE JUST DO A BUDGET AMENDMENT AT THE END BASED ON WHAT WE DON'T BUDGET ANY INTEREST IN. OKAY. AND IT'S CONSIDERED ONE TIME IMPACT FEES. WE WE DO CONSIDER, BUT WE DON'T KNOW THOSE THOSE CAN FLUCTUATE.

AND THAT'S RESTRICTED FUND. RIGHT. IMPACT. RIGHT. I'M JUST TRYING TO GET MY HEAD AROUND THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND AND WHERE THE, WHERE IT'S FUNDED FROM IN GENERAL, IMPACT FEES HAVE TO GO TOWARD NEW REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE THEIR IMPACT FEES, RIGHT. AND THOSE ARE CAPITAL PROJECTS. SO IT MAKES SENSE TO PUT THEM IN THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE KIND OF A SUBSET OF THAT FUND. THEY'RE THEIR OWN LITTLE SUB FUND. BUT THEN WE ALSO GET INTEREST EARNINGS $2.56 MILLION IN THIS CASE, SELL LAND. AND THEN THE REST OF IT IS. WHAT'S BROUGHT IN. SO THE $18 MILLION IN THE BUDGET FOR REVENUE FOR THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND IS FROM WHERE. IS THAT IMPACT FEES? IS THAT ALL IMPACT FEES? NO IT IS. LET ME GET TO THAT LINE. YOU THINK I SHOULD KNOW? A LOT OF IT'S INTERGOVERNMENTAL WHEN I SAY SOME OF IT IS FOR PROJECTS THAT BUILD AMERICA GRANT THE $3.5 MILLION. IMPACT FEES ARE A CONSIDERABLE PORTION OF IT. SO THAT'S 4 MILLION. AND THE ROADS FUND, WHO ARE. RIGHT. AND THEN AGAIN, IN THE PARKS FUND, WE'RE IN THE SAME PLACE WHERE IT'S A CONTRIBUTION. I'M SORRY, THE PARKS FUND IS AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL, THE ROADS. IT'S ANOTHER LEGISLATIVE GRANT FOR 13TH WEST. THOSE FUNDS ARE THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND AND THOSE ARE THEIR OWN FUNDS. NOPE. AND THEN 2 MILLION IN PARK IMPACT FEES. AND THEN IN THE GENERAL CIP FUND, THE ONLY REVENUE IS THE TRANSFER IN FROM THE GENERAL FUND, AND THEN THE REPAYMENT OF THE LOAN THAT WE MADE TO THE WATER AND SEWER FUNDS FOR SOME OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE FROM COVID FEES.

THAT'S 44, 45 MILLION LOOKS LIKE A HUGE NUMBER, BUT IT'S BROKEN DOWN INTO A LOT OF RESTRICTED ACCOUNTS, RIGHT? WELL, RIGHT. BUT I MEAN, WHAT WHAT SHOULD WE BE SPENDING IT ON? WHAT'S NOT? WHAT ARE OUR CAPITAL PROJECTS THAT AREN'T ROADS, PARKS, UTILITIES, FACILITIES, FACILITIES. IT'S YEAH, THE ONES THAT AREN'T RESTRICTED. WE END UP SPENDING CAPITAL PROJECT MONEY THAT'S NOT RESTRICTED ON A LOT OF MAINTENANCE OF OUR CURRENT FACILITIES, ROADS, AIR CONDITIONERS AND CITY HALL, FOR EXAMPLE. IT'S NICE TODAY. I KNOW IT'S IT'S A COOL DAY OUTSIDE. IT IS ACTUALLY WORKING TODAY. ANYWAY. JUST. JUST

[02:00:14]

SO IT'S TYPICALLY THE TRANSFER OF THE CIP. WELL, I'D LIKE TO SEE A LITTLE MORE STRATEGIC.

IT'S TYPICALLY ONE TIME SAVINGS FOR VACANCIES OR SAVINGS IN THE DEPARTMENT FROM NOT USING ROAD SALT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THAT'S ANOTHER ONE. RIGHT? I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT WAS THAT, $350,000 OF SAVINGS RIGHT THERE. AND WE'RE TRANSFERRING. BUT NO, BECAUSE ON TAXES, THE BUDGET SAYS WE ARE ADOPTED BUDGET FOR 2026, OUR TAXES REVENUE. AND THIS IS ALL TAXES, 68.2 MILLION AND OUR ESTIMATED ACTUAL 71 MILLION. THAT'S $9 MILLION NOT FROM PAYROLL SAVINGS. THAT'S TAXES COLLECTED THAT WERE NOT BUDGETED FOR. AND THAT SALES, THAT'S PROPERTY, THAT FRANCHISE, THAT'S WHATEVER. RIGHT? YEAH. THAT'S A LOT MORE THAN THE 500,000. WE'RE REALLY GOOD AT SPENDING THE EXTRA MONEY. AND I'M NOT SAYING WE SHOULDN'T BE NECESSARILY. I'M JUST. YEAH, I REMEMBER MANY YEARS AGO HAVING A BUDGET DISCUSSION ABOUT STRATEGIES OF ALLOWING ADDITIONAL FTES TO BE APPROVED BUT NOT BUDGETED. DO YOU REMEMBER THIS DISCUSSION SO THAT THEN WE WOULDN'T HAVE ANY. I THINK IT WAS COUNCIL MEMBER MCCONAUGHEY. HE'D SAY, WELL, LET'S FUND TEN POLICE OFFICERS. BUT KNOWING THERE'S A VACANCY ALL THE TIME, WE'RE ONLY GOING TO ACTUALLY BUDGET FOR NINE, BUT WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE TEN, RIGHT? I CAN REMEMBER THAT. BUT THEN WE WERE LIKE, WHAT IF YOU HAVE ALL TEN? WHAT IF YOU ARE FULLY STAFFED AT SOME POINT? BUT THAT WAS I REMEMBER THAT STRATEGY CLEARLY. WE DON'T HAVE A REAL STRATEGY FOR CIP.

USUALLY YOU SAY, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO PASS AN ORDINANCE THAT SAYS THIS IS A MINIMUM RESERVES FOR EACH OF THE FUNDS. AND THIS IS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO SAY THAT 5% OF OUR TOTAL REVENUES ARE GOING TO GO TO CIP OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE, RIGHT? 3%. AND THEN HAVE THAT INTENTIONAL INVESTMENT IN CIP. BUT WE'RE NOT THERE. THAT'S ONE OF THESE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE NEED TO PUT ON THE TO DO LIST. YEAH, BECAUSE I JUST. I AGREE, WE NEED TO KEEP UP WITH THE INFLATION AND WE NEED TO PROPORTIONALLY GROW THE CITY AS THE CITY GROWS AND AS COSTS INCREASE. BUT IF THAT NUMBER IS OUTPACING THE OTHER NUMBER, LIKE THE WATER FUND, I'M OKAY WITH PUTTING THE BRAKES ON THAT FOR A MINUTE AND SAYING, WE MIGHT BE WE MIGHT BE GROWING BEYOND WHAT WE THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO GROW. AND SO MAYBE WE MAYBE WE DO NEED TO SCALE IT BACK A LITTLE BIT. SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT CHAIR READ THAT STATEMENT NINE TIMES FOR NOTHING? I'M JUST JOKING. OH, JESSICA, READ IT ONCE. I'M JUST KIDDING. AND AND FOR FAIRWAY ESTATES, I'M JUST GOING TO KEEP IT OUT. RIGHT? RIGHT. NO, THEY NEED THE MONEY. DON'T WANT TO KNOW. I DON'T WANT TO LIKE, RUN INTO THE GROUND SOON. ANYWAY, I JUST I HOPE THAT MAKES SENSE.

IT'S JUST YEAH IT DOES. IT'S JUST A THOUGHT PROCESS THAT I'M GOING DOWN THAT I'M THINKING.

HOLD ON A SECOND. I THINK WE MIGHT BE OUTPACING OURSELVES. BUT ARE WE HOLDING ANY RESERVES OF THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND? IS IT GOING TO BE $3 MILLION MORE THAN WE THOUGHT IT WAS? SO TAKING THAT EXCESS TAX PART OUT OF IT STILL LEAVES US WITH $2.5 MILLION MORE THAN WHAT WE HAD BUDGETED FOR, WHICH WERE IMPACT FEES, THOUGH, RIGHT? THAT'S NOT ME. THAT'S RIGHT. I'M JUST SAYING, WHAT I'M SAYING IS IT'S NOT GOING TO MATERIALLY HURT US IN THE CAPITAL PROJECTS SPACE BECAUSE WE'RE STILL COMING OUT AHEAD, MAYBE JUST A LITTLE LESS AHEAD BECAUSE AND I THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE. IF WE COLLECT MORE MONEY FROM DEVELOPERS THAN WHAT WE THOUGHT WE WOULD, IT'S OKAY TO SAY, HEY, RESIDENTS, WE GOT MORE MONEY FROM DEVELOPERS THAN WE THOUGHT.

HERE'S, YOU KNOW, A LITTLE RELIEF FOR YOU. WELL, WE CAN'T THOSE ARE RESTRICTED. YEAH, YOU

[02:05:06]

MAYBE THIS. YES. RIGHT. THIS NUMBER WAS PAINTING THE BIG PICTURE, BUT YOU'RE NOT SEEING THE DETAIL ON ALL THE RESTRICTED FUNDS. YEAH, BECAUSE IT FEELS LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF MONEY HERE. WE'LL SHOW THE RESTRICTED LIKE, OH YEAH, THIS IS NOT MUCH MONEY. WELL, RIGHT.

BUT AGAIN, MOST OF THE THINGS YOU WANT TO SPEND THAT MONEY ON ARE THE THINGS THAT ARE RESTRICTED ANYWAY. YEAH. ARE THE NEW STUFF, RIGHT? THE NEW STUFF AND THE, AND THE MAINTENANCE OF PARKS AND SOME OF THESE OTHER THINGS THAT COME OUT OF THE PARKS FUND, BUT NOT THE PARKS IMPACT FEE FUND, RIGHT. ASPHALT. DON'T FORGET ABOUT ASPHALT. OH MY GOSH. YEAH.

GLASSY ROADS. THAT'S RIGHT. SO JUST A FOR INSTANCE, RIGHT NOW WE'RE WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PARKS. THE PARK CAPITAL FUND IS ABOUT $7.5 MILLION OF THOSE OF THAT RESERVE LEVEL. AND 4 MILLION OF IT IS IMPACT FEE RESTRICTED. AND 3 MILLION OF IT IS NOT. SO ROADS IS PROBABLY IN A VERY SIMILAR POSITION. MAYBE DEVELOPERS WAS THE WRONG WAY TO SAY THAT. MAYBE IT'S FRANCHISE TAX. IT'S NOT EARMARKED. YEAH. I MEAN, SO PARKS IS ILLUSTRATIVE THOUGH BECAUSE SEVEN, $7.5 MILLION IN PARKS CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS, 3.5 MILLION OR 4 MILLION OF IT WAS IMPACT FEES, WHICH ONE, THREE AND A HALF OR FOUR, THREE AND A HALF, THREE AND A HALF. SO YOU HAVE 4 MILLION IN UNRESTRICTED PARK CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS. IT COSTS US HALF $1 MILLION TO DO A PLAYGROUND REPLACEMENT THESE DAYS. SO THAT'S EIGHT EIGHT PLAYGROUND REPLACEMENTS WORTH OF PARK CAPITAL PROJECT MONEY THERE. SO IT'S IN THE ROADS. I'VE GOT $7.2 MILLION. YEAH. SO IT'S NOT A TON OF MONEY. AND WE'VE WE HAVE MADE SOME COMMITMENTS ON THINGS LIKE OUR SHARE OF THE REC CENTER THAT WILL COME OUT OF CAPITAL PROJECTS, HOPEFULLY, FINGERS CROSSED A YEAR FROM NOW, YOU KNOW, SOME THINGS LIKE THAT. SO. YEAH, SO IT'S IT'S NOT FLUSH, I GUESS IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO IMPLY. RIGHT. BUT AGAIN, BACK TO MY POINT THOUGH, IS THE GENERAL FUND PROPERTY TAX INCREASE THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. IF WE DIDN'T DO ONLY FUNDED OUT OF RESERVES INSTEAD. RESERVES, IT WOULD HAVE GONE TO CAPITAL PROJECTS, RIGHT? IT'S STILL A SMALL PIECE OF THIS NOT FLUSH FUND. IT'S STILL A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE NOT FLUSHNESS RIGHT. IT DOESN'T MATERIALLY CHANGE THAT. THE FLUSHNESS OF CAPITAL PROJECT, WHAT WILL MATERIALLY CHANGE IT IF WE HAVE TO HAVE TO IF WE CHOOSE TO COMMIT THAT $14 MILLION TO A REC CENTER, IS THAT WHAT IT WAS? WELL, IT'S 14 MILLION TOTAL VALUE, BUT IT WAS THAT WAS INCLUDING THE VALUE OF THE LAND AND A LOT OF OTHER THINGS. OKAY. I'VE PROBABLY GOT 26 MILLION IN GENERAL UNOBLIGATED NOT UNOBLIGATED GENERAL CAPITAL MONEY NOT RESTRICTED. SO THIS IS THIS IS A DISCUSSION THAT I WANT TO CARRY FORWARD. I DON'T WANT TO CHANGE THE NUMBER THAT WE HAVE IN THE BUDGET FOR TODAY. I STILL THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT CEILING. I'M JUST THINKING THAT I MIGHT NOT WANT TO GO ALL THE WAY TO THE CEILING WHEN WE GET TO AUGUST. SO LET'S DO AN RCA THAT I DON'T KNOW. YOU AND I ARE WORKING TOGETHER ON SOMETHING PEOPLE MIGHT START TO QUESTION, LIKE EVERYTHING THEY KNOW TO BE TRUE. AND BEFORE WE CAN DO IT AGAIN, I LOVE IT.

IT'S LIKE, IT'S LIKE JOHN MCCAIN AND BERNIE SANDERS TOGETHER ON A BILL. ALL RIGHT.

SO I KNOW I WAS GOING TO SAY WHICH ONES, WHICH OF THEM. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE GOING TO PUT IT IN 2.26 ON THE CERTIFIED TAX, OR HALF A MILLION $500,418, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THAT FORWARD. AND THEN TONIGHT YOU WILL ADOPT A TENTATIVE BUDGET. BUT THAT TENTATIVE BUDGET CAN BE AMENDED IF YOU SO CHOOSE, BETWEEN THE INTERIM BUDGET ON THE 23RD, AND THEN IT WILL SIT AS A STANDING BUDGET UNTIL AUGUST 11TH, WHEN YOU CHANGE IT BETWEEN NOW AND THE 23RD, THOUGH, RIGHT? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE TO SIT STAGNANT FOR TEN DAYS. THE TENTATIVE.

YEAH, THE TENTATIVE THAT YOU ADOPT TONIGHT WILL NEED TO STAND FOR TEN DAYS, BUT YOU COULD ADD CHANGES AT THAT. I GUESS THAT'S WHY IT HAS TO SIT FOR TEN DAYS. YOU CAN READ IT AND TELL US HOW MUCH THEY DON'T LIKE IT. SOMEBODY READ IT AND TELL US WHAT THEY DON'T LIKE

[02:10:03]

IS THERE ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COUNCILMEMBER WHITELOCK, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? NO. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? ALL RIGHT. WELL, IT IS MY WATCH. AT 612 I MOVE TO ADJOURN.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.