The finance standing committee called to order at 1033 a.m.

on October 1st.

Happy fall, y'all.

Uh happy first of the month.

Pay your whatever, Ren, credit card bill, whatever it is you pay on the first of the month.

Uh thanks everybody for being here.

We have a relatively light agenda, but some heavy items on it.

So hopefully it will not go quite as long as our last finance committee meeting.

All right.

Uh with that, we will have.

Oh, there we go.

We do have auto woman fin license.

We'll have a roll call.

Um auto and finlayson.

Uh present.

Mr.

Chair, the camera's not on for uh council chambers.

Could we fix that, please?

Yeah, let's make a second while we get that fixed.

Madeline is working it out.

I'm just gonna finish the roll call.

Auto Roman O'Neil.

Auto Anomaly's present.

Um, but we'll wait to get it's it seems to be working now.

Okay, excellent.

And then moving on to approval of the agenda.

Is there a motion to approve the agenda as written?

Make a motion to approve the agenda as written.

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Uh approval of the minutes from the September 17th finance committee meeting.

Is there a motion for approval?

Ah the woman Finlayson, could you could you offer a motion on that?

Um of approval of the minutes from the September 17th meeting.

I will second it.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Excellent motion carries.

All right.

We've really just got uh three pieces of legislation on our agenda today.

Um let's start with market house.

I'm sure this one will be nice and quick.

So um I'd yeah, I was gonna turn it to Miss Buckland for an update since our last meeting.

Yeah, so and actually maybe Auto Roman O'Neil, are you updated on what we requested after the last meeting?

Okay, never mind.

So just an update.

Yeah.

So um we have approached um the market house with the various requests that um this committee and econom economic matters had raised.

Um we just we had had an initial exchange with them.

We've just sent them um a red line version.

Sometimes I think it's easier to um to see that when you see it in writing of this is exactly how that would appear.

Um that's been modeled after some of the language um that's in some of the other city leases.

Um, and so we at this point are still then in that discussion over here's kind of more a concrete version of what that would actually mean.

So my um my hope is then for your next finance committee meeting that we would have um more back from that.

But that exchange is relatively new because obviously that was a pretty recent, um, pretty recent discussion.

So I don't really have an update.

I I'll ask that you guys hold for the moment till we have we finalize that discussion.

Sure.

Um, and then the question I just had for you is when we're talking about these negotiations, whether it's the lease getting initially written.

I understand Ashley uh uh Miss Leonard is doing the she's turning the terms into a legal document.

Who is negotiating those terms?

So it's a good question.

This is from and just speaking um from my own perspective.

This is part of the reason um why central services ended up being created, because there hasn't really been up to this point uh a body who was responsible, um, writ large for leases and what are the terms and having consistency across them and and follow-up and and the rest of that.

And as you can appreciate what that has meant, is that um there are a variety of city leases that um you know Matt has done an amazing job of corralling, you know, what what's the universe?

My when when he first started my what I said to him is that I I have two questions, and they are in this order.

You know, the first one is what am I looking at?

And then the second one then is is what do we what's the plan um after that?

And um, so in this case, because you know that's uh that's a relatively new one.

There end up being a variety of people who have some input moving forward, having central services be that point for those negotiations is the long-term vision, but that's not a reasonable expectation right out of the gate to have all of that history.

So um, so there end up being, you know, folks like me, Matt, Finance, you know, others who um uh you know, Corey Corey Bradley from an insurance perspective, right?

A risk perspective, you know, various people who end up sort of getting consulted for what is uh what is this picture look like.

I'm not sure that was a very satisfying answer, but um, you know, the I appreciate you giving the answer whether it's satisfying or not.

Yeah, but but I think it's important to differentiate between where are we now versus what is that long-term vision.

Yeah, um, and those are slightly different things.

Thank you.

Um it sounds like we don't have a whole lot of additional updates.

Otto Romanio, you got any questions for city staff?

Oh, I'm sorry, Otto and Finlayson, did you have a question?

Um, I not so much a question, but a comment.

Um it is very unfortunate that we have lost um a person who was pivotal in negotiating all of these contracts for us.

Um our former city manager, Mike Malanoff, um, who had tremendous history with all of this going back 20 or 30 years, has been uh intricate in negotiating these agreements, bringing in various departments that were impacted, you know.

The staff that we have now is all very new staff, and it's all very foreign.

You know, we have three people heading this up who are all very new to the city, and so I think there must be some uh formal records or written documentation to show past practices, be it through the city manager or the former finance directors who have had a extremely long tenure with us, and even going back as far as the former um director of central services.

So there is a history, and um so there is a history, and the unfortunate part is that the staff current staff, Miss Bucklin, I know that you're trying to pull it all together, but there has been a history, and uh maybe you can call on um you know some historical documents that will help to pave the way.

Um Ashley Miss Leonard has been around for quite a while and knows um these contracts probably better than anyone, but um we're not totally in the dark if we look at what history has presented itself.

Maybe the um another way to ask the question is when the existing lease was negotiated, who was on the city side of the table.

And and if you don't know that, I could I could turn it over to these guys.

I guess you you all could answer it, but uh give it first to Miss Buckland.

Um I don't know the full answer to that.

I do know that the that um Ms.

Leonard was on um maternity leave at the time, so she was with the city, but her involvement in the initial writing uh was limited because she was out for part of that time.

Right.

So could I ask one of you guys to come up to the table?

Yeah, I'm Jody Danick partner at Market House.

Um do you mind do you have the mic on?

I believe I do.

Oh, yeah, you're good.

So if I remember correctly, um uh uh Ashley was involved in the very beginning, and then she left, and it was picked up by um uh the city attorney at the time, which was um I'm sorry.

Nope.

It was uh the lady no, it was the gentleman that had been here for very long uh before that.

He had been the assistant uh just Gary, yeah, Gary.

Oh, Gary Ellison, Ellison, yeah, Gary Ellison.

So that's when that's when and we also had several um city council members, all the people uh involved in it as well.

But I I think the uh new city manager touches on a very good point, and and Alderman Finlayson does is that the history of all of this is sort of being lost and the and the hurdles that needed to be overcome in order to reopen market house um were substantial.

Um and for 10 years, Market House was left empty and decaying in the very middle of our city.

Um and it was you know, sad for everyone.

So uh there's a lot of history there involved.

Um I guess we could go into it if you have more questions about it too.

I don't want to spend too too much time without having updates, but I do have one question.

Oh, well, I see Otto Run Finleis has a question, so I'll I'll let you go first.

Um well I would just like to, and and Jody touched on it.

You know, we took bids for the market house.

We didn't just give it to a vendor, but we had uh a genuine uh competitive process.

And during that process, I believe, and Mr.

Dan, if you could correct me if I'm wrong, we outlined what we wanted to see in the market house.

And the lease agreements that the lease agreement that we ended up with was a combination of the negotiations, the bidding process, and then the selection of this particular vendor who was willing to do what we needed to do in our market house.

So I don't want us to lose sight of the fact that there was a competitive process, and I think there were three bidders, if I remember correctly.

Um what we ended up with was what we asked for.

So we should be clear on that.

So not a question, just a comment.

Thank you.

Good.

Yeah, and I think from what I've heard from other members of the council, and if I can speak for myself, we love what you guys are doing down there.

That's not uh that's not in question here.

Um my question to you is going to be one of the I think sticking points is sort of who under what conditions can we go to another five years, right?

Under the current lease, it is the market house holds the market house LLC holds the options, but the city has to approve.

Um can you describe how that matters to your business and why why you all have a particular preference one way or the other around how those renewals work.

Yeah, I I yeah, I'm I'm Keith Bouchard.

Um, my wife Michelle is one of the three partners uh with Jody and Joe Lyon.

So um uh we you know we need to have some visibility on our future so that we can invest in the property is the bottom line, right?

So, you know, if if we are beholden to the uh you know five-year renewal process, going before the city, having all the comments and you know, et cetera, and you know, during political seasons, it it becomes complicated.

Um we lose that visibility and we can't invest long term.

I think we've demonstrated for the past several years that uh, you know, we ran through COVID, of course.

That was a little bit of a hiccup for everybody, but we survived that and came out of it strong.

And I think we've done what we needed to do to bring life back to the market house and and back to uh market space and the greater downtown City Dock area, number one.

Number two is you know, we really want to be, like we said right from the beginning, the you know uh uh the living room of the city, right?

So we want to we want to make it accessible uh to all residents of the city at all price points.

Uh we're not trying to compete with the top end restaurants in the city at all.

We're trying to you know bring back life to the market house.

And to do that, we need to invest more and more and more into the building.

We've invested, you know, several hundred thousand dollars so far.

Um, we just put in a new floor.

Uh we'll inside and the outside of the building again.

We're gonna need to completely renovate, gut and renovate the bathrooms and the storage rooms that are that surround the bathrooms.

That's a major expense.

Um we'll need to uh enhance and build out the storage facilities uh on the city dock side uh that currently exist.

We also um we'll need to um continue to maintain the HVAC system uh as part of the contract was to put a service contract in there that that has you know significant expense to it.

Um we are looking to renovate and restructure the kitchen to make it um able to grow with increased demand.

You know, our our our revenues have have increased by about 30% a year since COVID.

Uh for the what five years since COVID.

Forget about coming off of COVID because that was astronomical, going from zero to something.

But after COVID, 30% a year.

Now that'll slow down, of course, as as the business continues to mature, but we need to make the building more efficient so that the market house business itself as well as uh the vendors that that we supervise uh or uh have in the building, I should say, um, are able to you know continue to grow even with the constraints of the building.

So significant investments needed.

And I think that this lease, uh the proposed lease with the red lines help to address that uh in a in a favorable way for everybody.

Well, thank you.

And I don't want to spend um too much time on this because I think this is not the venue to negotiate a lease.

Yeah, but uh I do have one last question for you uh right along the lines of what you all are talking about.

Some of the other leases that the city has, we very explicitly, I'm thinking of the maritime museum, at least we very explicitly write in that the um the conditions are that the entity do certain upgrades.

And we don't want to prescribe too much, but I just wonder how you all think about that.

If if the goal here is to give certainty so that those investments can be made, how do you all think about spelling out what those investments would be within the lease?

We uh we we really want to make upgrades to the to the right to the property, uh both inside and outside.

Um we want that in a big way.

We're just we're held back now because of the uncertainty of the future, right?

If we had certainty of the future, we're all in.

And I think that's a great idea.

I think that's a win-win for everybody.

It's a win for the city residents, it's a win for the city um financially, and it would be a it'll be a win for our business and the future of the business.

And it's all about just maintaining a stable business in the future, and I think we'll be great stewards of the of the property and the concept, but we just need to make sure that we have a we have some financial clarity and stability in the future.

Okay.

And and maybe I could just add too is you know, we want to be here 20 years from now, right?

So, you know, to be to not have some fixed cost going forward and some visibility in a longer term lease.

An eight-year lease, people might go, oh, that's so far away.

It really isn't.

In two years, we're gonna be back here negotiating a new lease.

So it, you know, seven years, whatever.

And, you know, built into our lease already is this administrative extension, which gives us like unlimited extensions every five years.

You might say that's great, all right, but that means we have to come back and we're incumbent upon future administrations, all right, for our livelihood, right?

And I'm, you know, at a certain point in my career that I want to see this through, and I want to be here 20 years from now, right?

So I I think we've demonstrated that we're good stewards with the city's property.

We've demonstrated that we've done everything the city has asked.

We've created the living room option for residents and visitors alike.

We we deserve to be treated like Watermark.

We deserve to be treated like the boat show.

We deserve to be treated like other leases that the city has that have long-term visibility.

There's a reason why the boat show came here and wanted to get their lease extended into the 2040s.

They need that visibility.

You know, we don't mind coming with reporting and and and meeting that threshold of investment of 250,000 over the next 10 years or what whatever it says in the lease, because we we we constantly are upgrading a fruitator breaks down every other month.

I mean, it's like it's constant.

And I think you have to remember, you know, restaurants are not um, they're not gold mines by any means.

They they require very strict management, which we have with Michelle, who's overlooking all of our food costs.

Um, and it really comes down to like straws and papers, you know, like napkins.

Like it's it's percentages, right?

And um, we could say, oh, we're doing great and things are gonna be great going into the future, but there's no guarantee of any of that, right?

So I mean, you know, I think having a longer term lease and and it just builds us up and sets us up for a better chance of of success.

Um, and without that, there's a lot of insecurity and unknowns, and you know, even eight years from now, who knows what you know, the what administrations will be here.

We hope you guys are all here and everybody's the same.

That makes all good.

But people do move on and people, you know, move on.

So um we'd like to get this over the finish line right now.

We believe we can, and um, you know, uh just to echo what Keith said, you know, we want to be that we don't want $50 crab cakes.

We don't want to be nickel in dimes so that everything increases and escalates yearly, and we're out there selling $50 crab cakes just to make our rent to pay for the city.

You guys have the option right now, and then I'll be quiet to um set the city up for success, set us up for success with local entrepreneurs and residents who have been in the city and in the Anamundo County their entire mostly their entire lives.

All right.

And so if we want to see corporations come in that don't honor local entrepreneurs or local residents and and keep local people engaged in downtown businesses, which is what our community is, then you know, let this slip and then we'll come back two years from now and have the same fight all over again.

And it it just seems like a lot of energy's been spent already.

We can get this over the finish line, we can come to a compromise, and then we don't nobody has to come back and revisit this for a little while.

I do worry, you know, some of the changes that have been made um uh you know involve um uh mutual consent and and we're okay with that, I think.

So um, but but I do worry that that sets us up for maybe another fight in the future.

And so I just I want to we want to get back to doing the business of supporting downtown and not uh making it hard for the city and everybody else.

So that's all I'll say right now.

Thanks.

Glad we could have you guys here today and give your perspective on it.

Auto Roman O'Neill, you got anything?

I'm good.

Auto Roman Finlayson.

Nothing.

Good, thank you.

All right.

Well, I think we um at the last meeting suggested some sort of parameters for the apolitical staff.

I guess Vicky, whoever those apolitical staff are to uh go back and work with you guys on that.

I think I don't think anyone sitting up here felt like we absolutely have to have this one thing, or we absolutely have to have this other thing.

We tried to give some areas to negotiate on, and uh I look forward to getting an update at our next meeting.

Could could I ask, have you guys seen the updated lease that came to us yesterday and some of the parameters in it?

Do you know what's in it?

I have not seen the most recent red line version.

We we have not we have not sent that to them because that's obviously we're still in discussion, but what we have done is taken that list of of items referenced other existing leases that the city has and put together a proposal that we felt was a uh a good faith reflection of those items in terms of how would that actually look.

And then at that point, that's that's a discussion for us.

And and I'll say frankly, I'm perfectly comfortable with that.

I don't think it is in the city's best interest for us to have eight aldermen at a negotiating table.

I want the apolitical staff who have the expertise to it, and then our job is to come in and have oversight over that.

So that's good with me.

Yeah, I for one just want to let you know we're gonna get over the finish line, we're gonna try to make some compromises.

I hope that whoever we're talking to can see that too.

There were a few changes um that we want to address, but for the most part, I think we're gonna get there.

And and it's important for us to get there October 15th and make this happen because again the future is unknown, right?

So we want some security.

Thanks.

All right.

Well, um, I think we then need a motion to postpone this again.

So is there a motion to postpone 033 25 to the October 15th Finance Committee meeting?

I move to postpone 3325.

I'll second that.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All right, thank you guys again for being here.

Thank you for the case.

Mr.

Chair, can we make it um clear that we do expect to make a decision at that meeting as opposed to postponing it again?

So that information that's necessary will be at hand for us prior to um that meeting so that we can make a decision.

Yeah, I believe we'll have to uh at that meeting, right?

That's our last meeting of this term.

So yes, absolutely.

And could I just add, would it be helpful if we came to the Friday meeting too if we talked between now and then, or is it really just about the October 15th meeting?

Friday is rules.

I would I would invite you to rolls because we are gonna have a discussion and most um different people on roles and economic matters, at least two other people.

So um if possible, I think it might be beneficial.

Great.

It's at one o'clock, so I can I can make sure I'll be there and uh answer any questions that we might have.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks, guys.

All right, moving on, R 3325.

Well, I gotta say, where's our I don't know where our budget manager is, but I'm I'm a little disappointed on this one.

We went from a million dollars to 1.4 million dollars down to 66,000 dollars.

So what uh what changed the numbers?

Captain Miguel, maybe you can help us find out.

I so I I think I can answer part of that.

Um the initial data that we were working from um actually didn't have um didn't uh intrinsically differentiate and identify what were the specific speeds on each road segment.

So we had made some assumptions about some uniformity and which changed what categories um different ones went into.

So that was part of why we had gone back and do it do a scrub with the police um to make sure that we knew exactly how many fell into what category and and one of those in particular um changed quite a bit.

Yeah, there was also duplication of the data that we received from the vendor of a location, so there was a summary of all the locations that was included.

So if you look at the total incident on both of the fiscal notes, you'll see that it's doubled.

Ah, right.

So there was two effects, and they turned out to be substantial.

Yeah, it's like that's funny enough, it's not exactly doubled, it's almost exactly.

That's even weirder.

But um well, I mean, I I think the legislation is good either way, but I will say this is kind of uh lack it's not as good as we thought it would be.

Um so yeah, I'm I'm still a little confused how we went from thinking there were 10,37 incidents in which someone was traveling 20 to 29 miles per hour over the speed limit down to just 88.

Besides the duplication point, what happened?

The data that we were given from our vendor had diff did not have the same categories that were in the legislation, so we had to really break out without knowing the exact speed, we had to break it out into cot like categories, and then it would turns out we looked at the data that um the police department had and broke it down into the way that the legislation actually is written.

It just changed the category.

Got it.

Okay.

Um Captain Migas, anything else you think we need to know about this.

No, the data that they provided was was good.

It just like they said, instead of listing a speed range, the car was going over the posted speed limit, it actually posted the speed of the vehicle.

Oh, this makes sense.

Yeah, so when you had a range of 42 uh or say say 52 to 65, that was that would be for a car uh a road that had a speed limit of 40, a certain category, whereas if it was a road that had a speed limit of 30, it'd be a completely higher category.

Got it, got it.

And because we have some of our speed cameras are on forest drive where it's 40 and some are on 30, a place where it's 30.

We were assuming it was more like the 30, and in fact, most of them were the forest drive.

That's yes, and then they didn't parse out those higher levels.

So when you see the categories not having any incidents in them, that's not necessarily the case.

We just know there's a group of violations in that this and above category.

And so we don't know exactly if they're in that first category or if they're in a higher category.

Um, because theirs just was like it bottom, it topped out faster than the state um limits.

So um when the so we were able to get more categories with the roads that had lower speed limits because then the the higher speeds were the higher categories, um, and those just for an example on Chinquepin Round Road in the 20 to 29 mile per hour and up, basically category.

That was that only accounted for 2.65% of the total violations in 2024, a total of 59 violations overall for the whole year that went that third category or higher.

So they were either the third, fourth, or fifth.

Um, 59.

So and that was the most actually of those lower speed limit roads, Hilltop and Cedar Park.

Hilltop had 27 of those categories, total violations for the year, and Cedar Park only had two.

Got it.

But so we should it's fair to assume that some of these 88 under the 20 to 29 mile per hour category would actually be in 30 to 39 or 40 or more.

Yeah, probably a very small amount, but yes.

Okay.

Yes.

That's that all right.

Well, boy, you just explained it all to me.

All right, I'm good.

And and our total number of violations has gone down every year.

So they gave us data from 22 to 24, 2022 to 2024.

And um in 2022, our total citations were 6,951.

So you can see 2024.

Um, it goes down to a total of 3,493 incidents.

So the speed cameras are having an effect of bringing down the total number of people speeding.

So the more I'm sorry, you want to say that again for the record?

It it shows now we we'd have to do a whole uh scientific uh review of this, but it appears that uh the speed cameras are effective on the areas where we have them, which is why I'm glad that we're able to look at expanding the ones that we have.

Um, and hopefully we'll see the same things on those roads.

That's great.

Wow, I I love to hear that.

All right.

Um, that's all for me.

Anyone else got any questions on this one?

Uh Mr.

Chair, I I don't have a question, but the chart that's attached to Granica's is not the one you're referring to.

It's not the updated chart with the updated numbers.

Ms.

Jackson says she sent it to you by email.

We have it in paper here, but you should have it in your email.

Okay, thank you.

And we'll be replacing what's on Granicus with this new data.

Yeah.

Somebody will.

Someone will, Ms.

Moran.

We'll put that on you and Mr.

Trudeau.

Of course.

Oh, I'm told it's actually Cynthia's job.

All right, thank you.

Um, with that, now that we have all the data to the extent that we can get it, is there a motion to approve R 3325?

Or do favorably recommend, I should say.

I'll make a motion to favorably recommend R 3325.

I'll second it.

All right.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Beautiful.

Happy to uh make sure that we're keeping our roads safe.

Love it.

Thanks for being here, Captain Migas.

Okay.

We got another, I'll call this old business on R4125.

So this was uh a little bit messy at our last meeting where we were trying to figure out how we split it out the parade from the uh game, and then we're also trying to figure out how we make sure that we are fully accounting for the cost of the parade.

So Ms.

Buckland, you got an update for us.

Yeah, the the amendment that um is there on behalf of the finance committee um looks looks appropriate.

It it focuses on the um the the game is is really a separate is a separate thing.

Um the parade is um where the past waivers clearly have been focused.

Um so this would make that explicit and then um would update this to reflect what the city's um costs were last year.

Seems to work for me.

So we're increasing from 15.

Yeah, because it was more than 15.

And we're gonna win all of it.

I thought it was a waiver of up to the way it's written is that we would wave up to 15, but the kind of conversation we were having last time was that we wanted to waive the total cost, and so to do that, we needed to up it to 20.

If that's a policy change.

The first time that these were done, the 15,000 was a reflection of the city's actual costs.

Um, but in the intervening years, those costs have risen, but the waiver amount has not.

having last time was that we wanted to waive the total cost and so to do that we needed to up it to 20 yeah if if i that's a policy change the first time that these were done the 15 000 was a reflection of the city's actual costs um but in the intervening years those costs have risen but the waiver amount has not so if the intention was to cover the full amount the way that that did the first time the council considered this um we would need to up that to cover the current costs and last year it was about 20 000 auto and finlayson any questions no actually i'll make a motion that we give a favorable recommendation to amendment one second all right all those in favor say aye aye aye okay motion carries and then is Sarah a motion to give a favorable recommendation R 4125 as a whole I'll make the motion that we give a favorable recommendation to R 41 as amended second all those in favor say aye aye and I just want to thank the city staff for catching that and making sure that you know well I think we all know what we want to do but making sure that the legislation actually says it is very important.

So glad to hear that um last thing well no second to last thing we have on the agenda is an update on the market space lease I think there's probably not any significant update to this right we're really going to hear it at uh the meeting is on the 15th and economic matters is actually going to get the update after that because the meeting's happening during or after our the finance committee meeting any anything else to add no nothing new um did you remove Mr.

Chair did we skip our 37 oh sorry it's not on my agenda um grand scroll up the fees and fines related to regulation of tours and historic minutes one moment oh sorry it doesn't have a name missed it doesn't have yeah weird uh we might have to postpone action on that because I can't access anything related to it I I can help clarify sure that would be great thank you Cynthia Reuter Office of Law Policy Analyst that bill has not been introduced before the council yet it should not be on the agenda that would explain our thirties oh yeah we're we're good it hasn't been introduced okay that makes sense thank you so we cannot consider it because it has not been introduced so uh market space lease discussion is where we are sorry let me just get back to it I don't think there's anything new on that so we just said um I did get an inquiry this morning Miss Bucking because we had that legislation is that last night no Monday night about the flea market and with pushing that back into November we're still the sense is it market space is going to be able to continue through the end of November correct I know at one point we were talking about it ending on October 15th I I believe that is the I believe that is the case there okay um I will follow up with you.

Yeah I also believe it's the case I just wanted to confirm but that's fine.

Unless anybody has anything else on this I'm happy to just we're not gonna we shouldn't even have it on our next agenda because we won't have an update then all right uh last thing is an update from the finance department no changes from the last update we um obviously budget's wrapped up we're working on the budget to actuals for council and um we're in the thick of the audit which we're on target to to be done um the end of the fiscal year or the end of the calendar year which is good um we are going to New York next week for our bond meeting so fingers crossed and what's just left um so we're preparing for that and think it should go well good um I got a question for you while we're talking about the finance department so I was digging into our previous comprehensive financial reports and they of course differ significantly from what we budget right it will say I mean just as an example F like 24 was a hundred and twenty one million dollars of expenditures within the comprehensive financial report and the budget was something like 180 million I forget the exact number but significantly higher could you help me understand better and the public understand better why we tend to see such a big discrepancy.

But why does it seem to be like as much as 50% of a difference between what those expenditures seem to be on the AC for and what we budget for?

Um, I'd have to look at the year specifically as to what you're speaking on.

But I know I'm working on the FY25 um for the bond rating, and it's not as big of a difference as you're seeing.

Um, there are some accounting differences between budgetary accounting and um account like gap roles or um, you know, the depreciation and all of those things are not recorded in the same way that we budget for them.

Also, the actuals and what you see in the ACPR, it doesn't take into consideration the um, what is the one encumbrances?

So when we encumber things for things that have been budgeted, but you're not going to see that reflected, those are actuals based on the expenditure here.

So there are timing differences, there are differences in the basic accounting.

Um, so I don't know that looking at the ACPR would really be the best.

Um, there is a part in the ACFR that shows like budget budget to actuals, but there are some things like reconciling differences.

So I know for FY25 for the general fund, we we budget um to use reserves also.

So where we really will see the net difference is how much of those reserves end up doing.

So sometimes revenues will come in higher, lower, whatever it is, but I think a good measure to look at is how much of our reserves actually are going to dip into that year.

Um, and it it varies year to year.

Um, you know, we have vacancies of a lot of departments this year for FY25, we're seeing close to three million in savings just in public service.

Um, so it's gonna vary.

You mean did you mean public safety?

I'm sorry, yeah, public safety.

I I was like, we're all public service.

Sorry, like just OEM fire and right.

Um, and then my other question along those lines as I've been reading these is if we're trying to compare apples to apples and looking at city budgets over time, is it most appropriate to do that through the acvers, or is it better to do it through the city budget?

How like let me put it this way we're trying to look between 17 and 24.

I was gonna make it more complicated metaphor than I need to.

So I said to say, what's the best way to compare apples to apples?

Is it with the acvers or is it with the budgets?

It depends who you ask.

Um, I think a but the budget is the best way to look at it the approach, because the acver does include things like we budget for things that are not gonna you're not gonna see in the cap.

There's a there's a lot more reconciling.

So I think the way that we budget, it would be better to look at a budget for but uh that sounds to me like you're saying about like more individual line items that's true, but would it still be true also for the top line, or was I misunderstanding?

Okay, interesting.

Thank you.

Um the other reason I ask you because I know like our budget books just look very different between now and five years ago.

And I know certainly over the last eight or ten years, there's been some changes how we do that accounting.

So I'm just trying to make sure that I have the best way of explaining constituents how city budgets have changed over time, how city let's say city spending has changed over time.

Right, that's all I got.

And if there's something in particular, if you want to see a chart that you're not seeing in the actor or the budget book, we'd be happy to pull something together.

We have tons and tons of detail.

So cool.

Thank you.

If I may, um if you're going back that, if you're going back that far, and and Alderin Finlayson I'll ask you to weigh in with your experience over the that time.

Um, my impression has been that the city's made a number of changes to how it approaches some question financial questions, um, and some things that that the city um did in the past, you know, that has changed over has changed over time, um, kind of what gets included in the budget discussion and stuff.

So to Brittany's point, I think that depending upon what you're what it is you're interested in, you might turn to one or the other, depending upon what question you're trying to answer, because there have been some changes over time to how the city approaches budgeting.

Alderwoman Finlayson, would you say that that's fair?

Uh I would definitely say that's fair.

And I think in large part it has depended on the finance director and the approach, because each one, and I've probably lived through five finance directors at this point, have all had a different approach to budgeting.

Um, and some far more uh conservative, I'll say, than others.

Um, you know, using the police department's budget for example, um we have always carried um considerable, I don't want to say surplus, but additional revenue in those to that department to be able to accommodate uh the need to fill vacancies and respond to emergencies.

Um those things don't actually show up all the time in our budget, even though it does show up in the independent department's budget.

But um, and I'm not sure I'm answering your question, Miss Bucklin, but I would say that if there have been changes, and there have been definitely, it's based on the approach that the finance director chooses to take.

Thank you.

Yeah, and that's part of what I was trying to get at, like which changes less as we have different finance directors.

Does the ACR change less or does the budget change less?

And what I'm hearing is maybe it's a little bit of both, depending on what you're okay.

May I add, we used to rely heavily on getting a CAFR, uh, which was the budget document that um kind of justified everything, and that in the last couple of two or three, four years maybe has changed uh to a different type of document.

And so um even the reporting of it and the tracking of dollars has changed.

So, you know, some reconciliation might be um important between the two types of documents that we're receiving.

Thank you.

All right, uh, anybody got anything else to discuss with as part of the finance department update?

No.

All right, is there a motion to adjourn?

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.