Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

Well, gets going here.

Six o'clock.

All righty.

I'd like to call to order the January 8th special budget meeting.

Please stand for a flag salute.

The assembly of the city and borough of Sitka would like to respectfully acknowledge the traditional first people of Sheetka with gratitude.

We proceed on Clinkitani.

Sarah, roll call, please.

Mr.

Pike.

Here.

Ms.

Carlson.

Here.

Ms.

Riley.

Here.

Mr.

Christensen.

Here.

Mr.

Mojeri.

Here.

Mr.

Celine?

Here.

Mayor Isenbis is absent this evening.

Thank you.

Are there any correspondence or agenda changes this evening?

Seeing none.

We'll be moving on to persons to be heard.

For any item on, I'm sorry, off the agenda, not to exceed three minutes per individual.

Is there any public comment?

Hello, everyone.

Good evening.

My name is Nalani James, and I would like to represent my business of Bayside Taxi Tours and Airport Shuttle.

Do I just hold this button the entire time?

No.

Oh, even better.

Great.

So thanks for being here and making yourselves available to be heard for a new line item.

I operate my summer operation of taxi tours and airport shuttling, which is a vital business, and with having a taxi permit for the last four years in Sitka.

I would like to uh request a taxi sign and stand location at Centennial Hall.

About five years ago, there was a taxi uh location parked right up front, about two stands for taxis.

Um as business has grown for taxis.

Uh we have a um unfortunate uh situation of not having adequate parking for pickup and drop off.

Um we are being uh for lack of a better word, ushered out when we are picked uh picking up passengers and dropping them off, um, perceiving as if we are doing business promotion or advertising, which we are not.

Um so um I'd like to ask the um assembly to put that on the line item for us to have two to three parking spaces on the property, seeing that we are um permitted and paying for the yearly permit, which should cover the signage for that, um, as well as adding on the agenda um to look into Ubers and Lyfts to see how that is not um eliminating our business.

Um what taxes they are paying, inspections, uh oversight, and things of that nature to um allow them to operate um under the radar.

Thank you very much.

Anyone else?

Thank you.

All right, we are moving on to new business item A.

Item A is a preliminary discussion and direction for the FY 2027 municipal budget.

John, would you like to begin and then we'll hear from Brooke, please.

Sure.

Thank you.

Um I don't have a lot for my introduction, but uh we've kind of kicked off the uh FY27 budget talks when we met for uh our capital discussion.

I think that was mid-December.

That sounds like a long time ago, but uh back in mid-December.

Um, and uh just trying to get a big picture idea of where we stand with our capital projects.

Um now we're gonna start diving into the budget, and this is really just the introductory kind of preliminary talks with the assembly to get your big picture guidance after you see some of the proposed proposals from staff that were brought forward and reviewed by uh by me and a small team on our recommendations.

Um really it's it's everything's on the table today.

Brooke's got a uh a pretty in-depth um presentation for us all, and I we're not gonna dig individually into each fund because there's still a lot to learn.

We need to know what uh what revenues are gonna look like, but the guidance we get tonight will help us kind of craft a good draft budget to bring forward, and then we'll do the fine-tuning at the end.

So that's really all I have.

I'll turn it over to Brooke for more formal presentation.

Good evening.

We'll just get right into it.

So let's see if this thing okay, it is working.

So you might recognize this slide for my last presentation.

I do think it's a good way for us to start off each of these budget meetings and uh to just take a minute to give context on how staff is approaching these requests and and how they fit into the broader budget process.

So the big picture overview of this is that staff develop and recommend, and the assembly sets direction and makes final decisions on the budget.

So why are we here tonight?

Tonight's discussion is meant to review some known fiscal pressures and assumptions that are going to shape the development of the FY 2027 budget to review some resource proposals for consideration in the 27 budget to receive some assembly guidance on whether to continue modify or sunset some recurring budget items, and to receive some early assembly guidance on priorities.

This is also an opportunity for questions, discussion, and direction before the budget is built.

So before we actually get into the resource proposals, I'm gonna start with some background information that I think is relevant to tonight's meeting.

Starting with fiscal pressures.

So these are important to keep in mind during the presentation, but they're gonna become more relevant as the full operating and capital budgets actually come together.

So right off the bat, we know that there were wage adjustments from the compensation study and from the new collective bargaining agreements that um were effective in FY26 that um already on its own increases the baseline cost of personnel going into FY 2027.

There's been some changes with our vacancy rate, so elevated vacancy rates in prior years have contributed to some temporary budget surpluses.

Um these rates have actually improved in FY2026, um, and that will reduce that offset and increase the actual personnel costs.

Another big thing is rising costs.

So inflation continues to increase the cost of existing services, not just new initiatives.

Um vehicle and equipment costs have risen significantly, which also increases the level of sinking fund contributions that are needed to maintain the fleet over time.

There have also been some new operational responsibilities with things like the airport and the hall out, and that does add ongoing maintenance and insurance costs as well.

State and federal funding has decreased in some areas and shifted in others, um, creating some uncertainty that makes some things hard to predict.

And then sales tax revenue has generally flattened.

Um inflation can increase sales tax collections because the cost of goods go up, but it also increases our costs.

So what is a resource proposal form?

These are internal requests completed by city staff.

They describe the purpose of the request, how it connects with the strategic plan, and any ongoing or future cost impacts.

They are primarily used when a request would introduce a new activity or service, or materially change how an existing service is delivered.

This could apply to operating expenses, fixed assets, vehicles, or small capital projects under $500,000.

These forms are still relatively new, and it's a bit of a work in progress.

So I think this process has looked a little bit different each year.

So after staff draft the resource proposals and submit them, they're evaluated by the administrator and assigned a priority.

Based on that review, the proposals are either recommended for inclusion in the 2027 budget, draft budget at this stage, or not recommended for inclusion at this stage.

And administrator recommendations do reflect an initial assessment, and they'll be revisited as overall fund availability becomes clearer.

So you might be asking, I bet you aren't, but I'll tell you anyway.

What about replacement assets?

Um routine replacement of existing assets are incorporated into the draft budget, but will not typically be reviewed individually by the assembly.

So assembly review will occur when the replacement includes a significant upgrade.

The replacement is a vehicle without a fully funded sinking fund.

The request involves a rollover, or there's some other circumstance that we feel warrants assembly attention.

And a rollover is a vehicle or piece of equipment retained beyond the end of its service life after it's already been replaced.

Those are intended to be infrequent and they do require approval.

Brooke, can I ask a question?

Can you explain the vehicle sinking fund process to me?

I understand the capital sinking fund one because you know we at the end the year put in the leftovers.

How does that vehicle sinking fund work?

So when we purchase a vehicle, you estimate the useful life of that vehicle, and that creates a sort of savings plan.

So each year the fund that that vehicle is associated with contributes that funding into central garage that works as that savings plan.

So when it's time to replace that vehicle, it's intended for the funding to already be there.

So it comes out of general fund every year for the amount of for the not just a general fund.

It depends on who the vehicle belongs to.

So it's not exactly like this, but departments kind of lease the vehicles through central garage, right?

Central Garage actually owns them, but the departments themselves are who pays for them.

So the general fund would fund the sinking fund for all of the vehicles that are uh that belong to departments in the general fund, but every single fund pretty much pays into it.

Okay, so this year, when I look at the budget more closely, there'll be a line item under each fund enterprise and all that says money to vehicle sinking funds.

It's part of the overall allocation from each fund into central garage.

So I do plan on having a probably a few slides about it in the draft presentation so you can understand what some of the decisions are that have to take place because that piece of the process when we determine how much of the sinking funds we can actually afford to fulfill happens towards the end of the budget process when there's not very much money left.

So what kind of happens is if all of the money gets eaten up by other pieces of the budget, then there's not enough to actually fully fund those sinking funds.

Okay, I have a start of an understanding of that.

So I look forward to those slides when they come.

Thank you, Brooke.

Okay.

Let's see.

Okay.

So the initial price is only part of the decision when you're looking at um proposals for new things.

Resource proposals and new initiatives should be evaluated based on long-term impacts, not just how it impacts FY 2027.

Ongoing operating commitments may include new positions, contracts, programs, or service levels.

Asset and vehicle additions increase maintenance costs and sinking fund contribution needs.

Most assets will also require replacement at the end of their service life and often at higher future costs.

So this table shows the estimated FY 2027 financial impact if all resource proposals were included.

The total impact on 20 FY2027 is just under 2.4 million dollars, and about two-thirds of that is from the general fund.

And this table, which looks almost exactly the same, reflects only the proposals that are recommended by the administrator at this stage.

So what you're looking at is what would be included in the draft budget if no action is taken tonight.

Administrator recommendations do reduce the estimated FY 2027 impact by about $155,000 to just over $2.2 million.

And 64% of that still comes from the general fund.

And reminder that recommendation does not guarantee funding, it just reflects relative priority at this point in the process.

And none of the resource proposals presented today are significant revenue generators, but we we should talk a little bit about the public infrastructure sinking fund.

So use of the fund can reduce general fund impacts for eligible capital capital related requests.

Once overall capital funding levels are more clear.

And as a reminder, the public infrastructure sinking fund is restricted by code to repair and replace general fund infrastructure.

And we did transfer $3.2 million to the fund in FY 2025, and it has a current fund balance of about $4 million.

We're now moving on to the actual resource proposal review.

So I'm gonna present them briefly one by one.

I will try and look around after my summaries to see if assembly members have any questions.

And we do have staff here tonight prepared to answer questions about specific proposals.

So a couple of last notes.

Um small capital projects discussed tonight are either preliminary in design and plan or planning or are not yet part of the formal capital improvement plan.

Um they also might involve functional improvements to existing assets rather than just routine maintenance or replacement.

Um and this review is intended just to provide early guidance.

Anything not removed tonight can still be modified or removed later in the budget process.

Um yeah, so we'll get into it.

Can we take it just a second?

Any questions about process before she gets into these things from anybody?

What we're here for tonight.

Um back to the um this uh FYI estimated uh 2020 financial impact of resource proposals under I see column uh fixed assets, vehicles, and small capital projects, those are one-time things, but you're saying that the operating is going to be a recurring cost annually.

Is that correct?

Um the 286,588 dollars.

If that amount was approved through these resource proposals, this is going to be an added that amount every year.

No, these just reflect only the 2027 impact.

So this does not include ongoing costs that would be part of this.

Those are that's just the total of the operating related requests.

Okay.

Thank you.

Anything else?

All right, thank you.

Okay, so first up are the proposals for operating expenses.

Um the total of these requests is $356,788, with 100% of that amount impacting the general fund.

So the first one is a request from the legal department for $75,590 to fund a centralized data database for contracts, leases, and other related documents that will also include some um contract templates of this amount.

$32,000 is for temporary wages for data entry, and the other $43,590 is for the software itself.

So currently there's no database that exists, and this would help streamline workflow and improve turnaround times for staff, not just in the legal department, but citywide.

Um that 75, you know, almost 76,000 reflects the cost of implementation.

After the first year, we anticipate an annual cost of just under $20,000.

Okay, next up is a request from planning and community development for $100,000 to fund contracted services for a zoning code update and some high priority code amendments for changes for telecommunication towers and residential density.

This request represents a one-time cost.

I do have a question on this one.

Is this something we want to wait until July formy that question?

Thank you.

Amy Ainsley Planning Community Development Director.

Um there are I would say the overhaul the overview of the zoning code, which primarily you know, at this dollar level for investment, um, really looking at not a like reinvention of the zoning code, but really wanting to make sure that it's compliant with current housing laws, ADA standards, and land use case law, um, and removing we have a couple of sections that are that are just sort of confusing.

We have missing definitions, so things like that.

That I personally would prefer to wait until the new fiscal year.

I just don't even have the bandwidth for that project right now, anyways, and so there's there's not really a lot of point in advancing that portion of it.

But I do understand that there's you know, there's definitely a lot of sensitivity around potentially advancing certain elements of this, like the the cell phone um tower provisions.

Um and so just kind of thinking through that.

We could we could potentially reduce this request a little bit to say like to $75,000.

Um, and I could do a little bit more detail um research into what just the cell phone tower piece alone would cost um and how much more I would need um in addition to my existing contract service budget, um, and to potentially put that like in the mid-year supplemental that's coming up next month um to advance that piece more quickly.

I think that was kind of what I mean that fits with what sounds like a good idea to me to bring forward the things that are crucial quicker um in the current budget, and then like you're saying, this cleanup of the code essentially, you know, leave it where it's at.

So yeah, I'd like to see something like that.

I like that idea.

I agree.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Not to put too much work on you though, Amy.

Okay, next is a request from public works for a hundred thousand dollars to develop a project delivery manual and some standardized contract templates.

So these are specialized templates focused primarily on construction, um, which is what distinguishes this request from the legal department's resource proposal.

Uh this would help staff move projects more efficiently from planning to construction, reduce some administrative bottlenecks, and improve consistency across capital projects.

This um is largely a one-time cost, but there could be some future costs for periodic updates and revisions.

Is the asset manager position filled?

So this is kind of what maybe that role would be doing if there was a human in it.

No, this would be a a contract manager role.

The um both the public works department and the electric department uh have contract managers.

Um this would kind of live within our procurement cell and as Brooks said, mainly construction type uh contracts.

But as you're aware, you know, you've got time and material type contracts, you have design build contracts, you have firm fixed price contracts, um, and this is to kind of prevent reinventing the wheel every time we're trying to put one of those construction contracts together because we use a lot of consultant support to do that uh if we don't have the capacity in-house.

So being able to put a um a project manual together and a and a template that everybody can use and keep it regularly updated will help uh streamline some of those um bigger construction contracts.

It seems like this proposal as well as the previous one, uh a long time coming for efficiencies.

I'm glad to see them in here.

Okay, next is a requ request from the clerks for ten thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight dollars for software that can be used to electronically manage and track records requests.

This request is focusing on creating efficiencies and record request tracking and delivery as the current process is very manual and time consuming.

The annual cost for the software is about ten thousand dollars.

I guess a question for Sarah is it safe to assume you're spending more than 10,000 a year doing this now.

I mean, I think what would you say?

It's about 100K or something like that.

You were saying you told us before, I forget what it was.

That you've spent staff time doing the record requests.

I don't know if we've determined 15 to 30 a month.

So we do about 15 to 30 a month.

And each one of those takes three or four hours at least.

I'll let Holly speak to that actually.

She's the well, I I'm I'm I'm very supportive of this.

And it's I don't want to get too off on a tangent.

Maybe I do.

Uh, but it's it strikes me that yeah again in the helpful actually for Holly to explain what is actually happening.

Yeah, so this this um um software is called next request, and at the clerks conference talk to some clerks in Fairbanks and Scagway who have it.

If you check out their online site, you'll see exactly how it works.

So someone could do a records request from their phone from their computer, put it in electronically, and when they're doing it, it'll actually flag like little red flags for them.

If they're saying something about a birth certificate, it'll all pop up and they'll say, you know, you need to check the vital statistics since this isn't something we deal with.

So it'll actually catch a lot.

We do get records requests that we we don't have those records for, so it gives the the user heads up before they go through the process.

It provides um opportunity for redaction within the the platform, which would save legal a lot of time, and they could redact like a 500 page document in one click if they're searching for one term.

Um it creates an audit trail for every single one.

Right now, our audit trail is literally sticky notes and a spreadsheet.

Um so it'll if there's any kind of a question about who said what when it'll be all right there.

Um I yeah, I heard about it, and I was like, this is it's a pretty cool um platform.

Yeah, yeah, any time that we can get acknowledge that record requests aren't free.

And they're they they cost the city a lot of money.

So I very much support this.

Um yeah, this sounds really uh cool.

I'm wondering um if there will there still be a way for people to submit paper.

Okay.

Yeah, for sure.

There'll still be a way for people to submit it on paper, and we would do that, and then I would just enter it into the next request place, and they can they can still continue to pick it up on paper if they prefer that or by email.

So all those options are still be available.

Okay, great.

Thanks.

Just yeah, for folks that are internet is it's always changing.

Thanks.

Is there a way to turn off the online submitting option and only have it be paper?

I think the answer was no, but I think that's valuable because when you sometimes when you increase the opportunity for people, they may increase their um number of requests by making it simple and and so straightforward.

And then that still adds to the time that you guys have to spend on things.

One one of the um nice things I think this program has that Holly was mentioning to me is that right now we get a lot of records requests that are any and all records, and it's more of a research project for us rather than a records request.

And so we can set up the software to if if people type in certain words like any and all, it'll do a kickback to them, and they need to be more descriptive.

So I like that feature.

Yeah, so there's drop-down menus and it has to be specific things and all of that.

It's not just a free response form like what you guys have.

So it is okay.

That gets to the point.

Thank you.

Yeah, I I think to for people listening, I think it's because um the clerk's department gets uh very high volume of records requests monthly, and it costs a lot of time.

So I understand what you're saying, JJ.

Um, a lot of time, and it costs the city a lot of money.

Um, so thank you.

Okay, the last request in this category is from Parks and Rec.

They are requesting funding of $70,200 to increase the FTE of their head lifeguard position from halftime to full time.

The amount of the request reflects the most expensive scenario, the one where the employee opts in for full family health insurance.

Um the change to a full-time position would also come with additional office responsibilities that would assist parks and rec in more areas than just pool coverage.

The change would help improve service delivery to the public and help balance current staff workload.

This request would result in a permanent increase in annual personnel costs.

And it's important to note that this proposal was reviewed by the administrator and is not recommended at this time based on current priorities and funding assumptions.

It's still being included tonight to allow the assembly um to ask questions and provide any direction if desired.

So John, you probably know this is coming.

So why um why was it declined?

Because of the 70,000 annually thing.

Um personnel costs are um they're very expensive, and as was outlined in the uh in the beginning of the presentation, it's uh it's an ongoing cost um with um the the routine increases every year, whether it's step increases, cost of living adjustments, uh the increase in insurance.

So um I put it as a low priority and not recommended now because I'd still like to see if we can do that with um with temp support as necessary.

Um I know we lost the AmeriCorps program, which is part of the reason for this, um, but uh still wanted to see if we could solve the issue with some uh with some temp support seasonally.

Okay, thank you.

I um the reason I'm thinking is a lot of times these ones that are it I don't think it would kill us to have it um included for now.

I know everybody knows I support uh recreation, so I was hoping other people would say something.

Um but I don't think it would kill us to include it in and we always take it out.

Uh can we ask Kevin to come up and describe why he asked that like the logistics of it?

Kevin, can you just kind of explain why you did the uh rationale?

Thank you, Amy, too.

Hi, Kevin Knox, Parks and Recreation Manager.

Um, as John kind of pointed out, uh this is uh a bit of uh our attempt to kind of fill uh some of that void that we experienced with the loss of the AmericORP program.

While the AmeriCorps program is still around, there's so much uncertainty around it, it's very hard to recruit into it.

Um so having this uh this increase, this half time increase to to kind of fill some of that helps address our staff shortage.

The the fact that we went down a third uh on our staffing.

Um it also is an attempt to help with the recruitment of that halftime uh head lifeguard position.

We've had a hard time uh recruiting into that just because it's only a half time.

We did have somebody in there for about six months, uh, but it just didn't fit for his schedule.

Um and uh, you know, and he still works with us as a uh temporary uh part-time uh person, and he's uh kind of fills that the the certified pool operator position that we need to help back up Rachel.

Um but there's no guarantee that he's gonna stick around.

Temporary staff uh have a little less certainty with them.

Um so you know, this is an attempt to kind of address some of those imbalances right now.

Sorry.

If it if it's not filled, what are the what's going to happen um, you know, long term?

What do you think could happen?

Uh long term, the the biggest piece is just the increased uh stress and um you know the the need for us to cover a lot more uh the those of us that are are full-time, in particular Rachel.

She does a lot more than um than a lot of people realize.

She's the head lifeguard and she's the aquatic supervisor.

Okay, so what I was getting at is is would that could that possibly lead to closures of the the pool?

Would it um you know that kind of thing?

With longer um times of if she's away or if that position is away, yes.

Um it also impacts our ability to open um the the rec side too because we have to rely a lot more on our temporary staff.

Okay.

Yeah, I was gonna add because when um you know, when we were faced with the you know, the you know, abrupt ending of the AmeriCorp program last year and then not having a volunteer placed with us this year.

That's you know, that's when Kevin and I started having these conversations about how to kind of fill this gap.

Um and to you know, to me right now the the pool side has been taken care of because to some extent because our um employee who was previously filling the head lifeguard position is still on staff, and so we still have you know someone with a lot of experience who's there and on staff and as on a temporary basis, but again, not sure how long we'll be able to to sustain that.

And so the the lack of sort of certainty of having that that head lifeguard position filled um is concerning is concerning for me, but then just trying to look creatively at like how do how do we sort of lock in these resources to help our aquatic supervisors so that we you know it's like a known resource that that um that Rachel can can count on while also addressing the the programming side of the house and knowing that you know between Kevin and Ellie and you know trying to manage a pretty sizable staff of of temp employees who um are fantastic, but also have you know, because they are temporary can also choose to you know not come, you know.

Oh, I'm taking a I'm taking a week off because you know I that's what I would like to do next week.

Um and they don't have a commitment to to be on a solid set schedule all the time.

So um there's I I I've seen this staff do a lot um to fill those gaps and to do it creatively.

Um but I've also seen my staff um really dip into their own kind of personal time to fill in those gaps and to make a last minute birthday party happen for a family who's kind of frantically trying to put an option together or make sure that open gyms are still covered and making sure that city league sports can still happen and working you know pretty late hours um to make those things happen.

And so um that's the the piece of of stability that we were hoping to bring with the the increase of um resource in this particular position.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, thank you guys for all the work that you do.

Um I know that your staff really really goes the extra mile, and uh that we appreciate it and the community really appreciates it.

And I I appreciated hearing from the community about that.

So you've got some kudos there.

Um you know, hearing your explanation, it sounds like there is a broader like solution.

So my question might be a little um off base because of that, but you know, given the uncertainties with the AmeriCorps program, I'm wondering if you've looked at other programs like the Alaska Fellows program as another way to provide some of that, you know, longer term temporary support.

I know it doesn't solve all of the the comprehensive solution you were talking about, but has that been looked at?

Yeah, we've we've had conversations with them.

The their time commitments don't match what the AmeriCorps program was, and one of the the big pieces of that position is planning for our summer camp, um, not only planning for it, but then staff, you know, being the head staff uh lead for the summer camp and the fellows don't that doesn't lap with that very well.

Um we've also looked at JV, JV uh hasn't you know aligned uh quite the same as the Amercor or uh you know a full staff position would either how many full-time permanent positions are in the parks and rec department?

Currently there are three and a half, but filled three and uh point five that's not filled right now.

Okay, thank you.

I recall a restructuring of fees last year, the year before.

Um has that accrued additional income, maybe to the total of 70,000?

It's hard to say yet, uh, just because we haven't you know gone through a full fiscal year.

Uh it has increased some areas.

Um and the uh the probably the biggest area is the aquatics program.

Um that brings in quite a bit of revenue every week, um, you know, compared to our our open gyms and other things like that.

But um the as far as the fields and other rental fees and stuff like that.

It's it's probably up from the past, but we don't have a full year to really say.

Yeah, because all of this budgeting is income versus expense, and we're talking about expense.

But if there's income to cover it, then be much um simpler conversation.

So thank you for that.

I totally support totally support the pool, and this is one reason why I'm on the assembly is trying to get the city to hire a refrigeration skilled person because I was there when that system was put in, and I know that we're just waiting for something to happen with that R22.

And if we had a guy working at the city right now, this would be one of the costs that I could graft that we're saving by having our own skill set working in city for 20 years for their career, and I'm feeling that fall through the cracks.

So I'm all for throwing money at the pool.

I'm just not for throwing money away by the city not knowing what's going on there mechanically.

You sure know what's going on with the importance of it with the city and barracudas and winter time.

So I support you guys, but my hackles are up seeing how this next thing's coming up.

And uh thank you for being here.

I don't have any more questions.

So if no one else has anything, I um I like everyone's comments.

Obviously, like I said, I support rec.

I think everyone supports rec, I should say.

I'm I'm the liaison, so it's in my mind more often.

Um I totally get why John uh didn't recommend this.

I totally get it.

Um every time we had a uh an FTE, it adds that um it adds a permanent full-time you know increase is 70,000.

It's a lot of money, and we have grown substantially.

And so I've kind of struggled with this one.

Um because the financial side of it, I I'm very nervous about adding that on there.

Um however, I have noticed that um you know, when we the city was hurting financially, we had to discontinue the parks and rec um activities, but it's grown substantially.

Uh, I think it's one of those things that the community really really values.

So that's why I was asking the questions if you know, if they don't have this, it sounds like the possibility is at some point um because of burnout or what have you, there could be times when the the um pool is closed.

So my recommendation recommendations that we just keep it in here for now.

We can always take it out.

Um that's just my thoughts.

Yeah, I think.

Well, actually, I kind of come back from the other direction because I think uh what JJ's comment uh and question was about the revenue.

I think since we don't know the revenue yet as to what that was, I'd rather just leave it kind of on the side as part of something we can consider bringing into the budget a little bit later, um dependent upon because it's very possible this could come in as a low as a lower number, right?

So um depending upon what um how parks and recs once they that pencil gets a little sharper on the on the income.

So I would prefer to leave it.

I would I don't prefer to forget it, but I also don't want to have to then take it back out again.

Um, because I don't want to raise the hopes of someone that this is gonna work and then dash their hopes at the end.

I'd rather go the other direction and make sure we don't forget about it, but then let's see if they can bring in a sharper number on that one that we can look toward at the end of this process.

So I think that's where I'm at on it.

Not that I don't support this concept, but let's see what their revenue looks like first.

Yeah, and just to clarify, I don't think anyone doesn't support this at all.

I think everyone's very supportive.

Um just a tough, tough thing.

But I understand.

So Tim, you just echoed what I was thinking pretty nicely.

Uh that's put this off to the side for now.

Get to see some of the revenue coming in.

Um, I could see scenarios where we do a budget adjustment later in the year.

Um, especially if the demand is up and the revenues up, then saying, okay, you know.

Uh but uh again, we're we're never gonna be perfect in our knowledge, but it'd like a little bit more here.

Yeah, that exactly what I was getting at.

Are we comfortable with that?

Yes, of course.

So just so I can take my notes.

Uh I'm I'm gonna write down that we'll revisit as kind of the general consensus.

I know we're not doing formal votes or anything like that, but we'll we'll have that as a revisit.

Okay.

With some more updated numbers, perhaps.

Okay, that brings us to our next grouping.

So the last one was all general fund, so it was um only organized, that table is only organized by priority.

This is organized by um fund and and then by priority.

So it looks a little funky what order I put it in, but there is a there's a rhyme to reason there.

Um these are non-consumables with an acquisition cost of five thousand dollars or more, and the total FY2027 financial impact of these requests is about 534,500 with about um 227,500 coming from the general fund.

And I say about because I wrote a note on the one on the heavy equipment lift from Central Garage, but that does involve an allocation that what you see there is an estimate of that would not that will not it's probably about right, but that might not be the final number once I um do the full valuation.

So up first is a request from building maintenance for $19,500 from the general fund to purchase a scissor lift.

This purchase would improve efficiency, safety, and access for routine work such as lighting, painting, and window and roof maintenance.

The lift would reduce reliance on rentals, which would become increasingly difficult to schedule and can delay maintenance work.

This would result in some minimal preventative maintenance costs, including a battery replacement every five years, but full-on replacement shouldn't be needed for 20 years.

Sounds really cool.

So excited for Sika's first piece of battery-powered heavy machinery.

Let's put it on the map.

Can I borrow it from time to time?

Yeah, that can be a part of the uh program that clerks are doing for you know employee satisfaction is you get to write the civic scissor lift if you're in employees of the month that year that month.

Okay.

Next, we have a request from Parks and Rec for $85,000 from the general fund for a ceiling-mounted stationary mat mover for lifting rest wrestling mats at Blachley Middle School.

This would allow floor space to be freed up for programming.

Some of this may be able to be recouped through a storage fee charged to other organizations that have mats that need to be stored.

Like any piece of equipment, this would result in some minimal maintenance costs and eventual replacement.

The service life is estimated at 20 years for this one as well.

Um, this proposal was reviewed by the administrator and is not recommended at this time based on current priorities and funding assumptions.

If I if I can jump in, I I did review this one, and again, it's not that uh it's it's not a great idea.

It does open up floor space, it does provide some opportunity for um Step Brother, there's so much more room for activities after you.

Um but uh yes, it it does, and it it gives a little bit of a um uh eliminates a little bit of a safety concern too, right?

You you're gonna have people climbing around on the mats and jumping off of them.

Um, but again, it this really came down to um the priority as in we're not having a lot of um issues now.

I know it can be improved, and I think this is one of those things we can address through maybe a mid-year supplemental or an adjustment at a different time, but uh again, it wasn't a uh because I don't think it should happen, just uh trying to balance the priorities.

I think it can be tackled at a different time.

But open to other options if we think otherwise.

Okay, next up is a request from Solid Waste for $200,000 from the Solid Waste Fund for a tire shredder.

Um, this will allow staff to shred tires so they can be shipped out with a regular waste stream.

Um, then there is currently a stockpile of tires that this would be that this would be used to take care of.

Um this is a large piece of equipment that would come with maintenance costs as well as eventual replacement.

We're estimating about a 15-year service life for equipment this size.

We would also set up a sinking fund.

So sinking fund payments would be in the ballpark of about $13,000 to $15,000 a year.

Question kind of an overall uh what makes a fixed asset?

Because I recall from last month's capital planning meeting, I believe this one was listed as a capital on that spreadsheet.

So when and where not like a clean line, but okay, so fixed asset is any non-consumable that's over five thousand dollars per unit.

There's some exceptions there, there's some things that are grouped, but I don't think anybody cares about that level of specifics with capital projects.

Fixed assets can be capital projects if they're constructed.

So some of what we do involves taking the pieces and putting them together to build something that would make a fixed asset a capital project.

So equipment that is expensive and may need to be assembled, is that kind of threshold?

Okay.

So is this tire shredder also a capital project?

Okay, so a little a little cleanup on that sheet.

Perfect.

Nope, I hear shaking of the head works for me.

Thank you.

If it's okay, uh I'm gonna put Mark on the spot if he can come up here.

Because I I I'd like him to just kind of explain the situation where we are with the tires right now and why we've called this a high priority in some of the things we've tried in the past uh to tackle that and then with this piece of equipment, what we could get accomplished in kind of the general timeline.

Good evening, Mark CV public works director.

Uh so since I originally came on as the asset manager and we started looking at this the scrapyard and the solid waste and our solid waste, we really only have three full-time employees, and all three of them are at the scrapyard.

And I believe it was the FYI.

It was 25 or 26 budget.

We ended up coming back asking for additional funding because we got them fully staffed and they were able to process the backlog of scrap metal cars, buses, and equipment that was in that concrete cylinder.

What they have been not been able to catch up on since I've been here is the tires.

Um usually when we scrap a vehicle, we're taking those four wheels and tires off the vehicle and putting them away, but we also accept tires out of the scrapyard.

Right now, the current practice would be to put a shear attachment on a piece of equipment, and you basically have to pick up the tire and cut it into quarters one tire at a time, uh, and with a backlog of like 8,000 tires that are stuffed behind a wall out there.

It's just not very efficient.

Um, and that that's that's a mountain that they're not being able to get over.

In order for us to put these into the municipal solid waste stream, they can't just go in as a whole tire.

Uh they should be at least quartered and shredding them with a machine is going to be much more efficient.

Uh the original ask was for around 235,000.

John asked us to push this down to at least 200,000.

So this machine could essentially have a conveyor, it's on a trailer driven by an engine, and you just load the tires onto the conveyor, they go up, they go through the shredder, you collect them in a receptacle, and then that's gonna get brought down to the transfer station and compacted and goes out with the solid waste.

So it I was just gonna comment on how fun that was.

One of my favorite field trips um in elementary school was going to the going to the dump at that time and watching uh a truck get crushed.

So I think this would be an excellent that it was Earth Day.

It was great.

Picked up some garbage and then watched them recycle.

Um so this could also be part of the employee employee um appreciation program.

I think crushing a car would probably be more fun than shredding a tire.

Is anybody buy the shredded tires?

Uh we've looked into some programs.

Nothing that's going to make it worthwhile for us to try and recycle it.

Um they have been used once they're shredded.

Uh in some places they use them as part of an asphalt mix, and other places they actually burn them to fire kilns for concrete manufacturing, but I don't anything local we haven't found a something that would be worthwhile other than shipping them out.

And also shredding them allows us to compact them further because a large tire actually takes up a lot of space and is not easy to compact.

The other nice thing about this one is that because it is a trailer and they're working in a limited amount of space out there, we can pull it in, pull it close to a pile of trailer or pile of tires, process them, and then try and move it out of the way when we're not shredding tires.

You know, back in the day where people is that figured out with the when they stockpiling, you know, that they can't get rid of them, and then the cost down the way, and then the next guy that shows up on free dump day, you know, like if should be you know, like if you just wait till free dump day and maybe we better figure out a charge on free dump day to pay for your tire.

Yeah.

And we we do have other tire rates, and I think all of those rates probably need to be revisited at some point for our scrap processing.

Yeah, I I I this makes sense to me.

Although I have to say that I used to have a great dane that probably could make a dent in those the way she shredded stuff.

But um anyway, uh the uh it makes sense to get that and get that cleaned up.

I've seen that pile of tires out there.

And as John had stated, we we did put into the auction, I think it it actually came up for approval from the assembly because of its original purchase price and old tub mill grinder.

Um we had actually tried to repurpose that grinder to shred tires.

We tried to use it to shred glass, and it it was designed for chipping wood, so it it was ineffective in doing either of those.

When the city first started shredding glass, there was a run on gardeners because they thought they could lace the shredded grass around their lettuce beds and keep the slugs from advancing.

Did it work?

No.

Oh, you stick with beer and a thing that you dig down.

That's idea.

I'd love to keep exploring options as they come up.

I know that recycling markets change uh year by year, and so if we can keep looking for ways to uh potentially sell those shredded tires or reduce the cost for shipping those off island uh or you know, use them here for something like if uh if an asphalt mix becomes feasible, um, that'd be great.

When Cascade was built, I was involved with that, and the carpet that's still there now was supposedly built from shredded tires when Marcel built it.

Any other questions for Mark?

Thank you.

Okay, next is a request from the Harbor Department for $30,000 from the Harbor Fund for a side-by-side UTV with a dump bed and a plow.

Um this would be used by office staff for transportation and also to perform snow removal on facilities that are too small for truck access.

And this would also help with staff's ability to respond to emergencies.

Uh would likely be 15 years.

Would this get a sinking fund with it?

Probably not.

It's it's too small in the amount of time it lasts, it wouldn't be worth the tracking.

It says 10 years in here.

Did you guys find one with a longer service lay?

I did some work today with staff to reevaluate some of those because I wanted to make sure that those were updated.

So awesome.

Thanks.

Okay, the last fixed asset request is from Central Garage for $200,000 for a heavy equipment lift.

Um, even though this is technically a replacement, the primary reason for the timing of this need is that we can't perform proper maintenance and repairs on the one we have because the parts are no longer being made for the model that we have.

It is um at the end of its service life anyway, but um we probably would have still been able to use it for a little bit longer if we could still get those parts.

Um this would also upgrade our lift to be able to handle heavier equipment.

Um the funding for this one would come from an allocation between the funds that have vehicles, and that estimate based on last year's activity is 123,000 from the general fund, 40,000 from the electric fund, $7,000 from the water fund, and then $10,000 each from um water and wastewater.

There would be routine maintenance costs and eventual replacement.

Um this has an estimated service life of 25 years.

Uh sinking fund payments would be a little under $10,000 a year.

Let's take a break right here if we can.

Take five or ten minutes.

You seated when you're ready.

All right.

Let's see if we're ready to go.

Everybody ready?

Back to Brooke.

Thank you.

So the next grouping is for vehicles.

Both of these are for additions to the fleet.

Um, the FY 2027 financial impact of these requests is 426,000 with 220,000 coming from the general fund.

First up is a request from the police department for 220,000 from the general fund for two hybrid interceptors outfitted for patrol.

Um, this would increase the police department fleet to 12 vehicles, which would help with asset management and ensure that our officers have vehicles that are safe and modern.

Um police department vehicles have shorter service lives than uh most of the others because of heavy use.

So these would have an estimated six-year life with sinking fund payments around $40,000, so $20,000 a year per vehicle.

We are still doing some um work on evaluating what the correct useful life of these things are, and um it for that piece it does help to have enough vehicles that you can rotate them out.

What would happen to these vehicles after six years?

Is that they would be sold.

And would that proceeds go in to the sinking fund for the vehicle or back to the general fund or it's an interesting question?

So I've been playing around with this a little bit because uh the sinking fund uh needs some work, it's just it's very complicated.

It's uh there's a lot going on in that spreadsheet, but um how we how I have done it over the last year is that when an asset sells in there and there's a sinking fund for the replacement, that's where we're putting the um the proceeds of the sale, net proceeds.

I might misheard so vehicle cell, it's already been replaced, right?

Um, and then what we do is that the net proceeds of the sale of that vehicle goes into the sinking fund for the new vehicle.

So it would essentially reduce the size of the sinking fund payments that would be needed.

Um I can jump in.

Um Brie and uh the public works department, Central Garage, Finance are all working on really revamping our vehicle policies, I'll call it.

Um because yes, one answer is they can be sold.

We've dug through some documents in the past and we found a pseudo policy from I don't know, eight, nine, ten years ago that said police vehicles were gonna last three years, and then we were gonna roll them over to another department, and that's a possibility as well.

You know, depending on what the vehicle is.

Um I don't know what term to use other than demilitarized, demiled the de police a vehicle.

I don't know what the I don't know what the term is, but um you can demill this vehicle and and um you know it can be used as a uh a transport vehicle or an administrative transport vehicle or maybe for use in the harbors.

Uh again, we still have to figure out what the sinking fund looks like, what departments taking um taking ownership of it and how the funding would transfer, but um yes, it can be sold, but it can also be sold to another another department.

It's not like it's always going to go uh just to the general public.

Yeah, as I recall um we heard about it all the time when Dindley was uh in the sitting over here.

Uh he had an old cop police car because he insisted on having a vehicle as part of his compensation as part of his package, and so he would complain about the 15-year-old top car that he was driving.

That's why we called him major dude Dinley.

Yeah.

The tangents in this meeting are wild.

I assume that I'll really pick up on them at some point, but I'm not quite there.

Um I just wanted to thank you guys for the work that you have done on the the vehicle plans uh and especially the transition to the vehicles that you know use our power and and pay into our electric fund.

Um I was wondering if any math had been done.

You know, I know I know Brie did a lot of math for the cost benefit analysis.

Have do we have some returns on uh savings from you know gas that isn't purchased or or reduced amounts of gas that's purchased?

Uh I'd love to see how that factors in with um the prices and and comparisons.

Yeah, I I don't have the numbers right off the top of my head, obviously, and and we can share that information and analysis was done, I think, with the first two vehicles, right?

It was it was after the fact, but we we looked at them and uh I've spoken to a few of you about this.

This one is is uh it's very hard for me to take the leap when we're talking public safety strictly to electric vehicles right now because there's so many unknowns.

I mean, we've already heard about the vehicle transport issue.

Um, you know, if if police are taking the vehicles home at night, how do we charge them?

Um how do we have the vehicle ready?

I don't know if heat stays on to have you know, or we have to have to clean snow off of it, what kind of infrastructure do we need to have at the police station?

I think those are um realistic to check in other departments, but this one makes me really nervous with the public safety aspect of it too.

And another piece of this is uh one of the options available was the Ford Lightning, right?

And um, and that seems to be kind of it's discontinued.

So there's still that nervousness, and I'm I'm thinking that the the hybrid at least is that fill the gap and and keep the the public safety aspect going while we still investigate how to make that that full leap.

And absolutely, I mean like the reason why that schedule was put together with the the schedule, right?

Of electric and then hybrid, I think was very uh reasonable, and for public safety, that's absolutely um you know a good idea.

I um Anchorage like replaced their police vehicles with hybrids, I think, a while back, but they still saved like a ton of money um on gas, and so I was just wondering if for for hybrids as well, there was like uh a cost benefit analysis of what that looks like.

Um I'll have to double check and I can provide that.

Yeah, I I agree with uh Katie.

Uh I'm glad you um I understand the safety concerns and completely 100% agree.

I'm glad we're doing uh hybrids, it's a good thing.

Yeah, and John, to your point, um that's why last year in the budget cycle, the uh full electric um didn't move forward and why we did supplemental recently was was two hybrids.

Um I think this is the the next iteration of that kind of six-year replacement plan for what what we see here.

So our by you know letting this go through tonight, is the assembly like buying into that idea of that two-year replacement plan, or is that something that um will be getting addressed every year going forward?

Chief, you want to come up here and help me?

Uh and I'll talk while he's coming up.

I I think it was two vehicles a year for the next three years to recapitalize the um police fleet, but yes, that sounds correct off the top of my head.

So the idea being eventually we get to a fleet of 12 patrol vehicles.

That's f we actually have 13 positions at the rank of sergeant and below.

We're not close to filling those, and the vehicles we're talking about now would not be here for almost 18 months.

So we don't know for sure what our force is gonna look like at that time.

So we're trying to shoot at a moving target, if you will, but that is the general idea that we're working towards is 12 patrol vehicles, six-year lifespan replacing two a year so that it becomes more predictable for the assembly so that we're not doing this every year.

So while I'd be up here to continue on on talking about the electric, so I understand the resistance to going full electric, but lightning's a pretty good example, it's now going hybrid.

And it strikes me that that might be a real would that allay some of your concerns for that because you would never actually I mean you you still see some real savings, but if you're if you can't plug it in, then you're at least able to have the hybrid aspect of it.

So I think your question is are we okay with hybrids versus full gas?

100%.

Okay.

And we have penciled out some math to the best of my memory because hybrids are about four thousand dollars more expensive than ice vehicles internal combustion engines.

And based on rough calculations, it's about break even at six years, which is still a win because that's that much less gas that we're purchasing and hydrocarbons we're putting into the air.

So even if it's a net zero dollar gain, it's still good for the entire premise of what the electric policy uh electric vehicle policy is for.

Yeah, I think it's a good compromise.

I didn't quite understand it, but now I do.

Um, you know, going all electric on these for public safety reasons.

We got a um, I think the hybrid's a good way to go part way.

Um, and for all the reasons you guys listed, John.

I think it's a good call.

Thank you.

And we're on notice that there's gonna be another set next year.

Okay, the second is a request.

Um the second vehicle is a request from the electric department for 206,000 from the electric fund for backhoe loader.

This request is um for a permanent asset that would eliminate the use of an existing rollover.

Um this will be used for trenching, poll setting, and site preparation for electrical service work.

Um this asset would have an estimated service life of 20 years, along with uh regular maintenance costs, annual sinking fund payments would be in the ballpark of 10,000 a year.

Okay, the final grouping is for capital projects under 500,000.

Uh the crap the requests being presented are either for something brand new, um upgrades to our existing infrastructure or um something that's not part of the capital improvement program, likely because they're related to something new.

Um so the table uh does reflect total project appropriations.

So um for the uh first pool request, there was 210,000 already funded in FY 2026.

Um so the 2027 funding request totals um a million and seventy thousand dollars with just over 70 percent of that coming from the general fund.

Can you say that again?

Yeah, so if you see that column, um it looks a little bit different because of the way we talk about projects that lists total appropriation and then FY27 impact to the general fund.

So on that first one for the pool design and engineering, that total appropriation of 460,000, that's not what's being requested.

That's what the additional 250,000 brings that project to why is that coming out of building maintenance and not parks and rack.

Like why did the request come from them?

Sure, or the fund or the subsection of the general fund.

So for building maintenance is an internal service fund, just like central garages and IT, so they don't have their own money.

Anything that they have is a result of services they provided to other funds, um, and that's how they afford to uh purchase things.

So it wouldn't, you wouldn't really see building maintenance purchasing an asset.

Okay, just you know, looking in that column, um refurbishing a bathrooms.

So the second line there is just who asked for it.

That's correct.

Okay.

And for capital projects, uh well, really for fixed assets too.

The transfer that would come out of the general fund isn't specific to the department.

It's a generalized general fund transfer out to either fixed assets or the place that the capital project lives in.

So whether you know, if if something that building maintenance needs is funded by the general fund, it would come from the same place that the streets request or the parks and rack would crap request would come from.

Until we start dipping into that hospital fund.

And that's that's kind of where I like to kind of cluster things and understand um what we're looking at, and it just helps me kind of know what um grouping it goes with.

If it's you know the library section of the general fund or the Parkinson Rec section of the general fund, but thank you.

So this first one is a request from building maintenance to add 250,000 in funding from the general fund to an existing capital project for the pool.

This proposal would fund continued work to address deferred maintenance of the pool's mechanical systems, including engineering support and prioritized equipment replacements.

The goal is to reduce failure risk, move away from reactive maintenance, and develop a long-term plan to stabilize pool operations.

Um this proposal expands on um the FY26 request to address failing pool mechanical systems based on further review, staff determined that professional engineering design are needed to develop a coordinated plan before moving forward forward with individual replacements.

This is a saltwater pool, is that correct?

No, it's the chlorine.

Okay, chlorine pool.

Does it need to be 250 right now?

Can we put away a 100,000 until we get to that level if it's kind of in addition to what's already ongoing?

So I I can't speak to how far the 100,000 would go versus the 250.

I'll let um Connor cover that, but I can say that um because the operations of the pool are a newer thing for the city, there hasn't been enough time to fully implement the pool's needs into the capital improvement program, which is why you're seeing them here, even though it's not actually anything brand new.

I'm comfortable moving forward with this.

I think there's a lot of unknowns.

Let's put some money there, see how it goes.

Uh, in the sense of, I mean, clearly we're gonna need a lot of um support.

I think the key statement here was primarily reactive maintenance.

I mean, that's the last thing we want to do is keep trying to fix things when they break, especially as this is an asset that the community highly values.

So I think if that's the number that will get us uh the engineering and the services that we need, then I'm all for that.

I think I'm sure it'll be back before us a little bit later as soon as you guys come up with a you know a full project there.

So it's kind of too vague for me.

It mentions a chlorine, but it's just says mechanical being too vague, and I'm just wondering if it's like a chemical engineer is telling you about the design, or if a mechanical engineer is telling you about the design and if the dehumidifier is doing okay, or if it's just the chlorination that's giving you a hard time.

Thank you.

Uh Connor Delmet maintenance superintendent.

Um I can expound on that a little bit.

Yeah, I can expound on that a little bit.

So as was mentioned last year, uh 210,000 was appropriated towards going to replacing specific mechanical elements of the pool system.

Um the chlorinator was one of those items.

We're actually working on moving forward to replace the chlorinator because it's in a lot of ways it's kind of it's a standalone system that we do feel confident moving forward with.

Um but as we start to get into the other elements that are in dire need of replacement, um we started to come up against this sense that that we were if we moved forward, it would feel like we were kind of piecemealing this project and kind of moving forward in to unknown territory.

We have not built pools or maintained pools before.

Um so this resource proposal would go towards uh getting the the specialist input on that.

So um we would engage with an aquatic pool engineer uh to help us re-engineer and redesign the pool as needed to meet uh meet specifications and standards.

Um one example, uh our pool pump, which is um past its service life is just a industrial industrial pump, it's not specified for pool use, and we're certain and we're currently uh circulating water at approximately 250 gallons per minute or something like that.

Uh standard is like 560 or above.

And so rather than moving forward and replacing with an in-kind industrial pump that continues circulating water at below desired frequencies, or uh or I mean below desired rate, or putting in an increased pump and potentially jeopardizing the entire system because we don't know why it was engineered that way originally.

There may be a good reason for it.

Um we figured we should get some professional insight onto why to do that.

It opens another question, but I gotta go back to my original question.

So when you say mechanical, there's no issues with the dehumidifier at this time.

The dehumidifier is not being addressed as part of the scope of the in the deferred maintenance that's coming down the pike that may or may not, depending upon the guys that are gonna come and teach you the system, and then they're gonna tell you what comes next.

The dehumidifier is not part of the scope of what we're requesting in the resource proposal.

Uh okay.

Well, I'll I'll be back at you.

Thank you, Brad.

I have a question.

Um, just on that note about uh the salt water has that been explored as an option, uh salt water system instead of a chlorinated system or it is a salt system.

Oh, it is, yeah.

Okay.

So is the chlorine system?

It's like a supplemented chlorine system, it's not entirely okay.

It's like I like salt systems.

I learned something.

It's just like the freshwater ice from the plants has a salt drip to it.

Yeah.

Well, yeah, it it it essentially takes salt and converts it into chlorine.

So it's a saline system.

Um and the current unit that we're operating with right now is long past its useful life, um, and is a bit undersized for the size of the pool that we operate for the gallons and and turnover.

Um, and the new one that would replace that would it like Connor said, it's a plug and play, so it it's a standalone it it you know, just you just plug plug into the pipes essentially, and it it does its thing, but yeah.

So you're saying the circ pump or the chlorine pump that adds to the circ pump flow is reduced in GPM by half, and that's what you're dealing with now.

Well, that's that's the other piece that we're circulation pump for the pool.

Yeah, okay.

So the main circ pump, and so like you guys run amp draws on it, or you just have a meter at the end and the watchstander has said the flow now when it's in your ballpark is 250, but it's rated for 500.

We know what the flow rate is, and we know that we are far below what the standard is for a pool of our size.

So there's nothing that measures amp draw or heat on that drive motor.

I don't believe so.

Thank you.

I'm in support of this.

Thank you.

Question for you guys before you leave.

Has any of last year's 210,000 been spent on the immediate needs?

Uh no.

Uh about 125,000 of that was earmarked, so uh the majority of it.

Um we are hopeful that we'll be able to replace the uh chlorinator soon.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

So uh guys, I just want to let you know I have to go run some people home on a boat.

Um, but I read through everything here, and I don't disagree with any of John's recommendations.

But I'm afraid that part of it unlimited is sometimes you can't go to your own schedule.

So I've got to run.

I'll see you guys next time.

Any other questions for Connor?

More Kevin?

Thank you.

Okay.

Next up is a request from building maintenance for 40,000 from the general fund for a door security upgrade for City Hall.

Um, this would help improve building security, reduce key management issues, and support more consistent access control for staff working in City Hall.

Um it doesn't necessarily add any additional maintenance needs, so this is largely a one-time cost.

Is this getting added to an existing project?

I believe there was a window or exterior or other things project.

No, just needed a nod from Mark.

But do you want to come talk about all of the things going on at City Hall and why 40,000 for doors is a good idea?

Good evening, Mark CB Polk Works Director again.

Uh so we did have another window project that was related to the HVAC looking into historic preservation.

We're we're not confident that doing a change to the exterior appearance with a louvered window is gonna be the easiest path to get us there.

So we're exploring other options for the HVAC management for air.

Um this request came.

Uh City Hall essentially opens in the morning and then it closes in the evening.

There's public access throughout the day.

Uh there were problems with the mechanical door hardware itself as far as people being able to unlock and lock the doors when they come to work and when they leave, or someone leaving and have the hardware not activate and lock the door behind them.

Uh I believe the original ask, we were looking at a key card access style system with the use profile of this building.

I don't think that necessarily makes sense because you essentially open it and then you close it.

So this was just going into replacing the hardware for all the doors so that they're more functional.

Um yeah, and just to add on to that, um, I had a conversation with Brooke earlier today talking kind of about timelines and um I mean mechanically the doors could limp along for years to come.

Um, but there's a major question about security at the at the building.

It's been about 30 years since it's been recorded.

There's a lot of unaccounted for keys out in the community, probably most of which that left with former employees.

We're not like worried about impending break-ins, but it's never a good thing to have your city hall uh unsecured.

So any other questions?

Thanks.

Okay, moving on to a request from streets for $20,000 from the general fund to upgrade the Keat Gushaheen elementary school zone warning system by replacing obsolete lighting control hardware that is no longer supported.

Um the upgrade would improve reliability and safety while reducing maintenance work rounds and the risk of system failure.

The existing system still works.

Um this replacement would just help improve the function for staff.

And um, the upgrade is not expected to increase um standard maintenance costs.

If anything, it should bring those down.

Guess how is this not a fixed asset?

It is, but it's it's one that's constructed, I believe.

So there's moving pieces to it that means that the work and the money that's spent will eventually produce that end product, but it it might not be purchased all in one piece.

Thank you.

Project-based learning is my favorite kind of learning.

Okay, um, next is a request from Parks and Rack for $60,000 from the general fund to fund updates to the ADA bathroom and changing room at the pool to address some deteriorating fixtures and safety concerns.

Without the upgrades, these could restrict use of the facility and impact programs.

So I kind of covered this a little bit before, but these pool items that are listed are coming forward because the operation of the pool is a relatively new thing for the city and it hasn't been fully integrated into our capital program.

So this doesn't reflect the full extent of what's needed at the pool, but it does help us get by while full plan is developed.

It's my turn for an anecdote.

She worked with kids with disabilities at the pool, and they were heavy users of the ADA facilities.

I know that it can be a really beneficial life-changing program.

So I'm happy to see this investment in improving that.

Okay, moving on to a request from Parks and Rec for 200,000 for construction of a single stall family restroom at the Crescent Harbor Playground.

Of this amount, 150,000 would come from the general fund, and $50,000 would be funded with CPV funds.

This request responds to increased use community requests and practical challenges families face accessing distant restroom facilities.

This would provide a benefit to both residents and visitors.

So it is important to note that in addition to routine maintenance, this would result in the need for additional janitorial services and supplies.

We've certainly talked about approaching some of the cruise lines about some of these things in advance to see what the appetite is.

We do also get audited our our CPV funds are part of our annual audit every year.

It's state funding.

So we do have auditors looking at that as well.

And I think it would be difficult to pass a red face test on 100% CPV funds on this bathroom, especially because it is primarily attached to a playground.

Would state auditors flag that assuming that you could go to the um the cruise ship industry and have a discussion about you know why this is a good investment.

Um if they are you know making an investment that is half belonging to the community, like I think that case could be made.

Um I'm wondering what the impacts would be, or like what kind of uh legal landmines that might open to you up from the state audit side.

It wouldn't be the state that's likely to auditor to audit us, it's our own auditors.

So there's two components of our audit.

There are the there's the financial statement component, and then there is the uh the one that we're subject to because of the grant funding that we receive, and this is considered one of those programs that's audited.

That that could be a finding on our audit and reflected in our financial statements.

What what about um I totally get it?

What about increasing it to like changing it to 50 or maybe increasing it to like 40 percent out of the CPV?

Is that I mean, I'm not gonna argue over this, it's just an idea.

I think it's just a risk tolerance in what the use case data looks like and what our comfort level is.

Um, I think there's the ability if we find out that the use is um heavily favored towards visitors throughout a certain part of the season, then maybe the we could be reimbursed through CPV.

Um but it it really comes down to uh what the what the numbers say now and what we can as as Brooke said, what we can pass the red face test with.

Oh, I like that.

That's a good idea.

Just do it as is, and then we can always investigate based on usage or what have you.

And that custodial idea as well could come from CPV over those somewhere on the case.

I I just do think that you know there is that gap for restrooms.

Um, and even if it's not used now by tourists, like I feel like if you put a restroom there, it it would be right.

Um we just know that we need more of those.

And um, yeah, I I just am continually wanting wanting to look for more opportunities for that proactive negotiation to be able to see um where we can you know work with the the cruise companies to find those investments that both benefit the community and the passengers.

So um look forward to learning more about the dynamics there with the audits and like what the potential consequences of of messing that up could be.

Obviously, we don't want to like lose millions of dollars of grant funding because of you know a hundred thousand dollars that we put into a bathroom, but um do want to uh continue to explore those options and happy to to look for that reimbursement um funding later on five hundred and seventy-five feet walk away.

Uh the Crescent Harbor restrooms that were replaced in October.

Uh what was the breakout there between general fund and CPV?

You do you recall?

I don't recall the exact amount.

It was it was pretty uh maybe 25%, maybe.

I think that one based on this mobile analytic data that's mentioned here in eight.

I I think we should mirror those two 75 general fund, 25 CPV.

It seems to be substantiated substantiated by the the data presented.

So if that's some sort of is that is that because it says mobile analytic data from Crescent Harbor Park.

Um so if that's like a hot spot or any particular aspect of can you share a bit more, Amy, on how that's been gathered.

Yeah, happy to share because I I pulled the numbers for those for that piece.

Um the playground is considered uh things like playgrounds are considered sensitive areas, and so our mobile analytic data will not provide um use data for specifically a playground, um, but it will for all of like the green strip as a whole.

Um it's a it's a safety measure to so that people can't track like use patterns and when you know peak periods of use are at things like schools and playgrounds and that sort of thing.

So but we can look at the green, we can look at the green strip, so that's Crescent Harbor Park as a whole, um, and those are the results.

One of the things that we are that we're still digging into with our mobile analytic pro uh data provider is to get more granularity about the visitor type because um you know we really you know we're I'm wanting to push them to add some additional filters to give us visitor numbers for visitors who are in sitca for you know fewer than 18 hours or you know, fewer than 24 or fewer than 18 hours right now.

Visitor is is someone who's you know home location is not based in sitca um and are here for at least less than 30 days.

Um and so we don't have a lot more granularity when it comes to the numbers that are reported as visitor.

Um but we're we're working to get a higher level of detail there.

Great, thank you.

Appreciate that.

If I can ask one more question, um from the REPL discussion, the numbers that I remember were like 500,000 565,000 visitors was part of the justification for why we asked for an increase.

Um if that is true, wouldn't like 90% of that be cruise tourists or something?

I mean, well, we have so oh you know, overall, you know, because we yeah, we just pulled those numbers recently.

Um generally speaking, we're looking at about 665,000 visitors to sit a year, 600,000 of those being cruise passengers, 65,000 being independent.

Those are our those are kind of our best estimates right now.

Um you I mean you could essentially you could try to apply that as a general rule, but again, it's it becomes a little bit of a matter of risk tolerance, right?

Because folks who use the green, you know, the green strip in this area have been the seawalk, very good like you know, likelihood that there's a a greater percentage of of those that are um you know that are cruise passengers just given the proximity, but if you know, for those who are gonna stay and use a playground for an extended period of time, maybe that is an independent traveler who's coming to town and you know, bringing their, you know, they're if they're in town for a week, they might visit the playground a couple of times, right?

So um it's it's without the higher level of detail that we're trying that we're trying to move in the direction of um and yeah, a lot of the mobile analytic data stuff is is meant for you know communities that have you know more like traditional patterns of visitation where peaks people either kind of drive in, drive out or that sort of thing, like they're they're learning a lot about like what the needs are in kind of like cruise ports for this type of data.

Um so right now we have to kind of make kind of make a best assumption and it really does come down to a matter of risk tolerance.

What I'm hearing you say is Skagway built their playground because the demographics show there's minimal kids in Skagway, but when Disney pulls in, there's nothing to do for Love Boat kids to do, so they've got to build a playground.

That's possible.

I'm I'm uh not as up on the decisions that Skagway has made about it that they're using.

I know that there's some contention around that.

They built two.

I'm about I was super interested.

So they built they have they have two playgrounds, and one of them they're only getting sued over one of them because one of them is used by the cruise ship kids and the other one was not, and I think maybe they paid for both of them with CPV funds or something.

And so, you know, I think that's when I think about risk tolerance and use, it's like there is an opportunity.

Like obviously like bare knock playground, I think is closed, you know, during the summer or whatnot, so it's like they're not gonna go there, but if you've got a playground um that is a long because wasn't the seawalk also paid for in large part by CPV funds?

In part, yeah.

Right.

So do we have like a 50% or how much was that?

I don't I'm not aware of the top.

Um, but yeah, it's like you have you know tourism infrastructure that leads down to tourism assets that passes along a place where tourist kids could go.

Um I just I just think that there is uh room for a little bit more risk tolerance there.

Um because it's not it's not as like cundry, like I think the other Skagway one is just really it's really shut off from the tourism passengers, right?

So it's like it was a bit more of a clear case over which one they chose to pursue.

Um but would love to look at those examples and you know, just continue assessing our risk tolerance um as an assembly on that, because I I would like to be, and I know that you know, hopefully with the a tourism manager, we can be a little bit more proactive in crafting those relationships and figuring out where that line is.

But um, I do think there's a little bit more flexibility there.

Thank you.

Any other questions for Amy?

Amy, um, I believe you were the one that came forward to tell us about the land water conservation fund grant program.

Um when that happened, however long ago.

Um can you tell me a little bit more about why it has a spending cap of 250 and how it came to be that this bathroom couldn't be a part of that?

Yeah.

So the the grant program was you know um that was what they were offering was the 125 with a you know it was a 50-50 match, so a total of 250,000 dollars.

If we added more money to that project, then the provisions of the build America build build I would say Baba, but I forget what the acronym is it's um build America by America, I believe, um acts, those provisions kick in once you spend over 250,000 dollars and federal funds are uh involved, which um uh makes sourcing material for for construction projects incredibly challenging.

So the granting agency asked us not to add any additional funds to the project that would push it over that limit, and then if we were to do any other work to separate that out into its own project, and by the time we were looking at the you know, the scope of work for the project, particularly things like the you know, resurfacing um the courts, you know, asphalt work is extremely expensive, and so with a hard kind of cap of 250,000 dollars as you know as a product of the the BABA provisions of the grant of the federal funding, um fitting the bathroom into that into that project was not feasible.

Thank you.

That helps me so that's uh adjacent but not incorporated into um yeah.

Thank you that helps me so that's uh adjacent but not incorporated into um yeah and we and we will do our you know if this if you know if if this RP is um favorable with the assembly um we'll do definitely do you know our due diligence to dovetail these projects together so that if you know if there's any um you know efficiencies to be gained in terms of like when we're mobilizing on site if there's preparation work that we can be doing um that's you know prep work for um the foundation for the the bathroom facility or putting in utility lines when we also already have um you know other like grading equipment or that sort of thing mobilized on the site for the courts you know we've we've kind of talked about you know between us and public works wanting to make sure that we're um we're taking advantage of those efficiencies as much as possible you're getting very good at reading my mind because that was going to be my next question on on why um this is one lump sum and not something we're saving up for over several years so thank you I'll just say I I'm a hundred percent in favor I'm sorry did I cut you off okay I thought you were done um I you know big picture I just want to thank everyone uh John and um the entire staff for all the hard work you've done in this budget process uh so far I think it's amazing and very professional and uh I'm very grateful for you guys doing this um in such a very readable and understandable way and with a lot of thought and care into making uh these estimates and requests as they are um I just wanted to say on this one um I do I've always kind of leaned kind of with what uh Katie's saying I I know we need to be careful with CPV and I don't want to change this percentage right now um but I've always worried that we're a little too worried you know what I mean and we're we're being very very conservative which is good and it's probably saved us but sometimes I wonder if say that situation that you have said where um we're getting more linear granular data on things that would help us I I think that would actually help us a lot to be able to zone in and say okay maybe we you know this year we do or we pay for it like this I'm not saying we have to just and then maybe go back and get a reimbursement and I know you guys have we have a very good relationship with the cruise lines and the cruise agencies I just I wonder if um now is the time just in general to maybe uh as we get more data more clear data kind of um I'm not saying push anything just explore the appetite of the agencies to you know use a little bit more from time to time on things like in this example I think we could probably have done a uh a 40 percent out of CPV but we don't have no we don't know we have no idea it's not even built yet but um yeah I just wanted to kind of share that thought and I was gonna put out as a you know as a as an offer um that um I'm sure we'll probably revisit you know revisit this project when we talk about um um special revenue um funds um because we'll be looking you know kind of recompiling these lists of projects that are coming out of funds like CPV between now and then um we can kind of keep pressing on our um mobile analytic provider to see if we can get a little bit more granular slice of data and to bring back um you know by the time we're circling back to the special revenue fund conversation um to revisit this split for this particular project and see what we can do to firm up some numbers to see if we can increase that allocation from CPB yes we've been doing that for two summers now is that correct yes okay yeah thank you I just want to add something to the CPV conversation just because it's come up in this item I I want to try to change the perspective that we need to ask permission to spend CPV money it is it's the municipality's money it's just that it's bound by law and it's and it's listed in our code too.

So when we take our approach on appropriate uses of it it's us following what the code says and using what data we have available to pass the red face test.

So we don't and this is more for the community here we we don't go to to CLIA or the lines and say can we spend this money on these things it's more of a this is our plan and this is the data we have to back it up and this is how we're going to use this funding more of a a notification but again it's a it's a risk tolerance and and I think if the assembly wants to consider taking a a bigger risk position I would just go back to that code and and if everybody feels good about the way we're applying the code with the use of those funds then I think it's appropriate.

Is there a surplus of unused funds every year there is and that's that's what we that's the report we provide every September and coming up in March we will um I think it's by the second meeting in March we have to come to the assembly with what the unspent funds are uh looking like for this next year and then the assembly will make the decision if they want to put it out for the public to provide input on what they think the the fund should be used for.

Uh and coming up in March, we will I think it's by the second meeting in March, we have to come to the assembly with what the unspent funds are uh looking like for this next year, and then the assembly will make the decision if they want to put it out for the public to provide input on what they think the the fund should be used for.

So John, quick question on that.

So we uh that you you mentioned that.

So like I'm just trying to think how my ass is so we're we don't ask for permission, but isn't there is there a way we could kind of you know talk to the reps and float ideas, like say we were thinking about doing this kind of thing.

Is there a way we could do that?

Because it seems dangerous to just um just put the data, say we're doing it and then wait for them to sue us.

It'd be nice to know if you know we could get a little bit of uh yeah, or some kind an idea what they're uh thinking.

We do it every year.

Um when I go to the Northwest Cruise symposium here in a couple weeks.

Um that's one of the discussions we have.

Um, you know, we talk about general governmental expenses and what we cover with CPV funds and why uh and if there are new ideas.

We haven't really had a lot of new ideas.

I mean, for the past two years, the assembly has said, you know, save it for a rainy day.

Yeah.

Um, and there is a surplus of funds right now because of that.

Um, if they're let's just say in this next year, if um if the assembly says we want to go to um public proposals for this that you all can consider, or if you have your own thoughts on projects that you want to complete with that, then that's gonna be my next step is go and talk to the industry and say this is what we're thinking.

Uh this is our our our background and our analysis on why we think this is appropriate.

Uh do you have any objection to it?

Okay.

I like that.

I don't um yeah, I think we it's been wise.

Thank you.

That's very good information.

Uh good to know.

Um I think it's been wise to be saving it for rainy day this past couple years.

It just would be nice to maybe have a little extra cash for some of these uh not these, not anything in here tonight, but just in general projects.

If we could uh get a little more money out of that to help with things, it'd be nice.

And that's why data collection was such an important part of the new visit SIDCA contract.

It was a large portion of it.

And that's a good point.

And on the special projects piece, this body last go around put a hundred thousand dollars aside for the reroofing of the picnic shelters.

Uh and what was the other phrase I used?

Uh community plaza in front of the um restrooms, if anyone remembers that that what we passed.

Um did did that happen to those shelters get paid for by CPV fund.

Uh I don't know that offhand.

I'd have to look.

Thank you.

So that process has happened.

It just, you know, we don't do it frequently enough to probably remember it offhand.

Yeah, that's a good point about the data.

Like that.

So just one more question.

Um where I see the negotiation point, not not asking, but like those proposals, right?

Is for example, HUNA had a $14 million lift station that was paid for, I believe, completely by CPV funds.

Now that lift station is obviously serving the community of like 600 to a thousand people that is then got you know massive uh increases per day, but there is that initial um community component.

And I think you know, uh they didn't do the math.

They they went up and said, like, hey, the our community uses this list station, we need to upgrade it because of the influx of visitors.

Can we pay for it fully with that?

Would you be all right with that?

And the cruise ship companies were all right with that.

I understand we're in a bit of a different position just given that we have you know a larger year-round community and um many more industries, uh, but that's where I see that opportunity, I think, to go and say, like, you know, this is this is the math of what we've done, however, would you be open to fully funding that?

And I'm wondering like what the what the worst case scenario of the repercussions of a decision like that is if they like go badly.

I I think what might be helpful to point out in this conversation is that the you know what could be seen as a misuse of CPV funds has two distinct risks, one of which is legal, one of which is audit, and we're kind of intermixing those two.

We're just kind of broadly talking about risk, but there are two different distinct types of risk here, right?

So negotiating with the cruise lines um and having their, you know, you know, having buy off for you know cases where we're maybe pushing the envelope a little bit helps to mitigate the legal risk, but that doesn't then that doesn't necessarily mitigate the audit risk that comes with it, right?

So that's it's important to to think about those two things differently because how you mitigate those risks is different.

Yeah, and I'm wondering like the audit risk if you could like explain to us exactly like what it means to get a finding on an audit.

Um yeah, like what it what is the worst case of getting a finding on the audit?

No more federal grants at all.

Are you given it a chance to like cure it or fix it?

Maybe over time, it depends on how egregious the finding is.

But you're seen as a risk if you have findings in recent history, even if they're not um super in intense findings, and intense is not the right word, significant findings.

You still are seen as a risk by anybody who would want to give you funding, including banks, um, granting agencies, everybody, because what they're saying is that there's a potential here for mismanagement of funds.

And is there a ranking of the significant or insignificant for audit findings, or are they all this use the same as it's not that cut and dry?

It depends on the materiality of the finding and and what category it's in.

Um, but there's not really a cut and dry answer there.

I can tell you that the type of audits that you're subject to play a huge role in how much of a risk it is.

There are thresholds for um single audits that you are subject to if you expend a certain level of of state and federal funds in a single year that other communities may not or other places may not be subject to.

Um we are, and they're very intense audits and and findings, significant findings on those audit uh audits have huge ramifications for us.

Yeah, so thank you so much.

All right, I'm gonna bring it back to this bathroom.

Okay, where are we at on this thing?

Yes.

Question I am Amy.

Is there a even though it's not part of the project happing next to it?

Is there some sort of like a master plan in the area that we could see or the community could see about what this idea is and why we're putting um 200,000 into a restroom that's 600 feet away from a restroom we just added a couple months ago.

Yeah, and I don't, you know, I'm not aware, you know, we don't have a master plan for you know for a park.

That's something that we're working on.

You'll probably have some.

Stay tuned.

Yeah, stay tuned at a uh near future assembly meeting for conversations about that.

Um, but I would I would note that it was identified as a high priority location in the short-term tourism plan for an additional restroom facility.

Um the there is certainly the you know, visitor visitor use that is that is a potential, and I I also recognize your point that there's a of restroom close by the feedback that I've received from the community, and I've even experienced myself, you know, taking my nieces and nephews when they're young to the park.

It is shocking how far 600 feet is when you're holding an infant and you have a four-year-old who's trying to run off by themselves, and you're trying to get them both to the bathroom.

So there I think there's you know, through you know, that was both included in the short-term tourism plan as well as the community feedback surveys that we've that we've done over the last couple of years.

This location has been a really high priority from the community in expressing needs for additional restrooms, and there is the benefit that it would also provide another location for for visitors as well, even again with the um Crescent Harbor restroom being right there.

I mean, it's science center regularly reports to us how how often they are getting hit up to use those bathrooms as well.

So there's there just seems to be a really high need and demand for restrooms in this area.

Thank you.

And the restroom there at the science center isn't public restroom, but the same distance just up the hill a bit uh at the Sean Jackson Museum, there is a public restroom for the community in the meantime that's open during museum hours.

Which is never when I'm there with a kid.

Um yeah, okay.

I think you know, I'd like to see what I've heard here today is move forward with it as is, and then we'll reevaluate after we see what the data shows us.

The only piece I would add to add to that is um in this design, if it's at all possible to make it so it's can be expanded in the future, because I think you've nailed it.

There's a huge demand for a bathroom in that area.

Um, and it may be need to make it bigger.

So as you guys are designing that, if that's possible, I'd love to see that as part of it.

Anything else?

We learned a lot about CPV there.

I really appreciate okay.

Okay, um, next is a request from building maintenance maintenance for 250,000 from the general fund for professional services to evaluate the electrical infrastructure and facility layout at the public services complex to support future electrification, including electric boilers and EV charging capacity.

The work would inform long-term capital planning and identify upgrades needed to reduce reliance on oil-fired systems and support evolving operational needs.

So this proposal primarily represents the planning stage of what could become a larger capital project.

Any funds remaining after planning would go towards implementation, um, prioritizing the electrical distribution and boiler system upgrades.

This is great and support.

Is there an answer to the like why now question here?

Why not in three years?

Why not?

Um I guess I guess the answer of Connor Don Lap made a superintendent.

Um I guess the answer to that would be it has been a need for many years, it just hasn't really come forward.

Um the facility has been uh at electrical capacity for a long time, and it's also long overdue for a boiler upgrade.

We went to electric boilers at all the school facilities and several city uh buildings.

The public service complex is just behind in times.

Um in addition to that, with the number of uh departments and divisions operating out of the facility, it's there's just uh there's a need for some some reworking of of how we operate there that we'd like to pursue.

Since I've got you up here, um I was under the impression when when we were looking at the municipal greenhouse gas inventory um when I was on the sustainability commission that there was actually very few buildings that had um that weren't electric heat, and I I remember it was like the animal shelter was one of the only remaining ones.

So I was actually surprised to learn that uh PSD has an oil-fired boiler.

Are there any other facilities that are still on oil heating?

Uh, for primary heat is just the public service complex and the animal shelter.

That's like the last one and the animal shelter.

Okay.

Thanks.

Any other questions for them?

Thank you.

Okay, we've made it to the final staff request.

Um, this is a request from Solid Waste for 250,000 from the Solid Waste Fund for upgrades to the recycling center, including fencing, lighting, cameras, and replacement of the existing oil storage tank.

The improvements are intended as uh to enhance safety, um, operational efficiency and environmental compliance while extending the useful life of the facility.

Um, this request would uh include routine maintenance as well as eventual replacement.

Did this come out of findings from sustainability?

I believe they were looking at that area.

This request did not come from sustainability.

This request came out of uh essentially looking at the facility, it's not necessarily been completely neglected, but if you visit this time of year, it's got two essentially street lights covering the entire facility, it gets poorer lighting coverage.

Uh it was the incinerator area at one point.

Um I'm still working on finding the complete data on the tank that is out there right now, but I've been told it's from the mid-1900s, um, which to me is a red flag, and that it came from the SJ campus.

Um a 60-plus year old tank that's holding 25,000 gallons of waste oil from around our community before it can be shipped out.

Um, being that old is a concern of mine.

Uh additionally, the fencing allows for um, especially this time of year when the doors on our recycling containers get frozen in place.

Um birds pick things out, some get blown out, and with the lack of fencing, it blows into the trees and down the hill.

And we've had some different staff cleanup days to try and clean up that stuff.

Uh additionally, we we have had a theft there uh involving some of our city equipment.

We're always kind of at a premium for storage anywhere we can put things, and we put it behind a gate, but you can walk right around that gate.

There's no complete fencing, so we we can only keep the honest people out, but we would like to keep things as secure as we can and give the place a facelift.

I think that sustainability recommended there was like those EECBG funds, and they recommended purchase of a couple new containers.

Was uh display at all involved in that conversation.

Um have to remind me for uh like this is great if we upgrade the facility, we make it more accessible, light it better.

There is a certain amount of you know, like trash or whatever bad like improper recycling practices that happen there.

Um, and I'm wondering if there is a way to dovetail with the work of Bree or uh the commission to see um if there was going to be any upgrades of uh instructions for how to recycle properly because then you could be able to see those in the new lighting.

I think we can include some some better signage once we have it out there and there's some lights where you can see things right now, it is very limited and kind of taped to individual containers.

I think the only one that has a more permanent sign is over by the glass recycling area that um yes, we can get some better signs as well.

And that little hut is that gonna stay there with its pinata inside of it.

I think we're gonna need to evaluate both the need for that little hut, which I believe at one point was probably staffed.

I I've never seen anyone in there personally.

Uh additionally, though, we also have the the old mechanical building back there as well.

And there's three additional tanks that have just been sitting there next to that one that are again kind of out of sight out of mind.

With this funding, if if it goes through becoming available in July, um what do you think the project timeline on that would be within that fiscal year or my hope would be to my priority would be to start with the tank, and I think within at least the first fiscal year trying to get to the tank replaced and look at lighting next uh and then fencing around the facility is kind of the the third step, and then once the lighting goes in, better signage, maybe look at some efficiencies for the layout as well.

Thank you.

I have a statement on a question, but this is kind of for the community, is like my understanding of our recycling program is that it actually does save us money in terms of it's still a cost to ship things out, but it is a lesser cost than shipping out solid waste.

And so all of the recycling that folks do um does decrease the cost to citizens of shipping out solid waste.

So I would just one encourage folks to recycle, and two, I'm very happy to see that we're making upgrades to a facility that allows people to do that in an orderly manner.

And I'd love to see you know when this project is completed or while it's ongoing, um, some kinds of like public education efforts around that uh and the uh cost benefit of how much money that saves us.

Um there's been you know variety of uh kind of misconceptions I've heard about the recycling program over the years, like it's just being thrown away, um, and things like that, and you know, there is a certain amount of contamination that does get thrown away, but the more that we can reduce that contamination and increase the level of recycling, the more money that's gonna be able to save us, um, which obviously is going to benefit all of our solid waste costs.

So uh I like the project and um would love to see that kind of accompany some more public outreach and and education there.

Question for Brooke on this topic.

So this money would be coming from solid waste.

Uh we talked last month at our kind of capital planning meeting about you know increased rates, this or that.

Um, would this 250,000 change or impact or be contradictory to the guidance that the assembly gave last month?

It's too early to tell.

So um we if if with the assemblies um you know approval, we would include this in the preliminary version of the budget and then see where we end up.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

All right.

Okay, almost almost made it through.

So this last little piece is uh these are the listed contribution amounts that were included in the approved 20 2026 uh general fund budget.

So um, unless the assembly request changes, these amounts will be included in the FY2027 budget as well.

Do you want me to go through them?

I'd like to hear more about the SIC Historical Society contribution and what that is used for.

And then also the CETA one, I think is separate from the contract that they get.

Um but yeah, if you could talk a little bit more about those.

Um the CETA contribution is um, you know, we don't have like some cities do have their own economic development director.

Um that's something we don't we don't have in the city.

Uh and it's it's been around for I I couldn't cite the number of years, but uh we've had uh CETA working on our behalf on economic development for quite a number of years.

I mean, well before Gary White was there too.

Um, and they've fluctuated in funding over the years.

Uh it was reduced to I want to say around 60,000 uh a handful of years ago.

Uh it went up to 70 ish thousand, I believe, in um 2015.

Please don't quote me on any of these numbers.

Um, and it was just this this last year um that um realized that with inflationary increases.

Um if they had gone from their original amount whatever number of years ago and had their inflationary increases, the 120 is kind of where they would be today.

Um as far as the sitca historical society contribution, um, that's our that's our museum.

It's another one of those.

It's it's not run by the city.

Um, so it's an independent organization or nonprofit organization running the uh the city's museum.

Um, also a bit of an archivist for us.

Um, and with that, they also get a um exemption on their property taxes and on their utility payments, I believe.

Can I ask about CPV funds?

I assume that that uh facility is pretty heavily used by tourists given that they all congregate here.

Is any portion of that contribution come from CPV funds, or has that been explored?

That's a good question, and I don't remember.

I think I've asked that, and none comes from visitor enhancement or CPV.

It's my recollection.

If anyone else wants to chime in.

Or answer why next time.

Well, the way that the general fund works, like you wouldn't dollar for dollar in the general fund C if the uh historical society contribution comes from that because there are two components of what we pull from CPV.

There are the direct purchases and then there is an indirect allocation that's based on a study that was it, I think it was McKinley that did it, that took a look at our operations and how much cruise ship visitors impacted those, and they came up with an allocation percentage of this is the indirect rate that you get.

I don't know offhand whether they looked at the historical society, but there is more than just the the direct costs for specific projects coming to the general fund, and you wouldn't see that directly offset any specific contribution in the general fund because it's it's not the way the governmental funds work.

And I imagine this isn't broken out.

Um, like does this just look like nonprofit support in a single line item?

Yeah, okay.

So is last year CETA and SAFE increased to a substantial chunk.

It's good to me.

So our final notes.

Um if the assembly takes no action tonight at this meeting, um, the staff staff will include all administrator recommended resource proposals and the FY 2026 contribution amounts in the draft FY 2027 budget.

Um this it's not the only time, but it's one of the times that um assembly can bring forth new items or initiatives through legislative action, and um, you know, the reminder I'm gonna sound like brokered record, but um nothing discussed tonight limits the assembly's ability to modify the budget later on.

This is just the very beginning okay.

So go backwards one and it might be a Sarah question.

What is that?

No, I'm sorry, same screen, but uh forward new items through legislative action.

Can you refresh or memory what that means, please?

Rephrase your question.

So what do you what does it mean by bringing forward new items or initiatives through?

So after tonight, what is the process if the someone on the assembly wants to bring something forward?

I think there's a a couple avenues.

I mean it's it can be during one of our budget meetings.

That's why we have that.

I call it the catch-all item on there.

If there's anybody that wants to make a motion and it's seconded uh with any direction, or if it's a more formal, you know, co-sponsor and bring an ordinance together to start uh a fund or a program.

Um it can be done through that manner as well.

Thank you.

That's what I just want to refresh all of us for what that would look like after tonight.

Any questions for anyone here?

No, but again, thank you, guys.

This is amazing work, really excited.

So we've uh discussed all expenditures and went through um broke several kind of risk factors at the beginning or the fiscal pressures.

Um it one of those was like sales tax revenue is generally flattened.

Um but what about other other options?

Do we have any?

No, we're not into special revenue yet or any of these other ones, but are there things that can um that money that comes into the general fund?

Are there any opportunities for for increases there?

Sorry, I'm gonna say the same thing I said earlier.

It's just a little bit too soon.

So I don't think it's surprised to anybody.

This is my first budget as a finance director.

So and it's a very huge process with a lot of different steps, and I'm kind of biting away at the pieces of it as I can, but it'll it'll take me a little bit to get there.

Absolutely.

Appreciate that.

Every bite you take is appreciated.

Well, before we move off this item, I would echo Kevin's comments.

I think this has been a very um accessible process for everyone.

So I think it's been um nice to see everything.

I appreciate all the work from the staff to you know lay out exactly what they were asking for and why they were asking for it.

I think it makes it a lot easier for us when we're here to kind of understand what we're saying yes to or why we would have questions.

So I think this has been a great process so far.

So thank you.

Okay, anything else on item A.

Okay.

All righty.

So uh moving on to item B, and as John had indicated, this is our catch-all.

This is our chance for conversation.

I know usually this early in the budget process, we don't usually have a lot or anything in this one.

Um, but of course, this is our opportunity to talk about any particular item, give some guidance or some conversation.

Um, and I think we've learned a lot about CPV tide.

So but if you have any other questions or comments, this is your moment.

Item B.

Chair.

Um, so when the that special revenue uh fund discussion comes forward and we do learn more about CPV, um then just to summarize what I thought I heard from the last item, uh, really helping us to understand what in the last year we put two um we pulled from, maybe is better phrasing from CPV and like precisely the percentage uh from the Crescent Harbor restrooms that we built in October.

Um because I do remember it being smaller than the 25 what we're proposing for the um for the playground one.

Um I think that would help and also the phase one of the C Walk that stretch over there, um, and then remind me about phase phase one under the bridge.

Um I think that would show all of us here at this table um kind of the parameters we've set for ourselves.

Um and if we do now that we're getting more data, um look at those in different way for the ongoing projects or the recently completed projects that we can still tweak that percentage with.

I I'd really appreciate that.

So you're just asking for future information or information presented to us in the future on these numbers?

Yeah, when the special revenue funds conversation comes forward, yeah.

So yes.

Thanks.

So for that next bite.

All right, I think we'll be done with item B then.

Uh this is persons be heard for any item on or off the agenda, not to exceed three minutes.

Is there any public comment?

Seeing none.

Item nine, adjournment.

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

Thank you.

All in favor?

Signify with saying aye.

Opposed?

We are adjourned.