[00:00:02]
TURN IT OFF.[1. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/MOMENT OF SILENCE]
WE'LL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.PLEASE JOIN ME FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC WHO STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE LAW.
[2. ROLL CALL]
CLERK, CAN YOU DO THE ROLL CALL, PLEASE? MAYOR JALO.[3. CONSENT ITEMS - APPROVE]
ITEM THREE.CONSENT ITEMS. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COUNCIL STAFF OR THE PUBLIC TO PULL ANY ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
AND I DON'T BELIEVE ANY WILL BE PULLED BY THE, UH, THE COUNCIL.
SO CAN I HAVE A MOTION PLEASE? I MAKE A MOTION PLEASE.
TO, UM, APPROVE CONSENT ITEMS THREE A THROUGH F.
ANY OPPOSED? SEEING NONE WILL UNANIMOUS
UM, APPOINTMENTS, UH, ITEM DON.
[5. SUMMARY OF CURRENT EVENTS BY MAYOR/COUNCILORS/CITY MANAGER & COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS]
OF CURRENT EVENTS BY MYSELF, THE CITY MANAGER OR COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS? SEEING NONE.WELL, MAYOR BY MY, UH, YESTERDAY, YESTERDAY WAS A LOVELY CELEBRATION OF MEMORIAL DAY AT BARBARA'S PARK AT POSSE GROUNDS.
BEAUTIFUL DAY AND SAD, BUT MOVING AND STIRRING TRIBUTE TO THOSE WHO HAVE FALLEN IN SERVICE OF THEIR COUNTRY.
SO I WAS GLAD TO BE THERE WITH MY COLLEAGUES.
AND THEN WE HAVE A REPORT ON THE EXECUTIVE SESSION FROM, UH, KURT.
THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR AND COUNSELOR.
ON EIGHT OR MAY 13TH AFTER THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, OPEN SESSION, UH, CITY COUNCIL UNANIM UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED A 5%, UH, MERIT INCREASE IN THE CITY MANAGER NET S SALARY.
AND TODAY, AFTER THE EXECUTIVE SESSION IN OPEN SESSION, COUNSEL APPROVED A PROP 2 0 7, UH, WAIVER FOR 77 PAYING PLACE.
MADAM CLERK, DO WE HAVE ANY CARDS? NO, WE DO NOT.
UH, PROCLAMATION, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS.
[8.a. AB 3155 Public hearing/discussion/possible action regarding approval of the Tentative City Budget for Fiscal Year 2025-2026.]
ON TO REGULAR BUSINESS.ITEM A AB 31 55 PUBLIC HEARING.
POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING APPROVAL OF ATTENTIVE CITY BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 20 25, 26.
BARBARA? GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR.
MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, BARBARA WHITEHORN, UH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES FOR THE CITY.
SO OUR PRESENTATION WILL HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF RECAP FROM THE WORK SESSIONS, AND THEN WE WILL, WE'LL GO ON TO, UM, THE ISSUES AT HAND.
SO THIS IS THE OVERVIEW OF THE PRESENTATION.
YOU HAVE THIS, I WON'T READ IT ALL, BUT WE JUST HAVE THESE THINGS THAT WE'LL GO OVER.
REASON OR NOT, SORRY, IT'S FROZEN.
I THINK WE'RE, IT'S CLICK OUT RIGHT HERE.
[00:05:01]
BUDGET CALENDAR.SO WE'RE IN THE ADOPTION OF TENTATIVE BUDGET AND THE ADOPTION OF TENTATIVE CFD BUDGETS.
UM, YOU ALREADY COMPLETED THAT.
AND THEN ON JUNE 24TH IS THE ADOPTION OF THE FINAL BUDGET.
SO THE TENTATIVE BUDGET, AND I KNOW YOU ALL KNOW THIS, BUT JUST FOR PEOPLE WHO MIGHT BE WATCHING FROM HOME OR WATCH THIS LATER, THE TENTATIVE BUDGET SETS THE LIMIT FOR THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR.
AND AFTER THE TENTATIVE BUDGET IS ADOPTED, COUNCIL MAY OPT TO CHANGE THE BUDGET BY REDUCING IT IN SOME WAY.
YOU JUST CAN'T INCREASE IT AFTER THIS TENTATIVE ADOPTION.
IT ESSENTIALLY SETS THAT LIMIT, WHICH IS A HARD LIMIT AFTER, AFTER THIS ADOPTION.
SO, AS WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE WORK SESSIONS, WE WORKED REALLY HARD TO MAKE SURE THAT WE BUDGETED WITH A LOT OF PRUDENCE THIS COMING YEAR BECAUSE OF THE UNCERTAINTY IN THE MARKETS.
UM, WHAT'S INTERESTING IS THAT EVEN FROM THAT, THAT MEETING APRIL 30TH AND MAY 1ST TO NOW, THE CONSUMER CONFIDENCE, UM, EXPECTATIONS AND THEN A LOT OF ECONOMISTS VIEWS OF WHAT'S HAPPENING HAVE SORT OF BRIGHTENED.
I WOULDN'T SAY THEY'RE LIKE, YAY, ALL IS LIKE SUNSHINE AND ROSES.
BUT THERE ARE FEWER ECONOMISTS SAYING A RECESSION IS LIKELY.
UM, THERE ARE SOME SAYING WE'RE ALREADY IN ONE, BUT I, I WOULD ARGUE THAT'S NOT REALLY TRUE.
UM, BUT I'M NOT ECONOMIST SO NEED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.
BUT WE ARE SEEING, UM, SLOWING INFLATION.
IT IS STILL INCREASING, BUT IT IS SLOWING THE RATE OF INFLATION SINCE THE TARIFFS HAVE BEEN, UM, PUT OFF.
I GUESS THE EU IS UNTIL THE 9TH OF JULY AND THERE WERE 90 DAYS ON THE CHINA TARIFFS FROM MAY 12TH OR 16TH, I CAN'T REMEMBER.
THE CONSUMER CONFIDENCE HAS GONE UP CONSIDERABLY SINCE THEN.
IT WENT UP 17.4 POINTS IN THAT SMALL SPAN OF TIME BECAUSE PEOPLE WENT, OH, OKAY.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GONNA HAVE 145% TARIFFS SUDDENLY ON MOST OF OUR GOODS THAT COME FROM CHINA.
THERE'S ALSO A SIGNIFICANT DECREASE IN THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT BELIEVE THINGS ARE GONNA GET WORSE OVER THE NEXT SIX MONTHS.
AND THEY'RE SEEING MORE INVESTMENTS IN THOSE BIG TICKET ITEMS THAT SORT OF INDICATE A HIGH LEVEL OF CONSUMER CONFIDENCE LIKE VACATIONS, CARS, HOMES, RVS.
SO THOSE ARE REALLY IMPORTANT ECONOMIC INDICATORS FOR CONSUMER CONFIDENCE.
I STILL THINK WE'RE IN A VERY UNCERTAIN PLACE AND I THINK IT WOULD BE NOT PRUDENT OF US NOT TO KEEP IN MIND THAT JUST BECAUSE ECONOMISTS ARE SAYING THINGS ARE BETTER SINCE LAST MONTH, WE SHOULDN'T ASSUME THAT EVERYTHING'S GOING TO BE A HUNDRED PERCENT GRADE AND AND BUDGET REVENUES REALLY HIGH.
UM, AS RECOMMENDED BY YOU ALL, AND WE'LL GO INTO THAT.
WE, ALL OF THE REVENUES ARE FLAT OR ARE DECREASING FROM LAST YEAR'S BUDGET, UM, TO ENSURE THAT IF WE DO IN FACT HAVE A RECESSION, WE'VE SORT OF ANTICIPATED IT WITH THE BUDGET AND WE'RE, WE'RE IN REALLY GOOD SHAPE SHOULD THAT HAPPEN.
AND OF COURSE IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN, WE WOULD BRING CONTINUOUS UPDATES TO COUNCIL AND LET YOU KNOW IF THERE WAS A POINT AT WHICH WE FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO PIVOT AWAY FROM HIRING, WE NEED TO, YOU KNOW, CUT BACK ON CAPITAL PROJECTS OR WHATEVER SHOULD, SHOULD SOMETHING LIKE THAT OCCUR.
BUT I JUST THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT WE ARE SEEING A LITTLE BIT BETTER, UM, OUTLOOK ECONOMICALLY.
BUT YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T KNOW.
I MEAN WE SAW BOTH SALES AND BED TAX DROP LAST MONTH, WHICH WAS A LITTLE BIT PREDICTABLE, BUT IT WAS STILL ALSO THE SECOND HIGHEST IN OUR HISTORY FOR THAT MONTH.
UM, I ANTICIPATE APRIL WILL ALSO SEE A DECLINE BECAUSE CONSUMER CONFIDENCE IN APRIL WAS STILL REALLY ANEMIC.
UM, AS WE'RE SEEING THAT IMPROVE, I THINK WE WILL SEE OUR NUMBERS COME BACK UP.
UM, THERE'S STILL HIGHER THAN BUDGET, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, SOME SOMETHING REALLY GOOD.
THEY'RE JUST NOT AS HIGH AS MAYBE WE WOULD HAVE FORECAST.
ALL REVENUES, AS I STATED, ARE FLAT OR DECREASING THE COST OF THE SALARY STUDY, WHICH IS INCLUSIVE OF A COLA.
I KNOW THIS IS INCLUDING COLA AND MERIT, BUT THE SALARY STUDY ITSELF ASSUMES THE JULY, 2026 FOR ALL OF THESE JOBS SO THAT THERE WON'T BE A COLA THIS YEAR.
AND THEN AN ASSUMPTION FOR MERIT INCREASES AS WELL AS THE SALARY STUDY WAS INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET.
BENEFIT COSTS ARE IN THERE FOR AN INCREASE OF 4%.
AND THEN WHAT WE ARE SEEING INCREASED SIGNIFICANTLY ARE UTILITY COSTS.
[00:10:01]
AND ELECTRIC RATES BOTH INCREASED.UM, AND THEN WE HAVE REGULAR REPLACEMENTS OF TACTICAL EQUIPMENT AND POLICE VEHICLES.
AND ONE THING TO NOTE WITH THAT IS THAT WE'RE BUDGETING VEHICLES ON A CASH PURCHASE BASIS BECAUSE THE INTEREST RATES ON THE LEASES ARE MUCH HIGHER NOW THAN THEY USED TO BE.
AND I DON'T SEE A BENEFIT TO PAYING MORE THAN AN 8% INTEREST RATE WHEN WE CAN PAY CASH FOR THAT VEHICLE.
I THINK IT'S JUST A BETTER FINANCIAL DECISION FOR THE CITY.
UM, AND THIS IS A LITTLE DETAIL ON THE VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT.
I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE REPLACEMENT FUNDS BEFORE AND REALLY NOT FOR YOU ALL, BUT FOR ANYBODY ELSE, UM, THOSE ARE THE FUNDS WHERE ANNUALLY WE PUT MONEY ASIDE SO THAT WHEN WE HAVE TO REPLACE VEHICLES OR EQUIPMENT, RATHER THAN RELYING ON THE INCOMING REVENUES FROM THAT YEAR, WE TAKE MONEY OUT OF THAT RESERVE.
SO THAT RESERVE IS REPLENISHING ALL THE TIME AND WE TAKE MONEY OUT OF IT FOR VEHICLES, TACTICAL EQUIPMENT, ALL THOSE KINDS OF THINGS, WASTEWATER EQUIPMENT, ALL THAT STUFF.
AND PLEASE STOP ME IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS LIKE TRYING TO KEEP AN EYE ON IT, BUT PLEASE DARE.
SO HERE'S THE BUDGET BY FUND SUMMARY.
UH, THIS TELLS YOU WHAT THE GENERAL FUND, THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS, CAPITAL PROJECTS, ALL OF THOSE, UH, LOOK LIKE FROM BEGINNING FUND BALANCE TO ENDING FUND BALANCE.
WE ARE LOOKING AT DECREASES IN MOST OF THOSE AND THAT'S BECAUSE WE'RE KEEPING REVENUES FLAT.
BUT THOSE ARE STILL REALLY HEALTHY FUND BALANCES.
THEY'RE NOT IN ANY WAY ANYTHING TO BE LIKE WORRIED ABOUT.
WE'RE JUST DELIBERATELY KEEPING THOSE REVENUES FLAT IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ANTICIPATING THE POTENTIAL OF AN ECONOMIC DOWNTURN.
AND THEN WE HAVE THE BUDGET BY COMMUNITY PLAN GROW, GOAL GROW.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT WORD IS.
UM, SO EACH FUND THEN IS DIVIDED INTO THOSE COMMUNITY PLAN GOALS AND THEN THE TWO THAT WE ADDED SO THAT, YOU KNOW, POLICE AND FINANCE AND ALL THAT COULD HAVE SOME PLACE TO GO WHICH ARE LIVABILITY AND GOOD GOVERNANCE.
AND THIS IS JUST A CHART OF THOSE COMMUNITY PLAN GOALS.
UM, AS YOU CAN SEE, CIRCULATION RIGHT NOW IS THE BIGGEST AND THAT'S BECAUSE WE HAVE THOSE TWO VERY BIG PROJECTS, THE PARKING GARAGE AND FOREST ROAD AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT DRIVES CIRCULATION BEING UH, THE MAJOR PART OF UH, THE COMMUNITY PLAN GOAL DIVIDE DIVISION.
AND FROM THERE WE'LL JUST MOVE ON TO THE OPERATING BUDGET.
SO REVENUES, THIS IS A COMPARISON, UM, YEAR TO YEAR IN THE GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS, WHICH BASICALLY MEANS IT DOESN'T INCLUDE WASTEWATER OR UM, THE IT FUND, WHICH IS AN INTERNAL SERVICE.
SO THESE ARE JUST THE REVENUES IN LIKE THE GENERAL FUND AND SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS DIFF.
SO THEY ARE SLIGHTLY LOWER, 1.1% THAN FISCAL YEAR 25 BUDGET.
'CAUSE WE DID HAVE SOME THAT WE KNOW ARE DECREASING LIKE THE STATE SHARED REVENUES.
AND THEN WE HAD SOME OTHERS THAT WE BELIEVE ARE GONNA DECREASE SLIGHTLY.
SO THAT'S WHERE EACH OF THOSE ARE.
AND THEN WASTEWATER WERE ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME.
WE KEPT THOSE FLAT FOR THE YEAR.
SO IN DETAILS ON THESE, UM, WE ARE BUDGETING ALL OF THESE FLAT AGAIN AND IT'S AN OVERALL DECREASE OF 1.1% IN GOVERNMENTAL.
AND THEN AT THIS POINT WE ARE GONNA GO INTO THE SALARY STUDY AND I'M GONNA TURN IT OVER TO RUSS TO TALK ABOUT THAT 'CAUSE I KNOW YOU ALL HAD SOME QUESTIONS.
SO RUSS, IS IT? SO I JUST, I WANT TO GO BACK AT LEAST REALLY QUICKLY INTO THE ORIGINATION OF THIS.
I STARTED HERE IN DECEMBER OF 23.
YOU TALKED ABOUT THE RETENTION AND RECRUITMENT PROBLEMS. BRENDA CAME IN HERE QUICKLY TALKED ABOUT IT, AND THEN WE PREPARED TO PUT A SALARY SURVEY TOGETHER.
YOU BUDGETED FOR THAT THIS LAST YEAR.
AS A RESULT, WE WENT FORWARD AND GOT THE SALARY SURVEY COMPLETED.
THERE'S REALLY TWO PARTS TO WHAT THE SALARY SURVEY DOES FOR THE CITY.
YOU'RE SUCCESSFULLY GOING FORWARD WITH A NEW RANGE.
THAT NEW RANGE WILL HELP RECRUIT BECAUSE YOU'RE MOVING THE MINIMUMS OF THOSE JOBS AND THE RANGES TO WHERE THE MARKET IS.
THE SECOND PART OF THAT IS REALLY WHAT THE BUDGET IMPLICATIONS, UH, FOR TONIGHT ARE.
AND THAT'S EFFECTIVELY YOUR IMPLEMENTATION.
SO WHEN YOU MOVE THOSE RANGES UP, THEN THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ACTIVELY OR CURRENT EMPLOYEES IN THOSE RANGES NOW HAVE TO POTENTIALLY MOVE SOMEWHERE IN THAT RANGE EFFECTIVELY THE SAME WAY THAT RANGE GOT MOVED UP.
OTHERWISE YOU HAVE COMPRESSION WITH EXISTING EMPLOYEES COMPETING
[00:15:01]
WITH WAGES OF A NEW EMPLOYEE THAT MIGHT MOVE IN.THAT DOESN'T MAKE A WHOLE LOT OF DIFFERENCE IN AN AREA THAT HAS ONE EMPLOYEE IN IT, THE HR MANAGER FOR EXAMPLE.
BUT IT MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE IN THE POLICE FOR EXAMPLE.
SO A POLICE OFFICER THAT'S JUST MOVING IN, WE'RE LOOKING AT RECRUITING SEVERAL POLICE OFFICERS.
IF WE DON'T MOVE UP THAT AT THE SAME RATE OR PACE AS THE ACTUAL SURVEY, THEN AT THAT POINT EXISTING EMPLOYEES, EXISTING OFFICERS FOR EXAMPLE, ARE GONNA BE COMPRESSED OR CLOSER TO THOSE NEW EMPLOYEES THAT COME IN THE DOOR.
RIGHT? SO THIS IS THE SECOND PART, THE IMPLEMENTATION.
NOW ADJUSTING WHERE WE WERE UNDERSTANDING THE POLITICAL REALITIES.
KEEP IN MIND THAT THE STUDY SAYS THAT 4.3% IS THAT AVERAGE MOVE.
THERE IS A LIMITED NUMBER OF STAFF THAT ARE ACTUALLY GOING FORWARD WITH WHAT WOULD BE ABOVE A CAP.
THAT CAP THEN IS A DEFERRED COST FOR A FUTURE YEAR THAT WE CAN GIVE YOU NUMBERS ON IF YOU'RE INTERESTED AS WELL.
IF YOU MOVE THE CAP DOWN TO SAY 7%, MEANING NO MARKET ADJUSTMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE CURRENTLY EMPLOYEES HERE GO ABOVE 5%.
THAT WILL FURTHER EXACERBATE NEXT YEAR'S REQUIREMENTS.
SO TAKE A POSITION THAT'S 12% BEHIND MARKET.
IF WE DON'T MOVE AT LEAST SEVEN NEXT YEAR, WE'LL HAVE A SIMILAR PROBLEM THAT WILL COST US THAT AS WELL AS COLA INCREASES GOING FORWARD.
SO THAT COMPRESSION ISSUE, SOLVING IT ON THE FRONT END WILL ACTUALLY HELP YOU OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE TRYING REALLY HARD TO AT LEAST PUT THAT AT 7% TO BE ABLE TO GET A MAJORITY OF THOSE AND INCLUSIVE, AS YOU RECALL, FOR EXAMPLE, THE POLICE AT SEVEN TO 9% AT MARKET, TRYING TO INCLUDE A LARGE MAJORITY OF THOSE WHO NOT JUST POSITIONS BUT ACTUAL PEOPLE INCLUSIVE OF THIS YEAR TO SOLVE IF YOU WILL, OR AT LEAST RELIEVE THAT COMPRESSION ISSUE.
THAT'S AS BRIEF AS I CAN TRY TO MAKE SOMETHING FAIRLY COMPLICATED THAT WE DIDN'T GO INTO UH, TOO MUCH THE OTHER DAY.
BUT HOPEFULLY THAT HELPS YOU UNDERSTAND WHY THAT 7% IS THERE.
YOU BUDGETED, WE ANTICIPATED 10 TO 12% AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE BUDGET.
SO THAT WAS BUDGETED IN, BAKED IN IF YOU WILL.
THE 7%, THE 7% ACTUALLY AS IT COMES FORWARD IS ONLY ABOUT HALF THE COST IF YOU GO FORWARD.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM, FROM RUSS? VICE MAYOR? STILL TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE DID IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS WHEN WE DID THESE MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS AND OTHER THINGS, WHICH WE WERE TOLD WAS TO GET US CLOSER TO MARKET RATES.
BUT NOW WE'RE SAYING WE DID THAT WITHOUT A SURVEY OR WITHOUT A STUDY.
YEAH, THE WAY I WOULD ANSWER THAT IS GO BACK TO THE NUMBERS THAT 50% OF OUR POSITIONS ARE BEHIND MARKET.
IF WE WOULDN'T HAVE MADE THOSE ADJUSTMENTS, WE'D HAVE MORE THAN 50% OF OUR POSITIONS OUT OF MARKET.
SO WE DID SOME ATTEMPTS PLUS THOSE THAT ARE OUTTA MARKET WOULD BE MORE OUTTA MARKET THAN THEY WERE.
SO YOUR COLA IS JUST TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH MARKET AS BEST YOU CAN.
THEN YOU'RE ADJUSTING THESE INDIVIDUAL POSITIONS.
THAT'S WHY INDIVIDUALLY THEY'RE MARKETING, UH, THE MARKET GOES TO EACH INDIVIDUAL POSITION.
WITHOUT THAT MARKET STUDY, YOU DON'T KNOW WHICH POSITIONS ARE THAT FAR BEHIND AND YOU CONSISTENTLY FALL BEHIND IN RECRUITMENT IN THOSE SPECIFIC AREAS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT SENIOR PLANNER, YOU CAN SEE ON THAT.
WELL ON THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY YOU SAW SOME OF THOSE POSITIONS AT THE VERY TOP OF THAT PLANNING BEING SOME OF THOSE POSITIONS, RIGHT? IT EXPLAINS EVEN WHILE WE'RE DOING COLA INCREASES OF TWO POINT HALF PERCENT OR 5%, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH WHAT WE THINK THE MARKET IS.
THE SURVEY'S DONE TO, IF YOU WILL RECTIFY THAT AND TO IDENTIFY ANYTHING THAT WE MISSED SPECIFIC TO EACH JOB.
THAT'S WHY YOU NOW SEE 50% AS OPPOSED TO 60, 70% BEHIND MARKET OR COULD BE.
SO HERE ON THE SLIDE IT SAYS IT WOULD BE 900,000 WITH FULL IMPLEMENTATION AND 6 85 WITH A 7% MAX.
RIGHT? WELL SO GO BACK TO THE BUDGET.
WE PUT THE BUDGET IN BEFORE WE HAD THE STUDY RESULTS.
SO THEY WERE ASKING ME WHAT DO YOU BUDGET FOR? WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT? AND WITH ALL OF THE THINGS THAT WERE HAPPENING IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, IT ACTUALLY ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION, WHY DID WE NOT HAVE 10 OR 12%? IT'S PROBABLY BECAUSE YOU GO BACK AND YOU LOOK AT THE TWO AND A HALF AND FIVE PERCENTS THAT YOU DID OVER THE LAST COUPLE YEARS AND YOU AVOIDED
[00:20:01]
THAT 10 TO 12% IMPLICATION THAT COULD HAVE BEEN IN THE SURVEY HAD YOU NOT DONE THOSE ADJUSTMENTS BEFORE THEN.AND SO THAT WAS, SO WE WERE BAKING THAT IN AT 1.3 AND AS A RESULT WHEN THE STUDY GOT DONE, IT WAS ONLY 900,000.
BUT THE, BUT WE DID LAST YEAR AND THE YEAR BEFORE WAS INFLATION RELATED.
AND WHERE'S WERE THOSE ONE TIME OR WERE THEY BUILT INTO THE SALARY? WELL, YEAH, THE EXISTING STAFF THAT WAS HERE, I WASN'T HERE.
SO IT'S MINE WAS THE DAY I STARTED.
BUT FOR THOSE THAT WERE HERE, THEIR WAGES GOT TO MOVE UP WITH MARKET LIKELY, RIGHT? SO THEY WERE MOVING UP WITH MARKET AGAIN.
LET'S SAY THE RETENTION IS 75% OF THE STAFF THAT WAS HERE WHEN THOSE WERE DONE ARE STILL HERE.
IF THAT'S THE CASE, THOSE 75% ARE CLOSER TO MARKET BECAUSE OF THOSE MARKET CHANGES OR THE COLAS, THE INFLATION, WHICHEVER WAY YOU WANNA LOOK AT IT.
THOSE PERCENTAGES THAT YOU ADDED TO THEIR SALARIES TO STAY UP WITH WHERE THEY SHOULD HAVE STAYED UP WITH MARKET IN AN ATTEMPT TO RETAIN THEM.
AT THE SAME TIME, WHAT THIS STUDY ALSO DOES IS IT PUTS THE RECRUITMENT EFFORTS THAT WE DO NOW FRONT PAGE WHERE WE NOW MOVE UP THE MINIMUMS ENOUGH TO, WHEN WE GO OUT FOR RECRUITMENT, THEY COMPARE TO MARKET.
SO YOU HAVE EXISTING STAFF COST OF LIVING INFLATION THAT YOU DEALT WITH IN THE LAST COUPLE OF ADJUSTMENTS THE LAST 18 MONTHS, LET'S SAY.
IN THIS CASE, YOU'RE ALSO ADDRESSING THAT MINIMUM.
SO YOU CAN GO OUT AND RECRUIT AS WELL.
NOT A COST FACTOR UNTIL YOU HIRE RIGHT? UNTIL YOU HIRE ME.
NOT A COST FACTOR, BUT YOU GET A CHANCE TO HIRE ME 'CAUSE YOU MOVED THE MINIMUMS UP TO REFLECT THE MARKET.
BUT MY QUESTION WAS, WERE THEY ONE-TIME ADJUSTMENTS, HERE'S A BONUS FOR YOU BECAUSE OF INFLATION OR WERE THEY BUILT INTO THE SALARY? THEY'RE CONSTANTLY BUILDING COMPOUNDING, IF YOU WILL.
OKAY, BRIAN, MORE A QUESTION OF WHAT'S OUR PROCESS GONNA BE ON THIS AGENDA TOPIC OF LIKE, ARE WE GONNA TALK ABOUT AND DECIDE ON THIS WHOLE MARKET ADJUSTMENT THING RIGHT NOW? OR ARE WE DOING THAT KIND OF AT THE END AS WE'RE SORT OF SUMMARIZING WHAT WE WANT TO APPROVE AS THE TENTATIVE BUDGET? I WOULD THINK THAT THIS IS GONNA BE DISCUSSED RIGHT NOW WHILE WE'RE HERE.
UNLESS WE HAVE ANY, ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE DAY.
I THINK NOW IS ALWAYS THE BEST TIME.
I MEAN, I'M STRUGGLING WITH THIS, RIGHT? I MEAN, OUR FISCAL 25 PERSONNEL ONGOING BUDGET WAS 21 MILLION, 121,000, ET CETERA.
UM, I MEAN WE'RE TALKING ALMOST 6% INCREASE IN THE PERSONNEL PORTION OF OUR ONGOING OPERATING BUDGET.
LIKE WHEN DOES THIS END AND DON'T LAUGH LIKE IT, IT'S A SERIOUS QUESTION.
RIGHTS 'CAUSE WE'RE BUDGETING FLAT TO DOWN ON REVENUE AND ALL THESE EXPENSES JUST KEEP GOING UP, UP, UP, UP, UP.
AND IT'S FINE FOR CONSULTANTS TO COME IN HERE AND SAY, OH, EVERYTHING IS SO MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOTTA GIVE ALL THESE MASSIVE RAISES AND MERIT, YOU KNOW, AND THEN THERE'S, AND THEN SOMEHOW COLA IS SEPARATE THAN MARKET AND SEPARATE FROM MERIT.
AND I KNOW WE'RE NOT DOING COLA RIGHT NOW, BUT THIS, THIS DOES NOT FEEL SUSTAINABLE TO ME THAT WE KEEP HAVING THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'VE HAD SINCE THE TIME I'VE BEEN ON COUNCIL.
AND I UNDERSTAND IT'S BEEN QUITE A TIME OF VOLATILITY IN TERMS OF LABOR MARKETS AND THAT IT'S COSTING MORE.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY HAS CERTAINLY FACED INCREASED COST TO STAFF, UM, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
BUT LIKE IS, IS THERE ANY OTHER GROUP OF EMPLOYERS IN TOWN THAT ARE FACING OR BEING ASKED TO INCREASE THEIR LABOR EXPENSE BY THIS KIND OF LEVEL? LIKE IT JUST DOESN'T FEEL SUSTAINABLE.
AND I DON'T WANNA SAY FEEL BECAUSE I'M NOT LOOKING AT DATA.
I MEAN I'VE, I'VE, I'VE LOOKED, YOU KNOW, I'VE, I'VE READ THE INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED, BUT I JUST, I REALLY STRUGGLE WITH THE NOTION THAT, THAT WE NEED TO DO THIS AT
[00:25:01]
ITS FULL IMPLEMENTATION LEVEL.AND I ALSO DON'T ACCEPT THE NOTION THAT, OH, WELL IF YOU DON'T DO IT ALL NOW, THEN YOU'RE DEFERRING IT FOR THE FUTURE.
ARE WE, OR ARE WE REALLY, I DON'T KNOW.
I MEAN, THE FORECAST MAY BE LESS PESSIMISTIC TODAY THAN A MONTH AGO, BUT WE'RE ONE PRESS CONFERENCE AWAY FROM THE MARKETS TANKING 5% FOR THE DAY, RIGHT? I MEAN, THE VOLATILITY IS OFF THE CHARTS.
SO, UM, I DON'T KNOW, COLLEAGUES, I I JUST STRUGGLE WITH THE WAY THIS IS BEING PRESENTED EACH YEAR OF HOW MUCH WE HAVE TO, UH, INCREASE WAGES.
AND I DON'T WANNA BE A SLUMLORD, YOU KNOW, EMPLOYER, RIGHT? I MEAN, I'M A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER.
I CARE ABOUT THEM BEING ABLE TO PAY THEIR BILLS AND NOT JUST BARELY GET BY.
UM, BUT IT JUST FEELS LIKE WE'RE BEING ASKED TO DO MORE THAN WHAT I THINK IS NECESSARY TO RETAIN, I MEAN, BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST CASH, RIGHT? AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS STUDY REALLY TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE NON-CASH ELEMENTS OF WHAT IT MEANS TO BE EMPLOYED HERE, THE FOUR DAY WORK WEEK, THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO I, I DON'T KNOW WHERE I LAND ON THIS AT THE MOMENT, BUT I PRETTY SURE I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SALARY STUDY AS WHAT'S BAKED INTO THE BUDGET RIGHT NOW.
MELISSA, DID YOU WANNA COMMENT, RUSS? WELL, YEAH, I JUST ON THE, THE SECOND PART OF THAT, WE ARE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE OTHER BENEFITS.
THIS WAS TIMED FOR THIS, THE ADDITIONAL BENEFITS AS PART OF THE STUDY, AND WE'RE GOING FORWARD WITH THAT NOW BECAUSE THAT WILL BE PART OF OUR CONVERSATION POSSIBLY NEXT YEAR.
AND TO YOUR POINT, HAVE A COMPARISON OF HOW GOOD IT IS TO WORK HERE COMPARATIVELY, BUT THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE SALARY SURVEY, WHICH WAS CRITICAL TO THE, THE ACTUAL BUDGET THIS YEAR AND TIMELINE.
SO WE ARE HEADED WITH THAT INFORMATION AS PART OF THIS.
SO I, I UNDERSTAND THE COMMENTS THAT I'VE HEARD KIND OF ACROSS THE BOARD, UM, BUT PEOPLE ARE EXPENSIVE AND GOOD PEOPLE ARE EXPENSIVE AND, UM, YOU KNOW, I, I AGREE THAT YOU, YOU, IT'S NOT SUSTAINABLE THAT EVERY YEAR EVERYONE GETS A BASE SALARY RISE OF 7% BECAUSE THE, THAT'S THEIR BASE SALARY.
AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT, WE'RE GOING TO BE GIVING THEM THEIR MERIT INCREASE.
SO WHATEVER THEIR SALARY TOTAL IS FOR THE YEAR IS, IS MORE THAN THAT.
UM, THIS IMPLEMENTATION IS, I UNDERSTAND IT IS ABOUT BASE SALARIES, IT'S NOT ABOUT THE MERIT INCREASES ON TOP OF THAT.
AM I CORRECT IN THAT? YEAH, SO WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 685 WITH A ZERO TO 7% ADJUSTMENT, UM, TO THEIR BASE SALARY, THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE MONEY WE'VE BUILT IN TO THE SALARY PORTION OF OUR BUDGET TO INCLUDE ZERO TO 5% MERIT INCREASE.
SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE, THE LARGE NUMBER THAT YOU JUST STATED, IT'S ALSO INCLUDING THAT POTENTIAL MERIT INCREASE OF ZERO TO 5%, WHICH MEANS THAT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY WE SPEND, MAYBE LESS THAN THAT, ASSUMING THAT YOU GUYS ASSUME EVERYONE'S GONNA GET 5%, BECAUSE IF YOU DIDN'T DO THAT, YOU'RE GONNA RUN OUT OF MONEY.
UM, YEAH, I KNOW NOT EVERYONE'S GONNA GET 5%, BUT HOWEVER YOU'RE, HOWEVER YOU'RE DOING THAT, AND DON'T LOOK AT ME WHEN YOU SAY THAT.
I'M JUST SAYING, UM, NO, YOU'RE NOT GETTING 5%.
BUT THE, I I DON'T STRUGGLE WITH IT TO THE SAME REGARD.
UM, I STRUGGLE MORE WITH THE IDEA OF WHAT HAPPENS NEXT BUDGET, RIGHT? NOT THIS BUDGET.
SO I UNDERSTAND WE'VE DONE THE SALARY, UM, STUDY, WE DO WANNA RETAIN GREAT PEOPLE AND WE WANNA ATTRACT GREAT PEOPLE.
UM, AND THERE'S A LOT INVOLVED IN THAT.
TO, TO BRIAN'S POINT, THERE'S A BUNCH OF BENEFITS THAT ALSO ARE IMPORTANT WHEN PEOPLE WANT TO TAKE A JOB.
CAN THEY GET HOUSING? HOW FAR AWAY DO THEY HAVE TO TRAVEL? UM, WHAT ARE THEIR HEALTHCARE, YOU KNOW, BENEFITS GOING TO BE PENSIONS, UM, BECAUSE WE STILL DO THAT APPARENTLY AT THE STATE LEVEL.
UM, ALL OF THOSE THINGS DO COME INTO PLAY AS WELL.
AND I UNDERSTAND THOSE BENEFIT PACKAGES.
I, I PERSONALLY AM OKAY THIS YEAR AND NOT NECESSARILY
[00:30:01]
NEXT BUDGET YEAR TO SAY ZERO TO 7%, THAT'S FINE ON THE BASE SALARIES, BUT I WOULDN'T GO TO THE FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF 10%.AND, UM, I MAY NOT BE IN THIS KIND OF, UH, GENEROUS AND GIVING MOOD, UM, WITH THE NEXT BUDGET.
A LOT OF IT WILL DEPEND ON WHAT HAPPENS THIS YEAR.
UH, DEREK, PETE? YEAH, THANK YOU MAYOR.
I THINK A LOT OF MY THOUGHTS ARE SIMILAR TO COUNCIL COUNCILOR DUNN'S COMMENTS.
THE MARKET STUDY ITSELF IS NOT A LOOK FORWARD, IT'S A LOOK CURRENT.
IT'S ALMOST A LOOK BACK ABOUT WHAT THE CURRENT SITUATION IS.
AND THIS COUNCIL HAS STRUGGLED WITH, UH, RETENTION ISSUES AND MOTIVATING ACTIONS TO, UH, DRIVE DOWN TO IM IMPROVE THE RETENTION ISSUE IN THE CITY.
AND I THINK THIS IS A BIG PART, AND NEXT YEAR IS A DIFFERENT YEAR.
UH, AND I, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH, UH, THAT SENTIMENT COUNSELOR DUNN ABOUT WHO KNOWS WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN THE REST OF THIS YEAR AND WHAT NEXT YEAR WILL LOOK LIKE.
BUT, UH, I FAVOR, UH, MOVING FORWARD AT THAT 7% MAX ADJUSTMENT THIS YEAR.
KATHY? YES, I THINK THAT, THAT I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH WHAT'S BEEN STATED.
UM, I THINK THAT YES, I QUESTION THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THIS AND I I GOING FORWARD, BUT I, I DO THINK THAT WE ARE IN THE POSITION THIS YEAR TO TAKE THIS STEP.
UM, THE BUDGET, THIS, WE'VE TAKEN A VERY CONSERVATIVE APPROACH, WHICH I COMPLETELY SUPPORT IN TERMS OF REVENUE, UH, FORECASTING.
UH, WE'VE LEFT IT EITHER FLAT OR REDUCED, UH, WHICH I COMPLETELY SUPPORT BECAUSE WE'RE IN SUCH A VOLATILE TIME, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT TO EXPECT.
BUT I DO THINK IT'S REASONABLE THAT WE CAN EXPECT SOME GROWTH IN INCOME.
BUT I'D LIKE THAT IT'S NOT REFLECTED IN THE BUDGET BECAUSE I CAN'T COUNT ON IT.
I WANT THE BUDGET TO BE SOMETHING I CAN COUNT ON.
UM, I DO THINK THAT EVEN WITH THESE PROJECTIONS, THAT WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY HERE BECAUSE OF WHERE WE ARE IN OUR OWN FISCAL STATUS, THAT WE COULD TAKE A, A STEP AT PROVIDING EQUITY IN OUR, IN OUR SALARIES BECAUSE WE, UM, ARE STILL COMING UNDER THE PREVIOUS, THE CURRENT YEAR'S BUDGET, IT'S 2% UNDER.
AND I THINK THAT THERE'S ROOM IN HERE THAT THERE WILL BE PROJECTED SAVINGS IN THIS AS WELL.
SO I'M COMFORTABLE THAT WE CAN DO THIS NOW BASED ON THE NUMBERS THAT WE'VE ANALYZED.
I COMPLETELY AGREE THAT THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY SORT OF EXPECTATION THAT WE'LL BE IN THIS SORT OF FISCAL CONDITION NEXT YEAR.
UM, SO I, THAT IT HAS TO BE KNOWN.
AND I DO BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD ALSO DO, YOU KNOW, DO THE, THE PHASE AND, AND THEN WE SHOULD CAP THIS AT THIS SEVEN.
I WOULD ACTUALLY EVEN ENTERTAIN A DISCUSSION OF CAPPING IT BELOW SEVEN, LIKE SOMEWHERE AT FIVE FOR IMPLEMENTATION TO COME UP.
BUT THAT'S A NEW IDEA THAT'S BEING INTRODUCED.
SO I DON'T EXPECT US TO DISCUSS IT, BUT I CERTAINLY WOULDN'T NOT WANNA GO TO 10% JUST BECAUSE IT'S JUST TOO UNCERTAIN.
SO, BUT I, I AM, I DO HAVE A LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE THAT WE CAN DO THIS RIGHT NOW WITHOUT THERE HAVING ANY SORT OF LONG-TERM, UM, IMPACT, DETRIMENTAL IMPACT ON US.
BUT THAT DOES NOT SPEAK AT ALL TO THE FUTURE VICE MAYOR, DO YOU WANNA ADD SOMETHING? I DO, BECAUSE AGAIN, I, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET AN UNDERSTANDING.
SO YOU GO TO THE NEXT PAGE AND IT SAYS THAT THE TOTAL IS 1.3 MILLION.
WHAT IS THE AMOUNT, DO YOU WANT ME TO DESCRIBE THAT? OKAY, THE 1.3 IS WHAT WE BAKED INTO THE BUDGET BECAUSE WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE SALARY STUDY RESULTS WOULD BE.
SO WE ASSUMED 12% FOR POLICE AND 10% FOR GENERAL EMPLOYEES, WHICH WAS THE 1.3 MILLION IF YOU, BUT WE'RE SAYING IT'S REALLY ONLY, IT'S REALLY 685,000 IF YOU WANNA IMPLEMENT AT THE 7% CAP.
SO WE COULD, AND WE'RE HAPPY TO REDUCE THE OVERALL BUDGET BY THAT $600,000 DIFFERENCE.
WHICH I WOULD RECOMMEND IF YOU CHOOSE THAT.
UH, SO HERE'S WHERE I'M COMING FROM.
THIS ARBITRARY 7% COULD REALLY IMPACT THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO ARE FURTHEST AWAY FROM THE MARKET.
SO WHAT IF WE HAVE AN EMPLOYEE THAT'S 25% OUT OF LINE, THEY'RE GONNA GET SEVEN OR LESS AND THAT'S IT.
LET'S SAY WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY NEXT YEAR.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME EQUITY IN THIS AND NOT JUST A,
[00:35:01]
YOU KNOW, 7% SHOULD COVER MOST OF THE PEOPLE BECAUSE I WANT TO COVER THE PEOPLE WHO ARE THE FURTHEST AWAY AS WELL.SO I, I DON'T THINK, I NEVER LIKED CUT 10% ACROSS THE BOARD, RAISE 10% ACROSS.
I NEVER LIKED THOSE BECAUSE I THOUGHT THEY WERE JUST TOO ARBITRARY.
SO IS THERE, CAN WE LOOK AT SOME POINT THESE IMPACT THE MOST IMPACTED EMPLOYEES AND SEE WHAT WE CAN DO FOR THOSE PEOPLE? GO AHEAD.
UM, WE COULD ASK THE CONSULTANT, UM, TO CALCULATE WHAT THE COST WOULD BE TO TAKE THE PEOPLE THE FURTHEST OUT UP TO SOME, WHATEVER'S A TOLERABLE AMOUNT TO BE OUT OF MARKET.
LIKE WE'RE OKAY WITH PEOPLE BEING 10% BELOW OR 15, WHATEVER THAT NUMBER IS.
AND THE ADJUSTMENT APPLIES TO ONLY THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GREATER THAN THAT AND SEE WHAT THAT WOULD COST.
AND WE CAN DO THAT BETWEEN NOW AND, YOU KNOW, THE BUDGET ADOPTION, BECAUSE AGAIN, TONIGHT YOU'RE SETTING THE MAXIMUM BUDGET AND WE CAN ALWAYS REDUCE IT DOWN FOR THE TENTATIVE.
SO IF YOU WANT US TO FIND OUT, SORRY, BACK IN MY FACE, UM, WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE UNDER THIS SCENARIO, I WAS LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY GETS SOME KIND OF ADJUSTMENT IF THEY'RE BELOW MARKET, WE DO HAVE, YOU KNOW, ALMOST HALF OF THE STAFF IS AT MARKET ALREADY, SO THEY WOULD BE GETTING NOTHING UNDER ANY OF THESE PROPOSALS.
SO IF YOU WANT TO INSTEAD TAKE AN APPROACH WHERE YOU JUST TAKE THE ONES THAT ARE THE MOST OUT OF MARKET AND GET THEM TO SOMEWHAT OUT OF MARKET, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
UM, WE COULD LOOK AT WHAT THAT WOULD BE AND THEN THERE'LL BE THIS LITTLE GROUP IN THE MIDDLE THAT'S NOT GONNA GET ANYTHING, BUT IT'S STILL BELOW MARKET UNDER THAT SCENARIO.
RUSTIN AND I HAVEN'T GONE YET.
DO YOU WANNA ADDRESS WHAT THE QUESTION IS? WELL, YEAH, ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE MIGHT BE A PERCENTAGE, RIGHT? SO YOU SAY WE JUST IMPLEMENT SOME PERCENTAGE AND YOU CAN RUN THAT UP THE DEAL.
SO IF IT WAS GONNA BE 10% AND YOU DO 75% OF THAT, IT'S 7.5%.
I MEAN, IT CAN BE PRO RATA ACROSS ALL THE SYSTEMS. SO SOMEONE WITH 4% GETS 3% INSTEAD OF 4%, RIGHT? SO YOU COULD EVEN DO THAT TO SOME LEVEL.
THAT WAY IT'S AT LEAST PROPORTIONATE TO WHAT YOU'RE DOING HAS A COST IMPLICATION.
AND I, AND I WANNA REEMPHASIZE, WE'RE TALKING, I JUST DID THE COUNT AGAIN, THE REASON THAT THE NUMBERS ARE AS HIGH AS THEY ARE IS BECAUSE THE POLICE MARKET AT 7%.
AND THAT'S WHY THAT'S, I APPRECIATE YOU SAID ARBITRARY, BUT IT'S, IT'S RELATIVE TO THAT, THAT WE KIND OF LANDED ON GOING, HOW CAN WE EVEN OUT AS MANY EMPLOYEES AS WE COULD.
SO THEN YOU'RE, THAT'S WHERE AFTER 7% YOU'VE GOT, IF YOU WILL, THE POLICE TAKEN CARE OF.
NOW YOU HAVE ALL THE REST OF THE POSITIONS AND THAT'S THE LARGEST NUMBER THAT'S ABOVE THAT MARKET CONDITION.
MELISSA, YOU HAVE A QUESTION TO ASK SPECIFIC TO THE VICE MAYOR AND THEN I, I WOULD LIKE TO APPOINT.
SO, UM, MY, MY QUESTION IS, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS BUDGET AS I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SAID EARLIER, UM, WAS WHATEVER WE AGREE ON THE TENTATIVE BUDGET, THAT'S THE MAX, CORRECT? RIGHT NOW WHAT I'M HEARING IS WE DON'T KNOW THIS NUMBER.
THIS NUMBER COULD BE 900, IT COULD BE 685, IT COULD BE 1 MILLION.
IT COULD BE, OH, IT WOULDN'T BE BIGGER.
THAT WOULD BE, IF YOU CHOSE TO FULLY IMPLEMENT THIS STUDY THIS YEAR, LIKE COVERING ALL OF THE PEOPLE, EVEN IF SOMEONE'S 25% BEHIND MARKET BRINGING THEM TO MARKET, THAT WOULD BE 900,000.
SO AT 900,000 EVERYONE WOULD BE TAKEN CARE OF TO GET THEM TO MARKET.
SO THAT WASN'T A HUNDRED PERCENT CLEAR TO ME.
SO THE BASE, THE BASE SALARY, UM, OF EVERYONE WOULD BE EQUITABLE TO WHAT WE CURRENTLY UNDERSTAND THE MARKET TO BE IF WE DID THE 900? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
SO, AND I APPRECIATE MY FELLOW COUNSELS ON THE, ON THE, THE DAYS.
UH, BUT YOU KNOW, WE HAVE EXCEPTIONAL PEOPLE RIGHT NOW OUR ACROSS THE BOARD, YOU KNOW, I SEE EMPLOYEES, I TALK TO EMPLOYEES, I SEE HOW HARD THEY WORK AND I DON'T WANNA LOSE ANYBODY TO ANOTHER MUNICIPALITY, TO ANOTHER COUNTY.
SO IF WE'RE BEHIND IN PAYING, WE'RE GONNA LOSE PEOPLE AND WE'RE GONNA LOSE THE MOST QUALIFIED PEOPLE THAT I'VE SEEN IN THE MANY YEARS.
[00:40:01]
I'M HERE, AT LEAST FOR THE, THOSE THAT I ENGAGE WITH.SO WE NEED TO BE COMPETITIVE OR WE'LL LOSE THEM.
AND IF WE LOSE THEM, THE WAY I'VE SEEN IT IS THAT THOSE, THE REMAINING WILL BE WORKING HARDER AND BURNING OUT.
I DON'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN EITHER BECAUSE THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE IS IMPORTANT TO ME.
SO IT'S ALL RELEVANT AND YES, THE FIGURES ARE STAGGERING.
I, I AGREE WITH COUNCIL FOLTZ AND HIS CONCERNS WITHOUT A DOUBT, BUT WE HAVE TO BE COMPETITIVE OR WE'LL HAVE LESS COPS AND WE DON'T WANT THAT.
WE'VE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED MORE STAFFING TO BRING US BACK BEFORE THE OH SIX, I BELIEVE IT WAS OH SIX WHEN THEY CUT.
AND I'M JUST WONDERING IF WHEN THE, THE REDUCTION TIME OF OH SIX, I DON'T WANNA CALL IT, CALL IT A RECESSION.
'CAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT REALLY WAS BACK THEN, BUT I DON'T THINK, I THINK THAT THAT HURT US TO TODAY AND I THINK WE'RE BEHIND THE EIGHT BALL BECAUSE OF THE CUTTING BACK THEN.
SO I WOULD SUPPORT, UH, MOVING FORWARD AND IT'S A STAGGERING NUMBER, BUT WE NEED TO BE COMPETITIVE AND WE NEED TO KEEP PEOPLE HERE.
SO, UH, THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS.
MOVING, YOU SAID MOVING FORWARD, MOVING FORWARD AT THE 7% OR AT THE, AT THE FULL PERCENT, I JUST WASN'T SURE ABOUT YOUR COMMENT, RIGHT? I I WOULD SAY THE 7%.
YEAH, NO, NO, I APPRECIATE YOU ASKING PETE, I'D LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION.
SO ARE WE APPROVING IF FOR INSTANCE, WE APPROVE THE 7% MAX ADJUSTMENT NUMBER AS 6 85, ARE WE APPROVING REALLY THE EXPENDITURE OF SIX 80 AND 6 85 IN THE 10 OF BUDGET I GET, IS THE 7% FIXED IN STONE? COULD THE CITY MANAGER ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, DO A 6.8% MAX AND FOR THOSE FEW PEOPLE THAT ARE WAY BELOW THE RANGE, ACTUALLY DO A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN SEVEN TO HELP GET THAT EQUITY QUESTION? SO, YOU KNOW, THE, THE QUESTION IS, IS IT THE DOLLAR THAT'S THE FIGURE HERE OR IS IT THE 7% DRIVER? I THINK IT'S TWO THINGS.
ONE BEING THE DOLLAR AMOUNT YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH IN THE BUDGET, AND THE SECOND HAS TO DO WITH THE PHILOSOPHY OR THE APPROACH.
UM, SO I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH, UM, I WOULD PREFER IF YOU WERE, UM, CLEAR ON THE APPROACH YOU WANT ME TO TAKE AND NOT, YOU KNOW, THAT YOU WANT TO ADJUST EITHER ADDRESS EQUITY ACROSS THE BOARD, BUT WITH SOME CAP ON HOW MUCH WE CAN SPEND ON THAT.
UM, BECAUSE YOU WANT TO ADDRESS LIKE THE WHOLE EMPLOYEE BASE AND NOT HAVE ME PICK SOME OVER OTHERS OR TREAT SOME DIFFERENTLY THAN OTHERS, I GUESS WOULD BE MY, I THINK SO.
I THINK IT'S BOTH, BUT PRIMARILY THE, THE DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT YOU'RE WILLING, SO WE CALCULATED WHAT IT WOULD COST PER EMPLOYEE AT THE 7% MAX, AND THAT'S HOW WE CAME UP WITH THE 6 85.
UM, SO I DON'T THINK THERE'D BE MUCH LEFT OR WIGGLE ROOM IN THAT NUMBER TO DO ANYTHING SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FOR OTHER PEOPLE.
IF, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOUR QUESTION CORRECTLY.
YEAH, ROSS, IF, IF YOU ADDED MORE TO THAT NUMBER, WHATEVER THAT NUMBER IS FOR A, THE POPULATION AND I, I'LL JUST THROW THE NUMBER 50 OUT THERE, ROUGHLY 50 EMPLOYEES THAT WOULD BE NOT RECEIVING THE FULL MARKET ADJUSTMENT FOR THAT.
YOU HAVE 50 EMPLOYEES AT THAT RATE.
THEN AT THAT POINT DO YOU HYBRID, AS I HEAR YOU SAYING KIND OF HYBRID WHERE YOU TAKE A CERTAIN NUMBER, GET THOSE EQUAL AND THEN DEAL WITH THOSE ABOVE WITH SOME LEVEL OF A NUMBER OF ACTUAL NUMBER, WE CAN COME BACK AND FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT FORMULA MIGHT LOOK LIKE, PUSHING THAT THROUGH THOSE SAY 50 EMPLOYEES AND THAT, BUT TO THE POINT YOU'RE DEALING WITH A FULL NUMBER HERE AND WE CAN THEN WORK UNDERNEATH THAT IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE AIMING AT WITH ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS.
I THINK THE SAFE THING TO SAY IS THAT, UM, THE NUMBER IN THE TENTATIVE BUDGET RIGHT NOW CAN BE REDUCED TO 900 AT THE MINIMUM CHANGE.
AND THEN IF YOU WANT TO GO EVEN FURTHER BELOW THAT WITH SOME VERSION OF A PHASE IN OR A CAP, WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT CALCULATION IF YOU WANT SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE 6 85 IS BASED ON.
BUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SENDING THE TENET BUDGET, YOU KNOW ALREADY THAT IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE MORE THAN 900 FOR THIS ADJUSTMENT.
AND WE HAD A HIGHER NUMBER IN THE BASE BUDGET ORIGINALLY, SO THERE'LL
[00:45:01]
BE AN AUTOMATIC SAVINGS.UM, BUT I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW KIND OF A LITTLE BIT BETTER HOW THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL IS FEELING ABOUT IMPLEMENTING, UM, SOMETHING LESS THAN THAT, IF THAT'S WHERE YOU WANT ME TO HEAD.
BEFORE, IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE 7%, BEFORE WE GET TO THAT AND ANSWER THAT QUESTION, COUNCILOR FAF HAS A QUESTION AND COUNCILOR KINSELLA HAS A QUESTION THEN WE'LL, WE'LL POLL.
SO THE $900,000 NUMBER THAT IS NOT, THAT'S NOT JUST AN ABOVE ACROSS THE BOARD INCREASE THAT'S GIVING YOU THE FLEXIBILITY TO, THAT IS THE NUMBER BASED ON EVERY POSITION'S, UM, MARKET ADJUSTMENT AND THE, IF THERE'S AN EMPLOYEE IN THE POSITION WHERE THEY NEED TO BE TO BE AT THEIR EQUIVALENT PLACE ON THE PAY RANGE AFTER THE, THE, THE NEW PAY RANGE IS MOVED OVER, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
SO FIRST, AS RUSS WAS SAYING, WE CREATE THE PAY RANGES BASED ON THE MARKET AND SO NOW WE HAVE THE NEW PAY RANGES AND THEN IN ORDER TO PLACE EXISTING EMPLOYEES ON THE NEW PAY RANGE, IF THEY'RE NOT ON IT ALREADY, YOU PUT 'EM AT STEP ONE, WHICH MEANS THAT THEY'RE GONNA BE AT THE SAME AMOUNT AS A BRAND NEW EMPLOYEE COMING IN, EVEN IF THEY'VE BEEN HERE FOR MANY YEARS, WHICH IS, UH, WHAT RUSS WAS EXPLAINING, TYPICALLY YOU WOULDN'T DO THAT, YOU WOULD PUT THEM AT THE EQUIVALENT PLACE ON THE RANGE, THEY WOULD'VE BEEN, OR THEY WERE ON THE OLD ONE IF THEY'RE LIKE A THIRD OF THE WAY IN OR TWO STEPS IN OR WHATEVER.
YOU JUST KEEP 'EM IN THEIR SAME SPOT.
AND THAT IS THE 900,000 IS TO PUT ALL THE EMPLOYEES IN THE CORRECT PLACE ON THE NEW RANGE BASED ON THEIR YEARS OF SERVICE AND THAT TYPE OF THING.
SO THIS IS A PER EMPLOYEE CALCULATION AND SOME ADJUSTMENTS ARE MORE THAN OTHERS JUST BECAUSE OF THE POSITION OR THE YEARS THEY'VE BEEN HERE.
UM, AND LIKE I SAID, THAT ONLY APPLIES TO LIKE ALMOST HALF OF THE POSITIONS.
THE OTHER HALF ARE ALREADY AT MARKET AND WON'T BE SEEING ANY CHANGE AT ALL.
HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE WAY BEHIND MARKET? WE TALKED ABOUT THAT'S WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY.
IF IT'S, WHAT'S THE NUMBER, IF IT'S INSTRUCTIVE, THE 215,000 IS ROUGHLY 50 EMPLOYEES.
50 THAT ARE THAT FAR BEHIND, 50 IN TOTAL COST.
WHERE'S THE TWO 50? OH, THE DIFFERENCE BECAUSE THE 2 15 5 0 EMPLOYEES.
BUT YES, IT'S ABOUT 50 EMPLOYEES.
ARE YOU SAYING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 907%, 6 85 AND FULL IMPLEMENTATION? I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS IS, ARE WE DOING COMMENTS TO US? UM, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SPENDING $215,000 TO BRING THE EMPLOYEES TO BRING SOME OF OUR EMPLOYEES UP TO WHAT THEY SHOULD BE.
ALL OF OUR EMPLOYEES, ALL OF THEM, ALL OF OUR EMPLOYEES.
SO TO, AND I THANK YOU MELISSA, FOR ASKING THE QUESTION, WHAT DOES THAT 900,000 ACCOMPLISH? AND TO THE VICE MAYOR'S POINT, YOU KNOW, WE WANNA BE EQUITABLE, BUT I FEEL LIKE IF WE JUST DO THE 7% MAX ADJUSTMENT, WE'RE NOT GIVING THE CITY MANAGER AND PERSONNEL THE FLEXIBILITY TO MAKE THOSE ADJUSTMENTS TO BRING PEOPLE UP TO WHERE THEY SHOULD BE.
SO FOR ME, PAYING OUR EMPLOYEES THE CORRECT AMOUNT IS WORTH $215,000.
SO I WOULD GO FOR THE FULL IMPLEMENTATION.
KATHY, YOU HAD SOMETHING ON I DID, I HAD A QUESTION TO THE POINT THE COUNCILOR FURMAN RAISED, BUT UM, OUR CITY MANAGER ANSWERED IT IN HER LAST COMMENTS, SO THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE GET TO COMMENT? WE HAVE TO DO PUBLIC COMMENT.
MADAM CLERK, DO WE HAVE ANY CARDS? NO, MAYOR, WE DO NOT.
WELL, WE'RE GONNA OPEN A PUBLIC COMMENT.
THERE'S MORE BUDGET PRESENTATION THAN THE SLIDE.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANNA DO THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW OR I GUESS IT DOESN'T MATTER, BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER.
WELL, IF WE HAVE A COMMENT CARD, UH, WELL, WE'LL WAIT, WE'LL WAIT.
UM, SO YOU WANNA CONTINUE, DO YOU WANNA DO A POLL ON THIS PIECE? OH YEAH.
SO YOU WANT THAT, WE, WE HAVE SO MUCH GOING ON HERE.
SO YOU WANT TO, UH, START ON THIS SIDE? BRIAN, WHERE ARE YOU? WHAT ARE MY CHOICES? WHAT ARE MY CHOICES? WHAT ARE WE, WHAT ARE WE DECIDING AMONGST 900,000, LEAVE IT AS IT IS OR 900 OR 6 85.
ANY OTHER NUMBER YOU WANNA PUT OUT, RIGHT.
OR SOMETHING OR SOMETHING ELSE.
1,000,300 OR ANOTHER OR HOW ABOUT ONE PERSON AT A TIME, PLEASE, KATHY? OKAY.
YOUR CHOICES ARE, I BELIEVE IT WAS THE 1,000,300, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT WAS PUT IN THERE? NO, NO, NO MA'AM.
IN THE, IN THE, YEAH, IN THE FIRST.
[00:50:01]
THAT'S WHAT'S IN THERE NOW VERSUS THAT'S ONE VERSUS YOUR CHOICE TWO IS REDUCING THAT DOWN BY 400,000 TO THE 900,000 OR REDUCE IT DOWN TO THE 6 85, WHICH WOULD BE THE 7% IMPLEMENTATION.THOSE ARE BASICALLY YOUR THREE CHOICES.
IT'S NOT A CHOICE BETWEEN 1.3 AND 900.
WELL THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, BUT THE 1.3 IS IN THE BASE BUDGET, SO YOU COULD REDUCE IT DOWN BY 400 K.
THAT'S NOT WHAT'S BEING, WELL REALLY THE, THE QUESTION IS DO YOU WANT TO IMPLEMENT FULLY FOR 900,000 OR PARTIALLY FOR SIX TO 85? RIGHT? SO IT'S A $215,000 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO.
THE 1.3 WAS, IS REALLY A PLACEHOLDER AND WHICHEVER DECISION YOU MAKE STAFF WILL REDUCE THE BUDGET TO MEET THAT AMOUNT.
GO AHEAD BECAUSE, AND GO AHEAD.
LET'S GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PROPOSED BUDGET WITH THE 6 85.
THAT'S WHAT THE CITY MANAGER OPPOSES TO PHASE IT IS, IS THAT CORRECT? UM, THAT IS NOT WHAT'S IN THE BUDGET NUMBERS.
THAT IS MY RECOMMENDATION AFTER READING THE SALARY STUDY RESULTS AND UNDERSTANDING, UM, THE DIRECTION I RECEIVED FROM COUNCIL TO TAKE A CONSERVATIVE APPROACH TO ADDING THINGS INTO THE BUDGET.
SO, UM, THE 6 85 IS NOT, I MEAN, I GUESS IT'S IN THE BUDGET BECAUSE WE HAVE 1.3 IN THERE, BUT, UM, ARE YOU STILL HOLDING TO THAT? WELL, I, I JUST FELT THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO A PHASE IN OR NOT THE FULL IMPLEMENTATION, THEN I WOULD PROPOSE THAT THE OTHER NON POLICE EMPLOYEES RECEIVE AN ADJUSTMENT EQUIVALENT TO WHAT THE POLICE WILL GET.
SO THAT WAS WHY I PROPOSED THE SEVEN.
AND YOU'RE STILL THERE IF YOU'RE DOING THE FULL 900, THEN THAT TAKES CARE OF EVERYTHING AND WE WOULDN'T HAVE A BIG ISSUE NEXT YEAR.
I MEAN IF WE, IF YOU'RE COMFORTABLE, OF COURSE I WOULD RECOMMEND THE FULL IMPLEMENTATION TO SUPPORT MY STAFF AND TO SUPPORT, UM, MAKING SURE THAT WE CAN RECRUIT PEOPLE AND RETAIN THEM.
BUT IF THE BUDGETARY CONCERNS AND THE BEING FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE IS ALSO A GOAL, THEN THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION IS THE 7% CAP.
SO I'M SAYING IT CLUMSY, BUT I'M SAYING WAS SAYING THE SAME THING.
I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS VERSUS THE IMPACT, RIGHT? BUT, BUT IF THE 900,000 STAYS IN THERE IN THE BUDGET, BUT YET THE DIRECTION IS GIVEN FOR THE PHASING FOR THE 7%, RIGHT? THEN WHAT THAT WOULD ALLOW WOULD BE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK IF THE ECONOMY IS STRONG, TO COME BACK AND DO THE REST OF FULL IMPLEMENTATION AT A LATER PART IN THAT FISCAL YEAR.
SO THAT BEING SAID, I, I JUST WANT THAT OUT THERE IN FOR PEOPLE AS YOU'RE COMMENTING WHERE YOU STAND, YOU KNOW, I WANT THAT ON YOUR RADAR
I APPRECIATE THE CREATIVITY COUNSELOR.
KINSELLA, I'LL SUPPORT THE NO, YOU DON'T
SO THIS IS, THIS IS, THIS IS A TOUGH ONE AND THE REASON WHY FOR ME IT'S A TOUGH ONE IS IF YOU DID THE 7% MAX ADJUSTMENT AND NEXT YEAR WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO BRING THEM UP BECAUSE THIS IS A PHASE IN, THEN WE'RE GONNA BE RAISING THE AMOUNT TO THE 900,000 OR MORE, DEPENDING ON WHAT IT IS THEN.
AND I WON'T KNOW WHAT OUR FISCAL CIRCUMSTANCES ARE GOING TO BE A YEAR FROM NOW.
I MEAN, TO BRIAN'S POINT, WE'RE BASICALLY ONE, YOU KNOW, 2:00 AM RANT, UM, ON A SOCIAL MEDIA FROM, YOU KNOW, HAVING STOCK MARKET CRASH.
WHO KNOWS, RIGHT? SO, UM, I ALSO AGREE THAT EQUITY IS CR IS EQUITY IS IMPORTANT, UM, IN JOBS AND IN OUR MARKET AND IF WE WANT TO COMPETE THEN WE NEED TO BE EQUITABLE.
AND IF THE 900,000 AS I UNDERSTAND IT NOW, THEN 900,000 GETS US TO EQUITY, THEN I WOULD BE ABLE TO, IN MY OWN MIND, SAY NEXT YEAR, I DON'T EXPECT TO SEE ANY MORE INCREASES.
WE DID THAT THIS YEAR IN ORDER TO GET PEOPLE TO BE AT AN EQUITABLE SALARY AND THAT I WOULD EXPECT THAT TO HOLD AT LEAST FOR A COUPLE YEARS, RIGHT? SO, UM, I, I DON'T WANT TO COME BACK NEXT YEAR AND SAY WE NEED ANOTHER
[00:55:01]
3% BECAUSE WE WERE PHASING IN.I'D RATHER DO IT NOW AND MAKE SURE THAT WE KEEP THE PEOPLE WE WANT TO KEEP AND WE CAN ATTRACT THE PEOPLE WE WANT TO ATTRACT.
SO, UM, BASED ON WHAT I UNDERSTAND NOW, I WOULD SAY I WOULD SUPPORT THE FULL IMPLEMENTATION.
VICE MAYOR, I TOO WOULD SUPPORT FULL IMPLEMENTATION AND I DON'T WANNA SEE THIS NEXT YEAR OR THE YEAR AFTER.
I JUST WANNA BE DONE WITH IT BECAUSE I THINK WE WERE DOING DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS, YOU KNOW, LAST YEAR WE DID THE YEAR BEFORE WE DID.
AND WE ALL THINK WE'RE SOLVING A PROBLEM AND NOW WE LEARN WE DIDN'T SOLVE IT.
AND I JUST CAN'T FOR $215,000, I, I JUST CAN'T LET PEOPLE HANG OUT THERE.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO THE PEOPLE, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE THE LOWEST LEVEL, THE HIGHEST LEVEL, THE MIDDLE LEVEL.
BUT IF YOU'RE THAT FAR AWAY FROM MARKET, I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S RIGHT.
WE HAVE THE MONEY THIS YEAR TO DO IT AND I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE CARE OF IT AND BE DONE WITH IT AND THAT MAKE EVERYBODY EQUITABLE TO WHERE THEY SHOULD BE.
I KIND OF ALREADY SAID MY PIECE, BUT UM, YEAH, A SUPPORT, FULL IMPLEMENTATION.
I THINK WE NEED TO PAY PEOPLE MARKET.
UM, SEDONAS AN EXPENSIVE PLACE TO LIVE.
I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE COMPETING AND, AND TO COUNCILOR OL'S POINT, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE PACKAGE, THE FOUR DAY WORK WEEK, THIS, THAT, I MEAN, AND PEOPLE DO LOOK AT BENEFITS, BUT LET'S FACE IT, WHEN PEOPLE LOOK AT OR LOOKING AT A JOB, THEY LOOK AT, OKAY, HOW MUCH ARE THEY GONNA PAY ME? NOT SAYING THIS STUFF DOESN'T FACTOR IN, BUT WHEN SOMEONE LOOKS AT THE JOB AND THEN LOOKS AT THE, OH, I'M GONNA GET PAID THIS MUCH.
OKAY, WELL THAT'S, I'M NOT EVEN GONNA THINK ABOUT THAT.
THEY WON'T EVEN GET TO THE BENEFIT PACKAGE ABOUT, OR THE FOUR DAY WORK WEEK OR ANY OF THAT STUFF.
'CAUSE THEY'RE GONNA SEE THAT NUMBER AND THEY'RE JUST SAY, I CAN'T AFFORD TO LIVE IN THE BIRDIE VALLEY AT THAT AMOUNT.
SO ANYWAY, UH, I SUPPORT FULL IMPLEMENTATION.
UH, I THINK IT GIVES US, GETS US WHERE WE NEED TO BE AND THEN GOING FORWARD WE WON'T HAVE THIS BIG IMBALANCE, UH, BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, ONE EMPLOYEE AND ANOTHER, THE COMM MAYOR.
YOU KNOW, IT TOOK US MORE THAN ONE YEAR TO GET THIS FAR BEHIND MARKET.
AND SO I THINK IT'S FAIR TO, UH, NOT HAVE TO CORRECT IT ALL IN ONE YEAR.
WE HAVE TO BE RESPONSIBLE TO THE, OUR COMMUNITY AND, AND SPENDING MONEY.
AND WE'VE, WE'VE DONE THAT IN MANY O OTHER AREAS OF THE BUDGET.
AND I SUSPECT, YOU KNOW, I PREFER THAT WE STAY AT THAT 7%, UH, INCREMENT RIGHT NOW.
I THINK WE'LL LEARN SOME THINGS OVER THE COURSE OF THE NEXT YEAR ABOUT THOSE 50 EMPLOYEES, ABOUT HOW FAR REALLY THEY GOT BEHIND OR NOT.
AND I'M HOPEFUL THAT WE CAN TAKE A SECOND, A SECOND STEP NEXT YEAR.
BUT, YOU KNOW, WHO KNOWS WHAT THE FUTURE WILL BRING.
I LIKE THE IDEA OF PUTTING THE UM, $900,000 NUMBER IN THERE AS THE PLACEHOLDER, BUT WITH THE DIRECTION OF THE PHASE IN FOR THE 7% BECAUSE I AGREE THAT YOU DON'T, YOU DON'T GET THERE IN ONE FELL SWOOP AND YOU DON'T GET OUT OF IT WITH ONE FELL SWOOP.
AND I JUST THINK THAT IT, THAT GIVES US THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME IN IF THINGS ARE STRONG AND GO THE REST OF THE WAY AT A LATER DATE.
SO, UM, TAKING THAT LITTLE BIT MORE OF A CONSERVATIVE APPROACH.
SO I, I SUPPORT THE $900,000 NUMBER WITH THE 7% DIRECTION.
UM, SO IT'S BEEN SAID THAT SEDONA IS AN EXPENSIVE PLACE TO LIVE.
I GET THAT WE DON'T HAVE MANY EMPLOYEES WHO LIVE HERE.
SO, BUT MY CONCERN IS I WANNA BE COMPETITIVE AND I WANNA CONTINUE TO ATTRACT THE BEST THAT WE CAN AND KEEP THEM.
SO I WILL SUPPORT THE FULL IMPLEMENTATION BECAUSE UH, I JUST FEEL THAT WHETHER IT'S SOMETHING WE CAN TAKE OURSELVES OUT OF RIGHT AWAY OR NOT, WE, LET'S GET TO WHERE WE NEED TO BE.
AND UH, I JUST THINK THAT'S THE BEST WAY TO GO.
ANNETTE, DO YOU HAVE YOUR DIRECTION? UH, YES SIR.
MR. MAYOR, UM, I HEARD FOUR FULL IMPLEMENTATION, TWO AT THE 7%, ONE THAT WAS THE 900 WITH THE 7% COMBO
SO I THINK WE HEARD THE FOUR, UH, THE MAJORITY.
AND THANK YOU ON BEHALF OF OUR EMPLOYEES.
REALLY, IT'S VERY MEANINGFUL AND I THINK THEY'LL APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH.
WELL, THANK YOU BARBARA, YOU WANNA CONTINUE WITH ANYTHING MORE?
NO, I KNOW, BUT NOTHING THAT SHOULD REQUIRE QUITE AS MUCH, UH, DISCUSSION.
[01:00:01]
THIS IS JUST ALL OF THE EXPENDITURES.THE BASE FROM 20, THE 25 BUDGET, THE BASE OF 26, THEN THE DECISION PACKAGES THAT WERE ADDED JUST SO THAT YOU CAN SEE IT ALL IN ONE PLACE.
AND EVEN WITH THE DECISION PACKAGES THAT WERE APPROVED AND THIS SALARY STUDY THAT WAS ALREADY IN THERE, WE'RE STILL AT 2.1% LESS THAN LAST YEAR'S BUDGET.
AND THAT WILL COME DOWN ANOTHER 400,000 FROM THE THE SALARY STUDY.
UM, CONTINGENCIES, I THINK IT'S JUST IMPORTANT TO KNOW WHERE SOME OF THIS MONEY IS, IS GOING.
UM, LAST YEAR, THIS YEAR THAT WE'RE IN FISCAL 25 HAD MUCH LOWER CONTINGENCIES THAN WE USUALLY SEE.
UM, WHAT THE FISCAL 26 BUDGET IS RECOMMENDING IS 6.475 MILLION.
AND YOU CAN SEE THOSE AMOUNTS THERE, UM, THAT ARE, THAT ARE INCLUDED.
SO, AND CONTINGENCIES, AS YOU ALL OF COURSE KNOW, ARE USED ONLY IN THE CASE OF SOMETHING COMING UP THAT WE NEED THAT MONEY FOR.
ESPECIALLY THINGS LIKE LAND ACQUISITION.
THOSE COME TO YOU TO SAY, YES, WE WANT TO USE THAT MONEY THAT WE CHOSE TO SET ASIDE IN THE BUDGET.
SO WHILE PART OF THE BUDGET, IT'S NOT ALWAYS SPENT, UM, DURING THE BUDGET YEAR.
AND THESE ARE THE INTERFUND TRANSFERS, THIS IS LIKE THE SUPER INTERESTING STUFF THAT EVERYBODY WANTS TO KNOW ABOUT.
THIS JUST BASICALLY TELLS YOU WHERE THE MONEY IS IS GOING.
AND THE GENERAL FUND IS THE LARGEST SORT OF CONTRIBUTOR TO ALL OF THE OTHER FUNDS BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE OUR MAIN REVENUES COME IN.
SALES TAX, BED TAX, FRANCHISE FEES.
AND THAT'S WHERE MOST OF THE DEPARTMENTS ARE EXCEPT FOR LIKE WASTEWATER AND IT, SO WHEN YOU, AND WE HAVE SOME STAFF IN LIKE CIP BUT IN GENERAL
SO THAT MONEY DOESN'T ACTUALLY GO OUT.
IT JUST COMES FROM LIKE THE GENERAL FUND AND STREETS AND HOUSING AND GOES IN THERE BASICALLY TO PAY FOR OUR TECHNOLOGY AND FOR THEIR TIME.
SO THEY'RE KIND OF A DEPARTMENT OF THE WHOLE CITY INSTEAD OF JUST THE GENERAL FUND.
BARBARA, THIS PAGE REALLY IS EXCITING.
IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING ELSE I'M TELLING YOU.
WELL, I GUARANTEE SHE'S EXCITED BY IT.
YOU KNOW,
AND WE'RE REDUCING THAT EVERY YEAR BY WHAT, A HUNDRED THOUSAND? BY A HUNDRED THOUSAND? SO THAT WAS 3 MILLION IN FISCAL 25 AND IT'S 2.9, BUT WE ARE, UM, GOING TO RELEASE AN RFP FOR THAT RATE STUDY THAT WILL LOOK AT ALL OF THE NECESSARY INVESTMENTS IN THE SYSTEM, ALL OF THE POTENTIAL THINGS WE'LL DO, AND THEN IT WILL COME BACK WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RATES AND PHASES IF WE WANNA DO THAT.
ALL THAT KIND OF REALLY EXCITING THINGS ACTUALLY.
AND I'M ASKING BECAUSE
WHICH, HOW MANY HOUSES ARE THERE, FOR INSTANCE? WELL, THEY'RE NOT ALL ON THE WASTEWATER.
WHAT'S THAT? THEY'RE NOT ALL ON THE WASTEWATER SYSTEM.
BUT, BUT MY BACK OF THE ENVELOPE IS, THAT'S PROBABLY WORTH AT LEAST $500 A HOUSEHOLD.
AT THE SUBSIDY, WE HAVE SIX, 6,000 ACCOUNTS.
SORRY, RENEE IS THE GENIUS OVER HERE.
SO IT THEN, SO YEAH, IT SHOULD BE PRETTY CLOSE TO 500 THEN.
BARBARA CAN TAKE UNLESS THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, BARBARA, GO AHEAD.
SO RESERVES, UM, THESE ARE JUST A, A LIST OF THE RESERVES THAT, UM, ARE, THAT THE CITY HAS RIGHT NOW.
YOU DON'T BUDGET RESERVES, BUT YOU'LL SEE ALL OF THESE.
SO WE HAVE THE OPERATING RESERVES, THE CAPITAL RESERVES, EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT MAINTENANCE, THERE'S A TRANSIT SYSTEM RESERVE, AND THEN THE HOUSING FUND RESERVES, WHICH, UM, WE'RE TRYING TO BE MORE
[01:05:02]
CLEAR BUT NOT AS SPECIFIC WITH THAT.SO THAT THOSE MONIES AREN'T NECESSARILY LOCKED DOWN FOR LOANS.
BARBARA, JUST, UH, ARE ALL THE RESERVES AT THE POLICY AMOUNT? YES.
I CAN, SO THIS IS JUST COMPARISON TO PRIOR YEARS.
THIS IS ANOTHER SUPER EXCITING SLIDE.
IT ACTUALLY KIND OF IS, IT JUST SHOWS WHERE THE RESERVES ARE WHEN THEY GO UP AND DOWN.
AND OUR RESERVES SHOW A LITTLE MORE VOLATILITY THAN WE WOULD OTHERWISE SEE BECAUSE WE CASH FUND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.
I DON'T, YOU KNOW, I HAVE NO NEGATIVE ANYTHING ABOUT THAT, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WHAT WE DO IS WE PUT RESERVES BACK.
WE PUT RESERVES BACK, THEN WE HAVE A REALLY BIG PROJECT AND WE DRAW DOWN THOSE RESERVES RATHER THAN ISSUING A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF DEBT FOR EVERY PROJECT THAT COMES UP.
SO THAT'S WHY WHEN YOU LOOK AT RESERVES OVER TIME, YOU'LL SEE THEM INCREASE AND THEN GO DOWN AND THEN YOU SHOULD SEE THEM INCREASE AGAIN AS MAJOR PROJECTS ARE COMPLETE.
SO THAT, THAT'S SOMETHING TO KIND OF KEEP IN MIND WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT OUR RESERVES.
SO THE GENERAL FUND SURPLUS, I KNOW IS SOMETHING THAT USUALLY YOU ALLOCATE SORT OF THE YEAR AFTER THE FACT.
NOW BECAUSE WE'RE HOLDING REVENUES LIKE FLAT, WE DON'T ANTICIPATE A SIGNIFICANT SURPLUS AT THE END OF FISCAL 26.
HOWEVER, I, I THINK IT WILL BE MORE THAN THAT, BUT I THINK IT IS PRUDENT TO ASSUME LOWER AND, AND FLAT REVENUES.
SO THAT IS OUR, UH, ASSUMPTION GOING INTO THIS BUDGET.
WHAT, HOW MUCH RESERVES DO WE CURRENTLY HAVE TO ALLOCATE THIS YEAR? NONE.
BECAUSE YOU ALLOCATED THEM LAST YEAR TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS IN THE BUDGET THING.
YOU SAID WE'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOCATE RESERVES NEXT YEAR.
WE'RE GONNA ALLOCATE THEM ON THE FRONT END AND SAY ANYTHING THAT IS AVAILABLE AT THE END OF 24 WILL GO INTO CAPITAL.
WELL, I MEAN WE COULD DO THAT AGAIN IN 25, RIGHT? HE TOTALLY COULD.
WELL, HOW MUCH IS IN 25? HOW MUCH ARE YOU PROJECTING? UM, WE'RE PROJECTING ONLY 200,000 SURPLUS IN THE GENERAL FUND.
THAT'S BASED ON THE FLAT REVENUES? NO, NO, YOU SAID 25.
SO NEXT I, THIS IS JUST A RECAP OF THE DECISION PACKAGES, UM, THAT WERE, UH, INCLUDED.
THESE ARE THE ONES WITH POSITIONS AND I DON'T THINK YOU NEED ME TO READ THEM TO YOU.
AND THEN NEXT ARE THE, UM, OPERATIONAL DECISION PACKAGES.
AND THERE'S TWO SLIDES WITH THAT.
AND THESE ARE THE ONES INCLUDED THAT YOU ALL SAID, YOU KNOW, YAY TO, UM, DURING THE WORK SESSIONS, ALTHOUGH MR. MAYOR, MAY I INTERRUPT HERE PLEASE.
UM, SO IN BETWEEN THE TIME THAT THIS PACKET WAS CREATED AND DISTRIBUTED TO YOU AND TODAY, UM, THE PARK STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING ON THE DIRECTION THAT THEY RECEIVED FROM YOU AT THE END OF THE BUDGET WORK SESSIONS ABOUT SEEING WHAT OF THESE ITEMS, FOR EXAMPLE, FITNESS EQUIPMENT OR SOFTBALL UPGRADES, WHAT OF THOSE ITEMS COULD BE PAID FOR OUT OF THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR AND COMPLETED BY JUNE 30TH TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT NEEDED IN NEXT YEAR.
AND UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT TOGETHER WITH PUBLIC WORKS, THEY'VE IDENTIFIED ABOUT $123,000 WORTH OF SMALL PROJECTS.
THEY CAN GO AHEAD AND GET DONE IN THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR BEFORE JUNE 30TH.
SO WE WILL END UP TAKING THOSE OUT.
AND SO THIS DECISION PACKAGE, UM, GRAND TOTAL WILL GO DOWN BY LIKE 123,000.
CAN YOU GIVE US AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT THE ONE OF THEM WELL, JOSH IS HERE.
YEAH, SO THAT'S GOOD NEWS 'CAUSE THAT'LL REDUCE THE FY 26 BUDGET ADDITION.
YEAH, SO THE BIGGEST PART OF THOSE WOULD BE THE HUB UPGRADES, WHICH IS ONE OF THE DECISION PACKAGES.
SO WE'RE GONNA GET THE EXTERIOR PAINTING DONE AHEAD OF TIME AS WELL AS THE WINDOW COVERINGS FOR THE INSIDE, WHICH WAS A GOOD CHUNK OF THAT.
AND THEN THE SHADE STRUCTURES, WE'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO GET THE RAMADA DONE AT RANGER STATION PARK.
UM, THAT'LL BE DONE AHEAD OF TIME.
AND THEN THE, ONE OF THE SHADE STRUCTURES AT SUNSET.
SO THAT'LL HELP WITH ABOUT 122,000 OF THAT.
JOSH, IS IT TRUE YOU FINISHED THE TWO 50 K RACE? IT IS.
THAT'S AN ABSOLUTELY AMAZING ACHIEVEMENT.
[01:10:01]
DID YOU PAINT, UH, THE, UH, THE STAGE AT BARBARA'S PARK? NO.
IS THAT THE STRUCTURE, THE METAL? IT WASN'T ORIGINALLY, UM, PATID? NO, THAT HASN'T BEEN PAINTED IN MY TIME HERE, NO.
AND THANKS FOR EXPLAINING THAT.
AND, UH, SHOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT WE ARE PURCHASING THE IT VEHICLE THIS YEAR, SO THAT ONE SHOWS A ZERO HERE.
YEAH, I'M SORRY MELISSA, GO AHEAD.
SO, UM, ONE'S A QUESTION FOR YOU AND ONE IS A QUESTION FOR COUNCIL.
UM, SO ON THE E CVIS GRANT MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE ADD-ON THE COMMENTS AT THE TIME WAS, UM, WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT IT ONLY LOOKS AT FEDERAL GRANTS OR IF IT ALSO LOOKS AT PRIVATE GRANTS.
'CAUSE IF THERE'S A WAY FOR US TO GET GET PRIVATE GRANTS, UM, IT COULD IN ESSENCE PAY FOR ITSELF WITH THE, UH, ISSUANCE OR THE ACQUISITION OF A SINGLE PRIVATE GRANT GIVEN WHAT'S HAPPENING AT FEDERAL GRANTS.
YES, I DID GET AN ANSWER TO THAT.
AND THE COMPANY DID CONFIRM THAT THEY ALSO PROVIDE INFORMATION ON PRIVATE FOUNDATION GRANTS.
SO IT'S ALL TYPES AND SOURCES, FEDERAL, STATE, PRIVATE, YOU KNOW, YOU NAME IT.
YEAH, SO THAT WAS A CONVERSATION WE HAD HAD DURING THE BUDGET SESSION.
SO I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY ON THAT ONE, I SUPPORT THE IDEA BECAUSE IF WE CAN EVEN GET ONE GRANT, UM, THEN THAT WOULD BE, IT WOULD PAY FOR ITSELF.
SO THAT, THAT'S MY COMMENT THERE.
AND THE OTHER ONE WAS REALLY FOR THE BODY AT LARGE IS THE LARGE GRANTS PROGRAM.
SO, UM, I'M STILL STRUGGLING WITH THIS AND I'M STRUGGLING WITH IT BECAUSE OF SOMETHING THAT, I'M NOT SURE IF PETE SAID IT OR BRIAN SAID IT, I'M NOT SURE WHO SAID IT.
BUT, UM, SOMEONE MENTIONED THAT INSTEAD OF THIS BEING TREATED LIKE A LARGE GRANTS PROGRAM, LIKE WE DO OUR SMALL GRANTS, THAT PERHAPS IT SHOULD BE IN THE TOURISM GROUP BECAUSE THEY KNOW THE KINDS OF TOURISTS THAT WE WANT TO ATTRACT.
UM, AND WE WOULD HAVE TO BE USING THAT KIND OF STAFF TIME IN MY MIND IN ORDER TO ADMINISTER THE LARGE GRANTS PROGRAM.
UM, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT AS BEING, AS SOMETHING THAT'S BRINGING REVENUE EVENTS, CULTURAL EVENTS AND EVENTS THAT ARE BRINGING REVENUES INTO THE CITY.
SO, UM, I WOULD STILL LIKE FOR THIS BODY TO AT LEAST CONSIDER THAT THIS BE NOT A LARGE GRANTS PROGRAM, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU WOULD CALL IT.
YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW, CITY SPONSORSHIP PROGRAM, WHATEVER THAT GOES OUT FROM THE TOURISM GROUP THAT WE STILL WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE THAT THE FUNDS BE SPENT FOR THAT EVENT, BUT THAT THEY'RE PROBABLY THE BEST QUALIFIED TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THAT EVENT IS GOING TO BRING IN THE KINDS OF TOURS THAT WE WANT OR THE KIND OF REVENUE THAT WE'RE HOPING THAT WOULD GENERATE.
SO I JUST WANTED TO PAUSE THAT.
SO YOU'RE SAYING EACH EVENT THE, UH, THE GROUP WOULD APPROVE EACH INDIVIDUAL EVENT? OR WOULD THIS BE, UH, THE ORGANIZATION A, A BLANKET FOR THE YEAR? EXPLAIN.
SO IT WOULD BE, IT, IT, IT'S, I DON'T KNOW.
IT'S HOWEVER THE STAFF WOULD SET IT UP.
SO IF I COULD HELP, UM, WITH THIS PART OF THE CONVERSATION, THE, UM, STEPHANIE GERE WHO IS THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE SMALL GRANTS PROGRAM, AND I MET AFTER YOUR LAST BUDGET WORK SESSIONS TO TRY TO, UM, PUT A CONSTRUCT AROUND WHAT A LARGE GRANTS PROGRAM MIGHT LOOK LIKE.
AND MY PLAN WAS IF YOU APPROVE THE DOLLAR ALLOCATION TOWARDS SOMETHING LIKE THIS, THAT WE WOULD COME BACK TO COUNCIL WITH A PROPOSAL OF HOW THE PROGRAM WOULD WORK AND WE COULD PUT IN THAT AN OPTION FOR, YOU KNOW, WE COULD PUT A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS RIGHT NOW AS FAR AS ADMINISTRATION IS CONCERNED.
SO, UM, I THINK FOR TODAY, IF YOU'RE STILL COMFORTABLE WITH THE DOLLAR AMOUNT, WE WILL BE BACK TO YOU WITH, UM, THE ACTUAL, UM, MECHANISM, I GUESS I WOULD CALL IT FOR YOU TO APPROVE.
YEAH, I'M, I'M FINE WITH THAT.
FOR ME, IT WAS JUST IT, I DIDN'T WANT THIS TO BE TREATED LIKE SMALL GRANTS 'CAUSE I THINK THIS HAS AN IMPACT ON THE CITY AS WELL.
UM, UNLIKE SMALL GRANTS IN COMPARISON.
AND HOW DO YOU FEEL IN THAT, ABOUT THAT COMING FROM THROUGH TOURISM? CAN IT LEGALLY COME THROUGH TOURISM? WELL, THE WAY THAT IT'S BUDGETED, IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, IS SIMILAR TO UM, HOW WE TREAT THE SMALL GRANT CONTRACTS, HOW WE TREAT THE COMMUNITY SERVICE
[01:15:01]
PROVIDER CONTRACTS IN THAT IT'S IN THE GENERAL SERVICES BUDGET.IT'S NOT IN ANY PARTICULAR DEPARTMENT, BUT IF YOU WOULD LIKE THE TOURISM FOLKS INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS OF THE, UM, YOU KNOW, AWARDING IT, SELECTING IT OR IDENTIFYING THE PROJECT, WE CAN TOTALLY DO THAT.
BUT THE MONEY ITSELF WOULD NOT GO IN, THE TOURISM BUDGET WOULD STAY IN THE GENERAL SERVICES ACCOUNT.
CAN IT COME OUT OF TOURISM? IT COULD.
UM, BUT WE TYPICALLY DON'T DO THAT.
'CAUSE I KNOWS SOME LEGAL, UH, GROUNDS FOR THAT.
KATHY? IT'S REALLY SOMEWHAT SEMANTIC BECAUSE IF YOU'RE COMING BACK WITH IT, IT'S ALL STILL WITHIN THOSE DEPARTMENTS OR WITHIN THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE ANYWAY.
SO, WELL, I MEAN TECHNICALLY I SUPERVISE ALL OF IT.
SO YEAH, SO IT'S, THE TOURISM PROGRAM IS A STANDALONE DEPARTMENT.
I'D RATHER KEEP IT WHERE IT'S MORE FLEXIBLE AS WELL.
SO, BUT YOU'LL COME BACK WITH THAT.
I THINK IT'S WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, WE'LL BRING BACK THE STRUCTURE OF HOW A PROPOSAL FOR HOW TO OPERATE THE PROGRAM AND YOU CAN APPROVE IT OR CHANGE IT OR WHATEVER.
UH, PETE, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING? NO, DEREK.
SO WE DID A LITTLE MORE, UM, RESEARCH INTO THE STAFFING AND WHEN WE DID CUTS AND WHEN WE DID INCREASES AND WHERE PART-TIME AND FULL-TIME PEOPLE WERE.
'CAUSE I THINK WHEN WE TALK IN FTES SOMETIMES THAT'S A LITTLE CHALLENGING BECAUSE ONE FTE COULD BE FOR PART-TIME PEOPLE, SORT OF DEPENDING ON HOW IT'S STRUCTURED AND HOW MANY HOURS.
UM, SO WHAT WHAT WE FOUND WAS, I MEAN, WE KNOW THE GREAT RECESSION, WE SAW BIG REDUCTIONS.
UM, AND BACK IN LIKE FISCAL YEAR SEVEN AND THROUGH FISCAL YEAR NINE, WE HAD LIKE 30 TO ALMOST 35 FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS OF PART-TIME PEOPLE.
OVER TIME, THAT HAS DECREASED.
AND IN THE FISCAL YEAR 26 BUDGET, WE HAVE 15.65.
AND WHAT THAT'S REALLY INDICATIVE OF IS THAT EITHER POSITIONS, THE SCOPES HAVE EXPANDED AND WE'VE NEEDED TO MAKE THEM FULL-TIME OR BECAUSE THEY'RE MUCH EASIER TO RECRUIT, WE HAVE TAKEN MULTIPLE PART-TIME POSITIONS AND MADE FULL-TIME OUT OF THEM.
AND I THINK JUST SORT OF UNDERSTANDING WHAT'S PART-TIME AND FULL-TIME GIVES A LITTLE MORE CONTEXT.
AND WE ALSO RESEARCH, LIKE WE HAVE THESE INITIATIVES, RIGHT? WE HAVE SIM, SHORT-TERM RENTAL, HOUSING, ALL THOSE THINGS.
WHAT POSITIONS DID WE ADD THAT WERE SPECIFICALLY LINKED TO THOSE? AND FROM FISCAL 18 TO 26 INCLUSIVE, UM, 42.5% OF ALL THE POSITIONS ADDED WERE, UM, RELATED SPECIFICALLY LIKE IN THE BUDGET THEY SAY FOR THOSE PARTICULAR INITIATIVES.
AND THEN THIS AGAIN, IS THAT ACTUALLY I REALLY LIKE THIS CHART, UM, BECAUSE I WAS ABLE TO GO ALL THE WAY BACK TO OH SEVEN AND SORT OF LOOK AT WHERE FULL-TIME, YOU KNOW, HOW MANY FULL-TIME PEOPLE WE HAD, HOW MANY PART-TIME, UM, FOR ALL OF THOSE YEARS.
AND I THINK IT REALLY SHOWS LIKE WE MADE MAJOR REDUCTIONS FOR A WHILE AND THEN KIND OF GOT BACK ON TRACK.
AND I ALSO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, UM, I KNOW THERE WAS AN ARTICLE IN THE PAPER THAT SAID, WELL, WE'VE SEEN A DECREASE IN OUR POPULATION.
AND WHILE THAT'S TRUE, WE HAVE HAD A DECREASE IN FULL-TIME POPULATION.
I, I DUNNO THAT ANYONE COULD SAY WE'VE HAD A DECREASE IN THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE COLLECTIVELY THAT WE SERVE.
SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S A LITTLE MORE CHALLENGING IN A TOURIST COMMUNITY BECAUSE YOU HAVE SO MANY PEOPLE COMING IN THAT AREN'T REFLECTED IN YOUR POPULATION, YOU KNOW.
AND THEN THIS NEXT SLIDE ACTUALLY JUST SAYS WHICH YEARS WE ADDED PEOPLE TO WHICH PROGRAM, WHICH WAS ALSO ANOTHER FUN THING TO RESEARCH FOR ME.
SO ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT, BRIAN? JUST WANNA SAY THANKS AGAIN FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER BECAUSE IT WAS SOMETHING I WANTED TO SEE.
AND, AND BARBARA, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO SAY THAT SOME OF THESE POSITIONS WE WOULDN'T NORMALLY HAVE HAD TO DO IF THERE WERE WASN'T A NEED FOR IT.
SO IT'S NOT LIKE IT WAS JUST EXTRA GRAVY, YOU KNOW, ON STAFF.
AND WE'RE JUST GONNA WILLY-NILLY HIRE PEOPLE.
WE NEED SHORT-TERM RENTAL, UH, STAFF, NOT BECAUSE WE WANTED TO HAVE SHORT-TERM MENTAL STAFF.
IT'S 'CAUSE WE HAVE SHORT TERM RENTALS THAT WE DIDN'T WANT THE POLICE.
IT WOULD BE GREAT IF WE COULD HAVE LESS POLICE, BUT WE HAVE A CHALLENGE AND WE SEE IT EVERY DAY IN OUR DAILY REPORTS.
IT WOULD BE NICE IF WE DIDN'T NEED THE EXTRA POLICE AND I CAN GO DOWN THE LIST, BUT, UH, THIS IS, UH, THIS IS, THIS LIST IS HELPFUL.
ALRIGHT, SO NOW THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT,
[01:20:01]
UM, THIS FIRST SLIDE ARE THE CHANGES FROM THE WORK SESSIONS TO NOW.UM, AND WE HAVE, UH, A TOTAL OF, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SOME INCREASES AND SOME AND SOME DECREASES.
AND THE TENTATIVE BUDGET NOW IS, UH, 42.3 MILLION, WHICH IS A DECREASE OF ALMOST 13% OVER FISCAL 25.
AND THEN THIS IS, UM, CIP CHANGES YEAR OVER YEAR IN EACH OF THESE CATEGORIES.
SO, YOU KNOW, SIM IS DECREASING, AS YOU KNOW, WE SPENT A WHOLE LOT OF MONEY ON MAJOR PROJECTS THIS YEAR.
WE'RE STILL SPENDING A LOT OF MONEY ON THE PARKING DECK AND FOREST ROAD.
BUT THOSE WILL BE WRAPPED UP THERE A LITTLE FURTHER, FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD.
UM, WASTEWATER SEEING A DECREASE, PARKS DECREASE.
UM, AND THEN WE HAVE SOME INCREASES.
BUT THEN, YOU KNOW, THE OVERALL IS, IS A REDUCTION.
AND THEN THIS IS JUST OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BY CATEGORY.
AND WE HAVE THE CARRYOVER AND THE NEW, AND I JUST WANNA GIVE CONTEXT FOR CARRYOVER FOR, YOU KNOW, THE GENERAL PUBLIC THAT CARRYOVERS ARE ACTUALLY AMOUNTS THAT WE HAVE SAID THIS PROJECT BUDGET IS GONNA BE, I DON'T KNOW, $10 MILLION.
AND IN FISCAL 25 WE SPENT 4 MILLION, STILL GONNA BE $10 MILLION, BUT IN FISCAL 26, WE'RE GOING TO CARRY OVER FROM THAT 10 MILLION, THE SIX THAT REMAINS.
SO WHEN WE SEE CARRYOVERS, IT'S SORT OF IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND THAT WE HAVE LIKE THIS BIG SORT OF LIFETIME PROJECT BUDGET, BUT WE HAVE TO BREAK IT INTO FISCAL YEARS BECAUSE OF THE WAY WE, WE BUDGET AS A GOVERNMENT.
SO THAT'S WHAT A CARRYOVER IS, IS LIKE THAT PIECE THAT WE HAVE NOT SPENT OF THE TOTAL BUDGET AND THEN NEW OUR, YOU KNOW, NEW PROJECTS, UM, THAT ARE COMING ON FOR THE NEXT YEAR.
AND THEN HERE'S, UH, CA UH, CONTINUING THE CATEGORIES WITH, UM, SHOWING WHAT THE CARRYOVER IS AND THE NEW, AND THIS DOES INCLUDE THE 1%, UH, ARTS TRANSFERS AND THE CFDE, THE HOW MUCH THAT WAS 200 SOMETHING.
AND THIS IS OUR HISTORIC CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT EXPENDITURES.
AND HISTORICALLY WE'VE SPENT ABOUT 61% OF WHAT WE BUDGET ANNUALLY, WHICH WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE, UM, ARIZONA RESTRICTIONS ON AMENDING THE BUDGET, THAT'S NOT REALLY SURPRISING BECAUSE WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN AFFORD TO DO THE PROJECT.
AND THEN THE FACT THAT WE GET, YOU KNOW, ONLY 60% OF WHAT WE ANTICIPATED DONE IS PRETTY REASONABLE BECAUSE WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT SHOULD WE HAVE A PROJECT THAT JUST GOES LIKE SWIMMINGLY, WE CAN ACTUALLY GET IT DONE.
UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT I'VE EVER SEEN CAPITAL PROJECTS JUST LIKE BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, IT'S ALL AWESOME AND GREAT.
THERE'S ALWAYS SOMETHING YOU FIND UTILITIES YOU DIDN'T KNOW WERE THERE, SOMETHING COMES UP THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU CAN'T ANTICIPATE.
SO I THINK THAT'S A PRETTY REASONABLE AMOUNT.
BUT THAT'S SOMETHING TO ALSO KEEP IN MIND WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE BUDGET IS THAT THAT 42 MILLION, THE LIKELY SPEND OF THAT IS SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER.
AND THEN THIS IS, THESE ARE THE FUNDING SOURCES FOR WHERE THE MONEY FOR ALL OF THAT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT IS COMING FROM.
AND JUST TO BE CLEAR THAT THE DEBT FINANCING IS DEBT THAT WE ALREADY ISSUED.
THAT'S JUST MONEY COMING FROM THE BONDS THAT WE'VE ALREADY ISSUED.
AND THEN ALL OF THOSE OTHER CATEGORIES.
AND THEN THESE ARE THE, THE, UM, PRIORITY RANKINGS OF ALL OF THE, THE CIP COMING IN THIS YEAR AND THE PRIORITY ONE, WHICH IS IMPERATIVE.
AND I FEEL LIKE THOSE ARE WEIRD WORDS BECAUSE YOU COULD ARRANGE THEM SORT OF IN ANY WAY.
SO I, I WENT MORE WITH PRIORITY 1, 2, 3.
UM, THAT'S ABOUT 22.2 MILLION.
AND THESE ARE, THIS CATEGORY IS INTENDED TO BE PROJECTS THAT CANNOT BE POSTPONED THAT ADDRESS HEALTH AND SAFETY.
YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT'S KIND OF LIKE URGENT, LIKE WE HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF THIS, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE MAYBE WE HAVE A MAJOR ISSUE WITH FLOODING AND WE'VE GOT TO GET IN AND TAKE CARE OF THAT.
OR WE NEED TO REDO SOMETHING IN A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT.
AND THAT BEING THE MOST IMPORTANT FUNCTION OF A GOVERNMENT BECAUSE, COME ON.
AND THEN PRIORITY TWO IS THE ESSENTIAL, WHICH, AND THIS IS WHERE I'M KIND OF LIKE ESSENTIAL VERSUS IMPERATIVE.
UM, I THINK SAYING TWO IS, IS BETTER AND THIS IS 17.9 MILLION
[01:25:02]
AND THESE ARE PROJECTS THAT HAVE A CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED NEED AND OR, YOU KNOW, ADDRESS COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY GOALS THAT HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED.AND THEN PRIORITY THREE ARE IMPORTANT.
AGAIN, DON'T REALLY LIKE THE WORDS.
UM, THIS IS TWO POINT, ALMOST 2.2 MILLION.
UM, AND THESE BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY, BUT WERE WE TO DELAY THEM, THERE ISN'T LIKE A DETRIMENT TO THE COMMUNITY.
WE'RE NOT GONNA, YOU KNOW, SEE ANYTHING BAD HAPPEN, IT'S JUST GONNA BE DELAYED.
AND THEN PRIORITY FOUR ARE PROJECTS THAT ARE DESIRABLE, BUT THE REALITY IS THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT TO DO THEM.
THEY JUST IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE COMMUNITY.
AND THEN THIS LAST SLIDE YOU HAD, YOU ALL HAD ASKED ABOUT PAYING OFF DEBT, WHAT COULD WE PAY OFF? UM, WE DON'T RECOMMEND TRYING TO PAY OFF ANY BONDS.
UM, MOSTLY BECAUSE WE AREN'T WITHIN THE CALL DATES FOR MOST OF THEM.
SO WE CAN'T, AND OUR BONDED DEBT IS ALSO PRETTY LOW INTEREST AND IT ALIGNS WITH THE LIFETIME OF THE ASSET THAT WE'RE FUNDING.
SO THAT, THAT DEBT, I WOULD RECOMMEND, YOU KNOW, REVISIT IT IN I THINK 2031 IS THE FIRST CALL DATE THAT COMES UP AND WE CAN, COULD CONSIDER IT AT THAT POINT.
THE ENTERPRISE LEASES THOUGH, THAT'S ANOTHER THING.
SO WE HAVE 25 OF THOSE OUTSTANDING FOR ABOUT 840,019 OF THOSE ARE HIGH INTEREST RATES.
UM, AND THAT'S ABOUT 744,000 OF THAT 8 39.
UM, EVEN IF WE, YOU KNOW, PAY PAID OFF ALL OF THE HIGH INTEREST ONES, THAT THAT WOULD STILL BE GOOD.
BUT THIS IS SOMETHING FOR YOU ALL TO CONSIDER IF YOU WOULD WANT TO DO THAT.
OR EVEN JUST SAY YOU THE SAVINGS FROM THE 1.3 ON THE SALARY STUDY TO PAY OFF THE HIGHEST INTEREST RATES OF THIS.
I MEAN, YOU COULD DO WHATEVER YOU WANTED, BUT THIS IS WHAT'S AVAILABLE AND WE COULD ALSO, UM, TRY TO PAY SOME OF THESE OFF IN THIS YEAR IF THAT'S YOUR DIRECTION.
AND THAT'S ACTUALLY THE END OF MY PRESENTATION, BUT THAT'S A DISCUSSION POINT, SO I'LL PAUSE THERE.
BEFORE WE GO TO, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT, WHAT CAN HOLD UNTIL AFTER THE PUBLIC COMMENT? I WAS GONNA ASK A QUESTION.
ON THAT LAST SLIDE, SO READING YOUR LITTLE BOX AT THE LOWER LEFT ABOUT THE NOTE, UH, SO WHAT COULD WE DO TO PAY OFF ANY OF THOSE ENTERPRISE LEASES OUT OF FY 25 CURRENT BUDGET THAT THAT'S OUTSTANDING THAT WE THAT, DO WE HAVE ANY SURPLUS RIGHT NOW WE COULD USE? OH, I WAS JUST GONNA ASK BARBARA.
UM, THERE WAS A PREVIOUS SLIDE THAT HAD AN ESTIMATED FY 25 SURPLUS NUMBER.
CORRECT? THAT WAS THE 7.6 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
I COULDN'T REMEMBER THE EXACT AMOUNT, BUT THAT WOULD BE THE SOURCE, RIGHT, BASICALLY, RIGHT.
SO WE COULD DO IT, YES, ABSOLUTELY.
AND WE'VE, BUT WE WOULD NORMALLY BE WAITING ALMOST A YEAR TO DECIDE TO DO THAT.
BUT YOU, YOU COULDN'T HAVE TO DO THAT NOW BECAUSE THIS IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE WE'RE JUST PAYING, I PAID THE INTEREST FOR A YEAR AND THEN DO THAT.
SO YOU WON'T GET THAT INTEREST FROM OUR INVESTMENTS.
SO IS THERE CONSENSUS TO GIVE DIRECTION TO PAY OFF ALL THOSE ENTERPRISE LEASES AT THE, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE? SO JUST THE 19 OF THEM? NO, ALL OF THEM.
IT IS, THERE'S LESS THAN A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PAYING OFF THE HIGHEST INTEREST AND PAYING OFF ALL OF THEM.
SO ALL OF THEM WOULD BE 839,000 AND THE HIGHEST INTEREST WOULD BE 744.
I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT IT RAISING THE BUDGET.
IT'S NOT, IT'S, NO, IT'S PAID FOR OUTTA COME OUTTA PREVIOUS SURPLUS.
DO YOU WANT THAT DIRECTION NOW OR DO YOU WANT THAT DIRECTION AT THE END OF OKAY, NOW WOULD BE GOOD.
I SUPPORT, I SUPPORT THAT WE'D BE SAVING MONEY.
SO LET'S OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, STILL NO CARDS CORRECT, MAYOR.
NOW WE'RE GONNA CLOSE THE LAST 30 SECONDS.
WELL, IT'S BEEN ACTUALLY ONLY LIKE 45 MINUTES, SO, OKAY.
SO WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ANY, UH, COMMENTS.
SEEING NOTHING ELSE? WELL, A QUESTION.
SO WHAT'S THE FINAL NUMBER NOW WITH THE DIRECTION THAT WAS GIVEN TO REDUCE DOWN? I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NUMBER IS THAT WE'RE REPRESENTATIVE BUDGET.
DO YOU WANT, UH, SO STERLING, CAN YOU GIVE A NEW TENTATIVE BUDGET
[01:30:01]
AMOUNT? YEAH.THE TENTATIVE OR DO YOU NEED A COUPLE MINUTES? OH, STERLING'S A MANIAC.
SO THE, THE TENTATIVE BUDGET NOW IS 103,457,496.
AND THAT INCLUDES THE EASE OF A SOFTWARE BEING ADDED BACK UP.
AND THAT WITH THAT EXTRA CHANGE, WE'LL BE PAYING DOWN OUR DEBT.
SO, WHICH WILL HELP ACTUALLY SAVE MONEY.
THAT'LL BE IN THIS FISCAL YEAR.
SO THAT REFLECTS THE ROUGHLY $400,000 DIFFERENCE IN THE, OKAY.
SO IN THE 1 22 OF THE PARKS PROJECTS COMING OUT OF THE DECISION PACKAGE.
SO YOU NEED A, A MOTION, RIGHT? IS IT A MOTION OR IS IT JUST A CONSENSUS TO MOVE? IT'S, IT'S A MOTION FOR THE YEAR.
THAT'S WHY KURT, DO WE NEED A MOTION FOR THAT? YES.
SO ARE YOU DONE? YOU HAVE IT WRITTEN ALREADY? I HAVE IT.
I FIGURED I'M
SO I MOVED TO APPROVE THE TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 20 25, 26, AND THEREBY SET THE EXPENDITURE LIMIT FOR THE BUDGET AT $103,457,496.
ARE WE SURE THAT THAT'S, YEAH, CORRECT.
YOU SAID SO STERLING, IT, IT'LL LIKELY COME A FEW, UM, THOUSAND DOLLARS UNDER THIS AS AFTER WE MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO SALARIES, A LOT OF THE BENEFITS HAVE, UM, NUMBERS THAT CORRELATE TO SALARY.
SO THIS WILL JUST BRING DOWN BENEFITS JUST A LITTLE BIT.
BUT THIS WILL SET THE EXPENDITURE LIMITATION AND WHEN WE MEET FOR FINAL, THAT NUMBER CAN BE REDUCED AGAIN.
OKAY, ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.
ARE YOU GUYS READY FOR A BREAK? YES.
HOW DO I KNOW THAT? OKAY, WE WILL TAKE, UH, 20 MINUTE BREAK.
SO WE, WE WILL BE BACK ABOUT SIX 20.
[8.b. AB 3218 Discussion/possible action regarding approval of Master Services Agreements for on-call professional services for various disciplines.]
UH, ITEM B, AB 32 18, DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING APPROVAL OF A MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR, EXCUSE ME, FOR ONCORE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR VARIOUS DISCIPLINES.AND YOU'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN THAT.
THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, VICE MAYOR, UH, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, UH, WE'RE HERE TODAY TO REQUEST APPROVAL OF, UH, OR AWARD RATHER OF 25 0 6.
UM, AND THE MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENTS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.
I HAVE, UH, ROXANNE HOLLAND HERE, DIRECTOR OF WASTEWATER, AND KURT HARRIS, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS WITH ME.
UH, THEY'LL, THEIR DEPARTMENTS WILL BE THE PRIMARY USERS OF THESE CONTRACTS.
UM, SO THIS WAS AN RFQ, THE CITY ISSUED TO SOLICIT STATEMENTS OF QUALIFICATIONS FROM ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, MATERIALS TESTING, UH, FIRMS. UM, IT WAS ACROSS SIX DIFFERENT CATEGORIES.
AND THE, UH, END RESULT WOULD ESTABLISH MASTER SERVICES CONTRACTS WITH THE HIGHEST RANKED RESPONDENTS FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS.
AND IT WOULD LOCK IN THEIR, UH, RATES AND MARKUPS FOR THE TERM.
UH, THESE MSAS ARE NOT A GUARANTEED ORDER BY THIS CITY, THEY'RE FOR AS NEEDED.
UM, SO THIS WOULD BE USED ACROSS PROJECTS, UM, THAT ARE BUDGETED THROUGH CIP OR OTHER OPERATING, UH, BUDGETED, BUDGETED FUNDS.
UM, THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO POINT OUT IS THAT THIS PURPOSE IS REALLY TO GO THROUGH A TRANSPARENT FAIR PROCESS.
UM, I DID HEAR FROM SOME PROFESSIONAL SERVICE PROVIDERS THAT WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY COULD HAVE ACCESS TO SUBMIT, UH, THEIR QUALIFICATIONS TO THE CITY.
UM, UH, THE DEPARTMENTS WENT THROUGH A, A EVALUATION OF ALL OF THE RESPONSES.
WE RECEIVED 34 STATEMENTS OF, UH, QUALIFICATIONS ACROSS ALL SIX CATEGORIES.
SOME OF THE RESPONDENTS APPLIED TO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES IF THEIR FIRMS COULD HANDLE THOSE SCOPES OF WORK.
UM, SO THIS PROCESS, UH, WAS ALSO IN PART, I THINK THERE WERE SOME POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMUNITY AND, UH, CONCERNS FROM COUNSEL ON OUR PROFESSIONAL SERVICE
[01:35:01]
PROVIDERS AND SELECTIONS.SO WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE DID THAT IN A TRANSPARENT MANNER.
UM, THE RFQ WAS ISSUED ON THE 30TH OF DECEMBER, 2024.
SUBMITTALS WERE DUE AT THE END OF JANUARY.
AND, UH, AFTER THE INITIAL EVALUATION PERIOD, UH, WE ENTERED INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH FINALISTS.
SO THAT ENTAILED REACHING OUT TO A LITTLE OVER A DOZEN DIFFERENT FINALISTS AND, UH, TALKING DOWN THEIR RATES, GETTING THEM TO AGREE TO THE THREE YEAR TERM, UM, AND THEN ALSO MAKING SURE THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY, UH, MARKUPS THAT WERE SEEN AS UNREASONABLE BY CITY STAFF.
UM, SO THAT BEING SAID, WE DO HAVE THE LIST OF, UH, ALL OF THE SELECTED FIRMS, UH, IN THE AGENDA BILL FOR YOU.
UM, THE RESULTING MSAS WOULD BE, UH, VALID THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 28 AND ALLOW FOR MORE EFFICIENT CONTRACTING PROCESS FOR DEPARTMENTS TO UTILIZE FIRMS THAT HAVE BEEN FORMALLY SOURCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARIZONA LAW AND, UH, BEST PRACTICES, UM, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH LARGER PROJECTS.
SO A GOOD EXAMPLE WOULD'VE BEEN, UH, PTO ONE FOR THE TRANSIT AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY.
THAT WAS A VERY LARGE PROJECT.
WE WOULD STILL CONTINUE TO DO AN RFQ FOR THOSE TYPES OF PROJECTS INDIVIDUALLY TO MAKE SURE WE GET THE BEST FIT FOR THOSE, UH, MORE COMPLEX AND HIGH DOLLAR PROJECTS.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO ALSO THANK ROXANNE, KURT, AND HIS TEAM FOR GOING THROUGH ALL OF THESE.
THIS IS SOMEWHAT OF A LARGE EFFORT ON THE FRONT END OF THIS PROCESS, BUT IT DOES PAY OFF IN THE FACT THAT WE'VE COMPLETED THE PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAVE.
WE'VE DONE IT IN A FAIR WAY AND WE CAN HOPEFULLY HAVE SOME, UH, UH, PARTNERSHIPS WITH THESE FIRMS FOR, FOR THE THREE YEAR TERM.
SO THOSE ARE THE GENERAL FACTS SURROUNDING, UH, THE, THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS AND KIND OF WHAT THE CONTRACTS ARE.
AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU ALL MAY HAVE.
I'LL START ON MY LEFT THIS TIME, DEBORAH.
SO I SEE IN OUR, UM, AGENDA BILL, YOU'RE SAYING THAT UNDER THE AWARDS, UNDER THIS NEW AGREEMENT, MASTER SERVICE WOULD BE $300,000 MAXIMUM FOR ANY ONE VENDOR IN A PROJECT.
HOW DOES THAT PLAY WITH OUR CURRENT A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS? GOTTA BRING IT FOR COUNCIL.
IF YOU WISH TO AMEND THE MOTION, UH, THAT'S BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, YOU CAN REQUEST THAT ANY, UM, WORK ORDERS UNDER THIS CONTRACT RETURN TO CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL IN EXCESS OF A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS AS THE LANGUAGE STANDS RIGHT NOW.
IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY REQUIRE STAFF TO DO THAT.
AND, AND COUNCILOR FURMAN, THAT COMPLIES WITH CURRENT CITY CODE.
'CAUSE YOU, YOU'D BE APPROVING THE CONTRACTS RIGHT NOW UP TO A MILLION DOLLARS PER, PER VENDOR.
IS THAT CORRECT, IAN? YEAH, 300,000 A YEAR IN A MILLION DOLLARS IN EACH OF THE SIX CATEGORIES.
SO THAT COULD BE A $6 MILLION SORT OF PRE-AUTHORIZATION OR 17 VENDORS TIMES 300,000.
I DON'T DO THE MATH ON THAT ONE YET.
YEAH, SO, SO LET ME KIND OF EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT BETTER.
SO, UH, THE MILLION DOLLAR CAP ON EACH MSA ALLOWS THE CITY FLEXIBILITY THROUGHOUT THAT THREE YEAR TERM.
SO THE MSA IS VALID FOR THREE YEARS, AND THAT MILLION DOLLAR CAP IS FOR THE THREE YEARS.
SO SOME OF THESE, UH, CATEGORIES, WE HAVE MULTIPLE, UH, AWARD RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COUNCIL.
UH, FOR EXAMPLE, UH, GENERAL CIVIL, WE HAVE SIX.
UH, WHEREAS IN STRUCTURAL, WE, I BELIEVE HAVE TWO.
UM, SO THIS KIND OF REFLECTS WHAT OUR ANTICIPATED USAGE IS.
HOWEVER, IF WE RUN INTO AN ISSUE WHERE A COUPLE OF THESE FIRMS DON'T LIVE UP POTENTIALLY TO THE QUALIFICATIONS THAT THEY'VE REPRESENTED, IT GIVES US FLEXIBILITY TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE REMAINING FIRMS. OR POTENTIALLY THEY GET BUSY IN THE AREA AND, AND ARE NOT ABLE TO REALLY RESPOND TO WORK ORDERS IN A WAY THAT, YOU KNOW, OUR DEPARTMENTS LIKE IT, IT AFFORDS THEM THE FLEXIBILITY.
THE $300,000 CAP IS FOR TWO REASONS.
ONE IS BECAUSE, UH, PROJECTS THAT EVEN REALLY GET CLOSE TO THAT NUMBER SHOULD BE PROCURED ON THEIR OWN TO FIND THE PERFECT FIT FOR THAT PROJECT.
UH, AND THE OTHER IS TO CONTROL THE, THE, UM, THE, THE SPEND ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONTRACT.
I'M A, I'M A FAN OF EFFICIENCY, BUT I DON'T THINK I'M A FAN OF LOOSENING THE LIMITS THAT MUCH.
YES, I DID NOTICE THAT, THAT THERE WERE SOME CATEGORIES THAT HAD TWO, UM, PROVIDERS AND ANOTHER CATEGORY THAT HAS SIX PROVIDERS.
SO MY QUESTION IS, WHICH ONE OF THESE CATEGORIES DO YOU PROCURE UNDER MOST OFTEN? 'CAUSE I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE THE WIDEST AVAILABILITY WHERE WE GO TO THAT CATEGORY FREQUENTLY VERSUS ARE YOU, ARE WE, WOULD WE BE GOING MORE FREQUENTLY TO SAY CATEGORY? WHERE IS IT? UM, CATEGORY
[01:40:01]
FIVE, STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, WHICH WOULD ONLY HAVE TWO POTENTIAL RESPONDENTS.SO I CAN TELL YOU FROM, UH, SPEAKING WITH THE DEPARTMENTS THAT LARGELY USE THESE CONTRACTS, CATEGORY NUMBER THREE BY FAR IS OUR MOST HEAVILY UTILIZED, UH, CATEGORY.
CATEGORY ONE WOULD ALSO BE HEAVILY UTILIZED.
UM, THERE ARE APPLICATIONS FOR CATEGORY TWO, CATEGORY SIX OF COURSE IS ALL THE MATERIALS AND QUALITY TESTING THAT THE CITY CONDUCTS UNDER ALL OF ITS, UH, CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.
SO THAT IS ALSO A HEAVILY UTILIZED CATEGORY.
THE OTHER ONES ARE, UM, POTENTIALLY NEEDED BUT NOT AS, AS, AS HEAVILY AS THE OTHERS.
I'LL SAVE THE REST FOR COMMENTS.
BRIAN? NATHAN? NO, MY QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED, SO I HAVE COMMENTS.
MELISSA, VICE MAYOR, I DO HAVE A QUESTION AND I WAS GONNA ASK BOTH ROXANNE AND KURT, IF YOU FEEL LIKE YOU HAVE SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF COMPANIES ON THE LIST, BECAUSE IF YOU ONLY HAVE TWO OR THREE AND THEY GET BUSY, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO GO OUT TO IT FOR AN RFP.
UM, I FEEL FOR THE CATEGORY FOR WASTEWATER AND THE CATEGORIES WE WOULD USE WITHIN WASTEWATER, WE HAVE PLENTY TO CHOOSE FROM, UM, WITH THIS CATE WITH THESE, UM, MSAS.
HOWEVER, IF WE HAD A LARGER PROJECT LIKE, LIKE IAN MENTIONED, SO THEORETICALLY WE START PFAS TREATMENT IN 27, WE WOULD GO OUT FOR AN RFP SPECIFIC TO THAT PROJECT RATHER THAN PULLING FROM THIS LIST.
SO WHAT DO YOU TEND TO USE THIS MSA FOR? UM, I PLAN ON USING IT FOR PIPELINE DESIGN IN PIPELINE REPLACEMENTS IN TOWN.
UM, ALSO WE HAVE OUR DRAIN BEDS PROJECT THAT IS STARTING NEXT YEAR.
AND SOME OF THE, THE, THE SMALLER DESIGN, KURT, YES, SAME THING.
WE, WE WOULD, UH, VICE MAYOR, WE WOULD USE IT FOR SMALLER PROJECTS, MOSTLY THOSE SHARED USE PATHS, UH, THINGS THAT WE NEED TO BE ON CALL AND MORE NIMBLE, UM, EMERGENCY KIND OF STUFF.
AND THE REASON, UH, CATEGORY THREE WAS SO LARGE WITH SIX IS THAT'S PART OF THE HYDROLOGY STUFF.
SO WE WOULD BE USING THIS FOR THAT HYDROLOGY OF GETTING THOSE REIMBURSEMENT FOR FLOOD HAZARDS FROM COCONINO AND YAVAPAI COUNTY, THOSE KIND OF, UH, NICHE PROJECTS.
AND THEN I, I HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION FOR IAN.
I'VE DONE A LOT OF THESE MSAS IN MY REAL LIFE.
UM, AND I ALWAYS FELT VERY DIFFICULT TO RESPOND TO THE PROJECT TEAM BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHEN YOU'RE GONNA GET CALLED ON AND WHO'S GONNA BE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME.
AND I SEE THAT IT'S WEIGHTED REALLY HEAVILY.
YEAH, SO THE CITY DOES AND, AND DID PUT IN THE RFQ THAT WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO APPROVE THE PROJECT TEAM AND THAT ANY SUBSTITUTIONS OR CHANGES TO THE PROJECT TEAM WOULD HAVE TO BE TO OUR, UH, YOU KNOW, UP TO OUR APPROVAL, UH, SIMILAR, UH, QUALIFICATIONS OR, UH, BETTER QUALIFICATIONS.
SO THAT'S HOW THAT'S ADDRESSED.
I'VE ALSO DONE MANY OF THESE SOLICITATIONS IN OTHER AGENCIES AND, AND THEY'RE DONE IN OTHER AGENCIES IN ARIZONA AS WELL.
AND IT'S, IT'S ALWAYS A CHALLENGE TO REALLY HOLD PEOPLE TO NO, YOU SAID YOU KNOW JOHN, RIGHT? AND THAT'S NOT JOHN.
THESE ARE OUR BUSINESS PARTNERS.
WE NEED TO WORK WITH THEM AND, AND WORK TOWARDS EACH OTHER'S, UH, BEST INTERESTS.
BUT, UM, THAT IS THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION THAT THE RESPONDENTS WOULD HAVE IN, IN THIS CASE.
I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR YOU.
SO WHEN YOU WERE LOOKING FOR PARTNERS, DID YOU PUT OUT A BROAD NET IN THE VERDE VALLEY OR LOCAL AND THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO APPLIED, RIGHT? YES.
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, MAYOR.
UM, SO WE ADVERTISED IN THE RED ROCK NEWS.
WE, UH, ISSUED OUR SOLICITATION THROUGH OUR E-PROCUREMENT SYSTEM.
THAT PROCUREMENT SYSTEM, UH, IS USED BY MANY OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES.
SO ONCE A FIRM SIGNS UP, THEY'RE ABLE TO SEE OTHER OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE IN THAT, UH, PROCUREMENT ECOSYSTEM, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY.
UM, ADDITIONALLY, YOU KNOW, THE DEPARTMENTS AND MYSELF REACHED OUT TO KNOWN PROVIDERS IN OUR AREA.
UH, HAD A COUPLE KEEP ASKING ME, WHEN IS THIS GONNA GO OUT? WE WANT TO SEE THIS, YOU KNOW, AND THIS WAS THE CITY'S FIRST GO AT, AT SUCH A-A-R-F-Q.
SO KURT, ROXANNE AND I AND THEIR TEAM, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE GOT IT RIGHT.
SO, UM, BUT YEAH, THIS, THIS WAS BROADLY, UH, ADVERTISED AND, AND ENCOURAGED AS MANY FOLKS AS WE COULD TO GET RESPONSES.
AND I FEEL LIKE THE, UH, THREE, FOUR RESPONSES WE GOT WAS A, A REASONABLE, UH, RESPONSE.
I JUST WANTED TO BE SURE WHAT THE PROCESS WAS.
LET THE PUBLIC HEAR WHAT THE PROCESS WAS SO THAT THIS WAY THEY KNOW THIS.
[01:45:01]
OH, WE DIDN'T, WE IGNORED THE PEOPLE OR THE BUSINESSES AT ARE LOCAL OR VICE VERSA.AND IT, IT WAS UP TO THEM TO APPLY OR TO MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS.
SO THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD.
CAN YOU FOLLOW UP ON YOUR QUESTION? SURE.
SO IAN, HOW MANY OF THESE WOULD YOU CONSIDER LOCAL? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
I KNOW OF A FEW THAT ARE OPERATING LOCALLY.
UM, AS FAR AS BEING SMALL FIRMS, WE DIDN'T, YOU KNOW, GO THROUGH LIKE A, A, A LOCAL, UM, A LOCAL BUYING METRIC OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
IF, IF THAT'S YOUR QUESTION, I CAN CERTAINLY GO BACK AND GET YOU INFORMATION.
UH, THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE ANY, YOU KNOW, PREFERENCE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
SO WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY RECORDING THAT INFORMATION WHERE THE HOME OFFICE IS.
I CAN, I CAN BRING THAT BACK TO YOU IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN KNOWING.
YEAH, I'M JUST CURIOUS, YOU KNOW, IF ANY OF THESE HAVE A ADDRESS ANYWHERE FROM PRESCOTT TO FLAGSTAFF, YOU KNOW, WITHIN THERE TO CONSIDER THAT SORT OF REGIONAL.
I CAN TELL YOU THERE ARE THOSE COMPANIES IN THERE.
'CAUSE I'VE BEEN THROUGH ALL OF THE SOQ AND I, I RECALL SEEING, YOU KNOW, FLAGSTAFF OFFICES, PRESCOTT OFFICES.
UM, I THINK ONE HAD UNTIL RECENTLY A SEDONA OFFICE MAY HAVE A COTTONWOOD OFFICE NOW.
THAT ANECDOTAL, UM, THAT'S ALL INFORMATION IS SUFFICIENT FOR ME.
UH, ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE COUNCIL? COMMENTS? YEAH, WE'RE GONNA GO TO COMMENTS.
DO WE HAVE COMMENTS? SO, YEAH.
YEAH, I WOULD, I WOULD, UH, LIKE TO SEE US LOWER THE AMOUNT OR STIPULATE IN THIS AGREEMENT SOME AMOUNT WHERE IT DOES COME FOR COUNCIL REVIEW, THERE'S 27 VENDORS IN THE SIX CATEGORIES.
IT COULD BE $8.1 MILLION WORTH OF SPENDING.
IT WON'T BE, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT IT COULD BE, UH, WITHOUT ANY COUNCIL ATTENTION TO WHAT'S GOING ON.
SO, OR SIX CATEGORIES TIMES A MILLION TO 6 MILLION.
SO THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF SPENDING.
I GET THAT THERE'S SOME EFFICIENCY IN THE PROCESS, AND I WOULDN'T MIND, OF COURSE, YOU ALWAYS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING IN THESE FORTH UNDER THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
UM, I THINK I MIGHT BE WILLING TO CHANGE THE A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS LIMIT A LITTLE BIT, BUT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE NOT AT ALL EITHER.
YEAH, I, I, I FEEL SIMILARLY WHERE I, I I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE MILLION DOLLAR AGGREGATE, BUT I THINK THE, UM, THE PER AWARD OF 300,000 IS, IS A BIT HIGH, UH, BASED ON WHERE WE'VE BEEN.
BUT I DO THINK IT'S TIME FOR AN ADJUSTMENT TO THAT A HUNDRED THOUSAND.
SO I, I WOULD THROW A NUMBER OUT THERE OF 150 UM, THOUSAND JUST BECAUSE I, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT SHOULD COME BACK TO US, BUT I RECOGNIZE INFLATION AND THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED.
SO I, THAT'S JUST A NUMBER I WOULD THROW OUT THERE FOR DISCUSSION.
I ASK A CLARIFICATION QUESTION TO YOUR IDEA.
SO YOU SAID 150,000 AND, BUT YOU TALKED ABOUT THE 300,000 MM-HMM
SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU DON'T WANT ANY, NOTHING OVER 150,000 FLOWS THROUGH THE AGREEMENT OR ARE YOU OKAY WITH THE LIMIT BUT JUST COME TO COUNCIL WHEN IT'S ONE 50 OR ABOVE? THE WAY THAT IT READS IS EACH MSA WILL BE VALID OVER THREE YEARS.
IT SHALL NOT EXCEED 1 MILLION IN AGGREGATE PER CATEGORY.
NO INDIVIDUAL PROJECT SHALL BE AWARDED UNDER THE MSA FOR AN AMOUNT GREATER THAN 300,000.
NO INDIVIDUAL PROJECT SHALL BE AWARDED UNDER THE MSA FOR AN AMOUNT GREATER THAN 150.
SO MEANING THAT WE WOULD, IT WOULD COME TO US AT A HUNDRED AT THAT LEVEL.
SO YOU, THE, THE, THIS COULD CHANGE, THIS COULD STAY THE SAME AT 300 LIMIT, BUT STILL COME TO COUNCIL EVERY TIME.
SO THEY CAN AT LEAST GET THROUGH HAVING, NOT HAVING TO GO THROUGH THE RFP AND ALL THE REST OF THE STUFF THAT THEY DID.
WE HAVE SOME QUALIFIED VENDORS.
WILL YOU BE NEXT? I, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY I THE SAME THING THAT PETE SAID.
MELISSA, HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THE ONE 50 LIMIT VICE SM MAYOR? I THINK IT'S, I, I, I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE 300,000, BUT I AN MSA IS EFFICIENT, SO I, AND I THINK 300,000 THESE DAYS IS PRETTY SMALL, BUT I WOULD LIKE IT TO COME TO COUNCIL, BUT I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE ABOUT IT BEING 300,000 TO COME TO COUNCIL, MELISSA.
SO I, I BELIEVE IN INEFFICIENCY AND I BELIEVE IN OUR STAFF AND OUR STAFF BEING ALLOWED TO BE EFFICIENT.
AND SO I, I AGREE WITH THE VICE MAYOR.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE 300,000, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD,
[01:50:01]
WE SHOULD MAKE SURE IT'S TRANSPARENT AS TO WHAT THAT MONEY IS FOR.AND THAT'S WHAT THE COUNCIL COMING BEFORE COUNCIL IS MEANT TO DO, IS TO MAKE THAT TRANSPARENT.
UM, SO I WOULD AGREE WITH THE, THE VICE MAYOR 300,000 IS FINE.
I'M NOT SURE THAT WHAT I'VE SEEN LATELY THAT THAT IS REALLY THAT GIANT AN AMOUNT.
AND JUST FOR TRANSPARENCY, IT SHOULD COME BEFORE COUNSEL BRIAN.
I'M A LITTLE MORE CONFUSED HERE ON, UH, WHERE WE STAND IN THAT ANNETTE HAS A HUNDRED THOUSAND SIGN OFF AUTHORITY.
SO I'M LOOKING AT THIS FROM A BROADER POLICY PERSPECTIVE OF DO YOU WANT ANNETTE TO HAVE A HIGHER SIGN OFF AUTHORITY IN GENERAL? 'CAUSE LIKE, WHY WOULD WE SAY FOR THIS MSA, WHY, WHY HERE, CAN SHE SIGN OFF? 'CAUSE IT REALLY IS YOUR SIGN OFF STILL, RIGHT? SO WHY IS IT THAT CAN, ANNETTE CAN SIGN OFF FOR 150 OR 300 AS IT RELATES TO THIS, BUT EVERYTHING ELSE IS STILL A 100 K MAX.
SO I'M NOT OPPOSED TO BUMPING UP THE A HUNDRED K NECESSARILY, BUT I JUST KIND OF WANT US TO HAVE A LITTLE MORE BROADER POLICY PERSPECTIVE ABOUT WHY WOULD THIS, WHY WOULD WE TREAT THIS DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER DISCRETION THAT WE GIVE THE CITY MANAGER, UM, COUNCILOR FOLTZ AND MAYOR BLO.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IAN IS ALSO WORKING ON THE BROADER PROCUREMENT POLICY UPDATE TO BRING TO COUNCIL IN WHICH THAT QUESTION OF SIGNATURE AUTHORITY AND DELEGATION WILL BE ADDRESSED.
YOU DON'T NEED TO DECIDE ANYTHING ABOUT THAT TONIGHT.
AND, AND MAYOR AND COUNCILOR AND COUNCILOR FUL, I WOULD SAY THIS, THIS IS COUNCIL APPROVING A MILLION, YOU KNOW, A MILLION DOLLARS RIGHT NOW IN THIS CONTRACT, UP TO 300,000, NOT 60 300,000 PER PURCHASE ORDER, OR REALLY, AND THEN IN ADDITION TO THE CONTRACT, THERE'S THE, THE LANGUAGE THAT'S GONNA BE A MILLION PER, UM, CATEGORY IN THE MSA.
SO THIS IS COUNSEL ALREADY APPROVING THIS.
SO THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NET SIGNATURE AUTHORITY COUNSEL'S APPROVING THIS.
IF YOU WANT TO PROVE IT THIS WAY, YOU CAN PUT SOME DIFFERENT LIMITATIONS ON IT.
BUT FOR ANYTHING ELSE, I MEAN, WE, WE DON'T WRITE BLANK CHECKS FOR A MILLION DOLLARS, AND THAT'S WHAT THIS IS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WHATEVER LIMITATIONS WE APPLY.
SO THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S COME TO COUNCIL BEFORE.
WE DON'T NORMALLY HAVE O OTHER THAN, I GUESS THE CLOSEST THING WE HAVE IS BE THE ON-CALL, UH, JOB ORDER.
LIKE JOB, JOB ORDER CONTRACTS FOR PAVEMENT.
WE, SO YOU HAVE DONE A FEW OF THESE, BUT THIS IS YEAH.
SO EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE SAYING IT DOESN'T APPLY TO ANNETTE'S SIGNATURE AUTHORITY, IT STILL FEELS THE SAME TO ME.
SO I, I DON'T, I MEAN, I'M, I DON'T WANNA WRITE A BLANK CHECK FOR A MILLION DOLLARS.
AND THE QUESTION IS, IS SHOULD THERE STILL BE AS MUCH OVERSIGHT ON INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS THAT GO OUT THROUGH THIS MSA AT A HUNDRED THOUSAND, OR SHOULD IT BE HIGHER? AND, YOU KNOW, IF ANNETTE, YOU'RE SAYING, HEY, YOU'RE GONNA BRING US A NEW PROPOSED POLICY ON WHAT SIGN OFF LEVELS SHOULD BE, I ASSUME THAT THOSE WILL BE HIGHER NUMBERS, NOT LOWER NUMBERS.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, WE MAY WELL BE ADDRESSING THAT BROADER POLICY, UH, QUESTION SOON.
UM, I JUST THINK THAT WE, YOU KNOW, ABSENT KNOWING WHAT THAT IS, I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD JUST SAY YOU CAN GO AND SIGN OFF ON $300,000, UH, PROJECTS WITHOUT COUNCIL OVERSIGHT.
WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT WE'RE SAYING IT WOULD HAVE COUNCIL OVERSIGHT.
I, WELL, I'M HEARING DIFFERENT NUMBERS.
I THINK I'VE HEARD COMFORTABLE UP TO 300 AND I'VE HEARD MAYBE ONLY 150.
SO I CAN GO ALONG WITH THE ONE 50, BUT I WOULDN'T GO ANY HIGHER WITHOUT THERE BEING COUNCIL OVERSIGHT.
COULD I, I PROPOSED 300,000 WITH COUNCIL OVERSIGHT AND MELISSA AGREED WITH THAT AND I FORGOT.
AND SO DO I HERE, AND I, AND I DO AS WELL.
YOU DIDN'T WITH COUNCIL OVERSIGHT AT WHAT NUMBER? AND THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
THAT'S THE, YEAH, THAT'S THE QUESTION.
WELL, BETWEEN A HUNDRED THOUSAND AND 300,000, I MEAN, A NET CAN JUST SIGN OFF AT A HUNDRED THOUSAND.
SO ANYTHING ABOVE A HUNDRED THOUSAND, WE'D HAVE TO COME TO COUNCIL UNTIL HER AUTHORITY INCREASES AND THEN WE COULD INCREASE THIS.
THAT'S, THAT'S THE ISSUE, IS TRYING TO GET THESE THINGS TO BE CONSISTENT.
'CAUSE AT THE MOMENT, THEY'RE NOT CONSISTENT BASED ON, I I, I WONDER, I MEAN, LEGALLY, KURT, IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THIS THING AS IT'S WRITTEN TONIGHT, WE'RE ESSENTIALLY APPROVING INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS AT $300,000 A NET COULD
[01:55:01]
COME BACK IN NEXT MEETING, UH, INCREASING OUR AUTHORITY, BUT WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED AGREEMENTS THAT WOULD FIT UNDER THIS THING AT $300,000.SO WE'RE GONNA NEED TO AMEND THIS.
SO IT WOULD, AS IS, IT WOULD NOT, NOTHING WOULD NEED TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NET SIGNATURE AUTHORITY COUNCIL WOULD BE APPROVING UP TO A MILLION DOLLARS OVER THREE YEARS NOT TO EXCEED 300,000 IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CHANGE ORDER.
BUT YEAH, THAT WE CAN PUT IN THE AGREEMENT.
ANY CHANGE ORDERS ABOVE A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS HAVE GO TO CITY COUNCIL ME NOW.
BUT I STILL THINK, BUT WE MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER THAT.
A DIFFERENCE HERE BETWEEN AN NET SIGNATURE AUTHORITY AND THIS THING IS THAT WE DID DRAG A BUNCH OF PEOPLE THROUGH A PROCESS AND WE QUALIFIED SOME VENDORS.
AND SO WE PUT OUT $300,000 AND I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.
CONTRACTS DON'T NEED TO GO THROUGH MORE RFPS.
WE CAN SELECT, STAFF CAN SELECT A VENDOR AND UP TO 300,000 BUCKS, BUT THEY NEED TO BRING IT TO COUNCIL.
IF IT'S MORE THAN A HUNDRED OR 150, THAT'S, I THINK, THE LAST NUMBER THAT WE NEED TO SORT OUT.
WHAT IS, WHAT IS YOU, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO BE BRINGING TO US IN TERMS OF YOUR AUTHORITY? HELP US HERE.
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE FUTURE POLICY OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT WHAT THIS WOULD LOOK LIKE MECHANICALLY? I DON'T KNOW.
I HAVEN'T SEEN THE RECOMMENDATION YET FROM STAFF.
THEY'VE BEEN DOING THE RESEARCH ON WHAT IS AN APPROPRIATE LEVEL, WHAT OUR COMPARABLE PEOPLE DO, THE AVERAGE OF, YOU KNOW, TRANSACTIONS THAT, SO I'M NOT SURE YET WHAT THEY'RE GONNA PROPOSE, BUT YEAH, RIGHT NOW, I DON'T WANNA PUT YOU ON THE SPOT AND IT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA ACTUALLY TO TALK ABOUT IT, BUT, WELL, THAT'S, IT'S REASONABLY RELATED, BUT I, BUT WHAT I I WOULD AGREE.
BUT WHAT I, UM, AM HEARING IS THAT THE COUNCIL JUST WANTS TO KNOW WHAT THESE THINGS ARE GOING TO BE FOR TRANSPARENCY PURPOSES AND UNDERSTANDING WHAT THESE PROJECTS ARE.
SO IF THERE ARE, WHEN PROJECTS ARE SELECTED, WHEN A VENDOR SELECTED OFF THE MSA TO DO A PROJECT FOR US, WHICH WOULD BE A BUDGETED ALREADY APPROVED, AND THE CIP PROJECT, UM, WOULD IT BE SUFFICIENT TO LIST THOSE ON A CONSENT ITEM THAT SAYS, HERE ARE THE 12 THINGS THAT WE JUST PROCURED UNDER THE, UM, MSA OR THE PROJECTS AND THE AMOUNTS AND ALL OF THAT.
SOME KIND OF REPORT BACK TO THAT'S LIKE, HERE'S WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THIS MSA SINCE THERE'S NO TECHNICAL SIGNATURE OF MINE ON THESE WHEN THEY START DOING IT BECAUSE OF THE ACT OF APPROVING THE MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENT TONIGHT.
BUT WE COULD, UM, YOU KNOW, KEEP A LIST AND SHOW YOU ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE BEING DONE UNDER IT.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR? OR DO YOU WANT THE ACTUAL JOB ORDER TO COME TO YOU TO APPROVE OR DENY? UM, 'CAUSE THEN AT THAT POINT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT APPROVING OR DENYING THE PROJECT ITSELF GOING FORWARD, BECAUSE THE CONSULTANT'S ALREADY BEEN SELECTED UNDER THIS PROCESS.
I JUST WANNA BE SURE THE VICE MAYOR'S DONE WITH HER QUESTION.
KATHY, I'M REALLY GLAD WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS BECAUSE I HAD ONE IMPRESSION OF IT FROM THE WAY THIS WAS WRITTEN ON THE AGENDA BILL FROM WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW.
UM, AND I THINK THAT YOUR QUESTION, ANNETTE SPECIFICALLY ASKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, A CONSENT SAYING ON A CONSENT AGENDA, I AM, I AM NOT WILLING TO MOVE MORE STUFF THAT ARE, THAT'S CONTRACTUAL LIKE THAT ONTO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
YOU KNOW, IF IT'S OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THINGS DON'T GET THE SAME ATTENTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
I DON'T THINK THE PUBLIC GETS AWARE BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH THE INFORMATION IS IN A PACKET AND IT CAN BE LOOKED AT, IT'S NOT THE SAME AS WHEN WE TALK ABOUT IT.
AND THERE'S A PRESENTATION THAT BRINGS QUESTIONS OUT FOR US TO DISCUSS.
SO IN TERMS OF YOUR QUESTION ABOUT A CONSENT AGENDA, NO, I DON'T WANT SOMETHING THAT FORCES MORE STUFF ONTO CONSENT AGENDA.
SO I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS THAT PART.
I HAD MISREAD WHAT THE 300,000 VERSUS THE ONE 50 LEVEL WAS GOING TO APPLY TO.
UM, AGAIN, I, I, I WANT TO MAKE, I WANT THINGS TO COME HERE FOR REVIEW BECAUSE THAT'S THE PUBLIC PROCESS.
THAT'S THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC'S UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE PUBLIC GETS TO BILL THE, THE AGENDA BILL.
IT'S NOT THE SAME AS THE PUBLIC HAVING THE RIGHT TO LOOK AT THE SLIDE DECK AND SEE THAT AND UNDERSTAND WHAT OUR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS ARE.
SO, UH, THAT'S JUST A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THE PROCESS TO ME.
I DON'T WANNA LOSE IT OR DILUTE IT
[02:00:03]
RIGHT NOW, DEREK.BY THE TIME A CONTRACT REACHES THIS PROJECT, THOUGH, WE'LL HAVE ALREADY BUDGETED FOR IT.
WE'LL HAVE ALREADY APPROVED THE PROJECT.
WE'RE JUST NOW TALKING ABOUT LETTING THE CONTRACT.
SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE HAVEN'T HAD SOME LEVEL OF SUPERVISION LEADING UP TO THIS.
WE'RE JUST NOW SAYING THAT FOR THESE CATEGORIES OF WORK WITH THESE CONTRACTORS, THEY DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK TO US AGAIN.
SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE JUST, I'M NOT, THIS DOESN'T NECESSARILY CHANGE MY MIND ABOUT WHICH WAY WE GO ON THIS, BUT WE HAVE HAD THE CHANCE OR WILL HAVE HAD THE CHANCE TO LOOK AT THESE PROJECTS.
BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT I AGREE WITH YOUR PREMISE THERE BECAUSE LET'S JUST TAKE AN EXAMPLE OF A FICTITIOUS PARKING GARAGE SOMEPLACE OKAY.
NOW THAT MEANT ONE THING TO US WHO HAD VETTED IT AND KNEW WHERE WE WERE IN TERMS OF THINKING, YOU KNOW, THAT IT'S GOING FORWARD AND THIS IS A CONTRACT ISSUE VERSUS THE PUBLIC HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO UNDERSTAND, COME FORWARD AND MAKE THEIR CASE AND HAVING ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO ASK US TO REVIEW RECONSIDER WHATEVER IT IS.
SO I I, I DON'T AGREE WITH THE PREMISE THAT IT'S ALL OKAY, AND THEN WE'RE JUST AT THE CONTRACT POINT.
SO IT'S, I THINK THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE LAST BA THAT'S THE LAST CHANCE TO PULL A PLUG IF WE EXACTLY.
SO I DON'T AGREE WITH COUNCILOR KINSELLA ON THIS ONE BECAUSE WE DO SEE SIX FIGURE CONSENT ITEMS. WE HAD, I MEAN, IT'S NOT SIX FIGURES TONIGHT, BUT WE DID APPROVE 92,000, UH, TONIGHT VIA CONSENT.
UM, AND SO SIX FIGURE CONSENT IS NOT UNHEARD OF.
I THINK THAT, UH, IT BEING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, IF YOU FEEL A NEED TO PULL IT OR THE A COMMUNITY FEELS A NEED TO PULL IT, THEN THAT IS STILL AN OPTION THAT'S AVAILABLE.
I'M NOT SEEKING, YOU KNOW, YOUR EFFORT, ANNETTE, OR STAFF TO GO THROUGH AN EXTENSIVE, UH, PRESENTATION ON THESE THINGS.
SO I THINK CONSENT IS THE RIGHT WAY TO GO.
BUT I DO THINK THAT WHETHER IT'S AT A HUNDRED OR 150, LIKE I'M FINE IF IT'S 150, IF WE WANT TO BUMP THE NUMBER, AND I'M GUESSING THAT WHATEVER COMES BACK VIA IAN AND STAFF WORK TO ANNETTE IS PROBABLY GONNA BE LIKE, OKAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, IT'S 2025, IT'S TIME TO BUMP UP THIS NUMBER.
'CAUSE LORD KNOWS EVERYTHING COSTS 50% MORE THAN IT USED TO.
SO, YOU KNOW, GOING FROM A HUNDRED TO 150 PROBABLY MAKES SENSE.
SO MY PROPOSAL TO OUR, MY COLLEAGUES IS, IS, UM, YOU KNOW, LET'S HAVE IT COME IN FRONT OF US AT 150.
IT CAN COME VIA THE CONSENT AGENDA.
UH, WHEN, UH, THE CITY MANAGER WAS TALKING TO US ABOUT THIS CONSENT CALENDAR REPORT SOUNDED TO ME LIKE IT COULD ALMOST BE AFTER THE FACT.
THIS WAS A SUMMARY OF CONTRACTS ISSUED UNDER THIS KIND OF THING AFTER THE FACT.
AND, AND I, THAT'S, AND, AND I DON'T WANNA DO THAT.
SO I'M MORE ON THE, UH, UH, PATH HERE AGREEING WITH MY COLLEAGUES ABOUT, UH, I'M OKAY WITH CONTRACTS MOVING FORWARD UNDER THIS POLICY FOR $300,000.
BUT, AND I THINK WE COULD JUST ADD WORDS IN THIS AGREEMENT, KURT, PERHAPS YOUR, YOUR FEEDBACK HERE WOULD JUST BE, UH, ITEMS OVER THE CITY MANAGERS SIGNING AUTHORITY MUST STILL COME TO COUNCIL.
AND THEN WHEN THAT FLOATS, WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS GONNA BE IN THE FUTURE FOR THE SIGNING AUTHORITY, IT THIS WOULD THEN FLOAT WITH IT AS WELL.
AND I HAVEN'T EVEN OPINED YET NOW THAT
ANNETTE, TO COUNSELOR FO'S POINT ABOUT THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM THAT 91 9 0 6, WHAT IS THE THRESHOLD? COULD YOU CLARIFY THAT, WHERE IT CUTS OFF? WELL, WE DON'T HAVE LIKE A HARD AND FAST THRESHOLD IN LIKE A POLICY DOCUMENT, BUT HOW WE'VE BEEN OPERATING IS ROUGHLY AROUND THE 200,000 MARK, IS WHAT I HAD HEARD IN THE PAST.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN? WELL, I MEAN, IN TERMS OF WHAT WE PUT ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR IS WHAT YOU'RE ASKING, RIGHT? BECAUSE I HAVE THOUGHT THERE WAS A CUTOFF FOR THE, YOU KNOW, FOR A DOLLAR BILL.
UM, IF THERE WAS FOR MY TIME, I'M NOT AWARE OF IT, BUT I KNOW THROUGH, UM, AGENDA SETTING, UM, MEETINGS THAT I'VE HEARD INFORMALLY THAT THERE'S KIND OF THIS NOTION THAT THE COUNCIL AFTER ABOUT 200,000 TYPICALLY WANTS TO SEE IT AS A BUSINESS ITEM.
[02:05:01]
WE'VE HAD SOME THAT, UM, WERE PROBABLY MORE THAN THAT, THAT WERE ON CONSENT WITHOUT AN ISSUE.SO THANK, BUT IT HASN'T BEEN A HARD AND FAST.
DOES THAT, WHEN YOU BRING FORWARD, IS DO YOU WANNA ADDRESS THAT IN WHAT, WHEN YOU BRING FORWARD, MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT GOES ON HAVING A, A THRESHOLD ON CONSENTS POLICY, BUT THAT'S NOT A DISCUSSION NOW YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FUTURE.
I, WELL, IT WOULD BE PART OF, IT'S NOT REALLY POLICY AS PART OF THE POLICY THAT, THAT SHE WOULD BE BRINGING SHE, SORRY, ANNETTE WOULD BE BRINGING FORWARD, WELL, IT WOULD BE IN RESPONSE TO THIS.
BUT, AND IT WOULD BE DISCUSSED THEN AT THAT TIME? NOT NOW.
I JUST WANNA, I WANT, DO YOU WANT CLARIFICATION OR DID I, YEAH.
SO BRIAN, I LIKE COUNCILOR FURMAN'S SUGGESTION ON HOW TO PROCEED.
YEAH, I, I TEND TO AGREE WITH THAT TOO.
YOU WANT HAVE A FINAL COMMENTS? AREN'T WE READY FOR A MOTION? BUT WE NEED OKAY.
KURT'S LEGAL EASE TO ADD TO IT SO THAT COUNCILOR KINSELLA CAN THEN MAKE THE MOTION
I KNOW I'M NOT MAKING THIS MOTION.
SO THE, THE MOTION JUST NEEDS TO BE ADDED SUBJECT TO, TO THE CITY COUN, CITY MANAGER'S, UM, APPROVAL AUTHORITY, OR SIGNING AUTHORITY, SIGNATURE AUTHORITY.
I'LL COME UP WITH THE EXACT LANGUAGE IN THE CONTRACT.
IT'S ALSO HAS IN THERE ALREADY THAT IT'S GONNA BE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE CONTRACT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY.
AND, AND THERE IS AN OFFICIAL CITY MANAGER SIGNATURE AUTHORITY NUMBER.
THAT'S A HUNDRED THOUSAND THAT'S IN CODE.
SO YOU WERE SAYING THERE'S NO POLICY ON CONSENT CALENDAR, BUT THERE IS ON, YES.
PETE, I MOVE TO APPROVE THE AWARD OF THE MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR RFQ NUMBER TWENTY FIVE OH SIX ONCALL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO THE FIRM'S IDENTIFIED AN AGENDA BILL 3, 2, 1 8, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF A WRITTEN CONTRACT BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND SUBJECT TO THE CITY MANAGER SIGNING AUTHORITY.
OKAY, ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[8.c. AB 3220 Discussion/possible action regarding construction Change Order #15 for the Forest Road Connection Project to support additional work associated with the excavation and soil nailing (slope/cut stabilization) work on the Uptown Parking Garage in the amount of $382,123.]
ITEM C, AB 32 20.DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 15 FOR THE FOREST ROAD CONNECTION PROJECT TO SUPPORT ADDITIONAL WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE EXCAVATION AND SOIL NAILING THE SLOPE CUT STABILIZATION WORK ON THE UPTOWN PARKING GARAGE IN THE AMOUNT OF 382,123.
ALRIGHT, KURT, NON-LEGAL, KURT
GOOD EVENING MAYOR, VICE MAYOR.
COUNSEL, THANK YOU FOR HAVING US.
UH, KURT HARRIS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR BOB WELCH, PROJECT MANAGER.
THIS AGENDA BILL, UH, AHEAD OF VIEW, UM, TODAY IS REGARDING THE DIFFICULTY WE HAD IN THE EXCAVATION FOR THE PARKING GARAGE AND THE MAJOR POINT WE WANT TO GET ACROSS THAT IT'S PART OF, UH, THE EXISTING CONSENT, UH, CONTINGENCY, UM, WITHIN THE PROJECT.
SO, UM, I'LL OPEN IT TO QUESTIONS, SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.
JUST TO BE CLEAR, THIS WAS AN ANTICIPATED EXPENSE THAT YOU HAD CONTINGENCY IN THE CONTRACT TO COVER, CORRECT? CORRECT.
THAT'S EXACTLY THESE KIND OF INSTANCES WHERE YOU DISCOVERED ON, UH, THE FRACTURES, UH, AND ROCK EXCAVATION WHEN YOU ENCOUNTER THOSE.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT A CONTINGENCY FUND'S FOR.
KURT, HOW MUCH OF THE, IS THE CONTINGENCY JUST ONE LUMP SUM FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT, OR IS THERE CONTINGENCY KIND OF ON A PHASED BASIS, OR HOW DOES THAT WORK? UH, THE CONTINGENCY IS THERE FOR A CONTINGENCY ITSELF WHEN THERE'S OUT SCOPE ISSUES.
SO ONE LUMP SUM FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT? YES.
AND SO THIS IS PART OF THAT CONTINGENCY, UM, FOR OTHER CONTINGENCIES MIGHT BE ENCOUNTERED AND SO ON.
WHAT PERCENT OF OUR CONTINGENCY ON THE PROJECT WILL HAVE BEEN UTILIZED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THIS AGENDA ITEM? GOOD QUESTION.
YEAH, IT'S ROUGHLY 40% OF THE CONTINGENCY.
AND I KNOW YOU CAN'T SEE THE FUTURE WITH 2020 CLARITY, BUT IF YOU WERE ABLE TO, WHAT WOULD YOU BE SUGGESTING AS FAR AS YOUR CONFIDENCE OR COMFORT THAT AT LEAST THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW,
[02:10:01]
ALONG THESE LINES THAT ARE POTENTIALLY UNFORESEEABLE? UH, THAT, THAT WE'RE STILL GOOD WITH THE AMOUNT OF CONTINGENCY THAT WE HAVE REMAINING.I THINK WE'RE STILL GOOD COUNCILMAN THE, UH, TEAM THAT YOU HAVE ON THIS, UM, PARKING GARAGE IS EXCELLENT AND WE'VE BEEN CONTINUOUSLY CONDUCTING VALUE ENGINEERING THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS SO FAR.
AND I THINK TO DATE, WE'RE STANDING AT ROUGHLY 200, OVER $200,000 IN VALUE ENGINEERING CREDIT BACK TO THE CITY.
SO SINCE THE SIGN OFF OF THE CONTRACT, CORRECT.
AND THAT, THAT CREDIT IS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN THE CONTINGENCY? NOT AT ALL.
WILSON, ANYTHING? NO THANKS, MAYOR.
QUESTIONS, UH, COMMENTS AT ALL? OKAY.
I, I'D LIKE TO JUST SAY HOW WE'VE HEARD WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT THE ROAD AND BEING VERY WELL RECEIVED IN THE COMMUNITY.
COULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING BETTER ABOUT THE VIEWS AT THE TOP
UH, I MOVE TO APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 15 WITH FAN CONTRACTING INC.
SECONDED BY, IS THAT MELISSA? OKAY.
DO WE, DO WE DELAY A MINUTE? WAIT FOR A FULL D OR DO WE JUST GO AHEAD? OH, IT'S UP TO YOU, MAYOR.
WHEN HE COMES BACK, WE COULD TELL HIM WE ELECTED HIM TO SOMETHING
ALRIGHT, I GUESS THIS IS GONNA BE FOR THE CHIEF, THE ITEM,
[8.d. AB 3217 Discussion/possible direction regarding approval of an Ordinance amending Sedona City Code Title 6 (Animals), by adopting a new Chapter 6.20 (Wild or Exotic Animal Display or Performance). (First Public Meeting).]
ITEM D, EXCUSE ME.DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE DIRECTION REGARDING APPROVAL OF, OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SEDONA CITY CODE TITLE SIX ANIMALS BY ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER, 6.20 WILD OR EXOTIC ANIMALS DISPLAY OR PERFORMANCE.
THIS IS THE FIRST PUBLIC MEETING.
THERE IS, I FIGURED I WAS GOING LAST, SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU WOKE US UP.
YEAH,
GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, VICE MAYOR COUNSEL, UH, CHRIS DOW.
I AM YOUR, UH, PATROL COMMANDER FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
UM, SO TODAY WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE WILD AND EXOTIC EXOTIC ANIMAL DISPLAY ORDINANCE.
UM, SOME, SOME BACKGROUND FOR IT, HOW WE GOT HERE.
UM, SO DON HAS SEEN AN INCREASE IN WILD EXOTIC ANIMAL DISPLAYS IN UPTOWN.
UM, IF YOU'VE BEEN UP THERE, YOU'VE PROBABLY SEEN 'EM SITTING ON THE BENCHES AND SUCH.
UM, ANIMALS PLACED ON THE SIDEWALKS CREATE OBSTRUCTIONS AND SAFETY CONCERNS, UM, AND THE HANDLING OF ANIMALS BY SOME OF THE TOURISTS HAVE SAFETY CONCERNS AS WELL.
UM, THESE DISPLAYS GENERATE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND SANITATION AND ETHICAL ISSUES.
SO SOME COMPLAINTS, UM, AND OBSERVATIONS, ONGOING COMPLAINTS FROM VISITORS AND BUSINESS OWNERS.
UH, ANIMALS OFTEN LEFT UNATTENDED IN PEDESTRIAN AREAS, UNCLEAR OR IMPROPER WASTE MANAGEMENT POSES HEALTH RISKS.
AND, UH, THERE'S NO CLEAR REGULATIONS OR CONSISTENCY FOR CORRECTIVE SLASH ENFORCEMENT ACTION RIGHT NOW.
WE, UH, TRY TO ENFORCE IT WITH, UM, THE USE OF BASICALLY THE, THE RIGHT OF WAY OR THE WALKWAY AND TRYING TO KEEP PEOPLE CLEAR OF THAT, BUT IT STILL DOESN'T ELIMINATE THE TRUE HAZARD, WHICH IS THE HEALTH CONCERNS AND THE, THE SAFETY, THE SAFETY ISSUES.
UM, HERE'S A VIDEO FROM OUR CITY.
I DIDN'T FILM IT, SOMEBODY ELSE DID.
BUT AS YOU CAN SEE HOW OFTEN YOU FEED 'EM, THEY'RE FEEDING RATS, MICE IN RIGHT THERE ON THE SIDEWALK, TWO NIGHTS A WEEK.
YOU'LL, YOU CAN HEAR SOME OF THE COMMENTS, BUT I SHOW YOU THAT VIDEO BECAUSE THAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT THERE ON, YOU KNOW, THE MAIN DRAG OF UPTOWN AND WHO KNOWS WHO'S WALKING BY.
[02:15:01]
THEIR 2-YEAR-OLD CHILD WHO JUST SAW THIS? IS IT SOMEBODY WHO ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, THIS PERSON ACTUALLY ENJOYED IT, BUT THEN THEY HAD THAT CONVERSATION IN THAT.SO THE REAL QUESTION IS, DOES COUNSEL WANT THIS TYPE OF THING GOING ON UP THERE WHERE IT'S IN PUBLIC VIEW AND, AND WHERE ANYBODY CAN INTERACT? HERE ARE SOME MORE PICTURES.
THESE ARE ALL OFF THE INTERNET.
UM, AS YOU CAN SEE, UH, IN FRONT OF RALEIGH'S CAMERA, UH, IF YOU LOOK AT THE BENCH THERE, THERE'S THREE EXHIBITS SITTING THERE.
A GENTLEMAN STAND, UH, SITTING RIGHT THERE.
UM, SOME TOURISTS WALKING BY, AND THIS OTHER ONE'S A TOURIST WITH A SNAKE ON THE SHOULDER.
AND THEN THIS ONE, ANOTHER YOUTUBE VIDEO.
PUT YOUR HANDS FLAT, DON'T DROP IT.
RIGHT? SO NOW WE'RE HANDING, UH, A SNAKE TO A, TO A JUVENILE.
OBVIOUSLY THE PARENTS ARE CONSENTING, BUT WHAT IF THE PARENTS ARE IN RALEIGH'S AND THIS CHILD IS OUT ON THE SIDEWALK? HOLD.
RIGHT? SO NOW WE HAVE THIS, IF YOU LISTEN, IT'S OKAY.
SO, COMMAND, I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU.
ARE YOU AWARE IF, FOR THAT INDIVIDUAL PERSON THAT'S DOING THIS, DOES HE HAVE ANY KINDA LIABILITY INSURANCE IN CASE OF IT? AND THERE HAVE BEEN BITES IN THE PAST, I BELIEVE, BUT MOSTLY BY ANIMAL, BY DOGS.
BUT I MEAN, THE LIABILITY HE HE'S TAKING ON, UH, IS IMMENSE, I WOULD THINK.
HE DOESN'T HAVE INSURANCE, TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
I, THEY ANSWER, BUT THIS INDIVIDUAL NO LONGER IS ALLOWED TO DO IT.
UM, AND HE, SO HE DOES IT BY PROXY.
SO NOW HE HAS OTHER PEOPLE WHO TAKE HIS ANIMALS OUT THERE, AND IT'S BY PROXY.
BUT HOW THIS GROWS NOW IS NOW SOMEBODY ELSE SEES IT, AND THIS IS A REVENUE GENERATOR FOR THEM.
SO, UM, AS YOU CAN SEE THERE, IT'S NOT GONNA BITE YOU.
WELL, ANYBODY WHO HAS BEEN AROUND ANY WILD ANIMAL KNOWS THAT WE CAN'T PREDICT WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN.
YOU KNOW, EVEN MY DOGS AT MY HOUSE, I THINK THEY'RE NOT GONNA BITE YOU.
AND THE NEXT THING I KNOW, THEY'RE CHASING MY MOTHER-IN-LAW, RIGHT? LIKE, SO I CAN'T EVEN REASSURE MY MOTHER-IN-LAW THAT SHE'S NOT GONNA GET BIT, RIGHT.
SO WE'RE IN THAT SAME POSITION.
SO SOME OF THE CONCERNS, CASE OF NEGLECTED AND ABUSED ANIMALS HAVE OCCURRED.
WE HAVE HAD A COUPLE OF THESE FELONY CASES.
UM, ONE CASE LED TO A FELONY ARREST AND MULTIPLE ANIMAL SEIZURES, UH, ANIMALS FOUND DECEASED OR IN CONDITIONS REQUIRING EUTHANASIA.
SO NOW WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE'RE NOT USING, WE DON'T, WE DON'T HAVE THE ANIMALS THERE FOR, UM, OURSELVES.
WE'RE USING 'EM NOW AS A MONEY GENERATOR, WHICH KIND OF CHANGES THE PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT THE ANIMAL IS FOR AND MAYBE SOME OF THAT USE OR THAT ATTENTION AND CARE GOES DOWN.
UM, SO AGAIN, INADEQUATE EXISTING ENFORCEMENT.
THERE'S NOTHING CURRENTLY IN STATE STATUTE OR CITY ORDINANCE THAT ADDRESSES THE ISSUES.
WE'VE CONTACTED ARIZONA GAME AND FISH.
WE THOUGHT, HEY, THIS ISN'T REALLY OUR PROBLEM.
WE CAN CALL THEM AND THEY CAN COME TAKE CARE OF IT.
GAME AND FISH DOESN'T COVER TECHNICALLY DOMESTICATED ANIMALS.
DOMESTICATED ANIMALS ARE YOUR BOA CONSTRICTORS AND THESE KINDS OF THINGS THEY COVER.
IF SOMEBODY WAS OUT THERE ON THE PLAZA WITH HALINA, THEY'D BE OUT THERE, SOMEBODY HAD A RATTLESNAKE, THEY COULD PROBABLY TAKE THAT ACTION.
BUT THESE OTHER ANIMALS, THEY DON'T REALLY FALL INTO.
SO IT KIND OF FELL IN BETWEEN THIS AREA THAT WE COULDN'T TAKE ACTION.
UM, THE, OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE, 12 DASH ZERO 5.160 A LACKS SPECIFICAL ANIMAL, UH, DISPLAY RESTRICTIONS.
AGAIN, THIS IS THE ONE I TALKED ABOUT.
UNLESS AUTHORIZED IS PERMANENT OR PERMITTED BY THIS CHAPTER, IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY PLACE CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN, OR INSTALL AN ENCROACHMENT IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
AGAIN, ON THE SIDE, IF THEY'RE BLOCKING THE SIDEWALK, WE CAN TELL 'EM TO MOVE.
BUT ONCE YOU'RE NOT WALKING THE SIDEWALK ANYMORE, WE KIND OF END UP IN THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, IT, IT NO LONGER PERTAINS TO THIS.
AND WARNINGS AND CITATIONS HAVE NOT STOPPED THE VIOLATION NECESSARILY BECAUSE AGAIN, IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY TEETH TO, UM, IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN REALLY SOMEBODY STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK AND BLOCKING A SIDEWALK.
WE'D HAVE TO TELL THAT PERSON TO MOVE ON AS WELL, UM, RATHER THAN HAVE THE SNAKE IN THEIR HAND OR NOT.
UM, SO WE KIND OF WENT BACK AND FORTH ON THIS.
WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT DO OTHER CITIES, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT DO OTHER CITIES HAVE THAT HAVE THIS SAME TYPE OF, UH, TOURIST BASE? UM, UH, CITY ATTORNEY, UM, KURT WENT THROUGH AND TALKED WITH GAME AND FISH, AND WE TRIED TO ALIGN THIS BEST WITH SOME OF THE OTHER PRACTICES PLUS GAME AND FISH.
AND, UM, TALKED ABOUT CHANGING SOME, UH, DEFINITIONS.
SO THEY FIT REALLY WELL, UH, IN LINE WITH ARIZONA STATE STATUTE.
SO THIS ORDINANCE THAT WE'RE PROPOSING, UM, WOULD PRO PROHIBIT PUBLIC DISPLAY AND PERFORMANCE OF WILD OR EXOTIC ANIMALS.
[02:20:01]
EXCEPTIONS WOULD BE FOR USDA LICENSE OR A ARIZONA GAME.AND FISH PERMIT HOLDERS EMPOWERS ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO CITE AND CONFISCATE WHEN NECESSARY.
AND ENFORCEMENT AND EDUCATION ON THESE INCIDENTS HAS BEEN ATTEMPTED USING CURRENT STATE STATUTES.
SO THIS LAW WOULD, UH, ALIGN WITH STATE LAW WITH A RS 17 DASH 1 0 2.
TITLE 17 IS THE GAME AND FISH TITLE THAT COVERS ALL WILDLIFE, UM, AND RULE 12.4 OR 12 DASH FOUR DASH TWO, WHICH IS PRO PROHIBIT PROHIBIT PROHIBITION ON DISPLAY OF WILDLIFE.
I AM, MY MOUTH IS NOT WORKING TONIGHT.
AND ENSURES REGULATORY CONSISTENCY AND LEGAL BACKING.
SO AGAIN, WHEN WE TOOK THE OTHER PLACES THAT DO IT, KURT WENT IN AND ADJUSTED TO MAKE SURE THAT, UM, HE WAS IN LINE WITH GAME AND FISH.
WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE WERE USING THE SAME DEFINITIONS SO THERE WASN'T CONFLICT WITH THEM.
COULD YOU GO BACK A SLIDE PLEASE? UH, ONE MORE.
EXCEPTIONS FOR USDA LICENSES AND OR, UH, GAME AND FISH PERMIT HOLDERS.
WHAT, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? PERMIT, WHICH PERMIT ARIZONA GAME AND FISH, UM, ISSUES PERMITS FOR HAVING CERTAIN ANIMALS SUCH AS, UM, SNAKES, REPTILES, AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
BUT YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS WITH THEM, AND THEN THEY MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE ALL THE NECESSARY CARE AND EQUIPMENT AND THEY KNOW WHO YOU ARE.
SO IT'S, IT'S A WHOLE LOT MORE REGULATED WITH THAT.
UM, AND IT'S ALREADY IN PLACE.
AND, AND MAYOR AND COUNCIL JUST ADD THAT THEY HAVE A, SPECIFICALLY A PERMIT THAT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO DISPLAY.
SO GO AROUND TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS, UM, DIFFERENT THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND THEN THAT EXCEPTION IS MISSING ONE LITTLE PART OF IT, THAT IT ALSO HAS TO BE WITH PERMISSION OF THE, THE PROPERTY OWNER.
UM, SO YOU CAN'T DO IT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT THE PROPERTY OWNER'S PERMISSION OR PUBLIC PROPERTY WITHOUT THE CITY'S PERMISSION.
SO IS THAT, OR, OR IF IT'S A SCHOOL THAT'S, YOU KNOW, SCHOOL, KURT, DOES THAT HAVE TO BE IN THERE? THAT EXCEPTIONS? YEAH.
I, I MEAN, WELL, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE, I GUESS.
UM, BUT IT'S, THEY DO LEGITIMATELY, I MEAN, GO TO SCHOOL.
I THINK WE'VE HAD, UM, DONE THAT POSSE GROUND PARK BEFORE PERHAPS.
SOME, AND THAT WOULD BE WITH THE CITY OF SEDONAS APPROVAL AND PERMITS AND WHATEVER ELSE.
SO NO PERMIT REQUIRED FROM THE CITY.
YOU NEED A ARIZONA GAME OF FISH PERMIT TO DISPLAY, AND THEN YOU NEED PERMISSION FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER.
WELL, AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING POSSIBLE GROUNDS WOULD BE US, RIGHT? CORRECT.
BUT WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS AN INDIVIDUAL GOES AND GETS THAT FISHING GAME, OKAY? THE PERMIT AND STILL GOES TO THE SAME LOCATION.
THE SNAKE CAN STILL BITE, LIZZIE CAN STILL BITE, AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHO'S REALLY COMING UP AND EITHER TOURISTS OR VISITORS OR WHAT, WHAT HAVE YOU STILL WOULD BE A POSSIBLE HAZARD THAT DOESN'T CHANGE EXCEPT THE PERSON HAS A PERMIT.
THAT MEANS HOW MUCH, IF THEY GET BIT.
SO YEAH, I THINK WE, WE COULD LOOK INTO WHAT THE PERMIT PROCESS IS WITH GAME AND FISH, BUT FROM MY EXPERIENCE WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH GAME AND FISH, THEY'RE PRETTY RESTRICTIVE ON, YOU KNOW, THINGS THAT YOU CAN DO, CAN'T DO, UM, REGULATION IN IT.
SO IT'S NOT A JUST APPLY FOR IT AND IT'S GIVEN, IT'S A PRETTY DETAILED, BUT I CAN, UH, WE CAN LOOK AT IT AND COME BACK.
UM, BUT AGAIN, IN THIS SITUATION, IF IT WAS LIKE SAY IN UPTOWN ON OUR RIGHT OF WAY, THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE PERMISSION FROM THE CITY REGARDLESS.
SO EVEN IF THEY HAD THAT, THEY'D STILL HAVE TO COME TO US AND SAY, HEY, WE'D LIKE TO GO DO THIS.
WE, WE WOULDN'T FORESEE THEM DOING THAT BECAUSE THESE THINGS ARE USUALLY USED FOR, UM, SCHOOL EVENTS, FAIRES STUFF WHERE THEY'RE EDUCATING THE PUBLIC ON, YOU KNOW, ON THAT.
BUT IN A CASE WHERE SOMEONE'S NOT USED TO FOLLOWING THE LAWS ANYWAY, OR THE RULES, I'M JUST TRYING TO ELIMINATE ONE EXTRA LOOPHOLE WHERE SOMEBODY WOULD, NOT THAT ANYBODY WOULD, BUT THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT A PERSON MIGHT TAKE ADVANTAGE.
AND IF THERE'S NO HISTORY OF FOLLOWING THOSE RULES, WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT THAT RULE? THEY GET THE PERMIT FROM FISH AND GAME.
THEY GO THROUGH THE COURSES, WHATEVER'S INVOLVED.
NOW, OF COURSE, THEY WOULD GET STOPPED.
THEY WOULD GET A CITATION OR A WARNING, AND THE FISH AND GAME WOULD HOPEFULLY PULL THAT AND THEN WE'RE BACK TO WHERE WE SHOULD BE.
BUT I'M JUST WONDERING IF, IF THERE'S A WAY OF ON PUBLIC SIDEWALK OR AN LIKE IN AN UPTOWN THAT WE DON'T ALLOW THAT.
SO THEY'D HAVE TO GET THE CITY PERMISSION TO BE ON PUBLIC SIDEWALK.
AND SO IF THE CITY DOESN'T WANT 'EM ON THE CITY SIDEWALK, THEN OKAY, THEN THEY WON'T BE ALLOWED.
AND JUST TO ADD TO THAT, MAYOR, I, I THINK IT HELPS US BY HAVING ANOTHER PRONG TO IT, SO THAT EVEN IF THEY GOT THE PERMIT, BUT THEY DIDN'T GET OUR, THEN WE HAVE EN ENFORCEABILITY BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T GET THE TWO THINGS THAT ARE NEEDED.
AND THEN IF THEY USE A, SOMEBODY'S LIKE THE SCHOOL OR SOMETHING, THEY MIGHT THEN AT THAT POINT FALL UNDER THE INSURANCE
[02:25:01]
OF THAT PERSON THAT THEN WOULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE.BUT YOU'RE, YOU'RE ADDING IN ANOTHER LAYER FOR US, FOR, UM, OKAY.
AND I, AND I THINK IT'S ANOTHER PART OF PROBABLY THE PERMITTING PROCESS WITH THE, WITH THE CITY IS, YOU KNOW, GIVE US YOUR COI, RIGHT? WE WANNA SEE YOUR CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE FOR A MILLION DOLLARS OR WHATEVER THAT HAPPENS TO BE, SO THAT YOU CAN GET YOUR PERMIT.
SO, UM, WELL THAT WOULD HELP YEAH.
SO THAT JUST, THAT KIND OF FALLS INTO THAT.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE ALMOST NEED THE EXCEPTIONS BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WE HAVE EVENTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY, AND THIS WOULDN'T BE JUST A STATUTE THAT COVERS UPTOWN, THIS WOULD BE A STATUTE THAT COVERS THE ENTIRE CITY.
THANK, SO YOU KINDA NEED THOSE EXCEPTIONS IN THERE.
SO FOR THOSE KINDS OF EVENTS, UM, SO FOR ENFORCEMENT, WE'D HAVE INITIAL WARNING, SUBSEQUENT VIOLATIONS MAY LEAD TO FINES OR MISDEMEANOR CHARGES.
AGAIN, THE IDEA IS ALWAYS, UH, IS ALWAYS EDUCATION, RIGHT? WE WANT TO EDUCATE FIRST.
WE WANNA MAKE SURE PEOPLE KNOW, AND WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE, UM, THE ENFORCEABILITY OR THE TEETH BEHIND IT, IF, IF, IF THEY DON'T HEED THE WARNINGS.
SO IT'S NOT JUST NECESSARILY TO, UM, YOU KNOW, HAVE THE ENFORCEMENT SIDE, BUT WE WANT TO EDUCATE AS WELL.
UM, 'CAUSE SOME PEOPLE MAY YOU, WE MAY JUST HAVE A CITIZEN WHO'S ON VACATION WHO WALKS WITH THEIR BULL CONSTRICTED DOWN THE, THE STREET, RIGHT? AND WE MAY HAVE THAT CONVERSATION.
WE'RE LIKE, HEY, YOU KNOW, CITY ORDINANCE SAYS THIS, SO PLEASE TAKE YOUR SNAKE BACK TO YOUR HOTEL ROOM.
SO COMMANDER, LET ME GO ONE STEP FURTHER.
IS IT I INITIAL, THEY GET A, INITIALLY THEY GET A WARNING.
IS THAT BY PERSON OR LOCATION? LIKE THE WARNINGS ON, YOU KNOW, COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, THEY, THEY GET A WARNING PER LOCATION, WHETHER IT'S BASHERS, SAFEWAY, IT DIDN'T, THEY DON'T, THEY'RE NOT CROSS-REFERENCED.
I WOULD SAY NO, I THINK IT WOULD BE CITYWIDE.
YOU'RE VIOLATING ANY PART OF THIS ORDINANCE.
SO IF IT'S ONE PERSON AND THEY GET CAUGHT AT ONE END OF UPTOWN AND THE NEXT DAY THEY GET CAUGHT, THEY GET CAUGHT AT THE OTHER END OF UPTOWN, THEY'RE STILL CAUGHT.
UM, AND THEN, UM, IT GOES OUT FROM, UH, FINES TO MISDEMEANOR CHARGES.
VIOLATORS MAY BEAR THE COST OF ANIMAL CARE, TRANSPORT, HOUSING.
SO IF WE WERE TO NEED THE SEIZE OF ANIMAL FOR SOME REASON, UM, THE ORDINANCE STATES IN THERE THAT THEY BEAR THE COST BECAUSE THIS ISN'T LIKE YOU CAN CALL THE HUMANE SOCIETY AND THEY TAKE THE DOG IN.
THIS IS TYPICALLY SOMETHING THAT TAKES A LOT MORE CARE.
UM, AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE KIND OF A, A LITTLE BIT OF A KNOWLEDGE FOR THIS.
SO THE COST CAN BE INCURRED PRETTY QUICKLY.
UM, SO SOME OF THE EXACT WORDING, THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER IS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC AGAINST THE HAZARDS THAT WILD AND EXOTIC ANIMALS USED IN DISPLAYS AND PERFORMANCES POSED TO SOCIETY, AND TO PROTECT WILD AND EXOTIC ANIMALS FROM, FROM EXPLOITATION, UNLAWFUL, CRUEL OR INHUMANE TREATMENT.
UM, AND, AND MAYOR AND COUNSEL, IF I JUST, MAY I INTERRUPT THERE? THE, THE CITY HAS, THERE HAVE BEEN INCIDENTS WHERE, WHERE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN BIT, UM, BY ANIMALS.
UH, INCLUDING THE CITY'S RECEIVED A NOTICE OF CLAIM BEFORE, UM, AS A RESULT OF THOSE BITES.
UM, AND THEN WE GO INTO DEFINITION OF DISPLAY AND PERFORMANCE.
AS YOU CAN SEE, UM, WE DON'T NEED TO GO ALL THE WAY THROUGH IT, BUT IT SAYS, UM, DISPLAY MEANS TO EXHIBIT, SHOW HOLD, OR USE FOR PHOTOGRAPHS.
SO IT ELIMINATES THAT PART OF IT.
UM, THEY'RE, THEY'RE IN YOUR PACKET, THE, WHILE THEY'RE EXOTIC ANIMALS.
UM, KURT, DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE ADDITION TO THAT? ARIZONA GAVE 'EM FISH, UH, JUST REQUESTED THAT WE ADD AN ARACHNIDS INTO THAT LIST, UM, WHICH WOULD BE SPIDERS.
AND SPECIFICALLY THEY'VE HAD ISSUES WITH TARANTULAS BEING DISPLAYED AND, AND, AND DYING IN THAT, UM, NOT BEING PROPERLY CARED FOR.
AGAIN, HERE'S THE, THE EXACT WORDING, BUT NO, NO PERSON MAY DISPLAY OR SPONSOR DISPLAY OR ALLOW THE PERFORMANCE OF ANY WILD EXOTIC ANIMAL WITHIN THE SEDONA CITY LIMITS.
AND ALLOW OR SPONSOR GOES BACK INTO WHERE WE HAVE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING IT BY PROXY, HEY, TAKE MY ANIMALS OUT, GET SOME PICTURES.
I'LL SPLIT THE MONEY WITH YOU, SO ON AND SO FORTH.
UM, AND THEN AGAIN, THERE'S THE EXCEPTIONS AT THE BOTTOM.
UH, THE ENFORCEMENT, ANY ARIZONA GAME OF FISH, BASICALLY ANYBODY, UM, WHO HAS ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS CAN DO IT HERE.
WE MADE SURE THAT, UH, OUR ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS AND CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT AND CITY COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER OR ANY AZ POST, UM, CERTIFIED PEACE OFFICER.
SO WE ALSO WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT COULD DO IT.
SO IF CODE ENFORCEMENT HAPPENED TO SEE IT, THEY COULD DO IT.
UM, BUT WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT WAS ENFORCEABLE BY A LARGER SWATH.
THAT WAY WE DIDN'T HAVE TO, UM, RELY ON ONE ENTITY TO TAKE CARE OF IT.
WE DON'T WANT TO BE CALLING CODE
[02:30:01]
WHEN CODE'S BUSY, AND THEY DON'T WANT TO BE CALLING US WHEN WE'RE BUSY.SO IT ALLOWS THAT LEEWAY TO, TO BE ABLE TO HANDLE IT.
UM, HERE'S JUST AN EXAMPLE OF ANOTHER ORDINANCE.
UM, IT WAS FAIRLY EASY TO FIND.
HUNTINGTON BEACH HAS THIS ONE.
AND AGAIN, IT SAYS BASICALLY THE SAME THING.
UM, PROTECT THE PUBLIC AGAINST HAZARDS AT WILD AND EXOTIC ANIMALS USED IN PERFORMANCES.
SO THE SAME TYPE OF LANGUAGE THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR HERE.
AND BASICALLY THE CONCLUSION, UM, THIS, THIS, UM, ORDINANCE, OH, IT'S NOT WORKING.
THIS ORDINANCE, UM, IF ADOPTED WOULD ADDRESS ONGOING PUBLIC HEALTH AND ANIMAL WELFARE ISSUES, SUPPORTS SEDONA SEDONAS VALUES OF SAFETY, CLEANLINESS, AND COMPASSION.
AND IT WOULD TAKE TWO PUBLIC MEETINGS.
SO THIS ONE AND ANOTHER ONE, I'VE, I'VE HANDED OUT A, UM, A DISEASE SPREAD, UH, BY REPTILE SHEET.
UH, I WAS GONNA READ IT OUT, BUT I CAN'T PRONOUNCE HALF THE THINGS IN THERE.
SO I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE TO GIVE TO YOU TO, TO READ OUT.
UM, OBVIOUSLY THERE'S SOME PRETTY, THERE'S SOME PRETTY BIG ONES IN THERE, OBVIOUSLY SALMONELLA.
AND THEN, UM, BOTULISM, BOTULISM.
UM, AND IT GOES, IF YOU'LL NOTICE IT, MOST OF IT GOES TO THE VULNERABLE POPULATIONS, WHICH, YOU KNOW, THE KIDS AND THE, UH, THE, UH, SENIORS IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO, TO PROTECT.
SO, UM, JUST BY HANDLING AN ANIMAL, IF I WAS ON UP IN UPTOWN AND I HANDLED THE ANIMAL AND I HAD SOMETHING ON ME, IT TRANSFERS THE ANIMAL AND THEN THE ANIMAL COULD TRANSPORT, PLUS ALL THE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT THEY CARRY.
SO I THINK THIS IS JUST A BETTER WAY FOR US TO TIGHTEN THIS UP AND TO REALLY CLEAN UP, UM, THE SAFETY AND THE HEALTH CHALLENGES THAT THIS POSE.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE IT, AGAIN, WE DID IT FOR THE ENTIRE CITY.
WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT WAS UNIFORM AND, UM, IT, IT GAVE US A LITTLE BIT MORE ROOM FOR ENFORCEABILITY.
UM, THANKS COMMANDER, BY THE WAY, FOR THE PRESENTATION, UH, KURT, UNDER THE PENALTIES SECTION OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE, WRITTEN WARNING, FIRST TIME AROUND, BEYOND THAT, FINE NOT TO EXCEED 2,500.
AND THAT CAN ACTUALLY APPLY TO EACH ANIMAL IF THERE'S MULTIPLE.
I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, IF WE'RE GONNA HAVE, THIS ORDINANCE NEEDS TO HAVE TEETH, WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO, UM, MAKE OUR POINT.
SO WITH A FINE NOT TO EXCEED, WE'RE GIVING THE JUDGE THE DISCRETION.
NOW HE CAN TURN AROUND AND GO, AH, SHUCKS, YOU KNOW, POOR GUY, HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY, HE CAN'T PAY THE 2,500, SO NOW I'M JUST GONNA FIND HIM 50 BUCKS.
AND WE'RE NOT REALLY MAKING THE POINT.
IS THAT, SO YES, THAT WOULD LEAVE DISCRETION TO THE JUDGE, UH, TO, TO IMPOSE THE FINE.
UM, TYPICALLY JUDGES WOULD BE MORE LENIENT ON A FIRST TIME OFFENDER VERSUS A REPEAT OFFENDER.
UM, SO I MEAN, I, IN OTHER SITUATIONS, IF YOU'RE THE FIRST TIME OFFENDER, YES, YOU MIGHT GET A 50 OR A HUNDRED OR A HUNDRED.
I THINK THERE'S KIND OF SOME MINIMUMS THEY HAVE TO APPLY.
SO IT'S PROBABLY THE MINIMUM'S CLOSER TO LIKE 80 OR 90, BUT FAIRLY LOW.
UM, BUT ON REPEAT OFFENDERS, THAT DEFINITELY GOES UP RATHER QUICKLY.
THIS IS OUTSIDE MY AREA OF EXPERTISE, CLEARLY.
UM, WHY ALLOW THAT MUCH LENIENCY IN THIS? I MEAN, WE WANT TO CUT THIS OFF, GET THIS DONE, NOT HAVE THIS REPEAT.
UM, WHY ALLOW FOR, YOU KNOW, THIS GUY TO GET PARADED IN A HALF A DOZEN TIMES.
AND SO THIS IS, I JUST SAY THAT'S TYPICAL BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW THIS CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE PEOPLE THAT WILL BE CITED.
AND, UM, IT COULD, THEY, THEY HAVE A VARIETY OF BACKGROUNDS AND UNDERSTANDINGS AND, AND MEANS AND AND MOTIVES.
AND SO THE JUDGES WEIGH ALL THOSE WHEN DETERMINING A SENTENCE.
SO THAT'S, IT'S TYPICAL TO LEAVE IT OPEN.
UM, ENDED FOR THE JUDGE SIFY, KURT, CAN WE HAVE, OKAY, A SECOND OFFENSE NOT TO BE LESS THAN WHATEVER IS DECIDED.
A SECOND OFFENSE CAN THEN BECOME A, UH, A CRIMINAL VIOLATION.
UM, THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN GOES UP TO SIX MONTHS IN JAIL AND YOUR PROBATION AND IT CAN BE HARSHER.
SO, AND AGAIN, THAT'S A TYPICAL PROGRESSION OF CITY ORDINANCES AS WELL, UH, WARRANTY, CIVIL, UH, THAN CRIMINAL.
UM, COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR YOU OR SOMEBODY.
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A-U-S-D-A LICENSE AND A GAME AND FISH LICENSE? ARE THEY OPERATE IN DIFFERENT AREAS OR? YEAH, SO I, THE, THE USDA ONE'S MORE FOR, UM, THE EXOTIC ANIMALS FOR LIKE ZOOS.
ALSO, LIKE IF YOU'RE GONNA TRAVEL TO SEDONA AND WANTED TO BRING YOUR, YOUR TIGER, UM,
[02:35:01]
SO IN, IN 6 2 0 40 AT THE BOTTOM B, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HOLDING A LICENSE OR A ZOO LICENSE, IS THAT A-U-S-D-A ELEMENT? YEAH, THAT'D BE THE USDA.
DO WE HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH GOOD OPERATIONS THAT WE'VE SEEN IN TOWN IN THE PAST? YOU OKAY IF I, UM, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
UH, WE HAD A SPECIAL OLYMPICS EVENT WHERE IT WAS THE TORCH RUN AND WE DID HAVE A VENDOR COME IN, UM, TO PROVIDE TO THE ATHLETES AS A, AN ADDITIONAL DISPLAY THAT WAS FUN, UM, FOR THEM THAT WAS CONSENSUAL AS WELL.
SO WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT GO AROUND TO SCHOOLS.
WHEN WE DO OUR COMMUNITY OUTREACH EVENT, WHICH WAS FORMERLY KNOWN AS NATIONAL NIGHT OUT, WE ALSO BRING IN, UM, DIFFERENT SPECIES TO HELP BRIDGE GAPS OF UNDERSTANDING AND HOW TO HANDLE.
SO THERE, THERE ARE A LOT OF EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES THAT ARE OUT THERE TO HELP.
YOU SAID WE, THAT THE DEPARTMENT WILL BRING IN ANIMALS.
DO WE HAVE A LIFE? ARE WE, WOULD WE INTEND TO GET A GAME AND FISH LICENSE IN THE FUTURE? I DON'T THINK THAT WE WOULD BE WITHOUT AN EXCEPTION OF MAKING SURE THAT WE WERE FINE WITH IT IN THE PAST AT NATIONAL NIGHT OUT, WE'VE HAD, UM, I'M TRYING TO THINK.
I, 'CAUSE IT'S BEEN A LITTLE WHILE SINCE THE LAST TIME WE HAD DONE IT.
UM, BUT IT WAS A NON POISONOUS SNAKE I THINK WE HAD OUT THERE TOO, JUST TO HELP SHOW PEOPLE HOW YOU WOULD CAPTURE OR, YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE WE DID IT, BUT I THINK IF, IF WE WERE PUTTING THAT FOR OTHERS AND WE WOULD WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE WE'RE FOLLOWING SUIT, HOW DIFFICULT IS IT TO GET A GAME AND FISH DISPLAY? IS IT JUST A FORM TO FILL OUT? IS IT, I THINK WE HIRE VENDORS TO COME DO THAT, RIGHT? IT'S NOT OUR NOW WE DO, YEAH.
IT'S NOT OUR EMPLOYEES THAT ARE, THAT ARE MANAGING OR, WELL, I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT A FUNDRAISER FOR A WILDLIFE ANIMAL RESCUE GROUP THAT WANTS TO COME TO TOWN AND DO THIS.
IS IT ONEROUS TO GET ONE OF THESE GAME AND FISH LICENSES? IS IT IMPOSSIBLE? YOU KNOW, IT'S, THERE'S ONLY FOUR IN THE STATE.
I DON'T HAVE NO, THERE'S, THERE'S TWO LOCAL IN THE VERDE VALLEY OR, AND THEN THAT, THAT DO THAT.
AND THEY'RE ALSO THE ONES THAT WILL PICK, PICK UP REPTILES.
UM, AND THEN THERE'S ALSO THE, UM, OUT OF AFRICA, THEY HAVE ONE AS WELL, BUT THEY DON'T NORMALLY COME DUE DISPLAY.
AND THEN ANOTHER TOPIC IS, UH, ON YOUR PENALTIES, IT'S WRITTEN AS UPON A FIRST VIOLATION.
THE OFFICER SHALL ISSUE THE WRITTEN WARNING.
ONE, THE SHALL, SO OFTENTIMES WE WRITE THINGS AND THERE ISN'T SHALLS ON THE FIRST TIME BECAUSE WE LIKE TO GIVE OUR OFFICERS SOME FLEXIBILITY IN, UH, LOOKING AT THE TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND, AND THINKING ABOUT THAT.
SO IS SHALL DEFINITELY SOMETHING YOU SUPPORTED PUTTING IN HERE THAT THAT'S WHAT YOU WANTED TO DO? I, I THINK SHALL IN THIS CASE WOULD, WOULD FIT VERY WELL.
UM, BECAUSE AGAIN, I THINK, UM, EDUCATION IS THE FIRST AND FOREMOST, UM, THING WE SHOULD BE DOING.
BUT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT, IF IT WAS A MORE EGREGIOUS THING AS THAT'S MY NEXT QUESTION,
UM, THERE'S THINGS LIKE THE CRIMINAL NUISANCE, UM, ARIZONA STATUTE THAT TALKS ABOUT, IT MAY NOT BE UNLAWFUL IN ITSELF, BUT IF IT WAS UNSAFE, SO IF SOMETHING LIKE THAT HAPPENED, YOU COULD, YOU COULD FIND SOMETHING ELSE WITHIN THE STATUTE THAT WORKS.
UM, IN THIS CASE, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE WOULD SHALL GIVE THAT WARNING FIRST.
AND THEN ON THE COUNSEL ON THE FLIP SIDE, WE, IF WITHOUT THAT FIRST WRITTEN WARNING, THEN IT CAN'T MOVE TO THE, THE CIVIL OFFENSE PEDESTAL BY A FINE.
SO THAT'S WHY IT'S A, A MANDATORY WARNING.
UM, SO THAT WE ARE REMOVING DISCUSSION FROM THE OFFICER AT THAT POINT TO, YOU KNOW, JUST GIVE A VERBAL, YOU KNOW, OR A JUST, YOU KNOW, NOT GIVE THEM ACTUAL WARNING, A WRITTEN WARNING.
IT'S KIND OF, IT IS KIND OF LIKE THE SAME, SAME THING WITH TRESPASS, RIGHT? YEAH, NO, YOU HAVE TO BE GIVEN A, YEP.
AND THEN IF THEY DON'T, THEN THAT'S WHEN IT COMES IN.
SO IT'S KIND OF THAT SAME CONCEPT.
AND, AND MY REAL CONCERN WAS ABOUT THE PARTICULARLY EGREGIOUS FIRST VIOLATION THAT WE SEE.
AND IT WOULDN'T BE ENFORCEABLE.
THE, THE MORE HEAVY PENALTIES WOULDN'T BE ENFORCEABLE HERE, BUT YOU BELIEVE THERE'S OTHER THINGS THAT YOU COULD DO.
YEAH, IF IT WAS SOMETHING THAT NEEDED IMMEDIATE ACTION THERE, WE COULD FIND SOMETHING WITHIN THE STATUTE THAT WOULD FIT.
UM, ESPECIALLY IF IT WAS A DANGER TO SOMEBODY SUCH AS, YOU KNOW, ENDANGERMENT OR CRIMINAL NUISANCE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
IF IT WAS JUST BECAUSE THEY HAD FIVE OR SIX ANIMALS OUT THERE, THEN THAT WOULD STILL FIT UNDER A WARNING TYPE OF THING.
UH, DEREK, UM, QUESTION FOR THE COMMANDER.
SO DID I HEAR YOU CORRECTLY, IF SOMEBODY'S WALKING DOWN THE STREET AND THEY'VE GOT A SNAKE OR A
[02:40:01]
PARROT OR A LIZARD OR WHATEVER ON THEIR SHOULDER, YOU'RE GONNA GIVE 'EM A WARNING UNDER THIS ORDINANCE? IS THAT AS LONG AS IT, THEY, AS LONG AS THEY DIDN'T, IT WASN'T FOR SHOW OR DISPLAY.AND I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE, I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE DEFINITION HERE.
'CAUSE DISPLAY IS AWFULLY BROAD.
DISPLAY MEANS TO EXHIBIT, SHOW HOLD OR USE FOR PHOTOGRAPHS WITH MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC OF WILD OR EXOTIC ANIMALS FOR THE BENEFIT OF A LIVE AUDIENCE.
SO AGAIN, IT'S FOR THE LIVE AUDIENCE.
SO I MEAN, IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, I HAVE MY SNAKE WRAPPED THERE ON MY NECK AND I WALK TO THE STORE AND BACK COMPARATIVE TO I STOP AND I TALK AND YOU KNOW, I'M HANDING THE ANIMAL OUT.
THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF A DIFFERENCE IN THERE AND, AND HOW THAT COULD BE, YOU KNOW, WE'D REALLY HAVE TO SHOW THAT YOU'RE PAIRED ON YOUR SHOULDER, UM, YOU WERE STOPPING AND, YOU KNOW, GETTING SOME VALUE OUT OF IT.
AND THAT WOULDN'T BE WHAT THE INTENT WOULD BE.
AND THEN IT, I WOULD AGREE THAT IF YOU HAPPEN TO BE, YOU KNOW, WALKING YOUR EMOTIONAL SUPPORT, PARROT, LIZARD, PARROT, WHATEVER,
THAT'S LIKELY NOT GONNA RESULT IN A, IN A WARNING 'CAUSE IT'S NOT GONNA BE A DISPLAY OR PERFORMANCE.
UM, BUT IF YOU, AND THEN IF YOU GET A LIVE AUDIENCE, THEN YOU'RE AT RISK PETSMART WHAT EXEMPTS THEM FROM, UH, ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC CAN GO AND PETSMART.
YEAH, I DON'T KNOW THAT, I MEAN THAT'S AT THE PRIVATE PROPERTY.
I DON'T KNOW THAT, I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'RE LI I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY HAVE ANY SPECIAL LICENSING.
AND, AND THEY DO THEY DISPLAY ANIMALS, UH, THERE DOGS AND CATS FOR ADOPTION OUT OUTSIDE.
SO HOW WOULD THAT NOT, WHILE THEY'RE INSIDE? YEAH, BUT THEY HAVE INSIDE, THEY HAVE LIZARDS AND SNAKES AND BIRDS AND ALL SORTS OF THINGS FOR SALE THAT ARE ON DISPLAY.
SO, AND I THINK IT, AGAIN, THE INTENT IS WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER'S PERMISSION.
SO, UM, AGAIN, IF YOU'RE IN YOUR HOUSE, THIS WOULDN'T APPLY 'CAUSE WELL, BUT WE SAID IT'S WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER'S POSITION, UH, PERMISSION AND THE PERSON IS LICENSED EITHER BY THE USDA OR ARIZONA GAME AND FISH.
SO I CAN CERTAINLY LOOK INTO THAT.
I GUESS MY POINT WOULD BE, I MEAN, IF THERE'S SOMEBODY'S LAWFULLY SELLING REPTILES, I DON'T, OR WHATEVER ANIMALS I DON'T, ASSUMING IF THEY'RE THINK THEY SHOULD FALL INTO HIS ORDINANCE, THEY SHOULD PROBABLY HAVE A LICENSE IF THEY'RE YEAH.
THE OTHER, THE OTHER THING I WOULD TALK, SAY, AND I DON'T KNOW, I'M NOT GONNA NAME THE GUY, BUT I KNOW THERE'S A GUY WHO WILL COME TO PEOPLE'S HOUSES AND REMOVE REPTILES, ROOT SNAKES, WHATEVER, WHO DOES, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN HAVE HIM COME TO YOUR KID'S BIRTHDAY PARTY AND HE'LL SHOW OFF, YOU KNOW, SOME REPTILES.
I I KNOW THE SAME INDIVIDUAL AND OKAY.
I DON'T HAVE HIS LICENSE OR NOT, BUT I THINK, I DUNNO, I DON'T THINK HIS ACTIVITY IS REALLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO, NO, NOT I, BUT AGAIN, A 5 0 1 C3.
SO, BUT AGAIN, IF HE DOESN'T HOLD ONE OF THESE LICENSES PER, EVEN IF HE'S ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, HE'S STILL NO, NO, NO.
SO PER, PER, YOU KNOW, EXISTING STATE LAW IN ORDER TO DISPLAY, HE SHOULD ALREADY HAVE A, HE SHOULD HAVE A
SO THAT'S REQUIRED TO BEGIN WITH.
AND SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY ANYTHING DIFFERENT THERE.
AND SO, AND THE GOAL IS TO HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE QUALIFIED AND COMPETENT TO GET THAT.
AND IT IS NOT, THERE ARE STEPS AND, AND, UH, REQUIREMENTS TO MEET, BUT IT'S NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO GET THAT TYPE OF PERMIT.
I DON'T THINK IT COSTS MUCH EITHER.
BUT I CAN FIND OUT KATHY, AND THEN WE'LL MOVE ON.
YEAH, I I BACK TO SOMEBODY WALKING DOWN THE STREET WITH SOME ANIMAL ON THEIR SHOULDER AND PEOPLE GOING UP AND WANTING TO TAKE SELFIES AND A CROWD STARTS TO GATHER AS PEOPLE WAIT FOR THEIR SELFIES.
DOES THAT CONSTITUTE AN AUDIENCE? YES.
IF THEY STOP AND ARE CREATING A LIVE AUDIENCE, THEN THAT WOULD, IT WOULD COUNT AS A DISPLAY.
AND IT, IT COVERS PHOTOGRAPHS, TRICKS.
OKAY, COMMANDER, IT'S ALL YOURS.
UH, A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS THAT I FOUND, KURT, YOU HAD SAID SOMETHING ABOUT PERMISSION ON, ON FOR PUBLIC PROPERTY, BUT I DON'T SEE THOSE WORDS IN THE AUDIENCE.
AM I MISSING IN THEM OR ARE THEY SOME OTHER ORDINANCE? NO, IT SHOULD BE IN HERE.
THERE NO CORDS IN THIS, RIGHT? UNLESS IT DIDN'T GET INTO THIS VERSION.
NO, YOU SHOULD PROBABLY ASK THOUGH.
6 20 40, RIGHT AT THE, THE HEADING, THE PREAMBLE, IT SAYS PERMISSION, IT OCCURS ON PROPERTY WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE PROPERTY OWNER.
SO LONG AS THEY HAVE A LICENSE.
AND THEN DID WE CONSIDER MAKING A LIABILITY INSURANCE REQUIREMENT, MAYBE
[02:45:01]
FOUR PUBLIC PROPERTY? WE HAVE NOT DISCUSSED THAT, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE A, A GOOD IDEA.UM, I LIKE WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING, IF IT'S GONNA BE A DISPLAY IN THE PUBLIC THAT THERE BE SOME INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME.
UM, IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO INVITE SOMEBODY INTO THEIR HOME AND BRING SOME OF THEIR REPTILES TO SHOW TO THEIR KIDS OR WHATEVER, EVEN IF THE GUY GETS PAID, I DON'T KNOW.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE REALLY HAVE ANY BUSINESS POKING OUR HEAD INTO THAT.
I MEAN, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS MAKE IT SO WE DON'T HAVE PEOPLE WITH A BUNCH OF ANIMALS SITTING OUT ON THE SIDEWALK.
BLOCKING TRAFFIC AND ALL THAT.
SO I GUESS MY, MY EXCEPTION WOULD BE DOESN'T APPLY TO, YOU KNOW, OCCURS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WITH PERMISSION OF THE OWNER PERIOD.
AND THEN IN PUBLIC WE WOULD REQUIRE YOU HAVE TO HAVE ONE OF THESE LICENSES PLUS THE INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS.
THAT'S JUST MY PERSONAL THOUGHT.
I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO STICK OUR NOSE INTO PEOPLE'S HOMES.
CAN I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION? WOULD THAT ALSO APPLY IF A PRIVATE PROPERTY, A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WANTS TO BRING IN, UM, AN LICENSED, UM, CIRCUS, YOU KNOW, THAT'S COMING THROUGH TOWN WITH EXOTIC ANIMALS AND THEY DON'T HAVE ANY KIND OF LICENSE, BUT BECAUSE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER SAID THEY CAN BE ON THEIR PROPERTY AND INVITE THE PUBLIC, THAT THAT WOULD BE, THEY WOULD, THEY'D HAVE TO HAVE A LICENSE, OTHERWISE IT'D BE A VIOLATION, BUT THERE'S JUST NO INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS.
OH, I THOUGHT I WAS HEARING COUNCILOR FAFF TALKING ABOUT THAT.
I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT CIRCUSES.
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE GUY WHO BRINGS A COUPLE SNAKES IN AND SHOWS 'EM.
I MEAN, I THINK ABOUT IT, THIS APPLIES TO ALL OF THAT.
SO IF YOU WANT AN EXCEPTION, ANOTHER EXCEPTION CARVED OUT FOR REPTILES IN PRIVATE HOMES OR SOMETHING.
SO YEAH, I DON'T THINK IT'S ANOTHER EXCEPTION.
AND I AGREE THAT WE CAN EASILY REQUIRE INSURANCE FOR PUBLIC DISPLAYS AND, UM, I DON'T THINK THE CITY NEEDS TO GET INVOLVED INTO PRIVATE DISPLAYS.
AND WOULDN'T, IF SOMEBODY WAS TO HAVE UNDER THAT SCENARIO, HAVE A PARTY AND HAVE REPTILES IN THEIR HOME AND SOME TRIAL GETS BIT, WOULDN'T THEY BE HUGELY LIABLE? YEAH.
THEIR HOMEOWNERS, IT'D BE NO DIFFERENT THAN AN ANIMAL BITE.
HOMEOWNER'S INSURANCE WOULD KICK IN.
SO I WOULD TEND TO THINK SO I'VE BEEN BITTEN BY ALL SORTS OF REPTILES AND I NEVER GOT SICK FROM IT.
SO WELL COULD BUT YOU KNOW, AN ATTORNEY MELISSA.
SO, SO WHEN I'M ACTUALLY HEARING FROM THE CITY MANAGER SOMETHING SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT, IT'S NOT ABOUT ME INVITING SOMEBODY INTO MY HOME WITH LIZARDS.
IT'S ABOUT THE FACT THAT I OWN A, UH, AN ACRE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY HERE IN SEDONA AND I HAVE A CIRCUS COME THROUGH AND I HAVE THEM COME ON MY PRIVATE PROPERTY, BUT I INVITE THE PUBLIC TO COME TO THAT CIRCUS.
AND THEN HOW IS THAT, THAT FOLLOWING, I MEAN THAT'S SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN INSIDE MY HOME OR WHATEVER, BUT IT IS PRIVATE PROPERTY, SO THAT'S GONNA REQUIRE A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT.
YEAH, IF YOU'RE GONNA START INVITING PUBLIC, YOU'RE GONNA, IT'S GONNA OPEN UP A WHOLE DIFFERENT ISSUE THAN, UH, JUST THE DISPLAY OR PERFORMANCE, WHICH IS, WILL BE GENERALLY PROHIBITED.
SO, SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, IF I HAVE A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WOULD BE APPLIED WOULD BE THIS LAW, THIS ORDINANCE AGAINST THAT TEMPORARY USE PERMIT.
SO YES, THIS LAW WOULD, YES, WOULD APPLY TO A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT.
BUT, SO IF THEY HAVE A LICENSE AND A PERMIT, THEN, BUT IF YOU'RE GONNA OPEN IT UP TO THE PUBLIC AND TRY TO CHARGE, OR EVEN IF YOU'RE GONNA DO IT FOR FREE, YOU'RE GONNA RISK NEEDING SUFFICIENT PARKING, UM, RESTROOM FACILITY, EXTRA RESTROOM FACILITIES, DEPENDING HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE COMING.
THERE'S GONNA BE A LOT TO GO INTO A A USE PERMIT LIKE THAT.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, I THINK THAT THAT WAS YOUR SCENARIO.
I WAS JUST TRYING TO DISTINGUISH WHAT WAS MEANT BY IF IT HAPPENS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY AND WE WEREN'T GONNA GET INVOLVED IN THAT.
I WAS JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND FOR INSURANCE PURPOSE, YOU KNOW, BUT IT WAS ONLY FOR THE INSURANCE PURPOSE IS WHAT YOU WERE GETTING AT OR WERE YOU SAYING NONE OF THIS SHOULD APPLY IF IT'S, I DON'T THINK ANY OF IT SHOULD APPLY IF IT'S ON PRIVATE, IF IT'S WITHIN SOMEBODY'S PRIVATE HOME, I DON'T THINK WE OUGHT TO BE REGULATING IT, FRANKLY.
I MEAN, CIRCUS IS A DIFFERENT THING.
I ASSUME WE COULD PREVENT A CIRCUS PRIVATE PRO.
I JUST WAS HUNG UP ON THE COMMENT ABOUT PRIVATE PROPERTY VERSUS, BUT I ASSUME WE COULD PREVENT A CIRCUS FROM COMING TO TOWN EVEN WITHOUT THE ORDINANCE.
SO PRIVATE DEPENDS ON A CIRCUS POPS UP ON HOW YOU DEFINE CIRCUS OR A DISPLAY.
I MEAN, SO NO, THIS GIVES THAT TEETH.
YEAH, AND I THINK A LITTLE BIT AS MUCH I, AS MUCH AS I THINK WE SHOULD ELIMINATE OR STAY AWAY FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY, YOU ALSO END UP WITH THAT.
[02:50:01]
HAVE A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER WHO GETS WITH THE SNAKE GUY WHO HAS A BUSINESS IN UPTOWN AND INVITES THEM IN, BUT THEY'RE NOW IN A BUSINESS RATHER THAN OUT ON THAT AREA.SO IT JUST LEAVES THAT LITTLE BIT OF, YOU KNOW, HEY, IF YOU WANT TO DO IT, YOU CAN DO IT, BUT YOU GOTTA DO IT IN MY SHOP HERE.
YEAH, I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE GOAL STAFF SCHOOL ANYWAYS.
IF A, A BUSINESS OWNER WANTED TO OPEN A, AN ANIMAL DISPLAY IN UPTOWN IN A BUSINESS ON THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY, THEN WITH THE, AS LONG AS THEY HAVE THE CORRECT PERMITS, UM, FROM THE USDA OR THE ARIZONA GAME FISH, THAT WOULD BE FINE.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE DIDN'T GET IN THE AREA OF ANY GECKOS TAKING FINGERS OFF IN THE SHOP.
UM, THIS WAS A GREAT PRESENTATION.
THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION HERE, A LOT OF THOUGHTS WENT INTO THIS.
IT'S A LONG TIME COMING AND, UM, THIS IS GREAT.
AND UH, BUT I WANT TO JUST MAKE NOTE OF HOW MUCH WE APPRECIATE THE, THE GROUP EFFORT THAT THAT WENT INTO IT.
UH, THIS IS NOT FOR A VOTE, THIS IS, 'CAUSE THIS GOES FOR A SECOND HEARING.
UH, ANY ANTICIPATION OF WHEN THAT WILL BE UP, UM, SINCE PACKETS ARE ALREADY OUT, ARE GONNA SOON BE OUT FOR TWO WEEKS.
IT USUALLY COMES BACK IN A MONTH NOW AND JUNE THE SECOND MEETING IN JUNE, 30 DAYS OR 60 DAYS? 30 DAYS.
SO 30 DAYS IN JUNE 24TH MEETING.
[8.e. AB 3188 Discussion/possible direction/action regarding proposed State legislation, short-term rental legislation, lobbying efforts, and State budget and their potential impact on the City of Sedona.]
ALL RIGHT.DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE DIRECTION ACTION REGARDING PROPOSED STATE LEGISLATION, SHORT-TERM RENTAL LEGISLATION, LOBBYING EFFORTS AND STATE BUDGET AND THEIR POTENTIAL IMPACT ON THE CITY OF SEDONA.
SO MAYOR AND COUNSEL, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO REPORT ON THAT.
THE, THEY DID, UM, PASS, THE GOVERNOR HASN'T SIGNED THE BILL CORRECTING THE A DU BILL FROM LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION WHERE IT WAS, IT WAS AMBIGUOUS.
UM, SOME PEOPLE THOUGHT ANYWAYS THAT IT WAS AMBIGUOUS WHETHER THE 75,000 OF, UM, OF THE WHOLE ORDINANCE SUPPLIED TO ALL CITIES OR JUST THOSE ABOVE 75,000.
LIKE NONE OF THAT, UH, WILL APPLY TO CITIES UNDER 75,000.
[8.f. AB 3066 Discussion/possible action regarding future meeting/agenda items.]
ALRIGHT.DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING FUTURE MEETING AND AGENDA ITEMS. DO WE HAVE ANYTHING FROM MADEAS? OKAY, WE'LL SEE YOU TOMORROW AT TWO O'CLOCK.
IS ANYBODY GONNA BE USING THIS ROOM? JOANNA, CAN WE LEAVE OUR STUFF HERE? UH, NOT THAT I KNOW OF.
[10. ADJOURNMENT]
ADJOURNED.