City Council Meeting

JC Martinezstaffdoes not impact. I think the manager's been very clear that the CIP, the only way to really impact the CIP is by reducing the transfer from the general fund

So this would be the CIP. That doesn't really impact the net expenditures on the general fund. That's what the policy is off of. So I would need to know the net expenditures on the general fund side before I can figure out that aspect of it.

Thomas PetersonAnd I think it's important because technically the cost of the CIP includes that staff time that is funded out of the general fund. Right? Is that correct? And as a consequence, that's actually tax financed. It's not grant financed.

JC MartinezstaffYes, so they, he is funded through the general fund, but I think to Director Summers' point, if allowed, they would be able to bill back to the CIP.

Thomas PetersonWell, and so allowable cost recovery is part of the issue. The other part of the issue is having a measurement system that enables you to do that, but it's my impression that a lot of staff time, and it varies, but there's a really significant loading. It's not an insignificant that's associated with being able to generate CIP and then actually and that that's not always cost recoverable. That is something that's built into, that's an expense that's associated with the CIP. And so when we talk about the benefits of reducing CIP volume, one of the benefits of that is reducing the staff expenses that are paid for by the general fund that are associated with that. How big that is, I wouldn't know until somebody was able to provide some measurements around it,

but it's possible that that's a really significant number in some areas. But I just want to note, unless I'm mistaken, that that is a general fund expense, and it's a significant one that is CIP-driven. Is that not the case?

JC MartinezstaffIt is a general fund expense. I would hesitate to say how significant it is until analysis was done.

we could redistribute it elsewhere if need be it's currently in the CIP so the way I look at this and bear with me is so you have the minimum cash distribution of the 5% from the general fund to the CIP So that's your left arm. If we were to fund the initial $3 million for schools, that will also come out of the general fund to the CIP fund. That's your right hand. So you got two parallel tracks, two transfers going into the CIP from the general fund. Because 1.2 already resides in the CIP from a previous year appropriation, I could reduce the right-hand transfer, that $3 million, if need be there. So again, in some of the different scenarios, one scenario is we funded completely. if that was the I think that was the manager proposed scenario if that was the

case then now that sort of frees up 1.2 million dollars that I would not have to transfer from the general fund to the CIP in a different scenario we start potentially pushing that out either by one and a half million or six months I can still push it out for or reduce the transfer by one and a half knowing that the one and a half there so it actually can start on time but not have to transfer the full amount as well and i can walk through these some of these scenarios now that um we started having more guidance or clearance on where the cip might be coming in at if that's council's will again so i just put it there as a placeholder if i if we get directed to move it somewhere else then we could do that as well

Thomas PetersonWe truly did miss you last time we were together and are glad to have you back. We started a line of questioning with everybody that we wanted to pick up again when you were able to join us here, which is the general question of how things went in terms of the 10 percent, both with capital improvements and then other areas of expense, general fund, where you saw the opportunities for how did that land for you?

JC MartinezstaffI think the answer to that question could be zero to $1.6 million. It's very similar to the school's $1.2. I can put it somewhere to sort of show, as listed on the screen and displayed there, what Stacy was mentioning that I reallocated and basically did way with any FY26 parks and recreation expenditures other than Willard Sherwood. Or I could change that and apply it to something else, very similar to the transfer that would be required from the general fund to the CIP, or to schools or some other CIP project as well. That that is ultimately what council would direct us to do.

If I could just ask for clarity. I know it's late, but for Council Member Peterson, let me get out of this. So on making an assumption, and if the assumption is not right, then I need guidance from the body. The assumption here would be we save $1.2 million on making the assumption to assign it here. So I would reduce the $3 million or the $3 million transfer from the general fund to the CIP to start the initial process for the school renovation. I'M ALSO MAKING AN ASSUMPTION, THE 1.6 THAT STACY WOULD REAPPROPRIATE FROM STAFFORD PARK, I CLEARED OUT SIX OR SEVEN PROJECTS. IF THAT ASSUMPTION IS NOT CORRECT, AND I THOUGHT I HEARD, AND WHAT I NEED CLARITY IS, DON'T DO THAT. apply it to the tax rate. Those are my words.