Good morning everyone. I'd like to call this uh budget workshop uh to order. Today we will be hearing uh from public works uh or our streets department as well as uh storm water and water. Storm water. >> Just storm water. >> Okay. Sorry. Storm water. Okay. Thank you. Did you have anything, Peter? >> Yeah. Just that this is an important presentation and um what was not included in the proposed budget was a discussion on the street user fee. Uh but since we presented the budget on the 25th or so, uh numerous council members have talked to me and have talked in public about a street user fee. So Ernie has it today and we'll discuss it today and that's really we didn't recommend it but um but the council's asked us about it. A majority has so we're going to present it today and it's something that the council can deliberate on. Uh so that's included as well in this presentation. >> Great. >> Okay. Ernie's going to present today. Uh before we start, can we get a roll call, please? >> Yes, ma'am. Uh Mayor Poardo, >> present. >> Council members Roland Bara, who should be online, >> here. >> Thank you. Sylvia Compost >> here. >> Eric Ku, he is planning to join us online soon. Uh Gil Hernandez >> here. >> Kaylin Paxton, >> present. >> Ever Roy may be joining us later, and council member Mark Stop may be joining us later as well. Carolyn Vaughn >> here. >> City manager Peter Zenoni >> present >> and city attorney Miles Rzley. >> All right. Mayor and council. A we are we do have a quorum present to conduct the meeting. >> But thank you Ernie. >> Good morning Mayor and council. >> Larsza interim assistant city manager. Uh with me today is my public works team. I have assistant directors Manuel Hernandez, Jason Alvarez, Renee Couture, our public works engineer, uh design manager Connie Garcia. Additionally, I have my budget team here, Bobby Ray. Uh she's our finance manager, public works. Uh the public works department is comprised of three funds. So, we have our streets fund, which is what we call the 1041 fund. Uh we have the residential streets fund, which is uh fund 1042. And then also, I'll be talking about the storm water fund after this presentation. Uh so I'm going to start off with our streets. First of all, want to talk about some of our achievements at public works in 2025. The public works department accomplished several achievements. Uh I'll go over them individually. The public works department is progressing in alignment with established time timelines and we're confident that we'll complete fiscal year 2025 rapid payment program by end of the fiscal year enhancing roadway safety, accessibility, and overall quality uh for our uh residents in our community. Um on November 5th, 2024, voters approved the city of Corpus Christiey's bond 2024 program for a total of 175 million uh with 38 projects. Bond 2024 Prop A streets projects included a total of 18 projects with an estimated cost of 89.5 million. One project funded in bond 2024 was a $35 million residential street program. This bond 24 residential street program is the first ever bond delivered within 7 months from election to construction. Uh achievement number three. Last year, city council approved a package for improvements to our city's traffic management center. This package included the purchase of radar devices, mobility platform, and integration services from iteras, Inc. These purchases were aimed at improving mobility on city corridors, and the goal was set to finally address signal coordination along Staple Street, uh, one of the city's most congested corridors. With assistance of the IT terrace engineers, city staff was able to deliver um by improving mobility on Staple Street from Mardle Road to Oso Parkway. Travel times were reduced by up to 2 minutes in the AM peak and 3 minutes in the PM peak hour. In addition to Staple Street, improvements were also performed along Airline Road from Ocean Drive to Saratoga and along Rodfield Road from SPID to Yorktown Boulevard. Timing adjustments along additional corridors are planned in the upcoming year. This chart illustrates our proposed budget of 143.9 million compared to last three years, which is an uh 11% increase from fiscal year 2025 adopted budget. Uh over the past 5 years, there's been 695 million allocated to street improvements. Uh this does not include fiscal year 2026. This slide provides a different view of the previous slide but provides you with the same information. Uh for the street maintenance fund there was a 30% decrease 54 million to 38 million. For the arterials and collectors fund there was a 47% increase from 42 million to 62 million. And then finally for the RSRP fund there was a 34% increase from 32 million to 43 million. And this sums up the total of the $143.9 million proposed to be allocated towards streets in fiscal year 26. Uh this is just a our bubble chart that shows our our fifth fiscal year 2026 proposed budget for street maintenance and reconstruction again is 40 143.9 million. And this shows you the revenue sources. All right. Uh so now we're going to switch gears and go over our pavement condition index results. Uh so as you recall we we go and score our roadways to get our our pavement condition to see the improvement uh from all the work that we have done on our street network. Um so here is the is the timeline to give you the history index is collected every three years. The timeline below shows a recent history of the past three years. In 2022, PCI data was collected and for the first time, we collected a 100% sample of our road network. This data was used to rep prioritize what was first known as the infrastructure management plan 2022 year to 2026 year and currently the rapid payment program 2024 to 2028. If you recall, we did not take away IMP commitments already on the plan. We shifted strategy from the legacy the complete reconstruction approach to the payment only and we move all the streets with PCIs of 0 to 10 to the front of the line and push higher scored roadways to the end of the plan. The RPP planned streets go up to 2028. This 2025 PCI data will be used to add to the plan years 2029 through 2031. This however is dependent on the bud budget slides that we'll discuss here shortly. All right. So, our city's current network now totals of,267 centerline miles with 169 miles of arterials, 270 mi of collectors, and 881 miles of residential streets. These represent 13, 17, and 70% of our network overall. If you note, our residential street total is close to 900 miles. Residential streets make up a majority of our network, which is why this network is prioritized for repairs. Okay, I think I'm missing a slide. Hold on. Next slide. It's the remote's not working. Okay, here we go. So, this right here is our overall network um broken down by uh district and the order looks a little different, but I'll I'll work with what I got here. All right. So, this table shows the distribution of residential street road work completed and planned in each district up to 2028. Okay. Okay, so the grand totals show centerline mileage received per district. As you can as you you can use this data to make the correlation between individual district payment condition and the amount of mileage received per district. So if you look at those grand totals, uh I want you to note that that's uh the amount of work that's either completed or planned from 22 all the way to 28 per district. All right. So, your individual results for PCI scoring by district um is shown in this summary. Uh all the district residential street network scores uh improved in the residential streets. Almost uh also note that two of the five districts reach PCIs above 70, which is great news. And I'm confident that our RPP strategy uh will have our PCIs go above 70 in the next uh couple of years if we keep up with the same improvement. Okay, so this right here is just a memory jogger. Uh if you recall, um we had uh talked about setting this goal from the 373 centerline miles. uh that's the amount of residential streets that were in need of reconstruction that had a PCI score in the range of zero to 55. And so we had pre previously calculated that it would take us 62 years to complete that much road work uh at the rate that we were completing the the work when we were doing the complete reconstruction at 6 miles per year. All right. Uh on the left is the calculation uh that that showed the 62 years it would take to repair 373 centerline miles at approximately $1 billion if you had $18 million funding per year. Uh when we started the RPP, we recalculated the amount of time it would take to repair 373 miles at the 2024 funding level uh of 31 million. And so this came out to the 12-year mark. Uh without the street maintenance fee, our funding levels for residential streets will drop to 16 million. Recalculating our repair rate of 16 miles per year will yield a completion time of 24 years at $384 million overall. All right. So this slide here uh this shows our funding short shortfall mileage versus year and RPP funding. So I'll explain this graph. The yaxis shows the centerline miles repaired and the xaxis shows the fiscal year. Each data point also shows the budget for the individual year. From 2021 to 2022, residential street budget was $18 million which repaired about six miles per year. So those are those two dots on the left of the graph. Uh in 2023, we went to the pavement only approach and executed a change order with Bay to start the program early uh repairing a total of 21 miles of residential streets. From 2024 to 2025, we use unspent fund balance to increase our budget to 31 million, repairing 30 miles of residential streets per year. in 2026 uh shows the combined budgets including the bond 2024 program with an anticipated 40 miles of residential street repair. In 2027, the residential street budget will drop to 16 million which will repair 16 miles per year and this is approximately $15 million shortfall from the previous plan budgets. It's important to note that with the $16 million budget, new streets cannot be added to the new plan RP until 2030. Uh since the current RPP is planned with a budget of $31 million per year, uh also a new analysis will will be needed to see if the $16 million budget is enough to outpace uh PCI degradation. Uh so we have degradation catching us and we're trying to outpace that um that number which used to be approximately 12 miles a year if uh back in uh 22. Okay. So as some of you all may recall back in December of 23 the street maintenance fee ordinate sunset previously generating roughly $12 million per fiscal year. Uh, as I just mentioned in the previous slide, in order to maintain level funding to complete an RPP residential streets program of 31 centerline miles, a $31 million budget is needed. As such, with the sunset of the street fee at the end of 23. Street funding was reduced by roughly 12 million annual annually in order to get back to level funding. We need about that $15 million mark uh to hit the program budget. Now, re-implementing the street fee at 538, $5.38 rate, and nine months revenues would generate approximately 9 million. As you have seen in the previous slides, the current anticipated shortfall is 15 million. Additionally, the fee was never adjusted for inflation. Uh, working with our consultant, Rafellis, a fee of $6.67 would generate the 15 million to handle the anticipated shortfall in 2027. A provision should be made to allow for adjustments to increase costs in the future. This slide shows a comparison of reestablishing the street fee at the current rate of $5.38 and 12 months and revenues versus 9 months of revenues. And if we work towards providing level funding to continue the same level of service for the rapid payment program, a rate increase would be needed. A rate of $6.67 67 cents would generate the $15 million of revenues over a 12-month period uh in order to generate that shortfall that we had showed in the graph earlier. All right. So, uh in conclusion, um we have a total of 143 center line miles that we will be completed by November of 2026. Uh for fiscal year 27 uh RPP centerline miles per year will be reduced by 15 centerline miles for residential streets. Uh fiscal year 27 and 28 were planned with a budget of 30 million per year and that's in the current RPP with a new budget of 16 million. We cannot add new streets until 2030. Uh beginning in 29, a new 5-year plan will be based on the budget of the 16 million uh if we don't have an increase in budget. Uh, and then re-implementing the street fee uh would allow us to recover that cost and get back to our $30 million uh budget year plan, which is currently how the RPP is planned today. Okay. Uh I was asked tasked to bring together a potential sidewalk plan and these next slides will cover that sidewalk plan. Um so right now as you recall um >> okay u so right now our current ordinance chapters 49 and 53 are the ordinances explaining that the abuing land owners responsible for sidewalk maintenance or trees that cause obstructions on streets or sidewalks. Uh our sidewalk plan program priorities. The first priority before discussing a plan to build sidewalks, I would first ensure that our current sidewalk design criteria, standard details and specifications are updated. Uh, this proposed plan is unique in that like the RPP pavement only approach, we would not completely rebuild an entire neighborhood section from bottom up. We would be coming in with a scalpel to replace old sidewalk. All right. So, our challenges to this program, some anticipated challenges of working in brand new sidewalks on top of old infrastructure are tie-ins of new sidewalks onto very old driveways. Other challenges would be to tie in to new side uh new sidewalks onto old ADA ramps or non-existent ADA ramps. Also, there would be many uh lead sidewalks and potential encroachments. And so these pictures just kind of uh based on our research. If you look here, these are some of the challenge that we anticipate with the sidewalk plan. If you look here on the left, uh we would have to tie into that driveway and um you would have new sidewalk tying into uh that that resident's old driveway there. Um of course, you know, we would have potential ADA requirements there in the middle. U and in some instances, the ADA ramps do not exist. And then on the right, we do have lead sidewalks that go to the front door and of course encroachment. So we would have to remove and replace uh that chain link fence uh so that we can get our formwork in there to do any kind of sidewalk replacement work. Also uh in a lot of neighborhoods we do have landscape that we would have to remove and replace. Uh again, trees very near growing to the sidewalk and then encroachments by either fencing or more landscape. And then here again, uh um pretty pretty aged trees uh would be at risk here with the root system. Um and so trying to provide the ADA compliance, the width of sidewalk. Uh these are just some of the challenges that our designers are going to have to uh work with. And then it's not just the old sidewalks. We also have issues with brand new sidewalks uh not meeting the requirement of longevity. Uh you see the for sale sign there. Uh we do have sidewalk that is starting to fall apart either because they're coming on the property after the fact to build houses or because the water cement ratios in the concrete are such that it disintegrates before it was supposed to. Um our sidewalk network our our metrics here for our data. Uh overall we have about 1,500 uh miles of sidewalk. Um this this only includes existing sidewalks and this this number does not include city rightaway where sidewalk is needed. And then there's also a break breakdown per district. And then this is the cost. Uh when when our design engineers would break down this cost uh they would look at the lead sidewalk work. Uh they would look at the sidewalk itself, potentially curb work, driveway work, saw uh if it's not tied sidewalk or ADA ramps. Um we included design in this estimate uh in case we had to use a consultant and uh we're looking at about 800,000 per block and that's an average 1500 foot block uh in any neighborhood. Um, and and like I was explaining to uh our city manager, um, we we really couldn't get away with just doing one side because both sides are more likely going to need work. So, uh, we would have to go in there and work on two sides if we were to pick a road to work on. Uh, conclusion here is that we would definitely review our sidewalk ordinance to make sure that it's consistent with any sidewalk plan that we would put together. I would need to uh review the IDM the standard details or specifications uh because this is going to be a new type of constructive construction approach. Uh it's not going to be a complete rebuild or brand new infrastructure. We're going to go in there and and maybe peace mill in sidewalk where there's old infrastructure. So those standards really don't exist. Uh and then we we don't have an assessment. We just have an inventory. So, we'd have to come up with a prioritization method for selection. And right now, I would recommend uh sticking to if we're going to replace sidewalks in the residential area, I would recommend sticking to the rapid pavement program uh list as as a prioritiz prioritization method. We would go to the end of list and then work our way backwards. What we don't want to do is work on sidewalks where we have brand new streets that had just been paved. Um and then again, you know, that's a preliminary cost. Uh, but that's the worst case scenario where you're replacing a lot of old sidewalks in a very old neighborhood. All right. And now I'm going to go and and shift gears and talk about developer participation. Um, this right here is uh and and I'll and I'll explain how this this money is used uh here in the next couple of slide, but I'll give you the background. Um, so on September 10, 2024, city council approved 3.6 6 million for developer participation for fiscal year 2025. And this has to do with streets and bridge work on uh new developments. Uh on July 20 21st, 2025, development services uh sent out a project call and Michael Dice is here also to help us out here. But um he had the project call, send it out to the builders and groups for any potential uh participation needs for fiscal year 2026. And so the way it works is it once we have this money available for developer participation development services um they initiate the project they do their reviews within the department that's the plat reviews the public improvement reviews once everything uh it meets the requirements of the city uh standards and um development services finishes their procedures uh with the developers uh then we bring it to council for approval. Now, this is a breakdown of last year's monies and then what we need uh this year. So, in fiscal year 2025, there were five projects approved by city council for developer participation funding for a running total of about 2.5 million. Um there are three more projects pending council con consideration for September. If all projects are approved by council for funding, the city would have committed $2.9 million. And that leaves a total remaining estimate balance of $736,000 to be rolled into the fiscal year 26. And then for fiscal year 26, uh the new amount that we would need to meet the future development demand for participation is approximately 2.8 million. Uh requirements for public improvements are found in article 8 of the UDC. Examples of public improvements include streets, water, wastewater, storm water systems. And per the UDC, participation funds may be used to fund street projects and rideway or other improvements. However, for drainage crossings, the UDC states that the city shall participate if the ultimate bottom width exceeds the 15 ft uh at the bottom of the of the ditch. Um, with regards to streets, the developers required to construct local streets, 50oot rideway, and C1 collectors at 60oot rideway. The city's master transportation plan designates the ultimate rideway for collector, arterial, and freeway segments and their alignments to create an efficient multimodal system. If the plan designates a higher classification than a C1, the city has the option to require the developer to build up to a C1 or construct an oversized street. If the city requests oversized street, then the city covers the difference in cost for the C1 collector and that's where these funds come in. Uh for drainage crossings, developer constructs a drainage crossing 15 ft or less. The cost is shared between developers if they have if they're budding both sides of the land of the drainage crossing. However, if the width exceeds 15 feet, the overall cost is shared between the developers and the city. Uh the city pays for oversizing and the developers split the difference of the cost to build the 15oot portion. So, that's a brief explanation of why and how we use the participation monies. And then these slides just give you some indication of the cross-sections of what I just read to you. The local uh street cross-section, the C1 collector if we want to oversize and it's going to look like the cross-section on the right. And then here uh same thing with the 15t or less uh where you would have no participation. And then if we want to participate for a a bigger structure um or we would h we we would have to participate for a bigger structure if the bottom is 15 ft or more. And so that's the intent of the program. Um and so we would keep up with development uh if we had these funds to supplement. Uh I stand by for any questions. >> Thank you, Ernie. Ernie, why would the city use certificates of obligation for um these streets uh the developer streets rather than a trust for example like the water and wastewater? Uh so I I can answer we before we had an instance where we used uh operational funds and we don't have money for using operational funds. Um but right now the the method of funding the participation has always been through debt. >> Through debt. >> Yes ma'am. >> Okay. I think that's something we should consider. Um I I want to go back to the street fee. So the street fee was thoroughly in my opinion evaluated by staff two years ago. Um and at that time it was recommended um as the best path forward to some degree because it wasn't recommended that we don't that we don't sunset it and so so we move forward and so this information would have been nice two years ago um but that that wasn't presented two years ago and so um I there may be other reasons why you know during our budget process other things that came up um But I just wanted to make that clear because I believe that was unanimous unanimous vote and it wasn't going against anything you guys were recommending at the time. Um, personally I believe that, you know, taxes and fees such as what was it? $5.38. I don't think those are permanent solutions. I really don't. I think, you know, we we need to consider up here, how do we work with what we have and and that would be, for example, we could do uh 24 million in every bond that goes to do the same thing, right? The RPP program. Um but but I realize this is what the workshop is about is h how do we go about um working with what we have or for example in this case uh making up for this? But again, that was something that two years ago wasn't an issue and now it is. So, I just want to make that clear because that vote was um I think it was unanimous. Yeah. Right. It was unanimous and no one gave us the information we are getting today. So, anyway, that's that. Um secondly, um my question, let's see, I've I've got uh the book here, the budget book, and um Ernie, it's the operating book on I'm I'm referring to slide six, the street maintenance total, which is 38 million, but in the operating book on page 268, you have expenditures of 46.7. And I just noticed that's kind of a big difference. I was just wondering why that is. Can you stop the clock because I've got a few questions. Yeah. >> What page in the budget document? >> 269. 268. >> 26. >> Yeah. It's just a it's a difference. Um 38 million. Well, if you look at slide six, the one with all the bubbles, >> right? >> Can't see. >> Right. Uh >> 268. >> Um >> okay. I'm going try to explain this one. this >> we have we had the uh $35 million um bond >> and what's not shown here is the 8 million uh for bond that was going to be used in this fiscal year. So we we of the 35 we're taking eight this fiscal year and then showing the 20 or the delta in the next fiscal year but it's not shown here >> the 46. >> Yes ma'am. >> So the 8 million. Okay. Is there We probably should show it so it doesn't look like a >> Right. Right. It looks like it's I I hear what you're saying. >> Yeah. I mean, I noticed it and thought, let me ask about it. >> That's a good good question. >> Okay. Um, if you go to 185, this is similar in nature here. Uh, let's see. 185. Was it in this book? Might be my other book. Okay, it's the other um your the proposed capital. >> Okay, >> so the proposed capital book on page 185. Let's see here. Um the numbers just didn't quite match up on your type B funding for streets and the CIP type B. You have 4.5 million uh for new type B and then uh fund uh C CIP type B is six six million. Is this right? Yeah. So, there's a difference in the book versus the slide. >> Good morning, Mayor. >> Hi, >> Amy Cowie, director of management and budget. In our proposed CIP book, you won't see funds allocated from the new type B revenues yet because we have not established those plans yet. Okay? But we are reflecting it in that chart as available revenue to be used for streets. >> Okay. So, they're just not reflected. >> They're not in the proposed numbers yet because we're still working on that plan to execute. >> Okay. Very good. All righty. So, um I'm going to go back to the operating uh page 267. uh the RTA I noticed that there is an additional six million estimated uh from the RTA this year. Page 267 is showing um RTA street services contribution budgeted was 3.1 and expected is 9.1. That's a big difference. Can you explain that? Which is great. >> It is great actually. Um, our finance department did a really great job of reconciling those agreements from prior years and we were able to get caught up on prior year revenues in FY25 and then we'll be building FY25's revenues as well. So, we'll have multiple years of revenue in FY2. >> What do you mean by caught up? Um there were two years of past payments that were uh had been delayed >> and so they've been recorded now in in 25 that I don't have an answer to but I can follow up with you >> from the RTA. >> Yes. >> Okay, that'd be great. Uh also on page 267, uh there is an interdep departmental services that is 8.4. Looks like this is something new. What what is that 8.4 million or where is that coming from? And actually, this ties into your first question. One of the changes that the department recommended for the FY26 budget is that they be able to complete residential street reconstruction in house. And so there is a transfer from the residential street reconstruction funds in order to complete in-house work for residential street reconstruction. >> Yeah. Okay. Okay. Great. Thank you. I will move on. Uh, Councilwoman Compos. Um, okay. So I guess page 12 of the slide the I just wanted to um point out the district 2 of all the districts like I've been you know stating we do have I believe still you know the worst streets the grand total of 69.8 8 23% the residential streets planned by district. Um you did uh a residential streets work completed plan. Um I think I I had asked and I just I want to make sure that that we are still focusing on the worst streets and I I know this is your workshop. I mean you can't provide all the the slides but is there something that is provided for the residents to see that where all the streets and their PCI is is shown right that they can see that okay so I just want to make sure that we are and that it is transparent um and that you know we I've been saying that that district 2 has the worst but could people be able to see that if they were to see it in a graph or in a um you know um I guess on a on a worksheet I guess is what I'm asking is there something like that already >> right now what is online is the rapid >> that's what I was looking >> yeah what's online is the plan itself and the um anticipated streets plus the pavement condition index data that's that's retrievable online uh this presentation will be online, >> right? But I really am looking I guess more for detail, but um like I had said before, I I'm kind of behind the curve. I I am great I am grateful that um that you included the presentation for the sidewalks and and I think one of the we've had a lot of conversations about the sidewalks and um and it's not anything new so it you know other cities have been doing it and I have been asking you have you reviewed the program for example in San Antonio or in Austin have you had a chance to do that? >> Yes ma'am we have. What was the conclusion? >> Well, the honestly what we took from that was that council members pick sidewalks and they're given a budget. Each council is given a budget. >> Uh which I think it's odd because they pick they pick sidewalks rather than staff. Uh is what the last I checked. Um you know, our our I would I would recommend a more transparent approach very similar to the rapid pavement program. Uh but like anything else really what's holding us back is funding. you know, quite frankly, uh, we don't have a lever to pull. Um, you know, we just had a bunch, as a matter of fact, last night, uh, at planning and then from what I understand at at district 1, um, a lot of concerns on Rand Morgan, for example, with the school and lack of sidewalks and that being a text facility. But, um, you know, I get the same calls for Flower Bluff and for London. And, you know, my my response is the same. I have no levers to pull. I'm an operations and and maintenance department. I can prioritize and then we can go to bond and get a bond project. But right now there is no program for sidewalks. >> Right. But I have also mentioned too that um you know we've had this discussion before and you have said that the only way to move forward is to actually again to create that PCI that we would need for all the sidewalks. Right. But I've been saying we should not get stuck because I believe a number that you have mentioned is a million dollars. >> Right. And I wouldn't uh with what we have right now. >> If uh you know hypothetically if we had a a sidewalk program, I would recommend just using the existing prioritized approach uh overlapping the rapid payment program and then save yourself $900,000 that can go through sidewalks. >> Okay. So, I'm glad that we've, you know, come up with something a little bit better. Um, I guess the other uh well, that's all for now and let me I'll let some of my other um council members speak. So, >> yes, ma'am. >> Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hernandez. >> Okay. Uh, a couple of things that you'd mentioned there on the developer participation. In the past, we'd usually included uh a section the general obligation bonds for that particular purpose. It'd be like$1 or2 million that was set aside in the, you know, when we do a bond package for de developer participation. We haven't done that in a while. So, and I think we've supplemented it with certificates of obligation as opposed to uh including it in the bond packages. Maybe we should revisit that um in the next bond package cycle. Also in on page 17 for the RPP funding um that does not include any of the type B funding. Correct. >> Correct. You're talking on slide 17. Yes sir. Right now that's just purely >> so like home reconstructing Huntwick or Bay Drive or anything like that does not include it separate completely. Yes sir. >> But it is still street work that's being completed. >> That is right. >> Okay. Um when we talk about the street user fee, it was created in order to get us a bridge until we can get funding from normal sources. It was never intended to be the full uh source of funding for uh residential um or any street >> production. It was just uh till we get and since that time we've added uh 1% of the general fund which was done in segments at a third of a percent each time each year during per budget policy. I know this because had many discussions about it with with the city manager. >> Sure. >> We have 5% of the of the industrial districts goes to streets and then 4 cents of the taxes. We have two cents out there that we've decided not to move forward with. >> Sure. >> I still think if we want to do that, we could still go to a referendum on that and see if we want to add those two cents. We chose not to do that. I would prefer to do it that way. And then also we had a discussion last uh on this about the the budget policy on Tuesday between the 17 and the 20%. The nexus of that difference of those 3% is a little over $10 million. So this goes back to my my question here is it why change that and then utilize that $10 million of production. I would rather use that $10 million for streets than let it sit in a bank account not not being utilized. So, if we want to consider that, I would prefer doing that instead of adding an an a fee on somebody's utility bill that is already going to be increasing. You're going to ask for a storm water increase, right? That goes on the on the utility bill. >> That's correct. Yes, sir. >> Okay. So, you I want to make sure we're looking at with the eye of the of the customer that is paying for this and what they're actually going to be paying for and how much upward pressure is on our utility bill. >> Understood. So, I'm I'm I'm hesitant to do it that way. I'd rather u utilize funding that we already have uh to do that. Okay. I also want to ask you uh I was last Thursday I was going to a meeting over the Delmare College there on uh on Staples across from Ray High School. And as I was driving down Castors, I saw stormwater guys uh cutting trees, >> trimming trees along Castors on private property. Can you explain why we were doing that? >> We we're going to talk about that in the storm water. I can answer it now. Whichever. >> Okay. I I'll wait till the storm water that comes. >> Um are we using any of our storm water funds for street projects? >> Stormwater funds for street projects. We are using >> repaving or anything like that. >> Say again. >> Like repaving? >> No, sir. No, we are using uh the closest storm water funds get to the street program is the curb uh transitions for ADA ramps. >> Okay. and I have a concrete team on storm water side. So that's as close as storm water gets to any street impertinence. >> Okay. And I I'll get with Amy later on. Make sure I understand. We have different it it doesn't say residential uh pavement program in the budget. It it it talks about street preventive maintenance program. uh $11 million, street utility cuts for eight million, and then uh street uh surface prevention for another $11 million. So that's more than what we're talking about here on the RPB, right? >> Yeah. Are you talking about 10 1041? >> This is No, let's see. This one listed is 12 410, 12415, and 12420. Yeah. >> Yeah. That's 1041. So that's right. Right. The orgs. Yes, sir. That's manuals program. Uh so we do have the long lane utility cuts, uh the potholes and base repair. So those overlap in there. And then of course the SPMP program is inside the 1041. >> You said that as well. So, I mean it it doesn't quite convert over to what you're talking about in terms of the funding associated with that and it's to what uh the mayor was saying about the total expenditures of 46 million and you have a lot of things in there, >> right? Yeah. So, it it it's because um uh it's it's all one bucket of money and it's going to traffic, it's going to potholes, it's going and we we would really have to go and and draw a really complicated picture to show you of that money, you know, what's what part of it gets siphoned out to the RPP program. Uh, but just as a rule of thumb, your your RSRP is about 20 million, that's about 20 miles, and then in-house is about 8 million. So that's 8 to 10 miles, and then SPMP was the 12 million that got us the arterials and collectors. So, this $8 million uh um number that you know we were asking about earlier, what we did uh let's just say with state of affairs when we go to the $16 million budget, what we're saying that $16 million budget is is that 20 million uh is no longer 20 million in RSRP, it is now 16 million policy money only. No allocations, uh no transfers, no no uh fund balance. That's the base budget. with that base budget. Uh Manuel's Manuel's going to have to pull eight million from that 16 and charge to it and almost like do a service to the 1042 budget so that he can work on residential streets which relieves 1041 budget that doesn't have any 1042 strings attached to it per ordinance and allow me to work on arterials and collectors. So because I have to I have to maintain the the the the arterial system. I can't just focus on residential streets and completely ignore arterials. So, that's how I'm going to do it with the $16 million budget. I'm going to pull eight from 1042. Manuel's going to work on residential streets, charge 1042 with our Carter system of bookkeeping, and then relieve that money so that Connie could do the designs for uh SPMP. >> So, basically what you're telling is you're doing budget jiu-jitsu. >> Exactly. Okay. 100%. We call it we call it gymnastics, but yeah, it's a version. >> I've heard that. >> I I gotcha. I mean, you know, it sometimes it doesn't translate over from budget to what you're actually doing and how you're funding things within that budget, >> right? >> Okay. So, again, I'm not for the street user fee. I know you need funding. I think we have funding available. That policy change from 17 to 20%. Is is that funding? So, I'll I'll leave it at that. Thank you. >> Can I just add one thing to that, Councilman? that would just be a one-time source uh cuz it's not recurring the fund balance. So, we would be if you put up that line graph, we'd fix one year, but then the out years would be >> right. >> Right. >> Well, that could be a bond. >> What about >> that? It's a requirement to have that funding. >> Turn your >> say again. >> All done. Go ahead. >> It is a requirement to have that funding. So, you have the funding coming in. We've maintained around 20%. Right. It's always been in that time. So we if we maintain that funding, we're going to have to keep that funding in place, but we have the revenues coming in to uh to do that. So >> well, it assumes they come in. As an example, the state's going to reduce they have the legislation proposed right now to reduce revenue growth from three 3% to 2.5%. >> So it's just not it's not as a recurring source as a a fee would be, but >> Okay. And that and like I said, we have those two cents standing out there. I've recommended for us to go back to the voter for >> right >> to get that money. So let's >> Well, I think you know at at the end of the day it was >> yeah something like that but at the end of the day Peter you know putting the fee putting a fee back on I mean if that's the will of the council I can't support that but if that's the will of the council it's the will of the council that's the way it works. I I think you all need to bring back some I mean I'm sitting here saying let's use our bonds put $24 million on every bond to replace that 12. I realize that it's now what 156 million >> for >> I mean that your recommendation would be if you put a fee back on you're looking >> 15 million is a shortfall >> that that yields 156 million. Um but at the end of the day again I mean we we we need to work with what we have. fees and taxes are not a permanent solution for anything. And and I agree with Councilman Hernandez. I I think we need to look at everything we have to work with, Peter, and y'all should bring back recommendations saying here's how we can fill this gap. I know it's difficult, but again, had all this been said two years ago, >> I I think, you know, we would have >> seen it a little different and and I don't want to sit here and belabor that, but >> we initially recommended it two years ago uh to continue it and ultimately it was it was it was sunset >> by the council, but we recommended not only to increase not only to continue it, but to increase it for inflation. >> Oh, right. The fee, >> right? Yeah. >> Oh, well, I'm just talking about the whole picture. Either way, um, thank you for that. I'm going to go over to Councilwoman Vaughn. >> Well, I want to compliment you because I think you all have done a great job with the streets. They've made so much progress. And the last thing I want to do is go backwards and because that's what ha has happened in the previous years. They did absolutely nothing. So, the worst thing that we can do is to sit here and say we're not going to do anything going forward so we can keep funding the streets, the residential streets. I don't know how we do that. I'm not for certificates of obligation. We've already had that conversation, but we have to do something. So, I'd like some kind of recommendations. And I don't know if you're recommending the street user fee. Had I been on here, I would have voted just to leave it alone because it worked. And once you get rid of it and you bring it back, it's a problem. And that's for sure. But we have to do something. We cannot just ignore it and not have the funding that you need or shame on us. Um I heard yesterday too on Ren Morgan and um we seem to have that problem. uh across the city. Uh we have it on 624 as well where Tex dot owns it and you can't the city can't do anything. Is there anything we can do to get with Texot? I'm sure y'all already have. I mean, I dealt with them when I was on Commissioner's Court for doing some stuff, too. And they've been talking about doing stuff at 624 forever. But it just seems like they would work with the city, doesn't it? >> Right. Right. >> But they don't. >> Uh no, they they have their priorities. We have ours >> and it's that's basically it. >> Yeah. You know, >> but Ernie, we have worked with them on Rand Morgan. And in fact, isn't it under design? >> Right. Right. >> Yeah. So, we we I personally been in meetings. It's slow rolling, slow moving. >> Yeah. >> But probably two years ago, we sat down with them and said, "Look, Rand Morgan's a problem. It's your facility. You guys got to fix it. >> You have to add lanes and especially sidewalks because of the new subdivisions and the schools." >> Yeah. >> So, they agree to do it. So, right now, u it's in design, Ernie. Is that right? >> Right. Yeah. And I had a conversation with Jeff Edmonds on that. So they they uh the the the key to any texttop facility is that you design according to their standards. Uh the problem is that Texot doesn't like utilities under the roadways. >> So what they would do is they would say uh meet our standards, meet our quality standards in your design and then have our uh utility accommodation requirements in there which could in require more cost where if it was a city right away, we would put a water line under a road and we wouldn't think twice about it. textile will say no, move it off to the side and then we have to pay for that amount of money. So, we don't have construction dollars aligned. We're we're trying to do what we can as a city to push it because it's not our rightway. So, we're working with tax on say we would at least design it. >> Um, but at the same time, I'm explaining to Jeff that they have hoops that we would have to go through uh to meet their design requirements and then have an agreement with them before we would even go to construction. Well, it sounds like the conversation helped with Ran Morgan. So, maybe you could have one on 624 because we've actually had some deaths out there by not having sidewalks. >> There's been two or three >> and 624 Northwest Boulevard. >> Yeah. Goes past that one area, 77, that intersection there. Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, they've done nothing. They've had plans for years and they've done nothing. They had plans when I was on here the first time. Yeah. >> We had all kinds of workshops, conversations. They have still yet to do anything. That area is booming out there. >> Yeah. That project is fully funded. And when are they starting that one? >> Uh, >> yeah, they're almost done. We actually had design review. So, they're going to have a shared use path on on one side and a tight sidewalk in front of the high school. >> When is this when does the construction start? >> I don't have that date, but we can. >> We'll have to get you that, Councilwoman. >> That's a million dollar question. >> Yeah, we'll get that for you in response. But I think the project it's an MO funded >> uh project and it does include uh lane reconfigurations for safety and especially that shared youth uh shared use path as well as nighttime lighting. There's not enough lighting on there. So >> we've been talking about for a decade, >> right? You know, >> I went to a community meeting on it that they had last year. >> Correct. It's well it's well on its way. >> You know what blows you away is they sit here and they wait until the traffic is so bad it's going to have a huge impact. Had they done it 10 years ago, which I know it takes forever. I won't stay on that soap box. >> Who does the city own the sidewalks? >> We do not. >> We don't own the sidewalks. So, I'm looking at all the things that you have to do and I'm thinking, how are we going to do all that? I don't know. >> And you don't know either, do you? >> But Sylvia, I would just kind of argue with you just a little bit because there's only 1% difference between district one and two. So, I think they're equally as bad because district one is bigger. And so I mean we've certainly we've certainly got a yeah 1% you just 1%. So we certainly have to do something with the sidewalks. I just hope we can come up some type of plan to start something. It sounds like you're thinking about that. Um you know what I want to talk about though? I want to talk about that participation. >> Can you explain a little bit to me because you said so if the city requests an oversized street we have to pay a portion of that. >> Correct. >> How big of a portion? So, the way it works is if if the if the designated street C1 is is uh $5 and then the oversized street is an additional five, we'll pay the delta. >> You pay the five. Is this the best program that we have for participation with the developers? This the best. >> What do you mean by the best, Councilwoman? >> I'm just saying is there any other option? So, they >> Oh, well, we could not do it. I mean, some some of these I see where we make them white and then we end up coming back and put speed humps on them. Mhm. >> So 2 years ago, I asked development services to kind of give me an assessment as is it worth making wider streets only to have to come back and put speed humps cuz the traffic's going too fast. >> Yeah. >> So another option is not make them wide, not have these extra wide streets. But >> yeah. >> Uh but um or pay less, have the developer pay more, but they not required to by state law. Right. >> Right. Or we would come later, right, and do it ourselves with a bond project. So >> it's I guess it's pay now pay later type of deal. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. Thank you, >> Councilwoman Paxton. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um I do I understand that it is um you guys have really gone through the budget and and present to us totals. You present facts. You say, you know, if if if our desired output is X, then we need input Y. And this is what that map looks like. Um, so I applaud the efforts in this presentation. I know it's no small feat. I'm sure you have emails and text messages and calls all day long, all night long about about what you guys do and you've been incredibly responsive. My hats off to you. Thank you for that. Um, but I am I am curious about how we can be creative to bridge these gaps and look at possible ways that we're not necessarily adding that other fee. You know, if if we set a target that we have a fund reserve of 20% and we meet that and then we say, "Okay, council, if we have a 20% in reserve, if we were to take 1% of that, what does that look like? 2% of that, what does that look like? 3% of that, what does that look like? That keeps us in that 17 to 20% range without adding a fee to the user." um you know, especially while we're still tackling some of the CIP cost that's going to hit ultimately our utility bills, it's all going to add up. And so um to me, that is something I'm very interested in in looking at more creative ways. But but I do want to say that I see that you all have said X + Y equals Z. This is how this works right now. Um, I was curious if I look at slide 17 and and I may have missed it if you addressed it. I apologize where I see 24 25 where your tog marks say 31 million and then there's a short jump up to 51 and 26 >> over to the to the far side. You're forecasting that we're going to lose that that user fee. And this is this is the gap we'd have to close to get back to 31. >> There's kind of a very large gap between the 31 definition and 24 and the 31 definition and 27. Is there something additional that I'm missing under 2425? You see that 31 is way up there. >> That's a good question. That's a good question. Yeah. No, excellent question. So 31 on the blue line is the planned amount. So we would plan a so for example fiscal year 2027 RPP let's just say we have 20 streets our estimated cost to do the 20 streets for that fiscal year is $31 million what you're looking at in the previous years at the same amount is that when we bid our projects the prices came in lower so we were able to get more mileage but it's the same amount >> so when I see that orange line if you will way up there in that 4550 range And then it drops back down to a realistic 31 and the blue line. >> I guess I guess I'm trying to be mindful of of others seeing this presentation and seeing, oh my gosh, we're losing this huge orange gap, >> right? The the drop is mileage, right? Because the goal for council or or the priority I've been given is to meet the plan mileage every year. >> And and so it's almost like a three-dimensional graph, if you will. You have the year, the mileage, and then the cost for that year. And so the 31 million there's it's a good question because you got two things going on. >> Yeah. >> In the blue line, that's a planned 31 million. And then in the dot with the number, that's an actual number. And and then that's the mileage we got for that number. >> Okay. I see you've got that little key on the far right with the dots. And that's So you're actually covering more miles with that 31 because you had projects come in under cost. Correct. >> Okay. I I I was hoping I wasn't crazy or >> No, no, it's a great question. >> No, thank you for that. Um, so also, um, I I sympathize with Councilwoman Vaughn's comments about it increases our investment to go to these wider streets, but it's a it's a juggle because if we I think we we really need to be mindful of the development plans in each area because, for instance, you know, we're looking out on the island. One of the big suggestions to make our mobility plan work, which works with our area development plan, is to to basically, you know, look at taking a whole lane off of some of our major roads like White Cap, Sea Pines, and those would have some pretty substantial impacts on the traffic flow. Those areas get really congested. They're they're main roads there for us, and that's the reality we're dealing with. Do we do we lose a lane and increase golf carts, bikes, pedestrians? Do we keep two lanes and cut those way back? And and maybe that's not a good road to travel on. And and I know we use it for all of those right now, but that's that's always what kind of piqus my concern when we're looking at these big streets. So we to me, we just really have to be mindful of the long-term plan for that area before we say, you know, are we worth are we are we interested in investing in a larger street? because I I think they do have long range value. >> Thank you for your presentation. >> Thank you, >> Ernie. One quick um last question then we can move on. Um on page 268 269 of the operating budget, uh you have a ending balance here of 4.5. That's fund 1041 and 42. We were kind of talking about this. as Councilman Hernandez was. And then you have the 7 million these fund balances, >> right? You're talking about for proposed 25 26 4.5 and >> 4.5. Yeah. And seven Yeah. 7 million. >> Those >> I'm just curious as to why. Yeah. >> So your question is why? >> Yeah. Why do we have these? I mean these just being that they're kind of high >> right >> uh reserves in in these uh special revenue funds instead of using that money towards streets. >> We can check >> I mean that's a high reserve. So who's right >> kind of in charge of saying let's make sure >> we we I'll let Amy go on. >> Sure. >> Amy Cowie, director of management and budget. I would um just like to clarify in our financial policy, we don't have a reserve requirement for these funds because they're considered special revenue funds. >> That said, for fund 1041, it would be wise to maintain some reserve because we do fund staff and operations in fund 1041. So, it's it's wise to have some level of reserve in that fund. for fund 1042 that 7 million would be available for us to utilize in future years but it it's not recurring dollars >> right but I guess my my point is it's sitting there right and and we have a we have a a great need for it and so there is no rhyme or reason so I think if um you know why wouldn't we create something Peter that says I understand putting some you don't have to as mentioned it's a special revenue fund but if we want to I mean also we want to do that if I may the the the base bids we still have for the five contracts with bay stills working on their bids for the last contract. >> So we required on the RPP that they came >> maybe before you explain it the the summary is that this the city teams and the contracts contract crews that we have can only do so much a year. >> They're at maximum capacity. So even if we budgeted this 7 million, we wouldn't be able to put it into production because of this work because the it's a time in motion thing. There's only so many contractors, only so many good working days. And so Ernie knows at this point that there's a maximum amount that he and the contract crews can spend. And we're at that, >> right? But we we also got down. So just so you know, Manuel spent out the well, we used to be the NSOP. remember y'all gave us that NSOT money for the the uh the uh what we call the skin patch. >> We completely spent that out. >> Okay. >> So, that went to zero. Uh but the contract stuff goes a little slower. If it's inhouse, we're going to spend it a lot faster. But um had this discussion with with the finance team and we use the term true fund balance and in act this number of fund balance but um Connie tracks the delivery orders that she sends out and so I can I can um guarantee that every dollar has committed that's been budget that's >> million of the reserve >> right that's in the base >> and and the four million well I mean We we need to know that. I mean, nowhere in there does it say that. And I I know you guys are doing a great job and there is just no room for money to be sitting around. That's what that looks like. You're saying it's not. I believe you. But then that needs to be somewhere, right? We can't show that we have $7 million sitting there where you don't even have to have a re a reserve, >> right? >> But it really isn't sitting there. I understand that. >> Yeah. And if you recall, remember we had we were tracking the percent on the streets line for the operational monies >> and it showed one thing but we were physic physically complete out in the out on the road. So all the paving was done for the year but that number was still showing something like 30%. >> Create another little line item that says >> Yeah, but we can get we can Yeah, it's going to take some coordination because some of them are some systems are u I guess automated and some are Excel type stuff, >> right? Yeah. Because if you do the math, that's 43%. >> Right? >> That's 7 million is 43% of of the of the fund balance. So if you sat there and said, "Really? So you're holding back?" You're not. But 43% of more work that could be done. It looks terrible. And it's not. I understand. But let's fix that so that it's apparent to all of us when we look at this. Oh, >> that's understandable. Okay. Thank you. I think that's all the questions. Um, so now we'll go ahead and move on. Start. Okay. Now, this is our uh stormwater uh budget. And so, I'm going to go over some achievements for stormwater side of business. Uh number one, we maintain the city's national flood insurance program community rating score of class 7. This achievement is huge because it directly impacts the community as the rating offers a 15% discount for most uh national flood insurance policies issued or renewed on or after October 1st. Um this savings is tangible result of flood mitigation activities our community implements to protect lives and reduce property. Um sorry the second achievement here as of 81 um we've we've swept about 20 close to 3,000 tons of debris removed from the city streets. That's equal to 324 dump trucks. Um and then the last achievement is we've implemented an operational shift in being reactive to proactive by utilizing the CCTV uh to identify issues in our drainage system. So before uh implementing CCTV sink holes were our first warning that we had a problem. Uh so this helps us get ahead of that. Um here public works department was initiated in 2021. Uh the storm water fee went into effect on January of 2022. These rates uh we are proposing for fiscal year 26. Uh here they are in in uh tier 1 is 869, tier 2 is 1159 and tier 3 is 2028. Um for fiscal year 2026 we are proposing 32.2 million uh budget for stormwater fund. The majority of the budget is used towards operating costs with personnel costs coming in close to second at about 28%. Uh so this slide illustrates the relationship between our storm water debt and revenue over time. The y-axis represents the revenue in $5 million increments and the x-axis shows fiscal years since the introduction of the storm water fee. As shown, our expenses tied to debt have steadily increased over the past several years, creating a widening gap between revenues and debt obligations. To help understand the long-term impact, I have asked our finance team to analyze both current and future debt. The analysis shows that revenue increases needed to sustain that growing cost. Currently, projections show that we need to increase our storm water fee to cover our growing cost. Uh so to put it in perspective a fee increase of 1% 1171 is projected for 27 followed by 4% 1218 and in 28 2% 1242 and 20 in fiscal year 29. By fiscal year 28 street support debt will expire reducing our obligation. However incremental fee increases are still needed to ensure that we meet our mandated debt payments. To summarize, while debt levels have been climbing over time, proactive adjustments to the storm water fee will be necessary to fulfill our debt payment obligations and operating cost. So, I'm also going to go over our our productivity uh numbers here and and these are the ones that you were used to seeing when we were generating our our fee uh decisions. So these are the old productivity rates that were used to determine when we would increase the stormwater fee. And then we implemented Carter graph and we have been able since that implementation to uh really assess and audit our lines of business. And the following slides uh show these findings. And so if if you all recall, I've uh and we're going to talk about um mowing here also, but um we've used up to this point, we've used pretty rudimentary methods to track our productivity rates in house. So you're talking about uh binders, Excel sheet, checklists, you know, nothing that's automated. Um in June 1st, 2025, we went live with Cardigraph. So this tool was vital in that it automated our ability to track productivity that directly determine what storm water fee would be from year to year. So we can track our uh revenues and expenditures real time. In addition to that we joined in July of 30 to 25 we joined CCW and solid waste and going live with Sam Sarah. And so this is a live GPS tracking system that provides us with real-time visibility in operations. So it improves our fleet productivity. It helps us track our our uh work with customers. Um it helps us assess any theft and then also gains visibility to our fleet. So if somebody uh you know deviates and goes somewhere where they're not supposed to, we can track that real time and put them back to work essentially with this with this uh Sam uh software and hardware. So this is the result. So I'm going to give you a comparison of our productivity rates uh when we were using the old system of tracking and then the new productivity rates. Uh and so here on the far right when we say not tracked we're going to we're going to say it was it was never we never took credit for for these numbers. Uh so this slide shows a a comparison of productivity before and after the implementation of these software packages. So if you look at inlet cleaning and maintenance, this team is comprised of five vacuum trucks that regularly perform inlet inspections throughout the city. Pre- major rain events, these trucks are utilized to clear debris from known fl known floodprone areas. During rain events, these trucks focus on localized flooding caused by floatable debris. Um then post- rain events, these trucks focus on dewatering uh whenever there's standing water in our neighborhoods. And so if you look at that number for inlet cleaning, uh our old productivity rate said that we were uh maintaining 15,600 inlets a year. That was not a fact. After we did our audit, we were maintaining 40 5,400 a year. Uh and then if you look at the next um minor channels, this operation consists of grading uh only is mainly performed on an as needed basis. And so for the minor channels, we have 235 miles of inventory of minor channels throughout the city. And right now we use three grade alls to operate. Uh we are currently adjusting operations to be more proactive on a maintenance approach by regrading the entire ditch rather than just these localized repairs. And so on the minor channel uh we were reporting 39 miles a year where in actuality we were only doing 15 miles a year of productivity on the minor channels. Now on the major channels uh we have 109 miles of major channels in the city and originally major channels was understood as just one operation on the old tracking method. In actuality, major channels consist of two operations and one consists of either grading or mowing the bottom of the ditches with the long reaches and then mowing the tops with slope mowers. A majority of our major channel operation consists of mowing. Um, and grading is performed on an as needed basis if we have a wash out or we have high spots. And so if you look at major channels, we were only taking credit for 54 miles a year when in actuality we were doing 2,180 miles a year. And so that was after the audit. Uh our vegetative ma maintenance or our mowing teams previously reported numbers uh only included arterial streets, collector streets uh and north beach were not reported consistency. So it with this system that we have we've uh put polygons on GIS all over the city. Everything that we mow is now mapped. you have, 255 acres total that we mow in the city. And so if you look at the frequency here, we mow on the arterial network 558 arterial uh streets 20 times a year, 779 acres on collector streets 12 times a year, and then 18 acres at North Beach and Ocean uh is um what we do weekly. And so we were only tracking 9160 acres on our on our old uh tracking method, but in actuality uh we were doing 9160 acres per year on the arterials, 9348 acres per year on the collectors and then 936 acres at North Beach and along Ocean Drive. Street cleaning is our mo is our street street sweepers. This line of business has been on track with previous metrics that we have been showing um in the previous uh numbers. Uh the street cleaning base inventory is uh 2,56 miles and that's one side. So imagine one side of the road and then extended for 2,000 mi. That's what that that represents. Um and so we have eight sweepers. Um, and then we have five on order to get the 13 total that our original goal was based off of. And so we are sweeping on the residential streets 6,800 24 miles a year where before we were only reporting 5,000 miles a year. On the collector streets, we're sweeping 2412 miles a year. Originally, we were just taking credit for 1,600 miles a year. And then on the arterials we are sweeping 1788 miles a year and we were only taking credit for less than that 1490. So our numbers are from the audit are showing much higher results. Uh flood control management that's uh this line of business has never been tracked but performs operations vital to downtown area. Uh this is a 247 365day operation that requires six employees to constantly maintain and ensure functionality of the Kenyan Power Street pump stations during any rain event. So there we have six employees and uh you're looking at 8760 manh hours per year and we weren't tracking that but that was something that the storm water fee was going towards. In addition to that, we also have trash collection systems at uh at those locations and we're collecting close to two tons of trash a year intercepting before it ends up in the bay at those two pump stations. And then the last line of business uh is our environmental services team. This uh section has a team of five uh environmental tech one positions and two environmental tech 2 positions. This section plays a vital role in maintaining compliance with the city's municipal separate storm sewer system or the MS4 permit by conducting construction and industrial inspections. The team monitors, inspects, and enforces regulations to prevent storm water pollution from construction sites and industrial facilities, ensuring that best management practices are in place. And so here we've uh had 6,000 inspections in one year for tech ones and 720 special inspections from our tech twos. And so that's less than what we were uh taking credit for before in our previous metrics. And so that's a comparison of the uh audit results uh when we went live with Carter so that we can make sure that uh that storm water fee is going uh to very specific lines of business. Uh so in conclusion, fiscal year 26 stormwater fee will sustain operational expenditures through 26. Um but after analyzing debt service, the stormwater fee will need to be increased in 27 to account for combined operational expenses and the debt service. And then beginning in 26, new productivity rates will be tracked annually to assist with determining uh the storm water fee rates moving forward. So using uh these systems we can really uh increase productivity and then work to decrease cost but we weren't tracking those very closely so we really couldn't make those adjustments. Now we can. >> Okay. >> Stand by for any questions. >> Okay. Thank you for the presentation. Uh Ernie, do we do cost of service studies or do we conduct any of this um similar to what we I think we require CCW to do just to determine that we're recovering an equitable cost of service? >> No, not that I recall. >> Do we do that? >> We don't do that. >> Well, I mean, and so what are you speak you referring to, Council Mayor? Um >> I mean, if if this audit is that that's what we're doing. I mean so before if you're at so I guess the answer is no because with the old metrics uh we would come to you and say this is what we're going to do for the money you give us and then they were using or we public works were using u old methods but if you think about when from 2021 we created public works and then we create the fee so you don't have systems in place >> right >> and then Ernie comes in 2 and then we get cardigraph. So now we have systems in place. >> Well, and and I think it's important Ernie because like right now um it's based on actual impermeable uh space or surface right? >> Mhm. >> For example, >> you're talking about the fee. Yes. >> Yeah, I'm talking about the fee. Yeah. So, I'm just looking to see because it's what 50% of um 50% of of a lot size, >> right? If you're talking about the fee. Yeah. I I don't have the formula memorized, but yes. >> Right. So, that's our methodology, right? So to speak. So, it just seems like we should be looking at something that is a little bit more equitable because you look at district two, district three, smaller lots, homes take I mean bigger lots, I'm sorry, they're larger lots and and and the new development much smaller. I mean, we're doing a lot of 4.5 now, you know, uh the square feet of the lot as opposed to the six >> 6,000 square feet. Um, so you have a home that takes up a whole lot more space than districts two and three have the older homes that have the larger lots, bigger yards and all of that. That that's why I bring that up because I think there's an an inequitable factor there because we're just saying 50%. So I'm just back to the methodology. I would love for us to do something that show that that really shows the cost of service for for um homes. And maybe we look at the cities above us. What do they do? How do they do it? Right. Right. I have to answer that now, but you may know or not. I don't know. Um along those lines though, Peter, I would also ask um I didn't noticed that gas was on the list of departments to um uh to provide a um you know, their their budget or oh my gosh, what word am I looking for? Presentation. That's what I'm looking for. Um, so I just wanted to know again back to cost of service if if they also do they do do they have a cost of service uh as well a study? Do do we do that in gas? Um, and you can bring that back to us and and one of the reasons um that question kind of spurred me is because we just bought you know the other gas department. >> Right. The Rockport. >> Right. Right. So I'm I'm very curious about that and you can send that as a followup. Okay. >> Um and then I'll I'll move on to page 198 Ernie. Um, in our book here, I noticed that you have um, well, we have a 25% mandatory uh, reserve and you have a reserve of 8 million roughly, I think, reserve for commitments. Yeah, 8 million. And so we're at 10. I'm sorry, you have 10 total. And I was just curious as to why that's about 30%. And and the reason that's important, I love, you know, save extra money, but we're asking for an increase in rates. So, if could that not go to help our rate payer if there's an an overage of the 25% >> min fund balance can be used to pay any storm water needs uh minus the reserve? Uh so, the answer is yes, we can't use the reserve, but we can use any unspent fund balance however we need. If it's fund balance that hasn't been allocated for a project for example, >> right? >> Yes. So, so how does that fund balance then that can be uh used to help the rateayer >> I mean that can be done >> right it's it's a scenario that could be uh possible >> well because it's sitting in this fund and and you must have the 25% which you do but there's additional monies so and we're asking for rate increases >> right there is and Amy's going to talk about this but uh next year there's a significant debt service payment that's due >> okay >> so we're trying to layer in we're trying to So there's not big rate shock, a massive rate increase. We know based on the amortization schedule that the debt service payment schedule, there'll be a a um a debt service payment. Initially when this and Councilman Hernandez is familiar with this, but initially we uh when we moved from water to storm water, we still funded infrastructure cost for new roads uh out of this fund, but it it became apparent that was not sustainable. this fund should be an operating fund for cleaning, sweeping, that type of thing. So, so over the past couple of years, we've put all the storm water um um cost for new infrastructure in the bond program. Uh but we still do have in this fund too, legacy debt over the past five, six years or so. And there's a bigger payments of due in these couple in these coming years more so than this year. So, the fund balance will be used in 27 to pay for legacy debt. this one here. >> Right. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And that's what that graph was. Um if we had an if if if we had an exercise where we only had operational expenses, I wouldn't have to increase the fee. Uh because the operation is is handling everything with the revenue that we currently have. We ran this exercise to see what happens with our capital improvement projects. Uh and then like the city manager said, our 209 million existing debt. Um and then we keep on recurring debt uh for CIP projects every year uh to do our Idiqs, our channel maintenance, so on and so forth. Well, that every year gets added and that is where uh we had to sustain that cost um for all the lines of business that I just showed you. If it was just that and only that, then we wouldn't be increasing the fee. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Okay. And last question. Um I noticed that there your revenues are increasing but expenditures are decreasing. >> Right. >> I'm trying to I can't >> So that's exactly the same point. So we're we're trying our best to reduce the cost of the operation. Yeah. >> And you know really making it more efficient and we're using these systems to do so. But the inevitability is I still need to maintain bridges. uh I still need to maintain channels beyond the capabilities of in-house maintenance forces. Uh so you know the Caribbean project was a perfect example of that Caribbean um >> we went and re replaced coververts in the lowline area that's nothing we can do in-house and so we have to go to a capital project for that and then that's where we incur debt. So those happen a lot faster because they're on CIPIQ. we don't have to bond those and then wait a long time. And so we're we're able to react and keep the uh channels and bridges system uh in function functional order. Uh but we cannot do that with our operational resources and that's where that extra cost comes in. >> Right. Okay. That that's that's it for me. But I I want to I want to reiterate again on the the cost of service study. I I really think Peter, we need a real one. look to see what other I'm sure you know what other that the seven cities above us you know what do they do and let's do a real one because I really believe that districts two and three are >> are at a huge disadvantage >> yeah we currently have rap tell us our consultant that does >> two and three I'm sorry to interrupt you but especially >> our consultant could do that for us I misunderstood the question but if you're talking about um you know are we getting the service for the fee based on how we're charging u that's a that's that's an analysis that Ratellis because um it's it's um you know we wouldn't get into the details but it's it's a high level type of analysis that they do where they map and they measure impervious surface and all of that. >> Okay. Yeah, that's what I'd like to look into. Okay. Council Councilman Hernandez. >> Okay. Uh in your storm water uh budget, you're asking for an additional 11 people. >> No, I'm not asking for anything. >> Oh, I'm sorry. That was from 2023. So you're keeping at 147. >> Same people. >> What is your current staffing levels right now? >> Right now. Uh let me pull that up for you. >> Vacancy. So we had some pretty good results here. We had a job fair here recently and before the job fair we were at a vacancy rate of 18%. So now we're down to 12 on the storm water side and then the streets we're down to 9.5. Um so we have active filled right now is 124. Uh we have 142 total FTES and we have 18 vacancies. >> Okay. Storm water says in your budget 147 FTEES, >> right? And that that was after the bud. So again I'm I'm talking about after the job fair. That's to date numbers. It hasn't been. These are >> saying you said you had 142 positions, >> right? Total FTEES is 142 in storm water. Oh, but you're not talking about some of the uh administrative in there. So, >> okay. So, you're just talking operational, not administrative. I'm just talking about total. I don't see what >> Right. Right. >> I don't see your separation. I just see totals. >> Right. Right. >> Okay. you had mentioned um obviously I made the big effort to try and get the storm water capitalized in the geo bond uh in order so you wouldn't have those that reoccurring debt paid out of your budget which is your which is last year was 32 million you're trying to get it to 35 million right >> correct uh but your expenditures are 32 million for proposed budget >> and this when I said mentioned that we didn't have the the the 25% for the enterprise fund. This considered an enterprise fund, correct? >> Right. So, you didn't have the the the 25% last year. So, is this what is this? Are you trying to get to that reserve balance? >> You're saying for for the expenditures in fiscal year 26 is 32.2 and you're asking what now? What what you're required by our budget policy to have a 25% fund balance, right? Are you going to be are you going to have that this year? >> Yes. Yes, we'll have that. >> Okay. Are you above that by a certain amount? I mean, how much are you above? >> We're above it. I I don't know the amount, but I know we had the fund balance number that was keeping us above it. >> Okay. The projected fund balance is going to go from 6 million to 10 million right? >> That's after the reserve. Yes, sir. So the reserve for contingency is the 25%. It's the 8 million. >> It's the 8 million, but you're going to have a $10 million ending balance >> after the reserve. Yes. >> After you reserve, right? So you're going to have an additional fund balance of $10 million after the reserve because your ending balance is $18 million. >> Correct. >> Right. So you have $10 million there that you're not utilizing. What? >> No, that >> this year that can go >> this coming year. You had 6 million last year after your reserve balance of 8 million right? >> So kind of and and you're doing that based on expenditures or revenues on expenditures. So you have lower expenditures. >> Uh but you Okay. So just tell me why you keeping such a a hefty balance above your reserve balance requirements. >> Right. So the the 10 million is could go towards debt, right? and and that's what we're anticipating on doing. But our projection for the increase is going to be >> but your debt service here is listed as your debt service expense is 6.4 million that you're already accounting for, >> right? So we're looking about 2027 having the need. Um we could handle debt 26 and then not increase 27. >> Okay. And how much of this debt were for the arterial bond projects? >> How much >> out of your total debt? How much of it was for previous arterial uh projects? >> I don't have that number, but I just know that in 28 it's that's when we stopped paying. >> Can can we use and this this is probably a question for Peter. Can we use that 8 cents some of that 8 cents funding to cover some of that that debt service because it was for arterial projects? >> Yeah, the 222. Are you talking about the 8 cents? >> The 8 cent sales tax that we did. Oh, >> I mean I fought tooth and nail to get you that 8 cent sales tax a year. >> One 8 cent. the 8 million. Um I don't know, Councilman. We'll have to check. I think it said it talked about new projects, not not >> Okay. Well, I mean, we're we're doing some projects now. Yeah. That were under previous bonds, >> right? >> Right. >> Uh >> Right. >> Right. They were under previous bonds, but they're new projects. They haven't they're just starting construction, and we're doing the storm water underneath there that we didn't account for within the general obligation bond. believe anything before 2024 had um you know were not capitalized. >> Right. >> Right. So we're just starting a lot of those projects now. >> Can we utilize that funding for that? >> We I don't have the answer. >> Okay. So we need to ask that question because you know that's why I fought for that funding. Right. So it wouldn't be in this storm water fee. So it would be utilized for operations. That's why I fought to capitalize >> Yeah. That's why we don't do it. >> storm water. Right. Right. are and you'd mentioned that there's some other debt for channel maintenance. Is that is it for like replacing coverts? What what is that? >> That's that's our Idiq program. Uh that's in our capital improvement program. So if you recall after the mud bridge, we put together the the bridge inspection program. >> Okay. So you do that through revenue bonds. What do you do that through? >> Through debt service specifically. I'd have to check but that's >> revenue bonds. >> Is it through revenue bonds? >> Revenue bonds. >> Okay. So uh I need to have some understanding of what that looks like. Okay. >> Because I thought the most your your debt service was mainly through the the CIP uh you know projects or the you know for streets and arterials. >> Yeah. I want to say we had was it 16 million of ARPA before >> 10 million of ARPA that was handling that and then now we're going to go and transition into the actual CIP monies. Um >> well it we have to pay for it. >> Right. Ultimately it comes out of summer but ultimately we pay for it. >> Correct. So I I want understanding of that because that was not I mean that I think this is some new information of where that we're c that we're putting some of the work that you're doing under debt service. It's outside of the >> when I say CIP outside of the general obligation >> projects that we're doing through bond projects. >> I hear you. Yes. >> Okay. So have a clear understanding of how that's broken out. >> Okay. And then if we can get some understanding on how much we could use out of that 18 cent sales tax funding on on those projects, >> right? How and if I know there was a list of priority projects in the voters's guide, so we have to >> I got I got that. >> I'm just telling Yeah, >> this is how how long is that as sales tax? 20 years. >> Um yeah, I think so. But those but the pro Yeah, we'll look into it. Councilman, I don't have the answer right now. >> Okay. I mean just what I want to make sure is that we're utilizing this money wisely. So we give him the the maximum amount that he can for operations. >> And then now you can answer the question about why our storm water folks were cutting trees on on stores. >> Yeah. So the uh our vegetative or our mowing teams uh the the long story short is when you called me and you asked why were we doing that? I'm trying to preserve our sidewalks and our curb and gutter. And so the the long way of solving that problem when a a resident along say Castor uh the back end of Castor if you go to the ordinance the ordinance says that the resident has to handle mowing on their rideway. We would go through code enforcement who you know currently is out of money uh for code enforcement. But the process would be they would go uh get with the owner and tell them, you know, you have to handle this as per ordinance. If they don't handle, then we abate. Uh and then, you know, we would have them pay through uh the the process, right, to get them to go to court >> that we would end up putting a lean on the property, which we have. >> So, that's a whole other discussion. But ultimately, if you drive down any major corridor, you're going to see overgrown uh either weeds, grass, or whatever into the sidewalk on the curb. Well, I can't preserve those assets when when that's happening. And if I go through the process per property to try to get them to do what they're required to by ordinance, then it would take too long. And then um I could very well lose more sidewalk, more curve. So, what I have our storm water team doing is they go before they go, they're going to issue that notice through our environmental uh inspection teams. They're going to issue that notice to the res. >> Are you are you issuing citations? >> We can. Yes. >> So, issue the citation. We can and we do >> because I mean us cutting trees on private property, >> you know, because it was the the back side of that off Castor is it's on private property and it's it's in their backyard overhanging the the the u the sidewalk. >> Yeah. >> And I understand by code which is what code enforcement is supposed to do, >> but your guys are cutting the actual trees, >> right? And we are issuing um >> so issue the citation. >> We do. We do and but we're using the MS4 permit to do that. >> Okay. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Paxton. >> Thank you, mayor. Um, if I look on page 345 of our budget book, I'm looking for Okay, there it is. I apologize. 254 of the CIP book. It's showing the CDBG disaster recovery grant about 7.2 million everywhere else that we reference that that goes back to the 340 page 345 um in the budget book. It looks like and I think it was referenced actually in your presentation, but I could be wrong. It looks like we're planning on about 1.2 million. Could you explain is this something that that 7.2 is going to be spaced out over years? Is this something that we that is eligible to be secured annually >> as previous years? That's previous years. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Go ahead. >> Camille Sar CCW but prior couple budget manager. So that 7.2 million is a is for the Lavoya Creek channel project. It's in prior year because the contract has been signed and the money is encumbered and actually I don't know how they're >> it's it's being constructed right now. So, you know, the the soil that's coming by 286 that they're depositing over there that's coming from that project. So, that CDBG money is specifically for that and it's already been the contract was it went to council has been signed. So, that money is being spent. >> So, there's no future usage of that money. >> So, that 7.2 2 that's referenced on page 254. That was the total grant from years prior. >> Yes. >> And we're at we've at the stage of the project where that 1.2 is what we're planning on utilizing to complete the project now. >> Uh 1.2 >> that's in our um >> Yes, ma'am. That's correct. >> Okay. >> That would be our appropriation that we expect to need as far as actual funding of the project in this coming fiscal year. And does that exhaust out that 7.2 or is this the finality of the use of that project or we have more coming down the pipeline for that? >> Yeah, that's it. Okay. >> I think that's it. That was uh from a couple years ago, you know, it was budgeted then and there's no more. It was a one-time uh CDBG source. >> Okay. >> Does that >> So, if that's a grant for a specific project, if I'm not mistaken, >> yeah. So we can um potentially seek similar I would assume similar grants if there's other projects within our scope that that may be applicable to >> Correct. Correct. >> Okay. And then um I was curious when when you list in your um presentation here you have weekly mowing on Ocean Drive that that type of thing. Could you explain what that what that entails or the purpose behind that? I'm I'm sure it relates to storm water type things but >> yes. Hi, uh Jason Albert, assistant director of public works. Uh so the moan on Ocean Drive is the taking care of the medians, the tree trimmings on the palm trees all along Ocean Drive. Uh similar to North Beach, the median section that's there that's running from that uh uh pavilion cover >> um welcome to North Beach sign that's there. I think we maintain that whole meeting inside there. So, it's uh uh it's just maintenance purposes on there. >> It's maintenance purpose, but it's trees and mowing. >> It's it's mainly mowing. The trees will do once a year on it, but it's mowing. >> It's more the mowing of the medians and and the removal of the vegetation that otherwise ends up into the bay. I'm just curious because I know that there's a pretty sizable budget amount in parks and wrecks under um maintenance for the tourist district, which I've been told is defined as this area, right? >> And so if parks and wrecks is doing mowing and trees and maintenance, >> they're doing it in the parks only. And then so there's the coal park would be one. The if you go further south, you know, dodge. Um, so they do park maintenance, mowing in parks, storm water does anything in the right of way, >> right? From from Yeah. >> From Louisiana ABC parks takes care of that. We take care of the other section and and that's been a legacy thing that public public works has been working on since I got there. I mean, it's been right away that we've maintained. >> What if you had to quantify that specific project to that section? What annually would be the contribution or the the commitment? >> I don't have that. I can get you that cost, but we can we can we can get that. I mean, we have it all mapped out. >> Okay. Thank you for that. Um, that's my question. >> Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman um Compos. >> Uh, thank you, mayor. Um, and I am grateful, mayor, for bringing up that issue about the, um, basically the subsidizing of some of the smaller lots and the storm water fee. I I had to look back on my emails that um was sent back like three years ago because I remember him uh bringing this up and um he said that that in reality um it the literature says that it's based on impervious um uh >> area right imperous uh but the reality is that um that after measuring his own personal property and and calling um the storm water department that it was actually based on two that um spoke with the city and found out that they don't charge based on the impervious areas at all but that your that your lot size divided by two. Is that still correct? >> That's not correct. Uh >> in conclusion, people with smaller houses, garages, and driveways are being overcharged. So back to the same is that? >> Yeah. No. Um I'm I'm pretty confident that the methodology that we received from our consultant is sound. The only difference and we've done the seven cities check uh for that aspect of is is the if you have a property and let's just say you have an impervious cover that's going to be the basis of the fee. Mhm. >> Um the way the consultant comes up with this cost is they use uh pretty much measure it on a computer and then get that number measurement on the computer. So we don't go physically run a wheel to every single property and then put that in a database and base the uh number on that. So it could be a plus or minus there. And so sometimes residents do come and challenge the fee and we do have a process for receiving that challenge and then checking the actuality of that measurement. If it's true and there's a compar comparable difference then we will make an adjustment. >> Okay. So it would have to be based and individually someone would have to actually challenge that storm water fee and >> right we have a process uh where they do a challenge and we receive the challenge through our uh billing department. they comes to us and then we check the challenge to make sure that >> okay but um but again I think uh the mayor does bring up a good point uh just to revisit that and making sure that it you know that this storm water fee is being done adequately you know fairly so >> yeah no it it we have checked with the other cities uh perfect scenario would be uh if you got a surveyor to go to everybody's property and got meets and bounds on the impervious area and then got that measurement and calculate the rate based on that. Uh but the level of effort would be extreme, you know, for 95,000 plus accounts. >> Uh but that that's not what's happening. They're using, you know, you know, a certain system to measure on on a on a GIS map and then base it off of that. >> Okay. But I I guess um it is good to know that uh there is a process that they feel that the the fee is, you know, more than um than fair, then, you know, it could be or uh then they could uh go out and and at least protest it. >> Right. There there has been protests that we've uh received and then adjusted as a result. Some of them have a good a good reason and and we make the adjustment based on that if that's the case. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. And and just to and we're done after this, but um we would just hire a company, wouldn't you? >> Say again. >> Hire a company that does that. The GIS and the >> Right. Well, we would see um you know, is it cost effective? Yeah. Um we'd have to do that study. >> Yeah, we'll look into that. Yeah. Great. >> Thank you. Okay, that that is um I think that's everything for today. Correct. >> Yes, it is, ma'am. >> Yeah. Wonderful. Thank you for the >> I'm sorry, just one Heather came down for Councilman Hernandez's question on the sales tax. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Good morning, Heather Hbert, since the city manager. So, the question on the sales tax on the 18 cent for storm water drainage, things like that. So um it could not be used for projects that are already for debt service for projects that's already been done that are already existing. Um the way that the sales tax work is that the project would have to go to the type B board for approval. Um once that project is approved then the type the sales tax can be utilized for that. Um but um you know and that sales tax does not we don't start collecting that until April 1 of 2026. And so, um, we would, you know, we'd have to see what the timing is. Is it something that's already in process? We wouldn't be able to do that. But if it is a new project that is slated for the next year, two years, whatever, we could take it to the type B board for consideration. And then they would from there make the decision on whether or not it's something that they would move forward for recommendation. >> Okay. So, >> uh, in looking at that, it's like any future debt projects is what I'm referring to, right? Obviously, we're not collecting it until 2026, but anything that comes forward like uh he was talking about channel maintenance and uh associated with the >> I don't know what box coververts I I what what are you using said Idiq? Yeah, for the CI the Idiq we're using it either for box cover culvert replacement um sometime we do what's called slip line repairs. So where we don't want to tear open a roadway and pull out the pipe and replace it. We'll go on one end of the system and then put in a membrane uh where uh say a trunk line is collapsed. And so you'll see them a lot on on the island where you have these outfalls into the I guess those those uh homes that are off the water. Um, and so you have these outfalls. We cannot go tear through somebody's backyard and empty out their pool or whatever because there's a there's a trunk line going out, you know, from the street into that water. So, we'll slip line using this contractor that currently is on this Idiq CIP project to do that kind of work. >> Okay. So, type B money is for economic development, right? So, it'll have some commercial aspect to it. Um, I would say every arterial road we do has a commercial aspect to it. >> Okay. But what you're talking about may or may not, >> right? Oh, so you're talking about the type E prop F funds. That's a different list of projects. I thought you were talking, >> but it's still I mean we we have a list of projects that we're doing it, but I mean there's funding associated with it that is for economic development, right? >> We've identified some projects, but you know those things can change over time. That's it's not like you know that's specifically everything we're going to use. Correct. Correct. >> So there's some opportunity for you to utilize some of that funding for projects that have some economic development component to it. Correct. >> Right. So I want to make sure that we're looking at it. So you we're just not it's just not sitting over here not not doing anything. >> Gotcha. >> Okay. So that's what I'm referring to. >> Like I said I fought real hard for it. >> Right. >> Right. To make sure that you have the money you need for the projects that you need to do it. Make sure you utilize it. >> Understood. >> Thank you. Okay, Heather. Okay, you're done. Thank you. No, I I just want to thank y'all for Oh, we do have We have one more question, but I I am going to thank y'all for for the presentation. Thank you for all the work that y'all put into it. I know you have a full team, Ernie. We really appreciate you. We really do. And these are always so informative. Um and and I'm glad that everybody, you know, was able to ask questions. I know we're missing a few people, but nonetheless, they'll get this um uh presentation, you know, delivered to them. And we always invite, of course, anybody that has follow-up questions to reach out to you and by email or phone call. Um, but we really appreciate it and thank you for being here, Councilwoman Pexon. >> Yes, ma'am. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mayor. I'll make it real quick just to kind of piggyback off of that last little discussion. I was curious um that is something that we see a lot in district 4, particularly I feel like from what I see in here around the storm drain um circuits is we will just have those sink holes where things are just kind of dropping. It's in rideways. It's in the streets. It's in yards. Do we have a system in place where we're evaluating that in this budget where there's some kind of plan? Because I know in my short time here, I've seen it be popping up a lot as kind of oneoffs, but it's really kind of in my opinion trended around these storm drains that we're seeing a lot of this. So I was curious if we have something in this plan or in these works to see why is it collected like that or maybe you already know the answer and we have a solution to it. >> Yeah. So it was actually our achievement number three where we go and video uh proactively uh the the storm drain systems in those uh I guess what you would call them uh problem areas and then uh finding out through that video feedback that it needs to be slip line and we have to do something about it rather than letting it fail and then finding out we got to come after the fact. >> Okay, thank you for clarifying that. I know it's just kind of the number of occurrences is what's starting to concern me more and more I'm texting you about it. Thank you for pointing that piece out and thank you for your presentation. >> Yes ma'am. Thank you all. >> Okay. Thank you very much. And with that, there being no further business, this workshop is adjourned.