City Council — January 20, 2026

Councilmember

Starbuck?

Present.

Councilmember Bridge?

Here.

Councilmember Ball?

Present.

Mayor Pro Tempore Victor Vega?

Here

Mayor James Moby, excuse me. We've

got an echo in here today. Oral communications they're lining up two items on closed session business items public employee performance evaluation and number two conference with labor negotiators. Seeing nobody rise for oral communication we'll close our oral communications and we'll be back here at 6 30 for open session. Welcome back.

Good roll call.

president City Attorney, any action to report on?

Mayor and Council. The City Council met in closed session to discuss the two items on the agenda. One public employee performance evaluation for city manager and one labor negotiations for city manager. City Council gave direction to staff on both those items but there was no reportable action.

Let's pray. Lord, we humble ourselves before you knowing we are flawed and short-sighted and we tend to look out for ourselves and seek to benefit our families and friends but help us to fight those temptations and our weaknesses We live in really a confusing time when people passionately declare their opinions and truth, and give us clarity though on what's right. And empower us to see through any lies or deception. I ask specifically for this council that they would just feel the weight of their decisions. That they would earnestly seek the benefit of all in this community. That you would bless them in that effort.

And Lord, give them strength to fight for good and truth. Give them boldness to do hard things even if they aren't popular. Show them that they can rely on you. And Lord, bless the servants of this government. Make them diligent in seeking the best for the community and convict them not to cut any corners or skirt any rules. Give them wisdom to serve with dignity and grace.

Lord, bless Lompoc and bind us together in brotherly love Give us pride in shaping the beauty of our town for the sake of our neighbors and our guests. And lift up our reputation as a place of prosperity for families and peaceful diversity. We ask a lot, but you are creator. You are master of all. You're greater than our needs or any of our discrepancies. Your strength alone gives peace and order. Show yourself mighty and loving to each soul here.

Show the path that leads to a closer knowledge and relationship with you, for it's through your favor, power, and authority we pray with confidence. Amen.

Please join me in the pledge of allegiance. Ready? Report on a presentation I gave along with Council Member Ball and Council Member Starbuck at honoring Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day at the Dick DeWeese Community Center yesterday. Moving on to the City Manager report, what do you have for us today Mr.

Manager? Thank You Mayor. I want to remind everybody that the father-daughter dance is coming up be January 30th through February 1st It's a great event. It sells out, so I encourage everybody if you want to go. I know what I was talking about when I took my daughter and I realized it was like 23 years ago, so it still left an impression on me. So it's a good event.

I want to take a moment to recognize Sergeant Sergio Uris on his recent graduation from the California Post Block Supervisor Leadership class It was an eight-month course and spent a lot of time on it, being the more effective leader, decision maker. And I wanted to thank Kevin for nominating him. And I want to congratulate him on that achievement. Wanted to remind everybody we still got two more weeks of free fare for the transit.

Good opportunity to check out the routes and go out and utilize that resource. And then finally, I wanted to give an update to council with the recent passing of SB 707 where cities are going to be required to have translation services. I know Victor Vega brought this up as a council request and it's one of the things we're looking into. We are buying some equipment and will be able to handle more translation services and I'll keep you posted. It will probably be effective coming out around April so more to come and that's all I have for tonight sir.

Any questions for the city manager? I've got one. Have you had an opportunity to take the bus ride on Colts free? Might be fun to do, drive around town a little bit. Public comment on consent calendar will open up to the number of items. If any council member wants to pull it we'll address immediately before the second oral communications near the ending of the meeting.

The calendar consists of the approval of the minutes from the regular meeting, November 18th, 2025. Approval and ratification of expenditures payroll December 19th at 2.29 million. Voucher registered December 15th through 19th, 2025 of 2.1 million and another voucher from 22 to 26 of December for 2.2 million. Number three is the City of Lompoc Maintenance and City Pool Assessment District number 2002-01 statement for the period July 1st, 2024 through June 30th, 2025.

Number four is approval updated city council meeting calendar. Number five is award a contract for urban forestry service in the amount of $577,750 to Community Tree Service LLC And number six is update regarding the Lompoc Valley Transportation Needs Study. Real quick, the needs study's important with SPCAG in combining some of our important outside the area, San Lucia Canyon, main gate at Vanderburg, and the other gates at Vanderburg as well. I think it's nice that SPCAG and the base are partnering us to try to find some solutions.

Does anybody else have anything they wish to pull? Councilor Bridge.

Do you have a quick

question or do you need to pull?

No, I'd like to pull five. Okay,

number

five.

Councilor Rall. I had a question on it but he's pulling it.

You have a question on something? On five. Okay very good. So number five will be heard again before the second oral communications towards the end of the meeting. For that we're looking for a motion on those five remaining items. We have a motion to approve the consent calendar. This is 5-0. I see our urban foresters here, you got some jobs ahead of you. Staff presentation announcements.

So we're going to get a presentation of summary of California lease financing and proposed financing of the landfill stormwater mitigation project for council discussion and possible direction to staff.

Good evening Council, I'm Bob Cross, Financial Services Manager. At the November 18th council meeting we brought up the 7.1 million dollar loan to Solid Waste and were asked to review options whether there was an internal loan. We found really no viable option to finance with an internal loan without We're going to do a presentation explaining what that all

Good evening, Mayor, members of the Council. I'm Scott Ferguson with Jones Hall. We're a bond council firm and have worked for the city for many years and we've been working closely with staff to come up with legal structure for this financing. So lease-leaseback structure is a borrowing tool commonly used by cities, counties, school districts for long term capital projects.

3 general pieces, the first is a site lease where the city here would initially lease its landfill property to a financing corporation. It's a non-profit corporation that exists solely to assist cities and counties and school districts with this kind of financing. And in return, the city would receive an upfront site lease payment which is equal to the principal amount of what you're borrowing.

Here that's the amount that would be used to reimburse the water fund for a portion of the costs of the stormwater protection project and also to pay for financing costs. The second document is a lease agreement. Simultaneously, the city subleases the landfill back from the corporation and agrees to make semi-annual lease payments to the corporation in return for use and occupancy of the landfill, the leased property.

And rather than take those payments, the corporation enters into an assignment agreement where it assigns all of its rights to receive those lease payments to the lender so that Funds flow straight through to the lender and that represents a semi-annual debt service on the loan. All of the financing documents will be presented to the council at a later meeting for approval, and the main covenant here is that this city will covenant to annually budget and appropriate the lease payments from the solid waste revenues and the general fund would then serve as a backstop.

So we have a long history in California of lease-leaseback financings. The legal theory is it relies on what's known as the lease exception to the constitutional debt limit, being that the lease creates an annual obligation of the city The city's budget. So there were 2 cases early on in The public agencies could use leases to finance capital projects without it being subject to the constitutional debt limit that affects or restricts cities, counties and school districts. L.A. County did one of the first lease-backed securities way back in 1962.

And then they just continued to gain in popularity, especially after Prop 13 which limited property tax revenues for cities and counties. And then in 1998 the California Supreme Court further blessed this structure and ruled explicitly that lease financings were legally valid and enforceable. And so recently, I just looked at some of the recent lease financings that have been done just within the county.

We work on dozens And then other neighboring local agencies here, City of Goleta this year did a lease revenue bond, Guadalupe USD, City Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara County. Santa Maria Bonita School District did both a public offering and also a private placement on a CDUSD. So, and again we work on a lot of these every year it's a useful tool to cities school districts counties to get long-term financing stuff I'm happy that there are questions

Good question for you. What are the advantages of this as opposed to just going out and getting a loan or bonding your debt or something? What's the advantage to doing it this way?

Well, the only way to legally get a loan from a bank would be to do either a lease-leaseback structure with that bank or do an installment sale agreement which is different animal but that's something that's oftentimes done with water waste water enterprises

So going out and bonding the debt, what's the... Can't go and sell a bond like they did building the wastewater plant?

So to sell a bond you need a legally available structure to do that. And if we were to do a general fund bond sold to the public underneath that would be a lease-leaseback structure.

So do we have a lease-leaseback at the wastewater plant currently right now?

Of only of the equipment. Equipment? Oh, of the wastewater plant. Of the wastewater plant. I think so. Dan, was that done as a... No. Was that an installment sale? Yeah. That relies on a different exception because that's secured by Wastewater Revenues. So we would have done an installment purchase agreement which gets you to the same place and allows you to issue long-term obligations.

So this should have been done before is what you're saying or what are Why can't we get a bond at the landfill? Why can't we bond the debt there?

Using landfill revenues?

Yes.

That was a credit discussion that we've had if the landfill revenues by themselves, well I can't talk to this really because I'm not a

financial

advisor.

Because the wastewater revenues weren't there either. We had to raise the rates after the fact To cover the wastewater revenues because we had this. They went for multiple years without covering it, and we had to raise wastewater rates 93% I think it was 10 plus years ago to cover that. I'm just curious as this other mechanism we have in a year. It just seems peculiar that we're doing something different than what we've done before.

Dan would you be able to speak a little bit to that do you think? I think that what he's asking, this is Christy, Management Services Director. I think what you're asking is why we're not going out to a revenue bond like we did with the water and wastewater 2018 refinancing which was a refunding of a bond that we had done prior to that.

Or even the original bonds that were done in 03, 05 and 08 and all that yeah.

Mayor Mosby, members of the Council. I'm Dan Cox with K&N Public Finance Municipal Advisory Firm. I can elaborate a little bit. We did work on the wastewater financing originally back in 2005 and So you're right, that was a revenue bond. The only security to the bond holders was the net revenues from the wastewater system. Ideally that's what we would be doing in this upcoming transaction. That was actually The plan at one point, I think near the time that the reimbursement resolution was adopted which allowed the city to spend the money on the project which you had to do for regulatory reasons and then do the financing after the fact.

And so rates were increased as you all are aware But as we look at the numbers and the actual results that came out, it looks like the rate increases that were approved initially didn't produce the level of net revenue that is needed to make a strong credit to interest investors. So that's why we felt that it was going to need some general fund support as a backstop With the rates in place, projecting out the solid waste fund just didn't look very strong.

So we're in the process of putting together a transaction as Mr Ferguson mentioned and we plan to come back for approval of the financing and there will be more specifics I'm going to The plan is to get competing proposals from a number of banks. This will actually look like a bank loan, but just as Mr. Ferguson mentioned, to legally do that and have the general fund as the backstop means using a lease structure.

But when we come back, the terms of the transaction will be nailed down. And you know, we hope to time it so that we have the rate nailed down when it comes back for approval sometime in the spring. Some of that timing will depend on what happens with the rate study and I think with

the reversal of the enterprise reimbursement increases, the ROW going away. I think we were looking at the revenue is over expenses now at this time for the city manager. We were looking at those numbers recently.

We'll be bringing back the rate study in a future meeting and be able to go into the detail of what was the offset of the decrease of expense due to the ROW expense going away versus slower ramp up of the revenues than what was anticipated. And the consultant will be bringing back information and their recommendation, I believe we started that at the Utility Commission meeting it was about two months ago when we just got the report back from the consultant to be able to move forward on the third.

So basically what we're doing here is you're using a lease as collateral with the general fund as a backer And we're in this position now because I know revenue is over expenses. Stormwater bypass has been on the books for 10 years. I guess ultimately we're forced to do it before we had The available revenues To do this so now they're getting this way is that kind of what I'm getting Because we're never operating in the red for a number of years at solid waste

We have been I believe at the time we had presented additional or various options for The revenue is not increased sufficiently to be able to have a rate of revenue coverage that would, or debt coverage ratio that would be acceptable for issuing a bond. That's the long and short of it, but we wouldn't be able to do this without the backstop of the general fund.

Anybody else any other questions before I open up to public comment? Council Member Starbuck?

A couple of questions here. How much are we looking to get? There's a few things, and the other is what is it for? What are we trying to do here at the end game?

We're trying to pay back the water fund, the $7.1 million loan that they provided to the solid waste to be able to cover this storm drain program or the stormwater.

And we can't do this internally then?

We did a review of the funds that we currently have and determined that it would put significant, and what I believe would be irreparable strain on the funds that we currently have if we were to try to do this internally.

What is the payback on this? How many years? If we move forward with this for $7 million, how many years is it going to take us to pay

it back? The 7.1 million would be the net proceeds. The amount of the borrowing would be, to use round numbers, about 7.3 million which would cover cost of issuance legal and financial and various costs of issuance. Right now we're looking at a 15-year term.

Which ironically is probably within months of what we have life in the landfill at then Okay.

I was just going to add that Debt Service would estimate it to run about $700,000 per year based on some conservative estimates. Hopefully that will be fine-tuned by the time this...

No in the next 15 years what happens if more state mandates which they're good every couple of years we get them you know gas methane burners flood water runoff etc etc they'll come up with something again At what point do we just quit using the landfill and this payment? Now, we're going to be in this for the full ride of 15 years with not anticipating future mandates.

So that's something there. What happens if we default on this loan or this lease? We just give it to the bank say at the 14th year even with the closure on it?

Yeah I mean if you default on a loan, the bank would let us sue It's

also supported by the general fund. It's backed by the general fund. Council Member Bridge.

The irreparable damage that would be done to the funds is to the water district? That's a question.

So the water right now is, is loaning the 7.1 million and this year it is showing negative cash that is not where we want to continue. So water does not have $7.1 million to do this on a long term basis. It was originally done when water had the funding and it It was a good short-term solution, but any long-term solution like this really should be financed. It would create undue strain on any particular fund moving forward.

And how negative is the water?

I'm sorry?

How negative is the water?

I don't have that number in front of me. I honestly don't have that in front of me right now. As of 2025, the cash there is, that's for the operating or for the unrestricted, there is cash in restricted funds and so it's not that there's insolvency, anything like that. This is strong, still a strong fund but they can't carry a $7.1 million loan long term.

So just for clarity, what I think I heard is when this is all done we're going to pay $700,000 a year to service this loan.

Estimated now?

Approximately 700 and the alternative of paying that right to the water fund puts the water fund in risk That would be a 10-year payback versus a 15-year payback. Approximate numbers again. It would still have to be paying interest

and so it would... We have not done the analysis to a very in the weeds, so to speak. We did a high level analysis over what would the impact be if we carried this loan on any one of the funds and the far and away I want to say sense, but that doesn't really capture the underlying and the overall educational. We were smart people who looked at these numbers and went this is not going to be good. We did not go and run the spreadsheet numbers to the nth degree. And we can do that if council wants us to do that. But it's going to come back and it's going to say that the funds don't have The long-term ability to carry this loan.

This kind of looks to me like when you borrow from your 401k and you get all the interest, so the interest that we'd be paying the bank which I guess is 700 times 5. $3.5 million.

I think that the difference there sir is that in your 401k you're not accessing that money. You don't need to access that money until you retire whereas Right now, the Water Fund needs to be able to access its money. It needs to be able to build additional capital programs it needs to be able to have the funding for operations and taking that money out of just in the water fund would be one example is It doesn't have enough of a buffer to be able to hold a $7 million loan.

So this is very complicated, to say the least. But I do have a couple of questions just so I can kind of wrap my head around it as we make future decisions maybe based on the rate study. And so I'd like to understand a little bit more about the general fund backstop because there's a certain amount of risk and that's a worst case scenario. I get the idea in the backstop but I guess maybe a couple questions for me.

Maybe elaborate a little bit on the rate study when we are, that's coming back soon. Is that what I'm understanding? Next council meeting. So in addition to us just making a decision based upon what that study shows, we should be considering in some way whether there is enough revenue that pleases the investment market or the banks or so forth. So I'm curious how should we as a council consider that next rate study considering We need to choose a number that prevents us from being too risky or too close to needing to ever consider the general fund being the backstop. Does that make sense at all? Is that maybe a loaded question? Yeah,

I mean I think in looking at rate options you're obviously looking at the impact of rate payers and risk to the general fund if you choose this scenario You know, if it comes up short and just do a variety of circumstances unexpected you would be looking to the general fund. So in a way kind of the rate options, the stronger rate options help protect the general fund minimize the likelihood that you would ever have to use the general fund for an extended period of time to pay debt service.

Thank you, and again I know that's a moving target we'll have that discussion so but in my mind that's another layer of complexity where when we're considering the rates this has to be included at least at some level and then this is a silly question just because you know we're kind of faced with this challenge or this funding mechanism because interest rates are what they are they're pretty high at the moment We can't carry this loan internally for many years, but a silly pushback I guess is why couldn't we wait a year or two until rates settled a bit and would that benefit us in some form or fashion? Or am I thinking about this all wrong.

So there's a deadline under the federal tax rules. We're doing a tax exempt financing. The interest is exempt from federal and state income taxes. There are rules Mr. Ferguson can elaborate that dictate a deadline as to when the actual tax exempt financing has to take place relative to when the expenditures were made and relative to when the project was completed. So, that deadline is coming up in June.

So you could finance after that but it would have to be on a taxable basis at considerably higher cost.

Okay. So going past the deadline raises the cost by far versus like meeting the deadline, whatever the rates are it is what it is? Is that what I understand? Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions for open and for public comment? Public comment? Have a seat and we'll see if we get anybody else Might have you back up. They're rushing the microphone. All right, we'll go ahead and close public comments and bring it back to council. You're not looking for any action or are you looking for some action? Do you want some direction? Whether this is a presentation but there's possible direction?

So the last line says and possible direction to staff. No, not necessarily. Are you looking for any direction from us?

We're looking for a direction as to whether we should go forward with this. We don't have a resolution. We're not looking for action but if this is acceptable direction, we will proceed.

So we have let's see options are you take all the money from the general fund or you rob of other accounts or default Or violate code come June. So I don't think we have any other option, do we?

Do you see another option? We haven't come up with one but if there's something we need to research further we could. But this is the best option we have found so we're presenting that.

And I appreciate you guys running this with scrutiny. It was my request to see if you had any other revenue streams that were out there And my objective is to do that so somebody asked me will go here. You guys have answered those questions.

Council Member Ball. I think for me, we've got to do what we've got to do but I'd love to get more clarity. Christy, what you were mentioning is like the reason we can't do this internally is because there is an articulated impact in a negative sense towards the fund that it was borrowed from and for me I just love to wrap my head around being able to say well this is exactly why we can't do that. This is going to hurt us versus help us and for me that would be something I'd be curious about. And I'd love to talk to you about it more.

Anybody else? You guys want a general consensus, you want some head nods to move forward with the directions you're moving forward with. I say move forward with the direction, move forward... anybody else go along with it? You got Councilman Starbuck? Councilman Ball? Councilman Vega says

no. Huh?

He said no. Councilman Vera says no. Did you guys have some alternatives? You wanted to look at another direction?

I'd like it to come back just as Council Member Ball mentioned, as far as to find out what the damage would be to the funding if we did internally take it on. To

the general

funds

you mean? The other funds or... To the water fund. Did you have the answer for what would happen with the water fund?

So specifically to the water fund, well we are carrying it right now and the water fund has negative cash We're not going to be able to make that up for probably three, four years at the $700,000. I believe...I don't know the specific number but it is, I believe over two million dollars negative

right now. Negative 1.95 I think the last I looked in the water fund on cash. This is 7.1 which exasperates. I know they're looking at drilling well number 10. They've been on the books for a while So the ability to...

I still want to see the spreadsheet on what other options there could be. I've never seen this before. I think this is the fourth meeting

on this actually.

Well, you know in this presentation...I'm just going to say no how about

that? You're fine yeah.

Councilor Boehme. I don't...I am still willing to move forward knowing that we have a deadline and we need to be working towards that but I'm with Council Member Bigg and I think the rest of council too. We should when people out there ask us well what is this and why are we doing it we should have a really solid easy answer as to this is already I think that would help us make a more sound decision.

So move forward with the questions being answered as well. I thought we actually had a time crunch of end of March, so it's good to hear we have until June.

So we can go ahead and continue working with our consultants in looking at options but we will bring back a spreadsheet for review on the water fund and get a final I'm going to go ahead and move forward in two weeks.

Quick question, is there a way to do a hybrid model that you actually take some and don't fund 100% out of some other funds? Because I know you were looking at insurance funds, some of the capital projects lists of the general fund that maybe you're not looking at spending right now but maybe in the next couple years it will get repaid We could look at that. 7.1 million was a lot, so maybe there is a hybrid I don't know.

But I know that you guys don't want to give up the money you got into capital projects list and I understand why because then people are going to wonder why you're not fixing the parks anymore or able to buy police cars or multitude of other things. So

I think that the issue really comes down to whether or not we are going Hold our money for the projects that they were intended for, or loan out that money for something else when we have options for... I

agree. We're kind of in that long debt over at the electric where Wi-Fi had borrowed almost $5 million. That was kind of that one thing way back when? Yeah, so I appreciate you guys not doing that to the water account the same way. So are you okay with moving forward but bringing back your answers simultaneously?

I don't want to say moving forward, but I want to see the information.

Thank

you. All right.

I think you have Council Member Bridgely go with it. Council Member Boehl, would you go with it? And Council Member Starbucks? Okay, there you go.

Thank you.

All right, thank you guys. I think you guys too, you didn't have to get back up. This can be a rough room here sometimes. Every time. Okay. All right we'll open up to oral communications three minutes. General oral communications.

Karen Hauenstein, lifelong resident. I object to the illegal street vendors that seem to be making a comeback on our streets, especially the ones with the rainbow umbrellas. They seem to be organized and I approached one of them today and asked how much for a cup of watermelon and he told me 10 bucks, 10 bucks for a cup of watermelon. And I say well wait a second you're the guy who's not paying any taxes right?

And then it devolved into you know I never I am not talking about his legality of being in this country I'm talking about the legality of him being able to sell food on our streets completely willy-nilly. Why can't I go make some omelets and go down in front of Conserve and sell them so I can make money to go buy stuff for my kids? I object strongly, and I think the mayor's been placed In a bad light unfairly, because I believe that that's also what he's objecting to is that there's people selling food illegally on our streets.

Their race or their ethnic origin is not an issue. It's the fact they're doing this and then when you approach them they kind of act like a little game like Like somehow I don't have a right to question this illegal activity on our streets. Anyway, those are my comments for today. Thank

you. 10 bucks for a cup of water. How many cups do we have to sell to pay off that landfill debt? All right, nobody else lining up for a communication. We'll close our communications bring back the council for appointments number seven mayor pro tem appointment. Council Member Vega, you are the current one and I looked at your ball. You were the last and I think Starbucks might be his turn again. Are you in?

All

I'll make a motion. We approve what we have, unless someone refrains from doing their duties.

Councilor, anybody got any discussion? Got a second? Anybody want to second that? Bring it back quick discussion. Any discussion with anybody? All right, go ahead and vote. You guys are all sentenced for another year. Okay, now we got number nine. Discussion and direction regarding refunds to Safe and Sane Fireworks booth operators. Matt Adams, accounting and revenue manager. Come on, and we have Mario here too? Where's Mario? There you are!

Got them all lined up.

Good evening. So tonight we requested to bring back the discussion for the refund of Safe and Sane Fireworks to fund the shows that were going on. For just a real quick recap, Ordinance No. 1591-13 allows for sale and use of Safe and Sane Fireworks We've had numerous concerns about safety since the passage of it. Part of that, the money that comes in is 4% surcharge to enforcement task force and a $10,000 booth fee that also goes for enforcement. Tonight we will not be discussing the enforcement portion of it.

That is still on the books. This is mostly focused on the event portion. If we would like to discuss depending on the option of council tonight if we would like to discuss the option of refunding the enforcement we can do that at a later date. Back in 2023, it was voted to reduce the contribution from the non-profits to 20% of their net sales from 30%. In recent times, we've had discussions for the different types of events.

There was the fireworks. We've had discussions where we weren't able to have a fireworks because there weren't any available sites. We had different discussions and arguments about that. So last year there was no event. It was canceled for 2025. That got out of order. I apologize for that. So in the last two years, three years we've had family fun day where we had bounce houses. I believe it was Ryan Park.

Those averaged for the last three years around $27,000 a year and our current balance as of December 2025, the balance for the show that we have held in trust is 76,982.10 cents. I'm going to let Mario discuss the options for the two events that we could hold going forward, because he's done the work and the experts on.

Good evening Mayor Council just wanted to bring up for like our large event, it'd be similar to what we did in the past at the park before the kids day in the park. And then if we wanted to do a smaller event, these are just ideas. Pickleball tournament kind of downsized from what the kids games were and just make it a lot smaller. But from a parks and recreation side, depending on what the funding is I'll go back to our team and we'll put something together that's great for either the $20,000 or $10,000.

Any questions that you have for me?

So then tonight, we are going to discuss the... Oh, that's

better. You got it? Councillor Boehme, do you have something real fast? Okay.

I apologize for how hard that is to read. We do have six possible options to present to the Council tonight and I'll bounce between this and the other two slides after this to kind of put all the paint in the picture together. So one of the options we have is to not issue any refunds, continue collecting the 20% payment from the non-profits and continue to hold events status quo We have another option of refunding the 20% from last year that was collected for a show that never happened, and then continue to collect the 20% and move forward.

Option three would be taking number one, but bumping it up to 30% to cover the cost of the events that we would like to put on. As I can show in this slide, the historical snapshot, the event costs or revenues for the last two are going to look at 24 and 25. For this portion that's the 20%. Barely covered the expenses looking at the other ones there. We did cover them but then the estimates for 26 if we were to keep it at 20% we would be looking at coming up $4,000 short at a $20,000 event or 6,000 over if we went smaller as Mario stated we can go whatever the council wants in between that if we wanted to keep a show going Option four would be to refund the 20%, same as option two, but bump it back up to 30% to make sure we have enough to put on a nice event for citizens.

Option five would be to refund everything for the show. Again, we can talk enforcement later however we want to handle that, but this is focused on the show. To all of the non-profits that contributed over the past seven years and see saw future events. This would wipe the trust out completely to zero dollars and it would refund everything back to the non-profits that submitted to it. Option six is any other possibilities that council has that we have not considered or were not mentioned here.

This would be the refund if we were to look at it. The partial is the refund of last year's, the 20% collected from last year for the event. It's a total of 15,762 and 61 cents that would go back to the five nonprofits that paid into it. The partial is not based on a weighted allocation for that calculation, that is their exact donation amounts. The weighted allocation goes into the full refund because it was collected over seven years. Some of the money was expensed, some of it wasn't. We aren't able to do a dollar-to-dollar for that because some of the nonprofits donated one year and didn't donate two years after.