Finance and Budget Committee

Well, let's move on. On the consent calendar any changes to the minutes?

Actually I have one change. The minutes indicate that City Manager Harvey and Finance Director Cho were also present but in fact they're official committee members so I think you need to migrate those names up to the other paragraph.

Ah well said Do you have that change? Okay, thank you. Any other changes? All right, move to accept the minutes as amended. Thank you. Second. Any objections? Okay, thank y'all. All right so moving on to our first item and that is fiscal year 2026-27 proposed budget.

Just one moment. Oh, you better be pulling up a presentation PowerPoint slide.

Absolutely. Actually, let me while you're doing that, let me

So good afternoon, members of the Finance and Budget Committee. I will be reviewing and walking through the budget document for 26-27. Just as noted in the staff report this is a draft document we do have a second meeting scheduled for June 2nd to further have a discussion And also at that time we'll be reviewing current year budget amendments and the GAN limit as well.

I will be going through this presentation in a similar format to the one that was presented with the mid-year review, so I'll start with the revenues expenditures going into the fund balance So this document is included in the agenda packet. It's just a budget at a glance that highlights the general fund revenues, top three sources, the expenditures and the reserve but I'll be going into more detail in this presentation.

So this slide reviews the top three general fund revenue sources, sales tax, transient occupancy tax and property tax. And just incorporating feedback from the last committee meeting, this table shows where we're at through April 2026 in comparison to last year of what we received From the budget and revenues thus far just so that's a comparison with the similar measurement period as prior year So from this chart, we have received approximately 74% of the top three revenue sources The same period last fiscal year. We received 68 percent. So we are trending slightly ahead of what we had budgeted

Brenda can ask Do would you like to all questions to be at the end or while you're going forward?

I don't mind questions. Okay, just

I'm just asking how you'd like to proceed and is there a way to account for? How we're trending ahead there because that's nice to see I mean on the accounting So in other words, especially when I look at like property tax Is there a way to account for that difference between just a year's worth of work? I'm hoping that it's because of our changes in the accounting department, but that may not be

I'm sorry. Can you ask your question one more time?

Let's just take one line, property tax. And I see that if I look at the percent of the budget from last year compared to the percent of the budget this year and I see we're much closer to our 100% number on every column or every row. So I'm just curious what the reason for that would be? It's a great trend, just curious what it's about.

In comparison to what we budgeted, we're coming up a little bit ahead. So in that area, so for example with property tax, we get allocations throughout the year most significantly in December and April. So we'll have a few months trailing in the coming months but the comparison is to what we have budgeted. So yeah, we're trying to do slightly better than what we had originally anticipated when we prepared the budget.

So one answer is the budgeting's more accurate? I'm just trying to say you could take that two ways, either the revenue coming in is closer to what it's going to finally be or our budgeting is better.

I think it's just that what we're seeing is very strong home prices in Ojai. We continue to see that, and they continue to be. Ojai tends to be a little bit immune from the national market. People are still actively buying homes here in Payne, in some cases over asking, and we're seeing that.

Okay, thank you.

Could I ask a couple questions? Number one the as of April 30th figures those columns those were not in your package is that correct? Those are new numbers that we did not

see.

Okay, so that's my way of explaining why I'm asking the question rather than figure it out for myself. So if the pace of receipt of revenues by type is the same in each year which it doesn't necessarily have to be but quite often it's close. The fact that we have higher percents as the mayor has pointed out in the year-to-date this year All things being equal is indicative of relatively more conservative budgets this year versus last year with regard to revenue.

All that's a supposition based on the assumption that the pacing is the same. So my question to you is, based on these statistics do you have any guesstimate as to what revenue favorability you might be anticipating relative to the budget?

I will add with our top three sources, recently we engaged with HDL to better project out our budgets for revenue sources. So for example, I don't believe that the property tax when the 25-26 budget was adopted, we had expertise in revenue analysis and economic insight at that time. But as we move forward, we have included in our projections their analysis so the top three are considering with consultation HDL's projections.

Okay. Are these figures that will be given to us, you know, in writing somewhere that I can do analysis after the fact with? That would be nice if I could keep

those. Yeah, of course. I could share that. Okay.

Thank you.

And then this slide shows the general fund revenues, the current fiscal year budget alongside the proposed 26-27 and as I just mentioned the top three sources projected numbers are in consultation with HDL. And if you see the percentages of each category, it's about the same. But as we look into the 26-27 budget there are economic considerations factored in so you'll see that the increase in the revenues fall or are not as are growing at a slower rate than the expenditure side. So I just wanted to make that note, but in comparison of categories it's about the same.

For example sales tax is about 14% of the total general fund revenues in both years. I apologize. The screen is a little bit hard to see, but this is in the agenda packet. This This is a summary of the general fund expenditures by department. This is similar format to what you've seen before, but we did add a column for the So this is our 25-26 estimate of where we think we will land at the end of the year.

When we were doing this projection out, what we did was look through what we had paid through March 13th. We did take into consideration when projecting out for the rest of the year that there may be some timing delays with how we receive invoices and payment so Bigger contracts for example, like the sheriff's department that one as of these numbers was paid through March So we took into those considerations when we were Making the projection amount

Will you remind me what's non-departmental again I

Those are costs that are not specific to a department. So for example, a lot of the cost would be like insurance liability Okay Something that's allocated citywide not specific Thank

You

So Brenda, I have a question on the column that you just mentioned. The current year estimate totals the $17,283. That's a new number to this committee is also significantly lower than the revised budget that was last discussed when the legal expenses were increased in March. What I heard you say, and I want to make sure I heard it correctly is that you have looked at year-to-date spending through March, I believe. Through May. Through May?

Okay. Well, you're very clairvoyant. May's not quite done. May 13th, yes. The spending that you've seen so far and your guesstimate of what will come in the rest of the year, then these are the numbers you expect for these departments overall. So if I were to cut to the chase, last year we were at 16.1 round numbers Unaudited, but got to be close at this point.

And now we're coming up to 17.3. Is that a correct sort of bottom line on where you guess you are right now?

Yeah with the estimates that we're projecting out to them at the year, yes.

Okay That's good news I want to see her crystal ball and rent it if

I can, but separate issue. It seems like what we can do though is to say, we can look at this number and then get to the end of the year especially when we look at this report next year and see how accurate was that? So that would be a good thing to see.

Well, it raises another question at the risk of going deeper down the rabbit hole. The overall year-end change in general fund balance—I'm going to do this off the top of my head—is a couple hundred thousand different versus the numbers that were projected a couple months ago. Now that we, in theory, think that the expenses are going to be favorable to that by $1.2 million, the only way that number can be right is if there's an unfavorable trend in revenues because it's got a balance.

But as you just showed us, there is a really good chance that the trend in revenues is favorable. Which causes me to wonder if the actual projected balance for the general fund at this year end doesn't have a fairly major glitch in it compared to those two numbers. I don't know if you followed all that or not, and we can always do this offline. But from a bean counter point of view, if my revenues are favorable by 1.2 or whatever that implied number would have been and my expenses are favorable by this, I expect my year-end fund balance to be much higher than the number that is being shown. So, as I say, probably best if you have time in your office and you want to walk me through how that works, I'd love to do that. But right now it's a puzzlement to me.

** Yeah, we can walk through that offline. But to be conservative, we did not increase the revenue section when we were calculating the fund balance. I guess that calculation... **

But even if you didn't, still your 1.2 favorable on expenses, right? **

Right.

** So all things being equal, you'd expect fund balance forecast to be up 1. 2 and it's not. So anyhow, let's do that offline so we don't bore the heck out of our audience. But right now it's an unresolved puzzlement to me.

Yeah, there is a separate slide that I'll go over regarding the fund balance. So I do do in a calculation based on budget and another calculation based on the projections where we would see probably slightly above $1 million difference in that calculation

but we can walk through that.

Could I ask a question about the non-recurring expenditures down at the bottom? Yeah. Because it looks like you've included the additional purchase of 503 South Ventura in the budgeted and in the estimated amount, but then the other three items are not included in the year end Estimate for 2526. I'm just curious

I think that's because they're not going to happen this year. They were in the budget, but it was not going

to happen. They're just not

going to happen. That's right. They're going to be paid in the next fiscal

year? In the next OIC.

If not further, in case of the grant match. Who

knows? So it looks like OIC, just because they're going to be in that year, they're still going to occur.

So if you look at the OUSD grant match, we budgeted it when the council approved it. Right. But it's not going to be paid presumably in the fiscal year that we're embarking on soon.

Got it. Yeah, I see. So in terms of the total expenditures then the estimate is 18.2 instead of this 17.3 that's

right because of adding the property purchase

those just those additional two items do make it back up to 18 point and could

close the gap if that

no yeah okay all right

no good that's great Thanks for taking our questions in real time. No, that's okay not a

problem. Super So also within this document you know as Miss Roth mentioned we did differentiate the ongoing and the non-recurring expenditures so Just to Review the balance budget policy. The city will maintain a balanced budget policy, which means that the city's operating budget is a general fund budget Operating revenues must fully cover operating expenditures under this policy It's allowable for total expenditures to exceed revenues in a given year however in this situation beginning fund balance can only be used as to fund capital improvement plan projects or other one-time non-occurring expenditures.

So for this reason, we differentiated on the document so that we can identify which part would be operating versus non-occurring and the minimum fund balance policy, the City Council and city staff shall maintain a minimum fund balance of 100% of the prior year's general fund operating expenditures as the minimum general fund reserve So with that, on the next slide is the fund balance calculation for the reserve. So as I mentioned we did a couple of different scenarios so if we're looking at the first row is the fiscal year 25-26 budgeted versus the 25- 26 projected which is on the second line and then the last row is the 26-27 proposed.

So the beginning fund balance plus the revenues so we again split up the operating expenditures with a non-recurring to get the end balance column. And then of that ending balance column, we take 100% of the prior year's fiscal operating expenditures and then the last column is the unallocated beyond that 100% reserve amount.

May I? A couple of comments. Number one, the reserve policy makes no mention of excluding nonrecurring operating expenses from the calculation. So I think this is a an amendment to the existing reserve policy, which can only be undertaken by the City Council. So I think I would strongly urge that we for purposes of calculating this reserve figure not make spontaneous adjustments to the reserve calculation And I would also point out that the budget book, which was produced late last year and recreates the reserve calculations that were made at last year's budget time does not mention or adjust for non-recurring quote unquote items.

So I think that is not an appropriate thing for us to do. And I certainly would not endorse that. Having said that, even if you were to endorse it, deciding what may or may not be a non-recurring item is a devil's task because you get bogged down. Well how long does it have to go before it's deemed recurring? And you showed the fee study as non-recurring but fee studies do recur. You have to do them over a certain period of time Fee schedule, so so I think the non-recurring Gambit here is something that we need to back away from That's one

point. I support you just on that point before you go to your next one Just to say I thought that there's several items that we would like to look at around the the reserve That was one but in general just asking what do other cities do and have that comparative? conversation after we get through this cycle and get as our next item. But I think there's a few important conversations to have around what is the prudent way to have this reserved? That's one, agreed.

And I would agree 100%. To the extent that we do or do not think that's a good idea it should be within the context of the overall review of the reserve policy. Second thing, the unallocated number that you show up here is comparing against the prior year's expense number. And so in that 100% reserve column near the right-hand side, you've got the 16085 which is the 2425 expense.

But the day after that year is done, now you roll in the new number. And if the new operating expenditures for the next year, which would have been 24-25 I think, you're going to change that unallocated number quite a bit. And I will point out in the budget book it was done last year when you look at the reserve calculations And I brought that book with me just to make sure I don't misstate things. The projected reserve percentage for 24-25 was 110%, which was a $1.8 million Thank you.

I think gives the City Council, number one an inaccurate number and number two a inappropriate sense of how much Delta Fund as we were calling it actually exists. So all this rolls into what the mayor just said is we need to make sure we're all on the same page with how the reserve policy works and how we present the numbers Having said that, back in March when the City Council was being asked to consider the purchase of 503 South Ventura which they did. They were told at that time that the city had 5.8 million of unallocated reserve. That number is north of everything that I've seen so I think we owe it from a financial responsibility point of view to all understand what we're talking about and make sure the numbers

are right Sorry to interrupt. Isn't that the same conversation we're going to have, which is other council people have brought this up to say if you have an operating budget like in this case that's 1.2 more than the year before? We've had council people say it's an imprudent way to use the prior years balance for the current year because we would need more to actually operate for a year so we can get into it or say that's the topic of conversation after we get through this budget. That's one of them.

You're absolutely right in all this because there's no magic about last year's expense versus this year's expense but what is the case right now is we have a policy that's in black and white and And so we until it changes officially which hopefully will do and probably this conversation adds motivation to do that Until it changes. We got to stay Consistent with the way, it's actually described. Yeah, that's

And I just would jump in, you know, I understand the desire to have that discussion. We will have the discussion late in the summer but I don't know that we're all going to be on the same page. I don't agree with the comment about the fee study and other non-reoccurring expenditures. I believe that these are. The last fee study we did, I think was ten years ago maybe more?

It'd be nice if you did fee studies all the time, but you just don't they're very involved. They're expensive there. They're intrusive of Staff time and so that you just tend to not do them very frequently Also council members are reticent to raise fees which usually is what comes after you do a fee study So that's why you don't see them very often we can certainly have a general fund or excuse me reserve discussion We will make based upon that discussion a recommendation But it will go to the City Council and the City Council will be the one deciding

I was just meaning to say this is all the stuff that we will talk about. All those questions, yes?

And I will just add with the fund balance that is seen in the budget book currently is based on budget. So as time passes by, we will update that calculation based on actual expenditures. So if you recall last year and fiscal year 24-25 revenues, I think came in a lot higher than was budgeted as well as expenditures coming in a lot lower It plays a part in the calculation with the difference of what was projected in the initial budget book and what we are presenting now. So as we go on, we are updating the calculation from budgeted to actuals.

To the extent that we are going to publish an unallocated number, it is the product of a one-off update of expected spending which has neither received the review of the Budget Committee or the approval of the City Council within the context of a midyear budget review process. That would be I think an incorrect assumption of authority on the part of the finance department because I think this committee has a Very valid role to advise the City Council on financial condition issues and the City Council Retains the right to change the budget if they want to. I've made many points in the past about trends on expenses and revenues that appear to be very different than what's in the budget and For various reasons, not many of which I frankly understand.

The city council and the city administration is reticent to change the approved budget in situations that I think it's obvious the numbers are going to come in

different. Every month I'm asking the question how are we doing on the budget? I'm asking on the revenue and the expense side because I want us to be somewhat argue It all depends on do you think we overspent or not but I would argue we did not overspend that's my opinion But I'm continuing to ask those questions so that we can make prudent decisions. But this does sound like, again, part of that conversation that we can

have. And I would in no way dissuade you or criticize that. That's exactly what you should be doing. But to the extent that you publish a number that's seven digits accurate quote unquote and it's based on an assumption or forecast that you've done that has not had any review let alone approval. This

feels like a different subject than what we're talking about right now.

Well, the whole city is going to see 4.1, 5.6, 4.5. What they need to know is those are unblessed by anybody.

I don't think anybody's confused about that. Basically, the Finance and Budget Committee is reviewing a draft budget document. They're offering their input and feedback. Thank you for that. This will eventually go through one more meeting of this committee and then we'll go to the City Council. I don' think that anybody here, and if they are listening or watching, this is a draft and we are reviewing this with this committee. It's not to be proposed as-is adopted. I'm sure there will be some tweaks that we make along the way so just to make that abundantly clear, that's what we're doing.

That's a good clarification and the way I would say it is this is the sausage factory And so don't get too worked up about in the middle of the process.

I would just Say that there are not going to be wild Discrepancies and crazy amounts of money that are gonna be swinging around because this is pretty close to what will be coming back To the City Council, but we will certainly be incorporating feedback received

Thank you for that

So Brenda, just to clarify. So the 16085 will be updated based on what the actual audit numbers come out as the actual expenditures for the general fund?

Yes, correct.

Right. So depending upon what that is all these other numbers could change. OK.

16085,

that's the 2425 number. Is that correct?

No, 2526. The budgeted and the projected are both the same there? But it's 100% reserved

so it's going against the prior year's operating expenses. So do we know where we're at, when the audit is going to be completed?

We are still in progress with the 24-25 audit. Not the ideal timeline that we had anticipated but due to some department vacancies and transitions you know it's still in progress at this moment.

Would you expect that to be wildly different than this number of the audit findings?

No I do not

So when do you expect to have your audit completed?

I don't have an exact timeline for you right now, but it's a conversation I can have with you once I meet again with the auditors.

So is it like any week now or any month now?

What's hinging on this for you?

Well, because that's going to impact a lot of other things I think down the road, future meetings we have. Like

how much money is in the reserve?

Right.

Well, I could point out one obvious thing and that is there are several balance sheet issues that are reflected in the forecast budget but are not in the preliminary numbers because that was just P&L stuff So, for instance, we've got some very large swings of balances between various funds which we are completely in the dark with regard to whether they make sense or not until we see what the quote-unquote starting real balances were which will come out of that audit.

It doesn't seem as wild to me as you're characterizing it myself.

Multiple millions is wild. I just want to point out that we're quibbling over whether we have 20 million or 21 or 22 million in the bank, so let's just please focus on that. This is a huge amount of cash to be sitting on. We're a city with no debt and so whether we have 21, 22, 23, yes, I do agree we should know exactly how much but we also do not have direction to spend that. This is money that is sitting there.

** Spoken like a non-CPA. CPAs have a much different point of view when it

comes to... ** When I ask the question, do you expect that those numbers are going to be wildly different after the audit? And I'm hearing the department say they will not be wildly different than when we say oh there's a lot hinging on that doesn't seem real. That's how it appears to me.

Well, I don't want to elongate this more than the forum is agreeable to but there are some very significant fund transfer numbers and fund spending numbers. And I sent you all a lengthy note yesterday which Highlighted a number of those that Sort of thing could be second-guessed or adjusted based on what a final number for last year's year end turned out to be but so

Please proceed. Yes. Thank you

So that was the presentation for General Fund. If there's no other questions, I'm going to move on to Measure C projects and also our Public Works Director Lindy Palmer is here to discuss next fiscal year's capital improvement projects but this slide just shows some of the highlights of the project. Some of the timing of what was currently budgeted for this fiscal year will shift Part of the amendments that we'll see at the next meeting.

But with that, I'd like to invite our Public Works Director.

So these are proposed for 20 26 27, this

is our proposed CIP for the next fiscal year. Yes new projects only yes

And if I could just set the stage a little bit This is also a presentation on its own right and the next City Council meeting Thank you. So this is this what you're receiving in But if we have an extra copy, of course Mr. Miley and Andrea can have one absolutely What I was just pointing out to the committee into the audience is this is a draft This is going to be further revised it's going to be presented to the City Council for their review at the May 26 meeting And based upon that, it will then be incorporated into the proposed budget which will come forward on June 9th.

So this is a draft we are talking about.

So what you have in front of you is the department and, of course, city manager and accounting. We have all financed, we've all worked together on looking at our pot of gold that we can spend on CIP projects for next year. It kind of shrunk a little bit but I think we have 14 new projects so about projects that we awarded, we had awarded by City Council in this current fiscal year. For example our paving project that is just underway now. So those are things that are already under way in the current years budget so I'm only talking about today New budgeted items for next fiscal year. Mayor, do you have a question? No. Okay, okay. So the first sheet is an 8 1⁄2 by 11 and it kind of gives you a brief overview of what our five-year CIPs, so we put a five-year CIP together every year.

So year one is the following fiscal year and then so on and so forth. So we've got that table on the top of the eight and a half by 11, and then at the bottom of that, we've got the revenue sources that we have identified for all of these new projects that we have. We would we are proposing for next fiscal year. Any questions over? I'm happy to take questions as we go if you have any.

So these are the same numbers that are in the budget for Yes. Okay, well

Well it wouldn't be I'm looking at page one of what's in our packet Where you see measure C project highlights and I see there's eight projects That's the city facility energy all the way down to the speed humps with dollar amounts attached

yes

That's what we're focusing on today, correct? Yes.

So what we have done and Brenda you can maybe chime in on this one I'm talking about the projects were doing not necessarily the accounting of them so we've got I can just kind of give you a brief overview so we've got let's just say we have five million dollars today in our paving line item. We're not going to spend all that money this year, so what we're going to do is reduce this year's actuals and that would be our amended budget but the balance carries into the next year.

So you will see like you'll see like the paving budget, you'll see a blip for next year because it looks like we're doing two projects next year because two projects will be paid for next year. So questions on that? So so what I would like to talk about today is just the new projects, not what the account, what it looks like in your budget, just the new projects.

So and the budgeted amount for that. So I'm on now on page two of the big the long sheet That starts with, at the top of the page in red it's streets. So we have these based on all our categories. We have streets and we have parking lots, we have climate mitigation etc., facilities and things like that. So on the first sheet, our first line and I'm looking at this. The third column over that says year one fiscal year 2627. So our budget for the current year is four and a half million for our paving project. We are reducing that next year to two and a half million.

So we have that's for the construction of our paving project next year. And then the 250 below that is for the design for the following year's construction, which is typical of what we do. And we go down to the next amount and I'm just going to go down that column and wherever the cell is populated in year one. So that's what I'm focusing on today. So the next one is 600000, and that is for the second part of our ATP project. So that's the part from the Y all the way through town.

This is not Measure C funded. This is all external funding So I'm not talking about any particular funding source right now, but I can afterwards. Can I just

ask you about that because phase two ATP, I know it stopped in front of the Ben Franklin parking lot? It did

and we're picking it up there. Oh. I say the Y, I mean in that general area, but we're picking it up at Valerio going to the Y and coming up Ojai Avenue. Okay,

thanks Renee because yeah. Thank

you.

That's a that's a kind of a gap where you see Oh it needs to go a little further

and I

was

expecting it in phase one But I knew it wasn't planned or paid for for phase one And and I thought that was just going to be the phase two but you're saying phase two includes that in The

Ohio it does okay and and just To make note Caltrans doesn't include this phase 1 and phase 2 they don't consider it two phases of the same project We do for talking points, but it's really all one project. Construction happened last year on Phase 1. Construction hopefully will happen in a year or so out. The $600,000 is not the major construction element. It's the design which we're still working with Caltrans on. And you see in year two that $4.5 million.

The next year? The next year, and we were able to public work staff Jackie and I were able to secure a four-and-a-half million dollar grant for that so we have just done that the last six eight months. So yeah, so we've got funding for the whole project.

That's amazing news!

Yeah, so we're kind of excited for that. Does that

show up on your revenues as a grant?

No because I only have year one our only our budget year okay So that's all I'm talking about. I don't have the revenue and all that So the next line item down is a hundred and fifty thousand And that's for our concrete and sidewalk repairs that we add to our paving project We're doing that now, we plan on doing that again next year curbs and gutters and you know broken up sidewalks as we can On the streets that were planning on paving Mayor, you'll love this one.

Speed hump installation. So this is just sort of... It is a swag. We have no idea what that figure is really going to be. I'm bringing back a speed hump policy in the next month or so and the council needs to decide how permissive or how restrictive that policy ends up being because I suspect that there will be many requests. Anyways, if we just

ask how much per

it's about seven to eight thousand dollars per speed hump. And that's that's I'm trying to think of a road with it. That's about a 12 foot speed.

OK,

so road width single lane is about twelve feet.

That's what our Public Safety Commission hopefully will help vet.

Yes. So it's not inexpensive, you know? And also the general the general rule of thumb, if you have it over a long stretch of roadway They say somewhere between three and four hundred feet apart So there might be four speed humps on a street. So that's 30,000 so there's some costs involved for sure So that's that's what we've got first streets any questions before I carry on Okay, so I'm going on to page 3 And we have, this is our parks category.

So at the very top we have 250,000 and I think that was on Brenda's slide for Measure C so we are hoping to do something with the bathrooms at Libby. There's quite a few challenges there, there's some problems with the sewer there and we'll start really looking into that and seeing what we can do to improve that.

I don't know if I'm correct, but I've been told from people with parks and rec that there's an issue like you said with the sewer. Coming into the ticket booth area. So I know that you just have restrooms on here, but will you look take a deeper dive?

You know we'll take a deeper dive on the whole sewer system there It's so it's a very convoluted situation We understand that the restaurants that are along Ojai Avenue Just east of the park are tied into the lateral for the bathrooms at Libbey Park and And so there's this, yeah it's a mess. So we will be looking at that comprehensively for sure. Thank you. Can

I ask one question? So when I see as you just pointed out, so there is the Libbey Park restrooms and then when I look at page 1 of our packet, the one that's in the upper right hand corner where you see the overview of everything Where it has the Measure C project highlights, Libbey Park Restrooms and Improvements 325. So I'm assuming, I see that your dollar amount's here and there must be some more things related to Libbey Park.

So I'm not sure because I don't know what you're looking at, but I would guess that we have some other miscellaneous improvements going on at Libbey Park. Is that the $75,000? Okay so that gets you to the $325,000. We've had some requests from the music folks who would like some improvements happening, so we're planning on kind of addressing some of those as well.

At long last, it appears that we will be working on a new playground at Sarasota. The good news with that? That's all external funding. We have a parks grant for that money or for that project so that will not hit our general fund or our Measure C, any local funding.