Fiscal staff told the board July 10 that 42 proposed budget suggestions had been submitted for pricing and committee recommendations. Staff said the board would not decide which items to fund at the July 10 meeting but rather would receive priced options and a staff/fiscal-committee recommendation to inform decisions scheduled at the July 24 meeting.
Budget staff (presenting as “Mr. Verne” in the public session) described the process used to estimate costs: the team relied on prior similar projects and departmental experience rather than soliciting vendor quotes for every line item. He said votes from directors on which suggestions to advance were due by July 14 so staff could assemble buckets and recommendations for the July 24 meeting.
Directors pressed staff for clearer classification of items that could be covered from ongoing operating funds versus those that would require new capital allocations. Staff agreed to flag items that could be covered from current operating budgets and to clarify full life-cycle or operations-and-maintenance (O&M) impacts. Examples discussed in detail included:
- Trash cans: staff listed $1,500 per decorative trash-can sleeve as a purchase/install cost; directors asked staff to add O&M costs (emptying/collection) to any estimate of net new recurring expense.
- Tennis courts: a pair of items — gate/lock installs and a court-monitoring solution — shared a common objective: understanding and controlling access and usage. Staff said the suggested equipment estimates are based on past purchases and that they will update counts (for example, number of gate locations) in the next draft.
- Condition assessment program: staff proposed $100,000 for the current tranche and an additional $50,000–$100,000 in 2026 to complete buildings, bridges and pools, noting courts could be the last tranche. Directors discussed treating the condition-assessment program as a multi-year initiative and aligning it with the reserve study.
- RA mobile app and website mobile optimization: staff indicated a CivicPlus mobile solution is available but that cost estimates were not finalized; staff promised a price for the next packet.
- Election vendor RFP: the committee reported an RFP issued June 16 with responses due July 14 and described a timeline to shortlist vendors in late July and hold demonstrations in August; the committee asked for an informational executive-session briefing before a contract is finalized (staff noted contracts under $100,000 do not require board approval, though the board signaled interest in an executive-session briefing prior to contract award).
Fiscal staff said some items would be deferred to later months (for example, pool items already funded in the prior year), and that staff would mark which suggested items were on track to be funded from existing operating budgets. Directors requested the next packet to include clearer columns for expected funding source (operating vs. capital), recurring O&M implications and precise quantities where estimates now use placeholders.
Staff will revise the spreadsheet and send a reminder to directors; the fiscal-committee column on the spreadsheet includes “yes,” “no” and “no opinion” indicators representing the committee’s review of member benefit. Directors said duplicate items (for example multiple kayak-storage requests) should be consolidated in staff recommendations.