|
2
<br />4
<br />5
<br />6
<br />7
<br />8
<br />9
<br />10
<br />11
<br />12
<br />13
<br />14
<br />15
<br />16
<br />17
<br />18
<br />19
<br />20
<br />21
<br />22
<br />23
<br />24
<br />25
<br />26
<br />27
<br />28
<br />29
<br />30
<br />31
<br />32
<br />33
<br />34
<br />35
<br />36
<br />37
<br />38
<br />39
<br />40
<br />41
<br />42
<br />43
<br />44
<br />45
<br />46
<br />City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
<br />July 14, 2026
<br />Page 7
<br />residents can identify all relevant information associated with the decision. She noted that the
<br />June 23rd minutes stated that no one appeared to address the Council and that the meeting
<br />adjourned at 7:12 p.m., even though she had prepared comments regarding the 2050
<br />Comprehensive Plan and Resident -Centered Engagement, which she was unable to present. She
<br />noted that since the Comp Plan was not on the agenda tonight, she was not asking for formal
<br />action on her comments, but asked that they be taken as supplemental comments and be utilized
<br />and preserved for the future. She asked the Council to clarify how items submitted regarding the
<br />Comp Plan will be cataloged, reviewed, answered, and reflected in the plan. She noted that
<br />residents need a visible feedback loop. She commented that Resolution 26-048 presents a more
<br />urgent visibility issue. She noted that the resolution authorizes Staff to enter into a contract with
<br />an unnamed security firm for 19,682.13 dollars. She stated that this only covers the cannabis
<br />alarm and access control in Wellington's proposal and that the complete project is around 78,000
<br />dollars, not including taxes and fees. She requested that, before approval, Council clarify which
<br />equipment, installation, and recurring services the 19,682.13 dollars covers, and how additional
<br />services would be approved. She requested that Council explain which additional fees will be
<br />included in the "all -in" security costs. She also requested that the Council explain how they
<br />determined the lowest responsible bidder. She stated that the contract with the security company
<br />should be made public once it is agreed upon, so the public can determine whether the quote
<br />matches its scope. She reflected that the City received a clean opinion their 2025 Financial
<br />Audit, which she stated was positive. She noted that the presentation identified findings on
<br />financial statement corrections and on legal compliance related to payments not made within a
<br />35-day window. She stated that the prior year's presentation was the same standard format but
<br />did not reflect these findings. She asked the Council to identify the reason for the finding, the
<br />remedial action, the individual responsible, the expected completion date, and when the Council
<br />will be informed of whether the corrective action was successful. She questioned why the slides
<br />showed a 56 percent fund balance, compared with a display policy range of 35-50 percent. She
<br />also asked why the calculation labeled with a 2026 expenditure budget is labeled the net 2025
<br />budget. She commented that the 2026 Mid -Year Report included several numerical
<br />inconsistencies. She stated that the scorecard showed a gross profit of approximately 754,000
<br />dollars. In comparison, the next slide reports 764,928 dollars in sales and 2,857,225 dollars,
<br />compared to 3,164,899 dollars, representing a decrease of 307,674 dollars, not 308,263 dollars.
<br />She stated that the cost of goods sold decreased by 231,868 dollars, not 210,760 dollars. She
<br />stated that gross profit decreased by 750,807, not 519,023 dollars. She stated that salaries, wages,
<br />and benefits increased by 450,196 dollars, not 230,169 dollars. She finished by saying that other
<br />expenses decreased by 7,460 dollars, not increased by the amount shown. She stated that she
<br />believed the larger operational result also needed to be discussed. Dr. Neumann stated that in the
<br />mid -year of 2025, retail operations reported a profit of around 83,269 dollars. She compared this
<br />to the loss for this year, totaling 30,274 dollars. She commented that this is a yearly deterioration.
<br />She asked the Council to clarify the result of these losses. She asked that the project profit be
<br />accompanied by its assumptions and a reconciliation showing how the operation reaches the
<br />year-end figure. Dr. Neumann asked the Council to ensure arithmetic is validated in the future,
<br />especially when they are approving theorized funds. She reiterated the points of Resolution 26-
<br />050, noting it must be paid back in 10 years and accrues 4.5 percent annual interest, along with
<br />the fact that payments will initially be made instead of rent. She questioned why the packet
<br />contains no amortization schedule, payment start date, minimum payment, rent valuation, or
<br />required reporting schedule. She wished that, before approval, the Council had required all of
<br />
|