Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupplemental Communications from Mayor LandauQuestion: Why was there a payment to Studio 111 for $23,200? What was this for? I thought we put this on hold until we had the committee formed. What is the total that has been paid to Studio 111 to date? Response: The $23,200 payment was the final payment for the Vision Plan work that had already been completed by Studio 111. No new or additional work was authorized or performed beyond that scope. The Vision Plan was not an item that sta Ư arbitrarily initiated. The work has been previously discussed and budgeted under ST2009 – Main Street Improvement Program and has been reiterated through prior strategic planning sessions. The work was performed under an existing on-call agreement with Studio 111, which was approved by the City Council on August 12, 2024, for on-call engineering, design, and related services at a not-to-exceed amount of $300,000. In addition, the scope of work was included in the Council-approved FY25/26 budget and, because the cost of this scope of work was within the contract’s not-to-exceed limit, did not involve the use of the City Manager’s individual signing authority. Per Finance, a total of $60,000 has been paid to Studio 111 to date. The Vision Plan work is now complete, and there is no further work underway or planned. Please let me know if you would like any additional details. Question: The payment made to Flowbird looks like it is for the kiosks for parking around town. Do we pay them monthly? How is broken down and what are we paying them for? Response: The City pays Flowbird a flat monthly fee for the maintenance and support for all of the parking pay stations. Question: Can you please tell me what warrant item, HB Loan Pymt #31 $23,310.40, is for. Response: This is the West Orange County Water Board (WOCWB) loan payment portion to fund the OC-35 relocation for the I-405 widening project that the City currently has. Question: In looking at the warrants, especially payments to Debra Reilly, it appears to me to be related to the PD. If that is the case, can money spent on complaints be taken out of the PD's budget and not the general fund? Just curious about the mechanics of that. While it may appear that legal fees associated with Police Department matters could be paid directly from the PD budget, from a budgetary and accounting standpoint they already are supported by the General Fund. Both the Police Department budget and the City Attorney’s budget are funded from the General Fund. Legal services for all departments are centralized in the City Attorney’s budget rather than allocated to individual department budgets. This approach is intentional and ensures consistency, appropriate oversight, and e Ưicient management of legal services citywide. It also allows us greater tracking. Question: Why was there a payment to Studio 111 for $23,200? What was this for? I thought we put this on hold until we had the committee formed. What is the total that has been paid to Studio 111 to date? Response: The $23,200 payment was the final payment for the Vision Plan work that had already been completed by Studio 111. No new or additional work was authorized or performed beyond that scope. The Vision Plan was not an item that sta Ư arbitrarily initiated. The work has been previously discussed and budgeted under ST2009 – Main Street Improvement Program and has been reiterated through prior strategic planning sessions. The work was performed under an existing on-call agreement with Studio 111, which was approved by the City Council on August 12, 2024, for on-call engineering, design, and related services at a not-to-exceed amount of $300,000. In addition, the scope of work was included in the Council-approved FY25/26 budget and, because the cost of this scope of work was within the contract’s not-to-exceed limit, did not involve the use of the City Manager’s individual signing authority. Per Finance, a total of $60,000 has been paid to Studio 111 to date. The Vision Plan work is now complete, and there is no further work underway or planned. Please let me know if you would like any additional details. Question: The payment made to Flowbird looks like it is for the kiosks for parking around town. Do we pay them monthly? How is broken down and what are we paying them for? Response: The City pays Flowbird a flat monthly fee for the maintenance and support for all of the parking pay stations. Question: Can you please tell me what warrant item, HB Loan Pymt #31 $23,310.40, is for. Response: This is the West Orange County Water Board (WOCWB) loan payment portion to fund the OC-35 relocation for the I-405 widening project that the City currently has. Question: In looking at the warrants, especially payments to Debra Reilly, it appears to me to be related to the PD. If that is the case, can money spent on complaints be taken out of the PD's budget and not the general fund? Just curious about the mechanics of that. While it may appear that legal fees associated with Police Department matters could be paid directly from the PD budget, from a budgetary and accounting standpoint they already are supported by the General Fund. Both the Police Department budget and the City Attorney’s budget are funded from the General Fund. Legal services for all departments are centralized in the City Attorney’s budget rather than allocated to individual department budgets. This approach is intentional and ensures consistency, appropriate oversight, and e Ưicient management of legal services citywide. It also allows us greater tracking. Question: Why was there a payment to Studio 111 for $23,200? What was this for? I thought we put this on hold until we had the committee formed. What is the total that has been paid to Studio 111 to date? Response: The $23,200 payment was the final payment for the Vision Plan work that had already been completed by Studio 111. No new or additional work was authorized or performed beyond that scope. The Vision Plan was not an item that sta Ư arbitrarily initiated. The work has been previously discussed and budgeted under ST2009 – Main Street Improvement Program and has been reiterated through prior strategic planning sessions. The work was performed under an existing on-call agreement with Studio 111, which was approved by the City Council on August 12, 2024, for on-call engineering, design, and related services at a not-to-exceed amount of $300,000. In addition, the scope of work was included in the Council-approved FY25/26 budget and, because the cost of this scope of work was within the contract’s not-to-exceed limit, did not involve the use of the City Manager’s individual signing authority. Per Finance, a total of $60,000 has been paid to Studio 111 to date. The Vision Plan work is now complete, and there is no further work underway or planned. Please let me know if you would like any additional details. Question: The payment made to Flowbird looks like it is for the kiosks for parking around town. Do we pay them monthly? How is broken down and what are we paying them for? Response: The City pays Flowbird a flat monthly fee for the maintenance and support for all of the parking pay stations. Question: Can you please tell me what warrant item, HB Loan Pymt #31 $23,310.40, is for. Response: This is the West Orange County Water Board (WOCWB) loan payment portion to fund the OC-35 relocation for the I-405 widening project that the City currently has. Question: In looking at the warrants, especially payments to Debra Reilly, it appears to me to be related to the PD. If that is the case, can money spent on complaints be taken out of the PD's budget and not the general fund? Just curious about the mechanics of that. While it may appear that legal fees associated with Police Department matters could be paid directly from the PD budget, from a budgetary and accounting standpoint they already are supported by the General Fund. Both the Police Department budget and the City Attorney’s budget are funded from the General Fund. Legal services for all departments are centralized in the City Attorney’s budget rather than allocated to individual department budgets. This approach is intentional and ensures consistency, appropriate oversight, and e Ưicient management of legal services citywide. It also allows us greater tracking. Question: Why was there a payment to Studio 111 for $23,200? What was this for? I thought we put this on hold until we had the committee formed. What is the total that has been paid to Studio 111 to date? Response: The $23,200 payment was the final payment for the Vision Plan work that had already been completed by Studio 111. No new or additional work was authorized or performed beyond that scope. The Vision Plan was not an item that sta Ư arbitrarily initiated. The work has been previously discussed and budgeted under ST2009 – Main Street Improvement Program and has been reiterated through prior strategic planning sessions. The work was performed under an existing on-call agreement with Studio 111, which was approved by the City Council on August 12, 2024, for on-call engineering, design, and related services at a not-to-exceed amount of $300,000. In addition, the scope of work was included in the Council-approved FY25/26 budget and, because the cost of this scope of work was within the contract’s not-to-exceed limit, did not involve the use of the City Manager’s individual signing authority. Per Finance, a total of $60,000 has been paid to Studio 111 to date. The Vision Plan work is now complete, and there is no further work underway or planned. Please let me know if you would like any additional details. Question: The payment made to Flowbird looks like it is for the kiosks for parking around town. Do we pay them monthly? How is broken down and what are we paying them for? Response: The City pays Flowbird a flat monthly fee for the maintenance and support for all of the parking pay stations. Question: Can you please tell me what warrant item, HB Loan Pymt #31 $23,310.40, is for. Response: This is the West Orange County Water Board (WOCWB) loan payment portion to fund the OC-35 relocation for the I-405 widening project that the City currently has. Question: In looking at the warrants, especially payments to Debra Reilly, it appears to me to be related to the PD. If that is the case, can money spent on complaints be taken out of the PD's budget and not the general fund? Just curious about the mechanics of that. While it may appear that legal fees associated with Police Department matters could be paid directly from the PD budget, from a budgetary and accounting standpoint they already are supported by the General Fund. Both the Police Department budget and the City Attorney’s budget are funded from the General Fund. Legal services for all departments are centralized in the City Attorney’s budget rather than allocated to individual department budgets. This approach is intentional and ensures consistency, appropriate oversight, and e Ưicient management of legal services citywide. It also allows us greater tracking. Question: Why was there a payment to Studio 111 for $23,200? What was this for? I thought we put this on hold until we had the committee formed. What is the total that has been paid to Studio 111 to date? Response: The $23,200 payment was the final payment for the Vision Plan work that had already been completed by Studio 111. No new or additional work was authorized or performed beyond that scope. The Vision Plan was not an item that sta Ư arbitrarily initiated. The work has been previously discussed and budgeted under ST2009 – Main Street Improvement Program and has been reiterated through prior strategic planning sessions. The work was performed under an existing on-call agreement with Studio 111, which was approved by the City Council on August 12, 2024, for on-call engineering, design, and related services at a not-to-exceed amount of $300,000. In addition, the scope of work was included in the Council-approved FY25/26 budget and, because the cost of this scope of work was within the contract’s not-to-exceed limit, did not involve the use of the City Manager’s individual signing authority. Per Finance, a total of $60,000 has been paid to Studio 111 to date. The Vision Plan work is now complete, and there is no further work underway or planned. Please let me know if you would like any additional details. Question: The payment made to Flowbird looks like it is for the kiosks for parking around town. Do we pay them monthly? How is broken down and what are we paying them for? Response: The City pays Flowbird a flat monthly fee for the maintenance and support for all of the parking pay stations. Question: Can you please tell me what warrant item, HB Loan Pymt #31 $23,310.40, is for. Response: This is the West Orange County Water Board (WOCWB) loan payment portion to fund the OC-35 relocation for the I-405 widening project that the City currently has. Question: In looking at the warrants, especially payments to Debra Reilly, it appears to me to be related to the PD. If that is the case, can money spent on complaints be taken out of the PD's budget and not the general fund? Just curious about the mechanics of that. While it may appear that legal fees associated with Police Department matters could be paid directly from the PD budget, from a budgetary and accounting standpoint they already are supported by the General Fund. Both the Police Department budget and the City Attorney’s budget are funded from the General Fund. Legal services for all departments are centralized in the City Attorney’s budget rather than allocated to individual department budgets. This approach is intentional and ensures consistency, appropriate oversight, and e Ưicient management of legal services citywide. It also allows us greater tracking. Question: Why was there a payment to Studio 111 for $23,200? What was this for? I thought we put this on hold until we had the committee formed. What is the total that has been paid to Studio 111 to date? Response: The $23,200 payment was the final payment for the Vision Plan work that had already been completed by Studio 111. No new or additional work was authorized or performed beyond that scope. The Vision Plan was not an item that sta Ư arbitrarily initiated. The work has been previously discussed and budgeted under ST2009 – Main Street Improvement Program and has been reiterated through prior strategic planning sessions. The work was performed under an existing on-call agreement with Studio 111, which was approved by the City Council on August 12, 2024, for on-call engineering, design, and related services at a not-to-exceed amount of $300,000. In addition, the scope of work was included in the Council-approved FY25/26 budget and, because the cost of this scope of work was within the contract’s not-to-exceed limit, did not involve the use of the City Manager’s individual signing authority. Per Finance, a total of $60,000 has been paid to Studio 111 to date. The Vision Plan work is now complete, and there is no further work underway or planned. Please let me know if you would like any additional details. Question: The payment made to Flowbird looks like it is for the kiosks for parking around town. Do we pay them monthly? How is broken down and what are we paying them for? Response: The City pays Flowbird a flat monthly fee for the maintenance and support for all of the parking pay stations. Question: Can you please tell me what warrant item, HB Loan Pymt #31 $23,310.40, is for. Response: This is the West Orange County Water Board (WOCWB) loan payment portion to fund the OC-35 relocation for the I-405 widening project that the City currently has. Question: In looking at the warrants, especially payments to Debra Reilly, it appears to me to be related to the PD. If that is the case, can money spent on complaints be taken out of the PD's budget and not the general fund? Just curious about the mechanics of that. While it may appear that legal fees associated with Police Department matters could be paid directly from the PD budget, from a budgetary and accounting standpoint they already are supported by the General Fund. Both the Police Department budget and the City Attorney’s budget are funded from the General Fund. Legal services for all departments are centralized in the City Attorney’s budget rather than allocated to individual department budgets. This approach is intentional and ensures consistency, appropriate oversight, and e Ưicient management of legal services citywide. It also allows us greater tracking. Question: Why was there a payment to Studio 111 for $23,200? What was this for? I thought we put this on hold until we had the committee formed. What is the total that has been paid to Studio 111 to date? Response: The $23,200 payment was the final payment for the Vision Plan work that had already been completed by Studio 111. No new or additional work was authorized or performed beyond that scope. The Vision Plan was not an item that sta Ư arbitrarily initiated. The work has been previously discussed and budgeted under ST2009 – Main Street Improvement Program and has been reiterated through prior strategic planning sessions. The work was performed under an existing on-call agreement with Studio 111, which was approved by the City Council on August 12, 2024, for on-call engineering, design, and related services at a not-to-exceed amount of $300,000. In addition, the scope of work was included in the Council-approved FY25/26 budget and, because the cost of this scope of work was within the contract’s not-to-exceed limit, did not involve the use of the City Manager’s individual signing authority. Per Finance, a total of $60,000 has been paid to Studio 111 to date. The Vision Plan work is now complete, and there is no further work underway or planned. Please let me know if you would like any additional details. Question: The payment made to Flowbird looks like it is for the kiosks for parking around town. Do we pay them monthly? How is broken down and what are we paying them for? Response: The City pays Flowbird a flat monthly fee for the maintenance and support for all of the parking pay stations. Question: Can you please tell me what warrant item, HB Loan Pymt #31 $23,310.40, is for. Response: This is the West Orange County Water Board (WOCWB) loan payment portion to fund the OC-35 relocation for the I-405 widening project that the City currently has. Question: In looking at the warrants, especially payments to Debra Reilly, it appears to me to be related to the PD. If that is the case, can money spent on complaints be taken out of the PD's budget and not the general fund? Just curious about the mechanics of that. While it may appear that legal fees associated with Police Department matters could be paid directly from the PD budget, from a budgetary and accounting standpoint they already are supported by the General Fund. Both the Police Department budget and the City Attorney’s budget are funded from the General Fund. Legal services for all departments are centralized in the City Attorney’s budget rather than allocated to individual department budgets. This approach is intentional and ensures consistency, appropriate oversight, and e Ưicient management of legal services citywide. It also allows us greater tracking. Question: Why was there a payment to Studio 111 for $23,200? What was this for? I thought we put this on hold until we had the committee formed. What is the total that has been paid to Studio 111 to date? Response: The $23,200 payment was the final payment for the Vision Plan work that had already been completed by Studio 111. No new or additional work was authorized or performed beyond that scope. The Vision Plan was not an item that sta Ư arbitrarily initiated. The work has been previously discussed and budgeted under ST2009 – Main Street Improvement Program and has been reiterated through prior strategic planning sessions. The work was performed under an existing on-call agreement with Studio 111, which was approved by the City Council on August 12, 2024, for on-call engineering, design, and related services at a not-to-exceed amount of $300,000. In addition, the scope of work was included in the Council-approved FY25/26 budget and, because the cost of this scope of work was within the contract’s not-to-exceed limit, did not involve the use of the City Manager’s individual signing authority. Per Finance, a total of $60,000 has been paid to Studio 111 to date. The Vision Plan work is now complete, and there is no further work underway or planned. Please let me know if you would like any additional details. Question: The payment made to Flowbird looks like it is for the kiosks for parking around town. Do we pay them monthly? How is broken down and what are we paying them for? Response: The City pays Flowbird a flat monthly fee for the maintenance and support for all of the parking pay stations. Question: Can you please tell me what warrant item, HB Loan Pymt #31 $23,310.40, is for. Response: This is the West Orange County Water Board (WOCWB) loan payment portion to fund the OC-35 relocation for the I-405 widening project that the City currently has. Question: In looking at the warrants, especially payments to Debra Reilly, it appears to me to be related to the PD. If that is the case, can money spent on complaints be taken out of the PD's budget and not the general fund? Just curious about the mechanics of that. While it may appear that legal fees associated with Police Department matters could be paid directly from the PD budget, from a budgetary and accounting standpoint they already are supported by the General Fund. Both the Police Department budget and the City Attorney’s budget are funded from the General Fund. Legal services for all departments are centralized in the City Attorney’s budget rather than allocated to individual department budgets. This approach is intentional and ensures consistency, appropriate oversight, and e Ưicient management of legal services citywide. It also allows us greater tracking. Question: Why was there a payment to Studio 111 for $23,200? What was this for? I thought we put this on hold until we had the committee formed. What is the total that has been paid to Studio 111 to date? Response: The $23,200 payment was the final payment for the Vision Plan work that had already been completed by Studio 111. No new or additional work was authorized or performed beyond that scope. The Vision Plan was not an item that sta Ư arbitrarily initiated. The work has been previously discussed and budgeted under ST2009 – Main Street Improvement Program and has been reiterated through prior strategic planning sessions. The work was performed under an existing on-call agreement with Studio 111, which was approved by the City Council on August 12, 2024, for on-call engineering, design, and related services at a not-to-exceed amount of $300,000. In addition, the scope of work was included in the Council-approved FY25/26 budget and, because the cost of this scope of work was within the contract’s not-to-exceed limit, did not involve the use of the City Manager’s individual signing authority. Per Finance, a total of $60,000 has been paid to Studio 111 to date. The Vision Plan work is now complete, and there is no further work underway or planned. Please let me know if you would like any additional details. Question: The payment made to Flowbird looks like it is for the kiosks for parking around town. Do we pay them monthly? How is broken down and what are we paying them for? Response: The City pays Flowbird a flat monthly fee for the maintenance and support for all of the parking pay stations. Question: Can you please tell me what warrant item, HB Loan Pymt #31 $23,310.40, is for. Response: This is the West Orange County Water Board (WOCWB) loan payment portion to fund the OC-35 relocation for the I-405 widening project that the City currently has. Question: In looking at the warrants, especially payments to Debra Reilly, it appears to me to be related to the PD. If that is the case, can money spent on complaints be taken out of the PD's budget and not the general fund? Just curious about the mechanics of that. While it may appear that legal fees associated with Police Department matters could be paid directly from the PD budget, from a budgetary and accounting standpoint they already are supported by the General Fund. Both the Police Department budget and the City Attorney’s budget are funded from the General Fund. Legal services for all departments are centralized in the City Attorney’s budget rather than allocated to individual department budgets. This approach is intentional and ensures consistency, appropriate oversight, and e Ưicient management of legal services citywide. It also allows us greater tracking. Question: Why was there a payment to Studio 111 for $23,200? What was this for? I thought we put this on hold until we had the committee formed. What is the total that has been paid to Studio 111 to date? Response: The $23,200 payment was the final payment for the Vision Plan work that had already been completed by Studio 111. No new or additional work was authorized or performed beyond that scope. The Vision Plan was not an item that sta Ư arbitrarily initiated. The work has been previously discussed and budgeted under ST2009 – Main Street Improvement Program and has been reiterated through prior strategic planning sessions. The work was performed under an existing on-call agreement with Studio 111, which was approved by the City Council on August 12, 2024, for on-call engineering, design, and related services at a not-to-exceed amount of $300,000. In addition, the scope of work was included in the Council-approved FY25/26 budget and, because the cost of this scope of work was within the contract’s not-to-exceed limit, did not involve the use of the City Manager’s individual signing authority. Per Finance, a total of $60,000 has been paid to Studio 111 to date. The Vision Plan work is now complete, and there is no further work underway or planned. Please let me know if you would like any additional details. Question: The payment made to Flowbird looks like it is for the kiosks for parking around town. Do we pay them monthly? How is broken down and what are we paying them for? Response: The City pays Flowbird a flat monthly fee for the maintenance and support for all of the parking pay stations. Question: Can you please tell me what warrant item, HB Loan Pymt #31 $23,310.40, is for. Response: This is the West Orange County Water Board (WOCWB) loan payment portion to fund the OC-35 relocation for the I-405 widening project that the City currently has. Question: In looking at the warrants, especially payments to Debra Reilly, it appears to me to be related to the PD. If that is the case, can money spent on complaints be taken out of the PD's budget and not the general fund? Just curious about the mechanics of that. While it may appear that legal fees associated with Police Department matters could be paid directly from the PD budget, from a budgetary and accounting standpoint they already are supported by the General Fund. Both the Police Department budget and the City Attorney’s budget are funded from the General Fund. Legal services for all departments are centralized in the City Attorney’s budget rather than allocated to individual department budgets. This approach is intentional and ensures consistency, appropriate oversight, and e Ưicient management of legal services citywide. It also allows us greater tracking. Question: Why was there a payment to Studio 111 for $23,200? What was this for? I thought we put this on hold until we had the committee formed. What is the total that has been paid to Studio 111 to date? Response: The $23,200 payment was the final payment for the Vision Plan work that had already been completed by Studio 111. No new or additional work was authorized or performed beyond that scope. The Vision Plan was not an item that sta Ư arbitrarily initiated. The work has been previously discussed and budgeted under ST2009 – Main Street Improvement Program and has been reiterated through prior strategic planning sessions. The work was performed under an existing on-call agreement with Studio 111, which was approved by the City Council on August 12, 2024, for on-call engineering, design, and related services at a not-to-exceed amount of $300,000. In addition, the scope of work was included in the Council-approved FY25/26 budget and, because the cost of this scope of work was within the contract’s not-to-exceed limit, did not involve the use of the City Manager’s individual signing authority. Per Finance, a total of $60,000 has been paid to Studio 111 to date. The Vision Plan work is now complete, and there is no further work underway or planned. Please let me know if you would like any additional details. Question: The payment made to Flowbird looks like it is for the kiosks for parking around town. Do we pay them monthly? How is broken down and what are we paying them for? Response: The City pays Flowbird a flat monthly fee for the maintenance and support for all of the parking pay stations. Question: Can you please tell me what warrant item, HB Loan Pymt #31 $23,310.40, is for. Response: This is the West Orange County Water Board (WOCWB) loan payment portion to fund the OC-35 relocation for the I-405 widening project that the City currently has. Question: In looking at the warrants, especially payments to Debra Reilly, it appears to me to be related to the PD. If that is the case, can money spent on complaints be taken out of the PD's budget and not the general fund? Just curious about the mechanics of that. While it may appear that legal fees associated with Police Department matters could be paid directly from the PD budget, from a budgetary and accounting standpoint they already are supported by the General Fund. Both the Police Department budget and the City Attorney’s budget are funded from the General Fund. Legal services for all departments are centralized in the City Attorney’s budget rather than allocated to individual department budgets. This approach is intentional and ensures consistency, appropriate oversight, and e Ưicient management of legal services citywide. It also allows us greater tracking. Question: Why was there a payment to Studio 111 for $23,200? What was this for? I thought we put this on hold until we had the committee formed. What is the total that has been paid to Studio 111 to date? Response: The $23,200 payment was the final payment for the Vision Plan work that had already been completed by Studio 111. No new or additional work was authorized or performed beyond that scope. The Vision Plan was not an item that sta Ư arbitrarily initiated. The work has been previously discussed and budgeted under ST2009 – Main Street Improvement Program and has been reiterated through prior strategic planning sessions. The work was performed under an existing on-call agreement with Studio 111, which was approved by the City Council on August 12, 2024, for on-call engineering, design, and related services at a not-to-exceed amount of $300,000. In addition, the scope of work was included in the Council-approved FY25/26 budget and, because the cost of this scope of work was within the contract’s not-to-exceed limit, did not involve the use of the City Manager’s individual signing authority. Per Finance, a total of $60,000 has been paid to Studio 111 to date. The Vision Plan work is now complete, and there is no further work underway or planned. Please let me know if you would like any additional details. Question: The payment made to Flowbird looks like it is for the kiosks for parking around town. Do we pay them monthly? How is broken down and what are we paying them for? Response: The City pays Flowbird a flat monthly fee for the maintenance and support for all of the parking pay stations. Question: Can you please tell me what warrant item, HB Loan Pymt #31 $23,310.40, is for. Response: This is the West Orange County Water Board (WOCWB) loan payment portion to fund the OC-35 relocation for the I-405 widening project that the City currently has. Question: In looking at the warrants, especially payments to Debra Reilly, it appears to me to be related to the PD. If that is the case, can money spent on complaints be taken out of the PD's budget and not the general fund? Just curious about the mechanics of that. While it may appear that legal fees associated with Police Department matters could be paid directly from the PD budget, from a budgetary and accounting standpoint they already are supported by the General Fund. Both the Police Department budget and the City Attorney’s budget are funded from the General Fund. Legal services for all departments are centralized in the City Attorney’s budget rather than allocated to individual department budgets. This approach is intentional and ensures consistency, appropriate oversight, and e Ưicient management of legal services citywide. It also allows us greater tracking. Question: Why was there a payment to Studio 111 for $23,200? What was this for? I thought we put this on hold until we had the committee formed. What is the total that has been paid to Studio 111 to date? Response: The $23,200 payment was the final payment for the Vision Plan work that had already been completed by Studio 111. No new or additional work was authorized or performed beyond that scope. The Vision Plan was not an item that sta Ư arbitrarily initiated. The work has been previously discussed and budgeted under ST2009 – Main Street Improvement Program and has been reiterated through prior strategic planning sessions. The work was performed under an existing on-call agreement with Studio 111, which was approved by the City Council on August 12, 2024, for on-call engineering, design, and related services at a not-to-exceed amount of $300,000. In addition, the scope of work was included in the Council-approved FY25/26 budget and, because the cost of this scope of work was within the contract’s not-to-exceed limit, did not involve the use of the City Manager’s individual signing authority. Per Finance, a total of $60,000 has been paid to Studio 111 to date. The Vision Plan work is now complete, and there is no further work underway or planned. Please let me know if you would like any additional details. Question: The payment made to Flowbird looks like it is for the kiosks for parking around town. Do we pay them monthly? How is broken down and what are we paying them for? Response: The City pays Flowbird a flat monthly fee for the maintenance and support for all of the parking pay stations. Question: Can you please tell me what warrant item, HB Loan Pymt #31 $23,310.40, is for. Response: This is the West Orange County Water Board (WOCWB) loan payment portion to fund the OC-35 relocation for the I-405 widening project that the City currently has. Question: In looking at the warrants, especially payments to Debra Reilly, it appears to me to be related to the PD. If that is the case, can money spent on complaints be taken out of the PD's budget and not the general fund? Just curious about the mechanics of that. While it may appear that legal fees associated with Police Department matters could be paid directly from the PD budget, from a budgetary and accounting standpoint they already are supported by the General Fund. Both the Police Department budget and the City Attorney’s budget are funded from the General Fund. Legal services for all departments are centralized in the City Attorney’s budget rather than allocated to individual department budgets. This approach is intentional and ensures consistency, appropriate oversight, and e Ưicient management of legal services citywide. It also allows us greater tracking. Question: Why was there a payment to Studio 111 for $23,200? What was this for? I thought we put this on hold until we had the committee formed. What is the total that has been paid to Studio 111 to date? Response: The $23,200 payment was the final payment for the Vision Plan work that had already been completed by Studio 111. No new or additional work was authorized or performed beyond that scope. The Vision Plan was not an item that sta Ư arbitrarily initiated. The work has been previously discussed and budgeted under ST2009 – Main Street Improvement Program and has been reiterated through prior strategic planning sessions. The work was performed under an existing on-call agreement with Studio 111, which was approved by the City Council on August 12, 2024, for on-call engineering, design, and related services at a not-to-exceed amount of $300,000. In addition, the scope of work was included in the Council-approved FY25/26 budget and, because the cost of this scope of work was within the contract’s not-to-exceed limit, did not involve the use of the City Manager’s individual signing authority. Per Finance, a total of $60,000 has been paid to Studio 111 to date. The Vision Plan work is now complete, and there is no further work underway or planned. Please let me know if you would like any additional details. Question: The payment made to Flowbird looks like it is for the kiosks for parking around town. Do we pay them monthly? How is broken down and what are we paying them for? Response: The City pays Flowbird a flat monthly fee for the maintenance and support for all of the parking pay stations. Question: Can you please tell me what warrant item, HB Loan Pymt #31 $23,310.40, is for. Response: This is the West Orange County Water Board (WOCWB) loan payment portion to fund the OC-35 relocation for the I-405 widening project that the City currently has. Question: In looking at the warrants, especially payments to Debra Reilly, it appears to me to be related to the PD. If that is the case, can money spent on complaints be taken out of the PD's budget and not the general fund? Just curious about the mechanics of that. While it may appear that legal fees associated with Police Department matters could be paid directly from the PD budget, from a budgetary and accounting standpoint they already are supported by the General Fund. Both the Police Department budget and the City Attorney’s budget are funded from the General Fund. Legal services for all departments are centralized in the City Attorney’s budget rather than allocated to individual department budgets. This approach is intentional and ensures consistency, appropriate oversight, and e Ưicient management of legal services citywide. It also allows us greater tracking. Question: Why was there a payment to Studio 111 for $23,200? What was this for? I thought we put this on hold until we had the committee formed. What is the total that has been paid to Studio 111 to date? Response: The $23,200 payment was the final payment for the Vision Plan work that had already been completed by Studio 111. No new or additional work was authorized or performed beyond that scope. The Vision Plan was not an item that sta Ư arbitrarily initiated. The work has been previously discussed and budgeted under ST2009 – Main Street Improvement Program and has been reiterated through prior strategic planning sessions. The work was performed under an existing on-call agreement with Studio 111, which was approved by the City Council on August 12, 2024, for on-call engineering, design, and related services at a not-to-exceed amount of $300,000. In addition, the scope of work was included in the Council-approved FY25/26 budget and, because the cost of this scope of work was within the contract’s not-to-exceed limit, did not involve the use of the City Manager’s individual signing authority. Per Finance, a total of $60,000 has been paid to Studio 111 to date. The Vision Plan work is now complete, and there is no further work underway or planned. Please let me know if you would like any additional details. Question: The payment made to Flowbird looks like it is for the kiosks for parking around town. Do we pay them monthly? How is broken down and what are we paying them for? Response: The City pays Flowbird a flat monthly fee for the maintenance and support for all of the parking pay stations. Question: Can you please tell me what warrant item, HB Loan Pymt #31 $23,310.40, is for. Response: This is the West Orange County Water Board (WOCWB) loan payment portion to fund the OC-35 relocation for the I-405 widening project that the City currently has. Question: In looking at the warrants, especially payments to Debra Reilly, it appears to me to be related to the PD. If that is the case, can money spent on complaints be taken out of the PD's budget and not the general fund? Just curious about the mechanics of that. While it may appear that legal fees associated with Police Department matters could be paid directly from the PD budget, from a budgetary and accounting standpoint they already are supported by the General Fund. Both the Police Department budget and the City Attorney’s budget are funded from the General Fund. Legal services for all departments are centralized in the City Attorney’s budget rather than allocated to individual department budgets. This approach is intentional and ensures consistency, appropriate oversight, and e Ưicient management of legal services citywide. It also allows us greater tracking. Question: Why was there a payment to Studio 111 for $23,200? What was this for? I thought we put this on hold until we had the committee formed. What is the total that has been paid to Studio 111 to date? Response: The $23,200 payment was the final payment for the Vision Plan work that had already been completed by Studio 111. No new or additional work was authorized or performed beyond that scope. The Vision Plan was not an item that sta Ư arbitrarily initiated. The work has been previously discussed and budgeted under ST2009 – Main Street Improvement Program and has been reiterated through prior strategic planning sessions. The work was performed under an existing on-call agreement with Studio 111, which was approved by the City Council on August 12, 2024, for on-call engineering, design, and related services at a not-to-exceed amount of $300,000. In addition, the scope of work was included in the Council-approved FY25/26 budget and, because the cost of this scope of work was within the contract’s not-to-exceed limit, did not involve the use of the City Manager’s individual signing authority. Per Finance, a total of $60,000 has been paid to Studio 111 to date. The Vision Plan work is now complete, and there is no further work underway or planned. Please let me know if you would like any additional details. Question: The payment made to Flowbird looks like it is for the kiosks for parking around town. Do we pay them monthly? How is broken down and what are we paying them for? Response: The City pays Flowbird a flat monthly fee for the maintenance and support for all of the parking pay stations. Question: Can you please tell me what warrant item, HB Loan Pymt #31 $23,310.40, is for. Response: This is the West Orange County Water Board (WOCWB) loan payment portion to fund the OC-35 relocation for the I-405 widening project that the City currently has. Question: In looking at the warrants, especially payments to Debra Reilly, it appears to me to be related to the PD. If that is the case, can money spent on complaints be taken out of the PD's budget and not the general fund? Just curious about the mechanics of that. While it may appear that legal fees associated with Police Department matters could be paid directly from the PD budget, from a budgetary and accounting standpoint they already are supported by the General Fund. Both the Police Department budget and the City Attorney’s budget are funded from the General Fund. Legal services for all departments are centralized in the City Attorney’s budget rather than allocated to individual department budgets. This approach is intentional and ensures consistency, appropriate oversight, and e Ưicient management of legal services citywide. It also allows us greater tracking. Question: Why was there a payment to Studio 111 for $23,200? What was this for? I thought we put this on hold until we had the committee formed. What is the total that has been paid to Studio 111 to date? Response: The $23,200 payment was the final payment for the Vision Plan work that had already been completed by Studio 111. No new or additional work was authorized or performed beyond that scope. The Vision Plan was not an item that sta Ư arbitrarily initiated. The work has been previously discussed and budgeted under ST2009 – Main Street Improvement Program and has been reiterated through prior strategic planning sessions. The work was performed under an existing on-call agreement with Studio 111, which was approved by the City Council on August 12, 2024, for on-call engineering, design, and related services at a not-to-exceed amount of $300,000. In addition, the scope of work was included in the Council-approved FY25/26 budget and, because the cost of this scope of work was within the contract’s not-to-exceed limit, did not involve the use of the City Manager’s individual signing authority. Per Finance, a total of $60,000 has been paid to Studio 111 to date. The Vision Plan work is now complete, and there is no further work underway or planned. Please let me know if you would like any additional details. Question: The payment made to Flowbird looks like it is for the kiosks for parking around town. Do we pay them monthly? How is broken down and what are we paying them for? Response: The City pays Flowbird a flat monthly fee for the maintenance and support for all of the parking pay stations. Question: Can you please tell me what warrant item, HB Loan Pymt #31 $23,310.40, is for. Response: This is the West Orange County Water Board (WOCWB) loan payment portion to fund the OC-35 relocation for the I-405 widening project that the City currently has. Question: In looking at the warrants, especially payments to Debra Reilly, it appears to me to be related to the PD. If that is the case, can money spent on complaints be taken out of the PD's budget and not the general fund? Just curious about the mechanics of that. While it may appear that legal fees associated with Police Department matters could be paid directly from the PD budget, from a budgetary and accounting standpoint they already are supported by the General Fund. Both the Police Department budget and the City Attorney’s budget are funded from the General Fund. Legal services for all departments are centralized in the City Attorney’s budget rather than allocated to individual department budgets. This approach is intentional and ensures consistency, appropriate oversight, and e Ưicient management of legal services citywide. It also allows us greater tracking. Question: Why was there a payment to Studio 111 for $23,200? What was this for? I thought we put this on hold until we had the committee formed. What is the total that has been paid to Studio 111 to date? Response: The $23,200 payment was the final payment for the Vision Plan work that had already been completed by Studio 111. No new or additional work was authorized or performed beyond that scope. The Vision Plan was not an item that sta Ư arbitrarily initiated. The work has been previously discussed and budgeted under ST2009 – Main Street Improvement Program and has been reiterated through prior strategic planning sessions. The work was performed under an existing on-call agreement with Studio 111, which was approved by the City Council on August 12, 2024, for on-call engineering, design, and related services at a not-to-exceed amount of $300,000. In addition, the scope of work was included in the Council-approved FY25/26 budget and, because the cost of this scope of work was within the contract’s not-to-exceed limit, did not involve the use of the City Manager’s individual signing authority. Per Finance, a total of $60,000 has been paid to Studio 111 to date. The Vision Plan work is now complete, and there is no further work underway or planned. Please let me know if you would like any additional details. Question: The payment made to Flowbird looks like it is for the kiosks for parking around town. Do we pay them monthly? How is broken down and what are we paying them for? Response: The City pays Flowbird a flat monthly fee for the maintenance and support for all of the parking pay stations. Question: Can you please tell me what warrant item, HB Loan Pymt #31 $23,310.40, is for. Response: This is the West Orange County Water Board (WOCWB) loan payment portion to fund the OC-35 relocation for the I-405 widening project that the City currently has. Question: In looking at the warrants, especially payments to Debra Reilly, it appears to me to be related to the PD. If that is the case, can money spent on complaints be taken out of the PD's budget and not the general fund? Just curious about the mechanics of that. While it may appear that legal fees associated with Police Department matters could be paid directly from the PD budget, from a budgetary and accounting standpoint they already are supported by the General Fund. Both the Police Department budget and the City Attorney’s budget are funded from the General Fund. Legal services for all departments are centralized in the City Attorney’s budget rather than allocated to individual department budgets. This approach is intentional and ensures consistency, appropriate oversight, and e Ưicient management of legal services citywide. It also allows us greater tracking. Question: Why was there a payment to Studio 111 for $23,200? What was this for? I thought we put this on hold until we had the committee formed. What is the total that has been paid to Studio 111 to date? Response: The $23,200 payment was the final payment for the Vision Plan work that had already been completed by Studio 111. No new or additional work was authorized or performed beyond that scope. The Vision Plan was not an item that sta Ư arbitrarily initiated. The work has been previously discussed and budgeted under ST2009 – Main Street Improvement Program and has been reiterated through prior strategic planning sessions. The work was performed under an existing on-call agreement with Studio 111, which was approved by the City Council on August 12, 2024, for on-call engineering, design, and related services at a not-to-exceed amount of $300,000. In addition, the scope of work was included in the Council-approved FY25/26 budget and, because the cost of this scope of work was within the contract’s not-to-exceed limit, did not involve the use of the City Manager’s individual signing authority. Per Finance, a total of $60,000 has been paid to Studio 111 to date. The Vision Plan work is now complete, and there is no further work underway or planned. Please let me know if you would like any additional details. Question: The payment made to Flowbird looks like it is for the kiosks for parking around town. Do we pay them monthly? How is broken down and what are we paying them for? Response: The City pays Flowbird a flat monthly fee for the maintenance and support for all of the parking pay stations. Question: Can you please tell me what warrant item, HB Loan Pymt #31 $23,310.40, is for. Response: This is the West Orange County Water Board (WOCWB) loan payment portion to fund the OC-35 relocation for the I-405 widening project that the City currently has. Question: In looking at the warrants, especially payments to Debra Reilly, it appears to me to be related to the PD. If that is the case, can money spent on complaints be taken out of the PD's budget and not the general fund? Just curious about the mechanics of that. While it may appear that legal fees associated with Police Department matters could be paid directly from the PD budget, from a budgetary and accounting standpoint they already are supported by the General Fund. Both the Police Department budget and the City Attorney’s budget are funded from the General Fund. Legal services for all departments are centralized in the City Attorney’s budget rather than allocated to individual department budgets. This approach is intentional and ensures consistency, appropriate oversight, and e Ưicient management of legal services citywide. It also allows us greater tracking. Question: Why was there a payment to Studio 111 for $23,200? What was this for? I thought we put this on hold until we had the committee formed. What is the total that has been paid to Studio 111 to date? Response: The $23,200 payment was the final payment for the Vision Plan work that had already been completed by Studio 111. No new or additional work was authorized or performed beyond that scope. The Vision Plan was not an item that sta Ư arbitrarily initiated. The work has been previously discussed and budgeted under ST2009 – Main Street Improvement Program and has been reiterated through prior strategic planning sessions. The work was performed under an existing on-call agreement with Studio 111, which was approved by the City Council on August 12, 2024, for on-call engineering, design, and related services at a not-to-exceed amount of $300,000. In addition, the scope of work was included in the Council-approved FY25/26 budget and, because the cost of this scope of work was within the contract’s not-to-exceed limit, did not involve the use of the City Manager’s individual signing authority. Per Finance, a total of $60,000 has been paid to Studio 111 to date. The Vision Plan work is now complete, and there is no further work underway or planned. Please let me know if you would like any additional details. Question: The payment made to Flowbird looks like it is for the kiosks for parking around town. Do we pay them monthly? How is broken down and what are we paying them for? Response: The City pays Flowbird a flat monthly fee for the maintenance and support for all of the parking pay stations. Question: Can you please tell me what warrant item, HB Loan Pymt #31 $23,310.40, is for. Response: This is the West Orange County Water Board (WOCWB) loan payment portion to fund the OC-35 relocation for the I-405 widening project that the City currently has. Question: In looking at the warrants, especially payments to Debra Reilly, it appears to me to be related to the PD. If that is the case, can money spent on complaints be taken out of the PD's budget and not the general fund? Just curious about the mechanics of that. While it may appear that legal fees associated with Police Department matters could be paid directly from the PD budget, from a budgetary and accounting standpoint they already are supported by the General Fund. Both the Police Department budget and the City Attorney’s budget are funded from the General Fund. Legal services for all departments are centralized in the City Attorney’s budget rather than allocated to individual department budgets. This approach is intentional and ensures consistency, appropriate oversight, and e Ưicient management of legal services citywide. It also allows us greater tracking. Question: Why was there a payment to Studio 111 for $23,200? What was this for? I thought we put this on hold until we had the committee formed. What is the total that has been paid to Studio 111 to date? Response: The $23,200 payment was the final payment for the Vision Plan work that had already been completed by Studio 111. No new or additional work was authorized or performed beyond that scope. The Vision Plan was not an item that sta Ư arbitrarily initiated. The work has been previously discussed and budgeted under ST2009 – Main Street Improvement Program and has been reiterated through prior strategic planning sessions. The work was performed under an existing on-call agreement with Studio 111, which was approved by the City Council on August 12, 2024, for on-call engineering, design, and related services at a not-to-exceed amount of $300,000. In addition, the scope of work was included in the Council-approved FY25/26 budget and, because the cost of this scope of work was within the contract’s not-to-exceed limit, did not involve the use of the City Manager’s individual signing authority. Per Finance, a total of $60,000 has been paid to Studio 111 to date. The Vision Plan work is now complete, and there is no further work underway or planned. Please let me know if you would like any additional details. Question: The payment made to Flowbird looks like it is for the kiosks for parking around town. Do we pay them monthly? How is broken down and what are we paying them for? Response: The City pays Flowbird a flat monthly fee for the maintenance and support for all of the parking pay stations. Question: Can you please tell me what warrant item, HB Loan Pymt #31 $23,310.40, is for. Response: This is the West Orange County Water Board (WOCWB) loan payment portion to fund the OC-35 relocation for the I-405 widening project that the City currently has. Question: In looking at the warrants, especially payments to Debra Reilly, it appears to me to be related to the PD. If that is the case, can money spent on complaints be taken out of the PD's budget and not the general fund? Just curious about the mechanics of that. While it may appear that legal fees associated with Police Department matters could be paid directly from the PD budget, from a budgetary and accounting standpoint they already are supported by the General Fund. Both the Police Department budget and the City Attorney’s budget are funded from the General Fund. Legal services for all departments are centralized in the City Attorney’s budget rather than allocated to individual department budgets. This approach is intentional and ensures consistency, appropriate oversight, and e Ưicient management of legal services citywide. It also allows us greater tracking. Question: Why was there a payment to Studio 111 for $23,200? What was this for? I thought we put this on hold until we had the committee formed. What is the total that has been paid to Studio 111 to date? Response: The $23,200 payment was the final payment for the Vision Plan work that had already been completed by Studio 111. No new or additional work was authorized or performed beyond that scope. The Vision Plan was not an item that sta Ư arbitrarily initiated. The work has been previously discussed and budgeted under ST2009 – Main Street Improvement Program and has been reiterated through prior strategic planning sessions. The work was performed under an existing on-call agreement with Studio 111, which was approved by the City Council on August 12, 2024, for on-call engineering, design, and related services at a not-to-exceed amount of $300,000. In addition, the scope of work was included in the Council-approved FY25/26 budget and, because the cost of this scope of work was within the contract’s not-to-exceed limit, did not involve the use of the City Manager’s individual signing authority. Per Finance, a total of $60,000 has been paid to Studio 111 to date. The Vision Plan work is now complete, and there is no further work underway or planned. Please let me know if you would like any additional details. Question: The payment made to Flowbird looks like it is for the kiosks for parking around town. Do we pay them monthly? How is broken down and what are we paying them for? Response: The City pays Flowbird a flat monthly fee for the maintenance and support for all of the parking pay stations. Question: Can you please tell me what warrant item, HB Loan Pymt #31 $23,310.40, is for. Response: This is the West Orange County Water Board (WOCWB) loan payment portion to fund the OC-35 relocation for the I-405 widening project that the City currently has. Question: In looking at the warrants, especially payments to Debra Reilly, it appears to me to be related to the PD. If that is the case, can money spent on complaints be taken out of the PD's budget and not the general fund? Just curious about the mechanics of that. While it may appear that legal fees associated with Police Department matters could be paid directly from the PD budget, from a budgetary and accounting standpoint they already are supported by the General Fund. Both the Police Department budget and the City Attorney’s budget are funded from the General Fund. Legal services for all departments are centralized in the City Attorney’s budget rather than allocated to individual department budgets. This approach is intentional and ensures consistency, appropriate oversight, and e Ưicient management of legal services citywide. It also allows us greater tracking. Question: Why was there a payment to Studio 111 for $23,200? What was this for? I thought we put this on hold until we had the committee formed. What is the total that has been paid to Studio 111 to date? Response: The $23,200 payment was the final payment for the Vision Plan work that had already been completed by Studio 111. No new or additional work was authorized or performed beyond that scope. The Vision Plan was not an item that sta Ư arbitrarily initiated. The work has been previously discussed and budgeted under ST2009 – Main Street Improvement Program and has been reiterated through prior strategic planning sessions. The work was performed under an existing on-call agreement with Studio 111, which was approved by the City Council on August 12, 2024, for on-call engineering, design, and related services at a not-to-exceed amount of $300,000. In addition, the scope of work was included in the Council-approved FY25/26 budget and, because the cost of this scope of work was within the contract’s not-to-exceed limit, did not involve the use of the City Manager’s individual signing authority. Per Finance, a total of $60,000 has been paid to Studio 111 to date. The Vision Plan work is now complete, and there is no further work underway or planned. Please let me know if you would like any additional details. Question: The payment made to Flowbird looks like it is for the kiosks for parking around town. Do we pay them monthly? How is broken down and what are we paying them for? Response: The City pays Flowbird a flat monthly fee for the maintenance and support for all of the parking pay stations. Question: Can you please tell me what warrant item, HB Loan Pymt #31 $23,310.40, is for. Response: This is the West Orange County Water Board (WOCWB) loan payment portion to fund the OC-35 relocation for the I-405 widening project that the City currently has. Question: In looking at the warrants, especially payments to Debra Reilly, it appears to me to be related to the PD. If that is the case, can money spent on complaints be taken out of the PD's budget and not the general fund? Just curious about the mechanics of that. While it may appear that legal fees associated with Police Department matters could be paid directly from the PD budget, from a budgetary and accounting standpoint they already are supported by the General Fund. Both the Police Department budget and the City Attorney’s budget are funded from the General Fund. Legal services for all departments are centralized in the City Attorney’s budget rather than allocated to individual department budgets. This approach is intentional and ensures consistency, appropriate oversight, and e Ưicient management of legal services citywide. It also allows us greater tracking. Question: Why was there a payment to Studio 111 for $23,200? What was this for? I thought we put this on hold until we had the committee formed. What is the total that has been paid to Studio 111 to date? Response: The $23,200 payment was the final payment for the Vision Plan work that had already been completed by Studio 111. No new or additional work was authorized or performed beyond that scope. The Vision Plan was not an item that sta Ư arbitrarily initiated. The work has been previously discussed and budgeted under ST2009 – Main Street Improvement Program and has been reiterated through prior strategic planning sessions. The work was performed under an existing on-call agreement with Studio 111, which was approved by the City Council on August 12, 2024, for on-call engineering, design, and related services at a not-to-exceed amount of $300,000. In addition, the scope of work was included in the Council-approved FY25/26 budget and, because the cost of this scope of work was within the contract’s not-to-exceed limit, did not involve the use of the City Manager’s individual signing authority. Per Finance, a total of $60,000 has been paid to Studio 111 to date. The Vision Plan work is now complete, and there is no further work underway or planned. Please let me know if you would like any additional details. Question: The payment made to Flowbird looks like it is for the kiosks for parking around town. Do we pay them monthly? How is broken down and what are we paying them for? Response: The City pays Flowbird a flat monthly fee for the maintenance and support for all of the parking pay stations. Question: Can you please tell me what warrant item, HB Loan Pymt #31 $23,310.40, is for. Response: This is the West Orange County Water Board (WOCWB) loan payment portion to fund the OC-35 relocation for the I-405 widening project that the City currently has. Question: In looking at the warrants, especially payments to Debra Reilly, it appears to me to be related to the PD. If that is the case, can money spent on complaints be taken out of the PD's budget and not the general fund? Just curious about the mechanics of that. While it may appear that legal fees associated with Police Department matters could be paid directly from the PD budget, from a budgetary and accounting standpoint they already are supported by the General Fund. Both the Police Department budget and the City Attorney’s budget are funded from the General Fund. Legal services for all departments are centralized in the City Attorney’s budget rather than allocated to individual department budgets. This approach is intentional and ensures consistency, appropriate oversight, and e Ưicient management of legal services citywide. It also allows us greater tracking. Question: Why was there a payment to Studio 111 for $23,200? What was this for? I thought we put this on hold until we had the committee formed. What is the total that has been paid to Studio 111 to date? Response: The $23,200 payment was the final payment for the Vision Plan work that had already been completed by Studio 111. No new or additional work was authorized or performed beyond that scope. The Vision Plan was not an item that sta Ư arbitrarily initiated. The work has been previously discussed and budgeted under ST2009 – Main Street Improvement Program and has been reiterated through prior strategic planning sessions. The work was performed under an existing on-call agreement with Studio 111, which was approved by the City Council on August 12, 2024, for on-call engineering, design, and related services at a not-to-exceed amount of $300,000. In addition, the scope of work was included in the Council-approved FY25/26 budget and, because the cost of this scope of work was within the contract’s not-to-exceed limit, did not involve the use of the City Manager’s individual signing authority. Per Finance, a total of $60,000 has been paid to Studio 111 to date. The Vision Plan work is now complete, and there is no further work underway or planned. Please let me know if you would like any additional details. Question: The payment made to Flowbird looks like it is for the kiosks for parking around town. Do we pay them monthly? How is broken down and what are we paying them for? Response: The City pays Flowbird a flat monthly fee for the maintenance and support for all of the parking pay stations. Question: Can you please tell me what warrant item, HB Loan Pymt #31 $23,310.40, is for. Response: This is the West Orange County Water Board (WOCWB) loan payment portion to fund the OC-35 relocation for the I-405 widening project that the City currently has. Question: In looking at the warrants, especially payments to Debra Reilly, it appears to me to be related to the PD. If that is the case, can money spent on complaints be taken out of the PD's budget and not the general fund? Just curious about the mechanics of that. While it may appear that legal fees associated with Police Department matters could be paid directly from the PD budget, from a budgetary and accounting standpoint they already are supported by the General Fund. Both the Police Department budget and the City Attorney’s budget are funded from the General Fund. Legal services for all departments are centralized in the City Attorney’s budget rather than allocated to individual department budgets. This approach is intentional and ensures consistency, appropriate oversight, and e Ưicient management of legal services citywide. It also allows us greater tracking.