April 29, 2026 Assembly Finance Committee Meeting

Finance, uh, meeting to order for April 29th. Um, Madam Clerk, will you note roll? We have 3 members on the Zoom. Thank you, uh, Mayor Weldon. We have all assembly members present in chambers, um, with Assembly Members Smith, Kelly, and Wohl on Zoom.

Thank you for that. So we'll just go immediately to our agenda topics. Item number 1, assembly grants and community requests. Who's taking this? Ms. Director Flit.

Good evening, um, Madam Mayor, and, um, I will start the conversation on the assembly grants, but I just also want to let the body know we have 3 topics tonight and none of them require action. So this is mostly an informational meeting, um, so nothing requires action. You may decide to take action later if you want, but I just want to make sure you guys are aware of that. Let me start before you start, Director Flick, and we have about an hour. So item number 2 on our list is be judicious with questions.

So please keep your questions to the point. We only have an hour. Thank you. So, um, as per our normal process, uh, the assembly can entertain grants from the community. One was sponsored, that was for United Way.

One member of the body asked 3 questions. Those questions and those answers are provided on page 2 of your packet. If there are other pieces of information that the body needs, we can take that up, but those are presented to you as answers to the questions that were asked.

Any questions?

Um, I'm— Ms. Wall, did you have anything you wanted to say on this one since you brought it forward, or do we just read what's in our packet and move on?

No, I, I think, um, I spoke to why this was on my, um, list in terms of what I would sponsor. Um, and I think this is an opportunity for the body if there's last questions to ask them, you know, the way we've done this before in the past is sponsored requests end up on the pending list so that at the, you know, tail end of the process, you all can decide. We all, we all can decide whether it's a priority to fund it. So I guess this would be your last chance to ask questions. All right, thank you.

I don't see any questions. Director Flick, do we have to have a motion to move this to the pending list, or can it just It will naturally fall to the pending list. Okay. Thank you for that.

Uh, next we have Youth Activity Grant funding. Who is taking that one? Mr. Barr.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Uh, the Youth Activity Board is, is one of your, um, one of your boards that every year does a dutiful job of combing through Many proposals this year, 27 proposals from organizations, nonprofits throughout the community that provide support to youth in a, in a wide variety of ways. You can see on page 5 of 11 the organizations that are listed. They are separated into academic, art, and sport categories. You can see the amount that is requested and the amount that the Youth Activity Board is recommending awarding to those organizations.

That also receive other— many of which also receive other CBJ support, either through the Community Foundation or the JAC, although not all. Um, and, uh, uh, the total, total, uh, recommended amount for disbursement in the manager's budget is $350,000, which I believe is flat from last year.

Thank you for that. That is a flat amount, and it is included in the manager's proposed budget. So again, this doesn't necessarily require any action from the body. All right, any questions on the Youth Activity Grant? Um, do we need to make a motion to accept though, just to get this off our plate, or not?

I don't think that you actually have to. If you would like to, you are welcome to.

Um, Ms. Wall.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, curious about— I'm not sure if there's some there from the committee, um, or if staff can answer this question, but Um, uh, how for, for there was one grant that was not funded, curious as to why and how the committee made decisions. You know, it looks like obviously they didn't have enough money to fund all, but how they decided, um, generally how to reduce, um, uh, funding from the ask to what they actually funded, like what their process was. Is there anybody here from the Youth Activity Grant Committee? I don't see anybody.

Typically, they look at who they funded before, how much they're asking for, and how many kids are in the program. But I can't answer anything further than that myself. And I'm looking at Mr. Barr, and he's nodding his head.

I would appreciate follow-up on that because I feel like that's kind of the point of this, is for us to understand You know, my guess is they reduced by a certain percentage, or, and there's got to be a reason that the one that didn't get funding was funded. So I'd appreciate some follow-up on that. Thank you. Okay, they're taking notes.

All right, any further questions? All right, we're moving along to item number 3, FY27 Eagle Crest budget. Who is tackling this one? And we have several members of the board, and we— LuPro is still here. I can tee that up if you'd like, Madam Mayor.

Um, the Assembly Finance Committee asked, um, the Eagle Crest board to, uh, come back with information about what operations would look like if, um, they received the $930,000 subsidy which has been the norm for the past several years, and also did not run into a deficit. So the revenue that they would generate, plus the $930,000 subsidy, what would operations look like? And the request was for the board and the manager's office to collaborate on that. And I believe Erin or Mr. Cullum—. Let's bring them both up.

And we'll, we'll do the presentation from here.

So they don't have to fight over a microphone.

Madam Mayor, members of the assembly, thanks for letting us come back and present our homework. And we, we spent, we, and when I say we, I mean Aaron and to a large extent the chair of our finance committee, Thor. Lindstrom spent a ton of time just combing through the budget, and it was really— it was a healthy exercise for us. And, you know, because it felt like pulling it down to the studs and just looking at what it would take to build it back up a little more efficiently. And so if you could move to the first slide.

So on the left you'll see I'm gonna look at my tablet here so I don't keep looking over my shoulder. Or thanks, Aaron. Um, so on the left you see the original FY27 submission, um, and then in the center is what you asked for. So that's a budget that just relies on, uh, operationally generated revenue and a general fund contribution of $930,000. Um, to the right is the scenario we think we can that we think would allow us to keep the doors open for a year.

And it's not a sustainable scenario, but it does represent a substantial reduction from the originally submitted FY '27 budget. You know, I think one indicator of the weight of the different budgets is the FTE count associated. But clearly you can just notice the differences between commodities and services, the personal services, Um, and, and, you know, it's a large drop. It's, it's a substantial drop. But one thing we're recommending, uh, with the $1.68 million scenario is, um, to still avoid a negative general fund contribution.

And, uh, we'll get in the details here in a second. If we could go to the next slide.

So the scenario you asked for, we get there through a 56% staff reduction. We reduce operating days and operating hours to a level that doesn't support positive pass sales, that doesn't help recover from the tough season we had this year. We started off with low snow, we had some, some maintenance issues, and we saw sales decline. We recovered pretty well with the spring pass sale and some creativity there, but, you know, we need to restore confidence in our user base.

This scenario would just eliminate our capacity to address planned and unplanned maintenance. We could stub a toe and not be able to keep the door open in this scenario. We eliminate administrative support, so that decreases management and operational staff bandwidth to handle all the things that are, that are kind of in the periphery of direct operational efforts. It eliminates the ability to look forward, look over the horizon, look around corners and plan.

It eliminates food and beverage service, but because we have in the scenario dramatically cut administrative support, we don't have the bandwidth to pursue an opportunity for concessions in that area, which could contribute to revenue. It eliminates travel, training, and certifications. So travel, training, and certifications all lead to acceptable levels of safety and operations, safety for our, for people that recreate at the ski area, safety for the employees, and physical safety.

We reduce retail and repair service. And that's important because there's only one place, one storefront anyway, in Juneau where you can get downhill skis mounted or worked on, and that's Eagle Crest.

So if we can't maintain, repair, and retail services, we start to spiral a drain that's hard to recover from. And all this adds up and more, adds up to an incredible loss of resilience.

You know, I think, yeah, I think I can just leave that scenario at that. Moving to the next scenario, and I think I just want to go over these kind of the big picture and just to some extent read the obvious that's on the slides. But then Aaron, if you have questions, Aaron can provide a little more insight in how we got here, and we can both kind of field whatever curiosities you have. But, um, in the second scenario, the one you didn't ask for, but the one we think is essential to understand, which is a bare minimum scenario, it, it asks for a $1.68 million general fund contribution. So this represents, uh, an increase over the $930,000 that we've been getting historically from the assembly.

But it is certainly a savings in the face of the negative fund balance. You know, we've seen personnel costs grow as we move into the CBJ pay plan. We've seen direct cost allocations grow, which are services we're using. But there are some fixed costs that, that come our way that are not immune from growth that haven't been covered through GF contribution. That it's hard for the customer base to help us sustain because of some of the equity access, the equitable access issues that other people have raised this evening.

So in this scenario, we reduce staffing 44%, which is one of the key things that helps us get to the $1.9 million savings. Mountain and lift operations get the minimum amount of support that we need to open and stay open. Administrative staffing isn't completely gone. We maintain enough so that we can get receipts into accounting at CBJ so that we can deal with some of the other administrative issues, just accounts payable, all those kinds of things that need to happen. Those services remain kind of at the bare minimum in this scenario.

Our general manager gets support that she needs so that she can focus on operations or whomever our permanent general manager ends up being. It creates an environment that's still functional so we can hold up a functional ski area while we're trying to recruit for a general manager, which helps us move into sustainable operations over the horizon, which is still a goal. That we have. We understand that that's still an expectation, and, um, but it can't happen on a shoestring. Um, we still eliminate in-house concessions, but we suddenly have the time in this scenario to start shopping for a vendor to provide those, which is a potential revenue stream for us, even if we're just looking at 10% of gross.

And if we can add the bar and the food into a package, we reduce insurance costs for concession provider and make it more attractive than we've been able to do in the past. Because before it was only the bar and insurance costs are incredibly expensive and they come down quite a bit when you add food to the operations.

We limit travel and training to just those things that are necessary for ski patrol to stay on the cutting edge of their, their skill and their art and to keep folks safe. And so that our ski school instructors, are learning their craft or keeping their craft honed, and that, that helps them directly contribute to revenue. So our ski school staff are generally revenue or cost neutral because they're dealing directly with, with students that are paying for their time. And we still reduce repair and retail service, but we're able to stay ahead of demand for mounting and to keep skis healthy. So that's it.

You asked for a scenario. We wanted to give you a little bit of a glimpse into what we would actually need to operate. There are a lot of things in the air for us. We're still talking about, you know, we've got a planning process out to bid right now so that we can come up with a very structured path to a more sustainable and resilient future. We're going to talk more about that in November.

We're looking for a general manager that would provide the bandwidth we need to gain traction on those efforts and, um, and still wholeheartedly understand as an institution that the Assembly prefers to see an Eagle Crest that can support itself. And we think there's a path there, um, and we're on the precipice of it. And it would be a shame to lose that. You know, there's something that we were playing with just as a thought exercise is we have almost $600,000 in fixed cost. And if you just give us $930,000— and I wasn't going to bring this up because it's a little bit confusing.

So if it— but it's just something to think about. If you only give us $930,000, and we can't keep the doors open, you still end up paying $600,000 of that because those are CBJ costs that get allocated somewhere else. So you don't even save $400,000. So they just go somewhere else. And it's a— there's, there's a lot of value in taking that next step to the bare minimum needs for Eagle Crest.

Thank you.

Sorry, Ms. Lupo, do you want to add anything or just go to questions? We can go to questions. All right, who has questions? Ms. Atkinson. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I'm kind of looking at the breakout with all the line items you had on the budget scenarios, and one thing that kind of jumped out at me was the operating revenue line item. Um, and please correct me if I'm wrong because it's been a bit since I've looked at some of this, but I believe the last couple years, um, at the $2.1 million $1 million-ish assumption, Eagle Crest was still under revenue by like $800,000, somewhere around there. So what— how, how are you expecting to increase your revenue by $400,000-ish if you're already under by $800,000? What, what do you have? Do you have plans, projections?

I'm just curious to hear more about that. So we know that revenue has been down for the last 2 seasons, if not a little bit longer. One thing is increased prices. It—. The prices have stayed the same for the last 3 seasons, pretty much across our major products.

So price increases have to happen regardless. Um, and all of the community support. I know there's a lot of vocal users at Eagle Crest that want to support. Now they're going to have to step up and support what they want. If they want Eagle Crest, they're going to have to step up and buy a season pass.

And support however they can at this point. So we see the revenue growing in that way. Prices have to increase. Yeah, go ahead, Miss Atkinson. I have a follow-up to that, Miss Atkinson.

There's one other little thing in the revenue in addition to price increases. We're proposing to pass credit card processing fees on, so our budget had an offset, has had about $100,000 in that, and I think we reduced it a little bit, but there's an offset to that in revenue too because Right now we're absorbing those fees, and it's something that the 930 or— and the negative fund goes towards. And so that's just another example of us intending to ask users to.

Cover their costs. Uh, thank you. Um, that's helpful. I guess my, my main concern and my question is, if you do come under again, let's say it's a bad snow year, or we, uh, you know, folks don't, uh, contribute as much as you might hope, um, is that going to cause cuts? Will you have to come back and ask us for more funding?

I'm just trying to understand how much of the budget is balanced off of that increased anticipated revenue.

I would suggest we would have to have a conversation about it. You know, we could— in that scenario, we would come to you and say, if we don't get additional support, these are the cuts that we'd make. And if we get additional support, then we can avoid this. And maybe there's a scale in there somewhere. You know, I think we've been up here before saying we want to have— we want to maintain a dialogue.

And we're— We're open to being flexible, but it's hard for me to say exactly right now and exactly how we'd respond to that, but it would certainly be collaborative, right?

Thank you, Ms. Wall.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you both for— and everyone else for all the work we asked you to do it in a short amount of time to put this together. My question is on the, on the slide with the 3 budget scenarios.

You have, you do have numbers associated with the $930,000 general fund contribution, contribution. And so I'm curious, like, when I look at this, it doesn't look like you have a number associated with that. You can't operate. It looks like you put together a budget. So, like, what— speak to me about— is this just the numbers of what you wanted to get to and then tried— then said, like, actually we can't?

Or, um, talk to me about what's, what's in here and what I'm missing, but in the discrepancy between that. Who's going to take that one? I'll start. Okay, Ms. Lupra. So, in the $930,000 budget that we presented, which was the assignment or homework, um, We stripped it down, um, looking at every single line item and discretionary spending.

We looked at every single position and tried to figure out if we had to do the least amount or the bare minimum, what does that look like? Where do we start from? What is the necessity? We have to run the lifts. Where do we go from there?

What do we need to be able to do that? Um, and still keeping in mind that every single thing that we look at is attached to revenue. So if we cut one thing, we have to be mindful, but we also have to be able to provide a service in this model that the user will want to purchase, right? So it's very— one thing you look at, then it leads to the next thing, then you're two steps back trying to figure out how it attaches to something else. So in this model, we, we looked at those things.

How do we operate at the bare minimum, what does that look like? And then how safe is that? Those are the things that we looked at in the $930,000. And if you can see, the FTE count on here is only 18.06, right? This fiscal year in '26, we have, um, 40.90, which was the ask also for '27.

Prior to all of these years, we operated at 33.99. So between the 33.99 and 40 point 40.90 was a 17% increase. So we're going way back to trying to figure out how to operate Eagle Crest with 1806, which was the hardest part to think about how many people you need to run a chairlift, how many ski patrollers you have. And if you're at a minimum in those things, how long does it take for you to open the mountain each morning, right? And that leads back to the revenue again, trying to figure out Will the customer buy this product if you can't get the chairlift open at a certain time on how many operating days?

This is less operating days that we are trying to get to this zero deficit. And it just whittled and whittled and whittled to the point where, is this a product that we can provide to the community that is worth purchasing? And is it safe to operate in this model? You want to add? Follow-up.

May I? Hang on, Ms. Wall, we're just gonna— Mr. Collin was going to talk. Yeah, thank you, Ms. Wall. All right, um, so I just wanted to kind of reflect on how this season started. Um, we had some great snow and we couldn't get the lifts going, and our season pass sales plummeted.

Um, so we had maintenance issues, we lost customer confidence, Season pass sales didn't pick up, and actually, it's kind of like jumping rope, right? Like if you miss your cue, it's hard to get in there, and I think, you know, getting into the ski season is a little bit like that too. If you're not there when you start, maybe you pick up another habit that winter, and this budget presents a worse scenario than we saw in December. So our ability to get the slopes open, our ability to keep the lifts running, are all incredibly diminished, which will have, like Erin said, a downward pressure on customer confidence, which affects revenue. But Erin isn't gonna give up.

I mean, she put together an actual budget that is, this is what we'll try. But we all look at it and know what it represents. And so I think to answer your question, Ms. Wall, you know, That's— it's a real budget, and we could plug it in and we could, we could try to run it, but it's kind of like getting in a car that, you know, doesn't have any oil and the water pump doesn't work and saying you're driving from Chicago to San Francisco. You may have a can-do attitude, but that doesn't mean you're going to get there.

Yeah, okay, I think that makes sense. I think where I was confused is because, like, the model does show a good amount of revenue. And I think what I'm hearing— and so what I'm hearing is like, that's optimistic and, and also not safe. Like, you know, I mean, even if you could make it work on paper, you, you don't believe that— you don't, you don't believe it, kind of. Not—.

And that's not a judgment, I can— but, um, that makes more sense to me, I guess. Okay, we have Mr. Steininger, Ms. Huskanes, and then Mr. Brooks. I had two things. I'll just start with one, just a clarification off of, um, the questions that, uh, Ms. Atkinson asked about the revenue. It's my understanding that $2.1 million shown in your original submission, that's already a downward adjustment of like $700,000, $800,000 just to get you to actual revenue.

So you know, really you've already accounted for kind of those over— overly optimistic revenue projections that we've seen in prior budgets. Is that accurate? Yeah, I think the, the revenue number reflects like the tough sales we had at the beginning of this year and, and the prior year, so it reflects the downward trend. I just don't know the exact number, so I didn't want to throw it out there, so.

Follow-up. Okay, okay. Ms. Euskandiz and then Mr. Brooks and Mr. Smith, and we'll come— well, I might sneak in there. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Uh, thank you both for being here.

Thank you for all the work to all the board members, uh, who turned something around quickly and dug into this. I think my question is sort of a continuation thematically, because I appreciate that thought process. You cut here, maybe you're actually not saving what it looks like on paper, or you strip it down to the bone, but then you can't make any revenue. So what can that really be? So I appreciate that, and even so, I wish I had a bit more information knowing that you did get into the real weeds of it.

To truly know as a non-Eagle Crest board member what this looks like. The FTE is super illustrative of what a cut to that level would look like, but I think maybe something that would be helpful for me— when you say reduced operating days and operating hours, is that reduced to the extent that it's Saturdays only, or What could you give me a little bit of a sense of that? Because without that and just these high-level numbers, I really don't know what that 9:30 season looks like, and that's what I would like to know, you know, at this level. So what that version looks like, um, currently the way Eagle Crest operates is we have around 86 operational days, depends on the calendar. We operate Wednesday through Sunday with holiday Mondays, and then we go through school breaks.

That's our regular typical operations. In the 930 model, it is reduced to no Wednesdays, no holiday Mondays, um, with a later start closer towards like the school break and Christmas. So I think in that model we ended up with 66 days of operations. Um, and then the second model was adding back in the days that we were taking out. That also is in, in our season, we have 3 different time periods.

Schedules. The beginning of the season, we operate from 9 to 3, then we go 9 to 3:30, and then 9 to 4, just because of the daylight. Um, but in both models, it's 9 to 3 for the whole season.

That's helpful. Thank you, Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Madam Mayor, and thank you guys for all the information and hard work on this. It's greatly appreciated and helps us with a better understanding.

I'm just looking at the, the draft budget book here, and from FY25 to 26, there's a $500,000 increase in the expenditure on commodities and services, and that should be maintained in the proposed for '27 as well. Can you speak a little bit as to what that is? Is it a bunch of small things, or is there one large change that's happened recently?

We called it our discretionary operating expenses. Um, in our materials and commodities, a lot of things have become more expensive. Everything, all the parts, all the pieces. Um, we're trying to be mindful in the task that was given to us, so we made cuts to things within it, um, reducing, uh, retail soft goods, reducing, reducing the rental fleet replacement, the training, um, removing things like trout, travel uniforms, things like that across the board through like food service was completely removed from operating costs. We did add in at, at $1,500 to maintain the kitchen equipment for whatever concession might be able to take over the food in the kitchen, but it's removing a lot of things that, you know, we're just going to have to pull back and pay really close attention to the bottom line.

And every director of every department is going to have to be on top of their budget to make sure that we can stay within it and be responsible.

Mr. Smith.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, thanks you too for this work, um, and everyone else who I know was involved. Uh, regarding FTE, I think I heard you say that in previous years, maybe FY25, you were at around 33, and, um, and, and '26, I think it was 40. I guess I was just kind of curious, did you actually— that was like budgeted FTE—. Is it—.

Did you actually get that many people, or, or was it lower? And, you know, in, in recent years, I'm just trying to think of— I'm trying to think of you know, from where we are or where we were this season to, you know, a 27 or something FTE, if it's, if it's that full, you know, 13 drop or if there was, if some of those positions weren't filled.

Ms. Lupero. So in the 40.90, there are quite a few positions that are vacant at this moment. Even in the model of 33.99, the difference is the last couple of years the assembly has been kind enough to us to create full-time positions to help support revenue, making sure we get it where it needs to go when it needs to get there. An admin coordinator, things that are important to get business done and get business done with the city, getting things there on time. Um, with that, I think I have a note here to remind myself.

Um, maybe I don't, but we have the fewer FTEs full-time, um, we'll have more seasonal employees again like we did with 33.99. Um, in— and I just want to note, in the second model with the 27.43, I went through all of those with a fine-tooth comb and said, we could most likely do this with that many, with those specific positions. Um, it might hurt a little bit, but without that $1.6 million, we would be in a deficit. Um, but just that $27.43, uh, that could not also be fully, uh, filled as well.

Lots of vacancies. I'm going to hop in here. Um, so your revenue numbers, um, you talked about increased prices, anything. Does that include any summer revenue whatsoever? Like, are we going to charge people to do mountain biking?

Are we going to charge people this walk-up? I mean, is that any summer revenue whatsoever? Currently, right now, we have Segway tours that are still doing—. I'm talking about what I know that, but I'm talking about anything that would happen at Eagle Crest, like moving forward. No, it's not what— so does your revenue numbers count like I bring my mountain bike up to ride on the trail and I should pay a fee?

No, not right now. And, uh, but given more time to plan and the resources to do it, there are certainly opportunities there, right? Um, and if I may add just a little bit more about the revenue, we didn't We didn't have a lot of time to analyze the revenue side of things. I mean, you know, we're— we, we understand a little bit of why revenue fell the last couple of years, and we think we could turn that around. But one thing to keep in mind is that the revenue picture for the 9.30 scenario is more optimistic than the revenue picture for the 1.68 scenario, right?

Because I can't say— we can't sit here and say that resiliency is destroyed under the 930 scenario, but say we're gonna be able to definitely maintain the same level of revenue. It's just, we don't fully understand at this point how that could affect our revenue, but we need to be honest about, you know, the reality that if our resiliency is eliminated and we can't open lifts and we lose customer confidence, then that has a direct effect on revenue. So this assumes we make it work, But our sense is that we can't. Okay, and then I just have a follow-up on revenue. Have you been contemplating doing a season pass for the weekend and a season pass during the week, that the season pass during the week pays more?

So you— a season pass that includes the week is more than the season pass that's just for the weekends. Try and keep—. Have we, or would we? Have you? Would you?

I think we've, we've thought about just about every permutation of pass and ticket, but we haven't integrated that into this. And I think, you know, what we do with season passes, whether or not we keep the spring pass available, whether we do weekend passes, weekday passes, I mean, these are all conversations that are definitely going to be coming up because we need to, one, make pass sales as appealing as we can, which I think probably means providing options for everybody, or as many people as we can. And, um, well, I'll just leave it at that. We definitely need to look at that. Okay, uh, Ms. Hall.

Yeah, just a question about, um, the retail and repair shop. Would there be an opportunity for a vendor there? Um, I know there's very successful Valley shop that had a great year this year and they might be willing to partner? You know, I think, I think all options are on the table, you know, and if we have the bandwidth to look at vending that out and we were confident that the talent needed to move skis and through that shop the way we do now to keep people skiing on the mountain, then I think it'd definitely be something worth considering. You know, everywhere that we're getting away from our core operations, there's, there's something appealing about looking at maybe vending that out and turning it into a more reliable revenue source than we might have now, right?

But we have to balance that against, does the service meet the requirements of the skiers? Because it could affect other sources of revenue. Thank you. Mr. Kelly.

Thank you. And, and maybe, maybe this is a worthwhile question, maybe it isn't.

I was kind of wondering if it's even possible to do, but I realize that you and the, and the manager's office, I understand, kind of worked a little bit together on this. I was kind of wondering, as far as, is there any possibility that some of the administrative services could be anything that's shared with the city, like an FTE that's shared between the city and Eagle Crest, is that even possible with an enterprise board? And if so, have you considered that? And so this might be partially a question for Ms. Flick as well, or maybe is there some sort of different arrangement of shared services way that we could, um, that would, that would help with the situation? Looks like Madam Manager is going to take that, or Mr. Colum, are you going to take that?

Um, I think I could start and maybe you could correct me if I'm wrong, uh, Madam Manager or Miss Flick. Um, but, uh, you know, uh, Mr. Kelly, we're already doing that to a huge extent. So we work quite a bit with, uh, CBJ, um, CBJ finance, accounting, engineering,.

Procurement, they're all services that Eagle Crest leans on. That, that's a big component of the fixed cost allocation that I've brought up, you know, and I think we will continue to rely on CPJ services. Those costs, they come through, but we do get to tap into economies of scale. I think there are some places where we need administrative support on-site, readily accessible and dedicated to Eagle Crest. In a way that CBJ services aren't necessarily.

That's not to say CBJ is anything less than incredibly helpful and always available when we need it, but so I think where it makes sense, we're certainly leveraging the resources available to us, and then there will be times where we need dedicated resources. And so if there's room to explore what CBJ— an expansion of what CBJ offers, I think we're definitely willing to have that discussion. Madam Manager, do you have anything to add? Thank you. I would just add that, uh, those resources, whether they're provided out of, uh, administration, the manager's office, or directly out of Eagle Crest, still have a cost associated with them, and the general fund bears that cost.

So, um, not to point out the obvious, but those employee hours would still have a cost. Thank you for that. Mr. Steininger.

Thank you. Thinking about these budget questions, you know, we're talking about kind of the immediate budget now, but coming up in November, we have a more long-term discussion about Eagle Crest and about, you know, kind of what shifts and changes can be made in the direction of sustainability. And I think it's obvious that under the $930,000 in general fund contribution, the answer to this question is no. But under the $1.7 million, did that provide enough resources for Eagle Crest to actually kind of engage in those discussions and get meaning— put together meaningful ideas in how we can more move to sustainability? The mayor asked questions about, you know, are you charging for mountain bikes?

Are you changing pass plans? And a lot of those are board discussions and You're volunteers, so you're very cheap, you know, but you require a lot of staff support to actually have those discussions. Do you feel like you will have that staff support under this $1.7 million proposal, or will we just show up in November where that work wasn't able to be done because, you know, we didn't support it? Um, thank you for that question. You know, and on the slide we say this is unsustainable austerity, and, and it is, and we're looking for a new GM right now.

We have an acting GM that also runs our ski school. And the reality is, is that these discussions are born in large part on the backs of a couple of board members that were fortunate enough to have the time— that to have— that have the time to address these things. You know, we have a new GM coming in, and that GM under this budget is going to be saddled with a lot of work that is focused on just direct operations, and so will not have capacity for the kind of planning that we need. And that's why this is unsustainable. And I'm tapping on the slideshow right here.

That's— but, um, so it, it takes money to plan to make money, and, and that's the part of this budget that's missing.

In a big way, it won't keep us from talking about concessions and things like that, but these big picture planning requirements, that's what I'm talking about.

Any further questions?

Okay, seeing none, I guess my rhetorical question is, how do we keep you as bare bones as possible while still giving you an opportunity to see if you can get anywhere? That's the question that we all are trying to figure out. Including yourselves? It's rhetorical, you don't have to answer it, Mr. Anything further?

So this is in the Finance Committee, like Director Flick says, we don't have to make any motions tonight. It will just remain in the Finance Committee. Um, Ms. Wall, you're the Finance Chair. Speak. Um, I'm fine with this, um, staying in the Finance Committee meeting.

At, at some point we're going to be moving some stuff. We got, we got a long list of stuff we're considering to a, you know, a pending list for final decision. So I'm happy to work this into that somehow if we don't want to say anything tonight. I will say that I, I would like to— I have one request for homework, um, that would help me with that decision. And so if you don't mind, Madam Mayor, I'll make a motion and see if people are supportive of it.

Go ahead, Madam— or Madam Chair, go ahead. Um, I move that we direct somebody, and I would think this would be city staff and Eagle Crest staff, to work together to bring us back, um, the cost for, um, keeping Eagle Crest warm. Um, and by that I mean Um, you know, when I hear that we can't operate, um, Eagle Crest at the same level of taxpayer funding that's been going into Eagle Crest, um, I, I just have to know what, um, the cost if we were to not operate Eagle Crest, but, you know, maintain our infrastructure so that when our— a new plan for Eagle Crest arises, um, we can, we can pick it back up. I think that will be expensive, but it's hard for me to imagine justifying spending twice as many dollars of taxpayer support on Eagle Crest, given all of the feedback that we've gotten. And so I think there'll be a little— we've gotten that number for all of the facilities we're looking at right now in terms of what it would take to keep it warm, which I know it's out in the snow, it's different.

It's keeping it cold, maybe. I don't know.

I guess that, that's my motion. Oh, thank you for that. Um, any objection?

Uh, Mr. Steingruber, I guess I'll object just because, see, you know, thinking through this, you know, the keeping it warm I assume means not operating the ski area next winter is, and I'm seeing, I'm seeing you nod on camera, and I, I just don't want to waste staff time on something that I wouldn't support in the end if it came forward. While I understand, you know, getting that, getting that number is helpful, we've gotten it for a lot of other facilities, I just, I know I won't support it when it comes in front of the body, so I don't want to waste staff time on answering that question. I, I appreciate the desire to get that information. I don't think it's worth the time. Thank you.

Uh, thank you, Ms. Wall. You still have your hand up. Did you have anything further to say, or—. I'll speak again after I've heard from the others. Uh, Mr. Smith.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. Um, I, I, I guess I, you know, I understand what Ms. Wall is asking for and why I— Mr. Saniger had a good point on, you know, getting this information takes time, um, that, you know, they're, they're trying to focus on other things. Um, yeah, I, I don't know, you know, I guess I'll object for that reason. I understand the reason, I understand the rationale, and, you know, I'm trying to think through the the, not the optics, but, you know, just the message of, oh, Eagle Crest is getting closed. But I mean, we are, we've proposed other, you know, possible recreation facility, um, you know, changes, some of which I'm not really hoping to have to make this year.

I mean, we can, we'll see what we can do, but, um Anyway, I think Mr. Steingart can use me for the, for the reason of not making staff just try to run around and try to get this number. But so I'll object to, uh, Ms. Youskandis. Thanks, Madam Mayor. I will speak in favor of this motion and, uh, thank Chair Wall for bringing that forward. I think that is a piece of information that when we get to this stage that We have a lot of moving pieces that we're doing this with right now, and we'll continue to get, um, more information.

But when we get to that decision point, I don't think that Eagle Crest is unique in this, and with all of the different, um, city facilities that we have found that data for to mothball. I don't see Eagle Crest as being unique enough, um, or I couldn't think what that factor would be that that wouldn't also be nice to have. Um,.

You know, it's interesting the process we followed by everybody bringing their cuts and then that just getting compiled. So we all saw everybody's at once. So there's some facilities on there that only have a 1 next to them. I think it was how it was presented, which means just one assembly member brought that. That was just someone's idea that, you know, maybe then I think, oh gosh, I wonder which one of them thought of that.

That's a good idea. And I guess the fact that Eagle Crest wasn't on that list to me is like the only thing that I would see. It's interesting because if we had used a different process, I can imagine that list would not have been as long because everybody would have had their sacred cow that they wouldn't want on that list. But I do also appreciate if, you know, you're not going to be able to support it, why you don't think it's worth the staff time. I just think staff ran around doing a lot of information and Um, for me, it would be beneficial to have that information, um, although it brings me no joy to want that information.

Um, and then I will also say that as a part of the public process that we did with all the budget surveys and the budget game and everything, Eagle Crest was on that list. Um, and so as we've been continuing to dig through these, I do continue to revisit those— the results of that work, um, as another data point. Thank you, Ms. Hughes-Candies. Uh, we have Mr. Kelly and then Ms. Hall, and then I'll jump in with the amendment, possibly. Um, thank you.

Um, I think I'll just object for the purposes of a question. Uh, this is— this is directed at staff. I feel like we've asked a ton of you guys already. Um, how are you guys doing? And, uh, like, when do you think you might be able to— if we did— this motion did pass, like, when do you think you'd be able to produce a product?

I'll take that one, uh, because we, we have been busting to produce, I think, no less than 7 memos and 8 ordinances for next week's, uh, meeting. So I appreciate that consideration. Um, We would request Nate Abbott, who's our facilities maintenance director, and to do this analysis, and he would present you the level 1, level 2, level 3 mothball analysis that he's done for the different facilities. Um, I think it'd be pretty complex because it's not just one building, right? There's a whole lot up there, but he is familiar with the infrastructure.

And so I do think that it's a doable request within the next couple of weeks.

Thank you. I'll remove my objection. All right, Ms. Hall. And I'm going to object for the same reasons that Mr. Steiniger did. I, I think staff time is very precious with so, you know, so many areas that need your focus, and I would not be in favor of proceeding down that road at all.

So Check. Thank you. I'll object for purposes of an amendment. And, uh, Ms. Huskanes, I'm throwing you the gavel across the room. Please catch.

Um, and I'll speak— I'll speak to my amendment before I give it to you. Um, I think Eagle Crest is different. Um, so not only would we have to mothball it, we would have to figure out how to keep people from climbing up there and skiing because they wouldn't have avalanche, uh, work or ski patrol. And we over and over have said we want you to come back with things. So if we mothball it, my amendment would say that we leave enough staff to come up with these ideas of where we go from here, because if we just mothball it, then we won't have any staff to come up with these ideas.

So that would be my thing. So I would guess it would be for Mr. Abbott, number 4 would be mothball it with enough staff left to come up with a plan of what they're doing, which I don't know what that looks like, but that's my amendment. Okay, we've heard an amendment to that to add that level of analysis. Are there any objections to the amendment?

Uh, Mr. Brooks?

I don't need to speak to it, just objection. Okay, we have an amendment, we have an objection. Ms. Wanda, will you please call roll?

Thank you, Chair Hughes-Scandies. I'll repeat the original motion and then the amendment. The original motion is to direct city and Eagle Crest staff to work together to bring back the cost of keeping Eagle Crest warm. The amendment is to include, um, direction to leave enough staff to come up with a future plan for Eagle Crest.

Assemblymember Smith. Yes. Assemblymember Kelly. Yes. Assemblymember Hall.

Yes.

Assemblymember Brooks. No.

Assemblymember Steininger. Yes.

Assemblymember Wall. Yes.

Mayor Walden? Yes. Chair Hughes-Scandies? Yes. Amendment passes 7 ayes, 1 nay.

Great. And with that amendment, I'll throw the gavel. Thank you for that, Ms. Hughes-Scandies. Um, so we have a motion as amended, and I haven't spoken yet, but, um, and unfortunately Ms. Atkinson had to go home with a medical issue. Um, And I would, even though you guys said yes to my amendment, I would have to object because I think Mr. Collins spoke to it.

Mothballing is different in Eagle Crest, and you would hardly save any money. So, um, I would object. So, Madam Clerk, we have a motion as, um, Ms. Wall. Ms. Wall.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just wanted one more opportunity to speak to this. At first, I want to say, you know, for those of you listening that don't know me, I do not want to be in this situation. I love Eagle Crest. I, um, all the reasons that people give for why this place is important speak to me.

I think it is critically important to the future of our community. Um, but I can't think about— I don't think it's fair and equitable in this community to spend as much taxpayer dollars as we would be proposing spending on Eagle Crest while we are talking about cutting other things. I think we have to put it on the table for putting other things on the table. Um, you just Someone spoke to it in the— today about kind of the how much less accessible Eagle Crest is relative to our other facilities. So that's why I'm making this motion.

I hope that we can find a solution for all of these facilities that we love, including Eagle Crest, but I don't think it's a responsible use of our funds to, to keep operating as we have been. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Wall, for that. Um, Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I, I just wanted to speak. Um, I think I'll speak in support of this motion.

I, I don't expect that, um, I am going to be in favor of the final result, but I think, I think it's good to make an informed decision and be able to support that with, with data. So given that it won't be too much of a burden on staff, and given that we're making some pretty big decisions, you know, I, I expect the information that we get back to, to not support mothballing and Um, I don't know, I just want to make an informed decision. Um, so while I, I don't expect I will be voting in the final— my final vote, uh, in support of mothballing Eagle Crest, um, I do want to be able to support my decision with data. So thank you.

Uh, thank you for that. And before we call the roll, let's take a 2-minute recess.

All right, we will— sorry, we'll bring us back into session. So, uh, Madam Clerk, we have a motion with amendment. Would you please call roll? Thank you, Madam Mayor. On the motion to direct city and Eagle Crest staff to work together to bring back the cost of heat.

Keeping Eagle Crest warm, as amended to also include direction to leave enough staff to come up with a future plan of Eagle Crest. Assemblymember Wall? Yes. Assemblymember Steininger? No.

Assemblymember Hughes-Scandies? Yes. Assemblymember Hall? No. Assemblymember Brooks?

No. Assemblymember Kelly. Yes. Assemblymember Smith.

Yes.

Mayor Walden. No.

The motion fails, 4 ayes, 4 nays.

All right, with that, like I said, this is in finance. It will stay in finance. Um, and we will move onward in our agenda.

Our next meeting date, and, uh, hopefully Ms. Wall will be well by then, is May 6th. Um, is there anything else before the Finance Committee tonight?

Seeing nothing, we are adjourned.