2023-2026 City of Beaumont Communication Plan
Appendix C — Placeholder Crisis Communication Plan
Under deve opmen-. The expected comp
2024.Contingent upon Emergency Plan.
e
ion and addition to the P
an is Fa
BAUME ONT
-C A L I F O R N I A
Staff Report
TO: City Council
FROM: Julie Van Hook, Public Information Officer
DATE February 18, 2025
SUBJECT: Economic Development Marketing Slogan
Description This report presents a few economic development slogans for consideration aimed at enhancing the city's brand identity and business appeal. The slogans are designed to reflect the city's growth, innovation, and commitment to economic vitality. It aligns with our strategic goals to attract new businesses, support existing enterprises, and promote a thriving local economy.
Background and Analysis:
Effective marketing is crucial to helping attract businesses, investors, and residents to Beaumont. A well -crafted slogan serves as a concise and memorable message that represents the City's economic strengths and vision for the future.
Given the ongoing efforts to promote business growth, it is important to establish a clear and compelling slogan that aligns with our economic development strategy for the future.
The City has been working on developing a slogan that reflects business growth, opportunity, innovation, and quality of life. A strong slogan will:
• Reinforce City identity as pro -business
• Differentiate ourselves from competing cities
• Serve as a point for economic initiatives and on promotional materials • Enhance engagement with stakeholders, including businesses, investors and residents.
Based on proposals presented to the Economic Development Committee and their feedback, the following slogans have been developed:
1. Elevating Business, Growing Communities
2. Elevating Your Vision, Building Your Dreams
3. Build Your Vision, Elevate Your Future
Considerations:
• Brand Consistency: It is important that the slogan aligns with the City's existing branding and communications strategy. It should be easily integrated into existing marketing materials and digital platforms.
• Audience Appeal: The slogan should resonate with a variety of stakeholders, including entrepreneurs, investors, and the local community. • Memorability: The chosen slogan should be catchy, easy to remember, and concise.
• Adaptability: The slogan should be flexible enough to be used in a wide range of marketing contexts, from digital media to print advertising.
Fiscal Impact:
The cost to prepare this staff report was approximately $50.00.
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends that the City Council consider the proposed slogans from the Economic Development Committee and provide direction on the preferred option.
BAUME ONT
-c A L I F O R N I A
Staff Report
TO: City Council
FROM: John Pinkney, City Attorney
Elizabeth Gibbs, City Manager
DATE February 18, 2025
SUBJECT: Inquiry of City Hosted Candidate Forum
Description At the request of Council Member White, the City Attorney's Office researched the parameters of a City -hosted candidate forum.
Background and Analysis:
At the request of Council Member White, this item is being brought forward for City Council discussion. Research was conducted on the parameters of a city -hosted candidate forum. Both the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act) and the Political Reform Act (Act) were referred to when conducting this research. The Ralph M. Brown Act is a Chapter within the California Government Code section 59450 and governs public meetings of local public agencies. The purpose behind the creation of the Brown Act is to ensure transparency and public access to meetings of governing bodies. The Political Reform Act governs the disclosure of political campaign contributions, spending by candidates, and ballot measure committees.
While neither act exclusively regulates candidate forums, the California League of Cities and the Fair Political Practices Commission have provided the following opinions.
Opinion of the League of California Cities (Cal Cities) In the Cal Cities Guide to the Ralph M. Brown Act (Attachment A), a question is posed as to whether all three candidates up for election could answer questions about a controversial project at a chamber of commerce -sponsored candidate debate. The answer provided was "Yes, because the chamber of commerce, not the city is organizing the debate. The city should not sponsor the event or assign staff to help organize or run the event."
Opinion of the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC)
In a published opinion letter from the FPPC (Attachment B), where they reference the Political Reform Act (Act) a question was posed as to whether a city could televise a candidate forum or debate at a city -owned facility hosted by a third -party organization, in which the city would pay for the cost for the broadcast. The answer provided was "The Act does not prohibit the City from conducting a candidate forum or debate at a City -owned facility hosted by a third -party organization to be televised on Pinole TV provided that all candidates have equal time and opportunity to participate." Then later speaks to the in -kind contribution of televising the forum as follows. "Generally, we have advised that providing a forum to a candidate, without charging the candidate for the cost of the event, is considered an in -kind contribution. However, where a forum is made available to all candidates for the same office, we have advised no contribution results."Then, it further clarifies the emphasis on providing the opportunity to participate and equal debate time to all candidates for the same office.
In a supplemental letter (Attachment C), the FPPC further clarifies that an invitation to both the proponent and opponent alone is not sufficient in the case of a ballot measure. "...the City must ensure a fair and balanced approach for each side; otherwise, the broadcast could potentially become reportable campaign expenditure." Fiscal Impact:
Staff estimates the cost to prepare this report to be $225.00.
Recommended Action:
Provide direction on whether the Council wishes to pursue a public candidate forum on City premises.
Attachments:
A. Cal Cities Guide to the Ralph M. Brown Act
B. FPPC Opinion Letter A-18-187
C. FPPC Opinion Letter A -18-187(a)
rnnferenr-ac
The second exception allows a legislative body majority to attend a conference or similar gathering open to the public that addresses issues of general interest to the public or to public agencies of the type represented by the legislative body.
Among other things, this exception permits legislative body members to attend annual association conferences of city, county, school, community college, and other local agency officials, as long as those meetings are open to the public. However, a majority of members cannot discuss among themselves, other than as part of the scheduled program, business of a specific nature that is within their local agency's subject matter jurisdiction.
Community meeting
The third exception allows a legislative body majority to attend an open and publicized meeting held by another organization to address a topic of local community concern. A majority cannot discuss among themselves, other than as part of the scheduled program, business of a specific nature that is within the legislative body's subject matter jurisdiction. Under this exception, a legislative body majority may attend a local service club meeting or a local candidates' night if the meetings are open to the public.
"I see we have four distinguished members of the city council at our meeting tonight," said the chair of the Environmental Action Coalition. "I wonder if they have anything to say about the controversy over enacting a slow growth ordinance?"
The Brown Act permits a majority of a legislative body to attend and speak at an open and publicized meeting conducted by another organization. The Brown Act may nevertheless be violated if a majority discusses, deliberates, or takes action on an item during the meeting of the other organization. There is a fine line between what is permitted and what is not; hence, members should exercise caution when participating in these types of events.
The local chamber of commerce sponsors an open and public candidate debate during an election campaign. Three of the five agency members are up for reelection and all three participate. All of the candidates are asked their views on a controversial project scheduled for a meeting to occur just after the election. May the three incumbents answer the question?
Yes, because the chamber of commerce, not the city, is organizing the debate. The city should not sponsor the event or assign city staff to help organize or run the event. Also, the Brown Act does not constrain the incumbents from expressing their views regarding important matters facing the local agency as part of the political process the same as any other candidates. Finally, incumbents participating in the event should take care to limit their remarks to the program set by the chamber and safeguard due process by indicating they will keep an open mind regarding specific applications that might come before the council.
C May the three incumbents accept an invitation from the editorial board of a local paper to all candidates to meet as a group and answer questions about and/or debate city issues?
No, unlike the chamber of commerce event, this would not be allowed under the Brown Act because it is not an open and publicized meeting.
OPEN & PUBLIC VI: A GUIDE TO TI -it ;2:'._r: : M. BROWN ACT 19
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION
11O2 Q Street • Suite 3000 • Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 322-5660 • Fax (916) 322-0886
September 26, 2018
Eric S. Casher
Attorney at Law
meyers nave
555 12th Street, Suite 1500
Oakland, CA 94607
Re: Your Request for Advice
Our File No. A-18-187
Dear Mr. Casher:
This letter responds to your request for advice regarding the campaign provisions of the Political Reform Act (the "Act").'
Also, note that we are not a finder of fact when rendering advice (In re Oglesby (1975) 1 FPPC Ops. 71), and any advice we provide assumes your facts are complete and accurate. If this is not the case or if the facts underlying these decisions should change, you should contact us for additional advice.
QUESTIONS
1. Can the City conduct a City Council candidate forum or debate at a City -owned facility hosted by a third -party organization, to be televised on Pinole TV, the recording and broadcast costs of which will be paid for by the City? If the answer is no, what if the broadcast costs are paid for by a private entity?
2. Can the City televise video recorded candidate statements on Pinole TV, the recording and broadcast costs of which will be paid for by the City? If the answer is no, what if the broadcast costs were paid for by a private entity?
3. Can the City televise video recorded arguments regarding a proposed ballot measure on Pinole TV for which the recording and broadcast costs of which will be paid for by the City? If the answer is no, what if the broadcast costs were paid for by a private entity? I The Political Reform Act is contained in Government Code Sections 81000 through 91014. All statutory references are to the Government Code, unless otherwise indicated. The regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission are contained in Sections 18110 through 18997 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations. All regulatory references are to Title 2, Division fzoa the California. Cq�pf Regulations, unless otherwise indicated.
File No. A-18-187
Page No. 2
CONCLUSION
1. The Act does not prohibit the City from conducting a candidate forum or debate at a City - owned facility hosted by a third -party organization to be televised on Pinole TV provided that all candidates have equal time and opportunity to participate.
2. The Act does not prohibit the City from televising recorded candidate statements on Pinole TV provided that all candidates have equal time and opportunity to participate.
3. The Act does not prohibit the City from televising video recorded arguments regarding a proposed ballot measure so long as the proponent of a ballot measure and at least one opponent, or their respective representative, are invited to participate in equal numbers.
FACTS
You are the City Attorney for the City of Pinole ("City"). The City is a general law city with five city councilmembers. At the November 6, 2018, statewide general election, the City's voters will elect three individuals to serve on the City Council. Currently, there are seven individuals running for three City Council seats. In addition, at the November election, the City's voters will also consider whether or not to approve a ballot measure submitted to voters by the City Council.
The City owns and operates a public access cable television channel known as Pinole Community Television ("Pinole TV"). Pinole TV is based out of Pinole City Hall, and receives essentially all of its funding from the City of Pinole, both from the City's General Fund and from Public, Education, and Government ("PEG") fees collected by the City from cable franchisees.
The City is currently considering allowing a third -party organization to host a City Council candidate debate or forum at a City facility such as City Hall. This even would be filmed and broadcast on Pinole TV.
In addition, several candidates have expressed interest in filming short candidate statements to be shown periodically on Pinole TV. Each candidate's statement would be of equal length, and the filming and broadcast costs for these statements would be paid for by the City. All candidates would be given the opportunity to record a statement, and when Pinole TV broadcasts the statements, the order in which the statements are shown would be chosen randomly.
Finally, the City is considering allowing supporters and opponents of the proposed ballot measure to film short arguments regarding the measure, of equal length, to be broadcast periodically on Pinole TV. The filming and broadcast costs for these statements would be paid for by the City. Both opponents and supporters of the measure would be given the opportunity to record arguments. When Pinole TV broadcasts the statements, the order in which the arguments are shown would be chosen randomly.
ANALYSIS
Section 82015(a) of the Act defines "contribution" as "a payment, a forgiveness of a loan, a payment of a loan by a third party, or an enforceable promise to make a payment, except to the
File No. A-18-187
Page No. 3
extent that full and adequate consideration is received or if it is clear from the surrounding circumstances that the payment is not made for political purposes." Regulation 18215 states:
"(a) A contribution is any payment made for political purposes for which full and adequate consideration is not made to the donor. A payment is made for political purposes if it is:
"(1) For the purpose of influencing or attempting to influence the action of the voters for or against the nomination or election of a candidate or candidates, or the qualification or passage of any measure..."
Section 82015(b) further provides that a contribution includes "the granting of discounts or rebates by television and radio stations and newspapers not extended on an equal basis to all candidates for the same office...."
Generally, we have advised that providing a forum to a candidate, without charging the candidate for the cost of the event, is considered an in -kind contribution. However, where a forum is made available to all candidates for the same office, we have advised no contribution results. (Gross Advice Letter, No. A-83-200, Larruccia Advice Letter, No. I-89-137, Wilson Advice Letter, No. A-92-456, Mancuso Advice Letter, A-94-370, and Smith Advice Letter, No. A-03-177.) The rationale for not treating events that provide equal access to all candidates as contributions was discussed in the context of free television time in the Morten Advice Letter, No.
A-88-293 as follows:
"We believe this provision was included in the definition of contribution for the purpose of ensuring that the public have access to both sides of issues on which they are to vote. Allowing the media to provide free advertising time on an equal basis to opposing candidates, and to those supporting and those opposing ballot issues, serves the interests of the public in receiving information needed to make an informed decision at the polls.
The requirement in Section 82015 that the radio or television station or the newspaper extend the policy of providing equal time to all candidates for the same office (or both sides of an issue in the case of ballot measures) ensures that the exception for free media advertising time will be utilized as a method of providing information to the public on campaign issues. A media provider which did not extend the opportunity for free advertising time to all candidates for the same office, or to both sides of a ballot issue would be deemed to be making contributions to the candidate or committee which received the free time." Thus, if all candidates in an election for a specific office are invited on the same terms and conditions to the event, the cost of the event will not result in contributions to any candidate. The City may pay for the costs and televise on Pinole TV a debate hosted by a third -party organization
File No. A-18-187
Page No. 4
as long as each candidate has the opportunity to be included in the debate. Additionally, the City may televise recorded candidate statements on Pinole TV provided that all candidates have equal time and opportunity to participate. It is not necessary that all candidates take advantage of the opportunity, so long as the opportunity is provided on the same terms and conditions to all candidates. (Mancuso Advice Letter, supra; llrforien Advice Letter, A-88-293.) In the case of televised recorded arguments for and against a ballot measure, Regulation 18215(c)(11) provides an exception to the definition of contributions for "a payment for a debate or other forum in which the proponent of a ballot measure and at least one opponent, or their respective representative, were invited to participate in equal numbers." This rationale was also discussed in the Morten Advice letter cited above. Therefore, the City may televise video recorded arguments regarding a proposed ballot measure so long as the proponent of a ballot measure and at least one opponent, or their respective representative, are invited to participate in equal numbers.
Other Laws
Laws outside the Act may be implicated by the broadcasts on Pinole TV. Stanson v. Mott, (1976) 17 Cal.3d 206, Section 8314, Section 54964 and Penal Code Section 424 are among the authorities proscribing the use of public moneys for campaign -related activities by a state or local governmental entity. Since we cannot provide advice regarding areas outside of the Act, we can only recommend them for your review.
If you have other questions on this matter, please contact me at (916) 322-5660.
Sincerely,
Brian G. Lau
Assistant General Counsel
Sukhi Brar
By: Senior Counsel, Legal Division
SKB:jgl
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION
11O2 Q Street • Suite 3000 • Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 322-5660 • Fax (916) 322-0886
October 23, 2018
Eric S. Casher
Attorney at Law
Meyers Nave
555 12t" Street, Suite J500
Oakland, CA 94607
Re: Your Request for Advice
Our File No. A -18-187(a)
Dear Mr. Casher:
This letter supplements our recent advice letter to you dated September 26, 2018 regarding the campaign provisions of the Political Reform Act (the "Act").1 To reiterate, our advice is based on the facts presented; the Fair Political Practices Commission (the "Commission") does not act as a finder of fact when it renders assistance. (In re Oglesby (1975) 1 FPPC Ops. 71.) In our previous letter, we examined the issue of whether the City of Pinole could televise video recorded arguments regarding a proposed ballot measure on Pinole TV for which the recording and broadcast costs would be paid for by the City. We advised that the Act does not prohibit the City from televising video recorded arguments regarding a proposed ballot measure so long as the proponent of a ballot measure and at least one opponent, or their respective representative, are invited to participate in equal numbers. (Casher Advice Letter, No. A-18-187.) We wanted to further emphasize that an invitation to both the proponent and opponent alone is not sufficient. To the extent that the City is broadcasting proponent and opponent arguments related to an initiative or ballot measure, the City must ensure a fair and balanced approach for each side, otherwise the broadcast could potentially become a reportable campaign expenditure. (See Stanson v. Mott (1976) 17 Ca1.3d. 206 and Regulation 18420.1).
Accordingly, the City must take adequate measures to ensure that both sides of a ballot measure are provided. At a minimum, the City must consult both supporters and opponents of a measure and provide both pros and cons in a manner that provides a fair and balanced summary of both viewpoints. Ultimately, it will be the City's responsibility to develop a procedure to ensure broadcasts are fair and balanced. However, an example of an appropriate approach, if arguments have been submitted for both sides of a ballot measurement for publication in the county voter information guide, would be to provide both sides of a ballot argument as provided in the guide. If The Political Reform Act is contained in Government Code Sections 81000 through 91014. All statutory references are to the Government Code, unless otherwise indicated. The regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission are contained in Sections 18110 through 18997 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations. All regulatory references are to Title 2, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations, unless otherwise indicated.
File No. A -18-187(a)
Page No. 2
the City needs additional assistance regarding any specific broadcast involving a ballot measure, the City should seek further advice fully describing the planned broadcast.
If you have other questions on this matter, please contact me at (916) 322-5660.
Sincerely,
Dave Bainbridge
General Counsel
By: Sukhi Brar
Senior Counsel, Legal Division
SKB:jgl
FY 2025 FYTD 2025 Actual
Beginning Fund Estimated January Activity Revenues
Balance (unaudited) Revenues
PROPRIETARY/ENTERPRISE FUNDS
840 Community Facilities District (210,016,093.23)
860 Evidence 21,849.78
TOTALS
FY 2025 FYTD 2025
% Budgeted January Activity Actual % T/D Ending Fund
Expenditures Expenditures Balance
20,753,937.00 11,510,497.28 22,304,565.13 107% 20,144,790.00 - 99.99 6,985.74 -
32,865,176.04
0% (220,576,704.14)
28,835.52
(209,994,243.45) 20,753,937.00 11,510,597.27 22,311,550.87 108% 20,144,790.00 32,865,176.04 163% (220,547,868.62)
Beginning Fund Balance
(unaudited)
FY 2025 Budgeted January FYTD 2025 Actual
Revenues Activity Receipts
%
FY 2025 Budgeted January FYTD 2025 Actual
Expenditures Activity Disbursements
T/D Ending Fund
Balance
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
100 GENERAL FUND 41,960,431.31 68,194,955.00 6,373,633.16 120 SELF INSURANCE 6,898,220.84 160,000.00
200 GAS TAX 140,030.09 1,565,135.00 149,013.14
201 SB1 2,712,032.90 1,449,419.00 135,808.68
202 MEASURE A 2,310,642.29 923,257.00 70,775.71
205 AQMD 248,371.12 71,431.00
210 PEG 42,675.23 12,367.00
215 CDBG/GRANTS 91,549.17 6,357,565.00 9,283.40
220 COPS 530,104.40 105,237.00
225 ASSET SEIZURES (STATE) 303,353.90 2,944.00 589.62
230 ASSET SEIZURES (FEDERAL) 100,705.72 597.00 14.42
240 OTHER FUNDS 522,798.79 75,756.00 2,952.81
250 CFD-ADMIN 1,367,147.35 1,366,197.00
255 CFD-MAINTSVCS 258,933.93 4,811,910.00 2,767,543.36
260 CFD-PUBLIC SAFETY 552,116.41 1,589,899.00 962,557.52 500 GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECTS 51,057,566.07 132,953,835.00 288.42 510 CFD CAPITAL PROJECTS 12,616,801.13 2,127.00
550 DIF 7,032.71 -
552 BASIC SERVICES DIF 1,193,509.06 222,523.00
554 GENERAL PLAN DIF 262,150.44 22,475.00
555 RECREATIONAL FACILITIES DIF 2,959,965.64 349,589.00 556 TRAFFIC IMPACT DIF 1,252,418.95 135,510.00
558 RAILROAD CROSSING DIF 2,431,181.44 164,743.00
559 POLICE FACILITIES DIF 2,087,989.95 253,688.00
560 FIRE STATION DIF 1,701,881.57 301,752.00
562 ROAD AND BRIDGE DIF 15,420,454.39 1,192,000.00
566 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS DIF 1,129,129.20 301,712.00
567 COMMUNITY PARK DIF 3,493,326.22 1,090,088.00
568 REGIONAL PARK DIF 1,894,922.68 1,413.00
569 NEIGHBORHOOD PARK DIF 4,396,488.78 1,337,895.00
570 PASS THROUGH DIF 5,570,397.73
850 Beaumont Financing Authority 34,409,674.12 3,079,842.00 855 Beaumont Public Improvement Authorit 36,629,322.63 3,153,743.00 TOTALS 159,943,931.68 225,016,019.00 10,472,460.24
34,518,382.33 51% 73,373,721.00 4,643,375.43 44,224,546.83 60% 32,254,266.81 132,410.50 0% 180,820.00 - 150,818.85 0% 6,879,812.49
916,287.30 59% 1,565,135.00 622,834.83 40% 433,482.56
853,721.21 59% 2,349,111.00 900,865.00 38% 2,664,889.11 411,100.00 45% 1,534,800.00 688,001.00 45% 2,033,741.29 43,572.76 61% 215,500.00 93,274.73 0% 198,669.15
3,537.15 29% 6,300.00 - 2,586.00 0% 43,626.38
587,379.25 9% 10,588,091.00 436.38 304,681.38 3% 374,247.04 155,685.43 148% 343,467.00 15,954.96 98,978.90 29% 586,810.93 24,152.64 0% 286,462.00 10,608.45 104,814.95 0% 222,691.59 19,047.24 0% 0% 119,752.96
115,414.60 152% 257,145.22 24,725.37 112,528.25 44% 525,685.14 25,229.36 2% 1,713,672.00 - 399,166.61 23% 993,210.10
2,773,208.68 58% 5,346,769.00 0 10,305.00 0% 3,021,837.61 973,605.94 61% 1,587,924.00 0% 1,525,722.35
7,604,277.33 6% 171,430,230.00 1,595,635.63 10,547,776.11 6% 48,114,067.29 230,411.30 0% 8,394,734.00 - 2,365,740.66 0% 10,481,471.77 139.53 0% 0% 7,172.24
127,411.30 57% 34,356.00 908.69 0% 1,320,011.67
15,248.66 68% 0% 277,399.10
220,392.57 63% 900,000.00 - 0% 3,180,358.21
86,314.69 64% 1,155,712.00 45,780.50 0% 1,292,953.14
113,523.70 69% 126,387.00 126,287.33 0% 2,418,417.81
161,930.98 64% 780,447.00 108,390.28 0% 2,141,530.65
56,793.03 19% 914,321.00 74,233.37 0% 1,684,441.23
860,533.63 72% 11,266,029.00 - 504,466.44 0% 15,776,521.58 168,672.59 56% - 0% 1,297,801.79
99,863.07 9% 4,318,218.00 - 0% 3,593,189.29
37,371.93 0% 1,842,925.00 39,425.49 0% 1,892,869.12
124,203.62 9% 1,349,000.00 0% 4,520,692.40
0% 6,362,815.00 170,501.12 0% 5,399,896.61
760,697.36 25% 3,079,842.00 2,442,923.02 0% 32,727,448.46 454,345.77 14% 3,153,743.00 2,718,182.52 0% 34,365,485.88 51,459,822.32 23% 314,457,676.22 6,290,736.22 66,858,017.86 21% 149,877,342.80
Beginning Fund
Balance
(unaudited)
PROPRIETARY/ENTERPRISE FUNDS
FY 2025
Estimated
Revenues
January FYTD 2025 Actual
Activity Revenues
FY 2025
% Budgeted
Expenditures
January
Activity
FYTD 2025
Actual % T/D Ending Fund
Expenditures Balance
564 RECYCLED WATER DIF 4,752,948.08 332,463.00 256,788.86 77% 1,943,687.00 - 137,729.93 0% 4,872,007.01 600 INTERNAL SERVICE FUND 9,719,886.39 1,578,920.00 916,976.19 58% 3,969,193.00 40,729.13 681,276.08 17% 9,955,586.50 700 WASTEWATER 7,598,525.02 14,830,049.00 2,553,736.91 8,517,064.94 57% 14,891,189.00 555,622.40 7,334,321.92 49% 8,781,268.04 705 WASTEWATER DIF 10,315,901.62 2,041,765.00 1,480,205.55 72% 8,162,910.00 561,525.65 7% 11,234,581.52 710 WASTEWATER CAPITAL PRO 102,999,422.07 15,630,847.00 4,010,832.56 26% 18,163,627.00 47,331.84 4,093,621.24 23% 102,916,633.39 750 TRANSIT (75,904.84) 3,278,071.00 11,416.70 1,802,616.32 55% 3,278,071.00 280,397.23 1,654,221.24 50% 72,490.24 755 Transit GASB 68 Fund 414,398.61 0% - - 0% 414,398.61 760 TRANSIT CAPITAL PROJECTS 4,997,496.25 21,739,637.00 2,423,640.90 5,693,360.98 26% 21,739,637.00 807,880.30 5,693,360.98 26% 4,997,496.25 TOTALS 140,722,673.20 59,431,752.00 4,988,794.51 22,677,845.40 38% 72,148,314.00 1,731,960.90 20,156,057.04 28% 143,244,461.56