2026-09-15 - Finance Committee

00:24Thank you, sir.

00:54All right.

00:58So, thank y'all for coming again today.

01:00This is our second second finance

01:02committee meeting in the past two weeks.

01:04Um, obviously the budget is on the

01:06agenda. Um, it was laid over LA for one

01:09week. Um, it'll be back on agenda next

01:12week. Um, uh, the members of the finance

01:14committee, um, it would be me, uh, the

01:17chairman, um, Council Member Reynolds,

01:19and Council Member Ingram, and then, uh,

01:22everyone else, um, is has joined us here

01:25today. Um, since last week, we we

01:27obviously uh, just kind of recap and we

01:30we heard from uh, from the finance

01:32department um, uh, regarding the budget.

01:36Questions were asked. Um, we did kind of

01:38run out of time last week. Um, so in the

01:40effort to in an effort to try to

01:43streamline the process, make sure that

01:45everybody's time is efficiently used and

01:47appropriately used, um, council members

01:49submitted questions, uh, over the past

01:52week. Um, um, I remitted them and I know

01:55Kesha them as well to the finance

01:57department and we've gotten um, we've

02:00gotten answers on that. Um, and uh, I'll

02:04uh,

02:06we'll we'll talk about uh, potentially

02:09posting these um, at least on the

02:10council web page. Um, so that at least

02:13um, you know, the the questions that

02:15were submitted in writing uh, everyone

02:16would would have access to review them

02:19uh, once they're posted as far as over

02:21the next week or so since we're we're

02:23coming on a budget vote. Um, last week,

02:26Council Member Reynolds and Council

02:27Member Ingram um, asked questions. Uh

02:30there was a couple spot questions that

02:32brings us up to today. Um so that being

02:34said, uh I will open the open and turn

02:38it over. I would ask council members

02:39obviously we've scheduled or set aside

02:41two hours for this meeting. Um obviously

02:44want to make sure that questions get

02:45answered, but if we can uh concise

02:48questions um that way we can u we can

02:50kind to to have more directed questions.

02:53And then I guess um also as a favor on

02:55the on the administration side um if we

02:58could keep answers uh pretty concise as

03:00well and then um that way we'll maximize

03:03our time together. Um I do have a gavl

03:05today and um I will use the gavvel but

03:08uh but anyways but I I do appreciate

03:10everybody's time last week. Thanks for

03:12the good questions. I thank you Logan

03:13and your team for all y'all done so far

03:15on this and thank you for getting these

03:17these uh questions answered. Um with

03:19that I'll turn it over. We'll start with

03:21Council Member Penn. Um, let him if he

03:23if he'd like to kick kick us off.

03:27>> You'll get your turn. Yeah, you took all

03:30the time last time, Mr. Reynolds. Um,

03:33thank you, um, Chairman. Um, I did

03:36submit some questions and majority of my

03:38questions um were answered. Um, I

03:42understand. I want to make sure that the

03:45the the public kind of understand the

03:47one of my questions was about the Metro

03:49Jail. um the increase from 10 million to

03:5215 million. Um can you just share the

03:56reason why um it shows that increase?

04:06>> Okay,

04:07>> page nine.

04:07>> Um that increase is in line with the

04:11trend. I put the numbers in those

04:13questions. The the amount that's gone to

04:15the jail

04:17the past few years. I think it's like 13

04:1914 now tracking toward 15.

04:23[clears throat]

04:24The county runs the jail. If I say

04:26anything wrong, Robert can jump up and

04:29uh but the county runs the jail and then

04:32we get an invoice each month for the

04:36detail of the cost for the month and

04:38then our bill for 35% of the cost. That

04:43deal tracks back to 1989 when before the

04:46jail was built and

04:49that was that was just the deal. So the

04:52it was budgeted 10 million last year. I

04:55wasn't here last year. I don't fully

04:57understand that. Um it was under

05:00budgeted. I think part of it there was a

05:02new ankle monitoring program

05:05which the city put in $800,000 for last

05:08year. [clears throat] The continuing

05:10annual cost for that is $170,000.

05:14I heard there was some hope that that

05:16would help temper cost. I'm not sure by

05:19four or five million, but

05:21um I mean we haven't seen any any

05:23decrease since, but you know, possibly

05:26it was budgeted lower with some hope

05:28that that might help temper the cost,

05:30but in total it's trending towards 15

05:33million this year and that's what we

05:35budgeted. So when you say trending is um

05:39is it expectations that every year is

05:41going to go up? Is it based on a

05:43percentage?

05:45>> It is. We we do have the full cost that

05:49um the cost detail behind it, but the

05:52city's bill is for 35% of that amount

05:57>> every year. Okay. And that's the reason

05:58why it's going up. Um, [clears throat]

06:00one of the other questions, um, the

06:01Mobile Area Foundation, uh, I see that

06:05it wasn't in the performance contract in

06:07the past. Um, you kind of shared, um,

06:10where it was located in the in last year

06:13budget.

06:16>> Is this the home builder or

06:17>> this is the Mobile Area Chamber

06:19Foundation?

06:20>> Yeah. If you'll go to your capital

06:21budget, you'll see where it was budgeted

06:23there.

06:26>> If you'll go to your capital budget,

06:27you'll see where the chamber was

06:28budgeted in the capital budget in 26.

06:30That's been moved to the performance

06:32contracts in 27.

06:33>> Was it a reason for the move?

06:36>> We're trying to put all the performance

06:37contracts in one spot.

06:39>> Okay. And it was just for whatever

06:41reason that was just in capital last.

06:43>> That's correct. That's correct.

06:44>> Okay.

06:45>> Um economic development, that's also in

06:47capital. that's more of a projectbased

06:50type deal. That's why that's in capital

06:53chambers related. It used to be in

06:55capital as well. We sat back and looked

06:57at and said, "Well, that's fine for

06:59economic development. Why is why is the

07:01chamber in capital?" So, we moved it

07:04over.

07:04>> And and what is the purpose of um what's

07:07the measurable outcome for this $500,000

07:09for the chamber foundation?

07:12>> Oh gosh, there's a I'm not going to

07:14speak about my pay grade. There there's

07:16a pretty full answer in the questions

07:20[clears throat]

07:20>> on page n I just want I I need some of

07:24the questions the public don't know.

07:26>> Absolutely. Yeah. A lot of what that

07:28answer speaks to is the fact that the

07:31value that Mobile gets from that

07:34economic development function versus

07:37having that inhouse is multiples.

07:41Uh there are some go for

07:44>> happy to speak to this um quickly but uh

07:47as as you all know most most of the

07:49council members know this but we are a

07:51participating member of T-Mobile and

07:53T-Mobile involves both the city and the

07:56county and also the chamber and private

07:58entities uh and public entities around

08:00the um area. We've chosen to go with a

08:04regional approach to economic

08:05development which gives us a greater

08:07impact with our shared resources. to

08:10answer the question um Councilman Penn

08:11about the um metrics. We do receive uh

08:16quarterly reports from the chamber and

08:18I'm happy to get those over to you with

08:21help from the finance team. But also um

08:26as we do our economic development

08:28announcements, as the job announcements

08:31come through, as we invest in major

08:35companies moving here through site

08:36selection, etc. um that is all done

08:40through the service that the chamber

08:42provides to us in um their economic

08:45development services. There are many

08:47government agencies that have in-house

08:50economic development departments,

08:53but I think that um the city and the

08:55county have tremendously benefited from

08:58this sharing in resources. Yeah, I think

09:01it's very important to have shared

09:02resources and a lot of times sometimes

09:05doing the in-house could be a challenge

09:07and you can get a be better bang for

09:09your buck when you come together as a

09:11group. Um, one of the things that I

09:13would I know I I mentioned this to

09:15President Small in the past is by

09:18holding a a gigantic um job fair

09:21resource opportunity. I believe a lot of

09:24times people in our city doesn't know

09:26all the opportunities that presented you

09:29know in different districts in the city

09:31of Mobile. Um and so I think it it would

09:34be great to have some collaboration um

09:37with the chamber with the city with

09:39other um companies and I think we got to

09:41use our leverage in the beginning to

09:44start doing that to hold companies

09:45accountable to say hey look we need you

09:47to you know support the initiative for

09:50our residents in our city. So, um, I'd

09:52love to have some conversations. Thank

09:54you for answering the question.

09:55>> Yes, sir.

09:57>> Um,

09:59fleet man management. U, we talked about

10:01the 2.7 million increase. Can you kind

10:04of explain exactly what's going on

10:06there?

10:08>> Yes. This goes back to the fact

10:11[clears throat] that the one major

10:12change in method

10:16in this budget versus last year is that

10:18we are um and Shauna can speak to this

10:21too. We're um budgeting all the city

10:25vehicles that are not police or fire

10:26within the fleet cost center. So last

10:30year those vehicles would have been

10:32inside the various cost centers.

10:35This year they'll all be in fleet. What

10:37that does help them to do is they can

10:39actually prioritize. They're not tied to

10:41a certain dollar amount budget at each

10:44department that they're trying to figure

10:45out which car to get or how to spend.

10:48Fleet can make the efficient decisions

10:50of which vehicles should go where and

10:53then allocate those out to the cost

10:54centers. U but what that does

10:58[clears throat] is since all those

10:59vehicles are in fleet this year, that's

11:00why fleets higher. That's the main

11:02reason why fleets higher.

11:05>> Yes. 2.2 million for trolleys and

11:08related infrastructure is inside of that

11:10fleet cost center as well.

11:12>> And when you said when he said trolley,

11:13I assume buses and any any fleet that we

11:17own that's inv

11:23the budget for the city share of that

11:26>> is that a part of the fleet management

11:28>> expense is in the fleet call center.

11:30That's 2.2 million. So when we reference

11:3414.9 to second line transit, you'll see

11:3812.7 of that and the transfers out

11:41section of the budget. The remaining 2.2

11:44is inside of fleet

11:47and then 4 and a half is of that 14.9 is

11:50coming back to the city.

11:53>> So currently we um I guess every

11:56department manage their own fleet and

11:59it's not like that. Okay.

12:03Good afternoon. So last year we did a

12:07complete transition of how we do fleet.

12:09Prior to that, fleet was in capital and

12:12each department had capital money in

12:14their department. Last year is where we

12:16changed it. We moved all the money from

12:17capital into general fund and had them

12:20purchase all the vehicles that they

12:22needed because the money had been

12:23sitting. What's moving forward is that

12:26now fleet controls all the purchasing

12:29and the disposal of vehicles. What that

12:31also means is every year there's going

12:33to be a different amount in fleet

12:35vehicles based off of the need. So this

12:37year we got 4 million. Next year it may

12:40be 8 million that we need. So we request

12:42and then based off of what we can we

12:44make adjustments to purchase. So we have

12:47a five to sevenyear plan that we're

12:49working on to create right now. So then

12:51we know what vehicles are needed to be

12:53replaced by each department and we

12:55consult with them, but we ultimately

12:57purchase and fleet department for that.

13:00>> Gotcha.

13:02Thank you. Um and then my last question

13:05um um just want to make sure I'm

13:08planning on making some amendments. Um

13:11and um and I already shared that I would

13:14love to get feedback before I start.

13:19Of course, you got to have votes for it.

13:21I'm not my c my colleagues might vote it

13:23down or they might vote it up, but I

13:25think it's it's a great opportunity to

13:29work with administration

13:31um to get feedback in some areas where

13:34we could potentially um create some

13:36changes. I I I haven't received that

13:38information. Maybe y'all want to stay

13:40out of it [laughter]

13:42and that's fine as well. But I I I think

13:44it would be great to know if it is

13:46certain areas where we could potentially

13:49pull

13:50>> [snorts]

13:50>> um

13:52um funding. Um but I I'll allow the rest

13:54of my colleagues to have opportunity to

13:56ask any questions. Thank you, Chairman.

13:59>> Thank you, Mr. P. Mr. Fleming.

14:03>> I'm okay, [clears throat] but I may uh

14:06circle back to me.

14:07>> Uh President Small,

14:12Dr. trainer.

14:31[snorts]

14:31>> You um you can start with um Councilman

14:35Reynolds. I I don't really have a whole

14:37lot to say, but I I want to use this

14:38meeting as an opportunity for us to

14:39speak amongst ourselves. Like, you know,

14:42Corey's wanting to fund the games. You

14:45know, I I want to see public services

14:48funded at a higher rate.

14:51You know, um I don't think it's

14:53necessary that we put the 1.4 million in

14:55the the civic center account. I think

14:57that frees up some money to, you know,

15:00buy down this transfer that's having to

15:03have happen to prop up the budget. And,

15:06you know, I think we should probably

15:07talk amongst ourselves of how we get

15:09there. Um, you know, um, to make it all

15:13all work. I mean, we do I've got the

15:15answers to these questions. I haven't

15:16read them um as of yet, so I don't

15:19really have a whole lot of questions for

15:21the administration at the current time.

15:22But I would say that I'm prepared to

15:25offer amendments to

15:28um reallocate that $1.4 million out of

15:32the civic center to somewhere else,

15:34preferably to buy down the transfer and

15:37to prop up the budget. And then also on

15:40these trolleys like we discussed this

15:42morning, you know, I I have I'm the I'm

15:45of the mind that, you know, they may

15:47work, may be a great idea, but I I think

15:50we should probably take bites at it at a

15:52time. And I think us putting this grant

15:54funding or getting this grant funding

15:56that we approved today gives us a good

15:59start down the road and we can see some

16:01performance from VIA. We learned that

16:03they're already seeing a 30% increase or

16:06so something like that in ridership and

16:08I think we're going to continue continue

16:10to see that to improve.

16:12Um and then we add these fixed wrap

16:15trolleys in there. So, I I think there's

16:17some there's some possibilities with the

16:19money that's been set aside for trles to

16:23be, you know, placed in other areas like

16:25expanding our mowing contracts, things

16:28like that. So, um I'm [snorts] sure we

16:31all have the desire to expand our mowing

16:33contracts. Can

16:34>> do you think so? What about you, Bo? You

16:36think Yeah,

16:36>> absolutely.

16:37>> Yeah. And I don't know that they I don't

16:39know that it's been accounted for for an

16:41expansion in that regard in the budget.

16:43It may have, but I don't think so.

16:46And uh that being the case, I think we

16:48ought to find some money to stick in

16:50there. Another thing we should consider

16:52is administrative service. I'm sorry.

16:53Yeah. No, not administrative services,

16:56municipal enforcement. I know that there

16:59is some reallocation of funds in

17:01municipal enforcement to to help with

17:03salaries, you know, so that we can

17:05retain more people, but I think we got

17:07work to do there. I think we

17:09>> we have the ability to be I don't know

17:12more effective in more areas with

17:14municipal enforcement. So raises are

17:17certainly necessary and those pay rates

17:21are necessary. But I think we also

17:22should consider, you know, expanding

17:25them a little bit um to try to help, you

17:29know, with some of the ankle biting

17:31issues. I know you've had problems with

17:33municipal enforcement over the years,

17:35Mr. President.

17:37So that's kind of where my thought is

17:38like this we should be discussing

17:40amongst ourselves to figure out what you

17:42know modifications we want to make

17:44>> and mr chair I I agree with uh

17:47Councilman Reynolds but I do want to try

17:49to follow up on some of the questions

17:51just two of them and then move into that

17:53type of discussion but I am in agreement

17:55definitely on the municipal enforcement

17:58uh public service you know I think I saw

18:01uh maybe I saw that there was $500,000

18:04reallocated for contracts out of public

18:06service. If we can get clarity on that

18:08to know exactly what's happening with

18:10public service, we can start there and

18:12that will help guide our conversation.

18:15>> Yes, one of those questions was about

18:17that the public service maintenance

18:20cost center a million too higher on the

18:24operating side in this budget. Um I'm

18:26not as good with the ins and outs of the

18:28contract. Sean, I may want to speak to

18:30that, but 500,000 of that increase is on

18:34the third party contract labor line,

18:37which is intended for additional mowing.

18:40The details, others need to speak to it,

18:42but and then there's 250,000 in there

18:44for ditch maintenance. That's part of

18:48the increase. So, that's 750 towards

18:51some of these type of projects. And then

18:54the balance is fuel cost actually.

18:57So,

18:58>> right. And so that clarifies u some of

19:01it in terms of um what I mean because I

19:04think it show what approximate 1.2

19:06million uh increase and so that

19:08represents the increase. So I'm in

19:10agreement but I'm not sure 500,000 so we

19:12can have that conversation if that's

19:14going to suffice, you know, if we can

19:16look and figure out where we've been and

19:18if that's going to help us address some

19:20of the concerns. But public service was

19:22one of the follow-up questions.

19:24>> Can I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? Yes

19:26sir.

19:27>> Just for the administration for we want

19:28to just keep going back and forth. I

19:30mean the concerns that what Ben just

19:33asked about municipal enforcement and

19:35the cost in this budget. Doesn't that

19:37cover all of that? I mean yes or no as

19:40far as the extra personnel for the

19:43municipal enforcement and etc. I mean

19:46get some background on that.

19:48>> I [clears throat] think in last year's

19:49budget we increased the number of

19:51personnel. The problem is filling those

19:53positions. And so this year's budget,

19:55we've increased the compensation. And so

19:57the idea being until we can recruit and

19:59retain enforcement officers, then we can

20:03begin to add to that.

20:04>> But it's in this budget, correct?

20:05>> Yes, sir.

20:05>> Yes.

20:09>> Do we need more or

20:11>> $1,000? I mean, I just

20:14>> we had um what we what we had was HR go

20:17out and do a comparative pay with um

20:19what other similar municipal enforcement

20:21officers made. we found out we were

20:23roughly 10% below what normal pay would

20:26be for that and so we brought it up to

20:27that. If we have to make adjustments,

20:29we'll continue to do that. Um but the

20:31idea being until we can recruit and

20:33retain those positions, um we really

20:36can't increase it. We can increase it to

20:3850 officers, but you can't fill them at

20:41this point.

20:42And right now, uh, [snorts] based on

20:45what was provided to us, I mean, we're

20:47we're looking at, uh, I believe it's 30

20:5034 municipal enforcement employees in

20:53that, I guess. Um, I just I just lost

20:57Yeah, 34. So, I mean, it's 34 for last

21:00year budget, 34 for this year's budget.

21:02Um, and that of of department personnel.

21:05>> Okay. I'm not looking at the personnel,

21:06but the um, [clears throat] but we did

21:09increase the number of municipal

21:10enforcement officers last year. uh the

21:12problem we had was keeping them or

21:14recruiting good people for it. So we

21:16began increasing the compensation for

21:18those positions and until we can get

21:20that right on whether or not we expand

21:22department dependent on performance we

21:24we do expect hopefully to get a better

21:26quality candidate this way.

21:28>> Mr. Chair, if we can stay on this topic.

21:31So when we talk about the ones that are

21:34the officers that are enforcing, what's

21:36the number of officers because that

21:38number that you're calling out could be

21:40administrative staff and so forth. How

21:42many in officers do we have for all

21:44seven areas?

21:47>> There are there's two different types of

21:48enforcement. One of them is

21:49environmental enforcement which handles

21:51the rideways and stuff, you know, trash

21:53dumping. The u the other one's the

21:55municipal enforcement which is code

21:56enforcement on private property. So

21:58there's four environmental officers,

22:00nine maybe this Jamie here,

22:02>> I believe nine municipal enforcement.

22:07There was one per district and then we

22:09increased it to add two more um last

22:13year and then we also have three retired

22:15police officers that u also go out with

22:17enforcement when they need police

22:19officers.

22:20>> Okay. So just following up with uh Mr.

22:24President's question. So, what I hear

22:26you saying is that we've increased to

22:28100,000 because you want to recruit

22:30first and be able to retain them. And

22:32so, for right now, I think I'm hearing

22:34you say that you just want to first

22:35recruit them and see if that works. But

22:37I guess my concern is right now we're in

22:39the budget stage. We need to make sure

22:41that is that really feasible? You know,

22:44one per area or I don't even know if

22:46it's one per area. Is that enough for us

22:49to be able to do the work? So assuming

22:50that we are going to increase the salary

22:52based off of the national rate of what

22:54it should be then that would take care

22:56of part of our retainment. So now while

22:59we're in the budgeting stage uh are you

23:02open do you all have some recommendation

23:04on what that should look like that we

23:05can truly uh have enough officers to

23:08enforce especially we're looking at

23:11what's happening in the areas and what's

23:13not happening. I can tell you

23:15historically we had one per district

23:17[clears throat] and um all we found out

23:19when you have one per district is you're

23:21reactive. You're just really responding

23:23to 311 complaints. The the issue being

23:26is that you respond to a specific

23:28address on a 311 complaint, but you've

23:30driven by dozens of violations on the

23:33way there, but you don't have time to

23:35deal with them. We added two to do not

23:38311 complaints, but proactive

23:40investigations to actually go out and

23:41ride certain areas and look for those

23:44violations. Uh there's also a desire to

23:48be more directed in how we divert

23:50critical repair programs and things like

23:52that to where we can identify like

23:55blighted homes that are occupied and and

23:57try to get some blight removal that way

24:00as well.

24:02So, I'm walking away with understanding

24:05that there is an opportunity, there is a

24:07need there. As you said, they were being

24:08more reactive and they're not able to

24:10really address um the areas that they're

24:12seeing to enforce. So, um to Councilman

24:15Reynolds point, I think that we do need

24:17to consider that as an area that we need

24:19to focus on and increase so that we are

24:21not just reactive that we can get in

24:23front of this. That would be my

24:24suggestion.

24:25>> Okay.

24:26>> Yeah. Well, my thing, Mr. Chairman.

24:28Yeah. My thing about it is that the

24:30administration put this before us and

24:33even though we increase it, they don't

24:35mean that they have to use it.

24:37>> You know, so my thing about it is they

24:39put this in front of they know exactly

24:40what you know what we you know what we

24:43need. They should know. I mean they the

24:45professionals

24:47>> and thank you Mr. Chair. Um but I I

24:50think that's what I hear um chief

24:52saying. I think he's saying that they're

24:54we're having to be reactive with what we

24:56have. All we can do is be reactive. So

24:57I'm hearing

24:58>> I'm just saying as far as the finance

25:00issue

25:01>> just to corre correct that and I think

25:03he said this what he says that we had

25:04seven and at that point we were reactive

25:07and so that's why you added the correct

25:09>> that's right so we added the two

25:11proactive the problem we were having was

25:12filling and retaining position so we

25:14kept dropping below the nine that we

25:16wanted and so we continued to be

25:18reactive is what I'm getting at and then

25:20I worked with um David Dolphin Bob after

25:23a meeting with um Councilman Small uh

25:25Jamie Roberts as well as Amanda with HR

25:29to find out what a competitive pay would

25:30be. And so we started bringing the pay

25:32up on those municipal enforcement

25:34officers. And so when you're when you're

25:36talking about a $100,000 increase,

25:38you're specifically talking about the

25:39enforcement side, not administrative

25:42side.

25:53>> Yes. So again, one assigned to every

25:55district to handle your 311. And then

25:57there's two that are not assigned

25:59specifically to a district that are

26:01handled in areas where we're having

26:03problems with say the Oakdale area,

26:05campground area, wherever we need them.

26:07And so they're more proactive. What I'm

26:09saying is that when we increase the

26:10number of positions, we still were

26:13reactive because we couldn't attain that

26:15those nine those extra two positions.

26:17Those recommendations came out of

26:19neighborhood development on adding those

26:21positions in order to be more proactive.

26:24>> So in other words, chief, you feel like

26:26what y'all got before us right now, it

26:28will cover everything in my that's

26:31current statement.

26:32>> Again, working with neighborhood

26:34development, they feel like two

26:35positions, proactive positions to work

26:37in the areas that we want them to. The

26:40um

26:40>> saying the amount the money

26:43>> the money.

26:44>> Yeah. Again, that that came out of a

26:46comparative pay. Yes, we believe so. But

26:48again, we can continue to make

26:50adjustments.

26:51>> Um, you know, if we fall behind on that

26:53or if we're still unable to recruit and

26:55retain, then we'll we'll continue to

26:57make adjustments until we get to where

26:58we are. I guess what I'm saying is it

27:00doesn't help us to add positions until

27:02we can recruit and retain the positions

27:04that are funded.

27:07>> Mr. Fl.

27:08>> Yeah. Yeah. So, I was basically just

27:09going to say, [clears throat] you know,

27:10the 100,000 increase is to be able to go

27:13out, recruit, and then to retain. So,

27:14you don't have to be as reactive as

27:16basically kind of that simple.

27:18>> That's correct. We we have to be able to

27:20be reactive for 311, but we we want to

27:22add positions and retain positions so

27:24that we can be more proactive.

27:26>> Sure.

27:26>> And and there's some other ordinances I

27:28know that y'all will entertain about

27:29debris removal and stuff that'll require

27:31us probably to continue to beef up that

27:33enforcement.

27:34>> Okay.

27:35>> Followup on that. Jimmy, did you say

27:37that they're going to be two per

27:41district?

27:43>> No, no, there's [clears throat]

27:45>> there's two act two extras that will be

27:48assigned to more proactive um

27:50enforcement. You're not saying two per

27:52district.

27:54>> There's basically one per district to

27:57handle y'all's 311 calls

27:59>> and then and I'm talking about municipal

28:01enforcement and we've got four

28:04environmental enforcement which handles

28:05rightways and they'll go wherever the

28:07complaint is. But the uh but there's

28:09they were staffed with one per district.

28:11We found out that was insufficient

28:12staffing. We added two to do nothing but

28:15proactive uh investigations. And those

28:18two we were unable to fill just because

28:20we're having a hard time recruiting and

28:22retaining those positions. So what we've

28:24offered is to give them competitive

28:27compensation to hopefully get to recruit

28:30and retain and then we can begin to

28:31measure what a sufficient amount of

28:34positions need to be funded and then we

28:36can plan better for it. But what we were

28:39seeing and we were able to already make

28:41some of these compensation adjustments

28:42because of vacant positions. And so what

28:45we're doing is carrying that forward.

28:47Hopefully we do a better job recruiting,

28:49retaining, and then we can begin to

28:50measure how effective we are at

28:52proactive investigations.

28:55>> Uh, Mr. Chairman, Chief, one thing I'd

28:56like to see is if we can reach the that

28:59ideal number with this and we're able to

29:01be more proactive. I would like to be

29:03more proactive on the litter enforcement

29:05citywide. I think that would be

29:07important. I I don't know off the top of

29:09my head what the fine is. I think it's

29:11somewhere around maybe $500. But, um, I

29:15think that's one thing hopefully we

29:17could help address because I do feel

29:20like that is a city-wide issue.

29:22>> Well, it's that and then plus some other

29:23things, too. You know, as we ride around

29:25the district, I mean, I see violations

29:28all over the place with people parked on

29:29rideaways, big 18-wheelers,

29:32and people parked on sidewalks, those

29:34kinds of things. And trying to get

29:35somebody out there to go enforce, you

29:38know, the zoning. I know we've had real

29:40issues with having enough people to do

29:41that. So, I mean, it's all these things

29:43that it's a matter of being able to hire

29:45and retain people in [clears throat]

29:46order to be proactive, reactive and

29:49proactive really. So, I guess it's just

29:51that same cycle, you know.

29:54>> Yeah. Now, let me go back to litter that

29:56this that's not part of the neighborhood

29:58development. You know, this is code

29:59enforcement and it's right away uh

30:01enforcement. uh litter is going to have

30:03to be handled more so by the police when

30:05they witness it and they have the

30:06ability to stop somebody identify them

30:08and ticket them for that. And so, you

30:10know, I had a guy one time was

30:12complaining that he got charged $500 for

30:14throwing a cigarette out the window. I

30:16mean, throw a handful. It's the same

30:18price. I mean, it makes him feel better.

30:22>> Well, you see them at intersections,

30:23throw a little thing out.

30:25>> I guess I guess, Mr. Chairman, I guess

30:28my point is with my original statement

30:30was um if let's say we had uh 18 of

30:34[clears throat] these well-paid, highly

30:36trained code enforcement officials,

30:39would you say that we could resolve all

30:42the problems that are out there on this

30:45in an efficient manner?

30:47>> Could we resolve all our problems? I

30:49doubt that. But the

30:50>> we could we could eas11 [clears throat]

30:51list and be gone in pretty short time,

30:54right? Well, I think I think the

30:56approach that we're taking now is we

30:57added positions we're unable to fill.

30:59We're trying to get competitive pay. I

31:01>> understand that's the approach, but I

31:02guess to my point was if let's this

31:05budgets for nine, okay, and paying them

31:09a little bit more. Um, but let's just

31:12say it was 13 or 14, okay? And same

31:15thing with say uh public services

31:18maintenance, you know, whatever the the

31:20headcount is over there. Let's just say

31:21it was

31:23half more in there. We the product that

31:27our citizens would realize would be

31:29better, right?

31:30>> If we could keep them.

31:31>> That's right.

31:32>> Well, yeah. Of course, you got to pay

31:33them, right? But I'm saying the product

31:35that we would see as a city would be

31:37better. And if we're after that outcome

31:40versus these other budgeted categories,

31:42then that's where we need to put our

31:44priority to get that better outcome out

31:46there by way of our budget. So, for

31:48example, the money I identified for the

31:52arena 1.4 million, you know, that likely

31:55not have to spend or the the money for

31:58the trolleys, you know, like there are

32:00money there's money that could be freed

32:01up to put in the priorities that we want

32:04and we get the better product out there,

32:07you know, for services.

32:10And that's really the decision that we

32:11have to make, not just in those, but I'm

32:13sure you all have other categories that

32:15says, "Hey, look, the product we got

32:16right now in this category is not quite

32:18what we want it and that should be our

32:19priority and let's go for let's

32:20[clears throat] put the money in there.

32:21We sort of adjust ourselves accordingly

32:24to go after." For example, the work we

32:26did with the storm water department,

32:29we've seen the real life result of that.

32:31We put that money out there, created the

32:33department. Thank you. You know, I'm

32:34glad they created it. And now we see the

32:36contracts week after week after week

32:38coming out there. We're seeing the

32:40product improve out there because we

32:42allocated the money to it and they went

32:44out and did it. So that that's that's

32:47kind of my point and I understand the

32:49hardship that they faced. I'm not

32:51discounting that, right? You budget for

32:54the positions, you don't budget enough

32:55money to pay the salary, you can't hire

32:56any people that your product's not going

32:58to increase in that regard. But I think

33:00where we are currently is I don't think

33:03we can keep up with the 311 request and

33:05I don't think nine's going to get us to

33:07keeping up with the 311 request, the

33:09reactive request so that we are going to

33:12be able to truly be proactive in that

33:15regard.

33:16>> And Mr. Chair, I'd like to add to that.

33:19you know, you stated that you were

33:20having to be reactive and thank you for

33:21the clarification that you you added two

33:23more, but there's never been a time as I

33:25listen to you where you were able to

33:27have nine um you know um bodies working

33:31doing the work. My concern is that even

33:34if you bring on and you have nine to uh

33:36Councilman Reynolds point, you're still

33:38not going to be able to uh give the

33:40quality because now we still have to be

33:42reactive because 311 there's a backlog

33:45of of the work that has not been done

33:47because we didn't have enough staff. So

33:49again to um his point, I would ask us to

33:52think about that. What does that look

33:53like? So that if that's a priority for

33:56us that we truly move from the reactive

33:58stage and we try to get in front of this

34:00and trust and we trust that admin will

34:02make a you know the right decision in

34:04terms of uh how many they need to bring

34:06on board. You know if you out if you

34:08budget for 20 and you find that we're at

34:1115 and we've caught up with 311 and we

34:13know that you'll make the decision on

34:14what needs to happen. I'm just giving

34:16that as a um hypothetical, but my point

34:19is we're going to stay in the reactive

34:21mode because we have to go back and

34:24clean up all the issues from before. So,

34:26>> Mr.

34:29I [clears throat] don't know if you were

34:30you about to respond, Chief.

34:31>> Yeah, I was just

34:32>> I was just going to say that where we're

34:34at right now, there's the rule of

34:35diminishing return, right? And so, I

34:37mean, we could put too many people in

34:40there and maybe that's not but you don't

34:42get as much work. So what we're trying

34:44to do is find the proper staffing level,

34:46the proper compensation so that we can

34:47be proactive. And that's what you see

34:49the effort and we're working real

34:51closely with the department that

34:52actually does the work to find out where

34:54that is, where that proper staffing,

34:57proper compensation is. Like again, last

35:00year the department asked for a couple

35:02more positions. Then we found out our

35:04compensation wasn't enough and now we're

35:07they've asked for compensation. We've

35:08given them the compensation, but we'll

35:10continue to work with them on getting

35:11the proper staffing and compensation

35:13model needed to get the outcome that

35:16y'all are looking for.

35:19>> Mr. P.

35:19>> Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I had a

35:20question for um Logan. Um can you um

35:23from based on your your your information

35:27that you know about the city

35:28financially, what position the um the

35:31city is in financially, what how would

35:33you grade us? Are we in a great position

35:35financially?

35:36>> Oh gosh. I think uh I do think we're

35:39fortunate as a city

35:42just mainly the efforts of the past I

35:45guess dozen 13 14 years I mentioned the

35:49prior presentation are

35:51at the end of 2013 the general fund

35:58the balance was 11 the unassigned

36:00balance was actually negative at that

36:02point in time so a huge amount of work

36:04was done over 12 plus years to um I wish

36:09I had those numbers.

36:13>> I don't want to say the wrong number in

36:14my head.

36:26Yeah. So, our general fund balance was

36:28142 at the end of last year. That's up

36:31from 11 13 14 years prior. Um

36:36the

36:39the draw that was budgeted this year was

36:4230.

36:44Part of the issue is I would say we're

36:47when I came in here there is this

36:50attitude the city's done so well and

36:51there's just money everywhere. And I do

36:54think that's not the case. The if you

36:57were to budget another deficit of 30

36:59then you're you're at that two-month

37:01reserve.

37:02uh no doubt you're risking it very

37:04closely. So the city set aside that

37:06two-month reserve which as far as our

37:09conversation been we're considering that

37:11that's 0

37:13um I believe and if the right

37:16opportunity is out there or there's an

37:18emergency we can discuss the two-month

37:21reserve but um so the city did build up

37:25a good bit around 2022 2023 started

37:28seeing the investments we made to that

37:31parking deck there was a very large city

37:33transfer for that that's about the time

37:35that the fund historically began to

37:37level out. And um so anyway, we're we're

37:42at a point right now,

37:44if we go by the budget at the end of the

37:46year, we'll be at an unassigned balance

37:47of 90. That compares to

37:51a two-month reserve of 66. So,

37:55you wouldn't be able to budget the same

37:59uh I just use the word deficit. That's

38:01what it sounds like to me or draw uh as

38:03we did this past year. You'd be you'd be

38:05back at the two-month reserve again.

38:06>> Gotcha. So,

38:09um and then kind of make people kind of

38:10I know you know you putting out a lot of

38:13numbers out going into the fiscal year

38:17how much we have in the unassigned

38:18account. Can you give that amount again?

38:22coming into well at the end of this

38:25fiscal year

38:28if we were to

38:30um draw $30 million when we started the

38:33year we would end the year at 90.

38:36>> You say if we will

38:39>> the so we started the year 120

38:41unassigned the budget was 30

38:44>> so 120 is minus 120 minus 30 is 90

38:48so we would end the year at 90. All

38:49right. So 90 we have we end the year

38:52with 90 million and then we have to for

38:54the the we we have two months of reserve

38:57and that's 66.

39:00>> Yes.

39:00>> All right. So then you will subtract 90

39:02from 66,

39:05>> right?

39:05>> Yes.

39:06>> Yeah. 6 from 90. Yeah.

39:08All right. And then that leave you with

39:1024

39:10>> 24

39:11>> 24 million.

39:16>> All right. Now it's less than one month

39:20of city expend. It's a lot of

39:23>> sounds like a lot of money, but that is

39:24less than one month of city expenditures

39:26at that point.

39:28>> Gotcha.

39:28>> That's why that that money that we put

39:31in here to prop up this budget so

39:32important. I mean because when you when

39:35you break it all down like that, you

39:36know, we shouldn't be using our sort of

39:39unallocated or reserve money to prop up

39:41our operational expense. you know, we

39:44should be, you know, [clears throat]

39:46breaking even.

39:49>> Um, how much are how much is one of

39:51those mowing contracts

39:54>> round about?

39:56>> Just one of our mowing contracts.

39:59>> It's an annual contract we do. I mean,

40:01just

40:02>> they're all different. Each one of them

40:04is tailored to a different

40:06>> to a different area. Can you give me a

40:08range? It could be $3,000 a cycle,

40:114,000 $10,000 cycle depends on how much

40:15two weeks.

40:24>> Yeah, about 300k a year.

40:27We've seen some big ones and some small

40:29ones. I guess my point is 500k in the

40:31increased operational expense for that

40:33public service administration. really,

40:36you know, that's not a very sizable

40:39expansion. But then what also worries

40:41me, just like with uh I was talking to

40:43somebody this morning about something

40:45that happened [clears throat] like with

40:46your garbage trucks, if you go private

40:49on your garbage trucks and you I'm

40:52sorry, if you Yeah. If you do trash

40:55service through a third party entity and

40:58you sell off your assets, they start

41:00eventually raising their price. you

41:02know, they know they got you and you

41:03can't get that equipment back. So, you

41:05have to strike a balance between your

41:07staff and your equipment that you have

41:09to retain so that you can hold your

41:11contractors accountable. Um, but I so

41:15I'm not saying we don't, you know, we

41:17cut all of our personnel and equipment

41:20and put it all into private, but the

41:23product that we saw this year, uh, and

41:25the product we saw last year, this is

41:27not aimed at any, you know, that we did

41:29a bad job. We're just not putting enough

41:32resource into fixing the problem we have

41:35when it comes to ordinary maintenance.

41:39And I think I don't think $500,000 is

41:41going to cure that deal. I just don't

41:44think it's going to cure. [cough]

41:46>> So, let me let me just put a little a

41:48little bit of color on this because it's

41:50the prices have prices have gone up. So

41:53the the mowing contracts as they were

41:55established a few years ago were really

41:58just dirt cheap compared to what they

42:00are now. So break

42:02>> prices have ratcheted up but fuel costs

42:03have ratcheted up. So if we were to take

42:06in a bunch of internal labor and

42:08equipment in order to do that work. It

42:10would also be more expensive for us to

42:11do it.

42:12>> The advantage that we get out of the out

42:13of the the private sector in this is the

42:16speed of their of their asset

42:18allocation. So they you for instance uh

42:20government boulevard used to take us a

42:22week and a half to mow or give or take.

42:24It gets mowed every it can get mowed in

42:26two or three days now because the

42:28private entity is much more motivated to

42:30move uh with speed than

42:32>> so they get to the next job.

42:34>> Right. So so that's the advantage that

42:36we get out of that. We don't always get

42:37an advantage on cost.

42:39>> The additional money that was referenced

42:41earlier part of that is is the ditch

42:44mowing contract that should that was

42:45moved over to storm water is now being

42:47moved back. the the other chunk, the 450

42:49or 500 or whatever it is, that's uh part

42:52of the ALDOT rightaway cooperative

42:55maintenance type thing that uh that the

42:57mayor has looked at and we've been pre

43:00we've done a preface of that work

43:02already. So, a lot of your ALDOT uh

43:05ALDOT properties that touch our current

43:07mowing contracts are already being

43:09expanded to look cleaner and nicer. So

43:10if you look at your interchanges, they

43:12look better than they've looked probably

43:13in 30 years because of what you're going

43:16to see coming in the next year. That's a

43:19lot of acreage. So yeah, it looks like,

43:22you know, it looks like big chunks of

43:23money, but the acreage that we're mowing

43:25and the linear feet that are being

43:27trimmed or or edged is is astronomically

43:30higher than what it was before. Uh this

43:33year we're also going to be rebidding a

43:35lot of those mowing contracts partially

43:38because we need to introduce some more

43:39competition into that environment to get

43:42price back under control. So the you

43:44you're spot on in observing that the the

43:46the price and utility ratio might not be

43:50exactly where we want it to be, but

43:52because of just the pace of how the how

43:54these contract uh bids go and how how

43:57long it takes to see prices react to

43:59fuel price changes and things like that,

44:02this is just the the pace with which we

44:04can respond. So I think the number that

44:06you see with regard to mowing is a very

44:09adequate and survivable number. We've

44:11changed some of our operations

44:12internally as well. So, some places that

44:15currently get mowed by a contractor

44:16might get mowed internally in the

44:18future, vice versa. You know, it it all

44:20depends on what bang for our buck we can

44:22get for any given location. And each one

44:24is kind of a tailor made situation. So,

44:27I wouldn't want to make any hasty

44:28decisions about mowing in general

44:30because we probably talk about this

44:32three or four times a week. You know,

44:34Dexter Johnson over in public services

44:35maintenance has been doing mowing for 35

44:38years. So almost as long as I've been

44:40alive, Dexter's been doing mowing. We

44:42talk about this every single week.

44:44There's not a time that goes by that

44:45we're not talking about mowing. So I

44:47promise to y'all that we are actively

44:49engaging on every piece that if it comes

44:52from y'all, if it comes from the mayor,

44:53comes from a citizen, we're constantly

44:55engaging on those, trying to find the

44:57best way and the most cost-effective way

44:59to get them done. And I think that what

45:01you see is an adequate way to do that.

45:03>> I I'm not I'm not advocating for what

45:05the balance should be. I'm just saying

45:07we have to preserve some level of

45:08accountability or bal balance. Yeah. I'm

45:11actually advocating to expand on the

45:13private contracts because we get more

45:15than just grass cutting out of it when

45:17it comes to litter and their contract.

45:19Anything smaller as big as a cigarette

45:22butt must be picked up before they mow.

45:25>> Yeah.

45:25>> And so we're getting that added benefit

45:27through those as well. But

45:29>> but I'm just looking at the product.

45:31>> Yeah.

45:32like a nonreactive product.

45:34>> But but just just adding

45:36>> hedging

45:37>> just adding a larger pot of money to it

45:39though is also going to impact price if

45:43that makes sense. So the the contractors

45:46are not dumb. They know the amount of

45:48money that we're working with because

45:50the budget is a public document. They

45:53I'm not going to say that they're

45:54rigging any bids or anything, but they

45:55do all talk to one another about costs

45:57and things like that. So

45:58>> how do we how do we how do we improve

46:00Matt, you know? will understand. If they

46:03understand that they're operating within

46:04a fixed universe of funding because

46:06there's only so much money allocated for

46:09the mowing contracts, then they're

46:11incentivized to continue to compete with

46:13one another. If we create a humongous

46:15ocean of funding, then there's less of

46:17an incentive for them to purely compete

46:19and more of an incentive for them to

46:20just raise price. So, so we have to be

46:23my my word of caution is simply that we

46:26don't need to move too hastily. If there

46:27was a huge hue and cry for mowing that

46:30we could not handle internally, I would

46:32have alerted the mayor and said, "Hey,

46:34mayor, I'm really concerned. We're we

46:35need a lot more money to pay for

46:37mowing." But that's simply that's simply

46:39not where we are.

46:40>> I feel like a lot of my constituents

46:42have given up. You're just like, "That

46:44ain't going to happen." You know, I'm

46:46not calling it in. I'm not, you know, I

46:47just I think they're just used to it at

46:49this point. rather than seeing the

46:51pristine nature as they should. They

46:53just sort of, you know, accept the fact

46:55that it's just not going to be edged or

46:57trimmed or cut like I just they don't

46:59put in the 311s. I try my best to

47:02convince them to do it, but they want

47:04and I just can't drive around everywhere

47:05and put them in. So, I don't know what

47:07the solution is. And maybe that maybe

47:09you hold those contractors pricing at

47:11bay with our internal staff say, "Okay,

47:13bids came back. They're too high. We got

47:15to go."

47:16>> That is certainly an option. Yeah. You

47:18know, that's something you do. Um, but I

47:20I want to make sure that

47:24mowing and maintenance is not

47:27constrained by the budget unnecessarily.

47:30That let's just say that there is

47:32there's money available that could be

47:34put into this budget,

47:36>> right?

47:38>> You know, can we improve the product if

47:40we do, I guess, is the question,

47:43>> Mr. Chair.

47:44>> Yes, sir. just as a followup and maybe

47:46we can look at the data and and see what

47:48it's showing. But if you were to I just

47:50know in my area I can tell you I have a

47:52a list of 311 311 calls right now where

47:56they're waiting for it to be mowed. So

47:58for us to say that you know that it's

48:01not an overwhelming issue. I can tell

48:03you in my area it is. I can tell you

48:05that there's a list and I can call it

48:08out to you right now. I can go pull up

48:09my computer and tell you the ones that

48:11are still waiting to be mowed. And this

48:13is from some as way back from April. So

48:16I'm not sure, you know, what data we're

48:18using to say that. Um, and I think that

48:21I would ask that as we move forward and

48:22make that decision, understanding, like

48:24you said, I understand the contracting

48:26part and all of that, but we have we

48:28need to really consider what's a way

48:30around it to to back to to address those

48:32concerns.

48:33>> Yeah, I understand what you're saying.

48:35you know, some of the some of the issues

48:37that you're mentioning. I'd love to see

48:38an area that we're supposed to be mowing

48:40that hasn't been mowed since April. I

48:42would love I would love to see that.

48:44>> I'm sorry. It might not be your area.

48:46You might not be the one responsible.

48:47I'm just telling you

48:48>> many of the complaints we receive are

48:49for private property. And I'm not trying

48:51to get down a different rabbit hole

48:52here. And I'm not trying to dive. If

48:53there's something that we missed, we can

48:55certainly fix that. You know, the the

48:58situation that we find ourselves in is

49:00that we are on these we're on these

49:01three-year cycles. we are on the horizon

49:04of the corrective nature of the

49:06rebidding process. So the areas where

49:09where we've seen uh you know difficulty

49:12for a contractor to respond because of a

49:15multitude of factors or anything like

49:16that we can we're now entering into the

49:19phase where we can rep prioritize we can

49:21start looking at you know the the area

49:23over there uh let's say range line next

49:25to the Walmart and the fuses and the VA

49:28and everything well that you know that's

49:30>> be on a contract

49:30>> right that that's something that could

49:32or or you know ostensively should be on

49:34a contract but if you weigh it against

49:36something else you know maybe it's

49:37something that we should do internally

49:39or whatever. So, the nature of the these

49:42three-year cycles is, you know, it's

49:44upon us now and, you know, at some point

49:46during this fiscal year, all of that is

49:48going to have to be revisited. So,

49:50that's, you know, I know it's not very

49:51satisfying when you're in year one or

49:53two of those cycles, but we're there

49:55now. So, those areas that are of

49:56concern, this is when it's going to be

49:59remedied.

50:00>> I want to make sure you got the money

50:01you need to. That's my goal.

50:03>> I'm I'm satisfied that we do

50:05>> and I I appreciate that. Um, thank thank

50:07you also because I know sometimes I'm

50:09like saying it's a three-year cycle. I

50:10know a lot many times obviously expenses

50:12go up. I think a gallon of gas is quite

50:16a bit [clears throat] more expensive

50:16than it was three years ago. Um, and

50:19then uh also too that is good to know

50:21too because sometimes we we we get

50:24things across the agenda that's just

50:26like wow that's kind of expensive. But

50:29um I do like the fact that you are it's

50:31that time again to go go back out and

50:33rebid. There is one ask I I could make

50:36and it might be more of a communications

50:37thing. Um I can't tell you how many

50:40times whether it's in the grocery store

50:42or at a baseball game, somebody walks up

50:44to me and says, "Hey, uh tell me about

50:46them contracts cutting the sides of the

50:48road in the meeting and say I I don't

50:49know if we could um when it's time to

50:51time to bid all those out if we might

50:53could blast it out a little bit because

50:55I'm I do think there's a lot of

50:56competition out there. I mean, you know

50:58it. I'm pretty sure you probably got a

50:59list of about 100 people willing to cut

51:01grass, but um I I do appreciate that.

51:03Thank you. And and I'm also to your

51:05storm water work. Big fan of that as

51:07well. Uh so thank you for all you're

51:09doing. Um go ahead.

51:11>> Uh yeah, is it the green on? I get so

51:14confused. I don't know if y'all can hear

51:16me or not. But uh yeah, the the the

51:18debris, the storm water that has been

51:20just a wonderful project. I go out and

51:22check all those ditches before and

51:24after. And what a difference they make.

51:26I just want to talk a little bit about

51:28the grass cutting. And uh I don't know

51:29who is doing Ziggler and Cody, but great

51:34job. Always always good. The park always

51:38good. Langan. So, [laughter]

51:43you know, I I want to keep whoever's

51:44doing it. I do not want to give up on

51:46them. But one thing I will tell you guys

51:47too, you know, there are some

51:48neighborhoods that have big old medians,

51:51big old rideaways, and you know, the

51:53city can only come out so many times a

51:56year. So, with these neighborhoods that

51:58are very particular about how they look

52:00and want to look, I just made deals with

52:01them. I help them out with discretionary

52:03funds. They turn around and they hire

52:04somebody to come out and mow an edge.

52:07It's it's if you've got somebody who's

52:09like that and you're willing to give up

52:10some of your discretionary funds, that

52:13that's a way to do it, you know, because

52:15not everybody wants to wait for the two

52:17or three cycles when, you know, the city

52:19can actually come out and the city

52:21doesn't always do the the edging. And a

52:23lot of neighborhoods want more than what

52:24the city can offer. I want to thank you

52:28for bringing that up. I think that's the

52:29part too. It's us setting what priority

52:32is because when you think about all of

52:35the stuff we supposed to mow. We cannot

52:36mow everything. And so even like Ben has

52:39reached out and what are alternatives we

52:41can do for the meeting. So we're not

52:42trying to mow it. What other kind of you

52:44know I always use the HGTV word like

52:46what's the other things that we can do

52:47that keep us from having to mow that?

52:50And I have something that I'll share

52:51with you because we have to think about

52:53and we need to know what's your priority

52:55because it changes each time someone

52:56comes in. You have the rightways. You

52:58have I know you know Corey and Ben both

53:01areas that they have a concern with but

53:03then it has we have to do a level of

53:05service of what we we consider high

53:07priority meaning we want this cut mode

53:10edge every one week to two weeks and

53:12what things going to have to probably

53:13wait three to four weeks. And we have to

53:15set what that standard is. And then when

53:17we're going out getting mowing contracts

53:18and determine what is contract versus

53:21in-house, we can really start to set

53:23that standard. Right now, we do, you

53:25know, traffic counts and things like

53:27that. But if you all want to be able to

53:29give other information, we need to know

53:31that so we can have a set of what we're

53:34putting out there.

53:35>> Those heavily trafficked corridors that

53:37we spent a long time trying to make nice

53:39and they got plants and things all over

53:41them. We can't let those things just

53:43grow up. So, it it's hard,

53:45>> right?

53:46>> Thank you. And I um also had the

53:48opportunity to demo a 100 inch mowing

53:50deck the other day. It is amazing. It

53:53has like this these fold outsides. I

53:55It's pretty great. I mean, it it really

53:57cost a like a small house, but it was an

54:00amazing lawn mower. But, um I did just

54:02as far as as far as I'm concerned. Um

54:05obviously, we we listed all these. Um I

54:08personally did have one ask one

54:09question. Um, I think I sent it, but I

54:11don't I don't think it was answered. Um,

54:14uh, regarding parks and wreck and

54:16whenever we get to community centers and

54:18and also senior centers. Um, and it's

54:20not a question to answer right now or

54:21anything. Um, is there a way that that

54:23we possibly could get like maybe just a

54:25little bit deeper? Um just one more line

54:28just to kind of see just for our

54:30knowledge um especially when it comes to

54:32discretionary requests and things like

54:33that of of you know what we're what the

54:35budget for our senior centers and our

54:37community centers kind of are just just

54:39so that we can kind of understand like

54:40the bigger picture of you know what um

54:43how how much do they really have to

54:44spend for programs and and at that point

54:46in time is there a way we could you know

54:48from discretionary funds from our

54:49district funds help subsidize you know

54:51any any potential programs I guess but

54:54that was my only my only question I

54:55guess for the next week.

54:57>> Can I

54:58>> Oh, yes, ma'am.

55:01And then I have a one more non-neu

55:02question.

55:03>> Okay. So, for the community centers and

55:06senior centers, they're they're not

55:07separated by center. There's one group.

55:10Uh operations covers all of the centers

55:13and so they based off of need um

55:16distribute that money. So, it the line

55:19item you see covers all of those

55:21departments, recreation and all of that.

55:23Seniors has its own line item.

55:25Recreation has its own, athletics has

55:27its own. So you'll look at it that way.

55:30So it's not like uh Seals has its own

55:32and Harmon and you can look up Connie

55:34Hudson. You wouldn't be able to see it

55:36like that. You'll see all the senior

55:37centers are under one area. Um I will

55:41say this when you talk about discretion

55:42it's what we provide

55:45>> and um I'm going to say our seasoned

55:48people what they demand [laughter]

55:51>> and sometime a little bit more what we

55:53will give and that's usually their

55:54request that they're asking for

55:56additional money to do those things that

55:58we're like this is what we're going to

56:00pay for we're doing this event and then

56:01they

56:03>> as Gina is smiling she is very aware

56:05[laughter]

56:06of how she get called and you as well of

56:09additional things that they feel needs

56:11to be done

56:13>> that [clears throat] we may not totally

56:15agree.

56:16>> And then just for a little more

56:17clarification in your in your operation

56:19budget for like those centers everything

56:21I mean we're not I mean taken out of

56:24that budget um because you know

56:26comparably you know it has its place in

56:28the budget obviously.

56:29>> Yes. Um, comparably, are are we pulling

56:32are we pulling like hard cost out of

56:34that or is that strictly for programs

56:36and supplies and stuff? Are we are we

56:38pulling electricity for for that as

56:41well?

56:41>> Okay. Miscellaneous, repair,

56:43maintenance, utilities. Okay.

56:45>> Well, so maintenance, that's RE helps us

56:47with that. So, HVAC

56:48>> and that's what we need to come in. They

56:50paint those different items that need to

56:52be done for building maintenance comes

56:54out of RE's budget, not our budget.

56:56>> Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate

56:59>> um

57:00>> hang on one more. Um this is a um this

57:03is a something that surprisingly we have

57:05not talked about. Um a couple months

57:08ago, a little bit ago, we we had a rent

57:11discussion that was brought up. Um

57:13obviously we have a budget in front of

57:14us. Um is there still is there still

57:17some uncertainty? Are we have we kind of

57:18about tied that down? Have we we locked

57:20in locked in the new rate or we we still

57:23kind of working through that? And it

57:25does that impact kind of where we're at

57:26here in the budget? Uh, no. We've about

57:29tied it down. Mr. Ross and I are kind of

57:31working through some of the finer

57:32points, but um I think the budget is

57:35built in a way that will be sufficient

57:36to cover that expenditure.

57:38>> Gotcha. All right, Mr. Reynolds.

57:43>> Um, performance contracts are out of

57:45control in my opinion. We're at $8.7

57:50million requested for performance

57:52contracts and it seems like it's just a

57:54neverending rise that that we have to we

57:59have to readjust. I mean, we just can't

58:02let this continue to balloon. So, and

58:05it's going to be tough. Like, we're

58:07going to have to have some tough

58:08discussions and conversations.

58:10Set the priority and go for it. My goal

58:12would be

58:14not to meddle too much this year unless

58:15y'all have something, you know, let's

58:17talk about it. But to put everybody

58:20who's getting the performance contract

58:22on notice to say next year we're

58:26starting at zero dollars. Everybody's

58:28getting zero.

58:31Apply to us. We'll allocate a big gross

58:34of money. Whatever it is, but

58:35substantially less than 8.7 would be my

58:37goal. Let's say it's $5 million.

58:42Then we say we got $5 million for

58:44performance contracts. send us your

58:45ideas, your your proposals, and then we

58:48can set our priority for that $5

58:50million. And it's going to be hard. It's

58:53going to be difficult to arrive at that.

58:56Um, so that that's just my goal, right?

58:59My perspective, but I think we got to do

59:01something. We've [clears throat] got to

59:02do something about it.

59:03>> Um, Mr. Chair,

59:04>> and before we before we move any

59:06further, I just want to say uh it's 2

59:08o'clock. We've reached the halftime show

59:09here. We're not going to take a halftime

59:11show.

59:12>> [clears throat]

59:12>> um really didn't have a big concert

59:13planned or anything, but glad y'all

59:14joined us. Um so we have a um really

59:17have an hour first here or an hour left.

59:19I'm trying to an hour to be respectful

59:21by sign. Um if we can um kind of because

59:23I know we did talk about um coming back

59:25through start start to have those

59:27conversations here today. So if we can

59:29maybe um any more questions or anything,

59:30let's spend maybe the next 20 minutes if

59:32that works for y'all and then we'll

59:33spend the rest of the time kind of

59:35conversing through any changes that we

59:37need to address or we feel we need to

59:38address. So

59:39>> Okay. I want to Mr. Chair, I I'd like to

59:41follow up um regarding the performance

59:43contracts. I thought that we had a way

59:45forward in terms of the evaluation

59:47framework. Um my concern with $8.7

59:50million and that we do not have a way to

59:53fully evaluate all contracts to ensure

59:56that if the contracts are going to be

59:59awarded for the next year, it's based

1:00:00off of performance that we know exactly

1:00:02why we're giving you this contract.

1:00:04You've it has made an impact um uh for

1:00:07for the public. Having shared that, you

1:00:09know, I would hope that we can find a

1:00:11way forward that we can find an

1:00:13evaluation framework or work

1:00:15collaboratively of whatever we need to

1:00:16do so that we're good stewards of of

1:00:19taxpayers dollars and we know without a

1:00:21shadow of a doubt that if a uh group is

1:00:23coming back for a performance contract,

1:00:25we have the data to show and support why

1:00:27they should be awarded again for that

1:00:30amount. So, if we can start having that

1:00:32conversation because I thought we had

1:00:33done that but it did not show up. So,

1:00:36uh, as a matter of fact, um, Mr. uh,

1:00:39Councilman Reynolds and I worked on some

1:00:41goals. So, for example, and the

1:00:43framework was really around five basic

1:00:45concepts. Um, establishing the criteria

1:00:48to determine the efficiency for 2027. If

1:00:51we don't do that again, we're going to

1:00:53be back in the same situation. At the

1:00:54end of the year, we're not going to have

1:00:56the information to know should they be

1:00:58awarded a contract again or we're just

1:01:00going to give it to them just because.

1:01:02Um and in addition to that it was based

1:01:04off of collecting information from them

1:01:06now. So we would have to collect that

1:01:08information now so that at the end we're

1:01:11able to say yes they are performing and

1:01:13and we see that progress. Um and and

1:01:16lastly figuring out a way to find a tool

1:01:18or something that we could use a tool or

1:01:20process that could help us be able to

1:01:22gather that data because having one

1:01:24person to do that is going to be time

1:01:27consuming and challenging. Again this is

1:01:30something that we had talked about. I

1:01:31thought that you know collaborating with

1:01:33admin that we were there but clearly we

1:01:35we didn't get there and so that's

1:01:37something we would like to see move

1:01:38forward.

1:01:41>> Mr. [clears throat] Chair,

1:01:43>> hang on. My bad.

1:01:44>> Go ahead.

1:01:48>> Is that right?

1:01:50>> Okay. Um just credit to the mayor and

1:01:52whoever was involved.

1:01:55A lot of this predated me, but this was

1:01:58the first year of any long time where

1:02:00applications with criteria were

1:02:02submitted.

1:02:04Um, and a lot of deep consideration was

1:02:07given in the administration on that. Rob

1:02:09Lassi led the charge. Um, so I I do know

1:02:14all that was looked at very closely.

1:02:17personal opinion, the deadline was

1:02:19probably a little late to like really

1:02:20get everyone collaborated the way you're

1:02:23talking about, but I do think a big step

1:02:25was taken this year versus the past.

1:02:29>> How about that?

1:02:31We just need to let's tee it up for next

1:02:34year's budget that we've got a system of

1:02:38process that we can I mean it's really

1:02:41going to be up to us too where we're

1:02:44making really difficult decisions like

1:02:48difficult decisions.

1:02:50>> Yeah. I think what we have to do this

1:02:52year after we pass this budget because

1:02:54like Ben said, we don't need to meddle

1:02:55with it too much this year. But soon as

1:02:58this budget is passed, go ahead and get

1:03:00the information out to every performance

1:03:02contractor that applied whether they

1:03:04applied, got money, didn't get money

1:03:06with these these are your criteria for

1:03:08next year. And this is when we want to

1:03:10see it. But it needs to be kind of

1:03:12specific because there are lots of ways

1:03:14to answer these questions. So, we got to

1:03:16be really really specific as to what

1:03:18we're looking for and what they need to

1:03:20give us and then put a deadline on there

1:03:23so that in plenty of time for the budget

1:03:25to, you know, they start looking at it,

1:03:27looking at the performance contractors

1:03:29and to see who we need to uh provide

1:03:31funding for, who we don't so that

1:03:33there's enough time to, you know, to get

1:03:35it and get it to us, you know, get it to

1:03:36the administration, get it to us so that

1:03:38we can determine, you know, how to move

1:03:40forward. But, yeah, start now, get it

1:03:42out there.

1:03:43>> Mr. Pen,

1:03:44>> uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, and I

1:03:46agree that we need to put some type of

1:03:48evaluation in place. And I I'm grateful

1:03:50for the administration and putting the

1:03:52applications and going through the

1:03:53process. Um, I actually think that, you

1:03:55know, this year we we did a pretty good

1:03:57job. Um, I really, um, I think we need

1:03:59to put the evaluations in place to make

1:04:02sure that we're serving the needs and

1:04:05these organizations and companies are

1:04:07providing the service. I think we need

1:04:09to be very mindful when we talking about

1:04:11cutting money. Um because if it's a

1:04:15performance contract, it's also a

1:04:17quality of life issue. And the quality

1:04:19of life issue could be pouring into

1:04:21young people, development, um um

1:04:24entertainment, economic development that

1:04:26bringing funding back into the city. I

1:04:28think we need to be very mindful because

1:04:30when we look at other cities that have

1:04:33cut programming, youth program,

1:04:36development, all these different things

1:04:38that provide service, we see a up in

1:04:40crime. we see a up in other issues and

1:04:43challenges. And so this is a way that we

1:04:46want to make sure that we're providing

1:04:48those opportunities um for the rest of

1:04:50our citizens, but at the same time, they

1:04:53need to be evaluated. If we're expecting

1:04:54an organization to provide youth

1:04:57development, then they should meet

1:04:59certain criterias. If we're expecting

1:05:02organizations to provide economic um

1:05:05development or support, then they should

1:05:07be providing that. Um, and I think we

1:05:09should evaluate that, but I don't think

1:05:11we should just be cutting, but that's

1:05:13another conversation for another day.

1:05:15Um, but we can move forward. I have to

1:05:17leave. Um, I had a prior engagement. Um,

1:05:20but thank y'all.

1:05:22>> Thank you, Mr. Fleming. You got

1:05:24anything?

1:05:24>> Well, what I was just going to say on

1:05:26the performance contracts is

1:05:28[clears throat]

1:05:30Councilman Pin, you brought up some

1:05:31great points. You know, I hadn't really

1:05:33thought about the quality of life

1:05:35issues. Um, but looking over the last 5

1:05:38years, we've increased the performance

1:05:39contracts by $2.7 million. So, I just

1:05:42want to make sure we're getting a return

1:05:43on that um expense. So, thank you.

1:05:49>> I think a lot of that was because

1:05:52fundraisers or fundraising had started

1:05:55decreasing. I think I I heard that from

1:05:57many of them, which is why they had to

1:05:58come to the city for for more funding.

1:06:01But for those of us who go back to the

1:06:03dark ages on this in the city, the

1:06:06reason we started performance contracts

1:06:07in the first place was for seed funding,

1:06:10seed money for these organizations to

1:06:12help them get off the ground and start

1:06:14performing performance contracts. Um,

1:06:17and they were supposed to be able to get

1:06:19on their feet without funding from the

1:06:21city after like one or two times. Well,

1:06:23you know, never happened. We continued

1:06:24on. But the reason for doing it besides

1:06:28the seed money, the the reason was

1:06:31because these organizations provided

1:06:34services that the city was not able to

1:06:36perform. When Mayor Da was here, I

1:06:39remember him talking about the sacred

1:06:40cows are those that provide public

1:06:42safety. Those are the ones we look at

1:06:44first and then you start going down the

1:06:46line. You know, prevent crime, that sort

1:06:48of thing. That's why like child advocacy

1:06:50center or some of these others that work

1:06:52with troubled youth or uh organizations

1:06:55um to keep kids you know at risk kids

1:06:57off the streets and from getting in

1:06:58trouble. Those are the ones that you

1:06:59know he always looked at that were his

1:07:01his main ones. But you know it's grown

1:07:04and every organization can prove to you

1:07:06in some way that they are also helping

1:07:08to prevent crime by providing other

1:07:10programs after school programs. So it's

1:07:12going to be hard but that's kind of the

1:07:15background. So, I think we're getting

1:07:17back to

1:07:18starting back at ground zero and

1:07:20figuring out how we do this and why we

1:07:23do it and how much we're able to

1:07:24contribute. So,

1:07:27>> thank you.

1:07:32>> Two and nine. Anybody got any more?

1:07:33>> Yeah, just amendments just going

1:07:35forward. Um,

1:07:36>> if that's all the questions, we'll start

1:07:38with you.

1:07:39>> One,

1:07:40>> one question. Logan, you answered this

1:07:42question last week, but I had two um uh

1:07:44citizens to reach out to me and it's

1:07:46dealing with the city gas tax revenue. I

1:07:49know it was a correction, but in this

1:07:51response, it didn't tell what that

1:07:52correction was. So, they still, you

1:07:54know, I'm still not able to articulate

1:07:55to them why the vast difference. They're

1:07:58afraid that their gas, you know, tax is

1:08:01going to go up and I know it's not. You

1:08:02told us that it was an error, but I

1:08:04don't know what that error was.

1:08:06So

1:08:07off memory, but if you look at even in

1:08:10the history in the budget of what that

1:08:13gas tax, it's going to be around the two

1:08:17range.

1:08:19Then you see before this what was

1:08:21happening in the past is the other two

1:08:24plus million is going straight to the

1:08:27capital fund. So the same amount 4

1:08:30million plus was there. It was just two

1:08:32million shown up in capital.

1:08:34shut up

1:08:36and

1:08:38I'm grateful my predecessor whoever was

1:08:41involved in this they cleaned all that

1:08:43up because I don't think there's a

1:08:45mandate that business license or

1:08:49part of that was allocated like a piece

1:08:51of all these taxes went straight to

1:08:53capital it's a lot simpler to show all

1:08:55the taxes coming in our fund just

1:08:58showing an expenditure transfer to

1:08:59capital instead so

1:09:02>> even in the that tax was coming in. It's

1:09:06just now we're showing it all

1:09:12per gallon tax. So, it's actually fairly

1:09:15steady over time.

1:09:17When I first looked at gas prices are

1:09:20up, I guess that's why the taxes

1:09:24per gallon tax.

1:09:27>> So, so the difference would be about $2

1:09:29million then. That's that's the

1:09:31difference.

1:09:33the two because you said two million was

1:09:34going uh to straight to capital. It's

1:09:37it's the same

1:09:39tax, same it's

1:09:42it's the same money we've been

1:09:44collecting for a long time.

1:09:48>> Uh Logan,

1:09:49>> it's not too different. We were

1:09:51collecting that other two million in the

1:09:53past. It was just

1:09:54>> in a different

1:09:56but when they look at it compared side

1:09:58by side, they're thinking like, wait,

1:10:00this is a big difference. So, but I may,

1:10:02you know, based off what you're saying,

1:10:03the other 2 million was going to

1:10:04capital. It's really not a major

1:10:06difference between 26 and 27 in terms of

1:10:09the budgeted amount. Okay. Thank you.

1:10:12>> It is an important that you're putting

1:10:15less in the capital and more in the

1:10:16operating.

1:10:17>> Well, you're putting the same in the

1:10:19capital. It's just you want to show it

1:10:22tax going straight to capital or do you

1:10:24want to collect the tax

1:10:26capital?

1:10:26>> You're not putting the same in the

1:10:27capital. Last year we put 21 million.

1:10:29This year we're putting 16

1:10:30>> million.

1:10:38>> But if you have 2 million

1:10:42taxing at the top

1:10:45there,

1:10:50it's all the same.

1:10:53>> Thank you. So basically the general fund

1:10:54was under budgeted in 26 because it was

1:10:58the way it was split.

1:11:00>> Yeah.

1:11:01>> Yeah.

1:11:03>> Yeah. All right. Thank you, Logan. All

1:11:06right. Anything else before we enter

1:11:09into um starting a conversation on

1:11:13amendments?

1:11:15All righty.

1:11:20Yeah. Flip it on for us. Um, one thing I

1:11:24want to say as we, you know, did

1:11:26implement this application process for,

1:11:30um, you know, for performance contracts,

1:11:32we're talking about about 2% of our

1:11:34city's budget. When we're talking about

1:11:36this 8.7

1:11:39um, for the first year, we required

1:11:41applications and financials. Not

1:11:43everyone got us back their financials,

1:11:45but most that we funded did. Um, you

1:11:48know, I think it's an important number.

1:11:492% of the budget is more than 1%. It's

1:11:52more than none. It is certainly worthy

1:11:55to look at. And one of the measures that

1:11:58we measured each of these performance

1:11:59contracts by is something I would ask

1:12:03that we in looking at building a healthy

1:12:06budget look at. Do these dollars have an

1:12:10opportunity to produce dollars?

1:12:13Do these dollars that we are spending

1:12:15have an opportunity to either produce

1:12:17revenue or decrease our ultimate cost of

1:12:21something? So

1:12:23>> trolleys, you know, I talk about a lot.

1:12:25Specifically,

1:12:27uh, you know, our our revenues from the

1:12:29transit system have increased about $1.7

1:12:31million since 2023.

1:12:34um we have continued to raise how much

1:12:37money we're spending towards that and

1:12:39that was the reason for the contract

1:12:41negotiation. Um you know what if that

1:12:44doubled? You know what if we made $7

1:12:47million from our fees uh and trolley

1:12:50fairs and bus fairs and microtransit

1:12:53fairs this year versus three and a half

1:12:56last year? What effect would that have?

1:12:58>> Well, we could buy more trolley,

1:13:00>> right? But, you know, does buying more

1:13:03trolleys lead to that result versus

1:13:05wishing for it?

1:13:08>> I think the same is true with the

1:13:10performance contract specifically. Um,

1:13:14there are many that I would term them

1:13:16more in the economic development realm.

1:13:19You know, we're investing in an event

1:13:21that is likely to produce hotel room

1:13:23nights, sales tax dollars, things that

1:13:26can return dollars to our city. Uh there

1:13:29are things that never will, but they are

1:13:32integral. You know, um we're never going

1:13:35to make money from the library, but if

1:13:39we don't fund them, they don't exist.

1:13:41We're never going to make money from

1:13:43many of the charitable organizations we

1:13:45fund, but without us, they won't exist.

1:13:48So, what is the cost of not funding them

1:13:50and them not existing?

1:13:52Are they providing a service that we as

1:13:55a city cannot provide to our citizens?

1:13:57Is it valuable? So, I don't know that

1:14:00there's one metric we can really shoot

1:14:02for for all performance contracts.

1:14:04They're so varied, so different. I

1:14:07frankly don't think there's a single

1:14:08number that we can, you know, should set

1:14:12because it's going to involve us either

1:14:15[clears throat] killing organizations

1:14:18uh or lacking services that we once had.

1:14:21>> What do you mean? number

1:14:23>> 5 million versus 8.7 or 6 million versus

1:14:268.7. You know, I definitely think there

1:14:29needs to be criteria.

1:14:30>> Yes,

1:14:31>> I certainly think so there needs to be

1:14:33criteria and I think the financials of

1:14:36the organization would be number one.

1:14:38How are they utilizing these dollars and

1:14:39are they effective? Are is there waste?

1:14:42Are you know are there large

1:14:44administrative costs when there

1:14:45shouldn't be? Um, but I think we have to

1:14:48be very careful on that. And but as we

1:14:50talk about, you know, municipal

1:14:51enforcement and all and mowing

1:14:53contracts, you know, those things

1:14:55generally are not going to add dollars

1:14:57back to our budget ever. Um, you know,

1:15:01municipal enforcement's not going to cut

1:15:03into the backlog for 311. That's where

1:15:05public services and mowing contracts

1:15:07will. You know, that's how we do that.

1:15:10And I think that's particularly sticky

1:15:12because of the timetable it takes to

1:15:14site someone, you know, execute on weed

1:15:18leans and actually get out there and do

1:15:20something about it when the property

1:15:22owner won't. And so, you know, I would

1:15:25doubt that there's any weeds from April

1:15:28that had not been cut once during that

1:15:29time, but they grow back in three days,

1:15:32you know, and it's very difficult to

1:15:34stay on top of them. But as you look at

1:15:37taking from one area, adding to another,

1:15:40I'm asking that you truly ask yourself,

1:15:43does this have a chance to in decrease

1:15:46the expenses or increase the revenue of

1:15:48our city? Because when I look at the

1:15:50revenues from the last since 2023, we

1:15:53tend to spend more than we take in. A

1:15:55lot of that's on capital, but not

1:15:57always. Um, people are shopping at

1:16:01stores less. the B half of our budget

1:16:04revenues come from brick-andmortar sales

1:16:06tax. Uh a large percentage comes from

1:16:09business licenses. So we have to look

1:16:11very closely anytime we're missing that

1:16:13about 20% of our revenues. You know,

1:16:16other taxes we get a piece. But we're

1:16:19looking at a potentially shrinking tax

1:16:21base if we're not incentivizing the

1:16:24economy, if we're not incentivizing

1:16:26tourism, if we're not decreasing the re

1:16:29the expenses on some of the areas where

1:16:31we spend. So, you know, I can promise

1:16:34you that from my standpoint, you know,

1:16:37months of work went into this particular

1:16:39budget. These dollar amounts are are not

1:16:43just darts at a wall. They're very

1:16:46intentionally set. uh and again within

1:16:49departments money is fungeible and so

1:16:50that where savings are realized

1:16:53increased spending can happen on

1:16:55priority areas but I have we all have

1:16:59many priorities but as I said to you

1:17:02know the staff and directors and

1:17:04executive directors as we went through

1:17:06these budgets you know this is a need

1:17:08year this is not a want year this is not

1:17:11like 2023 when we can spend 57 million

1:17:13in capital um if we did that we would

1:17:17have a month's worth of reserve left and

1:17:19we've been in violation of our own

1:17:20ordinance. Um we have to be very careful

1:17:24I think this year to get ourselves on

1:17:26that track where we are bringing in more

1:17:29revenue than we are expending. And so I

1:17:33promise you that we are always going to

1:17:34listen to your priorities. We're always

1:17:36going to listen to those issues that

1:17:37need to be addressed. you know, but I

1:17:39ask you to to really take a look and

1:17:42before we add and pull, you know, is

1:17:45this adding to our revenue? Is this

1:17:48increasing or decreasing our expenses?

1:17:50Uh, and I appreciate all the questions

1:17:52and certainly I'm happy to answer

1:17:54anymore.

1:17:54>> I appreciate it. Um, I had one more for

1:17:56Logan. Um, and [clears throat] this is

1:17:59this be be my final question. Um, Solid

1:18:01Waste Authority. Um, that's been a long

1:18:04road a hoe here. Um, we finally got a

1:18:07resol kind of resolution to to legal

1:18:10legalness and everything. Um,

1:18:12[clears throat]

1:18:13solid waste authority is now making

1:18:14money. Um, albeit I'm I'm not real sure

1:18:17that we've sufficiently been able to

1:18:19nail down how much the solid waste

1:18:21[clears throat] authority I'm I still

1:18:23see though that we're, you know, we're

1:18:24we're we're about to trans uh, you know,

1:18:26transfer $3 million over. um is are we

1:18:30are we kind of counting any of that that

1:18:33um natural gas revenue that we're doing

1:18:34the split with because I I know that a

1:18:37couple years ago I guess it was maybe a

1:18:38year and a half ago we allowed them to

1:18:42through a resolution I believe allowed

1:18:44them to hire on you know the bookkeeper

1:18:46and everything like that I guess are we

1:18:49is the 3 million just a plug number

1:18:50right now or are we are we kind of

1:18:53saying that's that's after the fact we

1:18:54receive whatever we're going to receive

1:18:56I guess

1:18:57>> um as far was the other part you

1:19:00mentioned. Someone with some history

1:19:01will have to speak to that, but the

1:19:05this is the disposal of city collective

1:19:07garbage at the landfill.

1:19:09>> Okay.

1:19:09>> So, it's tons times the rate.

1:19:12>> Gotcha.

1:19:14>> It's not necessarily

1:19:15>> You're talking about methane capture.

1:19:17>> Yeah, the methane capture. I mean,

1:19:18that's not going to play into any of

1:19:19this, I guess, into into kind of eating

1:19:22away at some of the money that we have

1:19:23to allocate, some of the expense we have

1:19:25to allocate, I guess, for for the dump,

1:19:27I guess.

1:19:29>> I'm going to I'm going to give myself

1:19:31the new defense on that. I need to get

1:19:33get up to speed on that one.

1:19:35>> All right, that's fine.

1:19:35>> It sounds very interesting because I've

1:19:38just as a human being outside the city,

1:19:41I've heard a lot about that and it's

1:19:43very interesting. at my prior private

1:19:45company, people came in with all sorts

1:19:47of ideas like that. Uh there there is a

1:19:51lot to that. So look forward to digging

1:19:53into that.

1:19:54>> Awesome. Thank you. Yeah, because I I

1:19:56want to say it went online maybe maybe a

1:19:58year ago. We might be celebrating a year

1:19:59that the methane. So just curious as to

1:20:02>> it's very valuable. Yeah. And I I

1:20:04believe if you burn it or use it, the

1:20:07reaction turns it into something fairly

1:20:09clean

1:20:10>> or otherwise it's a pretty aggressive

1:20:12greenhouse gas. So that's very

1:20:14interesting.

1:20:15>> Nice.

1:20:16>> Thank you.

1:20:17>> Appreciate it.

1:20:18>> All right. Any Mr.

1:20:20>> Chair, you want to start?

1:20:22>> Uh, well, I'll not for the amendments. I

1:20:24just want to thank the mayor for sharing

1:20:26with us um his vision and the work that

1:20:28went into the budget. But I do want to

1:20:29say that I I appreciate the fact that

1:20:32you all did request the financials. That

1:20:34was one of the things we recommended in

1:20:35the evaluation that we sent uh to

1:20:38administration. But I also want to

1:20:40recognize that in talking with and

1:20:42sharing with the other council members,

1:20:44we all agree that it's going to take

1:20:45more than one criteria and we understand

1:20:47that there are different types of of

1:20:49contracts. I just think that, you know,

1:20:51we can't let that limit us in doing the

1:20:53hard work to figure out what's the

1:20:54balance and making sure that, you know,

1:20:57we consider those that are bringing in

1:20:59and producing more dollars, but we also

1:21:00consider those that are integral to what

1:21:02the work that we do. And there's a way

1:21:04to do that. We've we even shared some

1:21:05models from some other cities that were

1:21:08doing just that. So, we look forward to

1:21:09that conversation. Thank you.

1:21:11>> Thank you. And then thank you'all again

1:21:13for for all these questions. We

1:21:15appreciate that. So,

1:21:18you want to anything you want to add

1:21:20there, Mr. Reynolds?

1:21:21>> The only I mean I I'm not settled on

1:21:24what to amend. I was going to use this

1:21:26meeting to to work through that, but uh

1:21:30as it stands right now, my expectation

1:21:31would be to put forward amendment to

1:21:34reduce the

1:21:37amount going to the new arena, regions

1:21:40arena,

1:21:41and apply it to the the

1:21:45deficit that's listed, $3.8 million or

1:21:48something like that.

1:21:51Um and then also to

1:21:55I know this will be a little more

1:21:56controversial, but

1:21:58reduce the amount in the fleet man

1:22:00maintenance and fleet management budget

1:22:02that we're allocating towards buying new

1:22:05trolleys.

1:22:06Maybe not entirely the 2.2 2 million,

1:22:09maybe not reducing entirely to still

1:22:11preserve the opportunity for if another

1:22:14GL grant comes up, we could match it.

1:22:17Uh, and applying that amount to the

1:22:21uh deficit amount that we're pulling

1:22:23from the unallocated fund as well. Um,

1:22:30and those are the those are the two that

1:22:32come to mind right now.

1:22:36That's what my thought is. I think

1:22:37that's fairly low hanging fruit.

1:22:41>> Got Miss Ingram

1:22:43>> and and mine is again back to municipal

1:22:46enforcement, but if you know I I'm will

1:22:51trust that based off the conversation,

1:22:53it sounds like we don't have a way

1:22:54forward because of the contracts places

1:22:57us in one situation. Um we need to go

1:23:00ahead and um attempt to implement the

1:23:02plan with the nine. So, I'm not sure

1:23:05where we are with that and and I'm open

1:23:07to some suggestions on that, but I know

1:23:09that for my area and and listening to

1:23:12others, that is a that is an area that

1:23:15we could improve in terms of quality of

1:23:17life.

1:23:19>> You said increase the amount for

1:23:21municipal enforcement.

1:23:22>> Correct. I don't know if it's

1:23:24>> It doesn't have to be personnel. I'm not

1:23:26I don't have a It could be a contract.

1:23:28I'm not sold on on personnel. I'm just

1:23:30saying that um I don't want us to stay

1:23:33in the reactive stage and I think that

1:23:35as we try to clear up we're going to be

1:23:37in a reactive stage.

1:23:41>> Go ahead.

1:23:45>> I would like to address the transit

1:23:48budget 2.2. There's an important aspect

1:23:52that needs to be kept in mind. The FTA

1:23:57will give money, but the city has to

1:23:59fund the entire amount upfront. This is

1:24:02akin to what we're doing with the $12.1

1:24:04million service budget uh that is put in

1:24:08front of you for the contract. The city

1:24:10expends the entire amount. They file for

1:24:13reimbursement at the tune of $4.1

1:24:16million, making the city's contribution

1:24:19$8.1 million. The other $400,000 in that

1:24:24award annually is put towards capital.

1:24:27It has to be put towards buses and bus

1:24:30facilities. In this last cycle for 2026,

1:24:34we put it towards

1:24:36three

1:24:38paratransit buses and three microransit

1:24:42vans. That money remains unexpended at

1:24:45this time. Therefore, we cannot capture

1:24:48a reimbursement until we make a

1:24:50purchase. So, the city has to fund the

1:24:53entire amount. When you're looking at a

1:24:55parapransit bus being between 140 and

1:24:58180, you're looking at $420,000

1:25:01for those three vehicles.

1:25:05in March or April, I uh provided a fleet

1:25:09management kind of worksheet that kind

1:25:11of laid out how we're trying to reduce

1:25:13those purchases so that the six that

1:25:16were paratransit vehicles that were up

1:25:19for replacement this year were only

1:25:21replaced with three to in fact minimize

1:25:23that cost. In the current year, we know

1:25:26that there are four buses that are going

1:25:28to be able to be sold, but we have to be

1:25:31able to sell them. We also have to be

1:25:33able to front the money to purchase

1:25:35instead of buses, we had uh recommended

1:25:38trolleys. So to reduce the $1.6 million

1:25:44and the $2.2 million, if you think about

1:25:46that, there's a delta there of about

1:25:49$600,000. If you reduce that amount and

1:25:52preserve the purchase of the five

1:25:54trolleys, you can't do anything else in

1:25:56transit to maintain the fleet. You

1:25:59already know that you need three

1:26:01paratransit vehicles. You already know

1:26:03that you need six micro uh excuse me,

1:26:06three microransit vehicles for a total

1:26:09of six vehicles in addition to the five

1:26:12trolleys. If you remove that particular

1:26:16amount at $2.2 million, you will not be

1:26:19able to purchase that uh level of fleet

1:26:22that you need, which impacts your

1:26:25service level. We know the service level

1:26:27this year was going to be at 11.5. We

1:26:30know next year it's going to be at 11.7.

1:26:34All of those are below the 12.1 million,

1:26:37but we also recognize that's what we

1:26:40were setting up that uh service contract

1:26:42to do. It is not inclusive of capital.

1:26:46If we do not preserve the capital as it

1:26:48was presented by the mayor, you will not

1:26:50be able to preserve the service that

1:26:53you've done under the $12.1 million

1:26:55contract.

1:26:57>> Okay. So, um

1:27:00the I guess what

1:27:04let me repeat what I heard. I think

1:27:05>> Yeah.

1:27:06>> Um so, um obviously we've been talking

1:27:08about this earlier. So, obviously

1:27:09there's that $8 million um contract, 8

1:27:12million bucks. city's got to come to the

1:27:14table every year with eight million. Um,

1:27:16>> we actually come with 12.

1:27:18>> You come with 12.1. You have to pay it

1:27:21all. And then the uh we file for a

1:27:25federal formula grant that gives us $4.1

1:27:28million back towards service. The

1:27:31additional funding goes towards capital.

1:27:33>> So everything over the 8 million is

1:27:36reimburseable.

1:27:37>> Reimburseable. That is correct.

1:27:38>> Based on the plan and I guess when's the

1:27:40reimbursement take place? Obviously, you

1:27:42spend the money

1:27:42>> throughout the course of the year.

1:27:43Luckily, this year we finally got

1:27:46everything taken care of and at this

1:27:49time we have been reimbursed for 3 no

1:27:53$2.9 million worth of that 4 point

1:27:56>> 4.5 and then and then barring uh barring

1:27:59a wrong filled out sheet of paper um we

1:28:02feel very confident that the four

1:28:03million that we're budgeting here that

1:28:05I'm assuming is in the the via plan or

1:28:07the annual transit plan and everything

1:28:09of what we're going to spend or will be

1:28:11um we feel very confident that that is

1:28:13going be reimburseable

1:28:15bearing barring a uh a misplaced form or

1:28:18something and then and then that money

1:28:19comes back and

1:28:21>> returns back to the city um I guess in

1:28:23the form of reimbursement from VIA and

1:28:26then so really end of the day the goal

1:28:28is 8 million or a little bit over 8

1:28:30million

1:28:30>> 8 million would be our cap and that's

1:28:33always been the premise a controlled

1:28:35amount for the city with the variable

1:28:37being towards the federal government's

1:28:40uh aortionment which fluctuates

1:28:42yeartoear roughly 3% in either direction

1:28:45hopefully always in growth

1:28:46>> and in said $4 million is that $2.2

1:28:49million for the the purchase of the

1:28:51trolley of

1:28:52>> no that is in addition to it and this is

1:28:54what I'm saying so if you think about

1:28:57the mayor has said I would very much

1:28:59like to go after a grant for $1.6

1:29:01million to buy trolleys we have to fund

1:29:04the entire 1.6 six, knowing that we will

1:29:06get $1.3 million back. The same with the

1:29:10purchase of the paratransit vehicles. We

1:29:12will invest $420,000.

1:29:15We will get all of that back with the

1:29:17exception of $84,000, which is our

1:29:19match. So, it's an 8020 match on all of

1:29:23those things that we have lined up as

1:29:25capital investment towards the fleet.

1:29:28And then this year, as the mayor stated,

1:29:30uh the capital won't go towards fleet.

1:29:33It has been specifically earmarked to go

1:29:35towards bus stops, bus shelters

1:29:38specifically to help that portion of the

1:29:40network and the infrastructure that we

1:29:42need to do there. It is also

1:29:44approximately $420,000

1:29:46with $84,000 being the total investment

1:29:50of the city with the rest of it being

1:29:52reimbursed after it has been expended by

1:29:54the city upfront.

1:29:56>> Gotcha. Thank you.

1:29:58>> What if we don't uh put the $1.6 $6

1:30:02million up out there to buy trolley or

1:30:05for a a grant for trolley. How's our

1:30:08fleet affected at that point? Because we

1:30:10got if we get awarded this one that we

1:30:13did today, we got five coming. So that

1:30:16means we're replacing five assets.

1:30:18>> You're talking about that,

1:30:19>> but we're saying the same thing. Even

1:30:21though you voted on the 1.6 now, the 1.6

1:30:24six won't be realized until the uh grant

1:30:28award is made which won't come until uh

1:30:30FY27.

1:30:33So we have to fund the entire 1.6 from

1:30:36the FY27 budget.

1:30:40>> So the 2.2 that was set aside in fleet

1:30:44is not for additional.

1:30:46It is for the five that you voted on

1:30:48today plus any of the ones that were

1:30:51previously set up to be purchased. What

1:30:54does that

1:30:55>> uh so there were three paratransit

1:30:57vehicles that were there were six that

1:30:59were in 2026 and we said hey guys we

1:31:01need to replace it but we recognize

1:31:03we're trying to reduce the fleet. VIA

1:31:05was able to come back and say yeah you

1:31:07don't need six you need three but you do

1:31:10need microtransit vehicles because

1:31:12that's coming online. That's the only

1:31:13way we get to the 15 microtransit

1:31:16vehicles that will be necessary. They're

1:31:18substantially less, but it's still the

1:31:20fact that the city has to fund it

1:31:22upfront to then after the fact receive

1:31:24the reimbursement.

1:31:26>> All right, if y'all can chat for a

1:31:27minute, I'm going to go get that.

1:31:33>> It's holding the left side of his desk.

1:31:35I got to go get it real quick.

1:31:38>> Um, in the meantime, is there any any

1:31:40more questions about transit?

1:31:42Okay.

1:31:45All righty.

1:31:48>> Uh, thank you for [snorts]

1:31:49>> Thank you for that explanation.

1:31:50Appreciate it.

1:31:53>> Um, we've hit 233, so we'll keep on keep

1:31:56on moving a little bit. Um, was there

1:31:59any any more or you want to add

1:32:01anything?

1:32:02>> I'll just for posterity's sake when we

1:32:06talk about forward budget numbers as we

1:32:08have there many disclaimers around that.

1:32:11I mean that's forward results that have

1:32:13not happened yet. So

1:32:16we are the team's view is that we're

1:32:18coming in under budget as a city. Um the

1:32:22council did

1:32:24there were some things passed after the

1:32:26fiscal year started that actually added

1:32:28to the deficit. Uh but when you balance

1:32:31that out against the fact that we're

1:32:33otherwise believe we're coming in under

1:32:35budget referring to the 30 million I

1:32:38think is still very fair. So, we're

1:32:41simplifying it when we talk like that,

1:32:43but you know, that's a forward-looking

1:32:44thing subject to what actually happens

1:32:46in real life, but it's it's the fair way

1:32:50to talk about it because it's close

1:32:51enough. So,

1:32:53>> we had every confidence that you could

1:32:54read into the future, but uh I guess

1:32:58we'll cancel our trip over to Florida

1:32:59for lottery tickets later. So,

1:33:01[laughter]

1:33:03>> So, when people come back saying, "Well,

1:33:04you didn't mention this." So, you Yeah.

1:33:07>> Thank you. I appreciate it.

1:33:09It's also too a heck of a job on his

1:33:11first budget. I mean, killing it, Mr.

1:33:14Reynolds.

1:33:15>> Yeah. So, the we got the 800,000 fix

1:33:18that we're going to have to put money up

1:33:21for. And then there's a total not to

1:33:23exceed amount from the federal or other,

1:33:25which is $3.4 million. Okay, that's in

1:33:29the contract. And then we are saying

1:33:34we're in our budget we're going to get

1:33:35another four and a half million from the

1:33:38federal government. Every year the

1:33:41fiscal year cycle begins again for us

1:33:44and it is replicated by the federal

1:33:47government. So federal government is

1:33:49going into shutdown mode on September

1:33:52the 24th. we will not be able to file

1:33:54for any more reimbursements against the

1:33:56federal formula funding for FY26

1:34:00which was $4.5 million.

1:34:03>> Okay.

1:34:03>> So after this meeting I will head

1:34:06downstairs to the controller. We will

1:34:08probably put in our last $45,000

1:34:12reimbursement which will bring us to

1:34:15just above $3 million.

1:34:18We will then have a final

1:34:21piece that we have to put in in the new

1:34:23fiscal year once they open it back up uh

1:34:26at the federal level to put in for the

1:34:28last month of service. And then we have

1:34:31not expended $840,000

1:34:35which was written into the uh formula

1:34:39funding grant because we haven't

1:34:40purchased any vehicles. And in the

1:34:43beginning, we said that we would not

1:34:44specifically so that we would give VIA a

1:34:47chance to figure out what the fleet

1:34:49looked like and the council a chance to

1:34:51be able to be fully informed on these

1:34:53purchases before they were made.

1:34:57>> I mean, I I didn't I I got to admit that

1:34:59I didn't know it worked that way that we

1:35:02had to pay it upfront and then request

1:35:04the reimbursement. And if it's not

1:35:06budgeted for, then where's that money

1:35:08going to come from? I get that. Um,

1:35:12>> and we've always said that if the

1:35:14federal dollars decrease, the reason to

1:35:16have a fixed amount in the way that you

1:35:18read the contract, the fixed amount for

1:35:20the city protects the city from having

1:35:23to incur that additional cost. We have

1:35:25it written in to the contract that says

1:35:28they pick it up or they reduce service

1:35:30accordingly, dollar for dollar.

1:35:33>> So, do you you're saying there's 800,000

1:35:35that hasn't been spent? There's 800,000

1:35:38that has been allocated for three

1:35:41vehicles in paratransit. Three vehicles

1:35:43and it's

1:35:45>> but it's reimbursement. The city still

1:35:47has to front the money to then turn

1:35:49around and get 80% of that back. And so

1:35:52the same applies to the 2.2. What we're

1:35:54trying to say is if you want these fleet

1:35:58purchases to occur, we need to preserve

1:36:00that uh in an effort to make sure that

1:36:03your fleet remains in a state of good

1:36:05repair. One of the other things that you

1:36:07have to remember is that the federal

1:36:09government is putting thresholds on the

1:36:12usable life of these uh the six that are

1:36:15from 2026, they're now in a countdown.

1:36:18So, we absolutely have to get those uh

1:36:21three replaced pretty quickly so that

1:36:25the feds don't come back and say you're

1:36:26outside of what's known as TAMs, the

1:36:28state of good repair.

1:36:33And these five that we're getting from

1:36:36this grant, they are replacing people I

1:36:39mean replacing

1:36:41buses that are in what life.

1:36:45>> So that depends on which ones we apply

1:36:48it to. So currently we know that there

1:36:50are four buses that have reached their

1:36:52useful life and we want to go ahead and

1:36:53sell them. So there's four of your five

1:36:55right there. But the question is, do you

1:36:58want the big candy bar buses that are

1:37:00driving around that are half filled, are

1:37:03too big? I think everybody's agree.

1:37:04>> So then it's a matter of working with

1:37:07the federal government and with our

1:37:09other FTA recipient uh organizations to

1:37:12determine who can buy those off of the

1:37:15city, who can trade those with the city,

1:37:17what is the disposition look like so

1:37:19that we can then leverage if we have one

1:37:22that let's say was purchased two years

1:37:24ago, but that's the one we want to get

1:37:26rid of. That is where Candace and her

1:37:28group, that is where the mayor are

1:37:30working tirelessly to make those

1:37:32opportunities happen so that we don't

1:37:34have to keep the fleet at that size for

1:37:37as long as what is expected. Because if

1:37:39they were purchased two years ago with a

1:37:4112-year lifespan, man, we're in it until

1:37:442036.

1:37:45>> So the five is replacing four that's at

1:37:47their useful life

1:37:48>> potentially. Yes.

1:37:50>> Okay.

1:37:50>> Yes. and then one to be determined or

1:37:54five that we find a FTA recipient that

1:37:57says, "Man, we want those because

1:37:59they're in such good uh state of use for

1:38:02more money."

1:38:02>> Correct.

1:38:04>> All right.

1:38:06So, I mean, I didn't I really didn't

1:38:09this understand it worked that way. I

1:38:11don't expect that I'll amend that to

1:38:13pull out the 2.2.

1:38:16Um,

1:38:18but definitely the saving center,

1:38:21>> but please understand if you do not

1:38:23amend it, you will actually see 80% of

1:38:26that funding back so long as it's

1:38:28reimbursed once the purchase is made

1:38:31>> and then we won't see an increase in

1:38:32next year's budget. We'll just reuse

1:38:34that same money. We'll see.

1:38:43>> Um, anyone else?

1:38:46>> I mean, I I I appreciate these

1:38:49discussions that we're meeting as a

1:38:50finance committee and [clears throat]

1:38:51really having these discussions. I mean,

1:38:54I think it's important that we do have

1:38:55these discussions. Um, I may have some

1:38:58something else that I want to change

1:39:00after I read all the answers to the

1:39:02questions because I mean I just haven't

1:39:03read them all

1:39:05>> at this point. So, there may be

1:39:06something else that pops up, but

1:39:08>> I won't be a water moccasin about it.

1:39:10I'll at least be a rattlesnake.

1:39:13I'll rattle first.

1:39:14>> I'm actually going to take that as a

1:39:15compliment, too, about how how efficient

1:39:17this meeting was being ran.

1:39:19>> Thank you for running efficient meeting.

1:39:21>> You're welcome.

1:39:23Anyways, um, anything else? Uh the only

1:39:25the only other thing that I do know um I

1:39:27know there's some conversation um from

1:39:29other council members uh there I think

1:39:32there's a couple performance contracts

1:39:34that may have got defunded um that I

1:39:37know there's some discussion that that

1:39:39need to look at that. So um we'll we'll

1:39:43work through that I guess on our side.

1:39:45Um

1:39:47anything else that anybody else wants to

1:39:49say and then we'll let

1:39:52>> Yes, sir.

1:39:54I know there there was a decrease in um

1:39:59year-over-year funding and increase in

1:40:01what was requested for one event that I

1:40:03know has been talked about. Um

1:40:07in addition to the library, you know,

1:40:08when when I looked at the library, we

1:40:10had their financials. it appeared

1:40:13that they had a surplus and and

1:40:18recognizing that appearance of a over a

1:40:21million dollar surplus, we reduced their

1:40:23award by if I 700 is what I believe and

1:40:27I believe their surplus was kind of

1:40:29double that.

1:40:30>> It wasn't actually a surplus. It was

1:40:32truly an accounting error and it was my

1:40:34belief that we could make that reduction

1:40:36recognizing the desire to do to reduce

1:40:39performance contracts. I would argue

1:40:41that that one fits in that category. Um,

1:40:45they would they would have to decrease

1:40:46services, which is not at all what I had

1:40:49any intention to do. Have met with them.

1:40:52Uh, they're going to get me a a real

1:40:54hard number as to what that gap needs to

1:40:58look like, what we need to fill up um by

1:41:01Thursday, if I recall.

1:41:04Um what I would suggest you know rather

1:41:07than looking at the plug as I think it's

1:41:09better term rather than the deficit

1:41:12>> I mean I think it's certainly fair to

1:41:13call it a deficit but let's call it a

1:41:15plug in that at the end of the year uh

1:41:19if we have spent less money than we had

1:41:23budgeted which happens often or we we've

1:41:27brought in more revenue than we

1:41:29anticipated in the budget that that plug

1:41:32bug can easily go away and and hopefully

1:41:35turn into a positive. So, if you're

1:41:37looking at, you know, I think Logan and

1:41:40others suggested the $1.5 million to the

1:41:43arena, you know, as just a kind of

1:41:45safety net, I fully expect that to

1:41:50not be cash negative to that amount next

1:41:53year. My hope is that it is cash

1:41:54positive. um depending on when we're

1:41:57able to open those doors and get events

1:41:58going rather than taking that and

1:42:02applying it to the plug. I would suggest

1:42:04that you take a look at that if you're

1:42:06if you are intent on taking that away or

1:42:11doing some use that to plug some of

1:42:13these other gaps rather than worrying

1:42:15about the $5 million plug because it is

1:42:18again my goal that we never have to

1:42:20transfer those funds. stay downside to

1:42:22that whole idea is that we're increasing

1:42:25performance contracts by another million

1:42:27dollars,

1:42:28>> right? Let's put forward in 8.7. I say

1:42:32if if the library needs another

1:42:34$700,000, we'll find $700,000 in the

1:42:37performance contracts to come from

1:42:39somebody. You know that I mean,

1:42:41>> you know, if that is your goal, feel

1:42:43free. I promise you I looked through

1:42:45them pretty intently. It makes it

1:42:49>> in this 1.5 that that's going over

1:42:51there. Um obviously in construction um

1:42:54>> we're in budget. We're [clears throat]

1:42:56we're in budget. We're going to just

1:42:58leave it at that.

1:42:59>> Yes.

1:42:59>> Um then obviously there's contingency

1:43:02associated probably even contingency for

1:43:04the contingency um knowing Sam. So

1:43:06>> uh you know

1:43:07>> so this 1.5 is that more of a is that

1:43:09more of an intent for reimbursement for

1:43:12immediate repairs of warranty work or

1:43:14that be more of an operation? It's more

1:43:16of, you know, hedging against expected

1:43:20revenues from ticket sales and other

1:43:21things and operation costs is what that

1:43:24is generally looking at.

1:43:26>> And again, I personally don't expect it.

1:43:29I appreciate an extremely conservative

1:43:31finance director who wants to make sure

1:43:33we have uh, you know, cushion should we

1:43:36need it. Um,

1:43:38it's not going to break my heart if that

1:43:40is not there next year. I think we can

1:43:43make it work.

1:43:44>> Okay. Thank you. Anything else? All

1:43:47right. Um, thank you all. Um, thank you

1:43:49for again for for responding to these

1:43:50questions. Thanks for your time. Um,

1:43:52thank you to everybody who I mean I know

1:43:54that this isn't a a oneman show when it

1:43:57comes to a budget or a five people show.

1:43:59Thank

1:44:01all the the staff and everybody that

1:44:03works for the city that really did put

1:44:04all this together. I know a lot of

1:44:05thought went into it. So, thank you'all

1:44:07for that. It's really much appreciated.

1:44:08Again, thank you for answering our

1:44:09questions. And um with that, we'll end

1:44:12the finance committee meeting and uh

1:44:14we'll go from there. So, thank y'all.

```*