2026-10-21 - Finance Committee

05:11I had ancho today.

05:14>> Just [laughter] what you wanted, right?

05:15>> I think you should reorganize your

05:16staff.

05:18>> This actually popped on the

05:20>> All right. All right.

05:21Meeting called to order at 10:35 a.m. on

05:25October 21st, 2026.

05:28At this time,

05:29uh I'll start with the roll call.

05:31Alderwoman O'Neal.

05:32>> Present.

05:32>> Alderman Thorp.

05:33>> Present.

05:33>> And I am also here.

05:35Um

05:36at this time, I'd entertain a motion to

05:39approve the agenda as amended to remove

05:42R 2026

05:44because the legislation tracker was not

05:46updated and it wasn't actually ready for

05:47committee.

05:48And to add SA 527, SA 627, SA 727, SA

05:55827, and FT 327.

05:59So, a motion.

06:00>> So moved.

06:01>> Second. All those in favor, please say

06:03I.

06:04I. Motion carries. All right.

06:07Um so, a motion to approve the minutes

06:10from our October 7th meeting.

06:12>> So moved.

06:13>> Second.

06:14>> All those in favor, please say I.

06:15>> I.

06:16>> Motion carries.

06:18All right.

06:19Uh we're skipping over 2026. That wasn't

06:21ready yet.

06:23First order of business is R37. Well,

06:25wait.

06:27Ms. Jackson, do we We normally do SAs

06:30first, right? So, we'll start with the

06:31SAs.

06:36Okay. Sure.

06:37FT 327.

06:40All right, Ms. Sugiyama, I'm going to

06:42uh hand the floor to you because I think

06:44we we got a bunch of these supplemental

06:46appropriations and fund transfers

06:48uh just

06:50last minute. We haven't looked at these

06:51ahead of time. So, could you not

06:53necessarily the like Let me just say uh

06:57SA

07:00627,

07:01I don't think we need you to go through

07:03right now. SA 727, we don't need you to

07:06go through right now. But all of the

07:08ones

07:10Uh and and uh SA 527, we don't need. But

07:13SA

07:14827 and FT 327, I think those two come

07:19are tied together and I'm hoping you

07:21could just explain these to us cuz I

07:23think they're related.

07:24>> So, I am going to defer to Capri to

07:27speak about those two. Thank you.

07:30>> Thank you.

07:32>> Capri Turner, senior budget analyst. Um

07:35FT3 is going to be

07:37um

07:38the transfer for the impact of

07:41the finalization of the union

07:43negotiations for the cola.

07:46Um so the that's just moving funded to

07:48the appropriate departments um so they

07:51can absorb those costs. And then SA 8 is

07:54replacing that funding that's moving

07:56from those projects for the cola

07:59um replacing the paygo with capital

08:02reserve.

08:03>> Okay, so I want to make sure I'm I'm

08:04clear on this in in uh straightforward

08:07terms.

08:08>> Mhm.

08:08>> FT 327 is meeting our obligations under

08:12our union agreements.

08:13>> Yes.

08:13>> That's what it's doing.

08:14>> Correct.

08:15>> And then SA 827 is moving the money from

08:22paygo to capital reserve. No, from

08:25capital reserve to paygo.

08:27>> Correct. So the paygo is moving from the

08:29projects to handle the impact of the

08:32union negotiations and then SA 8 is

08:35replacing that funding that's of that

08:37paygo that's being moved.

08:39>> Got it.

08:40Is there anything going on here that is

08:43not using

08:45what was previously paygo to pay for our

08:48union contracts?

08:49>> No.

08:50>> Okay.

08:52Thank you. That was

08:54exactly what I expected. I did have the

08:55opposite reaction. I looked at the SA

08:59first and saw it thought, "Oh boy,

09:02$200,000 for sidewalks is great." But

09:05yes, I appreciate you all explaining

09:07that. Um I think this is exactly what we

09:10were expecting. But um I want to make

09:13sure that my colleagues have any time

09:15for questions

09:16and apologies to both of you guys that

09:20we did not have this more in advance. I

09:22would have liked to as well. But I was

09:24told it was urgent so we wanted to make

09:25sure it got on the agenda today.

09:28So with that floor is open for any

09:30questions.

09:34>> I I have a question. I just want you to

09:36know um that my reaction to this was

09:40>> [clears throat]

09:40>> exceptionally negative and probably

09:44we were about to exercise the EMT

09:46for the city

09:48>> [laughter]

09:48>> until I saw that. So, just so you know

09:51the seriousness for which I took the

09:53idea of taking $200,000 out of sidewalks

09:56before I realized what this was.

09:58So, thank you very much. Just I want it

10:00noted that how serious that would have

10:03been. So, appreciate the solution you

10:06came up with.

10:13>> Give an Alderwoman O'Neal a moment to

10:14finish looking through it.

10:15>> Yeah, I think I'm okay.

10:16>> Okay, I think this is

10:19you know

10:19very standard, very much what we were

10:21expecting and I appreciate the statement

10:24that it's not anything we weren't

10:25expecting.

10:31>> I'd make a motion for a favorable

10:32recommendation for FT 327.

10:36>> Um, you want to second that?

10:38>> Second.

10:39>> All right, all those in favor of a

10:41favorable recommendation on FT 327,

10:43please say I. I.

10:45>> I.

10:46>> Motion carries.

10:47>> Mr. Chairman.

10:48>> Yes.

10:48>> Um

10:51it it may save time at the city council

10:54meeting

10:56if

10:57uh

11:00the director of finance was able to put

11:02something together and maybe it's here

11:03on the back of this, but that we could

11:05highlight to the city council

11:08um exactly what Chairman Huntley just

11:11said about what this is. Cuz otherwise I

11:14think we're going to we we have we have

11:16the potential on Monday night of doing a

11:18line by line look and then you know

11:20trying to get people hey time out. Um

11:23and so whether we we whatever format you

11:26and the city manager and the mayor think

11:28is appropriate, I think it would be very

11:30helpful.

11:31And I know Alderwoman Huntley could

11:32probably pipe up as well when we get to

11:34it, but

11:36um,

11:36but it would be very helpful if we could

11:38put a two or three sentences together to

11:40explain that to the city council. And

11:42then and then this will be a I

11:43>> Yep.

11:44>> So.

11:44>> I think so. I agree with that and I

11:46would suggest that the easiest format is

11:48for it to just go in the blurb that goes

11:51out when Ms. Ryder sends us the agenda.

11:53And we can have that explanation right

11:55there. So,

11:56cuz that's what I think all of our

11:57colleagues look at first before they

11:59deep dive into the agenda.

12:01At least I do.

12:02>> And then you always do this anyway, but

12:05and then in in our committee reports,

12:06maybe that's a highlight.

12:08>> Yes, absolutely. That's a good idea,

12:10too. Yeah.

12:12Uh, yeah, I try not to

12:13run through every single thing we do,

12:15but actually talk about the the stuff

12:17people are going to have questions

12:18about.

12:21Uh, all right, I think our next step

12:23would be for a favorable recommendation

12:25of SA 827.

12:28>> So moved.

12:29>> Second.

12:30>> All those in favor, please say I. I.

12:33Motion carries.

12:35And with that,

12:37we've got our our union contracts

12:39funded. Well, I guess we got to vote on

12:40it on Monday, but we've got a path

12:42forward on that. Thank you very much to

12:43the team. I know that's that's a big

12:45one. That's not easy. So, thank you

12:47guys. I'm sure there was a lot of work

12:48that went into that.

12:51Moving right along to SA 527, which is a

12:56grant to our firefighters. Chief, you

12:59have anything you want to say about

13:00this?

13:06>> Valley Fire Chief. Now, I'm just here to

13:07answer answer any questions you may have

13:09to it. Which one is this one? I know we

13:11have two of them on the agenda.

13:12>> Uh, yeah, this is the FEMA Department of

13:14Homeland Security FY 27 Assistance to

13:17Firefighters Grant.

13:18>> So, this grant will assist us, as you

13:20know, um, last budget cycle you helped

13:23us replace some of our cardiac monitors,

13:25which are over $60,000 a piece. Uh, we

13:27continue in that rotation. That's going

13:29to allow us to buy three more cardiac

13:31monitor defibrillators plus handful of

13:35AEDs for the vehicles.

13:37Obviously, it's saving the city some

13:39money. We have money within our budget

13:41to meet the match. So, it's we're very

13:44happy that we received this.

13:45>> And just

13:47so I understand fully, the number you

13:49just said about how many you'll be able

13:51to buy, is that

13:53with is that paid for by this $43,000

13:56increase or is that the total $151,000?

13:58>> So,

13:59>> [clears throat]

13:59>> this was already in our budget. We

14:02actually received more money than we had

14:04anticipated originally and this is the

14:06increase to allow us to buy the

14:08additional units.

14:09>> Got you. So, that number you just said

14:10of additional is

14:13I'm sorry, just tell me the number of

14:14units you're going to buy

14:16that's additional because of this.

14:19>> So, the the grant is for three

14:22cardiac monitor defibrillators and then

14:25I believe it's up to 15 AEDs.

14:28When we

14:31put it in the budget originally, we knew

14:33we were going to apply for the grant.

14:35This we got

14:37when we put in the request to the FEMA

14:38government, we got it and it was more

14:40than we originally had in our budget,

14:42but it was already budgeted. This just

14:44is an increase to the budget.

14:46>> Got it. And so, that's going to allow

14:47you to buy more AEDs?

14:49>> Yes, additional AEDs.

14:51>> Okay, thank you. Anybody got any other

14:53questions?

14:55>> No.

14:55>> No.

14:55>> Yeah, Chief, I

14:57that I'm going to support this. This

14:59this really isn't a discussion about

15:00this specific one, but in general,

15:02I'd like to see

15:05more

15:07discipline

15:09or more data

15:11in the budget process. In other words,

15:14as we've been doing this now for almost

15:16a year,

15:17it's all goodness, right? When we apply

15:19for grants and we get more than we

15:22budgeted for, that's success, right? I

15:24mean, that that indicates good

15:27conservative budgeting, that

15:29represents good reputation that we have,

15:31that we're getting support, etc. There's

15:34all goodness to that. Um

15:36what what I'm a little challenged with

15:39as we go forward and and this is

15:41continual, it's not just one, it's it's

15:43almost routinely at Finance Committee

15:45meetings

15:46that

15:49we've we found money in the budget, we

15:52had money in the budget for the match,

15:54great.

15:56But what are we not buying? And then we

15:58got this extra money, we're buying these

16:00things

16:02that we didn't think we were going to

16:04buy.

16:06And I think it's prudent for the Finance

16:07Committee and the City Council to

16:09challenge our system to say

16:12is there a better use of that money? And

16:15and I know the answer is no on your

16:17point or you wouldn't be doing it that.

16:18So, I'm not questioning your judgment or

16:20your department's judgment. I'm just

16:22questioning the Finance Committee and

16:25the City Council's

16:27almost rubber stamping these because

16:30we believe Chief O'Malley. Now,

16:32the other thing is this, you know,

16:33$15,000. [clears throat]

16:34So, again, I'm not looking for a term

16:36paper on it, but

16:37but philosophically going forward, I

16:39think we should see more

16:42granularity

16:43and I think the Director of Finance

16:45should be requiring more granularity on

16:49the

16:50is this the best use of city funds from

16:54a finance perspective? Clearly it is

16:55from your perspective, but

16:58and we trust that, right? So, there's I

17:00would tell you if Chief, I don't think

17:02you should be making these decisions or

17:03whatever. That's not where I'm coming

17:04from. But does that make sense?

17:07>> No, I understand your

17:10your questioning and concerns. We, as

17:12you know, during [clears throat] the

17:13last budget, we had requested

17:16uh an additional amount for obsoleted

17:18equipment.

17:20That budget was cut uh, from what our

17:23request was to a certain amount which

17:25was within the budget and we said it

17:28>> [clears throat]

17:28>> obviously any amount that helps and that

17:30we will prioritize as we go through the

17:32budget. And that's all this was. This

17:33This was items that were already

17:35accounted for in the budget. It's just

17:36allowing us to to get them utilizing the

17:39federal fund money with it. So.

17:41>> See, I would think that that's the

17:44answer I'm looking for from her.

17:46Right? Is Is from a finance perspective,

17:50you requested

17:52X for a budget, you got X minus Y.

17:56In In DOD parlance, we call it an

17:58unfunded list. I'm not asking for an

18:00unfunded list, but but and and for you

18:04to say this was on our budget we're

18:07using these funds to

18:09to pay for things that were

18:11in on our budget in our budget but not

18:13funded. And the director of finance

18:16nodding

18:17and also that gives her the ability to

18:20challenge you to say

18:22hey

18:24why don't we and you know, is there a

18:26way we could defer costs from to next

18:28year or whatever like was in the

18:30discussion with Kevin Simmons the other

18:32day.

18:33And so it just I'm looking to create

18:35that conversation to challenge the

18:37budget process

18:39rather than just

18:40every one of these just go through

18:42routinely. We're We shouldn't be I'm not

18:44saying we should be doing the analysis,

18:46but I'm looking for the you and the

18:48director of finance to compete all the

18:50the extra money we get to make sure that

18:54we're working together to do it. It

18:55sounds like we are.

18:57>> I mean, we have discussions with finance

18:58every time we apply for the grants and

19:00when we we discuss it. So, we do have

19:02those discussions. It's just

19:05seems like you want a little more

19:06information about our discussions as it

19:08comes to you.

19:09>> Yeah, and and maybe it's just a

19:10confidence factor that you're having

19:13them. Right? Again, I don't think we

19:15need to dive into

19:16>> We're definitely having them.

19:18>> [laughter]

19:18>> And I just want to give Ms. Turner the

19:20opportunity to weigh in on this, too,

19:21cuz I think she's got something to say.

19:25>> Thank you. Um so, those analyses do

19:28happen. When they bring grants to us

19:30before we bring the budget um revisions

19:33forth, we consider all of those things

19:36before we actually bring it to council.

19:39So, um would you like us to be more

19:43transparent with it in like the language

19:46in writing the budget revision, so you

19:48know that these dis- discussions are

19:50happening?

19:51>> Yeah.

19:52>> Okay.

19:52>> I think that's what I'm asking. And I

19:53don't want to do unnecessary work. So,

19:55again, I don't want to turn paper for

19:56$15,000 or even $45,000.

19:59Um

20:00but

20:01I think that you you put it you nailed

20:03it. If you could be more transparent

20:05that that

20:07that

20:08everybody's doing a head nod on this.

20:11Um and I'm just looking to drive that

20:12process to make sure it's happening. It

20:15sounds like it's already happening.

20:16We're not going to change anything. So,

20:18that'd be great. Thank you.

20:19>> I think the the question I was trying to

20:21get out with Chief Fromm Alley is

20:23the

20:24What is the the marginal product? What

20:27is the marginal benefit that we're

20:28getting out of this? And a sentence on

20:30that in these would be super helpful.

20:31Thank you.

20:32>> So, I do want to add here that the

20:35finance office meet with departments on

20:38a regular basis.

20:40It's just not we meet with them during

20:43the budget process, but

20:46Capri is assigned to certain

20:49departments. Darren is assigned to

20:51different departments, and they go out

20:53and have these discussions all the time.

20:56So, we are aware of what's going on in

20:59the departments, and the departments

21:00know to contact the finance office when

21:03there are changes such as this. So,

21:05we're on top of it.

21:06>> Yep. Not a surprise and I didn't doubt

21:09that. I just want to hear it, right? I

21:11want you know, and every once in a while

21:15you know, I'm sure in the system between

21:18you two, there's probably a no, I want

21:19to do this. I want to do this and you

21:20sort it out and that's what

21:22professionals do and we don't need to

21:24know about that. We just need to know

21:26that you two are working together to

21:27make it happen and whether whoever

21:29sitting at that table.

21:31So.

21:31>> But I think it's a good point Alderman

21:34Thorpe to bring up. Maybe we do need to

21:38have some of this information included

21:40in the documentation.

21:42I think it'll make it much easier for

21:44you to understand what's happening

21:46behind closed doors so to speak.

21:50So we will we will do something along

21:53those lines for the council.

21:55>> Thank you.

21:57Thank you Mr. Chairman.

21:58>> Thanks. All right, with that is there a

22:00motion for a favorable recommendation of

22:01SA 527?

22:03>> So moved.

22:04>> Second.

22:04>> All those in favor, please say aye.

22:06>> Aye.

22:07>> Aye.

22:08>> Motion carries and then let's jump ahead

22:10to 727 while we got the chief of the

22:12table. This is your port security grant

22:15program one

22:16for a remote operated vehicle for

22:19underwater search and rescue. That's

22:21sounds really cool to be honest with

22:23you. So

22:25um

22:26I think I I'm going to guess you'll get

22:28all the same questions

22:29that you just got about the other one

22:31which is basically what's the

22:33what are we getting with this passing

22:35that we wouldn't have otherwise?

22:36>> So I would imagine this one

22:38the questions that we just went through

22:41refer more to this budget than this SA

22:44than the last one cuz the last one was

22:45in our budget. The last one we had

22:47programmed out the equipment that we

22:49were looking for and we just happened to

22:50receive a little more than we had had

22:52requested. This one here was not in our

22:54budget. The port security grant came up.

22:57It's not a normal grant that we've been

22:59applying for from in the fire

23:01department.

23:02But as it came up, we as you know, you

23:05saw that we entered a partnership with

23:07the Port of Virginia and we work with

23:09the Port of Baltimore because Annapolis

23:11Anchorage going to the ports coming up

23:13to Chesapeake Bay. We have a maritime

23:15unit, the fireboat, the new fireboat

23:18should be here at the end of the month.

23:19Just add that in there, too, that you

23:21find a few years ago. But um

23:24this is one of the capabilities that

23:26we've been looking at throughout the

23:28time to enhance the maritime response.

23:30There is not one of these units in the

23:32immediate area. Howard County does have

23:35one. I think that's the closest one to

23:37us.

23:38But that's basically what it is. This is

23:40an underwater robot to say. It's an

23:43underwater

23:45response vessel that can be used off of

23:47the fireboat that we can put in the

23:49water to search for

23:51search and rescue operations on a

23:52boating accident or if we have somebody

23:54in the water where we can actually go.

23:56It's got cameras. It's got GPS in it.

23:59This was not in our our budget, but this

24:01is one of those large ticket items. It's

24:03like um

24:05you know, it's needed. It's a a response

24:07capability we need in the area and we

24:10took the opportunity when it came up. We

24:12actually had to go to finance and tell

24:14them, "Hey, this grant's come up." We

24:16went through the approval process and

24:17look, we're we're going to apply for it.

24:19This is where it is. And we ended up

24:22getting this grant, which is very

24:23competitive grant and we're we're happy

24:25to get it. But that this was an

24:26expensive one. I mean, this is

24:28definitely saving the city money cuz

24:29this this vessel is over $100,000 and

24:32we're going to get it for

24:35you know, smaller amount than that cuz

24:37it's our match.

24:38>> Yeah. And so, my only question on this

24:42again, it seems cool, but obviously

24:44that's not why we approve things. It

24:45seems like the reason we approve it is

24:47for what you just said. We're saving the

24:49city money and it's a capability I can

24:52absolutely see how we need. My question

24:54to you is just the match of 28,000

24:5827,000

25:00is something not going to get funded

25:03that we otherwise would have purchased

25:05because of that or is it

25:07basically because of this other one

25:09we're going to be able to offset it.

25:11>> So it's part of the offset cuz we had

25:14the federal money

25:15for the AEDs and the that so that that's

25:18partially how we're we're going to find

25:20it. So

25:21we as we look through it as I told you

25:23for the obsolete equipment we are

25:24prioritize prioritizing

25:26those items because we only got a

25:28certain amount in there

25:30but we feel that this is beneficial.

25:32This is a response capability that's

25:33needed in the area and this is well

25:35worth it for us. So we're prioritizing

25:38the equipment that we have then we were

25:40going to replace. I don't see it

25:42affecting anything major that we're not

25:44going to be able to get because of the

25:46what happened with the other federal

25:48grant. So it's just happens that they're

25:49working together to us to allow us to do

25:51this.

25:52>> That's great.

25:54All right.

25:55That's all my questions. Anybody else

25:57got any more questions on this?

26:01>> I I do and one finance committee and one

26:04non-finance committee.

26:05I do agree this is a perfect example of

26:07what we were talking about earlier that

26:10uh

26:12makes all the sense in the world to do

26:13it um but I I just want to make sure

26:16that that granularity is happening

26:18because what I don't want is to get the

26:2020

26:21eight budget and say oh in this 28,000

26:24dollars is to buy things we should have

26:26bought in 27

26:29um

26:29but we didn't have the money because we

26:31used it in this grant which may have

26:32been a conscious decision but I want to

26:34know that now not

26:36in

26:38March or April whatever. So

26:40my non-finance committee

26:42question is I also think this is

26:46amazing capability to bring to the city

26:50and quite frankly I'm thinking of

26:51drowning So, I'm thinking of

26:53uh that

26:54uh you know, the the search for

26:57humans um and uh

27:00to bring this capability is just

27:02wonderful.

27:03Um

27:04I recently got a brief from the Navy

27:07about [clears throat] the amount of

27:09underwater capability they're putting in

27:11and they're going to start using their

27:13yard patrol craft as command platforms

27:16for unmanned vehicles. So, I don't know

27:19if I have a question as much as a

27:20request that we make sure we're

27:23coordinating um

27:25because the the graphics that the Navy

27:28has

27:30has no sailboats or powerboats or or

27:34uh recreation boats in it and it has a

27:36whole lot of unmanned vehicles

27:38right around the harbor. And so, uh when

27:41I see this, I'm like, "Wow, we we're you

27:43know, we're getting to the point like we

27:44have cell phone you know, too many cell

27:46phones you know, being used and and not

27:48enough bandwidth. So, I would just say

27:50that I would ask that we make sure we're

27:52coordinating with the Naval Academy and

27:53the Navy to

27:54so they know we have it. They know what

27:56we're operating uh on and all that. So,

27:59thank you.

28:02>> With that, is there a

28:04uh motion for a favorable recommendation

28:06of SA 727?

28:08>> So moved.

28:09>> Second.

28:10>> All those in favor, please say I. I.

28:11>> I.

28:12>> Thank you very much for being here,

28:13Chief. Motion carries.

28:14>> We appreciate you getting this through

28:16the federal system. They're revamping it

28:20uh and we had a time frame to accept the

28:21grant and uh

28:23if we didn't get it through in this uh

28:25cycle, it would have just pushed it off

28:27until after the 1st of the year. So, we

28:28appreciate your support.

28:29>> Absolutely.

28:30>> Thank you.

28:30>> Yeah, I deal with those federal systems

28:32in my day job and I know sometimes you

28:34just want to get it done.

28:37All right. Our last supplemental

28:39appropriation of today, SA 627 is from

28:41the city manager's department. Mr.

28:43Lacona, do you want to come and chat

28:44with us about this?

28:46Uh this

28:49is $12,000 for the Resilient Maryland

28:53program. for Yeah, for the Resilient

28:55Maryland program.

28:57Um, to pay for some pre-construction

29:00costs. So, explain to us what a

29:01resiliency hub is.

29:05>> Morning. Donald Kountz, Department of

29:06Programs Manager. Uh, yeah, so I'm

29:09really happy to talk about this with

29:10you. It's exciting little project. Um,

29:14as you're aware, we are in the process

29:16of working with HACA to redevelop the

29:18Eager Street Terrace

29:19uh, Harbor House property.

29:21Uh, that's been delayed obviously a

29:23little bit by the lack of CNI funding,

29:25but uh, the developer is moving forward

29:27with that again. So,

29:29we had an agreement with MEA

29:33uh, before that delay happened wherein

29:35we were going to work with

29:38uh,

29:39a firm which now actually is the same

29:41architect working on the redevelopment

29:43to find solar capabilities on the

29:47community centers

29:49uh, and configure battery backup and

29:51switch technology. So, this is something

29:54that's fairly new in the realm of you

29:57know,

29:58residential clean energy. And so, what

30:00it does is it takes advantage of the

30:02solar systems that we're all familiar

30:03with and stores that excess charge uh,

30:08into those batteries that are in a

30:10storage facility. And during peak loads,

30:14the facility actually switches over to

30:15that battery. So, that reduces uh,

30:18energy costs on the facility, uh, but it

30:21also uh, protects the grid from

30:24shortages.

30:26What it also does is during times of

30:27emergency,

30:29uh, that clean energy can be used to

30:31power facilities that are important to

30:33this vulnerable communities. Uh, so

30:35there's a lot of different emerging

30:36benefits uh, from such a system.

30:39Uh, and we're trying to work with BGE on

30:41some incentives that they've talked with

30:43us about in the past Uh, because they

30:45see this as mutually beneficial not only

30:47to you know the property owner but to

30:49the utility provider in this era of you

30:52know increasing demand for electricity.

30:55So you know it sounds a little simple

30:57obviously you know the engineering is

30:59pretty complicated

31:02but we're very confident that the

31:03architect that we're working with and

31:05their sustainability consultants

31:08are pretty familiar with this process.

31:10Should be a great benefit to the

31:13community there. Now of course as you

31:15were saying this is pre-construction so

31:17we're just kind of looking at is it

31:18possible what would it look like

31:21providing us some

31:23financial performances and just kind of

31:26evaluating you know how we can get this

31:28there.

31:29Happy to take any questions.

31:31>> Got it. So

31:32what we're ultimately trying to get here

31:34is batteries.

31:36That's

31:37Yeah to make to oversimplify it it's

31:39it's batteries for the grid.

31:40>> Yeah.

31:41>> [clears throat]

31:41>> That's really cool. I've seen some

31:42awesome graphics about California's

31:45usage where batteries are becoming a

31:48really big chunk of the grid in some

31:49portions of the day.

31:51Um

31:51>> Yeah.

31:52>> So exciting to see that

31:54we're moving that direction.

31:56Do you have a ballpark figure for what

31:59the construction costs will be are we

32:02talking 100,000 are we talking 50,000

32:05are we talking a million?

32:07>> Uh

32:08you know from what I understand from the

32:11current size of the community center

32:14that's still on a piece of paper

32:17I could see this project costing north

32:20of 2 million at the current cost of

32:22batteries and things like that. Like I

32:24said we're trying to work with BG&E on

32:26incentives and battery costs keep on

32:28plummeting as the technology advances

32:31but that's

32:33as ballpark as it gets. That's why what

32:35doing the study we're just trying to

32:36figure out, you know, like I said, is it

32:38feasible? Is it cost-effective? How much

32:41would it cost? What would the return on

32:42investment be? Things like that.

32:44>> Got it. And uh

32:47I think you were just alluding to this,

32:48but that big that construction figure,

32:52do you think that there are

32:54opportunities out there for us to have

32:56somebody else pay that?

32:58PG&E

32:59>> Yeah, there's uh in terms of paying it,

33:03um you know, I think that's a discussion

33:06with the developer, with the housing

33:07authority. Um you know, I've been

33:10talking with a number of uh

33:13green financiers, including green banks

33:16like MCEC,

33:17uh trying to explore which different,

33:19you know, low to no interest loans that

33:21we can uh seek out. Um

33:24and uh yeah, there's there's a whole lot

33:26of conversations that are ongoing.

33:29Um this is very novel in the world of

33:32clean energy, like I was saying.

33:34Um

33:35PG&E doesn't seem to be quite ahead of

33:37the curve in terms of

33:39paving the way for people to implement

33:41this. Um

33:44but yeah, I I'm not really at that point

33:46yet, but there are lots of different uh

33:48avenues we can take to make this as

33:50cost-effective as possible, not only for

33:52the city, but for the residents there.

33:54>> Oop, I'll throw out one idea for you is

33:57our local company Had an Had an

33:59Armstrong Associates, who has I know has

34:02financed

34:03uh similar clean energy upgrades that

34:05have a significant cost up front, but

34:08have

34:09um you know, payback in the long term.

34:11So,

34:12uh I don't want to overstep any bounds

34:13there, but just throwing it out because

34:14they're a company in my ward.

34:16I saw a question from Auto Roman O'Neal.

34:18>> I do have a question. Um

34:20my first question is

34:24why this pri- why this particular

34:26development project when we know we're

34:28so far out from even possibly funding

34:31it, when we have other projects in the

34:33city that are either farther along or

34:35already completed. Why would we not test

34:39the on a project that is closer to

34:41completion?

34:43>> Yeah, good question. Uh we have actually

34:46evaluated a similar project at Newtown

34:4820 once upon a time. Unfortunately, the

34:50results of that study basically came out

34:52that wasn't very feasible. Um the reason

34:55we're doing this one has more to do with

34:58the requirements of the the grant

35:00program.

35:02Uh there is a heavy focus on

35:04environmental justice,

35:06analyzing you know communities that are

35:08most in need, that's low income, you

35:11know, are in food deserts,

35:14um you know, are at higher risk in

35:15general. Uh and so we found that

35:19you know concurrently with this new

35:20development you know in this underserved

35:23community

35:24it met a lot of different criteria that

35:26MEA was looking for

35:27and it made our grant application just

35:29more competitive. Um so you know we're

35:31going to continue to look at other

35:32locations

35:34but that's you know based on what

35:36funding is available.

35:40>> Um my second question is once you do the

35:43study knowing that this project is

35:47probably 8 years out. I'm going to I'm

35:50going to make a guess.

35:51Um

35:52you said that a study had been done

35:54prior

35:58about solar capabilities. Is that

36:00correct?

36:01>> Uh it was a microgrid study for Newtown

36:0320.

36:05>> Um so does that if we're looking that

36:07far in advance, does that make the study

36:09null and void because of new

36:12technology, new processes, new

36:16data that will support in that many

36:19years? I'm just worried about doing a

36:21study now for some a project that

36:24doesn't even have funding.

36:26>> Yeah. Um

36:28so, my understanding with the technology

36:30is that there's extremely little risk

36:32that it will be null and void. Uh the

36:36infrastructure that they're laying out

36:38is really what's important here.

36:40Um you know, if the technology for the

36:42batteries continues to improve, that's

36:44great. The project will cost less. Uh

36:46it'll be able to hold more, you know,

36:49energy.

36:50Um

36:51but, you know, the the baseline

36:53construction is pretty much always going

36:56to be the same. Um so,

36:59I don't see any issues in that regard.

37:03>> Thank you.

37:05>> Alderman Ford, your questions?

37:06>> I do. Um

37:08can I ask [snorts] a basic question? Why

37:10is the city doing this and not HACC?

37:13>> Uh we [clears throat] have a partnership

37:14with HACC. Um

37:16you know, we've been working with them

37:17during this process. They've helped us

37:19uh provide certain data and things like

37:21that. Um

37:23but, you know, we've worked with this

37:25developer on this project on numerous

37:27things including, you know, helping with

37:29the CNI grant. Um so, we we see it as

37:33beneficial to the community. Um

37:36you know, this is part of an ongoing

37:37partnership. But, yeah.

37:40>> Um thank you. And

37:42the next question is

37:44how much of your time

37:47percentage-wise

37:48is spent on this program?

37:51>> Very little.

37:52You know.

37:53Um you know, most of it's just been

37:56talking with HACC, requesting certain

37:57documents, talking with the architect,

37:59making sure they understand the scope of

38:01work. Um but, no, yeah, it's it's it's

38:05fairly low-key grant. Yeah.

38:09There's certain grants that do require

38:10Davis-Bacon requirements and things like

38:12that. That takes a lot of time, but this

38:14is this isn't a big deal.

38:16>> Okay. And then, building on

38:18Alderman O'Neal's

38:20uh

38:21questions, um

38:25So,

38:26study will take how long?

38:29>> Um, I envision that it should be done in

38:31January.

38:33>> So, if it says it's a great idea that

38:36sits on the shelf until

38:40>> until construction begins on that

38:42project, which, you know, uh,

38:45could be up to 8 years. Um,

38:48but that timeline is

38:51unclear right now. We're looking at

38:53phase 1A, uh, the very first stage of

38:55that redevelopment project. Um, so, you

38:58know, construction on that would begin

39:00before the completion of, you know, the

39:02entire property. Um, so, how long it

39:06would take to reach construction, uh,

39:08I'm not totally sure.

39:09Uh,

39:10there are some benefits to waiting, like

39:12I was saying, you know, the technology

39:14seems to be getting cheaper and cheaper.

39:15Um, and, uh, you know, finding financing

39:19partners, uh,

39:21you know, can benefit from taking a a

39:23little bit longer.

39:24>> Yeah. A- And the

39:26this is going to the rec center, right?

39:29Did I hear that right?

39:30>> The community center at that section,

39:31yes.

39:32>> And so, that's not phase 1A, that's like

39:33phase four. I mean, that's almost on the

39:35outside of the

39:37the plan. So, 8 years would be heaven. I

39:40mean, 8 years to start, right?

39:42So, I mean, I I guess I guess this is

39:44only $12,000 and $3,000, but I think the

39:48again, the point be made be principle

39:50rather than fact here is um,

39:58I I'm fine with this because it's such a

40:00small amount of money and we'll learn

40:02I'm hearing we're going to learn

40:03something from it, but

40:05again, we

40:06when you when you walk into that,

40:09uh, community center,

40:11and the thing that needs to be spent

40:13money on is the lights,

40:15um, to make it functional in the next

40:17eight years.

40:19It seems to me that

40:22researching battery power

40:25um

40:26when when the construction is done,

40:28they'll they'll I think we will know

40:30enough whether to

40:32whether we can use battery power.

40:34Um, I mean, we know enough now when we

40:36build a building, the developers know,

40:39you know, the tree covers

40:41doesn't support it or whatever, um,

40:43where the technology supports it, but so

40:46I again I I'm I'm challenged by that

40:48there's not a whole lot of money here.

40:50You're not spending a whole lot of time

40:52here, but

40:53um

40:54I I just I would not I would be loath to

40:57hear in two years somebody say we need

40:59$2 million cuz you approved this back in

41:01October of 2026.

41:03>> Right. Yeah, I'm getting that, too.

41:05>> So

41:05>> But my hope is you come back to us and

41:07say, "We've got $2 million from BGE or

41:10private developer or

41:13new fancy battery system that wants to

41:15demonstrate it in Annapolis, and we've

41:17got $2 million to replace this." But I

41:19So, I think where I'm at is yes, let's

41:22approve this and also

41:25not to bring up a sore subject, but

41:26maybe it's a little bit like the ferry.

41:28Seems good in theory. It's a question of

41:30where's the money going to come from,

41:32and

41:33let's

41:35let's wait to make any decision until we

41:37know where the money's coming from, but

41:39on this we can

41:41be pretty secure.

41:43>> I'll let up. I'm just going to say this.

41:45There definitely is a use case for this.

41:47>> [laughter]

41:49>> All right.

41:50>> Uh, with that, is there a motion for a

41:52favorable recommendation of SA 627?

41:55>> So moved.

41:56>> Second.

41:57>> All those in favor, please say I.

41:58>> I.

41:59>> Motion carries.

42:01Thank you very much. Thank you very

42:02much.

42:04>> Thanks for doing what you doing.

42:05>> I'm looking forward to seeing the $2

42:07million supplemental appropriation for a

42:08grant. I'll see you tomorrow. [laughter]

42:13All right.

42:14Um Moving on to our legislation, we are

42:17skipping right over our 2026 and then

42:20going to the R3726

42:23fine schedule associated with ordinance

42:263026 about eviction and property

42:29disposal. So, I have heard from the

42:32director of planning and zoning on this

42:34and the sponsor that these are their

42:36recommendations. They think $1,000 is

42:39sufficient, $1,000 per day, which is is

42:42crucial, is sufficient to

42:46deter the the offenses that we're

42:48talking about here, which

42:50you know, I I really like O3026. I think

42:53it's a really compassionate piece of

42:54legislation and we need to make sure

42:57that we have

42:58the enforcement to back it up. So,

43:00somebody's got to actually go out and

43:02note these things and we need to have

43:04inspectors do it, but on the question in

43:06front of us of is $1,000 per day the

43:09appropriate fine, I

43:12I'm satisfied with that.

43:15So, given that we don't have the

43:17director here, I would just say is there

43:19any discussion or questions maybe for

43:21Ms. Ryder or anything else like that?

43:31>> I got to say I I think you nailed it,

43:32right? The devil's in the details. Uh

43:35are we going to

43:36the

43:37the legislation as written is

43:39fine, but

43:42you know,

43:43I'm looking in the staff report how much

43:44more time it's going to take to do that

43:46and I don't see it. So.

43:50>> Yeah, and I I one thing and I I haven't

43:52heard this from the director, but this

43:53is just me editorializing.

43:56Because evictions have the sheriff's

43:58office present, I would imagine

44:01we have

44:03uh we we have staff there, right? It's

44:05not like so many of the enforcement

44:06things we talk about where the problem

44:08is this is going on and no one is

44:10noticing it

44:12because there is a

44:14law enforcement officer there.

44:18They would be able to report it. Now,

44:19mind you, we have to have a conversation

44:21with them that says here's our laws and

44:23please tell us if they're not being

44:25followed, but it's not it's different

44:27than say when we're talking about

44:29enforcement outdoor dining where we are

44:31we would have been asking inspectors to

44:33go out and check on things proactively

44:35at 9:00 at night.

44:37Yeah.

44:39All right, thank you.

44:41Uh with that, uh is there recommendation

44:44a a motion for a favorable

44:45recommendation on R-37-26?

44:49>> So moved.

44:50>> Second.

44:50>> All those in favor, please say I.

44:52>> I.

44:53>> I. Motion carries.

44:54Moving on to R-39-26, which is a fee

44:57waiver for the community meet and greet

44:59with Budweiser Clydesdale horses.

45:02And um

45:04my question on this one, which I should

45:06have checked with Ms. Nolan beforehand,

45:08is just and oh, well, it maybe it's Ms.

45:11Reutner's, is why this didn't get

45:13incorporated into our fee waiver at the

45:15beginning of the year, because I think

45:17we've done this a couple years now and

45:19normally we just loop those in. Is there

45:21any particular reason for that or

45:25>> Um the request is Cynthia Reutner,

45:28Office of Law Policy and endless.

45:30Um the reason is that the people who

45:34passed down the information passed it

45:36down at different times.

45:37>> Got you.

45:38>> decided this year not to combine

45:40everything.

45:42>> Oh, I see what you're saying. So, in

45:43previous we had

45:45the Military Bowl parade resolution,

45:49which we already had come before us, and

45:51in past you're saying that was combined

45:53with this, whereas this year it is not.

45:55Am I understanding that correctly?

45:56>> Right, the two the two events were

45:58combined into one resolution. This year

46:00they're two different resolutions.

46:02>> Got you. Okay, that makes sense. Yeah, I

46:04think in future, and I know my

46:07colleagues want to make sure we are

46:08careful about our fee waivers. I think

46:11in future, because this one is something

46:13that we've done repeatedly, it makes

46:14sense to have it be in our annual fee

46:18waiver that we do for a bunch of events.

46:20But, uh that's not a now question.

46:24Uh I have no further questions on this.

46:26Does anybody have anything they want to

46:28discuss or questions they want to ask?

46:30>> Um

46:30>> I will discuss this if you give

46:31>> think

46:31>> moment.

46:32Um

46:32>> [laughter]

46:33>> so, I've gotten a lot of feedback from

46:35residents and constituents about our fee

46:37waivers and the amount of fee waivers

46:39and why do we even have fees if we waive

46:41all these fees for the people that know

46:43to ask. Um so,

46:46um I've been asked to not vote in favor

46:49of this particular fee waiver um

46:52because of the fact that so many times

46:56we're waving fees and where is that

46:59money technically coming from? The fees

47:01I know are for public safety. Um

47:04a lot of times for parking, things like

47:07that. And I think that we need to take a

47:09good hard look. I know we have that list

47:12that we've traditionally waived. Um I

47:14think we need to take a good hard look

47:15at that and um cons- make some

47:19considerations, like why do we keep

47:21waving fees? Then why do we have fees

47:24if all we're going to ever do is waive

47:25them?

47:27So, I'm actually going to not support

47:29this particular

47:31resolution.

47:33>> Okay. Alderman Thorp, you want to jump

47:34in?

47:35>> I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And and I

47:37totally agree uh with Alderman O'Neil. I

47:41I've never seen a fee waiver be turned

47:42down.

47:43Um

47:44and and I've gotten requests that since

47:47everybody else gets it, can I get it,

47:48too? Um which is a fair question because

47:52so I So, uh what I was going to ask was

47:57where are we

47:58on the idea of creating a criteria?

48:02Um

48:03that belong to the city manager and the

48:06director of finance to start that

48:07process. Does that belong to

48:10the finance

48:13us because

48:14I

48:15I would like to see a criteria and and

48:19um

48:20and I'm guessing if the three of us

48:23wrote down

48:24what the criteria is it wouldn't match

48:26the three of us and I would look at each

48:28of you and go, "Oh, that's a good idea.

48:29I didn't think of that. That's a good

48:30idea. I didn't think of it." Um

48:33and so the perhaps it's something we

48:35want

48:37to set a deadline for us as a city that

48:40before we approve the

48:42fee waivers

48:44the next time in the big block

48:46that we ought to have that criteria and

48:48we ought to ideally have it so we can

48:50publicize it so that somebody can look

48:52at it and go, "Well, mine doesn't match

48:55that. I'm not going to go through the

48:56hassle of submitting it." Um

48:59so cuz I mean I I could see supporting

49:02this, but I'm if I'm looking at the

49:04older woman who it's in her ward,

49:06um

49:07right?

49:08>> No, this particular one is ward one.

49:09>> Yeah, it's in my ward.

49:11I thought I thought it happened in West

49:13Annapolis.

49:14>> but they've moved it the last 2 years to

49:16Main Street.

49:17>> West Street. I think

49:19>> Okay.

49:20Um

49:21But anyway, I mean I think

49:24it

49:29and I'm getting into the criteria here,

49:30so I'm I should probably stop, but but

49:33who are we saving the money for? If you

49:35know, if if we're saving it for

49:38um the final itch over to cure cancer,

49:41let's do it. You know, if if we're

49:44saving it for

49:46um

49:47I'm a former Navy guy, so I can say this

49:48a huge DOD contractor,

49:51um I'm not so excited about it. So, I'm

49:54I'm you on this.

49:55>> Well, just to answer your question, then

49:57I

49:57want to go to you. But the specific

50:00answer to your question is the event is

50:02organized by the Inner West Street

50:03Association. So,

50:06that's who it is for in a way. But I

50:10think

50:11the real answer is we're not saving it

50:14for anybody. It's a question of does it

50:16happen or not. They're not going to pony

50:17up

50:18pony up. They're not going to pony up

50:20$7,000.

50:22>> [laughter]

50:23>> Um for this to to happen. So, it's

50:26really a question of whether it occurs

50:27or not. But yeah, back to you.

50:29>> That was going to be my question. Like

50:31will this event not occur if we don't if

50:33if we don't wave the fees?

50:35Do we know that for a fact?

50:36>> I do not know it for a fact, but I have

50:38enough dealings with those guys that I

50:40don't think they have $7,000 sitting in

50:43the bank that they would do this. But

50:45that's a speculation more than a fact.

50:49>> I mean this is and again, I don't want

50:50to get into the criteria, but this is a

50:52perfect example where

50:54and

50:55if they had enough time, could they

50:57raise the $7,000 from interested parties

50:59who want to support it as compared to

51:01people who live in

51:03West Annapolis or Eastport or Parole who

51:06aren't going to bring their kids to see

51:07the class. It's a great event. I've been

51:08to the event

51:10without kids.

51:11And so,

51:13and I know they've gotten sponsorships

51:14in the past. So,

51:16I mean I

51:17I think it it sounds to me like there's

51:19a couple options here that it doesn't

51:21happen or they go get sponsorships to

51:23make it happen.

51:24Um

51:26So, I guess the question is

51:28could do we have time to ask them

51:31what happens if we don't

51:33don't this and have a serious

51:35conversation with them that,

51:37you know, $7,000 is

51:40um 15 cents a citizen. So,

51:44>> So, let Let go back to your question

51:46about criteria.

51:48As I've said before, I don't support

51:50tying our hands with criteria on this. I

51:52don't think it makes sense to

51:54say everybody has to follow the same

51:55criteria. I think it's better for each

51:57one of us to have our own that we can

51:58then vote on.

51:59Um which as you have appropriately

52:03pointed out, plenty of people's criteria

52:04is absolutely everything. It's not my

52:06criteria, but I can't control how, you

52:08know, Autumn and Channel Meyer votes.

52:10God knows I can't control how that guy

52:11votes.

52:12Uh but

52:15to directly answer you, how would we

52:17create that? It could be done in a

52:18couple different ways. One is you could

52:20do like we're doing right now with this

52:21parking

52:23ordinance and it could say in code,

52:25these are the only conditions upon which

52:28this can be issued, right? This uh

52:30parking waiver that we were talking

52:32about last week that Lani Moyers

52:33testified on.

52:35Um so that's one way. Another could be

52:38for the mayor to impose those conditions

52:42without

52:44I guess you could do it without

52:44consulting us. I don't

52:46I don't know why he would. Um

52:48but that would be one option. I think

52:50maybe what I'm hearing from this is that

52:52the appropriate next step is to have Ms.

52:55Nolan who really is the one who manages

52:57these come and talk with us about it.

52:59And and I don't mean to discount the

53:01finance department. I know you guys are

53:02doing the mechanics of it, but she's

53:04sort of the front line on

53:06do these get passed along to us or not.

53:09And um I think having her come talk

53:11about what the costs are, when

53:14does she think it's appropriate to what

53:16it like let me ask you let me put it

53:18this way.

53:19If somebody

53:20goes to the city and says, "I want to do

53:22a special event

53:23for I don't know, insert whatever that's

53:26horrible and I want my fees waived."

53:29She's probably not passing that along to

53:31us. And so there is probably already

53:34some level of criteria that even if it's

53:37just a sort of sniff test

53:39that um it would be useful to hear from

53:41her. So that's my suggestion is if you

53:43guys want to punt this

53:46until

53:48our next meeting

53:50and then have her come and talk about

53:53fee waivers in general. I think that

53:54could be a good discussion. Does that

53:55make sense?

53:56>> Yeah, I I would agree with a couple

53:59thoughts. One is

54:02um

54:04I don't want to take any authorities

54:06away from anybody on the city staff, but

54:09I'd be careful to if we're proving them

54:15being careful that we don't know

54:16something's been disapproved.

54:18>> Right.

54:19That's what we ran into recently.

54:21>> Right. Exactly. The The other thing I

54:23would just say two things as we

54:25get ready for this conversation about

54:26criteria

54:28is I don't think we'll ever be able to

54:30create a criteria that says it must fit

54:33in this box because that would unless we

54:36had a way to

54:38to approve something that wasn't in the

54:40box.

54:41The The other The other thing that

54:43I've been thinking about is

54:45perhaps in the budget process we we

54:49budget X number of dollars for fee

54:52waivers cuz right now it's unlimited.

54:55So, we're going to we're putting you in

54:57a really tough spot here. Go talk to

54:59your constituency cuz two of the three

55:00people on finance committee are worried

55:02that this doesn't meet the criteria and

55:04they're going to say to you, "Let me

55:05show you the other four or five that are

55:07nowhere near as beneficial and good for

55:10the community as and we bring these

55:11really cool horses which are national

55:13symbol

55:14and the kids love riding them and they

55:16can show all kinds of videos." We're

55:17putting you in a tough spot. And so, but

55:19if there's a cap

55:21if there's hey, we've only got $100,000

55:25and we have guessing we wave way more

55:27than that, but uh if we only have this

55:31much to wave and so, get your

55:33applications in by this date and we're

55:35going to rack and stack them based

55:37primarily on that criteria.

55:40And then I'm sorry if you yours didn't

55:43make it. I mean, that's a fair way to do

55:45it. Uh because if it's unlimited, I'm

55:48going to I'm going to back you when you

55:49say, "Hey, my ward really wants this.

55:52We're We turned out last 2 years." I can

55:55hear you saying, "Last 2 years this was

55:57tremendous. The kids were out there.

56:00Families [clears throat] were out there.

56:01It's really tough for us to say, 'Well,

56:03that That's too bad cuz we have a

56:05concert in in Eastport that we bring a

56:07lot of people from out of town in and we

56:09want to feed weight for that. Um and

56:11it's really really popular."

56:13>> Yeah.

56:13>> And so I

56:14you know,

56:16because there's no criteria that that

56:17stops me from doing that.

56:18>> It brings in the broader discussion of

56:20like community grants. Exactly. We have

56:22a finite mostly

56:25amount of money.

56:26Unless somebody

56:29jumps up and down and bangs their fists

56:31and we somehow find additional funding

56:34or take funding away from something

56:36else.

56:37So, I do think it's a broader discussion

56:41um about criteria. Um I

56:44disagree with you ultimately about

56:46everybody has a different should have a

56:48different different criteria

56:50um because that to me looks towards

56:52favoritism.

56:55Um

56:56so I do think that there should be a

56:57baseline.

56:58>> What do you mean do

56:59like favoritism by ward or

57:01>> Yeah.

57:01>> by organization?

57:03>> By by ward, by organization. If If you

57:05If each alder person has a different

57:08criteria by which they're going to vote,

57:11I'm always going to vote for the ones

57:12that are happening in my ward, right?

57:14>> [laughter]

57:14>> I mean, I wouldn't always, but I will

57:16say that I think I I think I have

57:18always, so you make a good point.

57:19>> Right. Um and the ones that are the

57:22loudest because we hear all the time the

57:25people that are the loudest usually get

57:27what they want and the people that

57:28either don't know or

57:32cannot speak up for themselves are the

57:33ones that sort of get left behind. There

57:36are organizations that would

57:38hugely benefit from a fee fee waiver.

57:41Um

57:42and don't not necessarily get it because

57:44either they don't know to ask or

57:49>> Yeah. I I mean

57:49>> not championed by somebody.

57:51>> I would encourage us to find a better

57:54way to get those folks to ask. I mean, I

57:56think that is important and and we can

57:58all be that vehicle. I feel like I'm

58:00hearing from both of you guys to some

58:02extent that

58:04there are folks who are deserving of fee

58:05waivers who aren't getting them and we

58:08should we should fix that. Like, but I

58:10don't think the solution to fixing that

58:11is make it

58:12easier for us to deny other ones.

58:16>> But it goes back to why have fees if

58:18we're going to waive them, which was my

58:20initial

58:21>> Sure. [laughter]

58:23>> discussion.

58:24And that's what we need to take a look

58:26at. If there are certain fees that we're

58:28constantly waving, then why do we have

58:29those fees?

58:31And should there be a baseline of, okay,

58:33an event can carry up to this amount of

58:38city

58:42resources.

58:44But if you're going to go over that,

58:46if your need is greater than this

58:48threshold, then

58:52there are fees that we're going to ask

58:53you to pay.

58:55I think that you could create a

58:56threshold for

58:59if you're a

59:00500 person event taking place and your

59:03fees are

59:05I mean, maybe it's not 500, but your

59:06fees are 67.

59:08Is that our baseline? And I think that

59:11using the data that we have for all of

59:14the organizations that we've waived fees

59:16for over the last 3 years, and we look

59:19at the amount that they're waived, maybe

59:22the lowest amount becomes the baseline

59:27by which

59:28all organizations.

59:30So, does that make sense?

59:31>> Uh it makes sense. Yeah, I'm not sure I

59:33totally agree with it because I think we

59:35like something like this that's

59:37relatively small and the Pride Festival

59:40that's gigantic, we don't want those to

59:42have the same baseline, right?

59:47>> But if we're always waving fees, what

59:49are we waving those fees? And where are

59:51those fee waivers, how is that affecting

59:54our bottom line budget?

59:56So, if we're always waving fees and

59:58always at the base of this,

1:00:01then anybody that is

1:00:05seeking

1:00:08you know, whatever the number happens to

1:00:10be.

1:00:13I

1:00:14use that criteria

1:00:16for going forward. And no, I don't think

1:00:19that we should stop waving $30,000 or

1:00:22whatever the case may be for some of

1:00:24them because it's important for us to

1:00:26have added security and as we've seen is

1:00:29necessary.

1:00:32But I think that you need to take a look

1:00:33at it instead of always just saying

1:00:37we're going to waive this fee.

1:00:38If we're always waving the fee, then why

1:00:40do we have the fee?

1:00:44>> Great discussion and I think this tees

1:00:47up

1:00:48a

1:00:48uh

1:00:50discussion we'll have in the future. I

1:00:52would also opine that sometimes we may

1:00:54want to waive 50% of the fee

1:00:57or something like that. And the other,

1:01:00you know, we've we've talked broadly

1:01:01about the word criteria, but I do think

1:01:04there's a difference if it's an event

1:01:05for 500 people or 30,000 people.

1:01:09Um

1:01:10And I use the word difference on

1:01:11purpose, not pro and con, right? So,

1:01:15um I could totally see us waving all the

1:01:18fees for a tremendous event that deal

1:01:21with 500 people because it's so powerful

1:01:24Um

1:01:25and waving half the fees for 30,000

1:01:27people, you know, and whatever and and

1:01:30like the Military Bowl makes a big deal

1:01:31in their application made a big deal

1:01:33about that they

1:01:35donate to a worthy cause.

1:01:38Well, I think in the application the

1:01:39criteria is how much do you donate to a

1:01:41worthy cause? And it not that you have

1:01:43to

1:01:44again, to your point about don't want to

1:01:47force them into a box, but if you donate

1:01:49money to a worthy cause

1:01:51according to your 990 for the last 3

1:01:53years, how much did you give? How much

1:01:55do you anticipate giving this year and

1:01:57what is the cause? Um

1:01:59you know, and so those kind of questions

1:02:01I think um will we won't get a perfect

1:02:04the first year, but over two or three

1:02:06years and if we budget a certain amount

1:02:08of money and we'll we'll feel the pain

1:02:10of what we can or can't do and

1:02:12um

1:02:14so I I think the real question we have

1:02:15on the table is

1:02:17how do we start this

1:02:19how do we take this conversation

1:02:21and I think your point next step is

1:02:23maybe a

1:02:25bringing her in and and talking, but

1:02:28then we probably ought to look at the

1:02:30director of finance and the city manager

1:02:32um and us ourselves and say, okay, how

1:02:34do we take that discussion afterwards?

1:02:37What are we trying to achieve from that

1:02:38discussion? How do we take that to I

1:02:40would say a resolution where

1:02:42you know, this is the criteria, this is

1:02:44the information we're looking at um and

1:02:47then in the budget discussion cap a

1:02:49number um and to all the women on the

1:02:52nails point if we end up screwing that

1:02:54number up

1:02:56we can go back and put another $10,000

1:02:58in it just take another action or

1:02:59whatever, but

1:03:01>> Yeah, so I think where I'm at with this

1:03:04now is

1:03:06can we

1:03:08and and I guess I'm not looking at you,

1:03:10I'm looking at you cuz so I I heard your

1:03:11opinion, but can we approve R3926

1:03:15or uh give it a favorable recommendation

1:03:17today with the understanding that at our

1:03:20next meeting we'll have Ms. Nolan come

1:03:22explain to us what her current process

1:03:24is for these and any recommendations she

1:03:27might have for how we could

1:03:29um

1:03:30how what what criteria she might

1:03:32recommend to us even.

1:03:34>> So for

1:03:35Uh so you're going to turn that around

1:03:37put me in a tough spot.

1:03:39>> [laughter]

1:03:39>> Um

1:03:40so it was very powerful for me when I

1:03:42heard the alderwoman from Ward 2

1:03:45recommend that we not [clears throat]

1:03:45waive fees for an event that is in Ward

1:03:472.

1:03:49Um

1:03:50when I hear that the alderman from Ward

1:03:511 supports waiving the fees for an event

1:03:54in Ward 1, that's a very different Sure.

1:03:57Um situation. So I would turn to you and

1:03:59ask you what your situation is.

1:04:01And and my

1:04:03my my my challenge right now is the

1:04:06exact challenge we're talking about

1:04:07which is

1:04:11if the Clydesdale folks came to me and

1:04:13said, "Why did you vote no?"

1:04:15I don't have an answer Yeah. other than

1:04:17I didn't want to spend $6,000

1:04:20right after spending tens of thousands

1:04:22of dollars.

1:04:24Um

1:04:26and so

1:04:27I don't

1:04:28And and I voted for everyone before

1:04:31this. So I'm in this tough spot that we

1:04:33don't have a criteria. So I can't I

1:04:35can't give a legitimate reason to

1:04:37somebody who's

1:04:38who

1:04:40does a clearly

1:04:42great neighborhood event. So

1:04:45I I if you're saying yes, I would I

1:04:47would go to yes.

1:04:49>> I appreciate that. And I would I be

1:04:50happy to do between now and the council

1:04:52meeting is get a more definitive answer

1:04:54for you on

1:04:56does this occur if it if we vote it

1:04:59down?

1:05:00Um if on Monday they're not five votes

1:05:03for it, what's the outcome? So I'd be

1:05:05happy to get that answer for you between

1:05:07now and then.

1:05:08>> That'd be great.

1:05:08>> Okay.

1:05:09>> Thank you.

1:05:09>> All right. With that

1:05:11uh

1:05:12for a favorable recommendation on R

1:05:1339-26.

1:05:15>> So moved.

1:05:15>> Second.

1:05:17Uh all those in favor, please say aye.

1:05:19Aye. All those opposed, please say nay.

1:05:21>> Nay.

1:05:22>> Motion carries, and R 39-26 has a

1:05:26favorable recommendation to the council

1:05:27from the finance committee.

1:05:29Um

1:05:30moving on to R 40-26. This is a bit of a

1:05:33weird one, guys. This uh you all have

1:05:35seen these come before the finance

1:05:36committee before, and I I definitely

1:05:40support R 40-26. I asked Ms. Jackson

1:05:42though, "Wha- why do these come to the

1:05:44finance committee?" Because it doesn't

1:05:46really

1:05:47seem like a finance thing. I'm sure I

1:05:49actually haven't looked at the fiscal

1:05:50impact note recently, but I'm sure it

1:05:52says there's a Yeah, negligible to minor

1:05:55positive fiscal impact. And um as it

1:05:59turns out, our code does not say that

1:06:01these resolutions need to come before

1:06:03the finance committee. So, what I've

1:06:05suggested is that in future, these be

1:06:07referred to the economic matters

1:06:09committee anywhere, and that we just

1:06:13take no action on this today because

1:06:16it doesn't It doesn't really need to

1:06:18come to our committee. I don't think it

1:06:19really makes a lot of sense. We've just

1:06:20been doing it, I guess, out of

1:06:22precedent.

1:06:24Um so, that's my request is that we vote

1:06:27to take no action, unless anybody has

1:06:29anything more they want to say on it.

1:06:34Hear

1:06:34a motion to take no action on R 40-26.

1:06:38>> So moved.

1:06:39>> Second. All those in favor, please say

1:06:40aye. Aye. Motion carries.

1:06:43And with that, we are to Ms. Jaiyeola

1:06:46for our finance department update. And

1:06:49um

1:06:50we're We know you're in a very busy

1:06:52season, so feel free to keep it as brief

1:06:54as you want, but I think the question on

1:06:56everybody's mind is how are we doing on

1:06:58the audit?

1:07:00>> All right.

1:07:01Okay.

1:07:02We are on target.

1:07:04Uh we had a great meeting uh at the

1:07:07audit committee

1:07:08Uh

1:07:09uh a

1:07:10just recently and we are currently in

1:07:14the final fieldwork phase of the audit

1:07:17and that entails

1:07:21a lot of test work that is being done by

1:07:23the auditors so a lot of documentation

1:07:26will be coming from the departments and

1:07:29so between working with the departments

1:07:32to get the documentation to the auditors

1:07:34on a timely basis all of that is

1:07:38in progress now.

1:07:41That is very important because if the

1:07:43department delay it will have an impact

1:07:47on completing the audit and if the audit

1:07:49is delayed that means we can't get the

1:07:51financial statements out so I've just

1:07:54bringing this up that that is key to

1:07:58getting that documentation from the

1:07:59departments it's not just us now it's

1:08:02the departments that are involved.

1:08:06Other than that

1:08:07that is really the key item that is on

1:08:12our plate other than implementing

1:08:15the CBA's at this point we are going

1:08:19through all of the contracts just making

1:08:21sure that we have

1:08:23all the terms

1:08:26and that we understand all the terms

1:08:28because our department is responsible

1:08:31for implementing a lot of those terms so

1:08:34we're working with HR they have some

1:08:37responsibilities our AP division has

1:08:39some responsibility

1:08:41as well as our IT department so I'm

1:08:45bringing this up because that requires a

1:08:47lot of coordination we have the payroll

1:08:50division now that didn't exist two years

1:08:52ago

1:08:54so they are in training

1:08:56but it's going well at this point and um

1:09:00I there's really nothing that's that's

1:09:03off schedule at this point to report to

1:09:06to the Finance Committee.

1:09:07>> A CBA is Can you tell me what that is in

1:09:09my

1:09:10>> Collective collective bargaining

1:09:11agreement.

1:09:12>> Makes total sense. I was thinking

1:09:13community benefit agreement. I knew that

1:09:15was a bit. [laughter] Thank you.

1:09:16>> Yes, sir.

1:09:17>> Um

1:09:18And then we've been working on the

1:09:20budget timeline. I know that's something

1:09:23uh I think it went out Was it over the

1:09:25weekend or was it

1:09:26>> It was on Monday.

1:09:27>> Okay.

1:09:27>> There's a lot of moving pieces in

1:09:29October. This is such a critical month

1:09:32in the Finance Department. Uh we sent

1:09:36out the budget timeline and we also

1:09:39added that uh these dates are subject to

1:09:43change in that memo. Um and so

1:09:48we are moving forward with uh getting

1:09:51the departments on board. Uh it's very

1:09:54critical for them to start uh pulling

1:09:56together all of the data that we need to

1:09:59move forward with the departments.

1:10:00Again, the departments play a key role

1:10:02in kicking off the budget process. So,

1:10:05the earlier

1:10:07at least this is our thinking, the

1:10:09earlier we get that information out as

1:10:12to what we need to kick off the budget

1:10:14process, the better.

1:10:16So, if this if the schedule changes um

1:10:20you know, later on for other things in

1:10:232027

1:10:24we are uh ready to change whatever is

1:10:28suggested. But again, the idea was to

1:10:31kick it off and get the departments

1:10:33moving so they can give us the

1:10:34information on at at as early as

1:10:36possible. Thank you, sir.

1:10:38>> Great, thank you. I appreciate working

1:10:40with you on that and and with Ms.

1:10:41Capone, too.

1:10:42>> Yes, sir.

1:10:43>> Um any I'm going to keep it brief for

1:10:46you. I'm going to not ask you any

1:10:47questions cuz I know you got a bunch of

1:10:49other stuff going on. But uh anybody got

1:10:51any other questions for our director of

1:10:53finance?

1:10:57Uh

1:10:58sure I do.

1:10:59>> I knew [laughter] I figured you would.

1:11:00>> Um

1:11:03Did I Did I miss an email on the budget

1:11:05timeline?

1:11:07>> Uh

1:11:08>> Oh, I hope not. Um I will verify, make

1:11:11sure that you were included, but I hope

1:11:14not.

1:11:16Hm.

1:11:17>> I I

1:11:19I'm I'm I'm You shared it with me.

1:11:21>> I know the FY2028 budget instructions

1:11:25from I know's component.

1:11:26>> I know's?

1:11:27>> Yes.

1:11:28>> Oh oh oh oh oh oh.

1:11:32>> It You might have It might have just

1:11:33been married. It's under budget

1:11:34instructions.

1:11:35>> Got it. Got it. I see it. I do have it.

1:11:38Thank you.

1:11:38>> Okay. No problem.

1:11:39>> Um

1:11:40So uh

1:11:42I've been spending a lot of time um

1:11:45and I want to commend you on sending out

1:11:49uh the

1:11:51um

1:11:5424 budget versus actual.

1:11:56>> Yes, sir. Forgot about that one.

1:11:58>> And uh

1:11:59uh

1:12:00I think this goes This is the first time

1:12:04since you've been the director and this

1:12:05finance committee has has been formed

1:12:08that we've gotten that report and um I

1:12:12agree

1:12:14trend continues

1:12:16um

1:12:17with your good work and and I appreciate

1:12:19the comment in your email

1:12:21um that we'll have fiscal year 2017 Q1

1:12:24budget uh versus actual by the end of

1:12:27this month.

1:12:28>> That's correct, sir.

1:12:30>> And

1:12:31um and so I I guess what I'm asking and

1:12:34not today, but

1:12:37I would like to see for this committee

1:12:40uh Mr. Chairman uh

1:12:43or I guess maybe I'm speaking to you

1:12:46more so cuz it's your committee, but um

1:12:49that we spend most of the director of

1:12:51finance committee brief time

1:12:54on the budget versus actual report. And

1:12:59um

1:12:59so I I've dove into the 11 pages, I

1:13:03think it is or nine pages. Um

1:13:06and I'm kind of a math geek and it and

1:13:09but

1:13:10what I'm really looking for from you is

1:13:12not a an hour-long discussion of what's

1:13:14in there, but

1:13:15what are the top five to 10 things that

1:13:17we need to note out of this report? Um

1:13:22and

1:13:23uh

1:13:25and that that could be that

1:13:27you know, these these three things are

1:13:28tracking right on budget. They're they

1:13:31were high risk or whatever. We're paying

1:13:32attention for whatever reason. These

1:13:34three things are these two things are

1:13:36behind budget significantly and here's

1:13:38what we're doing about it. And these

1:13:39four are way ahead of budget

1:13:41um and

1:13:43and we're looking at how we can

1:13:45reapportion that money to the fire

1:13:46department or whatever.

1:13:48Um

1:13:49uh And and I would even be game from a

1:13:51time perspective if you wanted to give

1:13:53that report to us in writing

1:13:56as you as you do this rather than tell

1:13:58us cuz I I don't even if you tell us,

1:14:00I'd like to see it in writing as a

1:14:02report. Um

1:14:04so that we know what the takeaways are.

1:14:07Fully recognizing

1:14:09and if we do this after first quarter

1:14:12report, that it's first quarter. So it's

1:14:14really early, right? Get it. Um

1:14:17you know, it's not like you know, the

1:14:19the second third quarter is most

1:14:22important, fourth quarter we're done.

1:14:24That's really the end of the year

1:14:25report, but but uh just to

1:14:28to put a bow on this, that's really what

1:14:31I that should be in my opinion the meat

1:14:33of this committee's discussion.

1:14:37>> I wholeheartedly agree with you for Q1.

1:14:39There were a couple reasons I didn't

1:14:42feel like we needed to do that with Q4

1:14:44and maybe I should I could that more

1:14:45directly. But, um wholeheartedly agree

1:14:49for Q1 two and and three.

1:14:51Um Mr. Day, you look like you wanted to

1:14:53respond to that. Was there anything?

1:14:55>> I agree with that. Uh as you know, we

1:15:00are going through a lot of transition

1:15:02right now.

1:15:03And uh I definitely want to

1:15:08make any improvements. And I think that

1:15:11is one of the improvements that's on my

1:15:13plate. I wanted to include that in the

1:15:15body of the email. It's just I mean, if

1:15:18you prefer an attachment in a report

1:15:21type form, I can definitely do that. Um

1:15:24but I think it's important to do those

1:15:26highlights. Uh so, again, we're moving

1:15:29so fast in the month of October. It's so

1:15:33much data that's coming through at the

1:15:35moment that we have been heads down

1:15:40um for this entire month. It's going to

1:15:41be for this entire month, to be quite

1:15:43honest with you. But, that is something

1:15:46that I will duly note, and I will

1:15:49definitely see if I can include that for

1:15:51Q1.

1:15:53>> Yeah, thank you. And and and uh

1:15:56please know that my comments are all

1:15:58forward. I mean, to the discussion

1:16:01earlier with you and the chairman, the

1:16:03amount of work that's going into the

1:16:05audit and the audit partner's report on

1:16:07Monday about uh

1:16:10how great uh the working relationship is

1:16:14and the the effort uh

1:16:16you know, it's always good to hear that

1:16:18from the audit partner, right? We could

1:16:19tell each other how great each other are

1:16:20doing. But, when you get an outside

1:16:22person in um and I know Alderman Tunney

1:16:25met with him individually. I met with

1:16:27him individually. And to hear him say

1:16:29that privately as well as in a group,

1:16:32uh there's no question about it that

1:16:35the finance team under your leadership

1:16:36is pedaling really fast and and really

1:16:38make a progress.

1:16:40Um I do want to add one point about why

1:16:42this report's important. It's not just

1:16:44for this committee.

1:16:46So, as as you prepare this report, I'm

1:16:48really looking for this to be a tool for

1:16:50the city manager, the deputy city

1:16:52manager, the mayor, the entire council

1:16:56over the long term from a budgeting

1:16:58process, you start to see trends, right?

1:17:02We're over budgeting a lot of things or

1:17:04we're under budgeting a lot of things

1:17:05that look alike. Why are we doing that?

1:17:08Oh, cuz Chief O'Malley is super

1:17:10conservative or whatever. So, we take

1:17:12that into account. I'm sorry, Chief,

1:17:13you're here, so we're going to continue

1:17:14to use you as an example, but I did give

1:17:17you money earlier. So,

1:17:18um,

1:17:19>> [laughter]

1:17:19>> so, uh,

1:17:20>> Twice.

1:17:21>> but but that's really the that's really

1:17:23the purpose. It's not just I'm not

1:17:25asking you to create a report for this

1:17:27group that then

1:17:30goes in the in the file cabinet, but

1:17:32more so a tool for the entire

1:17:35organization to use that, "Hey, here are

1:17:37the highlights and lowlights." And it,

1:17:39you know, it it Earlier word that was

1:17:42used was transparency, cuz you're the

1:17:43person that knows that best.

1:17:45>> Yes, sir.

1:17:45>> So,

1:17:46um,

1:17:47>> No, I don't.

1:17:47>> and then and then my last point on here

1:17:50in the notes is, "Thank you again." I

1:17:51mean, your your team's doing great, and

1:17:53we really appreciate uh the progress

1:17:55you're working.

1:17:56>> You're welcome, sir.

1:17:56>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

1:17:57>> I'd just add in the

1:17:59uh to the point about highlighting

1:18:01certain things.

1:18:02I believe, and Autumn O'Neill can

1:18:04correct me if I'm wrong. I think when we

1:18:05got these, it used to be that some of

1:18:07them were literally highlighted or like

1:18:09yellow marked. So, that could be

1:18:11I don't know if that quite hits what

1:18:13you're saying, but that could be one

1:18:14easy way to just highlight cuz a lot of

1:18:16these tend to be not particularly

1:18:19interesting or or

1:18:21I don't want to say not important, but

1:18:23not anything that we would not expect.

1:18:26So, could be that the way to call them

1:18:28out is literally just put highlight on

1:18:30the top five most important ones.

1:18:33Did you have something to say?

1:18:34No. Okay. Any other business? Any other

1:18:37questions for Mr. Jai? Anything else for

1:18:39the good of the committee?

1:18:41>> No, sir. Thank you.

1:18:42>> Thank you.

1:18:43>> All right, Mr. Chairman.

1:18:44>> Seconded. All those in favor? Aye.

1:18:47>> Aye.

1:18:48>> Meeting adjourned.

1:18:49>> Okay, Paul.

1:18:50>> Thank you, sir.