City Council Budget Work Session   4/6/2023

Councilor Kingston.

Councilor Curzio.

Here.

Here.

Turn it over to the city manager and take it away.

So we look forward to a vigorous discussion tonight.

Is that right?

That's what you all have the discretion to do tonight.

Correct.

That's a revised revenue projection.

It's what's in the contingency line item on the CIP.

So one clarification on that there is currently about 20 million dollars in the CIP contingency based on the summary that's online and also that we handed out to you all last week part of the proposed CIP uses a little over 10 million of that and there were some other suggestions which got it down to this 8.4

Correct.

If you accept the proposed CIP as shown.

No, it can't be.

a half a half a year of that collection so we know that revenues are going to exceed the budget by at least this 10.4 and we will have some other savings on the end you're not really making firm decisions on this because this doesn't exist until the books are closed in December but this is just to give you some idea and other options if you want to delay things that's very helpful for you tonight thanks for explaining that

Okay, great.

Other counselors have questions about our sort of starting point here?

We'll just fill in the sheet as we go.

Thank you for putting all this together and helping crystallize where we are.

If we funded that at $6.7 million, that would essentially wipe out the remainder of the CIP contingency.

And so we didn't fill in anything in the columns because we weren't quite sure where council landed.

It would be a plan, but because that doesn't exist yet, that wouldn't be decided officially until November, December Can we pull that off, Mr. Sanders, from a project management perspective if we had to, doing the Buford Auditorium as a late change order, like get the pricing in now, but not cut the change order until

Yeah, I think that when we talked about it last time, the gentleman said that that was going to be one of the last things

So you'd be able to do it as a placeholder and then when it actually happens the funds could be flipped in order to take care of the expense, that's what you're saying?

Because we have the specific amount now and we were contracted based on that.

move contingency there, so you're not taking like six million immediately out of the contingency, you're just putting in more bonds.

Well, I'm suggesting that it come out of the surplus, not the CIP.

Okay, either way, I'm just clarifying it would be bonds rather than cash payment.

or you could add it to bonds and use the year-end surplus to funnel more money to debt service to help buy down some of the debt service payments.

I think that may make it easier for us to kind of swallow the project fiscally.

Do we actually know whether that made a difference?

I mean, it was not a negative.

I'm just wondering if there is one of these options that is likely to be perceived more favorably by

So I wouldn't say that that would be a factor in your decision, really.

but you know I made it a year ago sort of a point that we needed to get this project going it needed to happen but we needed to also realize that this auditorium might not happen due to a fiscal constraints and so for me I my strong preference would be for you know if you've got to switch money around every how you do it to get the bonds but that it comes out of that surplus line item not that it's just added on to everything else we have going on

So other questions I had, I don't remember talking about, in the CIP considerations, I don't remember talking about $575,000 for the City Hall lobby, is that

Are Mr. Sanderson's?

In terms of escalation?

Yes.

So the project is now at $8 million to do the bypass fire station.

What was it originally?

I think we were at four at one time.

So what's new?

So he feels confident that that is the number, but that's a nice jump.

And could you refresh me on what the City Hall lobby project is going to do?

There will be the formalizing of that as well.

What is the cost escalation above the ARPA?

I can let you know that as well.

And then do you want to talk about stripling?

which is going to be a halt to progress on the project and we know that you all were concerned as well as trying to keep this on track for the sidewalk to be delivered in alignment with the development project that's going in on that same area.

So you're showing it as two different pieces one I guess to be spent in the next three months and one

The issue is that when we made the final decision with all the back and forth that we went through in trying to figure out how to consider the proposal that was being offered by the developer, you made the decision to put all the money in FY25 in total.

but it would count and come out of the contingency which is why it's on this list.

And again that was that was really done that's not ideal how we would do it we would try to normally advance that but it was just to be sure that we had rechecked everything made sure we were fully aware of what escalation we know that we're going to face in the next few months specifically as you make these decisions.

Number one, I don't know whether other counselors have any interest in funding that request, but it would seem to me that if we were to do it, it really shouldn't be coming out of a capital fund because it's just not a capital expenditure.

Okay.

I've heard from tree commission artists that it's pretty important in the vegetative landscape better than I do.

Yeah, I think we'll see how things shake out, but I'm not opposed to doing that if we can make things

saying is not you know I definitely would like to see if it done as possible it's not my first priority if we based on the funds but yeah so that would be a cash related item and are you interested in doing that as one time or as a program across the all five years I think if we're going to do it it makes sense as a program because it only

Yeah, I mean it's you pick an area you knock it down you try to get back to it and treat it so that it doesn't come back as fast while you pick another area and try to knock that one down that's why it's it's a CIP activity because it really doesn't have an end

And I think I remember what it's all about.

So when people go and look at it, they're able to track changes essentially.

So basically it'll update.

Correct.

So that if I go online right now, I may not know, I may have a hard time finding the last six months of legislative changes, so to speak.

Yeah.

I'm not going to follow my sword about it.

I would say as one who likes to look at such things, it's really valuable.

Okay.

$10,000 a year.

Is it appropriate for us to sort of go through

Is it appropriate to just sort of talk about why perhaps those didn't get well funded?

Would it be simpler with the CIP ones, if we started with CIP, are those ones you think we could just agree or disagree and cross off the list and then get to the VCF, which I think might be more discursive?

But nothing to spend this year.

Okay?

So these are all the CFD considerations we have on the list.

You already talked about that one.

My apologies.

I don't know how others feel about that.

So, I mean, with things like that, I would turn to y'all, like, what is best fiscally, you know, options, you know, to go to the CIP or bonding?

Well, they're going to pull it from, you're still going to have to pull the money from someplace to get it into the CIP, right?

that would so you could do either or if you one thing to keep in mind is that the contingency will also be replenished with the year in surplus per our policy so you don't have to immediately decide to spend it tonight so but if we put allocate that tonight well that essentially removes 6.7 million dollars from the

From whichever column you want to put it in.

Yeah, that would mean you would take 60 percent of the projected, I'm going to use my words carefully, the projected surplus and you would have about four million or less.

Would it be differently if we bonded it and you just put money from the surplus to debt service payments?

You could.

My strong preference would be to do that.

unless we just want to put the 10.4 added to the CIP now to make it clear it's it's not that that's a decision that you make in the fall in November okay all I'm willing to do is just be really clear you know are we funding these things out of the surplus are we adding them to the CIP program officially now

It doesn't really matter whether you put in, you know, you can put in column D and then later decide if you're going to fund the full thing out of the surplus or fund the debt service.

As a practical matter, come January 1, those two numbers get added together anyway.

As a practical matter, column D will be whatever it is, column C will be there, and it will be something more than that probably because.

But since anything that is a surplus is supposed to, in the absence of any other plan, is supposed to get added to the CIP contingency fund.

And we would be done with the contingency column for the purposes of tonight.

Does that make sense?

And again, I said,

It was if we allocate it to this column tonight, then we're going to lose any flexibility to add other things to the CNP.

Can we do that?

We'll just amend the CIP to add the $6.7 million as an expense, and we'll add bonds of $6.7 million.

Would that be beyond the rate that we would normally buy?

so we wouldn't sell in June anyway.

And my thinking is generally if things are bondable just give us more flexibility because I see our problem as being the timing of when a lot of expenses are coming due rather than our overall fiscal health so in my mind bondability just helps ease our affordability of anything.

As long as you're committed to also funding the debt service.

And I am and I think we have to do that.

Yeah, because I think at the end of the year we will have more flexibility, more money.

that the auditorium at Beaufort has funding.

And I see that auditorium as optional, not essential, but anyway.

based on how the renovations are going to occur, the auditorium would be the final phase, but it is all one project because there are three different buildings.

I think is up to y'all.

The IP you would adopt and then we'll put a tag in this budget surplus column for additional money to go to the debt service fund to help buy down that additional six million dollars worth of debt which you know I can let you I mean we can talk about that when the time gets here it'll be it's roughly

So not just the debt service.

We amend the CIP with the full cost, show it as 6.7 out of contingency, or we leave the CIP as it is and we come back to you at a later date with the auditorium piece and you can decide whether it's grant, bonds, or cash That would be my preference Will that hem us up for our decision making tonight?

Yes.

So come back to you with the auditorium once we know about the grant or?

Sounds like it.

And you said you'll know about the grant when?

Is it June?

Okay, just trying to think through what it would look like.

And the grant could come through, but not at the full amount, and we would still need an amendment.

We'll work with whatever we get.

Okay.

All right.

We're doing the auditorium with the flexibility.

Okay.

All right.

Did you have something in particular for this fiscal year or did you just want to get it into the hopper so that we're not forgetting about it?

so that's kind of my thinking and we know it's a very early estimate but they're thinking like 15 to 20 million of city contribution which would obviously just be a small part of all the other money that they're going to be bringing in total from us correct we you point correctly pointed out we don't have an ask we don't have

We'd like to receive a plan for that project sooner rather than later.

I know that we're going to be committed to it no matter when it is.

Maybe we don't consider it live.

So that's really where you need to concentrate on as we add, while we have capacity, as we're adding, you know, that's the piece of the pie that's getting bigger and bigger out of the general fund for other stuff.

The council hadn't had enough time to kind of think through and project what it would be, and we just ended up in like a rushed decision-making environment that I feel like we could have been avoided and been easier for everybody, and I don't want to repeat that mistake for West Haven and other major expenses that we know we're committed to, but we're not thinking through like the cost projections yet, if that makes sense.

Hamill?

But, you know, to your point, I think, you know, it's a great point, and we should start accumulating that list.

So that wouldn't necessarily apply to these columns tonight, but going ahead and plugging those into the larger CIP is what I'm hearing.

We haven't thought about the cost, how we'll plan to afford it, and that's something we should start.

Revenue enhancements or however you're going to pay for that debt service and so it has to be a sort of more than we know it's coming it has to be fully fleshed out and how you would afford it so well let me say that's not fair not fully fleshed out but you certainly have to be prepared to talk about how you would pay for that increased debt service okay

Is that what I hear you saying or no?

This is a very important conversation for our community because what you're

the better, otherwise we're just going to be talking about Walker, we're going to be talking about this or whatever, and then.

a projection of what the impact would be on debt service payments in the future and maybe over the next year in preparation for next budget cycle we kind of discuss and plan for what is it going to take to get it in at that point, especially if we get finalized cost estimates.

And right now, all we're doing, if you put something in,

We don't have a context of how much we're going to need So are we the delay for the West Haven project or is it like, are there board, you all like

The concern is just making sure, because it's going to be big, when they're ready for their ask for the city, we don't cause a delay at that point, if that makes sense.

you know be it inflationary increases be it new projects be it whatever have to be weighed heavily against those long-term plans to make sure that that you know your priorities are still what they are right so I guess is there a way to have sort of an informal CIP whatever you want to call it that used to be called year five

Whatever, yeah.

In other words, basically a model that you help us put together that's not the formal CIP, but it still captures the things that we're talking about.

and I think you know as part of your strategic plan then when other CIP items come before you mid-year during the year we need to bring that plan back out and see how it all fits in there so it sounds like maybe the best approach at this point would be to do that and to have that help guide our strategic plan discussion and decisions and over the next year have it kind of tee up next budget cycle absolutely we can work on that this summer most of the things that I had on this list fall into that

Yeah, that's from that six to ten year.

We must.

If we're going to do for the schools what we know we need to do for the schools, we've got to really encourage CRHA to work on some method of financing this project that doesn't involve $100,000 per unit.

And then they also, even for the existing projects in Crescent Hall, South First Street, got significant private sector donations from several organizations and have been working with Riverbend, who provided a lot of subsidy and support from the private sector.

and I would hate to have anybody get sort of complacent about it to say, well, the city's good for it.

I think we have made the commitment that we want to put it in that six to ten year thing.

but there are certain things that you have to do on that side as well.

Yeah.

Hamill.

OK.

Thank you.

Or are there some that you want to talk about for this five years?

Maybe that's

Yeah, you got the 70s feel for sure.

Self-indulgent, I don't know, but I think the room is terrible and something as simple as this would honestly be a step up.

Yeah.

Same for that space.

We join you in that aspiration, so we will work on that.

Look at updates and potential costs.

There you go.

Okay, so we're sort of deleting that from present consideration.

Sounds like the bypass fire station we need to do.

I mean, we're...

Is that what you're saying?

Yeah, that brings both projects in line.

Okay, so $2 million and $575 million.

Yes.

And both of those would be bondable if that's what you want to do.

I just, while we were listing things that I wanted to keep foremost in our minds, there they are.

Mr. Mayor, is crossings to the same as homeless shelter?

My idea by putting that in was simply, I think we recognize that there is a need for another facility, whether it's called Crossings 2 or whatever.

Homeless shelter, the idea would be you have a year-long permanent shelter that's kind of people who are homeless can go there, and it's kind of the first step until they move into permanent supportive housing, so there is

So you would still need with a shelter housing access, I'm going to call it traditional housing access for the individuals who are in your temporary shelter, as well as additional permanent supportive housing units for those where it would be applicable and would help support them.

So are you saying, Mr. Mayor and Mr. Councilman, one of each, or what are you saying?

Is this supposed to be, this column under CIP contingency, is it basically for what we're planning to spend next year?

Same thing with the city hall lobby the homeless shelter crossings to you know zero east high the library if those are things that you do not want to put in year one through five and designate some funding source for them then I can just put them in the six to ten year plan category and we can work on that be it through the strategic planning process or over the summer to tee that up for the CIP conversation next year

So I'm not sure how that plays into what you just described, but we can't wait until year six.

Got it.

what 85 year to look like.

And they, other than 15 minutes for ADA, they have the whole session for you all.

And that's before your strategic planning session, so you'll have a follow-up moment also in May.

if I have the days right in my brain.

Yes, ma'am.

is not currently the case.

I'm not saying that you all need to develop a homeless shelter for us and I don't know the right way or who needs to take the leadership in that within the community but I do think there will be an ask at some point I hope to do something better than what we have

So you would need to be able to resolve how we will fund the auditorium so that it can be included in the contract that is pending.

But whatever's involved in funding both the scope and the debt to do that comes out of the surplus line.

So what we could do now is amend the CIP, this is my recommendation, amend the CIP, put the auditorium in, show it as a bondable project, and then once we know more about the grant or whatever, we can always make the necessary adjustments.

That's fine.

That would be the amendment.

That would be my, unless you want to pay cash for either one of those for some reason.

So do that for those two.

Those two specifically are coming out of contingency is what you're saying.

All right.

Got it.

Sorry.

I get really nice books, free books from them once a year.

You do?

Yeah.

Oh, okay.

They seem like they've been in the five to ten year plan for five to ten years.

So it's not as if they are funding it and we are not at this point.

It's not in their five-year plan either, I don't think.

Okay, so as I'm looking at the chart here, what do we still have?

East High, is that six to ten year, or is that something you want to address now?

At this point, we don't have anything that we can ask about, so let's just leave it off.

Library, are we putting in the six to ten year plan?

And I assume with stribbling LED, we just have to confirm those will be in.

I have them in now unless you want to take them off the chart Let's leave them in So again with the library, that's one that I would love to see I know you all are very busy and if it's something that City Council needs to get involved in to help push this along

I've raised this issue with the county executive and we have to circle back and have a conversation to see if we can get to a point of mutual interest and agreement and commitment

Yes.

All right.

Good job.

Okay.

Can we talk about that?

Just one of those things that we think might be coming.

Is that a 6 to 10 since we think it might be coming?

But if it's actually going to happen, it's probably going to happen in two to three years is my guess.

Oh, so then it shouldn't go to six to ten.

So, I mean, I would rather just leave it off entirely.

That's what I'm saying.

Right.

Something in that world I think is realistic.

I think so

So what happens then if we get, and the same thing with Dogwood, you know, that we're about to hopefully fund, that just goes in, we just add that to our bonding capacity now, and you update it in terms of your financial systems, but it doesn't really go into the CIP because we're just taking care of it, is that right?

That's when we need to go back and figure out does it fit or not?

Yes.

Any issues with the first four items?

I thought we talked about this back in the fall and there was going to be a plan in place, but maybe I just lost the thread.

While you have the ability to then make that consideration.

Yep.

Very good.

What is the status of that account, that fund?

and so if you want to take out the 150 since you have the 375 to help offset this additional bridge to the Heritage Center you can or obviously you can leave it in it's up to you so with the 375 being added is that fund now to be 450 give or take so

And there's never really been a criteria.

Something very strategic.

But an initiative.

There you go.

also can be discussed during strategic planning.

Well, if we don't feel like we're going to need that full amount and we want to go ahead and allocate some to the Jefferson School, I'm fine with that.

Yeah, I think that that's

Okay.

No, it's not.

Are we good with that?

next year is a presidential election and there will be additional costs for that election and we have typically traditionally we've increased that budget every four years this would help to take care of some of that but it is not needed for the notices well if the renaming notices don't have to go out in 2023 they probably will have to go out before the primary in 2024 so it's still in the fiscal year yeah perhaps yeah and as many so you're gonna make that flip so just keep that yeah

C4 make the flip.

and to correct any situations that we think were perhaps not reflective of our current priorities.

And that had been the plan last year, but, you know, it didn't work out.

We already know that those pieces of it that they're they're qualified to receive the money.

Yeah, well, and is that

There may be other categories, other recipients like that.

Yes.

But my point is simply, rather than see it as we've already got the VCF pot, we want to rejigger the allocations within that pot.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

That ends up giving me less heartburn about the VCF, the disruption of the VCF process.

And, you know, I think it's always worth just, again, thanking all the people in the VCF process who did all the work of ranking these things and how much we appreciate it.

the final say, and so, but I like the idea of we'll leave their recommendations alone, we'll make some supplemental additions to it, so I would say let's just kind of get right to it.

I had also seen over the last few weeks requests that we fund them to the tune of $25,000.

Yeah, and so, yeah.

The Vibrant Community Fund report does include unfunded requests and a blurb about what their request was for, how much their request was, and our recommendations so that all of the applicants in the Vibrant Community Fund are included in the report.

Okay, sorry about that.

I'm Taylor Fromm, I'm the interim director of FAR, and the difference between the 25 and the 40 is a half-time position versus a full-time position to support the work that we're doing in these programs.

How do other folks feel?

I support 100 percent, Warden.

I'm good with that, too.

so for the next one that's coming up child health partnership conflict my kind of my wife is on their board non-paid as well I've been through this before and it's not a conflict you know but I just want to know sure and so

Do we know?

That's what the review team averaged.

How do other folks feel about that?

In addition of 126.

We'll cover you.

That point is the difference between the 1A and the 2B.

It's the difference, perhaps, between a 1A and a 1B.

We won't be able to answer that because we could say something now and future councils could still factor in their own kind of consideration and not just blindly go with the selection committee.

you know we don't I don't want to have this debate after every nonprofit we you know consider and and I'll say I can say how do we avoid having that debate if we get questions from the public saying give them more money can I interject one point to as as you all discuss this I just want to make one point that even the highest correct me if I'm wrong Misty the highest scoring applications only received 90% of their ask correct

It's right here.

I just don't think it's wise.

How does everyone else feel?

You suggested funding at last year's level, correct?

The folks here on this board know enough about these organizations to say that they merit, and if you want to call it fiat, I guess it is fiat, but I think we are at a point where people can say, I feel like this is a good request on merits, without any aspersions to the VCF process.

We have none of that.

without reading everyone's proposal?

You're saying you're the executive summary.

I am saying that even with them doing that, we have an opportunity to go back and enhance some of the groups that didn't get 100% or 90% or 85% or whatever percentage they were funded at in order that they continue to do the good work that they have done historically in the community.

I think we have three or four people.

So what's the consensus then?

126.4?

Yes.

126.4.

Ms.

Payne, you okay with that?

Now AHIP.

I think we think there's going to be money coming out of the housing allocation

It's been a very challenging time this year to get through the proposals because the requests have exceeded the amount of money available.

just say X number of dollars as allocated from these different agencies and we'll figure it out later?

Your CAF consideration is for this year's CAF so that really has nothing to do with this if you look at it from that perspective.

Would it possibly make sense to wait for the CAF process to finish and if AHIP was not awarded money there would be an opportunity when the urine surplus is allocated to have AHIP and home rehab as a priority we invest that money in?

Could we do that?

Yes.

So we can do that.

It's just a weird situation, I feel like, with CAF being underway.

So what do we put on this chart?

Whatever amount you would like to consider granting them.

Just to AHIP?

so they were deemed ineligible so if you want to grant them something based on what they proposed then you should consider their request to the hops program as what you want to give irrespective of CAF that's a choice I'm just offering that to you as clarification is if you're considering them based on their request for FY24 it does not have anything to do with the CAF

It sounds like the application just was incorrect or missed.

I think that this program, what they do, you know, I think it should be part of our affordable housing, you know, tool where if we can do some relatively minor improvements to keep people in their homes, that's what I see this is doing.

The most affordable house is one that's already built.

This is just a matter of the proposal was submitted to a fund that it was not eligible to be considered.

Everybody got the same package.

Is what they are submitting through CAF the same application that went through HOPS, or is that just a completely?

also making sure that they understood what the purpose of those funds were for.

How much was their request here?

$250,000.

Hmm.

Yeah, so the question is And those other agencies got how much of their request?

So 90% of their 162 would be what?

Okay.

You know, many years ago, I've been on site with them, and it's...

But even if we gave them the 90% of their ask, it's still going to be $1.7 million that we're looking at at this point.

I think whatever investment is made will result in a clear deliverable positive work.

Could you repeat that, Michael?

You said fund the request at 90%.

90% of the 162 is 1458.

So 1458 from that $2 million in FY24 amendments.

And I'm counting up the other things that we're talking about.

Yeah.

But my point, at 145.8, we are not getting close to having spent all of the money that is available to be spent.

Okay.

This is wonderful.

We need it.

Ashley can get it for you.

And that's okay.

Someone's calling you.

Thank you so much.

I want to know who is it who calls you who gets supersonic magic?

It happens.

That's technology.

Okay.

You're the man.

So we've agreed to AHIP.

I'm sorry, are you leaving it in the amendment for 24?

So that was the right number.

Hey, I can take 10% off.

Oh, good job.

I think there's, sounds like consensus on that.

I'm good with that.

Yes.

I didn't give a dollar amount Are you okay with the general notion of finding additional funds for pathways?

I do not have a funding request amount.

Right.

looking at the existing need we know existed last year and the usage last year as well as changes that are underway in terms of SNAP and Medicaid benefits and the impact that will likely have on people that I think that would still be not enough to meet every need but I think is at least somewhat closer to being a last line of defense for avoiding evictions and other crises.

Yeah, I mean, I had in mind 250, but if we can pull off, you know We can swing 500.

And it seems like we have the money.

How much money are we talking about for there?

So it was staffing investment, again, for resident services.

Or we just have no earthly idea at this point?

Okay.

25, 100 in CRJ, where is that?

Is that 100 for CHF?

Just walking around dollars, yeah.

Then we've got two entries for Ready Kids, one entry for Peace in the Streets, and then the Employee Comp Study.

Yeah, I don't think the Ready Kids are, it's a whole lot.

Well, I don't remember seeing any complaints from people about Ready Kids funding.

Yeah, I mean, I got some.

Okay, did you get any, Michael?

I don't remember getting a couple of emails.

You do or you don't?

I do.

Because I don't remember caring about it.

So that's why I supported it.

Were those numbers based on what they had been cut from prior years, or how did those numbers come up?

Use the counseling.

and the counseling program they requested $75,901 and they got 30 recommended as a 2b which made them in the 34914 category so it's 34914 I'm looking at your the information you sent okay and then hold on this is healthy families over here so they were 2b so they got

I'm just curious how number 26 and 19 got developed.

You want to see the sheet here?

Yeah.

Okay, so it's the bottom one and the top.

There's no magic to it other than the counseling I wanted to fund that whole.

issues with youth right now?

Well, the youth that they work with, the families, the counseling, it definitely will help them and they have counselors and if they would go out in the public to get it, it would be really hard because they're backed up and it's just not enough.

It looks, Juan, like maybe the numbers you've got would be, what would be necessary to bring them up from 2B to like 1B or 2B to 1A or to 2A or something.

It looks like that.

Just to bring it up one level.

That's what it looks like to me.

My general feeling about changing VCF allocations, I'm not going to rehash.

So we do in 2020 or 2019?

I don't know if that's, is that your current thought?

And I was a former board member there about 20 years ago too, but that was a long time ago.

Yeah, I think you're right.

It also matches the math that I was doing earlier.

Right.

160?

And that's still there and still in the plan.

So now we're with peace in the streets.

What's the story there?

But that's where I was coming from with it.

Yeah, yeah.

Yes.

And I believe their application.

Peace and Street is one of their programs and they

Their request was $100,000.

For their Healthy, Wealthy, and Wise Youth Prevention Program.

I don't see, unless they're using it as a broad, you know what I mean?

Yeah.

It sounds like they requested 100.

But I mean, anywhere from 75,000, 150,000, I'm not sure what all those differences mean practically, to be honest.

Anybody?

In fact, I think he already has several organizations that did not

But I'm certainly open to more discussion and that number, again, I'll admit is kind of arbitrary.

And to be clear, are you funding the application as presented or just peace in the streets generically?

The application as presented.

I mean the other things that have come before us I feel like have enough confidence in Ready Kids or AHIP or whatever but I don't know anything about Uhuru and I'm a little concerned based off the discussion that we had with with Hunter that they've got that capacity to to actually

Pick a number, $200,000, $100,000 for violence prevention efforts or something like that as a generic category subject to staff figuring out what some appropriate places to put that might be and then coming back with recommendations after some study rather than I feel really kind of uneasy about saying, well, we don't really know what they would use the money for, but let's go ahead and pick a number.

What you've proposed I think is a good compromise, and if, you know, maybe some work can happen with them where they're able to present something credible, then they could receive some assistance.

Yeah, and what I'm thinking of would not just be them, but other operations that might come up during the course of the next six months or so who would say, hey, we got a program here.

Okay.

Was it 100 or 200?

My point was that I don't want it to be, if it's going to be all hands on deck, I don't want it to be but only the first person through the door.

Well, they requested 100.

Right.

Hammond wrote on the board but alluded to what Mr. Payne was talking about in their brief synopsis.

Well I think what Lloyd is just suggesting is let's just have a little catch-all violence prevention programs put 200 in it and we can suss out.

Maybe Uhuru gets some of that, maybe they don't And maybe it doesn't get, maybe we don't spend any of it, who knows, but Does that make sense?

Yeah, I think we I think I can, so you're gonna take, okay, so, oh, I see what you, I got it, okay, I'm with you And this may give us some flexibility Right If things come up this summer, you know, that we may not know about Okay, I can, I can support that Okay

and so that would leave us potentially with $896,974 for implementation of the employee comp study.

Did you have anything further on the drug court of therapeutic docket?

Oh, I did not calculate what that amount would be.

Spoke too soon.

Misty, do you by chance have that?

I think I've got that someplace.

Yes.

We can do the math from there.

I can tell you one second.

I'm just determined to keep you tonight.

Be me.

I don't see any names.

I don't think I have it broken down but I just have the total I don't have it broken down my program I should have gotten that I thought I knew it but I don't

It was just drug court?

So you're just going to add 10% to the... I should be adding about 11% to what's allocated.

To the total amount there?

Well, okay.

Or just the therapeutic docket and the drug war.

What's the therapeutic docket?

103500.

Add 11% to that.

Yep.

And the rest will leave.

How much did you say nine what?

$900,000 is how much he thought he was going to be left with for the employee comp study.

But that's a good start.

That's right.

we're talking about the leftover for employee comp stuff but I was just thinking if you were thinking it was nine how never mind it's okay it was just quick math based on what you all had sent we had just filled in the numbers but we didn't have the 200,000 in for the violence prevention that's why I was saying would that make sense to adjust because of

Oh, I see.

Yeah.

I think 877 sounds like a good number for Mr. Rogers.

Are you good with that or did you want nine?

We're good with that.

I hope you're good with that.

Well, and there's still contingency urine surplus, which eaten up quicker than a lot of people think.

All right.

So that's a good question.

So I think we've made it through our spreadsheet.

Can I say that again?

So the revenue, the budget surplus piece

It's just going to be there and look cute.

And we shouldn't do it.

I'm not sure how you all will do that.

I have great faith that you can figure out a good way to do it I'm sure in our six to ten year plan we're going to want to earmark a lot of that for debt service I feel confident that that's what we are going to do All right Okay Any questions you need us to answer between now and Tuesday?

I'm good Everybody clear?

Yes, sir

Are we doing this public comment?

Yes, this is the last one.

And do we have somebody online?

We do.

Who's that?

Greg Winston.

Mr. Winston, you have three minutes.

I don't know if you have the...

They have two applications that were in here.

I can tell you in one second.

Yeah, that's why I hand it in.

They're not the last page, but it's the same page.

Mm-hmm.

Yep.

Okay.

I guess I'm just not sure what it's referencing.

He said because of the changes in Medicaid, there would be additional persons in the city that would be utilizing their services.

This year at 90% they're getting 91,000 which would suggest they had applied for about 101 or 102 and not even applying for the same amount that they got last year Is there anyone else on the line?

There is Elizabeth Stark.

You've got three minutes.

So thank you so much.

Somebody next on line?

No more hands raised at the moment.

Okay.

Yeah, Ang Khan.

Khan, you have three minutes.