There we are.

There we are on line.

So, um, thank you all for being here.

I have had the opportunity to watch every one of the videos that were done this after this mor today, and I just think that the council did a lot of great work and so really appreciate that.

I'm hoping that we have other people that will have that same level of effort.

Um, but today is the day that we're going to start talking about the Charlotte City Council having the meeting specifically for the adjustments that were proposed on the meeting that you had on the 18th.

I think that what we really want to try to make sure that we do is that we provide the adjustments, and we then I know that many of them were saying like how do we explore something?

What do we do?

What is the information?

So that take the time to have that done, but at the end of it, to make sure that we have a budget that we can be proud of and that we want to do.

Oh, that's right.

We should have introductions for all of the council members as well.

Can we start with our city clerk?

Ariel Smith, okay.

Andrea Leslie Pike, City Attorney, Victoria Watlington, Councilmember at War.

Joey Mayo representing District Three.

Kimberly Owens, representing district six.

Good evening, Renee Johnson, District Four.

CFO, sorry.

All right, Marie, this is your day.

As she mentioned, you have a packet in front of you, and these are all the items that move forward with at least five votes from your May 18th meeting of items you said you want explored, and the front page is each of the sources, and we'll that'll mean more to you as we get go through them, but if you turn to page two and cherry's got it up for us, asked to be explored in the board, page reference for those.

So I'm not sure if there's any particular one that you would prefer to start with, or you would like to just start from the top with public safety.

Ms.

Yes, please.

So uh thank you, Mayor, members of council, and thanks, Marie.

Uh, one of the things that we we tried to do with addressing many of the uh questions that came up uh in the previous meeting was to really try to lock in the two things one to see if we could within the existing budget provide you sources for some of the requests that you wanted us to explore without increasing the uh proposed tax rate.

And we also tried to look within the public safety uh budget for some of the public safety related requests that you had, still trying to stay within that 1.89 property tax increase.

And lastly, with some of the one-time sources, ongoing sources, it seems like there's some flexibility with all of the requests that you've had to be able to attempt to fund them within the parameters of public safety being within public safety, and some of the one time and ongoing sources that we identified as well as one additional revenue uh opportunity as related to animal care control.

So I just wanted to set the stage, Mayor, that um that there are sources that are available to address uh many of the items that we were asked to explore.

And is that a part of our um?

Yes, ma'am.

So we'll agree.

We go ahead and thank you, Madam Mayor.

And as the manager mentioned, a lot of us get tangled up sometime, one time sources.

They think, oh, we have some money here, but one time sources can only fund one time expenses.

So if it's something ongoing like salaries, it would need to be from the ongoing expense category.

Any questions for her before we start out, Ms.

Mayfield?

Thank you, madam mayor.

So just for this is more of a clarifying question, because we're getting ready to go through the recommendations and the PowerPoint in here, but I want to make sure that we're level set because the team did share with council regarding our proposal around fire, and a proposal that I believe the proposal that I initially made regarding the decrease from 10% to 7%, which would have saved us around six a little more than six million from the fires pay that there were not enough council members to support that moving forward.

So now we're having a different conversation, but I want to make sure that we level set with the PowerPoint that was sent out, what it looking at Aldington, Austin, Columbus, and other areas, what was not noted is that their starting pay is 5,000 more than what our starting pay is.

So when we're gonna have the conversation, I want us to make sure that to the best of our ability, we're having a transparent conversation when we're saying other areas are there's a 14% gap.

We're not at that.

That's true, but also our starting pay is not what the starting pay is in these other areas.

So I'm still even though four of the people didn't join me with looking at that exploring the 10% increase to fire with the reduction from police to offset those funds.

I want to make sure that we're being transparent about the dollars and that is a considerable difference with starting pay of five thousand dollars.

Thank you, madam mayor.

All right, thank you.

All right, okay.

Yes, Mr.

Jones.

Marie, um, do you mind if I call it audible?

No, please.

So I think the biggest item that we will discuss will be uh the 10% increase for fire, and I think the easiest way to approach it is to actually go backwards, okay?

Um there was a question about what would happen if we just reinstated steps and put a two percent on that.

And the reality with that, if you slide over to page three, I believe, um, it's actually a savings to the city of about five point two million dollars, and it's really because if you start to look at the steps in that table, you would have a number of folks that would have a five percent step with the two percent market adjustment, which is about fifty-one percent of, I'll say fire sworn.

So we're talking about captains, firefighters, engineers.

Okay, and then if you just did the two percent, I'm sorry, the two percent increase, and that and I'm sorry, there would be uh 18 folks that would get about a four and a half percent increase, but the key is that this concept of people being topped out, you no longer get a step, so whether the step was five percent, two and a half percent, ten percent, twenty percent, you wouldn't get it, and what you would just get is the the market adjustment if I got that right, and so in that example, the big savings comes in because forty-seven percent of the firefighters, the engineers, the captains would only get that two percent, so I don't think that's anything that anybody would recommend, but we we actually did it, and then there are a couple of options that are in between this, which would provide an opportunity to have um maybe a five percent market adjustment with the staff, as well as a five percent market adjustment with even a bonus so that we could get people up to 10 percent.

Those are two options, but I think instead of spending a lot of time on those options, let's go to the the request, which was going right to parity 10 percent and 10%.

Okay, so that would be going to page five, and as you knew the last time we talked about this, the cost of that is about 4.4 million, and what we put in front of you instead of increasing the property tax to pay for this 4.4 million, we gave you a series of options on the cover page, that could get you to some level close to that 4.4 million.

So I think if we use it as a starting point for fire, as opposed to going through the other options because you may just land right here, and if you land right here, there are opportunities within the public safety um budget to try to fund that.

Is Marie is that?

Yes, sir.

Okay, so Mayor, if that's if the mayor and council are fine with starting there.

I think starting with the 10% increase on page five instead of the seven, uh, is where I believe uh the council would like to start.

All right, I saw that we had uh Miss Mayfield brief bring it a forward and Mr.

Um Jones has made it possible for what he just explained, and so let's start around um Miss May.

I'm sorry, what do we need?

Who needs to start?

I'm sorry, Madam Mayor.

I thought what Mr.

Jones did was open the door for Marie to now explain it to us starting from the 10%.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Thank you.

Thank you, and thank you, Council.

And one important thing I've heard there's a little bit of confusion where when if either the 7% or the 10%, while we're not we're freezing the steps, but there's still the opportunity if you're a firefighter one moving to a two or two that's getting a promotion to an engineer, they'd still go through that promotion process.

So that's still available.

So the steps are still in play, even though they're frozen, and then council and as the manager said it would be around 4.4 million dollars, and then and as he said at the beginning, you know, the 1.89% uh proposed property to hacks increase, the whole of that is towards public safety.

So we went through and said, based on your feedback, you know, can you cut it?

And please don't raise it more.

We we reallocated some and these in this list on this table here are enhancements that were proposed as part of the 1.89 um cent sales.

I mean not sales, sorry, property tax that we would now draw those back and use that funding towards the extra three percent in salaries, all right.

Ms.

I'm sorry, all right.

We're continue this tennis ball back.

Okay, so Marie.

Um could you explain a little bit about the impact of these three items?

Yes, so reduced public safety technology investments.

So it within the proposed budget for 2027, there is uh now uh ongoing 2.95 million that's for police and fire tech public safety technology specific to those um service areas, um, and then for this one, it would be reduced from 2.95 and it would be reduced by 1.9 million basically, and then for the second one, just to make sure the level setting, that's a new item, correct.

Well, yes, because before they've gotten technology funding, but not an ongoing designated part for them.

Correct, thank you, and then fire reduced proposed increase to overtime budget, and for the overtime budget, that's a place that um really working with fire as far as getting the funding correct and their staffing levels correct.

Um currently the budget's projected to be well over budget for overtime.

So we were putting money towards that at 4.1 million, and um if we did this, um they'd probably be short, but we'd also still commit to reviewing and seeing getting that right that number right and what it really needs to be and doing a study around overtime with fire and internal audit, but right now it would be reducing that by 2.2 million dollars, right?

And that's the it reducing the increase by 2.2 million dollars.

So they have roughly 2.6 in the budget now, and then this would be re reducing their increase by that much.

We've got a couple of people, Miss Um Watlington and Miss Anderson will go in that order, okay.

Just so I'm clear, is this just specific to this first item?

Yes, ma'am, okay.

Well then I'll pass for now.

Okay, so Ms.

Anderson.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and okay.

Thank you, uh Marie for this perspective on page six.

For the line item about reducing public safety technology.

Can you just do a double click on what you mean?

Like a different level of specificity.

I get that you said there's not been an ongoing investment in this particular so they use like a system when that fire alarm comes through, you know, or when a fire call comes through, they have a system that routes that's example, like they were doing enhancements to that routing system, um, they have a lot of records management systems, not like the clerk's office type records management systems, but anything technology that's specific, not for their Microsoft licenses and their you know, regular cell phones and things that are you know not unique that are across the city.

This is unique needs for police and fire technology, right?

So was this placed in the budget because it was driven by an ask from the firefighters or they would be routinely have more ask and need, you know, it's technology advances than we're able to fund.

So this was trying to remedy part of that.

Okay, and then for the second line item about um the reduction in overtime budget, I just want to make sure you're saying that in the previous budget, we've had we've had a line item for overtime that hasn't been fully absorbed is that was that it's been more than fully expended?

So it's been um running in the red.

So it's been below what was act what the actual overtime has been.

So reducing this line item out of the budget, I'm not sure how effective that is because the overtime is the overtime.

I think that's based upon need.

So if there's a need and we have a history of overindexing the allocated budget for overtime removing this line item would seemingly put us in a bit of a hole for the budget that's a question I'm not sure I'm just putting that forward to you and the city manager to to answer the question yes ma'am take the first shot at it okay so uh thank you council member anderson summarie we have how much in the budget prior to this year for overtime for fire right this current year 2.6 sorry 2.6 million and so this uh 4.4 would have gotten us closer to the if you go to the um little asterisk closer to the five million that we had as a overrun for overtime in FY24 um FY25 7.3 million and so the concept was to get overtime up because in all fairness to Chief Johnson uh that 2.6 is too low okay um what I will say and this is a part of this discussion is going forward uh we'd like to have uh our internal auditor a budget and fire start to talk about different models when it comes to um overtime we've heard as high as this could be nine million dollars what happens as a city is that remember FY25 we um ended the year 10,000 up okay it's all of the departments so police and fire let's say may blow their budget but there are savings throughout the other um departments which we try to land um in the black so what I would say is this 2.2 million I'm not so sure it'll have it'll solve our problem for FY27 right but what we need to do is really look at how we deploy um our fire apparatus to see if we can get the right number for overtime and we were trying to get closer to it in the proposal so that that's where we are yep thank you for that uh and that's kind of where I was going with the question uh just wanted to make sure we were in the same place which is I can appreciate if there was a line item of 2.6 in the budget but then the actuals were approximately five million uh spend on overtime um that's nearly that's approximately 90 percent of overrun of our estimate for the budget it doesn't feel like this is the right answer pulling this out in order to um get get to that 10 percent increase mind you I want to get to the 10% increase but I would be I I would be um a proponent of this if we had some space some other space in the budget that could absorb uh the oh the overrun of overtime but I just want to be good stewards around how we really move around these line items in the budget that's it for this particular topic madam mayor thank you all right I have miss a mayor I'm sorry I I had mayo first and then we'll come to you thank you madam mayor um miss manager I'm just wondering with um our proposal of a 10 percent increase for for fire do you think that will aid with recruitment so we will maybe not need this amount of money for overtime if we have more staff or I mean do you think there's any kind of level setting with that so uh that is a great question and uh chief johnson and I've have had this this conversation um what is the right way to do this?

Do you have to actually have more staff?

Let's say it a different way.

So uh fire is different than any other department that we have because there's a minimum staffing level every day.

Okay.

And so what some other cities have done is they've changed their minimum staffing level, which we have not.

We have four people on the truck.

Okay.

And they have brownouts, they have all these different ways of trying to um reduce overtime costs or the cost of operations.

And we haven't done any of those.

I don't think we want to explore any of those.

What we do have to do is figure out what's the right way to deploy um with this minimum staffing level.

Do you need to have more people than what you would need to just operate because there's sick leave, there's uh parental leave, there's a bunch of things that go on.

So it's really trying to figure out, you know, this is a problem, and can we be um can we be very um collaborative in how we do it?

And I guess what I'm saying is even if you left the 2.2 million in, we're still going to have a problem in FY27.

Now, there's a bunch of things that we could do that we don't have in here, but one thing Marie didn't say is that we have a structurally balanced budget not only in FY27 but also in FY28, and so that means ongoing revenue matching ongoing expenditures.

The only difference with FY28 is there's no policy decision around salaries, okay.

If we started to play with the dates in which the um compensation increase begins, it may have a negative impact on FY28, and we start in the whole in FY28.

So the easiest thing to do is just move dates around for when the increase would start, but it creates a problem.

That's one time and it creates a problem the next year.

All right, I had Mr.

Smearer first, please.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

First, I just want to uh recognize the budget staff for putting this together.

Um I certainly enjoyed reading this over the weekend.

Um I agree with no, I seriously did.

Um I agree with councilmember Anderson's point.

I don't know if it's a good uh idea to reduce the budget in terms of the overtime budget when we already know that in fiscal year 2025, um this was five million and seven point three million in fiscal year 2025, so I so to count to Manager Jones' point.

I think we do not want to cake the can down the road and start out with a negative balance in the next fiscal year.

Um, I think the other option, which is to have an increase deferred by a few months, might be a better alternative.

Uh, but at the same time, you know, you did provide us some data on various cities.

And we should consider a setting of policy.

I think so that we can have more holistic conversation on pay parity and establishing um some sort of baseline because right now I don't think we have had that conversation.

I this comes up almost, I think this has come up in the previous budget cycle and now so uh we need to have a more broader conversation in terms of the policy, and as I was reading this modified duty position, um I I did not know that we currently have a policy for up to five years uh for sworn staff who are not eligible to retire, and I know that you suggested us modifying that existing policy, and so that we can expand eligibility and from I think current is five-year maximum to 10 year maximum length of assignment, and I think that would address uh what firefighters had reached out to us about.

So I think it's more of a policy issue than a budget issue.

Because so I would like us to explore both of those policy items so that we can we don't have to keep uh having this conversations every budget cycle.

That's all I have.

Thank you thank you.

So I have a few folks that want to talk about this a little bit more, and so Ms.

Mayfield.

Thank you, Madame Mayor.

Thank you, Marie and team, for this presentation.

Manager, actually, my question is going to one of the questions is going to be directed to you for clarification.

So if the way that this was explained, you're saying that, and maybe Maria, maybe you can answer the current pay structure.

If we would look at the hourly pay, the hourly hourly pay would actually could potentially benefit longer term than I step, but they still have the ability to achieve step as they move into different levels of it, whether it's like captain and lieutenant.

Okay, I believe, and tell me if this is what you mean, the manager's proposal, and regardless of the amount at this point, was to freeze the steps and do across the board.

Is that what you're talking about?

It would benefit people, so it and we could pull it up, but if I was like uh an engineer one step away from topping out, now I'm frozen and I get whatever percent seven or ten this year, but I'm not topping out.

So next year I get another five percent plus any market rate potentially, so in that benefit, it's helping people because I'm not topping out as quick.

Is that what you're so since we're just asking all the questions right now?

I am going back to page three, so not where my colleagues just left off at.

So I'm going back to have to make sure that I understand what we discussed last week, and that is the example right now with the step plan, you can top out, but under this proposal, you have the ability to not top out.

Well, so it depends on you're frozen wherever you are.

So if I'm already topped out, I'm still topped out, but instead of just getting a market adjustment like I would typically, I get this across the board pay.

Explain that for non-budget people.

Okay, so I forgot.

So when we look at these numbers, yeah, and we have the breakdown of how many full-time employees we have, we're looking at a 2%, 4.5, 5%, 7%, as well as pay adjustments.

When we're and when our firefighters in between the little bit of downtime we give them, and they looking at this, what should they walk away with understanding that okay?

I've heard they're considering removing the step plan, how would this benefit me if the step is removed?

Okay, and the big point though, a big big clarification.

Because, like you always say, words matter.

Exactly.

We're not removing the that's it.

So this is a great pay for one year.

So you're frozen in place in whatever step you're in.

So the big takeaway is the manager was trying real hard to do right by you.

I mean, really, because if you're for if you go back to the um chart, percent wise, because everybody would get whatever this percent y'all determine would be versus if I'm topped out, I would only get market adjustment, or I might if I'm not topped out, I get a step in market adjustment.

But next year I might be topped out.

Yes, sir.

I don't know.

So Maria, let me make sure I'm saying this the right way.

So at the top of this chart is the current yes, the very top one.

Okay, steps.

So these are the steps, and everybody can see occurred in the proposed.

And I'm not defending the proposed, I'm just saying so a level set.

Everybody, no matter what step you're at, would get seven percent.

Okay.

Your proposal, correct?

Right.

So that's the FY27 proposed budget.

If you shift back up to what's current, everybody at the end of a step, whether it's step five for firefighter one or step eight for firefighter two, would only get in a typical year topped out 1.5% or 2%.

Okay.

Okay.

And that's where I wanted us to have clarification on that.

Now, when we go back to where we were having conversations, which is page six, and looking at the reallocation, just for clarification.

This reallocation that's being proposed of the total, reduced public safety technology investments.

Are we saying we're reducing that from both police and fire's budget?

Because if we got first responders, we need to be very clear about first responders.

Right now, we're having a very specific conversation regarding fire.

So is that 1.859 million just from fire, or is that in totality from police and fire?

And if it is for the fire conversation, what is that true number for fire?

Because just if I'm just tuning in and I'm looking at this and hearing this conversation, I would get the impression that we're saying because we're talking about fire right now, reduced public safety and technology investments of this one point almost nine million, it sounds like it's just coming from fire, but I believe it's coming from police and fire.

That's correct.

Yes, and each year, you know, and it because things their needs change and new technology comes up.

So each year, both police and fire, you know, they give a prioritized list.

So the chiefs, both the chiefs work with their staff and come with the list, you know.

Usually we can do this, but we're hoping to be able to do more.

So they that we still work really hard to get their top priorities within what's left.

So I want us to have be clear in that, Mr.

Manager.

Yeah.

One thing that I think is important, if we go back to uh how the budget was built, we talked about public safety, we also talked about core services, and what was happening was we would throw all the departments into this one technology bucket, and then you prioritize it and something that may be number one for police may end up being number eight overall.

So what we tried to do to shore up core services is pull police and fire out to the own bucket, 2.9 million ongoing, right?

And so this is um it's there are many options.

One option is to raise the property tax to cover this.

We didn't start with that.

We tried to go within the public safety budget to make some reductions, and then budget did a great job of trying to make sure what's ongoing uh is connected to this increase because the increase is ongoing.

Okay.

I do one more thing.

Doesn't hit cars, police cars, it doesn't touch dash cams.

Those are am I right with that, Marie?

Yes, dash cams are special and new, but but that kind of technology potentially could be real.

But what about the fact that we approve funding for drones to be used because drones are technology, so I just again want to have transparency in this conversation because if we're having a real, if we're attempting to have a real conversation regarding reducing the proposed increase to the overtime budget, I agree with my colleagues that spoke earlier.

We already were working within a deficit in the overtime budget.

That's the overtime budget for both police and fire.

So unless we're having this same detailed conversation when it gets to police, I still think there's a disparity in this conversation that we're having.

If we already know that we have been functioning in the red in our overtime budget, I am trying to understand how there was a comfortable proposal of reducing that particular line item when we already know that there's a challenge there, and we have been running in a deficit, especially when we have approved and in the process of building multiple new firehouses.

So thank you, Councilmember Mayfield.

Instead of doing something incremental, like 2.2 million in FY27, maybe another 1.2 and FY28, we tried to get as much of correcting this in year one.

And that's why we added 4.4.

And just to clarify, none of this necessarily is comfortable.

This all hurt because he built a really tight, you know, budget that he was standing by.

So kind of to pick it apart, it's not comfortable.

So and manager.

Well, really, for our budget team.

Y'all do amazing work when we put a lot of requests and expectations on you all, Manager Jones, you leading us through this, and it's not difficult.

I do not want to be in your position.

I just want to make sure that I'm understanding that as we move forward, what our actual proposal is, because again, we're trying to figure out how to provide access to the resources and the needs with also challenging you to reduce the bud the tax increase in a very difficult financial year.

So I want to make sure that we have as much parity in the conversation and truth in the conversation as possible.

So when we have the language of reducing the proposed to the overtime budget, I want us to be very clear that this is the overall budget for first responders.

This is the budget for both police and fire, not just the budget of fire, because if it's just the budget for fire, then with looking at the fact that we have been running in the red with fire, is this the best option?

Because if we front load, I fear that what we ran into two years ago when we front loaded some CIP and some other things that we're setting future councils and future staff and those staff coming up for retirement up for a challenging conversation as well.

Also thinking about how do we get to the place where we actually can get into committee the discussion because ultimately we do not have an adopted policy regarding pay parity that needs we need to get that into the appropriate committees so that we can finally have that real conversation and either make a decision to support or some motion where we can have some specific language around what pay parity looks like and where it is, so that we don't every budget cycle keep coming back to discussion and trying to figure out how to start from scratch.

Thank you, madam mayor.

Um let me see what's a minute.

Okay, so I think my questions were along a couple of lines.

I did want to follow up to just directly asking.

I don't know, is the chief sitting behind me by chance?

I just want to know what is in this safety technology investments.

Just tell us what what they are, right?

Because to your point, if you're telling me that these are dash camps or body cams or firearms or something, that's a very different conversation.

And it is that type of it's it's critical.

Um, I thought you said that it wasn't.

No, it's not Dash camps, but it's that type.

Dash cams is a new thing, so it's a separate pot.

But it is like to enhance and maintain critical technology, but it's not already like they they give the wish list is far beyond the 2.95.

Is there so and that changes every year?

So based on what the funding level ends up being, they work and they work collaborative with each other, police and fire, and some other things, and some of them are specific to police and some are specific to fire, and then they have a prioritized list.

But we don't have that yet.

Is the chief sitting a revised one?

Okay.

Well, can sir.

Do you mind joining us at this podium?

Okay.

He drove the list in his okay.

Mayor should be burned into a before the chief comes, Mr.

Jones.

So um, Marie, I think you may, and I don't know what the answer to this is.

This may be helpful.

So when everything was in one pot together, would CMPD and FIRE get 2.9 million of that big pot, or would they get like 1.5 million of that big pot?

Because that would help level set whether or not even with this reduction, it would potentially be more, less or the same.

So it varies by year to year, and the chief did sometimes he gets grants.

Both chiefs sometimes get grants or have different funding sources, or they have such a critical need, they might try to carve out from their own operating budget, but it varies year to year.

But no, they did not necessarily have this ongoing, but they had more than this ongoing as their need list.

But needless is different than what was actually funded.

Correct, and it varies by year to year, yes, sir.

Okay, Chief.

Hi, what's on your list?

So uh good evening, Mayor and City Council, and I think uh Marie hit the nail on the head, so it does change from year to year.

Uh this year's focus is gonna be on CAD upgrades and it and uh technology upgrades at our communication center, as well as some of our units getting upgraded uh with MCTs, mobile computer terminals, etc., so that our units can continue to respond.

But that's is this an obsolescence issue?

Is this uh just an upgrade?

Because for it to be sitting right here, I think I'm understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, that this is a separate list from core operations because you may or may not get this funding?

This is an upgrade for our current CAD system, and so we try to maintain at least one or two levels or or versions behind so that they can fix repairs, and this was an opportunity for us to start looking at CAD and a few other uh opportunities in the communication center.

But this is not base operations, like this is not an obsolescence issue, you've got to replace the version today because you don't know it's not an obsolete, yeah.

It's not that thank you.

Um the other question while I've got you is I want to make sure I understand this overtime piece.

Um did I understand correctly that you all let me just ask.

Can you tell me very specifically?

Is it cheaper to run the current org model that you're running with overtime or to make adjustments to hire additional FTEs?

So that's so the city manager's right when we've had those discussions in the past, it's about a staffing factor, and that staffing factor you have to find a balance between hiring a certain number of folks to address a lot of your vacancies at you know, vacation, sick leave, paid parental, uh injury leave, etc.

Uh, and then using overtime.

So we really need to do a study to actually figure out what that number is.

But you haven't done it, you can't tell me the difference between two.

I can tell you an older number, but we're in the process of redoing that number now.

Okay, so um, yeah, that would be very helpful because I would yeah, I would, uh no I definitely don't want to go into a whole nother fiscal year not knowing whether we're costing ourselves more money or not.

Um yikes, okay.

So let's add that to the list that council member Ashmira started earlier in terms of what we'd like to see on the front end of next year because definitely, I mean, overtime has costs financially, but obviously, as you well know, I mean, it costs y'all in terms of your quality of life and your health.

So if that's not the most feasible model, what do you need to execute that that org model more well sooner rather than later?

You're referring to meeting minimum staffing, is that what you're referring to?

I'm referring to this study to design your organization such that you're running streamlined.

So we're in a current process of working to uh working on that staffing factor number right now, so that we'll be prepared for the next fiscal year as to where we need to be uh and also hire those people to address that staffing factor number depending on where it comes in.

So, Mr.

Manager, I would love to see that sooner so that if we if there's an opportunity or a need to pivot in the middle of this next fiscal, that we can do that rather than wait until the end of this fiscal year.

Um that leads me to another question, and maybe it's the same question again, so forgive me if it is.

Um, I was under the impression that the reason we didn't have parity between fire and police, though I can see that that is not unusual looking at uh other cities.

I thought it was because we didn't have a problem hiring firefighters, so right now we're running over time not to cover vacancies, but to cover, like you said, vacation sore and these particular things.

So our vacancies are very different.

It takes six to seven months, it's seven months now for a recruit to to graduate from recruit class.

And so, although we may look at you know, director Simpson is here now, and she may pull our vacancies and it'll show no vacancies, but I may have 40 people in recruit class, and so that's 40 vacancies on fire trucks that we continue to have to fund while they're going through class, and so again the staffing factors try to get us to a point where we're having enough staff to be able to make sure that we can reduce that overtime while they're going through class.

Um, although we don't have the turnover that CMPD does, we have had to run our process two times a year, which is something unheard of that we've had to do in recent years to make sure that we're hiring enough folks.

And is that because of natural attrition like retirement and things of that nature, or yes, and also the hundred new firefighters and stations that you all were uh giving us as the city continues to grow, so it's not just attrition, it's a excuse me, it's also adding your new uh infill stations and new companies.

Thank you for that.

And the cost of growth, you'd think that I'm not gonna do it, I'm not gonna do it, Mr.

Manager.

Um, so then the only other last thing I would say um is as part of this comparison.

I see here that we're looking at um pay parity across benchmark cities.

These are salaries, but when it comes to like fully loaded um benefits and salary and full compensation together, do we have that comparison?

Because I understand the retirement seasons are different.

So, Marie, let's make sure I did this right.

So we have the public safety pay plan group, and I believe the way we ran it this year is exactly the way that they wanted us to run it in terms of just don't fully load anything.

Correct, and that data is really hard to get, but we can flesh into more, you know, and and we do.

I mean, we do.

I say we because we're team Charlotte, but really, really Sheila and her team do, you know.

So they listen to the concerns, and then they figured out anything.

Okay, too, that comes up.

So just as it goes to committee, and certainly I will support the policy work um to figure out where we need to land on these items.

I just want to put that into that scope as well that we're looking fully loaded.

Thank you.

All right, Miss Ashmira, then followed by Miss Anderson.

Um sorry, I have Ed as I'm making sure you're looking after that.

Okay, it's it's a lot of people talking.

Right.

Okay, so Miss Johnson.

She okay, okay.

Okay.

So adding it.

Ashmira, I thought you had oh yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

Okay, okay, thank you.

Oh, we want backwards.

No, she asked, she raised her hand, and I'm assuming that this is a discussion that's not so practical for everyone.

I'm trying to get this side and then come around that side.

So, okay.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

So I was going to ask about the public safety technology investments.

So that includes both fire and police, right?

So Chief Johnson talked about the fire technology needs.

Do we have someone from the police, or do we know what the technology needs would be addressed under that 1.8 million for in broad categories?

It's listed on page 305 of your budget book, but this is just broad categories.

Like Chief said, it varies based on need and priority and what's you know, what new technology or aging technology, but it's things like modems, routers and be in the vehicles, cameras, license plate readers, 911 systems, like you mentioned his CAD system.

So it it could be any in that area, but again, it's something that's specific to the public safety services.

I mean, that's pretty broad.

Um we don't have that yet, that detailed list.

So what happens is once we each year they work together and they come up with their with their teams, sorry, with their command staff and their other teams to assess all the priority needs across their different areas, because even within police and fire, they have so many different service areas, and then each chief has works with um technology to see okay how much help cost it out with procurement and technology, and then we work through based on their top priorities.

So, because it is a broadly list, and what I'm concerned about is there anything that is like a high priority within the broad list that we got to get addressed in this year's budget, right?

I mean that's what I'm trying to do.

Nothing that's been specifically cost out that uh certainly the CAD system the chief mentioned and things like that.

What is CAT system?

I know that's the about that.

That that makes the routes the cars, right, Chief?

Dispatch the dispatch system.

Okay automated dispatch, yeah.

So I I know Chief, you talked about the emergency response time at Council Member Johnson in my town hall.

Would that system assist with reducing the response time?

I know that that is something that uh is important in terms of reducing the response time.

So that system is in place now, so it's already doing that, and of course, we need to maintain it as the chief said it's not mission critical for this second, but it will definitely need to be an investment in the future.

Okay, so would that risk reduce the response rate?

It already it's it's responsible now, so it's computer aided dispatch.

So if it's just me, it says which vehicles closest and sends it to the location.

So it's already in place.

This will be to refresh that system.

Yeah, so what I'm trying to understand would the refreshing or updating the existing system, would that ultimately result in reducing reduction of the response times?

Because we do know for priority two calls within CMPD, we are not meeting the benchmark.

So I'm trying to understand if it is if it if the system upgrade or maintenance does address reduction in response time, it is something that is critical.

So this one was specific to fire.

I'm not sure if police also has something equivalent on their list, but we can definitely follow up with you and get you more detailed levels on their priorities.

So, Marie, I mean Councilmember Ashmuir.

So I just checked um for the entire city technology and FY25, there was 1.6 million dollars in paygo for the entire city, including peace police and fire.

In the current budget for the entire city, 2 million dollars, including police and fire.

Okay, so this is significantly more.

I mean less.

Absolutely.

Um say that again.

So in Pago for technology for the entire city.

Last year was 1.6 million.

Okay.

Including police and fire, the entire city.

This year it's two million for the entire city, including police and fire.

Again, we tried to pull police and fire out because we wanted to make sure we shore up core services.

So I feel comfortable that this is more than typically we would have for police and fire.

So when you said two million, it says fiscal year 2027 proposed for 2.95.

So almost three.

Okay.

So you are comfortable and with this suggestion of reduction in the technology investments.

Well, I'm not I don't love it.

Yeah, I mean, obviously.

But I couldn't raise the tax, and we have to go somewhere.

And so I don't feel that this is going to be a cut to police and fire.

I just don't believe it's going to be adequate to get us to a place that we wanted to get to sooner.

So let me ask you in another way.

So this would not result in reduction in core services.

This would not result in increase or I guess we were trying to address response times, right?

We we wanted to meet the benchmark, which currently fire department does, but when it comes to CMPD, when it comes to priority two calls based on the report that was presented to us, we are not meeting priority two calls benchmark.

And I just want to make sure none of this technology improvements would take away from that goal or the outcome where we want to be.

I am not able to answer that.

Yeah, I think that's the that's the level of information that I need to be able to be to say yes, I'm I'm okay with with this, right?

It because if it helps us with further reducing or meeting the priority two benchmark, then I I think that is something very important because that is the core service.

I don't think they know because the business just I get it, they don't know.

So I think we need for more information.

Uh but uh I think Councilmember Mayo said you said we wanted to refer this to the committee, the pay parity and the uh the policy around the modified uh modified positions and uh yeah, I mean I did suggest referring it to the committee.

I I think yeah, we can make a motion later, but I guess I'm trying to understand with the whole technology.

If we can just get more detail on that, uh what those technology improvements are like uh in specifically when it relates to the response time.

All right, Ms.

Sanderson.

Thank you, madam mayor.

So if, you know, if city manager two million was the budget for technology investment this year uh for all of the city, I would my assumption is that the number that's in the budget for technology specifically to public safety, is there for a reason.

Um when in when I'm hearing things like modems in the cars, updated CAT systems, things of that nature, all of those are uh derivative effects that um ensure that um fire and CMPD can meet response times.

Um, response times for CMPD has been a challenge from a variety of different angles, and certainly we've talked about technology and lean leaning into technology in a different way uniquely than we historically have, can help us get to that that desired threshold for result time.

So I believe that this is here for a reason, and it's driven by specific needs or a p potential upgrades.

That's just my just reading the budget and reading this this document here.

But if there is some potential slack there, okay, but I'm I'm not sure if it's one point eight million, one point, one point 1.8 and a half million dollars worth of slack.

So I just want to make sure we're being very clear on this, because I don't want to get to this point advanced next year.

We say, oh, our results, our our response times haven't improved or they've they've actually decreased.

And well, we had the investment in the budget, but then somehow it was moved around.

That's the first point.

My final point is, you know, most we're we're talking about attrition and you know, rather investing in existing roles versus you know investing in backfilling roles.

Most industries have some type of threshold of attrition that's built into their business model.

Um you know, I'm I'm not sure uh city manager or Marie if it's built into if the attrition rate for uh Charlotte Fire and CMPD is built into the city's attrition rate overall, or if they have a breakout of their own attrition rate, but once they get past that threshold, then you're like burning money for real because it costs more to fill these roles.

So if this is, you know, if if this is uh referred to a committee, I think understanding attrition rates and whether we're over indexing on that attrition rate or under indexing, I think that would be in interesting information to inform our decisions around this.

So councilmember Anderson, I I believe we have a zero attrition rate built into fire.

So no attrition rate at all.

Wow.

That's that's excellent.

Right?

Yes.

Thank you, Mayor.

So uh I think a critical element here is we do not have a policy about parity.

Um now uh in my mind, these are two different labor markets.

You don't just take a police officer and put them on a fire truck and vice versa.

They have in common that heroically they're both willing to risk their lives in the service of the public.

Uh, but otherwise uh the jobs are different.

Um the hours are different, and in particular, especially since Keith Lamont Scott, public perception is different.

And therefore, um I think the right fair amount of compensation in in each of those markets is not necessarily the same.

And uh it would depend on many things like uh retention and recruitment and so on.

Uh, we need to pay enough in order to establish the manpower levels we want and and to take care of the our employees.

But you you don't switch, you know, our bus drivers with uh uh train drivers even or whatever, and so uh that doesn't in my mind create a presumption about what we should do for firefighters.

It just means that I don't see exactly why they should be equal.

I think it's a goal that they would like because it's a bigger number.

Um but we really we have been avoiding this policy conversation for a long time.

Um so when you if you accept that, then maybe there is a way to do more for firefighters and not necessarily reach parity with the police.

But but in other words, we're it's we're talking almost binary here as if you know we give them what we originally proposed, or we try to achieve this parity, and uh, you know, is that the only answer?

Uh so uh my other concern is when I look at this diversion of funds from our original uh intentions, um I I don't see an excess that we are able to tap into.

So in other words, I think we're reducing numbers that weren't too big before.

Uh and what concerns me in turn about that is if you look at past years, we always were conservative in our budgeting, and then we had something left over that could go into pay-go or that we could roll towards.

It feels to me like in a way we're gambling here a bit against that.

I mean, you mentioned before that uh who knows, you know, we could maybe we can achieve better results in other places.

So uh I'm uneasy about spending ahead towards that expectation of a surplus, because in prior years it has also been the case that we needed that money.

Uh so we used it for paygo, but then when we did our math, we were looking at a prospective deficit for the coming year each time.

Um, so uh I I missed the discussion last year.

I don't uh last week and therefore or last time.

I don't know whether there are uh dimensions to this that I might have picked up had I been here, but I guess I will just say I'm not really comfortable with this proposal.

Thank you.

Councilmember Johnson.

Thank you, Mayor Proton.

So for me, it's obvious that we would address the pay parity.

And I I didn't understand why this is has been such a discussion for so many years.

Since I've been on council 2019, the firefighters union or association, they've been advocating for firefighters.

And it's interesting, Councilmember Driggs, when you talked about the public perception being different than CMPD.

Because I don't think that it is.

I think and maybe I'm oblivious to that.

But I I don't think that it is, nor do I think that it should be.

I mean, we could probably ask our firefighters, and I bet it's close to 100% who have fought a fire, who risk their lives every time they go out.

Where I mean, and not the police officers' jobs are not.

They're dangerous also, but are they in the line of fire every day or every time they they go out?

So I don't know why we would ever think that there would be a difference.

I mean, the firefighters they're running into burning buildings.

So I think that we need to be passionate in advocating for them.

Um also we talk about public safety, and the tax increase 1.89 cent.

Mr.

Jones, did you say all of that was for public safety?

So the tax increase for our residents, 100% of that is for public safety.

Correct.

And we're looking at if we can go back to the previous slide, we're looking at cutting overtime dollars.

Councilmember Anderson, you're absolutely right.

I don't think these numbers were presented by the management staff just just because there's there's some expenditures that would justify this number.

So we're looking at cutting overtime and reallocating funds in the tune of four million dollars.

4.4 million dollars, along with a tax increase for residents for public safety, right?

The great news is the n North Carolina Supreme Court just allowed cities to use the HTA funds, uh, for public safety, which could mean that we don't have to increase the uh tax rate for our citizens or reduce overtime, and that we're allowed to provide parity for our firefighters and police officers.

Have we looked at that?

I know that's a recent ruling.

Have where are we with that?

Sure, I can start and then city attorney can certainly jump in.

So I would say that the I think the decision by the state supreme courts just last week, so it is something that the city attorney's office finance budget are aware of and are evaluating.

That case was specifically about the curry tuck hospitality taxes, because they're all typically local taxes on what they're enabled for.

For example, we have taxes that can be used for just the NASCAR Hall of Fame or just the Convention Center, um, Amherst or Sports and Bank of America Stadium.

So one of the things that I think is still under review right now by the city attorney's office is to really sort of see exactly how that applies to our local bills, and I believe that there's some time needed to really make sure that one that there are some opportunities to see exactly what is applicable, and I'd also say that that also brings in some policy level decisions for this council that may be a little bit tight to try to make on on this year's budget as well, because it starts to look at management practices.

I've had conversations with rating agencies and investors that have indicated that they prefer or like the fact that we don't use hospitality taxes to underpin general fund expenses.

Because as we talked about at committee today, those those revenues can can wane at times.

And right now, some of the hotel motel taxes are down compared to last year, but the need is exactly the same.

So if those needs go down, that puts at risk the general fund having to find a way to pay for those services.

So it's it's something that needs, I think, some time to sort of evaluate and jump in and sort of evaluate before sort of a decision is made.

City attorney um Leslie Fodder, I don't know if there's anything you wanted to add.

Sure.

Actually, uh thank you, Matt, or Mr.

Haston.

Sorry, before you add, I wanted to know which if you can answer which tax would be comparable to the tax.

Uh the North Carolina Supreme Court.

I believe theirs was around hotel motel tax or the occupancy tax.

So right now we have three different occupancy taxes.

Um we have one that's within our tourism fund that is what helps support the Spectrum Center and the Cultural Arts area.

We have one that is dedicated towards the Convention Center, um, amateur sports and bank America Stadium, and one that is dedicated toward the NASCAR Hall of Fame.

So occupancy tax.

Do you do we know the amount of the total amount for those three taxes?

Uh I could find it, it's it's in the book for for projection purposes.

Um, is it page 241?

I mean, I have the book open to page 241.

If you could just tell the public where that would be with pages when you find it, thank you.

Uh city attorney, did you have something that you wanted to say?

Yes, yes, Councilmember Johnson, thank you so much.

Um, the case that we're referring to is Consonzo versus Curituck County, and um we are analyzing the ruling in like in light of our occupancy tax, our occupancy taxes plural, excuse me.

Um, but of note that with that specific case, there was a tight nexus between their occupancy tax and their plan, that that board of commissioners plan to use those occupancy tax uh dollars to help support the the increase in visitors to that community.

Um that community was about 20,000 in population or is about 20,000 in population during those tourist seasons.

Um, they ballooned to about 60,000.

And so the board of commissioners in that case was able to um highlight that their public safety really needed to increase to support that increase in um just visitation from communities around uh surrounding communities, and so that was a huge um emphasis by the North Carolina Supreme Court.

And so what we're looking to do right now is analyze if there is such a nexus that would apply, and again, um the special legislation that was adopted for Curate County, specifically highlighted that that nexus.

Okay, okay, I think thank you.

I know that there are rooms where we're celebrated that we're the number one growing city in the country.

So I think that that's is a nexus or could be considered a nexus where we're the fastest growing city in the country, so certainly in North Carolina, and we had council member Ashmir and I we did have a town hall meeting talking about response times.

We know that there's been hold times in calling 911 for years.

So if there's a pot of money and the North Carolina Supreme Court has spoken to it, it's no longer I don't know if it was silent before, but there's a some a case.

I think that's something that we should consider before we cut overtime, before we raise taxes, and before we um take a look at cutting public safety um spending.

Thank you.

Thank you, madam mayor.

Uh so just very briefly on that topic.

Um I think for me, I could more readily see tapping into hospitality dollars uh for something like the pilot program that we're exploring for noise cameras, something that's directly related to hospitality raising for our attention, the um the problems that they're having with their uh with their residents, you know, and and the folks who come in and stay and are having these problems.

So that for me is is enough of a nexus where I think you could do that to do it more broadly than that, I think really does put at risk some of the partnerships that we've been able to establish with the business community, particularly with the hospitality industry and some of the projects that we've got coming to the area that are dependent on those relationships so I just I would hesitate to do that that said I appreciate the energy around it and I think that there are maybe some targeted areas that are more specific that are more aligned with the curate county's need for their tourist season to be aligned with their goals on technology I just I will say you know I look at the description here of the things that would be uh affected and I note that license plate readers are are in here as well and some of the things that in my ride along I came to appreciate that there were variability in the vehicles that I rode in during my ride along with respect to the condition of the vehicle and the access to technology someone would have to go you know use somebody else's computer in their car or whatever I I don't think that we want to be in a situation where our officers are needing to um you know not feel as though they're fully supported out in the field and so I I do have some real hesitation about that cut and then I will just parrot the comments of other council members with respect to the overtime budget I I really I fail to appreciate how cutting the overtime budget when we already know that we are struggling to meet that um makes sense now one of the things that had been thrown out this is going to make me exceptionally unpopular but did we also explore did this not rise to the level of exploration a seven seven percent across the board instead of 10% across the board did did that get mapped out because I thought that that was a discussion point that we had I know Ms.

Mayfield had recommended that we flip them and that police and fire get 10 and the police officers get seven but I thought we had some appetites around a universal seven percent did I miss that it didn't get five okay thank you got it.

I just the math is not math in for me that's why I wanted to put that out there thank you.

Go do it.

We'll be here three days always okay no that was it that was it for me right now thank you I have miss Mayfield and then followed by Mr Graham.

Thank you madam mayor so one part on the alignment regarding hospitality and tourism guys I can on the alignment on the line of conversation regarding hospital hospitality and tourism um something that was mentioned to me earlier but we didn't get a chance to talk about it in committee was are we even tracking Airbnbs?

So we have a number of Airbnbs in our city we look at hospitality and tourism mainly as the hotels but those are businesses that are generating a considerable revenue stream are we receiving the taxes that we should be receiving from those small independent Airbnb businesses that because there that is contributing to our infrastructure as well as should be identified under hospitality and tourism are we even looking at those sure um appreciate the question and it's been a little bit so I can certainly talk again with the tax collector but a year or two ago we have had those conversations there is no reason to believe that we're not receiving the full amount of oxygen tax from the Airbnbs.

Because that is actually collected by the rental the companies and they are required to send it to us so it's not up to the individual homeowner because it goes through the app or sort of the website it registers where the collection is supposed to go and they are remitting it but it certainly happened to follow up again with the tax collector to make sure are those funds going into pay goal or it's in general funds it'd be if it's a part they'd be collecting the austency tax it would be going into their the dedicated funds that they are meant for I I think um Kimberly and I probably own one of the um bear where we talk about these bids and these people that have the property.

I don't think that they ever actually give money to the city for anything.

So because they they you know you get a bare Airbnb right you just walk in like a hotel and you walk out and um I've if there is money I'd like to have it so that we would have something that's doing first they'd have to do something instead of after because the after stuff is just not so what staff just says is that we are getting it yet I'm not seeing that line item so I think that would be helpful for us to know exactly how that is being tracked because it should be tracked under hospitality and tourism because that is really what how it's if you're able to earn four to ten thousand dollars a month off of your Airbnb I'm gonna need you paying taxes to contribute to our city I it would be helpful to know where we are.

It was mentioned earlier to go to page 305 and look at our pay goal numbers when my colleagues were when we were going through to say where this money at Manager Jones yes it was ask for us to have these take home vehicles.

What we have identified in here is purchase and replace the police take home vehicles at 2.5 million a year over the next five years which is gonna total over 12 million three almost 300 is that not something that could be deferred for right now so we have some take home vehicles out there but this is 2.5 million a year to not only purchase but also to purchase and replace is that a priority right now while we're having this conversation because I think what I'm hearing from my colleagues and where I share concern to even have a conversation red regarding the reduction when we already have the numbers and know that we've been running in a deficit for this overtime budget when we already know that we have approved the development for additional firehouses that we are going to have to figure out how to staff which means currently we're going to have some of our current fighters that are gonna have to go over to these other locations.

That doesn't fall in the technology but in the pay goal is that these is this 2.45 million 400 two million four hundred fifty thousand is that something that can be deferred just like we had to defer other requests and do we have other opportunities because I also want us to be clear when we're talking about technology it's not necessarily new technology it's just like our phones how we have to do upgrades except when you're talking about governmental upgrades if we don't keep those upgrades going with these systems that could be detrimental to our entire system remember last time we had a bug it was the city of Charlotte staff that caught the bug that managed to make its way through the county.

So I don't want us getting lost in the public safety technology and talking about reducing that when a lot of that is our licensing and keeping our technology up to date not necessarily switching over to brand new technology.

So these are two very important line items and I know I that doubt we're gonna get through this budget since we don't spend an hour on just number one but I think that also speaks to how important this conversation is when we talk about public safety I have no problem supporting the idea that council member Owens said just made as far as what would it look like if it was seven across the board or if it was cut me halfway in the middle if it was eight across the board because yes my recommendation did a switch to try to fill this 4.4 million dollar gap there was a very specific reason yet we didn't receive the five or more I don't think we anyone mentioned the seven across the board I do seven across the board.

Okay, so when we so with looking at options that we may have in a very tough season, and I'm not gonna say I want us to get a zero tax, but we need a tax increase.

We need to keep up with the infrastructure investments that are needed.

We have too many sinkholes popping up uptown because we're still dealing with areas that have 150 year old pipes but at the same time, some things that we are attempting, are they a necessity right now?

It's a good to have and it's a convenient piece for you, and it's good for the community to have that take home vehicle.

If you live in a neighborhood and you see that that your neighbor is an officer, but it's also only as good as me knowing you.

Because if you don't come to any other neighborhood events, and I don't actually see you, that's not really helping me.

Right now, I'm trying to figure out how to make sure we don't cut this budget around technology and around overtime.

That amount is a good two half.

I would like to know what the number is for the replacement since this is purchase and replace.

How many vehicles we already have out there?

Now, which you don't have to have that now, but that's something that would be helpful as far as what that cost could be if we're not talking about purchasing and replacing.

Sure.

Thank you, madam mayor.

All right, so thank you.

Um Councilmember Mayfield.

So the two things I think are really really important.

Um so let me answer your question directly.

I do believe that the vehicle replacement is ongoing.

So a cut to the vehicle replacement would be ongoing if you wanted to reduce that and increase compensation for fire.

I will say things two things are really really important.

Um with police and fire.

Well, three things.

One, it would be great to have um a policy on parity.

Um, the other thing which is really important is when the police chief came on board, she asked for three things.

She that would help her with recruitment because we are whether it's 300 down with 80 people in a recruit class or however you want to count it, we're down.

And while we're making progress, and she said three things 10% increase, um, take home vehicles and dash camps.

So the other thing is really really important.

I think if she were here, she'd also tell you she probably needs another 400 officers, in addition to what she has now.

So as we start to think about this over the years, and we start to think about recruitment for police, those were the three things that she had asked for.

The other thing with a fire, which is extremely important, is that we're going to build a bunch of stations, we're going to replace a bunch of stations, and with that, we're going to have a number of additional firefighters, which I think is extremely important.

So as we have this conversation around public safety, one of the things we tried to do was to shore up core services around technology, things that nature.

Um I do believe it's a great conversation for the council to have about parity and a policy around that because I think it would help us as we so I guess going back to what I said at the beginning, you could um take reduce the take-home vehicle um bucket.

It would be counter to something that the police chief said that would help with recruitment.

So thank you for that, Manager Jones.

And I appreciate that the chief came in with three asked.

How many years did we work on getting burned center?

I'm with you.

Okay, so we work we had that conversation for over three years to get that burn center, which was detrimental for the training based on today's environment with how we build the type of materials we build, the level of heat, and how quickly that heat escalates.

So I appreciate the fact that she came in with her top three.

You don't get the sun, moon and stalls your first time out.

So this is our first budget.

It's a very strong and a very tight period for us.

If you get one or two out of that three, I would consider that as a win.

Thank you, madam Mayor, Mr.

Graham.

Um thank you, madam Mayor.

Um, and thank you to the staff for what I thought was a very good presentation uh that you sent over the weekend.

I I too and enjoy reading it, right?

But uh but after I read the first page, it was just fool's goal, right?

In terms of the uh of the the overtime pay, right?

It's just not realistic that we can do that, right?

Also the investment in technology.

I agree with Ms.

Mayfield and others, certainly Councilmember Anderson about 30 minutes ago, where she outlined specifically um what I was thinking when I read it over the weekend that this is this not going to work this way, right?

But I do want to find a way to help and and be responsive to the need and certainly I circle again on my paper we need a policy right that help to help drive our decision making.

I think that's been said over over and over again for sure.

And so I'm not sure how we get there with this budget knowing that we have to pass it by by the end of the month right um with all the other stuff that's on our table to consider by the end of the month there's a lot going on here.

But I think that's the direction I hope that we would we we can find our way to to creating a policy and I'm open to any other suggestions that would demonstrate uh that I believe public safety is a team sport and the firefighters are a part of the team uh and and they should be um they should feel that way as well lastly and and and and more importantly um council member johnson I really appreciate the spirit of what you offered about the uh about the tourism tax and the county probably is probably half of my district that we're talking about right and so there's a significant difference between Charlotte and Keratar County in terms of our needs our wants our aspirations and our financial standing with the bond agencies right that we have to take in consideration um before we um and allow the attorneys to interpret the decisions uh before we start looking at it for how we can use the funds uh differently now I'm I'm very flexible and the court said we can do we we should do it very narrowly as relates to tourism not very broadly to pay for overtime so I think we really need to understand um the decision uh and then as I said before prior to the decision being made just because we can don't mean that we should right and and we got we have a lot at stake a lot to do that benefits frontline workers um who work in the travel and tourism industry right and we talk about workers all the time and there are a lot of workers that make a living of our investment in travel and tourism um for a wide variety of reasons and certainly making sure our travelers are safe whether in town is consistent with the with the general reading of the statute but I I just think we ought to be really really um conservative in our approach um because again I represent a district of 125000 and that's not even my district is bigger than Hull County right and and our preference and think how we work and how we utilize our resources and certainly maintaining our bond rating is extremely important.

Thank you.

All right J D uh thank you mayor uh th thanks staff and thanks colleagues for uh your um recommendations I I do want to kind of double click on the hospitality tax I I am in favor of of moving that towards public safety and as we talk about where to allocate these funds I I do want to raise that I I think all residents of Charlotte pay across um the board for increased security and oftentimes more increased security and uptown uh further events and no residual kind of um what's it called uh benefit uh or or um a return of investment uh residual quality of life uh improvements.

Um so i'm I'm wondering, Manager jones, um the and and staff uh really the possibility of of increasing the msd uh funds can be used for public safety budget, what so uh and I want to make sure the city attorney um make sure I'm saying what's right.

So you have uh in your um MSD, in all of your MSDs, there are certain criteria of how they use the money.

Um and I believe within the criteria of how they use the money that there's a possibility whether it's for um the built environment, or whether it's for safety, I think that it would be open to what's in the certain um requirements of the MSDs, but they would be only related to the MSD and not citywide.

Okay, got it.

And I only ask that because I am a new member of council, right?

And so I want to make sure what's on the table and what's not on the table.

So I want to make sure we are um looking at all available options, right?

Uh uh, not because I'm, you know, want to penalize one district over another or MSD over another.

I I but I'm also very aware of the fact that, like during the weekends, we we have a lot of you know resources allocated to center city because events are taking place, right?

Because people are staying in that area, they're staying in hotels, they're going to our soccer events, our music events, etc.

And so oftentimes though, I do hear from constituents that they feel left out where those events are happening because all of our resources, all of our public safety efforts are geared towards that, as they should be, but is there a way that the bill is in foot with everybody else and and uh there?

So you know what I mean?

Just making sure that it's equitable.

Thank you.

All right, let's see.

I don't think that um Miss Owens, Miss Ashmira, excuse me.

Okay, I think that we have you there.

It's we're keeping on going.

No, we're would you like to have Ms.

Ashmir follow you follow you or the okay?

Okay, the two of you, yeah, just decide.

Mayor, can I just ask a point of information?

Are we meant to and this is a wonderful presentation, Marie?

Thank you for your team's work here.

But are we meant to go through this entire packet this evening?

Mayor, or are we gonna just stay stick with this one topic as it's 6 30?

So the goal only address one topic.

My understanding was that it was to be about the first item that we had on the agenda, so so moving.

Yes, Miss Um, if I may, madam, sorry.

Go ahead.

Um, Miss Anderson, that is the goal tonight to go through any whatever and whatever you want, or whatever you don't want.

So it's for this council to decide.

You have the manager's proposed budget, so anything on here that you want to make a motion to make an adjustment to the proposed budget, and then the end of this evening, before we leave, to make a motion to direct the city manager to make the budget ordinance based on any of these changes.

And I do believe this is probably the most um one with the butt most variables.

So hopefully after you get through this, it'll be more straightforward.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Thank you, Marie.

All right, so you'll um okay.

Um, so a couple of things.

I do want to just point out um Airbnb does pay the taxes, it's automatic.

Um, if you have stayed in the Airbnb recently, you would notice on your receipt that you pay the taxes.

So just to put that topic to bed, they they are paying um their share.

Um, as it relates to overall policy, right?

I know that and I hope that we'll see a motion here in short order on um on this particular topic, but also for some policy referrals.

Um I do think though that what we're seeing in this whole conversation and this budget process is uh a need to now really assess our holistic structure.

How are we modeling and analyzing for growth?

How are we looking at our our economic development incentives?

How are we looking at how our tourism um tours tourism related public safety expenditures are captured and does it pencil out?

How are MSDs funding particular items?

I think that we've got to look at all of those things, and we've got to look at them holistically.

So I would like to see a suite of referrals go out to the committees in after this budget season closes, but as soon as possible, so that there's time to really take a look so that we're not in a year from now asking these same holistic questions about org models and about use of dollars in particular budgets because we have a better understanding of what we're building for and where we actually are.

Um that is the theme for me in this conversation is we simply don't have the data to really assess um what we need versus what we what we have.

Um the other things that I would just mention is that as it relates to um revenue opportunities.

That's one that has come up in my mind as we're thinking about different places to cut.

I do think there's opportunity to still talk about where we can generate revenue, even if that's conversations that need to be taken to the general assembly around like land value tax or um ways that we can partner with um private partners or academic partners to test new technologies.

There we we have a whole city that has needs, and there are uh certainly innovators in the private sector that are are looking for partners to run those kind of models or looking for partners with with our kind of data.

Um, so I definitely want us to continue to investigate that path of how we can generate revenue from our assets.

Um I did want to just double-click on this technology budget.

What I heard you say, Mr.

Manager, or what I took from it was that this budget is basically two million dollars higher than it was last year.

And based on my questions to the uh chief, and certainly correct me if I'm wrong, what I'm distinguishing between are technologies that are required for operations and maintenance, and technology investments that may be um innovation improvements going forward.

There's there's a very real difference between the two.

It doesn't sound like this list has been vetted in the sense that it's gone through any kind of advanced engineering.

There are no project justifications.

We don't even know what the scope specifically would be to determine how much it would actually cost and what the net benefit would be to our operations or to our um to our budget.

So I I just want to make a distinction and make sure that I heard you clearly that we're not deciding between keeping the lights on as it relates to this technology budget.

Absolutely.

Okay, that's what I thought.

Thank you for that.

Um, so all of that being said, uh certainly it sounds like there's some energy around here for um was it the seven percent.

Um so in order to push this conversation along, I would go ahead and make that motion for a seven percent increase for um for fire and police across the board across the board.

7% across the board.

Second, okay.

So um would you repeat repeated again, Ms.

Watlington?

Um across the board, 7% increase for fire and police.

Fire and police.

Police instead of a 10 and seven.

I think what I'm hearing.

Okay.

So you have a motion on the table.

There's a lot of conversations.

We'll just start around this.

I think we can go this way.

Ms.

Anderson.

Okay.

Uh thank you, madam mayor.

And I I appreciate us landing to a place of this conversation.

Um, just given my understanding of the ask from the chief and our need states with our our vacated roles, even the wonderful work that they did last week with the hotel raid on Reagan Drive, took supplemental help from the FBI and other divisions along the department.

I I want to move forward with uh the chief's plan that she put forward to attract, most importantly, attract and retain the officers that she has with her ass.

So I I can't support a position where we are going to reduce the CMPD officers down to seven percent.

I am absolutely leaning into the opportunity to um get our CFD officers to that 10% level um so I'm more about getting that getting them there versus reducing CMPD so I won't be able to support that but I understand the motion that's on the floor thank you madam mayor all right miss mayo I would we'll just miss mayo you have a I don't madam mayor I I support the seven percent um pay increase across the board so excited for us to take that vote in a couple seconds hopefully all right I do have I think you made the motion is on so you made the motion so we assume that you support it oh I'm sorry um I was going around I didn't know I wasn't sure I thought we would just have a people make comments I didn't know we're going to no I exactly I was sure that we had a motion on the floor and I was trying to make sure that we had someone that approves the motion and then we would go around going around it is that yeah well there was a motion and a second so it's on the motion it's on the floor but discussion yeah so to ask to answer your direct question I'm okay to support the 10 and the seven or the seven and the seven um the motion on the floor is just basically because it sounds like we've got um more of a consensus so I'm I'm open to either one all right okay I wanted to comment on the motion um I agree with council member anderson so at the budget adjustment meeting we had increased all employees to seven percent and that would lead to minus three percent for cmpd and it only had three so that's why it wasn't uh it wasn't on our agenda for today but I understand anyone can make a motion I I will not be able to support it because of the high vacancy rate that we have and we know at the town hall when CMPD presented they clearly mentioned the need for more officers and some of the response times that we were lagging especially for priority two calls was because of the higher vacancy with CMPD.

So I would certainly be in support of increasing firefighters to 10% uh but I would not want to uh reduce the CMPD down to seven percent uh we clearly need we have a urgency here with the staffing at CMPD and also we have to ensure that the take home vehicles stays within the budget because that is the number one recruiting tool as well as retention tool as per the chief so I I would not be able to support this motion too all right no we already have it we're going around here so is this I think Ms Ashmir is all right so now Miss Johnson just go with the options I'm not a little bit confused as to what we're doing because there was a motion and there was a second this isn't really discussion if people are just saying I can't support I can't support it can we call it now Ms.

call the question on the question um is that we still now we gotta vote to call the question.

Yeah right we have to vote to call the question so all in favor of the motion yeah my apologies because councilmember graham makes a valid point we were going around but we were just going around the room versus just raising your hand so if the if it was speaking to the actual issue that the motion then I support that Miss Johnson will you go ahead and start I'll pass all right Miss Mayfield JD with the motion didn't pass.

She's just letting everything everybody's got a everybody has a chance to talk about this because it's a lot.

So all right, Mr.

Graham.

No, and I I think it's a legitimate thing that we're we're discussing um but I hate that we're kind of pinning one against the other, right?

Fire versus police.

We we don't want to be here because they're both valuable and they both in their own way provide the type of safety net that our community needs.

Listen, we've had a long year going back to last fall uh with issues related to public safety, and uh I can and we're addressing those issues both in terms of the steps that we made along the way to uh demonstrate um both here at home and away uh that we're investing and doing the things necessary to keep our citizens safe.

Part of that is investing in our in our police department and getting folks uh employed.

We need more officers desperately.

Uh, we got to support our police chief and giving her the resources that she needs to get those officers in the door and to stay there when they get here.

And you know, I went to two public safety committee meetings last week, one for Uptown Charlotte with Central City Partners, the other uh well, today actually with Councilmember Anderson.

Uh you know, the police officers are engaged, they are um motivated.

Um there when you have to fraternal order police and the council and the community all on the same page in terms of moving in in a in a forward direction, uh I I don't think we should undercut that by reducing uh the salary for the police officers and the the equipment that we have, at least I have pledged uh that I would be willing to provide them for uh to move us forward.

So um I'll be voting, I'll be voting no.

Mayor, sorry.

I mean, Ms.

Owens.

So I I put this out into the room in large part because I wanted to have an appreciation for whether we had any um real feel for how this would affect the numbers, and we don't really have that.

So I think it's been discussed that was maybe seven or eight.

I am aligned with council member mayfield that you don't always get what you want, and those three things, you know, the the take-home vehicles I heard a lot about, and I think that I I would very much like to see that stay.

Dash cams for me are essential not only for our police officers but also for our residents.

I think that's absolutely essential that we are able to capture in real time what is going on with our police stops.

So I wouldn't want to change either of those.

And so that really leaves me that third lever, which is if you want to align C uh the fire department and CMPD, then perhaps we align them at something less than this 10%.

Is it seven?

Is it eight?

I don't know.

So I don't know where we go on the motion that's on the floor right now without being able to see how that maps out and whether you can accomplish some of the other goals by just taking a little bit off of that percentage.

Does anybody can noodle that fairly quickly and put that into the room or most objective optimization problem?

Exactly.

Go for it, girl.

Get your calculator out.

I don't know.

I I just I just put that into the room because I knew that it had been a discussion point.

But you know, do we need to have first the parody conversation?

I mean, is that another motion?

Is that your colleagues to make it?

No, we've got a motion on the floor.

I just you know, I'd like to see what that looks like, and so I'm curious about that.

I don't know that I prepared to vote for that.

I want to understand what looking at those numbers does to the rest of the asks that we've got.

All right, so call to the way.

No, I have been.

Mr.

Mitchell, can we just call it a question?

Yes, she yes, yes.

Uh mayor council, thank you.

I think some of the comments uh run the diets are very important that we try to address the budget.

Uh councilman Mayfield brought up a good point.

Someone come in and do we give them all three of the first year.

Um, but I think we heard loud and clear about CMPD and our staffing levels, and so if I had to prioritize which one was more important to me, the 10%, um, the cars or the I can't remember her third one.

Dash cams.

Dash cam.

To me, we need to have bodies out in the community so this community can feel safe.

And so I'm more of a fan of the 10% for CMPD and trying to get our fire department with the 10%.

So uh I would not be supporting the the motion on the floor, but I'm interested, maybe a chair of public safety.

If uh there's another motion about 10% for CMPD.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, all right.

So I know how difficult it is for us to have this, but I want to make sure that if you had something to say that would you want to have the opportunity to say it, that now it is the time, and I think that um Miss Johnson.

Did you know?

Miss Mayfield?

Okay, all right, Ms.

Anderson.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I just had a very quick follow-up.

We Charlotte is a very unique city where our fire and police train on the same grounds, they co-share their training grounds.

Um their classes quite often train together.

They have a a kinship amongst the two that carries on after folks graduate from the academy and get and get into the line of duty.

And so I want us to just be cognizant of that that they have this unique kinship that we don't see in other cities, and I want to make sure that as we're talking about this conversation that we're sensitive to not potentially putting one as Mr.

Graham said against the other, because that's not what we want to do at all.

We want to make sure that this is team Charlotte and one team together as it relates to public safety.

So I just want to make that uh disclaimer around this conversation because that relationship is critically important.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Mr.

Jones, I'm sorry.

I wasn't gonna say anything, but I'm confused how we think that paying one 10 percent and one seven percent doesn't pick one one against the other.

It seven percent equal to me does the opposite.

It shows that we value Team Charlotte.

So I just, you know, when you and we're not reducing CMPD's salary, so words matter.

Councilmember Graham, like you always say, we're not there is no reduction to CMP salary.

This was a proposed increase.

We are proposing an equal increase for our public safety workers at seven percent.

If seven percent was good enough for our firefighters, I think that the message should be that it's it's the amount that we are um suggesting, it saves money for our citizens, and it's an equal pay raise for our public safety officers.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

All right, so wait, wait, can I come to the I'm sorry?

Because one, I see we have someone that ha actually has the ability to help us do what we're trying to do, and so I'm gonna the manager is asked about this.

All right, okay.

Um, thank you, Mayor Rems of Council.

Right, so um and I want to run the summer twice because it's just all right, so um seven and seven is about a six point three million dollars savings.

Okay, eight and eight, is about a two point eight million dollar savings.

Is that right?

Nine and nine is a cost of about seven hundred and sixty-five thousand.

With all the things that we've discussed today, would still be in play if you're at the nine and nine, whether or not you wanted to reduce any of these things, but you would reduce them less.

And I'm I'm looking one more time because this just does this math doesn't work in my head right now.

Are you sure about this?

Who's doing the math?

The whole team, you should have a friendly amendment.

Can I do a friendly amendment to change the percentage?

Nine across the board.

No men, no, I can't do a friendly.

That would be a friendly order, like guys.

Commission allows if you accept it.

Like one motion at a time, and then we move on.

I'm talking about that and it's sometimes working on it.

I'm not opposed to a friendly amendment, but it sounds like we're trying to get the data together to know if that's even really feasible.

Yeah.

I thought we already have a question.

Can we just call the question?

We have a motion on the floor.

Can we have the second?

I think we need to call the question.

Uh well, as the motion maker, I'll withdraw my motion before I rush this decision when they're trying to do data.

I think we have to go through with the staff to give us the time and be able to provide the information to the manager, manager.

And we ask them to do 8.5.

Can they run out while they're at it?

No.

I think if you did nine, once again, instead of trying to reduce these things by 4.4 million, it's it's three quarters of a million.

And whether you take a little piece from technology, a little piece from overtime, it's very different than 4.4 million, right?

So I think within everything that we've said to you today, we could sort through a way to get to 765,000 within public safety.

Okay, so at this point right here, you're competent in that number.

You don't look like it.

Yes, I think it's like more 820, but it's right around there.

We're good with the number.

All right.

Well, um, Councilmember Owens, you had a friendly amendment.

What was it?

I was proposing to change the percentage um from a seven percent across the board to a nine percent across the board.

I'm okay with that.

There, I don't know if the second is.

As the second, and I know I'm not gonna say that, so y'all have to start.

Someone else seconds at this point.

All right, so that's the motion on the floor.

Wait a minute.

We had a motion on the floor.

Yeah, the second was withdrawn, but the there was a new side.

I um accepted her friendly amendment, but we lost the second for that motion, so Joy just or Councilmember Mayo just seconded it.

So there's still a motion on the floor for nine percent across the board.

All right, Miss I thought I missed anything.

Yeah, call to question.

I don't know.

I think that we've had a a lot of conversation, and it's probably just time for us to say, let's go as a council.

Let's go ahead and see where we stand on this pride of on the motion.

All right.

Thank you.

I have a question, manager.

So you we just went back and forth on a whole bunch of numbers.

What's that new total at nine?

Because where we started out was trying to find savings.

So how do we go from trying to find savings to then being over?

Because you called out if we did seven across the board, that would have saved us six million as some change.

Then they calculated at eight, they calculated it at nine.

We started going over the amount.

So what is now the dollar amount that we're looking at?

So uh about 765,000 dollars in the whole over.

Over.

Okay, so we will be at 765,000 deficit.

But instead of trying to solve for 4.4 million, you're only trying to solve for 765,000.

And what I would suggest, if this is what the council would want to do, is to go back into those various pots that we have.

Instead of trying to take 4.4 million out of it, just take roughly three quarters of a million out of it.

So all of that with these latest numbers that the team just ran, still is under your original proposed tax rate that we're still gonna have a conversation about because my colleagues have asked for you to figure out how to reduce the taxes.

So with this new number that we've come up with, we still are this is still in your current proposed budget at the current tax rate, that we have asked you to figure out how to reduce, correct?

Okay, just making sure, thank you.

All right, so um, I believe that everyone has had an opportunity.

So the motion was Ms.

Mayo's.

No one, it's what second in by mail.

Ms.

Wellington's money.

Ms.

Wattlington, Miss Watlington.

Thank you.

You had the second.

Yes, ma'am.

All right, we have the second.

All in favor of the motion, please raise your hands.

All right.

Can we see one?

It's fine.

Two three, four, five, six.

Anybody else?

No, just five.

Just five.

Okay.

All right.

All opposed.

We'll make your motion.

Okay.

So I want to.

One, two, three, four, five.

So I'll make a motion to.

Is that a so I'll make a motion to do a deferral.

There.

I'm sorry.

Was it okay?

Can I have a count?

It was five.

Six five.

Six five.

So it did not pass.

So I'm going to make a motion to start to defer the increase by a few months.

That gives us three point, sorry.

And Madam Ashmer, if I may, that's one time savings you're looking at.

I get it.

But then I will make a second motion after that to do a study.

I mean, not study, the policy.

So my motion is though.

Do a seven point five percent increase to fire and two point ongoing and two point five percent one time increase to fire to get it at ten percent, and refer this item to the committee to set a policy on pay parity and establishing the appropriate baseline.

I'll second.

All right, we have a second, Miss Mayfield.

Marie budget team, break down the financial impact of what council member it's a hedge mayor just.

Page four.

Okay, thanks.

And just to make sure I've captured it correctly, you said seven and a half ongoing across the board, and then two and a half.

Yeah, so under, you know, on page four, you got this table, and then you got this seven and a half percent ongoing, and then two and a half percent one time, and that results in one time cost of three point nine ongoing seven savings of a million about nine nine oh seven, and my motion is to then refer it to the committee for a policy on pay parry.

Sorry, all right.

So then our and I apologize, I should be it's just I'm I'm getting confused with all the options.

You are you proposing this table, so that would give fire ten percent.

That's right, but seven and a half percent is ongoing and two and a half percent is one time.

So that gives us a time to do the study.

Uh I'm work on the policy.

And so that's a little bit different than this, because this is with the steps, so you're just saying across the board seven and a half, and then so everybody gets seven and a half, and then two and a half lump for everybody.

So just the is a little bit different than this.

No, I'm talking about the fire, yes, ma'am.

So this table right here, fire.

See on page four.

Page four on page four, you got the second table, yes, ma'am.

You see the last column?

I'm I'm sorry, last row, ten percent is great, seven and a half percent on ongoing, two and a half percent one time, and that results in the last box right there, where it says one time cost of three point nine million and ongoing savings, and then my motion is to refer this to the committee to set a policy on pay parity.

So, and just so I I'm sorry, just so I explained that table better, it's a little confusing.

So that that is a ten percent increase.

So the option two is what equals the numbers at the bottom.

So option two is a five percent market, then get the step, and then anybody that didn't get up to ten with those two would get a lump to make it up to 10.

So then what's the difference between that and I I mean, isn't that the same 10 percent?

So, so it's just telling you who would get what.

So if you did option two, then there would be 18 um employees to get that, and then percentage got okay, yeah.

That's it.

Yeah, so that this is the way we get to 10%, and it's a one-time now.

No, I think Mr.

Jones is still trying to figure out the math, and so I don't know, that is this not correct, it is not right.

Okay.

Ms.

Johnson.

Thank you, madam Mayor.

Ms.

Harris, can you give us the numbers again?

You gave us the numbers with the uh seven percent raise would have saved six point six million dollars.

So you're saying seven percent across the board?

Yes, that would have saved six point three million.

Six point three million, and there was another number that you that saved two million dollars.

Roughly two point eight is if they both got um, eight across the percent across the board, and then nine percent uh put us over by seven hundred thousand, right?

Yeah, closer to eight, yes, closer to eight hundred thousand.

So why didn't anyone propose the eight percent across the board?

Because that's not what I'm interested in.

Okay, I'd like to make a substitute motion.

Okay, please.

Well, did her motion get a second?

Yeah, yeah, she did.

Okay, I like to make a substitute motion.

I think before you so Mr.

Jones now has numbers that he'd like to share with us.

All right, let's go with that.

Oh nine percent, yes.

So thank you, members of council.

So um, unlike option two on the board, we're just spread out really a five percent ongoing with the um five percent one time.

What council member Ashmirror has asked for seven and a half seven and a half percent ongoing.

That's right, the last rule, and they and a two and a half percent.

One time one time, okay, and so the so the ongoing is seven hundred and fifty thousand, just for fire, that's because it's only one uh half a percent.

Okay, one more okay, and then uh three point eight is one time, that's right.

Okay, so what's important about that is one time if you were to go into any of these options, it just applies to FY27.

That's right, that's right.

But then it would be the technology would be back to where it was in 28, 29, and 30, the overtime would be back to so it does work in the sense that's um 750,000 is ongoing um with 3.8 million is the one time.

Yes, and I'm gonna come back to how to solve the math problem, but I just want to make sure there is consensus before we get to that.

Are you asking for a motion?

Yes, I there is already a motion on the motion, and a second and a second, so and a substitute.

I think we have a substitute motion.

Yes as well, and so we'll go with the substitute motion is by understanding.

Substitute motion was for eight percent for fire and police and to save our taxpayers two point eight million dollars.

Oh, and that and then you talk about equal pay for public safety workers, okay.

Does no second?

Take some time and make sure that we there's no second.

We do we have a second?

No.

The the motion is all right, eight percent across the board.

So it's eight percent across the board.

I believe Ms.

Johnson has said about on the substitute motion, vote on the substitute motion.

Okay, on the substitute motion.

What's on a second?

No, uh, so we're gonna go.

So we go back to the order.

Call to question.

Is there a second on the substitute motion?

No second at all.

No second.

Okay, just clarifying.

I thought I heard something.

Yeah, no second.

So we can question.

No second, okay.

All right.

Ms.

Johnson.

So call to question because I do have a second.

Well, but you can't call a question unless everybody who's wanting to be called.

Of course, I know.

I get it, but I don't see any hands raised.

No, I'm ready to vote on this motion.

Okay, so we have we have the motion.

All in favor of the motion, please raise your hand.

That one is seven, oh my god.

I'm going with the 2.5 one time, which puts the fire department at 10%.

Just and then he refers it to the committee just to discuss a policy on pay parity, and I think now we have a motion.

Instead of fixing pay parity today, we're gonna talk about it.

That's right.

Is that how we're acting operating?

We've already had we had a vote.

Did we finish?

I had missed.

I thought that you actually started with the voting.

I have not voted.

Okay, we have not voted.

Okay, thank you.

On the seven, all right, yeah.

Seven and a half.

Okay.

Okay, so let's have that on the motion.

All in favor of the motion.

I think I think there's some discussions.

There is a lot of discussion going on, as usual.

Are you clear with understanding what the motion is?

Not even a little bit.

Okay, can you please restate the motion?

Yeah, I would just let Marie.

If you could just walk us through my motion one more time, and uh, cost associated orders.

Okay, thank you.

So it would be instead of the manager's proposed seven percent now and the proposed budget, it'd be an additional half percent up to seven and a half percent, not up to, it would be seven and a half percent across the board, with an addition of a two and a half percent one time.

So for this current year across the board, um, everybody in the fire system public safety pay plan would get ten, and again, with seven and a half percent being ongoing, and the manager I believe got from my team that would be around um still around the eight hundred thousand, yes, seven, for ongoing, and then the three point eight for it would we could achieve that from delaying the payment until August.

I was gonna make that separately because I I just want to make sure there's consensus before I get to that part.

Let me ask a question.

She said across the board, so that's police and fire, no, across the board for fire.

And so police are still getting 10.

Yes, according to the motion, yes.

Yeah, this will get us to 10 percent while we discuss the policy.

Okay, for the we have a motion on the floor, all in favor of the motion.

Please raise your hand, one, two, three, three, four.

Okay, it feels good.

So, madam, madam mayor.

If I may, I'd like to make a motion that we proceed with uh the proposed ten percent for CMPD as well as the 10% for CFD.

Second, we have a motion on the we have a motion on the floor for 10 percent.

So it's on wing cost, CMPD, and is that 10% for prior.

Yes, I'm sorry, madam mayor.

Yes, so keeping the pay parity increase for ten percent for CMPD as proposed as well as 10% for CFD, and that's a hard percentage, not just a one time 2.5 one time bump is 10% for CMPD and 10% for CFD.

What's Watlington?

Uh um Chief, can you please come back?

Because now we're back to the original discussion, it sounds like so.

I just want to make one thing very clear in my mind about where you stand.

We don't know what the bonding for this option is.

We don't like the so for now, but they know we gave us an option.

We just want to.

Okay, so on page this, okay.

What we're looking at right here where it says funding option, just so I'm clear.

This 4.4 is the cost to when it's not questioned necessarily for you, Mr.

Manager or Marie.

This cost reflects 10% for fire, and we're already assuming 10% for CF or for CMPD.

Correct.

Okay, Chief.

Are you okay with these adjustments here?

And if so, why?

Our number one priority is making sure we have pay parity with CMPD.

And so we can continue to work on the overtime as the manager has stated, and the technology components.

We have some other opportunities that we can um utilize to make sure that we're getting done what we need to get done.

I think if there's some questions as to how it will impact us, we'll work through those.

Okay, so you can sleep at night as long as your folks get to I will sleep tonight yes okay thank you sir that's helpful for me so I I have a question I have a question so this 4.4 million is ongoing cost is that correct okay correct sorry but these are and these are ongoing sources okay just want to make sure yes ma'am I know we have a motion and a second yeah okay so we have a motion and a second all in favor please raise your hand all right I think you have a I do believe that we have we have all opposed anyone opposed this one is opposed so thank you Ms.

Alright got it all right so we finally back to the we're here it passes we increase um die fire the fire got 1050 next item so we didn't do that um technology so we've we've actually accomplished one thing that works just one thing give yourself a hand one that's a big one until that's a big one let's go let's go to page three or four and and just to clarify I believe I heard earlier consensus about um for the um item on the modified duty positions since they're already in place right now I think I heard consensus around uh a policy uh policy change versus additional positions but I just wanted to make sure we'll yeah I'll just make a motion for that uh to refer this to the committee to modify the current policy and program to explore eligibility from the current five year maximum to 10 year maximum land to the committee that we'll go to the I believe that's within the chiefs purview but he can I believe it's within the chief's purview but he can report out second second and so the committee would go to the BGIR.

Okay to the budget committee so do we need to take all in favor in favor please raise your hands one two three five we have enough um any opposed anyone opposed nope all right so let's move to the next item is that on page five and I do have another motion and yeah just no this is for uh conversation that councilmember johnson and others had raised about hospitality MSD so I would like us to explore to Councilmember Owen's point about targeted um targeted items to see if there are any if there is anything that the general fund is subsidizing that should come out of hospitality for this budget or the next one is this no this is but this is a policy deferral okay I'll second that okay we have a motion and a second for a policy referral over the um hospitality and amnesty and so it includes everything that council member johnson and council member masterarias mentioned and so I don't know that I have a do you have a copy of that all of your we're good okay we're okay Miss Johnson yes I wanted to ask our budget team um what was the total available in that occupancy tax the total budgeted revenue of oxygen tax across the three funds is approximately 82 million dollars for FY27 but as we talked about in committee today it's always important to remember what commitments have already been made to that since as you know Spectrum Center Bank America Stadium and all those that all those commitments that we have out there and some of the ones that we know are coming ahead to us so I I think a positive for will give us the opportunity to sort of see the impacts of those and just so I'm clear that's comparing apples to apples right with the other well the specific tax, the tax that the other county used, right?

That's what we're betting to see what those with those rules are thank you.

Okay, Mr.

Grant.

I'm sorry, Mr.

Driggs.

So as we approach that topic, I just hope we are mindful of the fact that uh the hospitality taxes are basically kind of a business transaction.

So a tax is levied on the customers of the hospitality industry, and the proceeds are reinvested toward the goal of achieving greater proceeds to the hospitality industry.

So it's a cash on cash type of transaction.

If we start diverting to our general fund, that is a use that is different in character, and therefore, as I say, I think we need to be very mindful of for one, the General Assembly's intent when they gave us the authority to levy these taxes, and two, the important role that the hyper hospitality industry must play in uh determining any reallocation of those monies.

Thanks.

All right, thank you.

Anyone else over on the side?

If that we'll go, Ms.

Mayo.

Thank you.

Uh Marie, when when we kind of start looking at that policy, I would be interested.

Um, I know we talked about the military games costing like having a 23 million dollar ask, and some of that being in kind, um, and I would suspect some of that will be like police um time.

Right.

I wonder if those would be opportunities for us to use that tourism dollar for some of that in kind um support for that type of event and similar events that we're having that are dealing with hospitality.

Um, so I think that may be something we can think outside of the box with when we know that you know, those events do need police officers, firefighters, public safety dollars.

Can we potentially divest some of those high housing trust fund dollars?

Or not excuse me, pardon me.

Um, sorry, um sorry, uh uh hospitality dollars to that.

Sorry, thank you.

All right, thank you.

All right, I I just want to make sure as part of my motion, I would like to see a list of all the items that could be subsidized, that is currently being subsidized from the general fund that we could use the hospitality fund source for.

So I that is part of the overall policy.

And to Councilmember Masterarias, if we can also get a list of all of the if there is any obviously, any general fund resources that are being used that if the MSD source could have been used for, so yeah, all right, okay, all right.

Let's go, Miss and call.

Okay.

No, Marie, what's the next item on the we didn't vote on this?

Oh, we haven't voted on that.

Let's go on the referral.

If you want to make that referral, you can refer to it.

I'll use the motion in a second.

But if you just want to just do it, okay.

But there's a motion on the floor.

We're voting on it.

Let's vote.

Yep.

All in favor.

All right.

Thank you very much.

That's all opposed to anyone opposed, right?

Okay, two and three, three, four, four, five.

Okay.

Four opposed.

Okay, thank you.

And now to move forward with the items.

If you if the next one is for hourly employees, we had um to explore four percent increases.

They're currently proposed in the proposed budget, it's four percent increase.

Um, in sorry, salary increases, but it's two components.

There is a part that's a market adjustment, and then another part that's a merit component, and then there was a motion to explore making it all across the board versus any merit component, and that would not have a dollar impact as we're already budgeted for four.

It's just important to note like when we looked worked with HR to look so far at this year.

What's proposed for 27 is similar to what was proposed.

I mean, what's current in the current year budget, which was a market and a merit component, and on average, right now it's running around 4.3, I believe, is what it was.

So just to let you know there's a little bit of wiggle room, they're usually able to give a little bit more than the um average, and that would be taken away because it would be across the board only four percent.

And we do hear from directors about how they would really like that merit component to be able to reward and retain.

Like if you have a five-person team and you have a superstar, and they get the same as the person that's not a super of a star, um, that might be deflating to them, so they like it as a recruitment, I mean a retention aspect as well, all right.

Mayo and Ms.

Mayo?

Thank you.

Um, I like to make a motion that we remove the merit component and provide a four percent increase for all general hourly city workers not tied to performance.

All right, we have a motion on the floor, Miss Ms.

Anderson.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

So Marie, I just had a question about what you said um just now.

If there is a removal of a merit-based portion of the increase, what does that mean?

Does that mean that any all employees that are uh receive a you know on standard um rating or high standard will receive the same merit, or will all employees, even those that are not at standard or if they're potentially below standard, will they receive this across the board?

Below standard, no.

Okay, but it's more of past fail.

So if you're meets basics, then you would get four.

If you're super exceeds, you get four.

But to your point, if you're not meeting the standards, you would be on a performance improvement plan and not get it.

Right, and so when we think of our our levels of um at the annual review, no, I think she just checking.

Sorry, I'm double checking my facts with the okay.

Hold on one second.

Okay, sorry, sorry.

So HR just corrected me.

So even if you don't meet across the board, you'd still get it.

And that's no matter your performance, even if you're not meeting.

Thank you.

And that that's the rub that I have with this particular uh motion is because that's what I thought.

Just wanted to verify that with the with the pros here.

Effectively, someone who's doing an exceptional job and they get an exceptional rating versus someone who is not doing their job and they get a below standard rating.

We're saying those folks are doing the same level of work and will receive the same uh increase.

I think that's troublesome for a variety of different ways, just being regular workforce uh environment, organizational development, creating career ladders for folks to be to advance, um, to be encouraged to move forward.

I have trouble with that in particular.

Um, but the second piece of what I want to say is for those, so when you have someone who has an exceptional rating in the work that they do, typically, you know, there's an opportunity maybe for uh a one-time bonus or an additional percentage increase with this particular motion that we have, there's no real opportunity to reward someone who is spent 365 days of exceptional performance versus someone who spent 365 days of below standard performance.

So I won't be able to support this motion given that type of interaction with our employees' performance, but certainly want to uh land at a place where employees are able to receive their increase if they're doing a great job.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

And just real quick point of clarification.

So if you're exceeds, you would get more typically you get more than four, and you could get up to six and a half a combination with the with the one time with the market, thank you.

Not one time with the market and the merit, you could get up to six and a half.

All right, Ms.

Hm.

It's just I want to make sure because there was some back and forth there.

So under the motion that council member Mayo made, even those who are on performance improvement plan would get four percent.

Everyone across the board, yes, ma'am.

Okay, that's okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Let's see.

Ms.

Owen and Mr.

Drake.

So if I could, and and forgive, this is my first rodeo.

Um, did we not just agree that we're gonna give without performance being an aspect?

The police and the fire.

So you could be a sub car police officer, and you can be a subpar firefighter, and you still get the 10%.

I'm not sure, do they always get their step, regardless of performance?

I guess the chief so it is it is not passable, it's across the board, yeah.

Okay, I'm just trying to understand.

Um, we know the answer to that.

Okay, can you say that louder to council member owls?

So, council member owens just wanted to clarify while we're talking about um this uh what we're talking about now as relates to what we just passed with um public safety, public safeties across the board regardless, just like Miss Mayo had proposed.

So, has public safety ever had a performance component to their yes, that's our perk.

I'm phoning a friend in HR, Amanda Dillard in the back row.

Kelly may be able to speak to more than what some police does.

Correct.

So we're not police officers, we're calling up for you.

You're the next assistant.

Come on down, don't be shy.

Absolutely nothing.

Yeah, that's what I thank you.

You want me to repeat the question?

Yes, ma'am, please.

Can you clarify for me?

We've just voted on an increase for police and fire that does not seem to be dependent on performance, and so I'd I I'd ask the question has that ever been the case?

And so we've we've always had a distinction between performance for city employees, but not for police and fire.

So if it's across the board pay raise, um you have to have a meets, um PRD.

Um, if you don't have a meets PRD, if you have a marginal PRD, you're gonna go on a uh performance plan, okay.

Um, while you're on a performance plan, Sheila, correct me if I'm wrong, you do not get that pay raise.

Now, if it's across the board, everybody goes up.

If you go from step one to step two, I'm a police officer, but on a year I go to step two, I have to get a PRD of meets to go to step two.

That's your performance.

If it's across the board, Sheila, everybody gets that pay raise.

Okay, so Marie, can you help me out then?

You just described the system with city employees differing from that, and that was Councilmember Anderson's point that that felt unfair.

If you're a high performer, you get the same percentage as a low performer for city employees.

Yes, if there's a merit component, okay.

Here's the master.

Sheila Simpson, director of human resources.

There are different pay plans designed for different reasons.

And police and fire, they're on what's called a step plan.

And traditionally, if you talk to, I'll use an example of a firefighter, a firefighter is paid to do a lot of things and they do it in a big group and they get paid to do that, and they can be in a busy station or a not as busy station, and so the philosophy there is you need the unit, that's why they're on a step plan.

Police officers are paid very similarly, you need the unit.

Okay.

Now, if they're not performing, that is a management issue, and we expect the managers to address that issue, and those officers would either uh stop being officers at some point or they're gonna continue to be officers.

But when you're on a step plan, they move with the plan because as a unit, when that unit's performing, they are achieving expectations when a unit is performing.

If you have an under achieving person, then the fire chief and the police chief will deal with that.

But I would guarantee you that if you have a police officer that's on step two, and they move to step three, that police officer is rated achieved overall.

Now, the other plan that you're comparing that to is called a uh pay for performance plan, is what people tend to call it, or a merit based performance plan.

They are not designed the same way, nor were they intended to be designed the same way.

So in our hourly pay group, what happens in the merit-based system is they have two components of pay.

The first component is called a general wage increase.

Everyone in the hourly workforce general employees will receive a general wage increase.

General wage increase is not performance-based, it's a general wage increase.

When you get to the merit component of how they are paid, which I think is in the book for two and a half percent, then they will have a merit-based system of which is correct, some of those employees can earn up to five percent for that part of their merit.

So what you're having is a complexity of trying to compare a gala apple to a honey crisp apple.

Okay, they're they're apples, but they're not the same apple, right?

So I would I would urge you not to compare it in that way.

Uh, but to the point that I think was asked.

Uh, if the uh managers and directors have to evaluate performance uh for any of our general employees, our hourly paid employees or a salary paid employees, when you have a general step, it does make it more difficult for the managers to quote reward your higher performers because this when you take away the merit-based component of it, that's what happens when you take that component away.

So our hourly pay plan by practice has been designed to look at both sides of that.

That's why there's a general wage increase in that sector.

There's a general wage increase that everyone would get, and then there is another component based on performance, thank you, all right.

Everybody come, Mr.

Driggs.

So uh I think it's really important that we uh preserve the performance component because what happens is employees get a performance rating, say one to five, and then they have a compensation level that they're at relative to their peer group.

So when you get high performing employees that are under earning relative, you need the manager needs to have an opportunity to rectify that and and to recognize it.

If you give the same increase to everybody, imagine what it's like.

You're there at your job, and you think it doesn't matter what I do, I get the same increase as that guy.

Uh so uh personally, I feel strongly that we need to give our managers this tool.

We need to have a dynamic pay structure that allows us to compensate for these disparities between performance and comparative pay, and for that reason I would not support just a four percent across the board.

All right, let's see.

Did I have no okay, Ms.

Mayo?

I like to withdraw my motion.

Okay, Miss Beckett.

I don't think it had a we didn't vote on it, so I don't think we have to withdraw of it.

All right, let's go to the next item.

So the next item would be around.

Oh, you you withdraw you.

Never mind, okay.

Okay.

Well, okay, I'm I am fibro baskets.

Okay, tell me.

No, no.

You ready to move to financial partners?

Okay, thank you.

So the next items are around financial partners.

We had two partners that did submit and got rated, and two that they both got five votes to move forward for with your consideration to this evening.

All right, Mr.

Hold on.

Which page?

Page eight.

Okay.

Alright, so you are ready, Mr.

Go ahead and get things right there.

Okay.

Ms.

So Mayor, can I?

Well, wait a minute.

And the proposed funding source for this one?

If you look, there's a couple options, but one of the proposed funding sources is the community investment contingency.

And there's also important to note that housing and neighborhood services is going to be holding a competitive process for community development block grants, CDBG funding in the coming months and um for the struggle, as well as other partners are also eligible to apply for money through there.

Mr.

Mitch Mr.

Mitchell has a floor.

Mayor and Council, I'd make a motion to approve both five and six.

We have a motion from Mr.

I is there a discussion?

All right, Miss who wants to start?

Miss Sanderson.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I just wanted to just a point of clarification.

So these two organizations, did they go through the submission of the financial partners?

Yes, ma'am.

But why are we voting on them now?

They were not recommended for funding just based on the ranking.

They did not receive 3.8 and the other one score uh 1989.

Um so Marie, can you just if you could could you tell us what their rankings were and how far below of the threshold they were?

Yes, ma'am.

Um, on it.

So Prospera, and I'm sorry I'm probably saying that wrong, scored a 94.0, and there was three other scoring above that were not funded, and for the struggle got an eighty-nine point two, and there was 15 um others that were ranked above them that are not funded.

Okay, and then so within our financial partners that the the committee went through and approved, how many partners were actually approved for seven, seven.

Okay, okay.

Um, just seven.

I think both of these organizations do really great work, both prosperity and um for for the struggle.

But we're I don't know, Miss Mayfield may be in our third year now of having a process that I've set through as as a part of just being pro temp uh for the last two years where this committee has been you know working diligently to stand up a process, and when we get to this time of of the year, effectively the process is not honored, and uh I I really like the work that these organizations do, but I want to respect the the work, you know.

You know, this is the third year, so you know after the third time let's let's try to respect this process that has been tweaked and modified by the committee.

I thank them for their hard work.

So though I appreciate the work that these organizations do, I don't think I can support this motion because of the honor of the respecting the process.

Thank you, madam mayor.

All right, any other comments, Miss Kimberly, Sarah Solan.

I appreciate the opportunity to weigh in, and I will I will um parrot the comments made by my colleague um from district one.

I I'm new to the process, but I do think that the process matters where I have deviated from that was my strong support for Safe Alliance because I put them in a different category in terms of when you dial 311, that is who you get.

They are so integral to our um address of public safety, and I think we need to focus very hard on the things that we do well, and I I do not view either of these organizations as being as as intrinsically um wetteded to our purpose as safe alliances, so I will not be supporting these.

Alright, Miss Mayfield, see what we're thank you, Madam Mayor.

Thank you, Councilmember Anderson.

The other piece regarding your comments, um, this is the third time and we council voted, council mandated staff to have a mandatory meeting or info session.

That was online.

Staff goes above and beyond with these applications, reviewing all of them, scoring them.

We have the opportunity, if we don't support the scoring, to have a different conversation, but I think we need to take into consideration that when we add organizations based off of personal interests versus the actual application process, when we're talking about pay parity, and we're talking about how we treat and respect our employees, these are also our employees.

They're the ones that's directly working with us on a daily basis.

So we charge budget team, we charge a team to go through the applications, answer questions, review them, come back with a proposal, and then when they propose, because we Marie shared it, we had over six million dollars in requests that came in.

We had 800,000 and some change, less than one million that we can actually allocate.

So out of the seven that were recommended, every time we go against our own policy that we voted for, that's true, we're telling staff indirectly or directly, that we're gonna let you run through this process, but understand we're gonna do what we want to do regardless.

So that's not a good use of their time.

That's not a good use of the investment that we're making in their pay of tax dollars by having them running in circles and then not respecting, we're not gonna agree with everything.

I get that.

Something might be one or two points off, even half a point.

But when we skip five to eight other organizations to pick an organization because of the personal relationship we have with them, versus you write your check, your donation check to that organization and get your friends and partners to also support that organization, it sends a different message to our team, but it also sends a different message to the community because why would I go above and beyond to submit an application that can get it receive a hundred or ninety-nine or ninety-eight when another organization cannot put the same effort and work and score better than me, but they're going to be awarded.

Yes, these organizations do great work.

If that's what we want to go by, then we need to eliminate, then we need to have a whole nother conversation.

We need to vote on it, and we need to eliminate the application process altogether and just say we're gonna pick the organizations that we like because to go three years into this and directing staff to create a process that we voted on, it's challenging to watch and it's disheartening.

And while we're having these conversations about how we discuss pay and respect of our employees, I just want us to keep in mind that some of those same employees are sitting in this room with us, and then when we get to their segment after listening to us so be so passionate about fighting for their autonomy in their work, and we get to their part, and if you and if I was, I'm not gonna speak to anybody else.

If I was in that employee, I'd be like, these so and so's just sat here and spent all the time, and now that we get ready to come to my part, they completely did the exact opposite, and that was 12 hours, 15 hours, 38 hours in a week that I put into this, and then this is what they do.

So I just want, I said initially, and I'm can I am consistent with it.

I cannot support us adding when we just had so many conversations about an hour and a half about how do we reduce and how do we save funds.

I can't it is not respectful to the process that we as a council voted on that we approved and the direction that we gave the staff, but I do want to tell staff thank you, we do appreciate all that you do, but in our humanists, we ain't gonna act right.

Thank you, madam.

J D.

Thank you, madam mayor.

Um, you know, uh I agree with the process, but you know, as a council, we need to also be conscious about when we decide to make the argument for the process, and then when we do votes, which this council has done before, where we then say the process doesn't matter, we can't pick and choose, we have to be consistent.

So I while I appreciate and understand where my colleagues are coming from when it comes to respecting the process, it's not always that way, right?

This council, you know, we voted on approving certain amount of dollars for housing trust fund when our category didn't have the allocation, and when we wanted to go through the process and send it back to committee, the council did not vote to do that, they just voted to approve the dollars immediately.

So, you know, I don't think we can make the argument about the process when there are times where you choose and pick the process, and to city staff, I appreciate all the work that you guys do, right?

And I think that is essential.

Um, and I have not been part of this council when we created the process for financial partners and whatnot, so this is my first rodeo.

And when I do look at the list and I see the high scores, and then I see other uh organizations that get very low scores, and I don't have a full picture of what you know what criteria goes into that.

You know, I I would like to also question that process and see if we can make it even better, right?

And go and through another iteration.

I mean, that's what we are here as a public body is to make things better and improve them along the way.

I also think, you know, I can personally speak.

I, you know, while while I don't I don't have a personal relationship for the struggle, and I know prospero works in district five as well, but um, you know, I don't have personal relationships with those folks, but I think the work is essential, and we did do a straw vote to look at exploring these options, and so Marie, I do want to ask what is the community investment contingency, and it is has that contingency been part of previous budget, or is it a new part of the budget for this year?

Thank you for that.

So the community investment contingency is a new component.

You know, we've had very tight budgets lately, and we do not have flexibility to address community needs or maybe initiatives that come along at council's discretion throughout the year, and this was just a little cush to be able to not a cush, like, but it was just a little leeway to be responsive to things that come out throughout the year.

So it's new money, it's not already committed.

So would you agree?

And this is also to the city manager.

Let's say if along the process there comes a community investment to be made that did not go through any type of process.

It just, you know, a new opportunity showed up, right?

We can use that's close session.

Uh we could use uh we can use this contingency to fund whatever project comes along our way, right?

I mean, if this if the council so chooses.

Okay, all right, no further questions.

Thank you, Miss.

Oh, sorry.

No, no, I'm sorry.

This is for Miss Wattman.

Thank you.

Um I think councilmember Miss Wata already is yeah, that's okay.

You go ahead.

I think Councilmember Ms.

Artie has um asked the question I was gonna ask, but I don't think I really heard the answer.

Community investment contingency.

What is community investment as a program?

Or is is the name when I hear contingency that sounds like room for value at scope on top of base scope?

Is this something that's a standalone?

Yep.

Um, so to Mr.

Driggs' uh point earlier tonight, we used to have routinely surpluses, 15 million, 18 million, and we would just roll it into PAGO.

We had no surplus last year, we'll have no surplus this year.

So what we tried to do is have something in PAGO that um if we start to struggle with some of the line items, that we would have something.

Gotcha.

Okay.

How much is it?

250.

Okay, so thank you for that.

Um I agree with really much of what each of my colleagues have said, even from differing perspectives.

Um for me, I do think um that we do have to give ourselves give pause to the idea that this very same process um almost eliminated Safe Alliance.

Yes, um, and so certainly while there's been great work done, we always have opportunity to make improvements or to adjust based on new council, new new values that pop up.

It's not that the program or the process itself was lacking, it's just that it may need to be updated to reflect our um our new approach in particular.

So with this one, I certainly respect everybody's um position.

I do think that for the struggle um serves the senior population in a way that I didn't necessarily see uh covered in other areas, um, and so for that reason I'm open to an exception here, but I um also very much supportive of um taking a look at the process itself and just how we do financial partnerships versus RFP, uh, because I see here that even in this note, uh this particular organization could be um eligible for a competitive process through a CDBG grant.

Um, and so as long as we are in a position where we trust and have confidence in the criteria and the the uh scoring methodology, then I would I would be apt to move much more of this work to an RFP process throughout the year myself, all right.

So our next person is I'm don't pull ashmir and message me.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um I agree with what councilmember Watlington said.

Our process almost eliminated Safe Alliance that operates 247 hotline for domestic violence survivors.

So, though I worked on the process, I it is not perfect.

What I would like to see is that we take out the qualitative component and we only focus on the quantitative component, which is did they submit the application, did they attend the mandatory orientation, did they submit the financial package, do they have all the financial documents, balance sheet and cash flow and so on, so that way that council can make a decision on the organizations.

I also have heard from organizations that scoring them actually, though it doesn't scoring doesn't mean it doesn't translate into whether they are doing great work or not, but certainly the perception is that uh Sherry and the entire team did an excellent job trying to really tighten the process from where we were.

Uh, but I think it you're right, Councilmember Watlington.

It is time that we devise the policy where we just focus on the quantitative and not the qualitative measures, and that's where the council comes in, where we make decisions uh based on what we see at the grassroots level.

Um, because we know in each one of the each district council member knows the organization that does the work and the organizations that are involved in day to day.

Um so I would make a motion to refer the policy to the BGIR committee to revisit some of this uh criteria.

Um, but I know there is already a motion on the floor, so I would like us to continue with that, and then I'll make a motion on the uh on the uh policy referral.

Okay, um Mr.

Graham.

Thank you, madam mayor.

One of the things that the manager says at every budget meeting when he gives us his presentation at the end, he says it's now your budget.

And so that is no disrespect for any staff member or staff that worked on it.

Uh is now in the hands of the city council to make an appropriate decision.

And we just went through an hour and a half um tearing up his line item related to believe in fire, right?

But no disrespect for the workers who worked on that, right?

Council made a decision.

Um, I don't have a relationship with for the struggle.

I know the young lady, she's very sharp.

I clearly understand the impact that she's making on the ground.

I understand the impact of several other nonprofit organizations that are making um right uh do it uh uh hard for the invisible uh just do it movement for the struggle and others, I know their impact on the ground, and certainly I did not support the process three years ago for this very same reason.

It's just scoring folks and it just didn't really take impact into consideration and knowledge of council members who see the work.

And so that's why I support for the struggle and others.

Uh and I hope and I talked to the manager about this before, just like we have now embedded um the organization uh dealing with domestic uh violence into the budget, there has to be a way for us to embed some of these nonprofit organizations that are doing good work making good impact as a part of that they should not have to come back year after year after year, that somehow they can be embedded into the budget as as whether it's uh a code enforcement or uh seniors, those type of things, Mr.

Manager, that we kind of do on the day-to-day basis.

Certainly um um hearts for the invisible as an example, working on our homeless and our house population, when we are sleeping, they are working, uh literally, and so I just think just we gotta look at it differently, and and I do accept that recommendation when it comes to kind of really look at it differently, and I think it goes beyond just the scoring, just go where does where do they fit?

Uh are there are there a strategic partner with the city uh and how does that kind of tie into the overall budget because in the big scheme of things, 4.4 billion dollar budget, 100,000 is really not a whole lot of money, and they probably should be need more to have greater impact, but I'll rest there.

All right, so our next speaker is Ms.

Johnson.

Thank you, madam mayor.

I wish as we were having this in-depth conversation about this line item, we had the image on the screen.

Um, I've asked Miss Harris if she could share that so that people can see or that we could even see the ranking because it's not in the book, it would be very, very helpful.

Um, but I did look at it and see that the total number requested for all of the organizations was like six point one million dollars.

This would have been a oh well at the bottom.

I thought it said six on the paper I just looked at.

Yes, it's six point two million dollars.

Right.

That would have been a great place to spend six million dollars if we had saved it a few minutes ago.

But anyway, I digress.

Um I'd like to be able to see it in you.

I think my both of my colleagues are right.

Um Councilmember Ashmere, I wanted to ask you if we looked at only qualitative ranking, how would we choose the organizations?

Quantitative.

If we if we only looked at the net or the process, check, check, check.

How would we measure the organizations to select?

That's to district council members.

I mean, council member grams said it.

We know the district council members know each organizations.

So let me add that we do know organizations that are doing the work, but there could be organizations that that are doing the work that we don't know about.

We we do know the ones that are doing the work, but we can't say I can't say that I know all of them some of them may not know how to market or reach us or be at the level and they could be doing you know impactful work there are other organizations in the community that serve domestic violence survivors that don't have the relationships or the know-how to reach out to council members so I I think that we need to be careful um I in just you know looking at the ones that have checked the boxes and then we try need to figure out how to know who to select I think we need the ranking system my questions for the city attorney if we've advertised the process and all of these organizations have complied with the process follow the rules did we advertise how they would be selected or are we get could we open ourselves up for any liability by deviating from our process and skipping over the organizations to select the organ you know the I'm looking for if you scroll up or down and before while um Andrea's um while I can't sorry Attorney Leslie Fight's getting acclimated just to be clear we didn't say in advance on that we let them know they would be scoring in the scoring criteria I believe Cherry yes but we did not tell them that we were going to definitely go highest to lowest did we tell them the criteria yes or no we do not tell them how we're going to select the organizations we didn't tell them the criteria in advance just that they need to link to a strategic priority as a part of the information session uh that the financial partners needed to attend that was mandatory we explained the importance of connecting their work to council strategic priorities so we provided links to the strategic priorities the type of data that the city of Charlotte is tracking to show that we're advancing strategic priorities to ensure that their work is in alignment with that we then asked that they provide performance measures and those performance measures again had to directly link to council strategic priorities and that is what we use as a part of the scoring criteria.

May I respond okay so can you show me where the two organizations are that we're looking at this is we don't have them numbered right into okay eight I was just thinking the ranking okay so we awarded the top seven and then so there's for the struggle and where's the other one right there they scored a 94 so these aren't in any type of uh numerical order okay these are in order based on the council priority and then alphabetical alphabetical order right it would be really helpful if we saw if we could see how they were ranked okay how we base this table into an excellent score yeah just already by the rankings well I mean it's too I mean we're in the meeting now that's okay and I can look at the piece of paper.

It just would be very helpful to justify I I understand what council member Mayfield and Anderson are saying how do we justify the to the organizations that scored higher than the other organizations without opening ourselves up for um scrutiny or you know all right thank you.

If I may respond briefly to your question, Council member johnson, um the process is outlined as as guidance, but ultimately it's always council's budget, and you retain the ability to add, take away, subtract um from any of these budget items.

What I will say is that these groups are they can expect an objective process, particularly at the staff level, but once the budget is turned to over to council, um, you can look at a totality of circumstances, not the least of which are conversations that happen here in this space um that would lend to the legislative uh process.

I will say ultimately any organization that participates in this process they benefit from council's appropriation, but they're not entitled to a certain appropriation.

All right, Ms.

Anderson.

Ms.

Johnson, are you?

Okay, Ms.

Anderson.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Uh Marie, just one question for you on page eight, section five.

Uh the second bullet point here.

We've talked about for the struggle and the great work they do in the community.

I have always wholeheartedly agree.

But there is this bullet point that they might have an opportunity to apply for the competitive process of the community development block grant.

Can you tell me or maybe lean on staff if you don't know?

When does that block grant open up?

When does that process grant open up?

Is it ahead of us or has it is it behind us?

It's in the coming months, and Cherry worked with housing and neighborhood um services to get the details.

I'm not sure if we know the exact date, but it's upcoming.

Okay, well, you know, given given the work that they do, I think we should absolutely undergirt them and support the work.

So uh Madam Mayor, I'd like to make a substitute motion um that we continue to honor the process that has come out of the committee with the seven organizations proposed for financing, but allow for the struggle the opportunity to apply for the competitive process block grant.

Given their work, they're probably gonna bubble right up to the top, but I'd like to make that substitute motion.

Okay, we have a substitute motion by Miss Anderson to make sure that the struggle people have the opportunity to have this um relationship with the city again.

Okay, Mr.

Driggs, Mr.

Driggs did a second.

So, is there any further discussion?

Hearing none.

I'm sorry, did I hear further discussion?

Okay, all in favor of the motion, of the substitute motion.

Um, she has something.

I thought it was your motion, isn't it?

I'm sorry.

Yes, ma'am.

I I I thought Marie was about to say something.

Were you about to say something, Marie?

No, sorry, Miss Johnson was asking a question.

Oh, okay.

So yes, ma'am.

My my substitute motion is what we're voting on now, is to proceed as is given the uh for the struggle the opportunity to apply to the uh block grant.

All in favor of the motion, six passes.

Opposed.

All opposed.

Anyone opposed?

Unopposed.

Council Gramsci do the count again all the favor.

Do the count again all in favor.

Please raise your hand, two, three, four, five, six, seven.

Six.

I'm not understanding.

Any opposed?

I'm not understanding of the motion.

Any opposed?

Anyone opposed?

This will not point.

Do you have to appreciate what the motion is?

Is that what I'm about?

Yeah, I don't understand the motion.

It's we've already okay.

The substitute motion was um let's proceed with what the committee has presented as those seven organizations that they would like to fund through their process, and given the work that for the struggle does in the community, give them an opportunity to apply for the competitive block grant that's opening up in just a couple of months.

And I I just said for commentary, given their good work, I think they would probably bubble right up to the top.

There's no guarantee, though.

No guarantee.

I didn't say it was a guarantee, it was just a commentary.

Something as a comment.

We didn't think I was.

I voted.

So I read it.

You voted.

You vote.

So let's see if they voted on it.

Thank you.

I have a couple, I have a couple questions because I now that I'm hearing this motion again, I I actually want to make sure I understand.

What I heard you say was proceed with the recommendations, but Safe Alliance was not one of the recommendations.

So I just want to make sure I understand.

And just to be clear, sorry, I should have cleaned that up on the front end.

That one's an I I think we put it in the right.

So they're not in play here.

They're getting funded.

Okay, and so you're saying proceed with the seven that were recommended, and I don't know if we're necessarily given for the struggle and RFP opportunity.

They can respond, they're eligible.

What is to be made of prospera?

Well, uh, I'm and I'm not actually to justify, I just want to make sure I understand.

No, I totally understand.

Um, so uh council member Watlington.

My understanding is Safe Alliance is covered.

We're not talking about them, we've taken care of them.

Um Spetto will have the opportunity to apply for future grants as well.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

And I'm sorry, Madam Mayor.

I thought we were in the midst of voting, but I don't know.

We'll see the city attorney.

The attorney said he was voted already, all right.

City that passed, okay.

All right.

Let's hear from our city attorney.

Council member Anderson's substitute motion was voted upon and it passed seven to four, right?

Mm-hmm.

Can you if you don't mind, can you call out the yes?

Madam Clark, do you have the y's?

Uh I do not.

I do know the no's were I believe Mitchell, um Mayfield.

I don't know.

It's my hand for either yes or no.

Yeah, and we didn't call a pose.

That's why I'm asking the question.

I thought she didn't have to have to wait until the clerk is because I didn't that's well, maybe I missed that part in the I missed that part completely.

I saw it's not ready.

I just want to make sure that I put my name is in the right slide.

So we saw seven, we counted seven here.

Yeah, I don't know.

I didn't write down a you had seven.

Yeah, we had seven.

I counted seven, and then I deducted that that was four.

So that can become when the minutes are done, they would have names on them.

Right.

I just want to make sure that your hand wasn't counted as a yay, but even then it's seven.

So you need to be six.

I don't know who I appreciate that.

Yeah, so it wouldn't change the outcome.

Thank you, Dr.

Wellington.

But he did raise his end, all right.

So we have the motion and the motion it passed.

And so now the next item, Miss I know this must be exhausting for a lot of you, so let's go to the next item.

So for exploration was around the international, um, international relations office.

And uh I believe council had asked the mayor to get the council.

Um sorry.

So we make sure that the people that asked for this want okay.

Sorry, pardon.

Sorry, I was talking over your mayor, sorry.

So the international office, so council had asked the manager to give more of a flavor around okay.

The international relations manager, but what's the current state?

What's the proposed, and what what are we really working towards here?

And that's the write-up you received.

I'm not sure if you have any questions around that, but along with that, there was also five votes to add additional staff to this office, so that was also included on page top of page 12.

So I don't know if any additional questions around here or anything you would like or clarifications on.

All right, um, we'll start with Ms.

Watlington.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I just want to make sure I understand these particular funding options holistically.

I see a few of the same ones repeating.

My my assumption at the beginning was it was because those funds were not depleted so that they could potentially be also reduced for other options, but I just want to make sure 100% sure.

You could have funded everything on the list.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Page 12.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

So uh Marie, just a couple questions, um, and thank you for this write up here.

Um, my question is on page.

Yep, on page 11, there is a proposed new FTE international manager within the um community relations group.

Yes, the office is proposed to be within community relations, and this is already in the proposed budget.

So the orange is the proposed budget.

So what is the what is the addition then?

If that's already in the budget, what was the vote in the last time we met on the budget to have this here?

And and I apologize for that, but they there were specific five votes to look at additional staff beyond that.

So that's what we came up with, an additional staff person, based on council's feedback last time.

So where is the additional person in this section?

I thought it was um on page 11 on that first column, but it's not.

Where's the other so there's it within the proposed budget?

There's a brand new FTE, but council had asked for even adjustment to add additional beyond the manager and the current staff.

Okay, so that I just have two questions here.

The first question is we have a proposed um manager in the budget.

Maybe can we ask Ms.

Sheila?

Would you be willing to come up and answer a question about this role for me here?

Well, I might can help her and she can tag when I'm wrong.

All right.

Um so what is the level of this role?

Because it says uh it says assistant.

Well, it says manager, but what is the level?

It's approximately a I'm looking at Amanda Dillard right now because she helped the um create it with Sheila's team.

It's approximately a deputy level.

Assist, sorry, thank you.

Yeah, so it's an assistant director.

It's just a director or a deputy level role, yes.

Okay.

Since this office is being housed in for right now until it gets fully fleshed out and determine the future need or if there's additional need, it's housed within a department, so it's the second level to the department director.

Okay, so I can appreciate the work that that needs to be done or can be done in the community in the community relations group for for that particular area.

I don't want to you know manage inside this group, but for an associate director level being a new FTE, I'm just wondering where that sits on the organizational makeup of this team, this group within community relations, and is that putting some someone or multiple people out of pace?

Um, this isn't a director.

Sheila can definitely speak to that.

Her and her team make sure we do not create those kind of issues.

So yes, but this is um its own office, too.

With its it's dedicated to this function, but no, it's not throwing other people off within the department.

Okay, you know, I I think it's just difficult for me to understand exactly, you know, typically when you are proposing, you know, a director level or high management level, there's a job description.

I understand that's not necessarily within our purview, but I just from what's written up here, I it's hard for me to to have a justification that this should be an associate director role, right?

Um, but you know, I'll leave that to staff.

I think with the level of that role though, coupled with this uh additional staff role here on page 12.

You're talking about um carrying costs or multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars for these two roles combined.

I'm not sure, and in this new role that's per proposed here on page 12.

Where will that role sit?

Will it sit in the community relations or will it sit in the international business?

So, and it's not within the budget, but there's uh on Sheila's team.

She she's got someone they that works with language access and like community grassroots types efforts that would also be trans re transition to this team.

So it would be it so it's gonna have the office manager and then this position from HR, and it's also this is really important.

It's collaborating with economic development and their team to help flesh out the future model and the needs, the future model needs of what so the whole international approach.

So right now you have the CRC is gonna focus on the grassroots and engaging with Sean, his team that really focused on the grass tops and the recruitment of international business in protocol.

Okay.

Well, and I'm gonna go ahead and pass the mic here.

But I will say I I personally feel like this is a bit of over rotation, um, giving these two roles that will be uh carrying costs for years going forward, um, adding FTEs without a real full understanding about how this does actually undergird the ED effort, especially sitting in the community relations team.

So I'm I'm struggling here on the investment of these two additional FTEs.

Understand the line item about training and support, understand that.

Uh, but the carrying costs of two additional FTEs is where I have consternation.

Thank you, madam mayor.

All right, Mr.

Graham.

Um, but my colleague goes for I think he was first.

You wanna JD?

Yeah, and I'll probably make you what which colleague, was it JD or I'm I moved to approve.

Okay, second.

Discussion.

Yes.

So I I want to um really level set here.

So the international affairs manager position was included in the original presented budget that the manager presented to us.

Okay.

As council member Graham said, there is a formal transitioning from the manager's budget to then council to make it their own, right?

That is where the we all voted on a Strabo to look at recommendations to add one additional administrative officer and training operating support.

The immigrant integrations, if you look at page 11, the second light orange position, is already a position.

These are already positions.

Am I right correct, manager?

The the four here are already folks that are hired fulfilling these roles in these positions, right?

Currently, language access and immigrant integration is in human resources, community.

Currently, currently, as we are operating as a city, language access is in human resources.

The proposed budget is for it to go to community relationships where it makes sense, in my humble opinion.

The additional thing is this is not to subverse economic development because if you look clearly and we read the document, international business recruitment retention will be housed under economic development, and international protocol will be housed in economic development positions that are already filled within the economic development department.

Am I right, manager Jones?

Okay.

That being said, what is simply being asked is that as the 14th largest city in the country, nearing 20%, or if not already 20% foreign-born population, with our peer cities already having my colleagues see the value in this.

One additional administrative of some sort, and we're the only ones lagging operating support to help support this.

Because right now, as we see in our current city structure, the capacity, the technical support and the help for these individual staffers are not there.

There can't simply be one person doing all the work spreading themselves thin, right?

I mean, we just had a really robust, lively conversation about expanding support to our firefighters, police, as well as to city staff, as what we, you know, and all the work they've done.

I want us to think about this as something like the corridors of opportunity, right?

The corridors of opportunity is not housed in just one department.

I mean, it has to us on the 15th floor, a set home, of course.

But manager Jones, do we not have different staffers, city staffers from different departments across our organization, the city of Charlotte operating corridors of opportunity?

Absolutely.

That's right.

So, but each one has its own agency.

Each one is whether it's you know, director Stewart's team working in housing and neighborhood services, whether it's director home's team working in planning, they are all contributing to that one effort of corridors of opportunity.

This designated office under community relations of international relations will be there as a cross-collaboration for community relations and economic development.

So I just want to make it very clear to my colleagues that this is not about taking one person's job, duplicating efforts, going overboard or adhering a cost that that is not justifiable.

This is us becoming a player in a competitive market.

We've already done great work and attracting foreign-owned international businesses to the Queen City.

We can do even greater work if we have a designated staff and support, really fishing out those opportunities.

If we respond to the moment and to the trends that we're seeing not only in the market but our population as well, and the last thing I'll add is we just passed a multi-billion dollar transit mobility plan, right?

And we saw that the workforce gap and in the work that we have set out for that plan, it is there.

I mean, I won't be political and say we know why it's there, but we have incredible foreign-born talent with high skills, high earning degrees in our community right now that would benefit from the both the community relations and economic development work that our city is doing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Let's see.

Wait a minute.

Wait a minute.

It was Mr.

JD and then Miss Mayfield.

No, Graham.

I'm sorry, Mr.

Graham.

Yeah.

Well, I believe that is even a skill.

Yeah, yeah.

Well, thank you.

Thank you, Mother Mayor, and thank you, Councilmember J D.

Um, I think his response has been very eloquent uh in terms of what it is that I support, and I think that we should do to be very intentional about uh international relations uh and recruitment and retention grass roots as well as grass top.

Um I was on the phone call today from an individual from Paris relating to Charlotte.

Um last week I was at a protocol session uh with a representative from Portugal, and so there's a wide variety of opportunities if we are very intentional, and there are a number of folks doing the work throughout the city.

What this would do was just kind of really cement the team and focus the efforts internally.

Uh something that I've spoken with the manager about when I was ED chairman.

How can we be a lot more intentional about really focusing the work?

We have an international relations committee that is eager to be a more visible and more closely aligned with the work that we're doing, and it doesn't make any sense to have a committee if we're not listening to them in terms of their recommendations.

So when folks talk about Charlotte being the 13th largest city in the country, which is true, I think that we are now an international city, right?

And I think if we are focused on our efforts, despite the success that we're already making, being more intentional, I think we can have greater results moving forward.

So I hope the council will support this.

And I hope even if they don't, Mr.

Manager, I hope there's a way for us to really look at how we kind of consolidate some of the things that we're doing so we can identify where their activities are occurring and how we can work together to kind of raise the visibility of the office.

Thank you, Mr.

Oh, I think I have Mr.

Drake's next.

Oh no, I have Miss Wayfield.

Miss Mayfield next.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

So I don't know, Sheila, manager, one of you might be able to answer this.

What department is Alexis Gordon currently in?

Economic development.

How many team members do we have working on international relationships, business relationships within economic development today?

Sorry, when you say business, it's a lot of pieces of people within Shaw's team, but to your point, she's the only one dedicated.

Okay.

So between the two positions that, and I'm asking for clarification, between the two positions, there will be an addition, the request is for an additional person in economic development.

So which is why what I'm getting to, while we're talking, and I'm trying to understand the logic of why we would create another level of management when we need workers.

So every conversation that I've witnessed either in the community at international events, at business events, meeting with representatives from Japan, from Germany, from Russia, from India, those relationships and introductions have come through one individual, one individual should not be doing that.

Manager, we had this conversation a decade ago.

When we first had a conversation regarding a department around international relations, that department, my understanding, was a part of your department under the direct under the manager because of the importance, because as our city was growing and we were seeing more and more businesses, as the district, I was opening going to groundbreakings and having meetings with Japanese businesses that were opening up in our warehouse district as well as German and European businesses, those relationships, and we supported a department of international relations that the person who led it had an amazing opportunity for them.

We never filled that position.

So we let it sit there.

Now we're having a conversation where we're talking about sending something, creating a managerial position in community relations, but we still have an interim executive director.

Our former executive director who gave us, gave the city 50 years of service, that one one should have been an automatic instead of the interim, but to create another managerial administrative position versus a position that's actually going to work because Alexis Gordon by herself can't do it all.

We need someone else that has that has the relationships and the experience to help grow our international business.

We have international festivals and conferences and workshops and economic development workshops where people are reaching out to us, we don't even have a budget line item to sponsor any of the international events that are happening locally.

So when I was originally going through and when for me, when I if I raised my hand on this, it was because I was under the impression that we were talking about identifying some workers that we need, not another administrative person that's just gonna tell the worker what they need to do.

I need clarification on what your vision was with these two positions.

This is definitely gonna be a working manager, not somebody sitting in the company.

I don't need another manager because I don't see the and that's not to be disrespectful, but whoever the manager is, I have not seen the main community yet.

I see one person out in community at meetings, at community events, at international house at foundation for the Carolinas when I'm meeting with these individuals.

That's a challenge for me.

So, Mr.

Manager, you about to I believe there was a study in uh 2015 before I got here, which had a few um recommendations about how the city could move forward helping our um international community, and from that uh couple of uh recommendations uh came out, and uh one of the things that we did do is create a position, and the position maybe started off as upward mobility, and uh then we may have uh it morphed into maybe upward mobility and immigrant integration, something like that, and a lot of great things, a lot of this in the write-up came out of that, and what I would say is many of the things much like CAP have become embedded into everything we do, including the policies that you have.

You're supposed to put them through a particular lens.

Um, when we start to look at what's on the board, and I'm gonna go from uh right to left.

That's for Teresa Smith who's no longer a city employee, but retired.

Um International Protocol is a person, and as I said before, in cities, international protocol could be in the clerk's office, it could be in the mayor's office, it could be, you know, an economic development right beside the international business uh recruitment retention is I would say a powerhouse of people, so it's not just one person in economic development, it's a good portion of economic development.

It's the Charlotte Business Regional Alliance, it's the governor's office, it's the EDAC.

There are a number of people that are involved in international business recruitment and retention.

Uh, immigrant integration, absolutely.

Um, in this proposal, uh, language access would move from HR over to community relations.

And then I think what we lost when we lost uh that individual who helped us with mobility was the connective tissue.

So there isn't someone who's looking at these four pillars, if you will, and say how do we maximize what we have and what in the proposed budget, we were just trying to get some coordination around it.

Um, the council, I think you're right.

If if there are some uh additional um resources that need to be a part of this group to accelerate what we're you're we're trying to achieve, I think that makes sense.

Even being in community relations makes sense because what we're trying to do over the course of this next year is develop an office that can address a number of the issues tonight.

And I think if we polled everybody, we'd probably have different visions of what this would be.

So we don't want to go too far out in crafting something until we are making sure that we maximize the resources that we have and try to make sure that we supplement where we have caps.

So, Mr.

Manager, the individual that was in that position, where was that house?

Was that under one of these departments, or was that an independent?

It was an office within housing and neighborhood services.

So we go in from uh office within housing and neighborhood services.

How long has that position been vacant?

We don't have the position anymore.

Exactly.

So from it's at been what four four or five years?

Maybe now three or four years.

That well, we had a position, we had an individual that was doing this work.

We let it go dormant.

Who stepped in and filled these roles in during the time that we did not have that individual?

Do we have two people?

Did we have anyone?

Because the relationships continued in the five years that we didn't have the actual individual, that's where we need to be looking.

We need to be looking at the individuals who are who stepped in versus creating yet a new that's gonna have insurance benefits that's gonna have its pension plan that's gonna have all these extra costs around this position, versus doing what we should be doing is looking internally and creating the opportunity to grow versus just creating something new because if I were that employee, I know there are employees out here that have no problem training a replacement.

I am not that one, you would not get this information that I have invested into this organization into this work to just create something new because as you said, we had it in a specific department at the time that made perfect sense.

Does it make sense to put in a community relations?

I'm not really sure.

I only volunteered on community relations committee for 15 years.

So is that where we're gonna see the movement as far as business development and growth?

Maybe some things have changed over the last decade.

I want us to be intentional, but I am concerned about creating yet another leadership position versus cultivating the lead leadership that we already have within our city that has stepped in and been doing the work and probably just need a need to support to continue to do the work.

I definitely agree with the language access being in community relations.

I'm having challenge with this whole idea of this manager role and not creating the additional role that we need between recruitment, retention, and international protocol.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

All right, so I believe the next person is Mr.

Driggs.

So when I look at this, uh I think there is an opportunity in the area of international business development that we have not developed fully, and I've talked to foreign businesses, I've had feedback that in comparison with other cities, our performance and just making them feel wanted uh is substandard.

It's not a reflection on individual, it's under investment.

So I think we should beef that up.

The only thing I'm curious to know is the new position here looks like it has more to do with community relations and not with international business development.

So to that extent, that wouldn't be my highest priority.

I'd love to see us do more about recruiting international businesses.

All right.

Okay.

And if you don't okay, Miss Watlington.

Thank you.

Um, couple of clarifications.

I see, and I'm sorry if this is repeat, but this conversation's going around a few times.

It's okay.

We've been doing it for a while.

We've got two practices.

We've had really good practice.

Tell us how you really feel, ma'am.

So I see four roles here.

One of these roles was in the manager's proposed budget.

Okay.

And these are all net new roles here.

This is doesn't show any existing in fiscal year 26.

What's on this paper?

Sorry, the orange is um proposed, but there's only one new position, and it's not necessarily like say when you look at the dark orange international business recruitment and retention, that's multiple pieces of multiple people on Shaw's team.

And to Miss Mayfield's point, there's only one that's fully dedicated, but she's part of a larger team.

Okay, that's helpful.

So this is not four roles.

This is just buckets of focus.

That will either be shared.

Well, that's what I was gonna ask is I see on page 12 that there's I see one additional administrative officer senior and training operating support, but I couldn't reconcile that with these four.

Correct, that's not part of the orange.

So that was part of the council adjustment to the orange.

So this orange is what is in the manager's proposed budget.

Everything that's here.

Okay, yes.

Okay, and we're asking for more.

Okay, now I underst I think I under well, yeah.

So just so I'm clear, then the three of the four that don't say new FTE, they were in fiscal year 25.

Financial.

So they're not all so the ED ones are multiple FTEs, but yes, they're all so the only new position proposed.

This is a new approach, but there's only one new position.

Okay, and then there's an additional from council.

All right.

So I'm sorry, there's uh I was just didn't know if that what they were discussing was gonna be helpful to still talk.

All right, so one additional administrative officer and then this training support.

Okay.

So my question then, I'm so sorry, y'all.

I'm gonna have to probably ask a real silly question.

The new role covers what focus areas that are not listed here.

Oh, sorry, the blue one.

Yeah, so the new role is something that council asked for.

Yes, understood.

And so I even hear, does it belong in ED?

Does it belong in community related?

So the description's not necessarily scoped.

Exactly.

Okay, so with that then, here's my thought.

Well, one more follow-up question before I go there.

I see funding option is reduced fuel contingency.

Is that a one off?

That's ongoing.

Okay, that's ongoing.

Got it.

Okay, all right.

So then here's my question.

It would seem as though we can just identify what we could identify what the we can identify what the gap is and then just build the role around it.

If we need a PM to run projects, then make sure we get somebody with a PM skill set.

If we need somebody that needs to be out in the corridors, then we get somebody that's got some um community engagement skill set.

What I would like to see this person do is really lean in and support the workforce development work for all the reasons that were mentioned before in regards to needing to prep this workforce, particularly a workforce around trades and construction in support of these transportation um investments that are coming, it would seem that there's an overlap there.

So I say all that to say that I know we got gaps, so if we scope this role appropriately, it would seem that there's plenty of value to be had.

That's all, thank you.

Okay, so the next person that would like to speak is I believe this Miss Johnson.

Ms.

Johnson.

Thank you, madam Mayor.

Okay, so what is Alexis's current role?

Her title, do you know?

I don't know her title, but she's in Shaw's team and she's part of the business recruitment.

Um there's a team of them that's in business recruitment.

Can you answer that?

Oh, yes, yeah, please.

Anderson is the last speaker.

Just a question is is she a manager?

She is a program manager senior.

Okay.

Okay.

She is a program manager senior.

Okay.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Okay.

So she's a program manager senior, and she's been doing the work for at least five or six years since I've been here, right?

So I don't think there's anything to that excludes individuals who are currently doing the work, like you said, Councilmember Mayfield, to be promoted to that manager.

Not saying that you know that we wouldn't have an application process, but I mean I think that we can support a manager and someone who's been doing the work, or any of the folks that have been doing the work already would know how to build that department, built that department.

So I see the need for the um for this position.

Um I also support you know, tightening up or really detailing the scope.

Mr.

Graham thinks it should be in the ED department.

You know, that makes sense.

That really makes sense as well.

A lot of this is economic development.

So I would support the manager position.

I think the having a designated manager to lead the department and to coordinate the work is I think would take it to the next level.

So I'll be supporting it, but just to respond to what you said, Councilmember Mayfield.

Um I don't think hiring another manager um is is a bad thing.

It might be an opportunity to promote when you talk about an internal to promote from within.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

All right, Miss Sanderson.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Uh, just a couple points.

One, I just want to be clear that in the motion, and I don't know, Clerk, uh, if you could repeat the motion, but the motion I I believe was in support of the new FTE that was a part of the budget, plus the additional investment that's highlighted on page 12, which is another S FTE, and a um an investment in tech support.

Is that correct, Clerk?

Okay.

Um so that's where and is there any aspect of that motion around that this additional new FTE where that FTE would be.

I believe that would be for the manager, he would take your input.

Okay.

So that's um that that's where I'm I'm having my my struggle here.

I too believe that Miss Gordon does phenomenal work in the community.

I s not only do I see her out and about, but I hear about her work when she is not present.

Um, you know, typically, Mr.

Manager, the we've had announcements of promotions and things of that nature, creating a role where someone has to then in turn go and apply for it when they've been doing multiple roles over multiple years.

You know, I I'm not sure if that's the right way to go about that this in particular because this area is so um delicate as it relates to international business and having worked in international business for decades.

I understand the intricacies here.

So that's why I'm I'm struggling with the um with the additional FTE to bring on board to this.

Um I would support um a promotion of someone like a Miss Gordon and then have them identify what their organization should look like with the space for an FTE within the budget that the manager has already set aside that could be her existing role if she gets the the um associate director role to determine after she's in that role.

So that's that's where I'm at uh Madam Mayor.

All right, and Mr.

Graham.

Just one quick comment, and I think we should call the question, right?

Uh I I think uh the manager's recommendation already has one new position housed in community relations that will take in consideration grassroots issues, all the things that council member JD said 30 minutes ago.

Um the new position that we're advocating for is an addition to what's already there to be housed in economic development to focus on recruitment, retention, protocol, all those things together, right?

And helping us establish a team approach because there's bits and pieces throughout the organization that we want to consolidate and to work with the community of the International Affairs Committee.

I think that's the question on the floor, and I think that's appropriate.

And so I'm not personalized to any individual, right?

I'll let the manager figure that out, right?

And um, but I think it should be housed in economic development based in economic development with a resource and community relations doing the grassroots type of stuff, grass top coordinating all the efforts in economic development with staff support.

Yeah, all right.

So we're ready to vote, and so all in favor of the motion that would have provide.

I think Mr.

Graham covered it a pretty well in terms of how it's a reduct, it's it's to help our city move forward and um making it possible for another staff person to be available, and that's the manager's determination.

He does that, not two, is it two staff people or one?

One new.

I thought it was one, and so knowing that that would be coming from the manager's position.

Yes, yes, right.

That's in the way, yes.

All in favor of the motion, please raise your hand.

Anyone opposed?

I think everybody's did anyone, Miss Anderson has an opposition.

And so here we go.

To our next one is the transport.

Um, Miss Go ahead, I was talking to Cherry, but go ahead and pull it up on the screen.

Sorry.

So the next one I may turn it over to Dr.

Wartlington to um, she's championing more around this, but it's one that um received at least five votes to explore 300,000 for transportation modeling.

Thank you, Marie.

Um, and thank you to those of you who um attended the uh small groups last week um to ask your questions.

I think it was very um it was informative from you and me.

Um, and I left there hopeful because it sounded like a lot of the things that were priorities were things that were baked into the work or there was flexibility to bake it into the work.

Um, I don't want to necessarily rehash all of that for those that were there, but just for the sake of those that weren't able to attend, um, wanted to hit a couple of the highlights as we mentioned before.

Uh this has been a development of a partnership between UNC Charlotte and um CDOT uh in particular.

Uh, there are a number of components in this land use and transportation model um that I'll cover briefly, uh, but initially when we talk about the conversation we just had with 77, we chose to rescind our support, and I think the question that we owe our constituents is well, what's the alternative?

What are we gonna do now?

What's different?

How do we know that the next project that comes down the pipeline doesn't have the same concerns, or are we going to be able to answer the fundamental questions that we had that we've asked about this project?

And the only way to do that is to improve our tools and our ability to do um analysis and forecasting commensurate with the growth of this city.

We just talked about many of the gaps and the needs for uh data and tools and technology associated with uh the fire department, and that is no different than the tools that we need for land use planning.

Uh, we've talked for years about zoning and uh looking at the comprehensive impacts and cumulative impacts, um, and this tool through its land use and transportation integration, which is new to the model, um, it does not exist today, um, provides for that coordination.

Uh, we talk about looking holistically at housing policy associated and how it's related to transportation and economic mobility, but we don't have a tool that allows us to do that um dynamically, number one, um, and in a way that lets us forecast um without using data from 20 years ago.

Um, so there are some significant technological advances that are available to us, and we've got an incredible willing team of about 17 over at the university of senior faculty as well as um postdocs and uh grad students that are willing to lend their support uh to support the CDOT team.

We have met with CDOT team two or three times now to talk through this scope in detail and specifically understand what support and additional capacity they need to improve the model.

Um, and so I'm pleased that we've gotten to a um a place where it seems like they're excited about the work.

Um I do want to make clear coming out of some of the conversations from last week, um, because it's a legitimate question about what we would do with the with the um study here.

I want to be clear that the six objectives don't only include a study, but it also includes the code development to make an alternative model.

It also includes partnership with UNCC to run a comprehensive global literature review to see what's out there and benchmark it also includes um ongoing partnership with um intern resources that can help bolster our MyEP program as well.

So it's not just land use, it's not just transportation, it's also economic development.

It also includes partnership in terms of grant um support and grant um identification and um and grant applications, so we know that there's going to be additional dollars as we go forward, um, and they are committed to not only um helping to identify the technical scope, but also to work with us to to chase those state and federal grants and private grants to do this work.

As I mentioned before, our um university houses a federal US DOT funded uh transportation research center.

So we have access and we have the best here in our backyard, and this is an opportunity for Charlotte to be on the leading edge of that for our nation, which is something that as we talk about international business, that certainly is a differentiator for us.

We've gone to plenty of cities, Boston uh last year and went to their local universities to talk about connections between the city and the university.

We have an opportunity to do that here.

Um so there are so many things when I look at our comprehensive 2040 plan as well as our other um pillars that are in that are baked into this work, and this investment I think embodies a lot of what we're saying about where we've been and where we want to go.

So I would ask that my colleagues please uh support investing in our um in our future as it relates to this this model and this ongoing partnership with our local research one.

Thank you.

Dr.

Wilder, you go make the motion.

Yep.

So I would move that we I would move that we um incorporate this $300,000 into uh this year's budget.

Second.

Motion made proper second by council member Johnson.

Ready for the discussion, any questions?

I had some questions.

Council Member Owens.

Thank you.

And thank you, Councilmember Watlington.

I I was uh participant and I was I was fairly impressed, but I will say that um, you know, one of the things that comes to mind this morning at our housing uh committee meeting, we discussed some research that's going on with UNCC around housing, uh, the bond cycle and some of the policy advancements.

And that process seemed a bit more fulsome in terms of of the amount of engagement, and so if I were to approve this, which I'm not saying I don't want to, but I would really want it to be conditioned on a deeper dive on what that scope is, similar to some of the questions that I raised.

I'm not fully appreciative of whether you know something is produced, how useful it is, to what degree will it be deemed by anyone who would use it as being duplicative of something they've already got.

I've just got a lot of scoping concerns, and because and maybe somebody can correct me, if we were to approve this, it goes into the budget because it is a spend that is within um within the discretion of the city management.

Um, I don't get the impression that this would come back before us in a normal scope, or would it?

Um I intend, and I can adjust my motion right now, given that it's the budget discussion.

I didn't want to do it today, uh, but absolutely intend that um to request a policy referral that the milestones for each phase come back before the committee and the council as we proceed.

But to your point, and I didn't mention it here, but I know that you were on the call.

Uh, but just for the sake of the listeners, in terms of the scope and the partnerships with UNC Charlotte, they also obviously house the Urban Institute, who is also a partner here, the Knight uh foundation has also asked to come alongside and be the community um connection here.

Of course, uh, well, not of course, many of the members of the team on the university side are also working on NC DOT projects, and we've invited NC DOT to um to support as well because obviously we'll need their uh their engagement.

Um, and then as we go further, certainly we'll need to um begin stakeholder engagement across the region because we don't just house our model, it's a regional model, but to your point about what's duplicative and what is not as it relates to housing in particular, this is specific to the development of this model.

Um, so given that this, how do I want to say this?

Multi-objective optimization in the way that is being proposed here that also incorporates not only the transportation objectives but our equity objectives, our anti-displacement, environmental, those things, it doesn't exist.

So I wasn't in the housing committee meeting this morning, but I would I would wager that it's not duplicative.

But that being said, there's absolutely no reason why as the conversation goes along that they couldn't engage with more than just um CDOT to ensure that those things are made.

And my apologies if I've if I've created the assumption that I I thought they were duplicative, it's just that there seemed to be a process there that differed a bit from this process in terms of engagement with the local university.

So just a couple of additional comments that I'll put out.

Um I am concerned that we've now already approved something that is reducing the fuel contingency.

Um, and so this is another item that would tap into that same fuel contingency right at a time when I don't think any of us knows how long this war is going to last and what fuel is going to continue to do.

So I fear making assumptions around that.

But I just I will say that I'd like to see it referred to perhaps the transportation committee.

Is that something that you could consider as part of your motion instead of having it back to full council have the transportation committee weigh in on the scope of this?

Um, yes, if I make sure to understand, you're saying to fund it and or you actually think my motion is concerned about funding, but then if we do fund it and we fund it out of the fuel contingency, I'd like it to be scoped within the transit um, I'd like a referral to transit.

Oh yes, we're aligned.

No, we're aligned on that piece.

Um I will say just that was a question that I had too, and we can circle back to it.

But as far as what's listed here, given that there were some things that were not approved that were gonna come out of the fuel contingency, it would seem that that means that there's actually a uh a plus of 250,000, given that the prospero and the for the struggle uh was was not pulled out, so it's not and on this, it's either or, and then given that we um we if I'm remembering correctly.

Well, we just funded the position for international.

And so that was my question too earlier, and I think Marie said that all of the things that stacked up ended up still being uh net neutral, like we weren't gonna overextend that budget, but certainly that's a question for you.

That's correct.

Councilmember Ashmir.

Thank you.

So if I just want to make sure, so to piggyback on Councilmember Owens Point, this is non-duplicating the effort of what the city of Charlotte's transportation model is, and the and data infrastructure that currently relies on MRM, correct?

This I'm not sure I understand your question.

Okay, so you know the city of Charlotte in on page 12 number eight, the second paragraph, where it says the city of Charlotte's transportation modeling and data infrastructure currently relies on MRM, and it's socioeconomic allocation companion.

So what I'm trying to understand, how is this model different than the city of Charlotte's transportation modeling?

So the scope is to improve this model here.

So do through our existing model, and to to build the foundation for a new model that can run concurrently to our um to our existing model that will enable us to do actual scenario analysis based on our values.

It's a fundamentally different way to think about projects.

So it would be for all infrastructure projects.

So it can inform how we choose and select zoning and uh the transportation.

But that's not to say that later on we couldn't build on other types of infrastructure because part of this scope is really looking at all of the data that is available to the city of Charlotte, including quality of life explorer and some of the other things that show up in different uh departments, and um, and as much as we can bringing those together into the model.

So the way I see it, this gives you an alternative to what we are looking at currently.

Currently, we only have one model.

This will give us another model to look at alternatives.

Correct.

Am I correct?

I'll get improvements to the existing model.

One being more live traffic data.

Right now we rely on survey data that's collected every 10 years, and it's looks like it's on real time.

Correct.

So that's one, it doesn't have the land use information that's in it as well.

Um so there's a number of things, and I can um I can rescind you the scope, but there's a number of things within the um the model review that specifically our low-cost and no-cost um options that can improve our current model as it stands, and then they're also gonna provide uh the code and the technical specification to for this the second model that can run in parallel that can answer that question of what are the alternatives?

That's really the to me, the meat and potatoes of it.

If I was to whittle it down, this second model is really about hey, I don't need you to just tell me that 77 can reduce traffic or reduce um commute time by XYZ.

I wanna know did you look at making improvements across the network and could that deliver a similar benefit?

The way the model set up now is not built to answer that, but this this new model that would run in parallel would be focused on that, and it would have a public facing component where people could go in and say, Well, trees are the most important thing to me, or affordable housing or displacement is the most important thing to me.

How might that change which investments we make at the CIP and at the uh step level?

So I know uh to follow up on that on the um budget piece.

I know at some point we had discussed exploring foundation grant.

So, where did where do the conversations stand on that?

So that conversation right now is really out of sequence, if you will, with our budget conversation.

So there's a couple of other um meetings that we're trying to have with folks, and we've got another group.

Actually, CELC has I think formed a subgroup to look at this as well.

Um, but just so have an hour budget conversation happens first.

And I do think it's important given that it's that we run this model and we are where the experts sit that we invest here, but certainly there's opportunity to partner uh with private organizations still, and we'll I'll continue to go down that path as well, so the such that we can recoup that investment and reprogram those dollars if need be.

Got it.

Um, so this do we have anyone from C DOT here or someone who works with infrastructure?

Okay, maybe maybe Mr.

Manager can answer this question.

Um, it this is more of an independent analysis.

Uh has C DOT or other infrastructure teams have considered this approach where we can look at alternatives, have multiple options, and have real-time data versus older data that is currently being used.

I think Liz is in the back.

Sean's going to get her okay.

To address your question.

So, as may are you okay?

Can we go to Council McGregor?

Yeah, well, Liz comes in, yeah.

Council McGriant.

Thank you, uh Mayor Pro Tem, and thank you, Councilmember Wallington, for the work you you put in uh on this for for weeks.

Um, I think the vote that we took two weeks ago gives us the opportunity and gives the community opportunity to take a deep breath and maybe take 10 steps backwards and kind of evaluate where we are.

Uh I really do.

Listen here.

You guys heard me say this before over and over and over again is how we process our work that really really matters.

Uh and this gives us an opportunity, I think, to kind of reset everything that we're doing.

Um I'm uncomfortable moving forward um because there's been no staff analysis of this.

Um no comments from C dot.

No comments from planning, really no comments from the city manager.

Um I just think is UNC show the right vendor.

I mean, right?

The community is asking for independent analysis of how to move forward.

UNC Charlotte in itself is a state institution, with no disrespect to my friends over at UNC Charlotte.

Um I think this needs to go to committee, um, because we're going down a policy avenue that the council has not agreed that we want to do.

Right?

And so I'm gonna probably vote no simply based on the process.

Um, and um I'll just be quiet and listen to the rest of the conversation.

But I I think this the vote that we took gives us the opportunity to take ten steps backwards and kind of reflect on how we need to move forward, right?

And do for and and make sure that everybody's going along right.

Uh so when you say we, I'm not sure who we is.

Um, right.

I I just don't know.

And and for that very reason I'm gonna decline to participate and vote no, and I'll listen to the rest of the debate.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman Graham.

Ms.

Liz, Councilmember Ashmere have a cup.

I'm sorry, City Manager.

So um before Liz comes up, I just want to address the the last uh comment.

Um I don't believe that this is attached to I-77 South.

I believe this is an exercise that will help us with infrastructure and how we go about making sure that we're using the right tools.

So I just want to make sure that that those if I can have that right, those two are separated.

Okay, so can you can you please ask me?

Yes, I'm sorry, stop it, Dante.

Liz, please.

Councilmember Ashmer had some questions.

Good evening again, Liz Babson, Deputy City Manager.

If you could repeat your question, I didn't not hear it.

Yes, so Councilmember Watlington gave us an overview of what this land use and transportation model would look like because it will use real-time data versus our existing model that uses older data.

Uh so have has CDOT explored this model uh to ensure that we are we are uh reviewing real-time data to make infrastructure decisions and arriving at uh solutions that give us gives us multiple options.

Like one thing that I was highlighted in this, this study would provide an independent technical evaluation and it will identify short-term law low cost improvements that can be implemented within the next 12 months.

Uh and that is that is very important, because when we are seeing a lot of infrastructure issues, when people call us, they don't want to wait three, five, six years.

They want us to address the problem now or at least in next six months to a year.

And I know there has been uh some challenges in terms of implementing something that is short term that addresses the problem while we work on something long-term.

So has this model if you can provide us your feedback on how whether this tool has been explored by your team in the past, and how whether your team would recommend using this model so that we have more real-time data where we can address uh infrastructure problems real time, like deliver solutions in short term.

Yes, ma'am.

Um, and Dr.

Wattlington, happy to tag team on the answer with you.

While you have spent a bit more time on this project than I have, I certainly appreciate your input.

Um, and so councilmember Edge Mira, let me let me touch on a couple of things to make sure that that I give you the clarity that you're looking for.

Um what is talked about here in the write-up as far as identify short-term low-cost improvements, that's really with respect to the model.

That's not about projects on the ground that residents would see, but this absolutely this model is foundational in how we identify what our future long-term needs are in transportation.

And to Dr.

Watlington's point, we have a process today, albeit um it is it is slow, and there is a lot of data that goes into that model development.

It is it is a good state-of-the-art model, so I want to make sure that that's clear so you don't question the model that we use to determine the projects that we implement throughout this region, because we do have one of the best models in the country, but this effort again is about having a research team do some initial um benchmarking and literature review to see what other opportunities might exist across the country and globally in the way in the space of modeling our transportation system.

So, would this tool provide a value add in terms of what we are currently doing?

So I think it's always a great opportunity to pause and take a look at best practices and what state of the art work is going on, what innovation might be available out there.

So are we currently not doing that?

We staff does that.

I mean, absolutely, that's part of how we go about doing our work, but to have a separate and apart effort with a team of I think Dr.

Watlington said 17 professors at the university.

No, our staff doesn't have that kind of time and access to information to be able to do that in the same way that this effort could provide that information.

Okay, so this effort will provide more resources to your staff in terms of the best practices across the globe.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, so it is a value add from what I understand from your perspective.

Yes, okay, that's all I thank you.

Okay, go ahead and uh thank you, Mayor Pratem.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Uh, thanks, Liz.

Um, before you go, um, uh, and thank you, Dr.

Wallington, for scheduling and and this the team for scheduling um the working groups.

Uh, that was very helpful to have that conversation beforehand.

Uh Liz, when was the last time?

And I asked you this.

What during our working group, uh, when was the last time the model was updated that we use now?

I might get my numbers slightly off.

What I can tell you is I think it was in 2019, 2022 was the last time we did the update.

I can verify that and follow up with you.

I think the point is again, this is this is a model that's really important to how we look at and consider transportation improvements across the region.

And so we are but one partner in that model development, and to make a change requires a lot of coordination and work with other agencies, and I say that because I think it's important to note that any changes to that model require support from those other entities.

So the last time we did an update, it took six years to get through a major model update.

Thank you.

Uh, I think this is um really a forward-thinking approach.

Um, in my eyes, I think it's a value add.

Um, you know, I oftentimes reflect on how we oftentimes give millions of dollars to um third-party consultants, right?

Through an RFP process, sure, um, but sometimes through that RFP process, we get out of state consultants, right, that are coming in and telling us how Charlotte should do Charlotte things, right?

Um, and I think if we are going to be innovative, if we're going to lead the path uh in transportation as well as in addition to the mobility plan and the projects that are coming through, it is really a rare and unique opportunity to partner with a uh really great research university and institution in our backyards, and I think it would not only help us get to where we want to go where we don't no longer have to take trips to Boston or other cities and say what are they doing, right?

You know, we can start investing that now and and have those cities come to us and say, what is Charlotte doing?

I think it's really unique.

I also think that I mean, when you compare million uh millions of dollars given to subcontractors to do research, right?

That I mean we've done multiple times to $300,000.

I I think it's um it's uh it won't make a dent.

Um, and and I think it really would put folks to work.

And imagine, you know, I think we're contributing to not only the conversation when it comes to transportation, but we're also contributing to um putting students to work that are living in Charlotte that actually write our transportation system, and it's not just transportation experts.

Well, I it is, but they're they come from different disciplines, right?

They come from um uh urban planning, they come from a data point of view, they come from uh uh um uh engineering, sociology, they come from different disciplines that I think it's great.

And I oftentimes, you know, when I think should we have academics and uh or academia and and policy making?

Well, I mean, that's how a lot of policy is made through academia, right?

And so I think this is just really us taking a huge leap forward and getting ahead of the curb ahead of time and starting an investment early on that I I'm more than sure we're gonna make that investment later on.

So I think this is just us really being proactive and not reactive to research that are is going to contribute greatly to our success as a transportation city.

Thank you.

Speakers in Mayfield, Drigs, and Miss Johnson would bring us home.

Thank you.

So I did not support the investigation or let's look into it because we pretty much know tonight has gone.

The concern I have is the fact that we hadn't gone to our partners first.

But I have a question for staff.

What was the last research study and partnership with UNC that the city contracted with?

I think there are probably multiple opportunities.

So I I would have to check with somebody to find out.

So that would be something that would be of interest to me.

There were, I think, two contracts that were able to be found.

They were from pretty far ago.

One of them is the Urban Institute um partnership, um, the Urban Land Institute or the Urban Institute, okay, the urban institute.

So I know we also work with them on quality life.

Right.

Because we have a couple of um ongoing opportunities.

The concern that I share, well, the questions that I asked when we had the check-in sessions was one who will own this information once it was all said and done.

The concern I have is if you walk into the manager's office, there's plenty of books in there with studies that we have paid for where the work has not been implemented, or we've had community members give uh wait till y'all finish.

I might want to go.

I'm sorry, I was actually talking about your question.

Um, I was trying to figure out how else to explain that it wasn't just a study, that it was the model.

That's what I was trying to figure out on to I was listening to you.

So when I think about multiple times that we have had an opportunity, and to be perfectly honest, a lot of the recommendations that came from community and came from experts were good ones that we didn't necessarily we didn't implement them.

They would have helped prevent some of the challenges and that we have today or help mitigate some of them.

Yet for this budget cycle where we already have financial challenges, and it seems like honestly, manager, I'm concerned because it seems like we get a different response as far as how we move forward to hear that okay, well, it's a good idea.

Well, let's find the 300.

We have some serious financial challenges ahead of us.

This was a great opportunity between your manager's office relationships, between the mayor's office relationships to whether it's Foundation for the Carolinas, United Way, Central Piedmont.

I don't care who we have public private partnerships that we talk about all the time to have connected with them to help with this regional opportunity and discussion that we're talking about.

We're also talking about potentially 300.

What are our regional partners contributing to this?

Where they tend 15, 20, 30, 40,000 towards this model that potentially could help the entire region.

We had a conversation earlier today in housing and neighborhood services about looking into a model.

What that conversation consisted of was for a committee to have a conversation to give a nod for staff to go and do some more research on the idea of the model and bring it back to us, not asking for us to identify the funding level of it.

So as we're looking at the funding option, I have a clear concern that we're playing with the fuel contingency.

What we pay in fleet fuel is a considerable amount.

At a position where we're negotiating gas prices differently than others.

So I'm concerned about allocating that amount and looking at us not having the fuel because then what happens?

What happens when our water trucks cannot make it to where they need to go?

Because we had another spiel and we can't even get out to address it.

What happens to fire?

What happens to police?

What happens to sanitation?

What happens to any of our services if we say we don't have the gas?

What happens to code enforcement?

When people are calling about a concern, but we don't have the gas to get you out there because all of our handful of electric vehicles are already on the road.

So I want us to figure out a way to support the research so that we can identify a plan to move better.

Is that a priority for me right now with the budget?

Not if our tax dollars have to pay for it.

Is it an opportunity to expand this conversation with our partners?

Yes, it is.

Is it an opportunity in our manager's office?

Is it an opportunity for our mayor to hit all her friends up on her way out and throw all the guilt chip that she needs to for them to just do their job to help us be a better city?

Is it an opportunity for our part for our representative on CRTPO to talk to his um colleagues in the region to say, hey, how about y'all contribute 5, 10, 15,000 towards this and we all do it together since we all gonna benefit?

Those are just a couple of ideas I would like to share.

I am staying consistent.

I said prior to before it made its way to the budget that I would not be able to support spending dollars on this.

I did not raise my hand for it last week.

I would stay consistent.

Thank you.

Councilmember Dregs.

Thank you.

So uh when I first heard about this not that long ago, I was very interested because I thought it might be responsive to some of the objections that were raised to I-77 and help us to find a path forward.

Uh and I have to repeat, I'm very concerned about the missed opportunity and the consequences of the council's position on that, but that's not what we're talking about tonight.

In the absence of that immediate opportunity, it's not clear to me why this can't get done in a much more deliberate fashion.

I believe uh council member Graham made a very good point.

We're talking about now a more longer-term strategic outlook that doesn't have that particular urgency around it, and we can give ourselves time to answer the many questions that aren't answered in the material that we have.

Uh I believe we would we should have greater involvement by CDOT.

Uh, because this research project needs to operate in conjunction with uh our actual practice and with the practitioners.

Um I know for my son, for example, who worked uh a couple of internships at Microsoft and then uh went back to UNC to finish computer science, that he felt that what the practitioners were doing at Microsoft was uh very different and further advanced than what a lot of the academic research indicated because these are the guys that have to work within the confines of all the constraints and the various considerations.

So I certainly wouldn't want to go down a path that suggests to them that we think we can get better advice somewhere else.

Uh now, on the other hand, in the fullness of time, if we study this, uh I think the idea of a partnership like this could make very good sense, and if it was value added to CDOT and to us, uh, by all means, but I I think trying to fit it into this budget uh without the benefit of more research and on such short notice uh is not indicated.

Brandon Song, Councilmember Johnson.

Thank you.

As the university representative, who's very honored to serve uh such a university, the research one university, this is an opportunity to show that to show true partnership with a local partner.

Um, I know Mr.

Manager, you said this is not directly related to I-77, and I understand that.

However, we we do need to do research.

We were looking at data from I think 2007 or you know, a long time ago.

So I I think it's important.

Um and when I that that vote on the 11th, what I said, I think it's important that we look at third party objective data for all of our major initiatives.

So I think that this is I mean, if you look at a problem-solving will, some problem-solving wills, you know, gathering the data or getting the information is gonna be the first step.

So I I think it's definitely something we want to pursue.

The council approved it on the 11th.

Is there another alternative funding besides the um the fuel contingency?

Can we look at the what is it, the community?

Yeah, because we just that's one of the reasons that we, you know, for me that I didn't approve the for the struggle in the uh the other organization.

Can we take a look at that fund for this project?

Yes, so I just think it's important.

Again, we'd be supporting the partnership when you're solving any problem.

You want to look at third party.

These are students, this is future, innovative creativity, and I just think it really makes sense that if we're moving forward and solving a problem that we would look at, I mean, we have this resource in my backyard, literally, so um I I will be supporting the motion and the the funding, the community investment um.

I think again we were able to save some money there.

That was a tough decision, but this this data and this report is very important in the future of our city.

Thank you.

All right, so I think Miss, we have ready to vote.

All in favor, please raise your hands.

Um, and let's see, we have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight.

I think they don't more than that.

So we have another a quorum for this, and um, oh, I can't even talk this.

So the those who did not all oppose one, two, three, four.

All right, so there I think that completes this um uh idea of what we're doing here.

Okay, all right.

For our next item, let's go next number.

We what have we got?

Okay, so number nine we're on.

Increase the 2026 housing bond.

And again, remember it's an all-time high of one twenty-five million, but we're looking to uh council wanted to explore going even higher at 200 million, and so we did that, but then we also provided a table.

If you look at the top of page 13, can I can I interject just for a second?

Sure.

I just want to make sure I voted against it because I wasn't clear that it included that it would go back to committee for scoping.

So can we just make that clear?

Absolutely.

Okay, then I I will vote for it, but it doesn't matter.

But I just I want to be very clear that I don't even though it's a 300,000 three hundred thousand dollar, he could just do it, but we would like it to come back and be scoped.

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, if I may, is everybody ready for number nine?

Sorry, Marie.

No, you're good.

Number nine.

So again, there was five votes on May 18th to explore um increasing the housing uh I'm sorry, the housing bond above 125 million, 125 million.

And so if you look at the blue table in blue, that's what it would look like.

So if we went up to 200,000 two hundred million, thank you, it would be additional one point six cents proper and the property tax, and you can read the table 175 would be an additional 0.11 cent, and 150 would be an additional 0.06 cent on the property tax, and that's even though the the housing trust fund bond increase would be one time.

This tax would not be one time, it'd be ongoing.

Okay, thank you for the um introduction.

Um, Mr.

Mitchell, and Mr.

J.

D.

Go ahead, Mr.

Driggs, JD was yours.

Okay, JD, please.

Thank you, madam mayor.

Um, so I no, we don't have a sorry, um I'm trying to wrap my head around this.

Um, but I'm all for increasing affordable housing, right?

But I think uh increasing the housing trust fund dollars.

What I'm a little bit what what keeps coming to back to my head is we're increasing the bond, right?

Or at least this is what's proposed from 125 million to 200 million.

Subsequently, in order to increase the bond, we have to increase property taxes, making it more expensive for homeowners to pay the mortgage, right?

So I think to me, those two things are competing and contradictory of one another.

So I I kind of want to ask some questions.

So I know this council is sensitive to a property tax increase and potential impact on low wealth homeowners.

I know the county and city created a tax relief fund of 12 million dollars, which is homes, right?

To assist burden owners.

How much of that pot was utilized after it was marketed?

So I'll start off, and there'll be a bunch of people over there trying to make sure that I get it right.

I believe we have not been in the homes program in the current fiscal year.

I believe we use some of that money for faith and housing.

And so we've not been a part of the homes program.

Gotcha.

For a couple of years initially, yes, but not in the current fiscal year.

I get that right.

That's correct.

And um, and sorry I was talking to Cherry because she's our resident expert on that.

If you have any more um questions around it, but we did partner, but we're not providing any additional funding in currently.

Got it.

But the county is.

The county is okay.

So I just I I just want to put that out there that you know for us to really have a robust conversation.

I know I know it's 9 30, but of us increasing the housing trust fund dollars, but also raising property tax.

I don't know where we go from there.

I just want to put that out there that it it doesn't sit well with me, right?

Um, as much as I want to, right?

But it I just want to put that out there.

Thank you.

So I just want to mention the uh property tax increase pays for this particular issuance.

Now, don't imagine it stops there, right?

I mean, we go to 200 this time, how much is it next time?

Other cities have 300, and each time it's going to take new increases in the property tax, because this increase in the property tax only pays for this once.

So uh we need to be mindful about our intentions as we go forward in subsequent budget cycles and and not kid ourselves we can do this once and then go back.

We have a 25% increase in the trust fund uh right now in the budget as it stands, which is substantial.

Uh and I would be really worried that uh to your point, we set ourselves up for future tax increases.

We we don't manage the expectations because uh there will be expectations.

I mean, people at a minimum are gonna want 200 next time, and it'll probably be 250, and then we'll have to find more taxes.

So I'm not gonna support it.

All right, Mr.

Mitchell.

Uh thank uh thank you, madam mayor.

I just had to talk to the uh chair to see uh was this topic in her committee, and she told me it was not, and I just struggle.

Yes, we need to supply, but council NIMBY is loud and clear in our community, and I I don't know if this is the right time for us to uh add more burden to our taxpayers for the 200 million um housing bond, and the question would come we had the blue Z.

Where are we going to build all this affordable housing?

Which district?

Um, and so for me, I don't think the time is right.

I'm gonna support the mayor, I mean, I'm sorry, the city manager, one time of 125 million, and let's really have a conversation probably when is that next next cycle?

2028, we do it every two years.

Okay.

So maybe 2028 would be in a better position to to address some of the hard questions.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

So um Miss Swatlington, thank you.

Um, yeah, similar along the lines of what's been shared as I look at this.

I mean, if we're nickel and diamond 300,000, we got to look long and hard at 75 million.

Um, I do think obviously that affordable housing is extremely important.

I think though we're gonna have to be a lot smarter about how we do everything, and we're not gonna be able to build our way out.

We know that, and we're gonna have to take a much more holistic approach.

Um, because it's not it's not for me.

I would go so far as to say it's not even about housing, it's about economic mobility and what role housing plays in economic mobility.

So rather than thinking about how do we build more units, it to me it's really about how do we move more people through the through the economic um the social economic ladder and what role do we play in ensuring that housing in so much as it supports that movement, um what role do we play in that.

Um I wanna say, and I don't know if I don't necessarily see Sarah in here anymore, but I feel like I remember there was some conversations happening at the state level around looking at how we um at the um housing finance agency and how we're incentivizing uh tax increments.

Yep.

I I would absolutely implore us to push for more for reform in that area as well, particularly for being able to invest in home ownership, whether that's condos, whether that's um detached, whether that's single family attached, whatever it is.

I just really think we got to be mindful that what we're doing here really is subsidizing the transfer of property into the hands of particular housing developers, right?

And not to say that they're malicious actors, but when we really, really think about it, I think there's got to be a better way.

How do we ensure that the public money is used for the broadest ongoing public good?

And for me, 30, 60 year leases in the most promising areas of the city is not necessarily what I would consider generational investment um for the broader public.

So I say all that to say I think there's a lot of policy work to be done here, so I look forward to seeing a more comprehensive approach in the committee.

All right, Miss Mayfield.

Mayfield.

Mayfield Miss Mayfield.

Thank you, madam.

Yeah, I was making sure it wasn't my colleague because I was checking it.

Um so we actually what we went over this morning, talked about a couple of bills that are out there.

Yet I have already shared the concern that I have, which is the concern of my colleagues that 0.157, so zero 16 cents additional, that would be a new added to our tax rate for one time.

Again, I would say we have the opportunity when we look at public-private partnerships, whether it's the foundation, whether it's corporate partners, a way for us to look at match for our community, come together to match our funds in order for us to address because at the end of the day, we can't build our way out of it.

What we learn and what we were some of us were reminded of is the investments that we made in 2024 helped to give development community direction on where our interests were because they followed the line item.

They followed the dollar.

I think it would be tone death of us to as my colleague said, create a tax increase on our that's going to impact uh workforce in our most vulnerable in order to tell them we're trying to create something for you that it's a challenge to try to explain that because the reality is we have seen layoffs from our corporate partners in our community, and we have individuals that have been out of work from six months to two years now.

We don't we're not having a conversation in this budget or any budget that I know of, really, where we're trying to figure out how to keep those individuals in their homes, whether it's multifamily or a single family.

There's not, that's not really what we do to help with that conversation.

We're not having a real conversation about town homes that we have supported and invested that have HOAs that have $268 to $287 a month, HOA fee, and what the impact of that is in community.

So the idea of I know we have partners out there, I understand that the people's budget has a dream of $200 million.

The same individuals that we're trying to assist are the ones who will be burdened by the taxes that will be needed in order to get to that number.

I am comfortable with the $125.

Yes, I asked for staff to come back with.

Tell me between that two to five hundred million what that would look like, because I wanted us to have the numbers.

You have more data people around our table than anything else.

We want to see what the numbers show us, what the numbers showed us that that would could be a considerable burden on our residents.

I'm not able to support that type of burden when we have the opportunity to do some great things with a hundred and twenty-five million, especially if our corporate partners come to the table and match or exceed us.

Thank you.

Ms.

Johnson.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I'd like to see the a comparison of what the tax increase would be on a resident.

If we approve the $125 million versus the $200 million, I wish we had simplified data in addition to the $1.89 uh tax increase.

I want to see what the bottom line increase or impact is going to be for residents.

Additionally, there are some increases in the MSD amount for some residents.

So I would love to see just a simplified version so residents can see how this affects them.

Do we have the the difference amount from $200 million versus $125?

And then if we could do an average of $400,000 home instead of $300,000, because that's those are hard to find.

If you can work on that while somebody can work on that while I'm asking the additional questions, if we could have a bottom line number just to help us consider, thank you.

You all also mentioned policies, and I cannot agree more.

Yes, we need more affordable housing.

I had the discussion today during the housing committee meeting.

We were talking about a model uh for financing mixed use or mixed income housing that may or may not exclude the 30% AMI individuals.

So until our policies really support low income or excuse me, affordable housing, I don't think we should burden our taxpayers anymore.

We have the opportunity there.

Um imagine if we used our HTA dollars for public safety that could free up more money from our general fund that we could use on affordable housing.

Imagine if we incorporated or if the state allowed us to incorporate impact fees or inclusionary zoning.

So there's so much room for opportunity for improvement that the city could utilize the taxes that were already collecting from residents rather than burden them with with things that we should be taking care of.

It's almost like double taxation.

We also have the I think the the mayor's racial equity fund.

I don't know if we have a accounting of that.

So I mean, there's just opportunities.

I think that we can be creative and and take a look rather than burden our homeowners.

Do you all have that information?

Okay, thank you.

Yep, for uh the.16 cents is equal to about six dollars a year for the median home, which is valued at $359,000 for the $400,000, it's closer to $6.40 a year ongoing.

Okay, so $6.40 on top of the and then the $1.89 is how much on a $400,000.

That's that.

Sorry.

Oh, that does.

Okay, so $600, $6.40 per dent doesn't include.

That's just for that's just for the increase.

Oh, sorry.

That's just for the increase, sorry.

Okay, so then do you have that information?

We are getting it.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, $68 uh dollars and fifty-three cents.

It's on page two of your budget.

It's the $1.00 per year.

So $68.53 per year for how much for how much in housing bonds.

What is she saying?

That's $125 right now.

$125.

And on top of that, $6.40 if you were to go back.

And that doesn't include sales tax or the county increase.

Exactly.

But the sales tax.

So these are the kind of that's the kind of information.

Because it's very arbitrary when we're just hearing this information.

We would like to see what does this mean to our residents.

So we've got all these proposed tax uh increases on different pages.

I mean, it really, really, really would help residents if we presented this in a more comprehensive model.

If we could see that, that would be great.

These ongoing costs, what's the bottom line to our residents at the end of the day?

So just to be clear, the um it that is what you're asking for is laid out in the budget book, and we can get that, but this is something that uh council requested like an impact on property tax to increase.

Right, but I want to see the difference between the 200 million and the 125.

Okay, so and you're saying a pair compared to a 400,000 because that's not the median that we use in the budget book, but we could do that.

Yeah, please.

Okay, so it's just it's just very difficult because I know that we need housing, and I we I talk about it all the time, but again, there's options that we as the city and policies that we could improve before we burden the taxpayers.

I really I always say when it comes between the rich and the poor in the city, the poor lose.

So we're not willing to um to change policies or you know, look at the HTA funds or or look at different models.

I think increasing taxes should be the last result a resort.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Miss Owen.

Uh thank you, madam mayor.

Um, so I'm gonna I I I do know how to read a room.

I know that it is late.

Everybody's like trending really away from the we just moved to the I want to I want to bring the voice of one Mac into the room.

I have committed to them from the very beginning that I was really really uh very uh forceful on housing, particularly on housing that does not naturally occur in district six, and we've talked today about a variety of issues, and I appreciate this.

I know that there is no appetite here at this table for the 200 million.

I I really just want to lift up, I think that our future is around NOAA.

I think our future is around hopefully an expansion of the ADU program.

There are several things that have been proven to work and they will work in six, but they are more expensive to do in six, and that's why I'm looking for my more money in this housing trust fund because we do not get the benefits of the opportunity zones and all of the things that happen along the opportunity corridors.

All of this does not happen in six, and I've got areas of six that do need housing, and it needs to be affordable.

And so I just I'm gonna put that out into the room.

I appreciate that.

Um, you know, we do have programs that can help people with their taxes, particularly our elders.

I do appreciate that those are imperfect.

I appreciate that they set a dollar amount that is not really workable for some folks, and that needs to be adjusted by the general assembly.

But that said, I would like to to put out into the room the 150, um, 150 million.

So I'm sorry, so 150.

Yeah, the 150.

I'd like to I'd like to goose it.

So an additional.

So 0.06.

Yes.

That that's that's my position on it.

But again, I I I know the room is not favorable.

But I oh I think that it's a good try.

I really really want to say to Mr.

Mitchell's point.

Like, where are we gonna put it?

Put stick summon six.

Okay, like so um if these are looking at the DNS, okay.

JD, I'm sorry, Madam Mayor, just point of information.

Was that a what was that?

Was that a modification to the that was a motion?

That was just a comment.

Can't just the statement.

Okay.

I just wanted to, Madam Mayor.

Um, so when it comes to the housing bond referendum, I understand that the city does make investment, but let's also account for the investments that we are making through our CDBG funds.

We, thanks to the mayor's leadership, the private sector also raised the funds.

The LISC, what is their funding?

I know it used to be they used to match the city's bond.

Do we know what is their match?

Oh, it's about this.

Lisc.

They have this private, I have not low.

I think we need to look at this holistically of all the funds that actually helps support affordable housing.

Then there is also the funds that's been raised by private um organizations like Mark Etherage, yeah.

And I think they have raised a hundred million.

I think that they've got two hundred noise.

They did the no is on um yeah, so um I I think we need to look at this holistically.

I would like really the committee to look at this issue holistically in terms of how much funding there is, not just from the city, but also from the county.

The county is now investing in affordable housing as well as um Lisc and uh organizations like Mark Etherage organizations, and yeah, ascent.

Um I agree with everything that's been said by my colleagues.

I don't think anyone will say that we don't support affordable housing.

I think that is a passion for all of us.

Uh, but it's how do we ensure that we balance affordable housing supply and increasing that while ensuring being thoughtful about not passing that burden to the very individuals we are trying to protect?

So that's all I have.

Thank you.

Okay, so um I let's see, JD.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Mayor.

Uh, city manager, I just I do want to um perhaps offline follow up why we no longer participate in the homes program.

Uh what was the gap there?

I really want to understand that or understand why folks didn't apply.

Um, and with the sales tax passed, and this is more so for the committee, but I really want to put it on the record, uh, land along the silver line is is currently being bought, and so we do understand the need of needing more funding to buy some of it, so we don't repeat the same mistakes that we did with the blue line, right?

Um that being said, I do as we continue the conversation, would like to know or allow us to do an exercise and chair may feel this is probably for um as we uh reevaluate our housing trust fund policy that we were doing today, you know what would an additional $75 million, right?

Which is what was proposed here, would look like um as we move forward, right?

Not that I would support right now, but what that might look like moving forward and how we allocate those funds.

Thank you.

So I I want to say thank you for all of that participation on this one.

Do we have a motion?

We don't need a motion.

Madam Mayor, I think I think we don't need a motion.

I think we have had the discussion, so we can just advance.

Yeah.

Could I um take a moment and just say that I I think that the work that has been done by this council has been exceptional for us as we talk about what we do with with our people and to make sure that people are doing well, and we've had some of the most I think transformative things to happen.

You know, you start thinking about what's going to be going up at um at the Johnson C.

Smith, and there's going to be housing in those rooms that they're going to have up.

Well, so we have the opportunities.

I would just say that we ought to continue to work on what's possible for us, whether it's something small or large.

If we get more opportunities, we should just grab them and keep going because that's what's going to make our city better.

So with that, um, I believe Mr.

Johnson Jones has a mayor.

So Mayor, uh members of council.

I believe that's the end of the sorry, no the additional items that required money.

So from this point on, there is an increase in revenue.

There are uh opportunities to decrease the current proposed property tax rate increase, and then there's some additional items or for informational purposes.

So I just wanted to say that on the final lap, these are the areas that are still for discussion.

And so the next one is revenue.

Revenue.

Here we are before we move on.

Yes, Miss Mayfield.

Thank you, ma'am.

I want clarification why we're not putting a motion forward on this when we have done it on every other item so that we don't just have this sitting out there.

We need to have make identify what we're doing moving forward as we have with every other item that had a proposal for an additional in here.

So for us to stay consistent, I'm gonna make the motion for us to accept the staff, the manager's recommendation of 125 million for our trust fund.

I have a motion and a second.

Any favor, um all in favor, all in favor.

Please raise your hands.

Okay, anyone opposed?

The manager's budget proposal.

Oh, for the house.

Just to codify it.

That's already part of them.

It is not we got it.

We just wanted to codify it.

Okay, okay.

Now who is opposed?

Is there anyone opposed?

I'm opposed.

So we gotta be.

You probably need to call for the vote again.

We got a motion and a second, but just for clarity so the clerk can catch it.

Did you get that?

I have a motion and second.

Uh currently right now the only no that I have is Councilmember Owens.

Yes, that's correct, Miss.

I have a question.

Thank you for discussion.

Uh we I asked for some information specifically, like the number so we could compare them.

Okay, yes, ma'am.

So you asked specifically for a house of 400,000.

400,000, the 125.

That would be 75 dollars.

Sorry, 75.

Yes, 75.60 cent a year.

And that includes the 1.89%, ma'am.

And but it doesn't include the new sales tax increase, does it?

No, because they're not, it's not applicable to you mean the average sales tax, no.

Yeah, okay.

So 75 dollars a year, 75 and 60 cents per year, and then 150 is what?

150 would be 78, and that includes the the 1.89 plus the um moving it up to 150.

So three dollars per year.

78 dollars per year, right?

But the difference is three dollars per year for an additional 25 million per 100.

Roughly, 240.

So $78 per $100 or no $400,000 dollar home.

For a four based on a $400,000 value.

Yes, ma'am.

At least $78 dollars a year.

So there's an ad there's an additional additional three dollars per year for 25 more.

$2.40.

$2.40 per year.

So I think county tax plus fees, so that $2,000 current tax bill will go up to about $24 million.

But the tax bill is going to go up.

The only difference is going to be $2.40 for for this portion for $25 million.

So I mean, I would I would support $150.

Kimberly.

Well, the challenge is we got a motion, got a second, and just voted.

Okay, we all vote okay.

Well, I didn't raise my hand either way.

I all right.

So that was discussion.

Okay, so I mean, you already voted.

Okay, that's what that's it.

Alright, think.

Well, I didn't raise them.

So I I'm opposed to the $125 also.

Thank you.