Order this ad hoc committee.

I'll order the ad hoc committee for the uh FY26 amended budget.

Um let me thank all of my colleagues for being present coming to the table.

Uh let me just kind of briefly lay out the purpose of this meeting is to finalize and to set an alternate version of the budget compiled by Chairwoman Hill and sponsored by Councilman Davis and myself and hope hopefully gain the support of at least five of our colleagues.

Um what we're striving to do is find some cuts or reallocations in the budget while considering a modest tax increase in order to fund a much needed fire police pay raise.

So with that, uh if you'll look in your folder, uh you'll find several materials this afternoon.

One, I want to draw your attention to this Tennessee code annotated uh basically saying that the council does not have to approve a line item budget.

We can approve a budget that funds each department.

And so uh there is a uh paper uh in your uh budget book as well as in your folder that looks similar to this, and this is what we would replace the operating budget with a page that looks very similar to this that just allocates dollars to uh each am I trying to say each department and then um I had asked for uh many many of you were concerned about uh individuals or people losing their jobs.

I had to ask for a list of uh budgeted but unfilled positions in the city, which it currently there's uh like 18 million dollars worth of budgeted but unfilled positions and what I've done is gone through and we have highlighted in yellow uh positions that are currently uh in the process of of being filled or at least applying to be filled, and then I made a few more additions uh of things that uh I felt like we would want to pull out uh with everything pulled out of what I think uh may need to be pulled out, that still leaves about three million nine hundred thousand dollars, somewhere between three and four million dollars of uh budgeted but unfilled positions.

So that may ease some folks' minds about uh people losing uh their jobs for being cut.

So um you tell us the difference between these two versions.

Okay, so one more one.

So the version that's if you'll notice the little highlighted one down here at the bottom.

I went back through and highlighted positions that I did not feel like we needed to pull out of that.

That makes sense.

Which which this the one that's the there's a little high of one that's highlighted in the bottom.

The page number.

Okay, that that is the that's the one that I manipulated to come up with the three million nine hundred thousand dollar number.

That makes sense.

So everything that is highlighted in that version is pulled out of the $18 million.

Council Clark, you look like you I will just try to follow.

So everything that's highlighted that you have highlighted.

Well, everything that's highlighted.

Well, I'm some that the some that the administration highlighted that is that are currently in the process of hiring, and then there's some more that that I have highlighted.

I'll see if I can find one here.

Um page four.

out of the 18 million dollars council clerk you look like you I will just try to follow so everything that's highlighted that you have highlighted well everything that's highlighted well some that the some that the administration highlighted that is that are currently in the process of hiring and then there's some more that that I have highlighted I'll see if I can find one here um on page four there's under uh community development uh aquatic aquatics there's about three lines there that I've highlighted and the things that I didn't think need to come out of this which ones are your highlights council mine or mine are just the single proposal just like I took a highlighter and went through I see it's like that faint it's the faint blue that you notice it's yellow right here it's the yellow so had lifeguards from if it's try to make it easy if it has yellow on it it is pulled out of that 18 million dollars no it's staying if it's yellow it stay oh yellow if it's yellow it's stay in stays I was about to say okay well what I'm saying so there's 18 million dollars of budgeted but unfilled positions so positions that nobody's working in right now nobody's working in 18 million this is the highlight size but I boiled it down yes to about three million nine hundred thousand and that includes some of my markers does that make sense now yes can I have a question okay yep but you do have a phone she can go okay I have a question so I this is for me I I need to level set myself for this meeting because I need to understand kind of where we are and I got a lot of questions from constituent and things like that so I just need to level set this okay so in June we passed unanimously a budget correct am I correct you all nine of us okay so it was the budget that was passed it was flat no tax increase included all services what this is doing is going back wrenching back grabbing that budget open it back up and saying these are some cuts that we can make in here so that we can supplement the pay or supplement the uh fire and police plan fire and police plan okay and in that because in that original budget my my district got all the services so my concern is coming into this budget and making cuts I would say um and I'm gonna ask madam chair because she said because we'll never sit next to each other uh in this so you are proposing 10 million dollars well let's let's let's get into that just to get it I'm gonna I'm gonna turn it over to Chairwoman heel okay and I want her to explain this how we got to 10 to the 10 million dollars worth of reallocations okay then it's but all I'm but let me reset it you're you're correct okay we're gonna reach back simply because it was my understanding and this is this is on me this is this is a uh a I guess a uh something that I want to see an amended version that I want to put on the on the agenda that councilman Davis and I respond but yes it reaches back into a budget that we just passed because it was my understanding that we were just going to pass a budget to get us something to the cop troll so that we could then look at fire police pay and as councilman davis pointed out from this table we were told that the administration was going to roll up their sleeves and they were committed to finding half that correct that's right from the diet as well and and so what I'm doing since since they didn't follow through on that commitment that's what I'm trying to I'm attempting to do.

I'm rolling up my sleeves and trying to find half okay so so half of it will come from a property tax increase and half of it will come from cuts in the budget or or thereabouts.

Thereabout in so but I'd like for I'd like to kind of turn it over to councilwoman heel to to at least let's get into the meat of it and then if we have questions about what we're doing we can follow up from there because what I really want to leave here with something that we can place on the agenda that says alternate versions that has all of the numbers on it that we need.

Okay that include fire police pay raises so I'm gonna turn it over to councilwoman heel and councilwoman if you want to explain the two pages the um kind of the budget sheet and then the worksheet so we got budget amendment sheet and then we got budget amendment worksheet council one you'll take it from here I appreciate it.

Okay councilman I have a question for you and then you so we just got this information about the no line item the we don't have to pass a line item budget we can just pass a general department budget department budget and so the plan here is to pass a general department budget with the cuts and then allow the mayor to take the cuts that's correct or the department has to uh allocate that's the way to how they how they feel since they're the ones but okay so just again that's the that is the plan the proposal that we're making so they've done the work from January to May to bring us theirs and then we're gonna go back in that's right and cut it that's right but not tell them what to cut.

So just again that's the that is the plan, the proposal that we're making.

So they've done the work from January to May to bring us theirs, and then we're gonna go back in.

That's right.

And cut it.

That's right.

But not tell them what's a cut.

That's right.

That's right.

Does that seem reasonable?

I guess it does because we hear seem reasonable to move.

Okay, all right.

So I'm gonna give it all to look.

If if it doesn't seem reasonable to five of you, then we'll go on about the business one.

Okay, well, I just well, I will say the reason it doesn't seem reasonable is because it doesn't account for what is being cut.

Um because for me for districts that and I just want to say this out front at the beginning as Madam Chair gets into her details.

And I said yes in June to the budget, which was passed unanimously.

My people expected to get every single service that was inside of that budget, inside of that flat budget.

If you're going back and cutting out of the budget, and your district is okay, and that's okay, you gotta do what your people told.

We know we gotta do what our people told us to do.

So if districts one and district three and district two decide, hey, they need to cut the budget, then when I see this, I need to see line item deep cuts out of your district.

Okay, that's right.

That's right.

Let me let me go back.

Let me go back and reset this meeting.

Yes, please.

This meeting is to set um alternate version.

Okay, and that's the purpose of this ad hoc committee.

So set an alternate version.

And I'm gonna ask Council Woman Hill if she will begin so that we can set an alternate version.

Okay, that version can be voted up or down.

I hear you.

Thank you.

I hear you, too.

I have one more question uh just about this this work.

Okay, the items that that are highlighted, whether they're all the way across or where there's just a little highlight, these are the items that you suggested we keep.

That's right.

Okay, the items that are not highlighted are up for maybe proposal to those are those are opportunities to cut.

Well, those are opportunities, and really what I was trying to show there is that in each department there's opportunities for a director to just freeze those positions and not cut anybody so that nobody would lose their job.

Okay, that's what I was trying to point out.

That there is room in this budget with cuts for people not to lose their job, and I can expound on that just a little bit more after.

Okay, that's all I needed.

All right, Councilwoman Hill, if you would let's let's reset to our um alternate merger claims.

So um, so like councilman Henderson and Councilman Davis, um I was expecting and had advocated for the city to meet us halfway on a budget amendment that would fund fire and police salary increases without putting the full burden of those increases on new records.

Um, and so in the budget work session schedule, um the third work session was structured in such a way that in the morning we were asked for council to bring ideas for reaching that for reaching our individual goals, and then in the afternoon, the mayor brought his proposal.

Um this proposal is not in an answer to the mayor's proposal, it existed before the mayor.

Proposal was brought to us.

Um but what I looked to do was find a way to get halfway, as we had discussed, and you all might remember I elevated the possibility of doing an extension on our budget and doing this all at one time so that we could have looked at it all at once with the full knowledge of how much money we needed for those fire and police raises, but as a council, we decided to move forward.

Um, and so my thought with this original proposal, um, and honestly, I expected that many of us would have brought ideas and we would kind of all throw them on the table, and I think that's sort of where we are now with with councilman Henderson leading this ad hoc conversation.

Um, so what this has done, if you take a look at the um it's it's the one that has a little bit smaller numbers, numbers, FY budget amendment worksheet detailed view.

Um it has a little bit more data on it.

This is where I try, and and I shared this document with all of you a couple times because I want to be very transparent about kind of where my thought process is.

Um, so um in talking with um Weston Porter, our um chief financial officer, he identified that there were several things that were already allocated in the budget that and that he would refer to as being um untouchable.

view it has a little bit more data on it this is where I try and and I shared this document with all of you a couple times because I want to be very transparent about kind of where my thought process is so in talking with Weston Porter our chief financial officer he identified that there were several things that were already allocated in the budget that and that he would refer to as being untouchable so those are things that are debt they are committed grant commitments things like that and so I spoke with Weston in preparation to get this into a format that we could vote on and so I determined from him with him what departments those items fell under so those items fell under general government and agencies agencies and quad eye agencies and so I I wanted everybody to be able to see how these numbers came together but essentially the general government agency line item we had set aside as a council in that last meeting before we voted on the budget we set aside five million dollars as a as a commitment an earnest commitment toward finding half remember that's Kevin brought that and chip brought that councilman Henderson brought that to this council and said we want to get halfway there and here's five million dollars to prove it so that's what that five million is and then what I I believe strongly that the mayor and leaders of departments are committed to the one Chattanooga plan and that they are an organization that is purpose driven and so when I thought about finding a a middle way I thought about how as a leader in in my own right in other places I know my business best and then when I've worked for other people I've known my department very well and I think it's important to have leaders have agency in those discussions.

So what I have recommended here and what you'll see detailed is a handful of departments that I saw as being the foundational elements of government so public works, fire police and parks not receiving any cuts to their budgets and then a leadership demonstration from our city council and from our mayor's office of a 10% cut and then a 15% cut from the total community development budget that to me the reason I chose that was because we as a council for the last four years and however many months that I've been serving on council and in conversation with the administration as well have understood that the direction the mayor wants to head is not been the direction he's been able to get to we as a council have not been pleased with the direction we're headed and so I think there's some opportunity there for distilling down that's that's my perspective and so that's why I recommended that cut and I think it's interesting and I appreciate Councilman Henderson you bringing you bringing this because you all have said your some of you have said you're concerned about anybody losing their job and I completely respect that concern so it's interesting to see that we do have open positions to the tune of 18 million dollars but also that even if we fill the ones that are most mission critical that we stood that's still just what through three four million right about four million so you know that that is what you're looking at here.

So when we see these reductions that adds up to 10 point one million dollars in reductions which so that takes that 5 million plus 5.1 million and gets us to the halfway point give or take to meeting that that goal of funding 10% of the or excuse me 50% of the raise that that we want to get to with existing revenue you'll see I also you know different people have mentioned different concerns that that you all have about the potential of pursuing this this direction and so I did go ahead and add to the bottom of this worksheet what we would what kind of revenue we would generate if we went to a 13 cent or a 14 cent increase so that would still put us at up to just we wouldn't we wouldn't tip over a 10% increase we would get to 9% with even a 14 cent increase that would generate 2.1 million dollars so I am personally very committed always to finding the middle way I think when we compromise we come up with our our best solutions and so I I come here as I come to most meetings with a very open hand district two has continued to be pretty evenly split on going for the dollar ninety nine or being very worried the other portion of I've talked with you all about that about being really worried about the the impact and we think it's interesting that the tax freeze you know will impact people next year right so if we were to take a

And so I I come here as I come to most meetings with a very open hand.

Um District 2 has continued to be um pretty evenly split on going for the dollar 99 or being very worried.

Um the other portion of I talked with y'all about that um about being very worried about um the the impact and do you think it's interesting that the tax freeze you know will impact people next year right um so um if we were to take a more moderate approach here people would be frozen at a lower level of taxation than they then they would be if we went with the dollar ninety nine um but so what you see on this other page is the inverse of the savings um what you see here um on the FY26 budget amendment page this is the the structure that we would need to drop this into an amendment um that would be votable and so what you see here is the opposite so this has caused me much confusion where we've got 10 point one on one row and 12.8 on the other row that's because this is an overall increase of 12.8 million dollars in expenses because we've added in the additional nine million and fourteen million dollars for fire and police on lines H and J.

So we're here we were reducing and here we've taken the reductions but we've also added in 23 million dollars so that's so this is what would be we would be saying that headed into this next into the fiscal year the amended total revenue number would be three hundred and fifty eight million dollars ninety eight thousand seven hundred five hundred and seventy eight does that cover what you want me to cover yes ma'am you're uh great in fact the twelve the twelve million eight hundred uh thousand is our shortfall basically of of what we would need to fund fire and police at a level that they need to be funded with uh okay so uh are you at a place that you're ready to I I guess turn it yeah I suppose that um my understanding is that if we were looking at the uh in the same structure um the administration's proposal which again came after this proposal but uh it instead of 12 we would see 50 million because that's the goal to raise 50 million dollars would be the shortfall so again let me uh as as I open this table up let me remind you that our goal here is to come up with some kind of agreement for uh an alternate version if you have questions I'm happy to try to answer those but but we're not here to debate whether we need an alternate version or not we're here to get an alternate version set so that we can place it on the agenda is that fair and I will try to keep us headed in that direction.

Castle Nelly thank you Mr.

Chairman um I have a couple questions chairman your proposal for the vacancies do we consult the administration as we look to some of these vacancies to see what type of impact this would make towards operations all so this is what I asked for I asked for a list budgeted but unfilled positions okay so the first the first paper that I got had everything listed on it and then I got the second version which had all of the positions that were I guess currently in process and in looking through the remainder of that I just am the one that labeled the ones that I felt like were as Councilwoman Hill's pointed out kind of critical mission.

So no I have not I I'm sure if it's on this list the administration would tell you they need every one of them so all I'm saying look don't misunderstand the the purpose of this page the purpose of this page is the fact that these positions are not filled okay there's nobody in them nobody's losing their job nobody is losing their job that's the only purpose for this page is to demonstrate now I want to go back and let me just kind of highlight um a few things in in city attorney's office the unfilled and budgeted positions would cover the cuts that we have made to his department IT is the same IT is covered finance is covered economic development is around 1890 early learning is probably the most at 167 thousand dollars if we put a million dollars back into community development we would be within 1500 or about even with with the with the positions that are not filled so an administrator could say okay I'm just not going to fill these positions and therefore uh nobody's gonna lose their job and that's all I'm saying that's all this sheet was trying to demonstrate positions currently not filled that they could um freeze so that nobody would lose their job that's all I'm that's all that she's for I appreciate it I'm gonna say this and I'll bear with me it's been several weeks since I had a bit of a monologue I'm back council clerk held it now for a little bit so

So an administrator could say, okay, I'm just not going to fill these positions, and therefore nobody's gonna lose their job.

And that's all I'm saying.

That's all this sheet was trying to demonstrate.

And there are positions currently not filled, that they could freeze so that nobody would lose their job.

That's all I'm that's all that she's for.

I appreciate it.

I'm gonna say this, and y'all bear with me.

It's been several weeks since I had a bit of a monologue.

I'm back.

Councilman Clark held it down for a little bit.

So y'all just bear with me, because I'm here.

You know, um, I have been very honest with my district that these conversations were to come, even on the campaign trail.

And I have been steadfast with the uh perspective that um all of this, it's important that we fund fire and police.

I don't think anybody disagrees with that.

I've been honest with my district, all of this cannot land on the backs of taxpayers.

We have made some headway.

I would give the administration they helped us find five million dollars.

As somebody who has worked on the other side of city government, I understand a lot of it.

There's still fat to cut, right?

Uh a lot of what goes into our budgets are largely staff.

A lot of these departments don't have excess amount of programming and whatnot.

And believe there are some staff positions that I do not think should exist.

But I said this last week, and I remain steadfast that I do not believe in cutting anyone's job.

I'm not gonna take food out of one person's mouth to put it in another.

Um so whatever fat was added before I got here and was added to that previous previous budget, I have no control over.

They have jobs, that that it is what it is, and um I said this last week, and councilwoman chairwoman Hill, I really appreciate your work and due diligence on this, but my concerns still remain the same.

I do not support blanket percentage cuts.

We cannot do it because we do not know what we're cutting.

We have a huge responsibility and a lot of authority, the money sits with council.

You we give the administration a cap of $50,000, you don't have to come to us.

You got $50,000 to play with, but we could lower that to $3 tomorrow.

And if anyone spend anything over $3, they have to get our permission.

The authority to spend dollars sits with council.

So councilman, let me let me start.

If I could chairman, let me I didn't want to debate whether this was a good idea or not.

No, no, no, no.

I'm getting to your point.

Oh yeah, please.

Yeah, I'm gonna wrap it up.

I want to get something on the agenda for an alternate part.

You're getting me there.

I'm getting there.

Okay, then you're finished.

Okay.

Don't let me don't let me stop.

Okay.

I'm getting you there.

Um, and so with that, uh, it's a huge power and authority we have to oversee the dollars.

One that we should not take lightly.

And if we put a huge mandate on the administration to say, hey, here are this percentage cuts go at it, and without the knowledge of what extra meat is in those departments, we could be very easily cutting people's jobs.

And in this economy, I just can't um I can't, I can't uh stomach it.

And also, I'm very concerned about the WAP side of nature of some of these cuts.

I said this last week.

I'm gonna start with community development.

I said this last week.

Um, we you you you in your documents, you cited the uh poor performance of the um the department.

I don't necessarily believe the performance of the department as a whole has failed.

I had concerns about this leadership, and I do not believe we should punish an entire department for inadequate leadership, and frankly, this is the apartment that plays a huge role in many of my communities, especially black and brown communities across the city.

And if we start cutting staff or centers or anything else, where do we start?

Because I know in my district, I have Eastdale, who at that center is the heart of that community and plays a pivotal role, and I have Glenwood, which currently serves as a senior center, and I doubt anybody wants to touch a senior center.

They'll be on you fast and the white on rice.

Um so I am very concerned about the WAP sided nature of what these percentage cuts, even if we were looking at blankets percentage cuts, which I don't even want to go down that road, which answers your question, Mr.

Chairman.

Um I don't think this is where we start.

If we're gonna do this, let's do it responsibly.

Because if we put a mandate on the administration that leads to undue unspoken consequences, we're at fault.

Because right now it's our responsibility.

And I can't support that.

Now, if we tilt our approach and say, let's really open these budget books.

I don't know about you guys, but I spent time going through this budget book this weekend and actually looking at what could be cut.

Line item by line item.

I will support that.

Do you have a list?

I have a list, but y'all are proposing it.

No, no, we're here to create.

Are we here to create an alternate version?

We're creating an alternate version.

And so I'm to bring your cuts.

Y'all let me finish.

I got the floor.

Y'all let me finish.

And so I support uh Mr.

Chairman, even look at vacancies, because that's part of what I opened up.

But you know, part of this too, you know, which of these positions are mission critical.

I don't know that because I don't run the operations of the city, the mayor.

And so even as we're looking to cut some of these positions, how necessary are they?

But we're not looking to cut them.

We're we're saying free some reallocate them.

Uh excuse me, reallocate their line items so they don't exist or whatnot.

Um, I think we just have to be honest with what we're saying, and this is the last piece, then I'm gonna be quiet.

Um I want somebody to correct me if I'm wrong on this.

But when we pass budgets, are we not passing a top line amount for the administration to spend every year?

The administration just turn around and move money around if they want to.

And they legally can do that.

So it's almost semantics as what we're going into on this part.

Um then honestly, if that's the case, we're almost wasting our time because if they say this is really critical, what's to stop them from just moving that money line item on over here and say this is what we're gonna fund.

Now we're gonna talk about how do we close the gap to um properly fund fire police, which we absolutely have to do.

Let's talk about that in a way that's a little bit more effective.

But I'm nervous we're going down a rabbit hole that may not really do much.

Um is there a piece?

Is there a proposal for an alternate version of the case?

Right now to the table.

That is what I want to level set going into this conversation to know for my colleagues, so you guys can know where my head is.

And so I'm interested to hear anybody else's thoughts before I go in front of it.

Okay.

Um, Councilwoman Dotley.

Yeah, thank you so much.

Oh, no, go ahead.

You're I just raised my hand.

I'm just proposing acknowledging up.

Oh, okay.

Right now, so I didn't want to kind of Oh, by the way, I forgot to mention we've got a no not today uh bells that it's if you want to ring it.

Okay, so I did want to kind of come back in and I guess I mean I didn't know Councilman Elliott was gonna say all that, but kind of go in with the same idea because when I came from our last meeting last week, this was gonna be a line item meeting.

And so I came in with the idea and I studied all this and came in with an idea of we were going to cut line items, and it is important to know, you know, we don't have to, but we should, because we don't know what upstream effects this is gonna have.

And as I kind of mentioned earlier or alluded to, you know, when I voted back in June, June the 3rd and 10th, or whatever day it was for that budget.

I I voted for my district to get every bit of service that they are paying for.

And this budget is cutting services, and and we don't know what they are.

So I give you an example, and so when I come in here, I come with the expectation that those who are carrying this legislation are gonna take the biggest hits because and that's why I thought it would be a line item cut because surely you wouldn't expect uh my district to take a hit when when they I already voted for them to get the services.

I give you a great example.

1.6 million dollars from community development.

That's a big hit.

And we don't know what that's coming from, but I tell you where it can come from.

It can come from John A.

Patton, B.

Wyatt, from Hickson, it can come from North River Civic and North Chattanooga, but that is 1.5 million dollars of operational put.

So that is your 1.5, and then whoever else, whether it's Tarner, Eastdale, Carver, Chris Ramsey, you lucky.

I couldn't get you because you got you'll gotta try.

You got to try to have nothing.

But if you all want to chime in, because it's my job, it's my job as the district seven representative.

Right.

So make sure that whatever we vote, and I know what you're doing.

I see what you're saying.

You saying, hey, whatever come out of here, you already got co-sponsor, it goes on.

You just want to see it either get voted up and down.

I mean you have had that conversation before.

Voted up or not.

Of course, in public, but we've had this conversation before.

But I just need to get on record for my constituents.

That however, whether it's at 1.67, whether it's at 1.71, 1.93, 99, whatever it is, then my services are not getting cut.

So whoever supports this, support it.

Do your thing.

But do understand when I voted back in June, I voted for my people.

We have four head start locations, three partnership locations and one in Cedar Hills.

When I look at that early learning cuts, and we're saying blanket cuts, does that cut the supplemental pace of the head start?

Is that cutting community forward?

I have two community four people at count one at Calvadonis and one at Howard.

I have a head start at Howard.

You know, who and what is it cutting?

And I want the administration to know whatever this lands.

Don't cut none of my stuff.

Because we have already voted for this stuff.

I don't know, city planning, same thing.

I went through this budget and I I went through it before, but now I go back again in city planning.

Same thing.

We're looking at a transit study for Carter.

When you looking at the cut from city planning, is that cutting the resource to do that thing that is in district seven?

Because when I came in here, I was under the impression that it was gonna be a line item cut.

Now we're coming in and saying, oh, it's the blanket cut.

I don't agree with blanket cut simply because it's an amendment.

So what is it cutting when I look at the executive branch?

What are we cutting?

Are we cutting Family Justice Center?

Are we cutting office of community health?

Are we cut what is it?

And it's hard to it's hard to support anything when you don't know what you cut it.

And I know it's this, I know this is here, and so and we just got this, so I can't say I've looked through this because I have not uh because I just saw it.

I just got it when I sat down.

So I don't know what's in there, but what you know, I can't say I don't know what we are cutting, and I can't I can't support that because I don't know what it is.

So that's where I am.

I just needed my constituents to know that however this pan out, it make it it pass, the other pay, whatever pays out, we are keeping our services that is Samir Kelly, that is to this administration.

Hey, Ellis, to this administration, I'm keeping my stuff.

Okay, so that's all I wanted to say.

Let me let me stress again.

This ad hoc committee.

Right.

Is about an alternate version.

I know there are some here, at least four of you, that are opposed to an alternate version.

I get it, and I hear you.

What I want us to do, there's at least four of us here though that are for an alternate version.

And I want to get something set so that we can get it on the agenda.

Now, once we get it set, if you want to rail against it, be my guest.

But what I want to do today is to set an alternate version, and I want to make sure that at least the sponsor and the co-sponsor are good with what we set.

Now, if there's some of you around this table that are kind of not sure where you are, and you want to make some suggestions that you can get so that you can get on board with an alternate version, I would love to hear it.

Okay, that's all I'm asking.

I want to set an alternate version.

Let's get it set, and then let's rail on it or praise it or whatever we want to do, but let's set an alternate version, okay?

That's all I'm asking.

Councilwoman Burst.

So I just I want to understand um with your proposal, how does that leave us?

That that takes care of year one.

That takes care of year one, correct?

That's so how does that leave us for I think if we're gonna be making this decision, how does that leave us for year two, three, and four?

Two it's two-part question.

Yeah.

Um there's a three percent cola.

How did I mean where's the plan for that?

It sounds like we're just setting ourselves up for having this the same conversation a year from now or sooner.

So I think regardless of whether we adopt the dollar ninety-nine or we adopt this, we're gonna have to have a discussion about next year or the following year.

I have said at this table multiple times, this is a multi-year approach.

It's gonna be a lot harder, in my opinion.

You ask the question, and I'm just gonna answer.

No, I'm just trying to, I'm trying to decide.

I think this is I think this is something that we start after we pass this budget, whatever it looks like, addressing what next year looks like this council, because we will have to address this again.

So once we this is not gonna be a one and done if if we set it at the dollar ninety nine, my point is in my opinion, it leaves us very little room for next year if we set it at the dollar ninety-nine.

If we set it at uh dollar sixty-seven, dollar sixty-eight, whatever that might be, that at least allows us some room to come back next year and look at another eight percent or or nine percent increase to address whatever inflationary uh cost that we've incurred over that past year, and address some of the concerns that that is in the mayor's proposal.

But I guess my point was I have since I have since March kind of relayed to my people, we've got to address fire and police pay.

And so that's the reason I'm offering an alternate version because this does exactly what I've told my people we were gonna do was address fire and police pay.

So I want I want to address fire and police pay.

And I'm so let me it's kind of a let's have a discussion versus uh I want to discuss it that's oh yes, yeah, yeah.

Oh okay.

Um Kevin Dotley said she had a response to you about working on something for next year.

But I mean you want to address it now, or you want to.

Let me let me just get this thought out.

And then um, so in my thought process, I'm thinking in terms of um our so constituents we're gonna be potentially hitting them with an increase over the next four years, correct?

Possibly.

Okay.

So I mean, things aren't gonna get any better economically, I I would imagine.

I mean, prices are gonna continue to go up, property values aren't gonna change, you know, they're not gonna go down.

Um so why why wouldn't we?

If we're just focusing on fire and police, why wouldn't we consider going ahead and securing something financially for the next four years to include that COLA?

And then if we have to have a discussion next year, we have the discussion about the other things.

I mean, that's the sacrifice, if you will, you know, if if if we're gonna ask folk to folks to sack or sacrifice, so I'm suggesting um maybe somewhere in the range of 16 to 26 or 28 cents more to get us to that level where we can we can cover at least the fire and police needs because that's the biggest thing.

I mean, all this stuff is important, and we're not cutting departments.

We're not doing these cuts line by line across for departments.

So that that's what I want to put out there for further discussion.

So you're so you're saying so fire and police fire pass fire and police raise raises that get us through to fiscal year 29.

So that covers it.

So allocating that in that you're saying to two.

You're saying 18 cents, because we need 18 million dollars.

So it would be not five million, we need eighteen million.

So you're proposing eighteen cents.

No, she's well, it would actually be more.

I mean, it depends on what you I mean.

I could go through and say, well, if we don't do the new fire station, that that could bring it down, so it could be somewhere in the range of um you're wanting cover more than just fire and police pay raises.

I want to cover what they need.

That's their needs.

She wants to cover their cost of labor.

But it sounds like only allocating to fire and police, not to the other stuff that was in the not the other stuff, fire and police, uh the the fire apparatus, the fire station, I mean all of the things that they said they needed.

And that list from last year.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

The only question I have, and I didn't see anybody here from the police department, but where did the there's a line item on here?

Vehicle supplements, CPD.

Is that for new officers?

Right now, there's have a shortage of vehicles, so if they got 55 new officers, they'd have to buy 55 new vehicles.

So that could but I'm just wondering if um if we go back to let's focus just on fire and police.

Okay, pay and and resource the things that they need to get us up to the level of a full-fledged supportive department, which is what was that number?

The raises there, it would be well.

I went to the high end, I went 1.83, which is actually the average of 1.55 and 1.99.

So it's in the middle.

It gets them pretty close to to what they needed.

There's a little there's a shortage of about a million, about 1.7 million, but we could play with the numbers that I'm just thinking bringing it up a little to accomplish what they need to bring us up to standard because right now we're substandard and not just with pay but with resources, and then we're not having to have this conversation in September, October, November, in preparation for having to tell the voters that they're gonna have another hike next year.

Well, I I like I said, I think this is a multi-year.

So then I'll I think this is a multi-year to council women.

I mean, that's the reason I feel like if we do, you know, if we did eight percent this year, if we do eight percent next year, we'll we're hitting along uh 16 percent.

We could do 8% for three years and still not, you know, put that on the back of the of the so I'm and I'm not I'm not trying to debate you, I think I'm just trying to understand the math of it because what's eight percent today with inflation next year will be well maybe more like 10 or 11 percent.

So that number's gonna, but if we could secure that now, you've got that money set aside.

That's where we need an economist to come in, I know what we think inflation's gonna be over the next three or four years so that we can look at this logically.

I I guess where I'm where look, I'm I'm committed to going up to to the 15 million to the to the nine percent by putting a million dollars back into community development and get them to where their vacancies they could freeze and nobody would lose their job.

I mean, I actually the I think the nine percent would get us 15 million dollars, that'd be another two million dollars basically above what we need.

So we could do a million for uh or a million and a half to community development, and that would make them completely whole point of information is is 1.67 firm for you.

Is that you really want your your uh alternate amendment to be 1.67?

So it's not you're not really debating the not debating, you're not really looking to discuss that that number, you're discussing how we adjust to get to that number of the case.

What do we need?

What do we need to adjust to get to um okay?

Well, the 1.69 is your is your top level 1.69 would be my top.

I and my co-sponsor, I mean, obviously is that the rate?

1.6.9 would be the rate.

Okay.

And that would give us 15 million dollars.

Yeah.

I would agree with that as well.

Nine percent increase.

That would be a nine percent increase.

I look, I've had my constituents tell me they don't they're not opposed to a modest increase, and that's what I'm looking for is a modest increase that and and that we had you know we address what we said from the very beginning was going to address, and that was our fire and police pay raises.

So you know, as as the now somebody else wants to sponsor another alternative, an alternative two go for it.

But as far as the alternate version that that me and my co-sponsor is is going to sponsor.

I mean, I think we're looking at at a top end of a dollar sixty-nine uh councilman Harvey.

I don't know where you uh fall in with that if you're agreeable to that, Councilwoman Hill.

Um I could I I I mean I'm looking for a middle way, and I think one point six nine nine percent.

If that's something that addresses colleague concerns specifically about the suggestion of the 15% off of community development, that's fine with me.

I mean, I I brought this as a discussion starter.

I think you know, to be the one to say, here's an idea you set yourself up to be kind of pulled apart by that, but so it goes, it starts a conversation, and I personally am very I'd love to see your list.

I mean, that's what I thought we were getting today, and hopefully you've got it so that we can look at the proposal.

Okay, wait a minute.

I've got I've got so um itemized list, let's do it.

Vice chair and then uh councilman Clark and then and look, please keep it to the um alternate version of the 100%.

1.69, 1.69 or less.

Is that what you're saying?

Tell me how you'd like to see that 1.69 speaker.

Tell me how you'd like to see the 1.6 along so this this is council.

This is vice chair.

No, I'll put my number one.

Oh okay.

Oh, well, let me, she hasn't spoken, and then I'm gonna get Councilman Harvey and email us.

Okay.

All right, go ahead.

Okay.

So a couple of things.

I have an issue with the fact that you say you did you have decided what this council wants.

And the last time I the last time I I consent it, it's nine of us.

So one person cannot speak and say this is what we're going to do is this alternate version.

I didn't do a vote on that alternate version.

So to say that you can tell the council as a whole that you can speak for us as a whole.

Okay, that's let me finish.

No, no, no.

Please let me clarify that.

You you did.

What did you say?

Correct me.

Did anybody else hear?

I'm a sponsor, and this is my co-sponsor.

And we're co-sponsoring an alternate version that's a dollar sixty-nine.

Y'all can vote that up or down.

You okay.

We're offering an alternate version.

Okay, but you said you are going to do this.

Is what we're going, we're not going to discuss it.

There has never been anything brought before this council that we don't have an opportunity to discuss.

Now the second thing, I'm going to make it plain and clear from the beginning and still in the middle until the end.

Great district eight will not have everybody around the room that's in here, everybody on the sound of my voice, TV cameras and all, not one brown cent removed from district eight.

If you all are the ones that having the issue with the tax rate, then you take it from your district.

You don't even have permission to swallow fly that's flying in the area of the Great District 8.

Because it's our fly.

So don't touch it.

That's what I'm just making it known.

Okay.

The second thing.

This budget that Madam Chair has brought before us, y'all, it's got so many racial undertones in here that I have got some issues with.

What else was up here?

Um, and then you want to go with a blanket general government agency.

There is a million agency, not a million.

There's several agencies that is listed up under here.

So let me tell you, um, you know what?

I'm gonna go back to what was was was brought forth earlier a couple of weeks ago.

When you say you want to go blanket with this, and we don't know what those line items are.

What the other are so an agency, so that makes me think you've got certain agencies in mind you want to not have the funding that they are needed.

So let me tell you, not gonna go with it.

And if our council family as a whole will go along with this right here, that will affect black and brown people tremendously, then y'all, we got a problem.

We are really in a bad way, if that is the case.

Now I seen some things that came forth the last couple of weeks that made me, I said, okay, Lord, don't let my mind go in that direction.

Because I'm not trying to make it a black and white thing.

I'm not trying to, but let me tell you, when you see this right here, so many racial undertones on here.

Come on now.

It can't be anything but so we are going to be the ones that have to suffer because of if you don't want it, take it all from y'all district.

The one that don't want it, take it from you all.

Chief Rogue, do I make myself plain and clear?

Not a brown cent, not even a fly.

This flying around.

Nothing.

Thank you.

Not nothing.

I thank you.

Uh Chairman Henderson.

So I am open-minded.

Um, you know, when you put forth the alternative version, you know, I think many of us, but regardless of where our budget shortfalls are, we want to cut fat.

That's anywhere.

We have to do it in our personal, but you know, the key word here is budget.

And I've got a couple questions about your line items that I like to address because I I recognize we need to stay on track about what this is about.

And this is addressed to all the co-sponsors.

So I hope you guys are ready to uh respond.

So my first question is related to it's your own, it's this packet that I'm having trouble with.

So there's a highlighted packet of page two and the regular packet.

So I want to do some comparative stuff here, just so I'm clear about what I'm looking at.

So at this yes, throw the other one away.

Throw the which one am I throwing away?

Uh you say the one that's got the yellow.

Well, we'll know that one away.

Yes.

Throw that away.

Keep the one that has a yellow one highlighted.

Okay.

So I'm gonna go to page two.

All right.

And right here on page two, that manager, the community safety, and gun violence highlighted in yellow.

Is that correct?

Which one are we on?

This is on page two.

Okay.

This one.

Just want to be clear what I'm reading.

Yellow means it's actively being hired for.

Actively being hired for.

The administration is working through the hiring process.

Okay.

This is the administration's yellow highlights.

Yeah, the yellow highlights.

And so everything else is not highlighted, like for instance, a front desk reception is under the family justice.

Is an open position, but they're not actively hiring for the city.

And so it's not highlighted.

Just please bear, please go ahead.

Go ahead.

It's not highlighted.

That's right.

It's not highlighted.

That's right.

So what does that mean to you?

So that means that is in that three million nine hundred thousand dollar total at the end of positions that I feel like could possibly be frozen.

And when you say frozen, Chairman, what do you mean by that specific?

Frozen and we would frozen as in we would take we would take that funding and put it towards the fire police pay for this year.

Okay.

And that is something that we would have to address next year.

Okay.

With funding.

I get that.

I'm just going to do that.

Yeah.

So front, so this under where it says Mayor's Family Justice Center, which is in District 6.

Yeah.

They have asked for a front desk receptionist.

Can't get rid of that.

At $52,000.

At $52,000.

It is not highlighted.

So are you recommending that that position be limited and then dissolved into the fire and police?

I just want to be sure what I'm reading.

I'm not recommending that.

I'm saying that is an available place for the city.

These are opportunities.

Yeah.

Those are opportunities for a director to look at.

Okay.

As opposed to laying somebody off or eliminate the job.

I just want to be clear because she and I are on the other end trying to because y'all are rushing past some of this appendix stuff, and I don't like it.

So I just want to take my time.

I've got rushing.

You know, I respect you.

I like what I need to know.

And let me just say on the record, you know, I am I am open-minded.

I know y'all are counting votes on who's 1.99.

And I'm talking to my people on a regular.

And uh and I'm open-minded about where cuts are.

I believe we have to make personal cuts.

So let's stick to the purpose of the ad hoc committee on cuts.

Sure.

Thank you.

So let's go for I've got some questions about the word impact.

And I want to use the example.

I'm sorry, there's some I'll pause.

There's some lag chatter.

Uh we'll pause.

I'm sorry.

There's a conversation.

I will pause.

Okay.

Ladies, council Clark is we'll probably ask some questions.

You could I just want to make sure this gets out.

Go ahead.

We'll probably thank you, Councilwomen.

Uh I want you talk about the word impact.

And I was I respect the fact that y'all are doing cuts.

And initially I knew we were talking about line item cuts, and that's fine, but these are blanket cuts, which I'm open-minded, so I just want to say you're very open minded to cuts.

So I want to go to a particular line item, but that's okay.

And this is to the sponsors of this bill because I want to go to community development, which is the committee that I chair.

Let me be clear on that.

And nobody's talked to me about any cuts.

And I chair this committee, so I think that's a little disrespectful, but it's okay.

I'm open-minded.

So we have 1.6 million that you guys are proposing to cut.

Blanket percentage.

And I'm assuming that you all have looked at the community development line item budget.

Is that correct?

Like you guys know what the line items are in the community development budget.

Let me let me make this.

I'm about to make sure that let me make this proposal.

Okay.

And I think I'm getting a consensus around the higher amount, the 1.69, which will give us 2 million dollars.

I'm gonna propose that we make community development whole.

Let's out of that two million dollars.

Listen, Mr.

Co-sponsor, are you okay with that proposal?

Absolutely.

Okay, so we're gonna make we're gonna make community development whole.

What does that mean?

Whole like leave it alone.

We're gonna leave it alone.

Okay, we're gonna put the 1.6 million back in it.

That's fine, Chip.

Okay, thank you.

And I'm gonna keep going.

And I'm gonna keep going so this is a committee took a line on this budget, correct?

So now sorry, I want to keep going.

We'll put that back in community development.

Okay.

So thank you for community development.

So let's drop down to economic development.

Okay, if you don't mind.

Because this committee is to open the hood and do line item cut.

So let's go to community development or economic development.

You guys are proposing $349,659 for the cuts, and you guys again are aware of the line items.

I just want to put this on a record.

You all are aware of the line items in those budgets.

Is that correct?

All right, cool.

So let's you talk about the word impact.

If you are doing a blanket percentage cut of $349,000, my question in order to be open-minded to support your alternative version.

Have you thought about impact?

Now let me tell you how I feel about that word.

Let's take your individual salaries.

You all have bills, right?

And so if I just came to you, Chair Woman Heel and said, I need to cut 50% out of your personal budget.

You would have to make some changes in how you lived.

And I remember I wrote down one of your quotes.

You said we have to live within our means.

And one of your quotes was we also have to, if we're gonna make cuts, we have to start with city council first.

Is that correct?

Do you remember seeing those comments?

For the city council budget mayor, because I think it's important.

I think it is if I'm asking for this as a leader that I'd be.

Correct.

That you would you would you could understand that you would start with yourself first as a leader?

That's what you said.

Okay.

I just want to be quick.

So can we go back to economic development?

$349,000.

So let's talk about impact.

What is it?

If we took out without any proposed cuts, what would be the possible impact?

What would happen if I took out $349,000 of that budget?

Because you you are presenting an alternative budget, and so that's fine.

You don't want to tell us what you're cutting, but can you at least tell us what it could impact?

Because you all we all have a line item budget.

Yeah, my chair is.

Um so for using your example of economic development and what kind of impact would have.

So I have listened and studied and spoken with department leaders over my time of service, and I can tell you that when I speak with our leader of economic development, and when I speak with our leader of workforce development, they are both pretty transparent about the fact that not all of our investments have been managed with the intentionality that they would like to see them managed with.

They themselves see opportunities for different ways to do the work.

And even I, as the person who cares very as a person who cares very deeply about affordable housing, I see this economic development director of housing and community investment as one that we don't need to spend $160,000 on that as a city, because we have organizations in our in our community that are already doing this work, and I believe strongly that there's things that organizations outside of our community or outside of the city government do better than the city government, and we should let them let them do that.

So that's a good thing.

Well, or blanket cuts.

So councilman Elliott last week said he didn't like the idea of blanket cuts.

I suggested five percent.

I don't find those to be a good one.

Listen, I'm gonna hold you to what you all said you guys are gonna do.

So we're here to do that.

So Castle Man Elliott said he wanted to bring line item cuts, and then councilman Henderson said he'd like to have an ad hoc committee meeting.

So we're here in an act, so we're bringing I'm I'm about to make a proposal.

I'm just trying to clarity.

So economic development and that line item, you specifically recommended cutting you one of your cuts because my cut is a five percent cut to economic development.

Well, you just mentioned a direct, I said what would be the impact if you cut that and you said it would be a staff position.

Did you just not say that?

This is an unfilled staff position that if I were the director of economic development, reaching Richard Thielen, I would be saying, let's look at the big picture.

Okay, and how do I do that?

So that is impact.

Any other impact?

I what would what would that price if I took away that money, just pretend like it was your budget and your household?

If I took $349,000 out of your budget, what would that impact?

Would you have to do something less?

Would you have to sell something?

Would you have to add something?

Like I and the point that I'm making here because you can't answer that question, is because you have not done the due duty.

Why do you say that?

Well, I just asked you the question.

Can you tell me if you took out $349,000?

What would be that's budgeting?

This is macroeconomics one-on-one.

So we're gonna go with this blanket, right?

Because I'm open minded, I might vote for it.

But you have to you're here to take to propose your blanket percentage cut, right?

Is that what this is about?

Without a line item.

So my question is is that if I take away, like if I cut off your arm, you'll have one less arm.

If you take away $349,000, because I'm going on each line item, not done.

What would be the impact?

You just gave an example that it could be a position cut.

So my deal is do your due diligence and tell me why you're proposing this as a blanket percentage cut.

That means you have not done your homework because I can go to the code.

Let me stop you right there.

I just got a question.

No, no, no.

Let me stop you right there.

I told you before, we're not here to debate this proposal.

We're here to figure out what this proposal is.

Now, after we figure out what it is, let's debate it out there.

Talking about the proposal.

Let's debate it out there.

No, you're just not a debate.

You're asking.

I'm asking about what you have proposed here.

You're asking me for impact.

And which is what you're doing since percentage of change.

Look let me make this statement.

You you said what if we took what's the impact if we take it out of this budget.

Now my question is my question to you is what's the impact to our taxpayers when we take it out of their pocket.

This whole thing is fundamental.

They're not expecting a thousand dollars more a year in their expenses.

That's gonna be an impact to them.

My point is this budget is painful to everybody.

It's gonna be painful to taxpayers, it's gonna be painful to our city.

What we're trying to figure out is how can we ease that pain so that everybody shares a little bit.

Trying to have a discussion about your proposal, but y'all don't want to do that.

I'm not one to debate it.

Well, what do we do for?

What is it?

Let's just say what I'm just asking a let's set it first.

A percentage set it.

Okay.

Let's set it, and then we'll debate it.

Let's set it.

Do you mind if I continue asking questions about your line items that you guys are proposing?

Let's say it and then we'll debate it, okay?

Can we do that?

I don't know.

Then I don't know the fact that Mr.

Harley, I don't even know.

We're supposed to debate this one time.

You're not supposed to be debating until you're in a public meeting.

This has been advertised.

This is not a debate.

This is a question about a proposal.

I asked their question.

I I have not debated an impact.

I have to say, so counselor this question.

There's gonna be you're not gonna ask the question.

I'm not gonna be in the meeting.

There's gonna be an impact to every department that's gonna serve that's gonna get a cut.

There will be an impact.

There'll either be a service impact, there'll be uh a layoff impact.

Okay, there'll be some sort of impact to everyone's cuts column.

There's a percentage of change column.

It literally says the word change, that which means impact.

That's right.

Right.

So my question that's not a debate.

Okay, uh, Chairman.

Bo chair people, it's not a debate.

I'm literally asking a question from this document that it is in red that says change.

That's let me use let me use the word differently.

That's how much impact what change will come to these departments if I take out that amount.

And you should be have done your due diligence to be able to answer that question.

Well, I guess I can all I don't need to be here.

Because this is the deal.

Because I am offended, and because I respect both of you.

I gotta respect both of you, but this is so irresponsible to ask me to consider proposal with a percentage change, and you can't tell me how to go back into my community and say, Oh my god, I'm gonna take this much money out of economic development, and I can articulate what the change is.

Yeah, fairly that's not fair.

That is that is and I want to support your proposal because I believe we need to cut, but I cannot do it.

Have you got some line items that you would have?

I do have some line items.

Would you like for me to start on the line item?

I just I'm asking these questions for Claire.

So let me let's start in Council Woman Hills district.

Um let's start in community development.

How many community centers do you have?

Two let's cut them off.

That's my first proposal.

That's my first proposal.

Uh Chair Many.

Do you know how much that will be?

I don't know.

Do you know you guys are proposing it?

Collectively.

Council McClark, collectively one to one three, that's 1.5 million.

Okay, so there we go.

1.5.

All right.

So let's I keep going as you're now you're talking about sponsoring another uh well.

I'm doing this based off y'all's algorithm of y'all's proposal.

You presented as let me say this as sponsor of this amendment.

Uh I I do not recognize that proposal.

Okay, so but you only want to talk about your proposal in this meeting.

Is that correct?

Well, all I'm saying is I would not entertain cutting.

All right, so I won't I wouldn't have to do that.

Because we've already decided we're gonna put the money back in community development.

Right.

I know, but I'm there's there's other there's A through U here that I would like I just started with community development, and thank you for the do you have a list that you can hand out?

I can do it verbally if that's okay.

Well, we feel like it's it's meant sort of.

I mean we've had the budget since we've got about a number of things.

It's not our number you've been doing as a shop.

You are doing it for show.

Hold on, hold on, hold on anything to show you.

The greatest show woman on earth because you don't know.

I'm about to look here.

I'm about to leave it.

I'm about to adjourn if we don't do my adjourn it.

Because we we're gonna show we're gonna say the show is the mail.

I'm gonna do this in order.

We're gonna do this in order.

Okay, all I'm asking is do you have a list for the case?

I said I would like to do it verbally, and she said that I'm putting on a show.

Okay.

Which is this.

So would you like for me to stand up and do a jig to put on a show?

Uh huh.

Councilman, don't give me your list.

You know, I respect you, but I don't want to.

This this I don't do.

So you want to eliminate it.

I'm asking the question about your proposals.

Okay, okay.

I thought everyone was bringing it.

And let's talk about and I would love to talk about it.

Is that why we're here?

We're here to set it.

Okay.

We're here to set it.

That's cool.

If you'd like to make recommendations, yes, I would like to make recommendations based off the principles our wonderful chair has said when she said that we have to start it on backyards first and live within our means.

Yep.

And so let's start with a backyard.

You are the coastline.

Let's talk about it.

Can I starting out backyards?

Let's talk about the alternate version.

Okay.

So that we can set it, is all I'm asking.

Let me tell you something.

Cities across the country do this, and it's online.

And this is and we just left a conference where they talked about this.

And it's sad to be on camera and to see us do this because I think this is an irresponsible budget.

This is not even how we do our personal budgets.

How can any no, I don't even want to hear it.

You're talking about a show.

Oh, yeah.

Here's a show.

I'm walking out.

Okay.

This is the deal.

This is not responsible government.

If you if you want me to consider proposal, do it in whole.

Like I've got Councilwoman Hill and then I just I would like to clarify the spirit with which I brought these ideas to the case.

Yeah, your spirit is always.

What two, three weeks ago when I brought them, which is I thought through as a representative for district two, what are the core essential elements of a city?

And I listed those elements, and then I made what I consider to be minimal cuts to get us to the halfway point.

What I'm hearing and learning from my colleagues is that other part other representatives in other districts see that community development is also an essential service of government.

I think that is a very reasonable point to discuss.

And if it is, in fact, a an essential part of government, then I'm completely fine with moving that to a zero percent reduction.

I brought ideas, I expected that many of us would bring ideas to get us to that point.

To suggest that this is a I feel like the the body of my work does not um deserve, has not earned um being called um irresponsible, uninformed, racist.

That is not the way I do my work.

I never called you racist.

No, but it had racism.

That's true.

You said that there is no there is a lot of people.

That is the difference.

I have I have not found that the case.

She's got the floor.

I have not found that the work that I do and the way that I do it would earn being called uninformed, irresponsible, or done with racist undertones.

In fact, what I consistently am told by the community is that my work is thoughtful, that I am a listener, that I am curious that I try to find practical responses, and that I work hard to make sure that everyone belongs.

So it concerns me that that would be something that I missed because I put this together.

So again, community development.

And I am completely fine.

And I think if we were to with this with this proposal, alternate proposal, go to the 1.69, we would more than cover the originally suggested reduction.

But I would also like to add that I think that it is more responsible to allow a department head to decide the way to allocate the money that they have been allotted through a budget.

They know best the goals for their budget, the intent that the mayor has, and I expect them to act as professionals to further their work and their priorities regardless of the amount of money that they have.

And I acknowledge that the pace, thank you, Councilman Burst, for bringing this up last week.

The pace at which that work may proceed could be different depending on the money.

Councilwoman Dotley pointed out she's got some centers that are that are critical.

We have underperforming centers.

Does that mean that we need two instead of one?

Does that mean that district four needs one instead of zero?

Does that mean that district I like I I don't know every center, but I know that Cedric's working hard to know everything about every center and capture the data and look not just at centers, but he's in charge of community development as a whole.

And Councilman Clark has said there is fat to cut.

Councilman Elliott has said he is he is open to cuts.

I I'm concerned that somehow this has become it feels like we've gotten to a point of a zero sum game, and that's not how this council works together typically.

Somehow we are finding ourselves where we've been turned against one another.

It's not it's not healthy, and it's not it's not useful because we can this is a conversation about compromise, and in our greater world, compromise is not something that people do.

Um it's a sign of weakness.

I think compromise is a sign of good decision making.

So if this proposal gets no votes, okay, but I think it's good we had the conversation.

Um and and I personally will always be very happy to have such conversations.

So uh let me let me make this statement as the chair.

Uh councilman heal, thank you for all your hard work on this, and and I certainly appreciate sort of it being the springboard and the launch pad where we've left from.

I have stated to begin with that, and we're running out of time.

This purpose of this meeting was to set the uh alternate version.

Let me make this suggestion, and I want to look at my co-sponsor to see if he's okay with this.

If we go to um if we go to the 14th cents, which would be 1.69, it gives us 15 million dollars, which would put us 2 million dollars over what you know what we're looking at right now.

My suggestion uh, Mr.

Co-sponsor, would be to put the 1.6 million dollars back in community development, put uh restore early learning uh by putting 167,000 into that line item or that budget item, and then split the 184,000 dollars that well, I'm sorry, the 368 split that between the executive branch and the uh uh information technology.

Are you are you good with remaining the co-sponsor with those suggestions?

Yes, so okay.

All right, so as far as I'm concerned, as the sponsor and the co-sponsor, this is what we'll set the alternate version as.

Now, I've got councilman Harvey that has not spoken, Councilman Davis, then councilman uh Elliot, Councilman uh Councilwoman Dotley.

Put me at the end, didn't you?

Sir Can your lawyers speak at some point?

Yes, as soon as they get through, I'll be like away.

Okay, so Councilman Elliott.

I mean no councilman Harvey, I'm looking at my life's gonna blow up.

I'm looking at it.

Um twins.

That's right.

I didn't expect to have to say this today.

That's okay.

You know, the first week that we were elected, we uh madam chair said of principles in which we were to govern ourselves, conduct ourselves.

One of those was respect and mutual respect, which is something I brought up from the very beginning.

And I specifically said when we disagree, and we will disagree.

As we should, that we not make it personal, and that we be able to debate one another without name calling anything like that.

So I just want to remind us, and I uh I see Tom Grisscomb's in the room.

Hi, Tom.

Tom worked with President Reagan in the White House, and President Reagan once said the person who agrees with you 80% of the time is a friend and ally, not a 20% trader.

I just want us to remember that.

Um this whole budget discussion, as I've said before, um is is something I've not taken lightly, not that I don't think any of us is taken lightly.

It's a um it's a heavy decision.

Um again, I think all of us agree around this table that fire and police should be our number one priority to get done and to get them where they need to be.

Um again, I it it's such a it's such a heavy discussion.

Um I've had calls uh since we started talking about this budget amendment.

One gentleman said um I'm gonna have to move out of my home.

Uh if you raise my taxes um to a dollar ninety-nine.

Um and so that again, I we're gonna disagree and we're gonna debate this.

Um but I I I want to I hope everybody knows just from my perspective, I and I I don't want to speak for the whole council, but I feel like we're all here for the right reasons, um, even though in some of these conversations we forget that.

Um that's all I I just want us to remember why we're here that we um even though through through these um these recommendations of the cuts, um I don't I don't it's not personal to me um and I hope it's not personal to anyone else.

Uh we're simply trying to find a solution that gets us to the same goal that we're all here for.

Um that's all thank you, sir.

Councilman Davis.

Yeah, just to kind of echo that.

I I don't doubt that anybody around this table um has anything but good intentions and wants to do right by our police and fire, uh, but also by our taxpayers.

Um and so to get back to the idea of impact that councilman Clark brought up, um that's that's where I start looking at this issue is what impact it will have.

Um and like Councilman Harvey, I've had a lady um in my district who actually moved to Chattanooga from a town in Georgia where she could no longer afford to live given the property tax burden, insurance burden, all of the cost of living.

Um she made a very intentional decision to move here because she could afford it.

Um and now she's worried about that.

And so that's the impact that I'm focused on and and the way that that I'm approaching this.

Um I I do think that it's been approached very thoughtfully.

Um I don't think any of us can know the impacts that each of these individual cuts will have because unlike the administration, uh we're we're not working in these departments every day.

Um but um I I know that we've all looked at the budget line items and looked at the numbers, and what we're doing right now is trying to make that work in a way that that serves the best interest of our police and fire um police officers and firefighters, um, and and also our taxpayers were trying to balance the two, and and that will be difficult.

Um, but I do support this alternative proposal.

The good news is though, if this proposal passes, police and fire will be taken care of.

If the mayor's proposal passes, police and fire will be taken care of.

Right.

Um, and and again, I don't have any doubt that anybody around this table had any intention but to do anything other than that, and both of these proposals do that.

Um goes to my remarks.

All right.

Actually, I think Councilman Dollars first, and then I'll thank you so much.

So it is so the proposal you all are bringing in is the 1.69.

Um, the only other question I had about that, and I don't think that one included the station 21, the items they needed.

Is that right?

Neither does Mayor Kelly's agenda.

It's not in there either for the station 21.

No.

Okay.

Station 21 is uh with the 15 people and the is that the eastboard.

Apparatus.

Yes, correct.

Yeah, it would be four million dollars would be the cost I did uh I've started 1.6 or something I thought it was in a previous one that you brought.

It was it was on a worksheet last week that I brought.

So and it didn't get any, he didn't want to sponsor that.

Uh well that's why something I guess my concern is, and I know we've said it, but I'm gonna say what I've said about this one, is simply because our current our firefighter, our fire service currently has an ISO one rating, which helps with our homeowner insurance.

They are going back up for recertification in the next do anybody know next year, yeah or so.

They can pop in at any time, it's typically every 10 years, but they can pop in at any time.

Right.

So my concern is, and they hold it on to the ISO rating.

It wasn't like a gleaming 100, okay.

So if we don't get this is just for overall, because again, I'm a homeowner too, I pay homeowner insurance as well, and any impact to that ISO rating is gonna impact everybody that owns something.

It don't matter who you are, where you live.

Um, because if we go down, what does it go to an ISO two rating?

That's gonna impact our homeowner insurance.

That's impacting everybody.

I saw that on there initially, and I then when I got this one, I was like, oh, it's not on here.

I do think we need to add that on to this, even though I'm not in support of this.

I'm not, but I'm here to voice my people concern anyway.

Um, because if we look if they come in and they have to be recertified or they pop in and we don't have the we don't have this because it takes 600 days to get the as I learned from Madam Chair, we have to already have it allocated.

Then it takes 600 days, and I think Councilman Burns kind of mentioned like we need to fund police and some of the things they need because that's gonna be a loss.

That's session 21.

If we don't get the apparatus, if we don't get that taken care of, and they cannot improve that response time, that's gonna be everybody's homeowner's insurance, no matter if you live in East Brainerd, East Chattanooga, downtown.

So that is one that I would I don't know again, it's not my thing, is y'all think.

But you might be able to get Mayor Kelly to reallocate because he does not have that in this professional.

No, he has one point one for fire apparatus, but the fire apparatus is one point seven.

And then it's a four, it's four million total.

But that's separate from but that's his.

I was about this one.

I know, but I'm saying if that's important to you, which I agree it's very important, you might talk to the administration about changing this to make sure that that is allocated for within this one.

In other words, it's not in the 1.99 budget.

Correct, it's not one point.

So let's you talk to Mayor Kelly about that.

But I'm talking to y'all about this one right now.

Well, we've already said that.

Well, we're not gonna do listen.

I listen, I sit here listening to y'all all the time.

Hold on.

I sit here listening to y'all all the time.

Don't cut me out, Chip, because that's what you do.

I need you to let me finish talking.

Go ahead.

I appreciate you, madam chair.

What you're not gonna do is cut me off when I'm sitting here trying to ask a question when I'm trying to figure out what am I doing.

Now I have been kind, I have been nice.

I have sat through these budget sessions, let y'all say whatever you want.

You sat in that chair, you cut off every last one of these council members except them two white guys.

Come on.

Now you're gonna have to stop this.

This don't make no sense.

Now, Madam Chair, again, thank you.

Thank you for pointing that out to me, and I will continue to call you, madam chair.

I will talk to Mayor uh Mayor Kelly about that.

But what I was asking, because this impacts my homeowner insurance rate was and my people in my district is in station 21.

Can we can you all look at in this right here?

Even if this passes, even in even if this passes, could you look at possibly adding that in there?

Again, I am not in support of this.

However, I'm asking.

If you don't, I'm totally fine with that.

I will go to Mayor Kelly and ask him about adding that too.

I need to ask over here.

Y'all hear from me over there.

So that's oh, thank you.

Uh Council.

Thank you, Dari.

So, and I would go back to what Cody said.

It is about mutual respect.

I sat up there when we had budget sessions and listen to everybody.

I try to give y'all, you know what I'm saying?

Everybody owned voice because that's just how I am.

I'm from an oppressed people, and I know what it feels like to have your voice oppressed.

But when I'm sitting in here talking and trying to get clarity, my madam chair is trying to help me, and you cut me out chip, and you know I love you meet some Chip Henderson.

No, I do.

But I won't tolerate that.

You're not gonna do that.

So I asked for the same mutual respect that I have given all of you in here while I'm trying to make this point, even if you disagree, because I do disagree, and I'm sure y'all disagree with me.

But I'm asking for that same level of respect.

So that, and then to Madam Chair's point.

Um coming into this meeting, I had me I mentioned uh when I came in, my intentions now maybe it was unclear when we came in here.

I thought we were coming in here to talk about when uh councilman Henderson mentioned uh the line item cuts.

He mentioned it last week that we were coming and do line item cuts.

So I came in here with that in mind, so that's why it's a little bit um perplexing for me to go in now and look at this, and we just got this information right now.

So because we've gotten all this new information, it's very difficult to see where we're landed because now we're saying there's an extra three million dollars in here.

So I'm just trying to navigate and make sure that I'm getting all the information I can from my constituents as I get ready to prepare to send a communication to them.

So now you are bringing a 1.69, right?

Mayor Kelly has 1.99.

In either case, we don't have an apparatus for you.

Okay, but stay just when the one for me too, because it's my apparatus too, because I need us to say it one thing.

Okay, I just want to make sure I'm clear.

Okay, and I mean no disrespect to you, Chairman Henderson, but I really didn't appreciate being cut off when I was trying to get some clarity.

All right, thank y'all so much.

Appreciate you all.

Yes, I am Councilman Elliott.

I feel like we need to pray.

Oh, I pray for my cane.

I'm good.

Uh go before meeting.

I appreciate what my colleagues said, and you know, uh, I always give cordiality even when things get heated.

Um just so I'm clear.

This one six nine doesn't include your cuts, your proposed cuts.

Is that is that what that was?

I'll say that again.

So what it sounds like, what it sounds like Chip is suggesting is that so if we do a if we do a 14 cent increase instead of the proposed originally proposed 12 cent increase, we at 169 millet rate we will produce 15 million dollars in revenue, but we that would give us 2.1 million dollars in unallocated revenue if we did that, which would allow us to take away to reduce strike and cuts that are here.

So what what this amendment would do is it would keep whole fire, police, community development, early learning, um, parks and outdoors, public works, um all of those would be kept whole in this.

They would see no reductions, and fire and police would have the full salary increase that has been requested.

In addition, he listed out some other money which I didn't totally follow, but would um I need to see those numbers, but it sounds like he's suggesting that some of the remainder of that would go to IT um and executive.

Now, I personally like all of it to go toward paving any access, but I'm well but again, I'm here with open hands, I'm happy to compromise.

So um, can I explain?

And I don't look, it's never my intention to cut anybody off.

And I apologize if not it.

I apologize for cutting you off.

I was trying to, I guess, explain or but uh count um madam chair.

What the reason I suggested putting some of it back into executive branch is because councilwoman burrs seemed to be very concerned about uh the front desk uh for the family justice center being on being on the list of possible cuts.

So putting that money into the executive branch could take that line that off of the table.

Got it.

Okay, thanks for that.

And that's all I was I was thinking there.

Uh IT, I know that is uh something that we were trying to get up and running, and they had one of the biggest cuts.

And so I just what I did the remaining 368,000, I divided it by two with half of it.

Executive branch and half of it in the uh information technology branch.

And like I said, my purpose for this meeting was to set an alternate version, and I wanted to come out of this meeting with an alternate version set.

And so this is it.

I feel uh my co-sponsor is is happy with it, and he's ready to go with it.

I'm happy with it.

Now, this thing is ready for debate.

We hit the floor.

We hit we can hit the floor and debate it.

I still have the floor.

I wasn't finished.

Councilman Hill had the floor.

No.

Oh, okay.

I'm sorry.

No, so I cut you off.

Both of y'all did.

No, I answered your question.

My apologies, sir.

Um, so try to run this meeting the best I can.

I appreciate you guys um hearing my my concerns from other college by community development, those are very important in my district.

I think from my perspective, I was caught off guard, as I think what uh councilwoman Dotley said, you know, these are some of the cuts I expected.

Line item cuts.

Having a conversation, okay.

What does vacancies look like?

I was not expecting for us to revisit the thing that I was concerned with because I expressed my concern about line item cuts last week.

It seemingly encouraged your thoughts about this ad hoc committee, uh, which I thought we were going to be going line by line.

Had we started that out, uh, and even I think there would have been a level of compromise of looking at okay, you want five million from general government, us opening these books and say, where are we gonna file five million?

I think that would have been a much more productive use of our time to actually see that because I don't think it is responsible to offer these blanket numbers to an administration that already says they don't think they need to cut, and so they may not be aligned with what we already voted for.

And I'm concerned, like I've I looked in these agencies because that was the first thing I looked at over.

Yes.

So that those are those are some of the things I was concerned about.

You know, I have projects in my district that are some of these line items that we fought for, and so that's just my suggestion or my reflection on how this could have been done a little bit sooner.

Um little bit smoother, excuse me.

Uh I would have loved to see us actually do the line item cuts.

Even these here, I would have loved to us to gone through these jobs and say, okay, how is this going to impact operations?

Because if we're going to suggest line item vetoes, I mean line item cuts or reality cases, whatever we want to call them.

It's only responsible for us to say, how does this alter operations?

Does us pulling uh IT managers out of the budget, is that going to significantly decrease the effectiveness of our uh uh project management office or PMO office, you know.

So those are those are conversations I want us to have.

Are we gonna be able to actually serve people if we pull a registered notice navigator?

Uh you know, so these are these are questions I would have loved for us to visit uh today.

I know we're running out of time, but um those are my thoughts.

Thank you.

Um do you care the city attorney?

No, I'll use my time yield my time to the city attorney.

Mr.

Turner, yes, sir.

I'm gonna set up here just a minute here.

Uh coming back from my anniversary events here, uh did not realize I would be getting into a nice fund meeting like this, but I don't think anyone can accuse us of not having an open meeting at this point in time.

Absolutely an opportunity for everyone to have an opportunity to do that.

Some real and some real discussion, real discussion, and that's what you're supposed to have here in an open meeting type session on here.

So just be aware of that.

And it has been posted in that regard, and it has been, and for that matter, minutes will be tapped, kept in your meetings.

You're in compliance with the open meeting law.

So what I did, at least after I understood that y'all were having a little bit of issues back and forth on here was to try to go to our nice uh ordinance number 14239, which was passed on June the 3rd on first reading and second reading on June the 10th.

And the thing that y'all have to do at this point in time before we can get tax bills out to the public here, and that has to go out by October 1st here.

That's one of the requirements under state law, is to actually appropriate uh a certain amount of money for the government's expenses of the municipal government for this coming year, and to fix the rate of taxation on all taxable property in the city.

That by your earlier ordinance was not done at that point in time because the assessor had not established the amounts on here.

Uh, what we did know, at least at the initial time when all this was going through is that you needed somewhere in the range of 348 million ninety thousand six hundred and forty seven dollars to be able to have a uh revenue fund that was coming in, and you needed to make sure that your expenditures equal that amount, and that's required by state law that all of those expenditures and the revenues match each year, and if you don't do that, you got a real problem.

So the rate of a dollar fifty-five has been at least uh stated by the assessor at this point in time, and y'all have to fix the appropriate rate of taxation, which is due.

So uh bottom line, you're gonna be having to do some type of amendments to the uh original ordinance that was passed back in June at this point in time to establish those amounts, and you've got to look at uh what is uh the requirement if you do so.

It's got to even up.

So uh there are requirements in the the code that you've got here at page 69 of your current ordinance.

I I went through and highlighted everything I had in there about it on on the the code.

You might look at that because it does specifically have the requirements.

Well, let me get to 69 here.

Does have the requirements that pursuant to the charter and the sections of the charter that are involved in here are section 6.81, which says the annual budget shall contain at least as much information as required by Tennessee law as may be amended from time to time, and it has to have expenditures for each department and expenditures for the funds have to be listed separately by salaries and other costs.

So the budget ordinance, if y'all hadn't looked at it recently, has got all these references here about the the positions and the amounts that has to be in the code on here.

And uh once you do that and you put those in the ordinance on here, it has to balance.

And uh percent to section 16 of the code that you've currently adopted right now, it's not lawful for any department agency or branch of the government to spend more money than was appropriated for them.

So that's why it's important to have those appropriation amounts out there.

And uh the section 17 on page 69 of your current ordinance also says if at any time the actual receipt of revenues is projected to be less than the estimated revenues, it's the duty of the mayor to initiate an ordinance amending the budget ordinance.

So if there's something that doesn't quite add up at that point in time, the mayor has to bring that to you in order to get things done so that it can be uh otherwise changed and the appropriations made in the judgment of the city council.

So it is going back to you at that point in time if there's something that uh is involved that the mayor initiates in another amendment to you that that would occur.

At this point in time, I believe you're in that process.

You're being told that there is an issue where the um uh fire and police department don't have enough money.

Mayor's coming to you saying that that needs to be done, and then y'all uh decide based upon the appropriations that you think are necessary, and that's in accordance with what y'all have previously adopted and in accordance with state law.

So let's try to follow what we've done as our ordinance and our procedure as we're going forward.

If you get an alternate version, great.

If you don't get an alternate version, you've got to do things that will match up so the revenues and the expenditures will match.

But uh Phil, let me clarify one thing and I asked you last week.

Yes, sir.

We can appropriate by department.

You you can as long as you do as long as you do that and they match here in the in the provisions.

You've got to do something where it works.

You're talking about revenues, yes, so revenue and we'll have a revenue.

We'll have revenue sheet and an expenditure.

Revenue and expenditures that has to match for each department, or else it will not comply with stuff.

I want to get uh we got just a few minutes, only get Councilman Burr's comment, uh, and then we're gonna adjourn.

Yeah, I just I have a quick question as I'm trying to make my decision on, and I'm not sure which sheet matters.

Let's go with the higher number, this sheet.

The one that's got the bigger numbers on it.

Okay the bigger numbers, okay.

So this 12 million down at the bottom, the 12 million eight eighty eight.

Um, you're suggesting if you go with the 1.69, that gives you enough money to add back in the 1,657 to community development.

That's correct.

So this number changes to whatever that amount is.

It that that number that changes this 12.88, correct?

No, I had to about 15.

It'll have to be it'll have to this one six plus okay.

All right.

Um community development on the reductions will reach zero.

Is that what you're asking?

Right, and so that amount gets added back in.

The general fund total is gonna will increase.

Oh, yeah, oh yeah, absolutely.

Yeah, the the that 358 number.

Is that what you're saying?

That 358 number will get bigger.

That's we'll and the 1280s also get the red number.

Yeah, they both get bigger.

Yes, yeah.

Okay, all right.

That that's my only question.

Thank you.

Okay, all right.

I can update this document, this digital version, um and I can send it out to everybody based on this conversation.

Yeah, that'd be great.

That'd be good.

Okay.

Okay.

Thanks.

Thanks uh thanks everybody for the uh lively discussion and we will adjourn and see you at 330 and listen to everyone in the public hearing next week.

And listen to everybody in the public hearing.

Was you I think you should try on the