Across the city.

They handled 18,000 graffiti tags in 2024, and they're on track to clean up more than 25,000 this year.

Stay connected with us on social media or visit Colorado Springs.gov for the latest city news and events.

Together, we are Colorado Springs.

Streets of Colorado Springs, you'll find Gina.

She fills potholes and does other street maintenance and repairs as part of a team of 12 that covers the south side of the city.

Several teams work together to fill nearly 90,000 potholes each year.

Colorado Springs, we shoot for the moon.

We train the defenders of air and space.

We secure American freedom.

We compete on the world stage.

We launch balloons, rockets, careers.

We conquer America's mountain and spend time in a garden fit for the gods.

We power the future and protect the past.

There is greatness within each of us and all around us.

We are Colorado Springs Olympic City USA.

Inside this courtroom, you'll find Eric.

He's a probation officer for the city, helping clients comply with court orders by connecting them to classes, resources, and more.

He's part of the municipal court team, the legislative branch of our local government.

With the arts.com.

Here are my top three takeaways from the state of the city right from my desk to you.

Number one, public safety progress.

You see, a safe city is the foundation for everything else.

This year we crossed a big milestone.

You see our police department crossed more than 800 officers.

We are fully staffed with our 911 operators, so our response times are faster.

Simply put, a safe city is a great city, and a great city is a safe city.

Number two, we are navigating some economic headwinds, higher costs, inflation, and uncertainty.

But here's the good news.

We are still building momentum.

Since June of 2023, we've landed 16 economic development agreements, the most in our city's history.

That means 2700 new jobs, 1.1 billion in investments, and 69 million in projected new city revenues.

We are helping entrepreneurs grow and succeed right here at home.

Finally, building a city of great neighbors and great neighborhood.

In our city, neighbors look out for each other.

People take pride in keeping our city clean.

And partners across the city are stepping up to help tackle mental health.

And we have seen an 18% drop in suicide rates and a 60% drop among our youth.

This is incredible.

That is it.

For this month, please have a fun Halloween and a safe Halloween.

And as always, onward and upwards Colorado Springs.

I'm Apollo Ono and you're watching Springs TV in Colorado Springs, Olympic City USA.

Water at Prospect Lake, you'll find Ashley.

She works for the city's therapeutic recreation program, or TRP, which provides opportunities for kids and adults with disabilities.

This is TRP's 27th year of adaptive water skiing at Memorial Park.

How would you know?

Sign up to receive emergency alerts, such as fire evacuation notices and police activity.

You can receive alerts via text, phone call, or email by going to PeakAlerts.org.

Include multiple addresses when you sign up, such as your home, work, and school.

Download the Rachwell app to receive emergency alerts in more than one hundred dirty languages.

Visit PeakAlerts.org to learn more.

Stay connected with us on social media or visit Colorado Springs.gov for the latest city news and events.

Together, we are Colorado Springs.

She fills potholes and does other street maintenance and repairs as part of a team of twelve that covers the south side of the city.

We conquer America's Mountain and spend time in a garden fit for the gods.

Hi, Share.

Welcome to a special meeting for City Council of Car Springs Wednesday, October twenty-ninth, twenty twenty-two, twenty twenty-five.

I don't know why it's twenty twenty-two.

Go ahead.

You're dying to do it.

Um can I have the clerk please roll call the roll?

Councilmember Bailey?

Here.

Councilmember Carl Igerson.

Here.

Council Member Donaldson.

Here.

Council Member Gold.

Here.

Council Member Hingum.

Council Member Williams.

She's online.

She's here.

Council Member Lineweber.

He's excused in route.

Councilmember Rainey.

Here.

Councilmember Risley.

Here.

Moving on to item two A, will the clerk please read item two A through item J.

Into the record.

Two A, a resolution fixing and certifying the twenty twenty-five annual assessment mill levy assessments payable in twenty twenty-six at zero mills upon each dollar assessed valuation in the Briar Gate special improvement maintenance district.

A resolution fixing and certifying the twenty twenty-five annual assessment mill levy for assessments payable in twenty twenty-six at a dollar at one dollar and ten cents per front footage of each real property within the Platte Avenue special improvement maintenance district.

To G, a resolution fixing and certifying the 2025 annual assessment mill levy for assessments payable in 2026 at 3.615 mills upon each dollar assessed valuation within the Woodstone Special Improvement Maintenance District to H an ordinance making and certifying the 2025 tax levy for taxes payable in 2026 at 3.009 mills, comprised of a general operating mill levy of 4.1 or 4.279 mills and a temporary tax credit of 1.270 mills.

Each upon each dollar of assessed valuation of all taxable properties and a tax credit of 3.009 mills upon each dollar assessed valuation of all taxable business personal property within the corporate limits of the City of Colorado Springs.

2I an ordinance repealing ordinance number 24-120.

Excuse me, 24-102 and uh adopting the City of Colorado Springs 2026 salary structure for civilian and sworn municipal employees good afternoon, honorable members of City Council, Shari McDaniel, Chief Financial Officer.

And the reason that all these are on the agenda for today is because we are using this markup session today, this work session as the introductory session for these items.

Items 2A through 2G, which are the first eight items, are the mill levies for the special improvement maintenance districts of the city.

The mill levies are not changing from the prior year to this year, and so it's 25 taxes payable in 2026.

Those mill levies are exactly the same as the 24 mill levies payable in 2025, so nothing changes.

And the budgets related to these SIMDs are contained in the budget document.

And that's why we don't have budgets attached to these as well, because they're in the document and they will be appropriated within the budget appropriation ordinance.

So these are all the mill levies for those.

These will be coming forward to you on the November 10th regular meeting with all of the other budget items.

Item 2H, which is the city's mill levy by I think code or charter, it has to be done by ordinance.

So this is the city's mill levy, and it is um going to be set at 3.09 mills, which is comprised of our general operate, the regular mill levy of 4.279 and a temporary mill levy credit of 1.270.

And this is to not only keep us below the table limit for 2026 revenue, but also as I think we've talked about provide a refund of the 2024 revenue that was in excess of the Tabor limit.

So that's the logic behind why that mill uh the mill levy credit is set at that level.

The budget also, of course, that revenue is contained in the budget in the general fund and will go into the budget appropriations ordinance.

Two I is the civilian salary schedule.

The city council sets the salary schedule, which is the um zone, the range for each band and zone for every classification of position within the city, and that is by ordinance also.

So that is exactly the same salary schedule that is contained in your budget.

There are no changes to that.

So the one that's in the document will be the one that you'll be approving through this ordinance.

And that just goes forward as part of our normal normal budget package of items that the city council uh votes on, and that will also come on November 10th for a regular meeting.

And if there are any questions, I can um address those before we move on to the main event.

So I have a question on that salary schedule.

It was the same as last year's.

I don't believe it was the same as last year, but what's um being approved is the one that is contained in the 2026 budget document.

There are no changes from what we published in the document.

Got it.

Okay.

Sir, have we I see no questions or comments on those items?

Okay.

So move on to 2J.

Will the clerk please read item two J into the record?

Annual appropriation ordinance adopting an annual budget and appropriating funds for the several purposes named in said budget for the year ending in December 31, 2026.

Thank you.

Um Shari McDaniel, Chief Financial Officer.

And attached to the agenda is actually just a memo outlining that there is not an ordinance attached at this point because what we're doing today is putting the final touches on what will be contained in that ordinance.

So again, we're going to be walking through some changes.

And what this represents is from the document that was published on October 6th.

These are the changes that as we have a majority of council agree to each of these changes, that will then be reflected as a modification to that October 6th budget, and will then be considered the final 2026 budget.

So the changes we make today will be incorporated, and we will create the ordinance that will then be brought forward to the council for a vote on November 10th.

So, and that's what we're gonna spend our time here today walking through are any of the modifications that need to be made before we finalize the budget.

So what I'd like to do, and this is um we've been doing this for a number of years.

What we have before you and on your screen is a spreadsheet, and we have some administrative changes in addition to some discussion items that we can have on the general fund.

So if it's okay with the council, I'd like to cover a couple that are really kind of administrative in nature and that we have that we'd like to make, and then we can get back to general fund and RMJ, which I think is where we're probably gonna have that's where we have the maybe the most items for discussion.

So what Jen has displayed on your screen here, we of course appropriate by fund.

And so anytime we're gonna make a change to any of uh the either the revenue or the expenditures from what's contained in that October 6th budget, then we are going to demonstrate that change here and um gain council's concurrence to make that change for the final budget.

So we have before you the cemetery fund, and then we have the cemetery endowment trust fund.

And on these two sheets, what uh we realized after we had printed the document is that we needed to we didn't have the same number, so the cemetery endowment from the proceeds of that endowment makes an annual transfer from the endowment to the cemetery enterprise fund per the guiding documents of the endowment for operations in the cemetery, and what we realized is that the amount that we had as the transfer out from the endowment fund didn't match what we had as the transfer in the cemetery fund.

So we are gonna true that up, and it turns out we needed to make a little bit of an adjustment to those.

So this is the cemetery fund, and so what we're requesting agreement for is to increase the revenue in the cemetery fund by $8,000 to reflect the accurate amount of revenue coming from the endowment fund to the cemetery enterprise fund.

Is that okay?

Okay.

Then on the cemetery endowment tab, we simply have the corresponding.

We needed to increase the amount of revenue in there based on um the calculations of the endowment and the interest available and then the transfer out of the 23,600 going to the enterprise fund.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, then I think um thank you for that, and we'll move then I believe to the general fund.

And so we do have again a number of administrative modifications that we would request be made for the final budget.

The top four one, two, three, and four relate to our process of consolidating fleet and facility um management from the police and fire department to centrally the support services department.

So this is a uh net zero change, but what we're doing is taking some expenses out of police and fire, which you'll see on in the spreadsheets, it's three and four, removing the expense from there and putting it into support services.

And what this is for are into support services and general cost.

And what this is for are um utilities for the various facilities that they had, we're consolidating that, we're consolidating um garbage contracts and um janitorial contracts, and so we're taking all of that out of the police and fire budgets and putting them in the support services and into the general cost.

And the general cost is there because we already have consolidated from all the other departments, we pay our utilities out of, we consolidate the utility payments out of the general cost section.

So those are requested um changes so that we can go ahead and accomplish that transition to consolidate fleet and facilities.

Councilman Risley.

Thank you.

Just to make it clear, all that is doing is moving money from one bucket to another bucket.

That's correct.

Thanks.

That's correct.

Because I think the the important thing is that once it's moved into a different bucket, then you have to come back to council to reappropriate.

Correct.

To move between the buckets, yes.

Once it's in a given bucket, then you can the administration can do whatever they want to with it with once it's in a bucket.

Yes.

Thanks.

Item number five.

Councilman Donaldson.

Oh, sure.

Could I just ask a question, Sherey?

Is that done for uh maybe better better pricing on contracts?

Is there uh under one contract or just ease of administering these services?

What's the what's the goal?

Yes, and I think it's uh both of those things.

We have already consolidated fleet and facilities for the departments other than police and fire, but because of the nature of their operations, we did not include them when we did kind of the full with everybody else, the mass consolidation.

So this is just going ahead and doing that final step for getting it all consolidated into the fleet operations budget and the facilities operation budget.

So they have been already maintaining all facilities other than the police and fire facilities, and so now they will be taking on the maintenance of those facilities as well.

Okay, thanks.

Sure.

Councilman Hingem.

Thank you.

Um a little bit more detail, maybe than is even necessary, but within the fire and police, and I understand why you would have done those separately.

Does that include you know, everything with axle and wheels from a fire truck to just a truck, you know, that gets driven that's just a car, or or is it or are the um you know special vehicles that police and fire use are they treated separately, if that makes sense?

It does make sense.

And that's part of why we had not done it previously because particularly fire has very specialized equipment with the trucks and the engines, and so that was part of why we had waited.

But what's happening is we're taking the they have specialized mechanics as well for those.

Those mechanics also actually um in the document, we moved the people, we just didn't get to the operating.

So those people have those positions have already moved from fire department to fleet management, and they'll be retained there because they have specialized skills to work on fire apparatus.

So this is though all the light vehicles and the apparatus maintenance will now be handled centrally with fleet maintenance office.

Thank you.

Sure.

Great.

Thank you.

The next two items are um which is on the sheet row five, is to restore the city council budget reductions.

Um we've had a lot of conversations about that, and so that uh was decided to be an administrative change to restore the $38,000 to the city council's budget.

And in order to do that, you'll see we accommodated that um with a little bit of a change in one of our capital projects that we just decreased slightly.

And the reason that we have a change on there is because we do transfer um capital improvement money between the general fund and the CIP fund.

And so we're just making that adjustment um between those two funds.

And the item that we're slightly reducing in CIP has to do with um camera refresh through the IT department.

And in conversations with them, they've indicated that they have um whatever money we give them, they'll take, but they are going to be able to accomplish the vast majority of what they had already planned with the remaining funding in that.

Councilman Risley.

Thanks.

I know it's probably a fluid number, and you may not be able to put your finger on it specifically, but do you have a ballpark idea of what the balance is in the capital improvement fund right now?

Um yes, I I do.

And it is, and I'm gonna maybe look, it's a small number because through the 2026 budget process, as part of the needing to reduce expenditures, we did a very deep dive on all of the projects that are have remaining funding in our CIP fund.

And as you know, those projects, when they receive funding, they're uh usually multi-year, and that's why we put them over in that CIP fund.

And what we did is we took a very deep dive and scrubbed that so that we could not be carrying forward any funding that was not critical to uh immediate ongoing project and use that funding to try to address the other capital project funding and the general fund um kind of trying to shore up on the expenditure reductions that we needed to be made.

So I believe we've taken it down to almost zero.

Yeah.

So we'll get that fund balance number at the end here.

In a good year, is it millions of dollars, tens of millions of dollars?

I'm just trying to gauge the mag magnitude that we're talking about here.

And are you looking for the total amount of expenditure budget we put in there each year or the fund balance?

The fund balance.

Um, usually it's a hundred thousand or so.

Okay.

So meaning that's the excess on top of whatever's been expended for the year.

Whatever's been budgeted, yes.

Because we appropriate that money in a project and then it can be used for the life of the project.

Yes.

Okay, thanks.

Sure.

Councilman Rainey.

Thank you, Madam President.

Sure, you mentioned um IT department uh determined that they can do a refresh on cameras lately.

What what type of cameras are we referring to?

We have many um security cameras on all the facilities across the city.

So for example, the cameras that are here in the chambers, IT or information or innovation technology, they are responsible for um monitoring those, having them installed, and then they refresh those on a scheduled basis.

So if I understand this correctly, IT has filed a workaround, or they are just not gonna do because I'm I'm hearing security.

That's what's ringing in my ear right now.

And these are we're talking about an IT security refresh that's gonna be delayed or they're gonna find a workaround.

So it is not um delaying the installation of any type of security cameras, so it's not uh impacting any security issues, but what they're gonna be able to do is based on the refresh schedule, they determined that if we needed the 38,000, they could accomplish what they needed to do in 2026 with 38,000 less.

Okay, thanks.

Okay.

So then um we'll move on to this.

If are you is the council agreeable to making those modifications?

Okay, thank you.

Then we'll move on to the councilman hengeum.

I just mind I just wanted to thank you for the restoration to the city council budget.

Yeah, of course.

So we'll move on to the city council items, and these are based on the items that I received that were of interest to city council.

And when I provided the uh document, and if you haven't seen it, I have a copy of it.

Um, and we'll be able to just kind of in tandem walk through the spreadsheet and the document if that's helpful.

I was uh really just trying to provide a little bit of contextual information from the departments that can just add to awareness or information for each of these items.

And uh because we don't tip we don't have the department directors attend, I wanted to just be able to provide any information from them for you for your awareness as we move through and have discussion discussions on each of these items.

So we have them listed minus the restoration of the city budget because that's um in the above section.

And I don't have uh value monetary values on items two through seven because they weren't provided, but I think based on some context and the conversation that we can have around that, we'll be able to uh if there's council agreement that we want to make a change in any of those items, then we can determine the amount that needs to be added there.

And then um I think finally any changes that we make, if we um are not looking to draw from the fund balance, if we add expenditures in one place, then the idea ideally we would remove them from another place so that we don't impact our fund balance in the end.

So if we're adding expenditures and not identifying a reduction somewhere else, by definition, that would result in a draw from fund balance.

So ideally what we're doing is trying to have a have it equal zero at the end of the day.

And so I would like to, and if we want to go ahead and just go down the line, or um I'm happy to take them in any order.

The first one that was on the list was the um proposal to budget the sales tax at a zero percent growth from the end of your estimate rather than the 1.4% increase that is currently in the 2026 budget.

And so um, I think typically what we've done in the past is the council members who either brought it forward or want to make comments on that, then I'll turn it over to the dais for the conversation, and I'm happy to answer any questions or um provide any input if that's helpful.

Councilman Isley.

Thanks.

So I think I was one of the folks that was maybe more vocal about this idea, this notion.

And um I I know Frey, you and I have had a number of conversations on this topic, but again, just to reiterate and maybe reinforce some of my thinking around this.

One, I want my colleagues to understand, I think they do, that budgeting is very different than expending.

In other words, we budget a given number.

We're gonna spend 100,000 in January.

We don't actually spend that 100,000 on January 1st.

We budget 427 million dollars for all of 2026.

We don't spend 427 million dollars in January of 2026.

End of January comes, we haven't spent the 100,000, we spent 90,000, we've got 10,000 left in the in the uh budget.

Um sales tax revenue came in at 85, right?

So we're already 5,000 in the whole from what we spent and 15,000 in the whole from what we budgeted.

February comes and it's a great month, 110,000, and we expected to spend 100,000.

You get the point.

The money isn't expended until we reach a certain point in time.

And so my concern is that if we budget for an increase and we don't see an increase, we're gonna be here in the same position that we are this year with a deficit, trying to understand how we fix that.

I would rather take the other approach and say, let's plan on a flat budget and be surprised in a positive way that come March, end of first quarter or sometime in the second quarter, things are trending positively, and we've got more sales tax revenue than we had budgeted for, and now we can do an amendment and uh and increase the overall budget.

Again, knowing that we haven't had to actually cut anything or change anything in the first quarter of the year because we haven't expended 427 million dollars right out of the gates, right?

You get this.

I mean, I think everybody understands the concept.

Um so uh my my approach here is to be sort of conservative and proactive about it rather than having to be reactive about it the way that we were this budget year to substantiate that.

I've you know obviously had some conversations with you and others about my observation that Pike's Peak Building Department is budgeting flat.

They're not the only indicator, but uh I think they're a uh certainly a leading indicator, knowing that not only is a lot of sales tax revenue derived from construction spending, but um if they're not anticipating an uptick uh in the year, there's got to be some reason for that.

And in conversations with the HBA and some others in the industry, uh I think across the board builders, both commercial and residential are anticipating a flat year at best.

Some of them are predicting that it's gonna be a down year in 26.

So again, if the industry, one of the leading indicators of the local economy, and if one of the larger drivers of the local um economy, one of the bigger industries is projecting flat-ish numbers in a best case scenario, that definitely gives me pause.

And again, we've I'm not saying anything you haven't heard.

What I do find interesting and is probably new information for you because it was new information for me, is that Tatiana Bailey did a very interesting analysis going back to 1990 and compared employment rates in El Paso County with sales tax collections for the city.

And what she found was that there's a very strong correlation between increasing employment numbers or flat employment numbers and what happens with sales tax.

And she could probably, you know, give you a much deeper dive than I can, but just to recap some of her her observations and that correlation, again, going back to 1990, a 0.3% change in employment relative to what I'll call the benchmark represents a 1.2% change in sales tax.

So if if we're 0.3% above the average in employment numbers, that's 1.2% above the uh average in sales tax collection.

Same thing is true if it's negative.

So if we're down 0.3% in in below, so so uh employment growth could still be happening, but it could be happening at a slower pace than the average.

You tracking with me.

I think so.

So what she determined is that over 2024 and 2025, the employment increase was down 0.5%.

Okay, so we're still growing the number of employees, but it's down 0.5% over the average.

And the correlating number for sales tax decline was 1.9%.

Is that making sense?

And so her opinion is that if we're not growing employment numbers above the average for employment growth in El Paso County, using data going back to 1990, the correlation by definition indicates that we're going to have a decrease in sales tax revenue that's commensurate with the lower the with the flat employment growth.

Okay.

And so I know that's kind of a convoluted way of saying it, but the bottom line is if we're if our employment numbers are not growing as rapidly as we normally see them grow, there's no way that our sales tax numbers are going to remain steady.

And in fact, they're probably going to decline 1.9% according to this model.

And is she forecasting employment into 26 then?

Yes.

Okay.

So that by itself, without twisting the data or doing anything else to kind of manipulate the scenario, I I, for one, looking at a 30-plus year model of the relationship between employment numbers and sales tax revenue, I for one, uh very strongly think that we ought to just be conservative and budget flat.

Um I don't see any downside to that.

And if I might um follow up with a couple of questions and yeah, I'd be very interested to see that model because that would be very helpful.

So thank you for that.

But if I'm understanding it, it's still a forecast of employment, rather than that.

Which is based on and then we're correlating the sales tax to it.

Is that over from 2024 through year to date 2025, employment um numbers have increased 0.5% below the average over the last 30 plus years.

So the 26 is still based on a forecast of employment.

Is that accurate?

I think you could, yeah.

I I mean I don't want to put words in her mouth, but I think you could you could um you could speculate that that is okay what she's projecting.

Right.

Okay.

And then also, if I could please follow up because I maybe I want to understand better in I think you indicated that if we change the sales tax forecast, but not change what we were budgeting on expenditures, if the revenue doesn't come in, we simply don't spend the full amount of what is budgeted in expenditures.

Did I so okay?

In other words, instead of saying that we're gonna just balance the budget by taking money out of the reserve fund, because I think the other thing you heard from a lot of council members earlier on in the process is that we don't want to dip into the reserves who's proposing to dip into the reserves.

I'm proposing that we don't dip into the reserves and we just don't spend what we uh unless and until we know that we I guess let me put it the other way.

If we project the 1.4% increase and we don't realize a 1.4% increase, now you've got to either make cuts or dip into the reserves to balance the budget.

If it's a flat budget, also knowing that sales tax revenue tracks with inflation, right?

Because that's the other key here is that this is nominal.

This is not um uh um inflation adjusted.

It's exactly um whatever you've got penciled in right now, if the budget works today, the budget's gonna work in November and the budget's gonna work in January, February, and March, right?

Because nothing's changing.

Revenue is the same, expenses the same, it's all the same.

I'm not positive.

I'm tracking that, but in relation to then the dollar amount that we budget, if if we were to remove the 3.5 for the sales tax, then what I'm I think I'm not following is in order to not have it on paper be budgeted as a draw, then we would have to reduce expenditures accordingly so that we still have the balanced budget.

In the budget, yeah.

Okay, I would agree with that.

Okay.

And and so, you know, however we want to go about doing that.

Um I think that's certainly open for discussion.

Again, acknowledging, and and I think what we do, what we could do is we could whatever it is that we decide that we're gonna take out of the out of the budget on paper, put it in the parking lot, right?

And so as soon as the budget, as soon as the revenue is tracking better than we anticipated, you've got a prioritized list of okay, let's restore that to the budget, let's restore that to the budget, let's restore that to the budget.

Again, knowing that some of these things may not even become expenses until October, November, December next year.

You see what I'm saying?

Okay.

I think I I believe I do.

And um.

So then under that scenario, as you said, we would need to then identify where on the expenditure side we would uh reduce those expenditures so that going into the year we could match, knowing that those aren't then authorized expenditures for the 2026 budget.

Right.

I just think that's a much more responsible approach than saying we're we're really hoping, you know, based on our best guess that it's gonna go up 1.4%, and then unfortunately not realize that and then be in the same situation in 26 that we are here, two-thirds through the year having to make unwelcome, unhappy cuts, right?

Community centers, so on and so forth.

Councilman Donaldson.

Yeah, thanks, Madam President.

And just in in reference to the uh information which we've heard about for the first time right now.

Um I don't think the CFO is kind of hoping that her best guess is kind of gonna work out right.

It is also based on data and sources um which which I will agree with.

And we can say that, well, we we won't have to make if we don't budget the way that is being recommended right now, then we'll have to make these cuts.

The other way uh doing it right now, you essentially make the cuts right now, or you at least have to to def wait.

Like uh, how are we gonna have a uh police or a uh fire training class planned if we're planning for a lower amount of income, uh this three and a half million dollars.

So things have to change if we do it that way.

Uh we we will have to pull back on certain things, certain things are in the plans for now.

Um personally, I'm going to uh support going forward with this uh projection, which we have discussed at all of our meetings up until now.

And um the the 30-year average, which is you know, which I haven't seen uh from Tatiana Bailey, um, I would like to see it because until you have a chance to look at uh her, you know, the way she arrives at her numbers, um, you know, I I wouldn't change what we have planned for a budget now based on that.

So those are my thoughts.

Councilman Hincham.

Uh thank you, Madam President.

So um uh Brian, I actually I really appreciate you explaining in greater detail um your desire to uh budget flat.

I I actually called Tatiana myself and she shared essentially the same information with me.

What I'm really struggling though, what I I guess what I don't understand is this, and and I I do appreciate being um careful and um conservative.

Um it's the how do we get to a balanced budget now and define the cuts now when we may or may not need to be, you know, need to take them.

We've already cut 38 staff.

I I I'm I mean, I I just am trying to figure out how you get to that 3.5 without potentially cutting more staff or you know, taking I I don't know.

I I just don't know how we get there.

So if you could really help, I I I'm trying to understand how we make this budget work with staying flat and yet um well, not cut more staff is probably the the first and foremost thing, but just impact other levels of service that we may or may not need to make, right?

Like it's like when you make them when you need to make them.

So, how do you have the structure you need and maintain flexibility?

I I I'm trying I'm really trying to understand where you're coming from here genuinely and be supportive if possible, but I'm struggling with that.

I I just don't understand how we do that.

I understand completely what you're what you're saying, Nancy, and I agree with you.

I think that's the challenge, right?

Is that we're trying to make decisions today about expenditures that may not hit the books for 12, 13 months, right?

And so I you know, I I don't necessarily have the answer to that.

I think that Sheree and her team can figure that out.

Um and certainly well more than willing to work collaboratively with you to try to be creative on that.

Um I I think the the point is that to realize the savings on paper doesn't change anything day one.

It doesn't change anything within the first month.

I don't even think it changes anything within the first three months.

I think it's a a series of of evolutionary discussions where we monitor this on an ongoing basis in the way that you already do, right?

And you true things up throughout the year.

I'm just saying that we're setting the bar flat instead of projecting an increase and then having to to deal with the situation that we're in again.

Um and no disrespect, Sheree.

I you know I think the world of you, and I very much respect your um your your incredible um methodology and and uh care with which you put these numbers together.

But the reality is the information that you use to build this budget for 2025 was wrong.

And again, I don't mean that with any disrespect, but that whatever data sources you use to build the current budget didn't correctly project what the economy did.

And again, I I know that there were some things that were completely out of any of our control in terms of you know inflation and interest rates and all the other things that we anticipated would happen on sort of a macroeconomic level, um, which again drove I think some of us to look at at other indicators that might be more reflective of the true situation that we have here.

And again, I'll just go back to the building department.

You know, when they're budgeting 2700 residential permits, which is a third of what they've seen over past years, they're not doing that because they are um out of touch with what's happening in the local economy.

And so Nancy asks a great question, and I think it's a really important, obviously, it's something that we've got to do if we're gonna move forward with a proposal like this, we've got to figure out how to balance it on paper.

But I think you understand my point is that are there some expenses that we can look at in the second half of next year that get cut on paper that get restored when you're right and I'm wrong.

Or if I may, Madam President, I'm because I asked, thank you.

Um Brian, I mean, I think this is where uh it's just how how do you decide to uh plan for a future that may go either way, right?

I mean, that that's what we're we're I think we're talking about here.

So the other approach is in fact to um stick with how we have planning because nobody can project the future, right?

Tatiana can't, I I did talk to her, she scared me a little bit, quite frankly.

I mean, you know, it's it's it's it's not a pretty picture we're facing in our country and um not so much about individually here, but there's a lot of things that are are certainly concerning.

But couldn't we also, I mean, isn't another approach as opposed to to taking those cuts in the budget right now and putting them on paper?

Couldn't we in at the very end of the first quarter take a look and say, you know what?

Boy, this trend isn't going well.

What let's start looking at what we need to do in the next quarter or the third quarter or the fourth quarter and have more frequent um uh touch points, in part because I think the other thing I'm trying to consider here is this balance of um yep, being very conservative and and thoughtful, but also thinking about the overall staff and morale and and um uh you know, like it's it's pretty rough.

And do we make it rougher um right now, or do we kind of let things stabilize and and check and see in three months, in four months, and and look at it that way.

I mean, the point is we can make those changes at any time, which is what you're saying.

It's just do you do it now, or you do you do it in four months or five months.

And my preference at this point is to do it in four months or five months and and and keep keep on it, I guess.

And fair, I think the the challenge with that though, Nancy, is that that's what we did this year.

And uh there was the you know, we're we're gonna sort of freeze spending, we're gonna we're gonna ask departments to find savings where they can.

Uh things are not tracking well, things are getting worse throughout the year, now we're gonna have to do layoffs, now we're gonna, I mean, it just it progressively got worse throughout the course of 2025.

I'm arguing and advocating that we set ourselves up for the opposite experience, which is rather than getting a third, two-thirds, three-quarters of the way through the year and then having to backtrack.

I'm saying let's do the opposite.

Let's set ourselves up for um identifying on paper savings that we can identify now and then add those throughout the course of the year as we go.

I'll give you an example.

Um I think another under the Southers administration, and you will know this better than I will, but under under the Southers administration, I think there were a few years where some budget savings occurred through hiring freezes, right?

I don't know if that's a lever that can be pulled in this case if we just say we're gonna not hire any new positions um in the first quarter or first two quarters of the year until we really see how the the uh economies unfolding.

Would that be a possibility?

I mean, is that something that uh yeah, of course it's a possibility.

Um I will say from organally, I feel like uh in administering the budget throughout the year that I think that if we were to make the 3.5 reduction in expenditures, then we haven't really in the past, because um I'm feeling I'm trying to like process how that would work, but I think that what we would have to do is actually go and I'm gonna you know, finance.

I have to cut an additional whatever, 500,000.

Um then I would need to be planning on making that savings over the course of the year.

And so I would need to go ahead because now I have um lower budget, then I'm gonna have to very quickly before the first of the year, say, okay, then I need to shed five hundred thousand dollars worth of expenditures throughout the year.

So I'm gonna have to um lay off however many people because I think that to say, okay, you're gonna we can hold on the higher budget than is actually approved for the first six months, and then try to take the savings in the last six months if perchance the revenue doesn't come in, then that puts me in a pickle because I then am waiting to make those changes.

Um I I agree with the conversation, it the scenario is kind of either we make mid-year adjustments up or down.

And organizationally, I feel like it's actually faster to make to put a hiring freeze on in the middle of the year, because that's an immediate action we can take and it has immediate results.

And then it's not going from the other way where if we go ahead and take out the positions now and take out the expenditures now, and then halfway through the year, say, okay, great, I get a hundred thousand dollars back.

Then I'm going through the hiring process and training and um having to expend the resources to try to then ramp up.

So I think that it's actually from organizational, I think it's um faster to then at that point put in the hiring freeze.

And we absolutely have used hiring freeze as a way to generate expenditure savings.

That's absolutely true.

So I guess to maybe put it make it more personal, you'd rather hire somebody in January and have to lay them off in June as opposed to the opposite.

Well, except it's not that I'm hiring anybody, it's just the staff that I've had from continuing from 25 to 20, whatever I have authorized in 26, which I'm staffed now because I have an unfunded, you know, I had to give up funding for a position already.

So if I'm asked then to reduce my expenditures further, then I would have to then take that from some other staff, and so then that would be another layoff.

Or capital projects um we I don't feel like we can take it from capital projects because we pushed that very hard for the 26th budget, and we've had conversations where uh in city engineering who has the largest capital projects that impact general fund funding.

We've already taken we don't have actually any grant match uh at all in the 26th budget.

Okay, I'll I'll stop talking and let other people.

Okay, Councilman Bailey.

Thank you, Madam President.

And I uh from the beginning, I've been uh I've advocated for that more conservative approach where we start with a uh lower projection for revenue.

However, I think I've also said that I I believe that ultimately this is the executive branch's problem.

Um I think everyone up here is willing to help, wants to do what we can to help.

And it may be that just reinforcing the pickle that you're in is is all we can do at this point.

I I don't know realistically how much more time we would have to work to find a three and a half million dollar, three and a half million dollars in this budget that additional that we could could save to balance the thing.

But ultimately, in you know, six, eight, nine months, we're we're gonna have a pretty good idea of what uh 2026 is gonna look like, and we will have to take some action.

And and I would just urge yet again publicly here that we look at prioritizing the functions of government that need to happen and make sure that we have a plan ready when that time comes.

And I uh it's probably there, but I haven't seen it.

I haven't been here long enough to see it to give myself that assurance.

But ultimately, that's what we're gonna have to do.

We're gonna have to have a plan where we can pretty readily identify those lower priority things, and there are some, and we don't all agree on them, but ultimately the administration's gonna have to figure out what those are and make some tough decisions.

And council is here, stands by to help.

Um, and we've we've made that offer regularly.

So as we go forward, um, we just need to make sure that uh um whatever we decide today, we're ready to work to meet meet whatever happens in 26.

Councilman Lineweber.

Um percentage of that is on payroll.

Yep.

For the general fund, 70% of the budget is spent on salaries benefits.

Sorry.

Seven zero.

Um something just happened.

Pardon.

I'm sorry.

I'm having a cycle to the code here.

I can't hear her either, council.

Unlocked.

Oh, so we can probably hear out, just can't hear that.

I can hear I can hear you.

Oh, no, there we go.

You can hear me now?

Yes, I can, but you did go away, and then I heard Brandy, so we were like talking.

Okay, so it's I'm gonna amend my statement.

It's seven four percent, seventy-four percent.

So um that's kind of I think what you were kind of suggesting is realizing that so much of the budget is staffing position, and just um I I fundamentally um uh uh agree with um Councilman Risley.

Um but not right after we just took these really severe cuts, and a lot of them were extremely painful, and none of them are easy, and I'm not quite sure we're up for it again right now.

Now, if things go bad later, I think we can, but but staff is valuable, and um just the cut to have a relief in the budget.

I I'm I have a little bit of concerns of like if um that is gonna happen.

And I and I you know, one thing I look at is I looked at the building um numbers, for example.

We were down um we were down significantly over last year.

Well, it's kind of hard to believe that we're gonna be even continually down, you know.

I I think we'll we'll be at the same level, but it it's hard.

I mean, we're like 21% down or something in building materials.

So I can't see us going down any more there.

And then the other idea is is our employment rate is still extremely low.

And um, I know my business has been look trying to hire people, but we just can't find people to hire.

I mean, that's really kind of the reality, is it's just tough to find good people.

So um, so I'm not I'm not as negative on the whole situation, I think of the economy and stuff.

I think I think we're gonna I think we'll probably fare okay, my personal thoughts, but I guess my I guess what I'm trying to communicate is I'm kind of pushing against Risley's idea a little bit, and probably more towards what Tom suggested, is that we do think that we do have to plan out a worst case scenario and be ready for it.

And uh that's gonna make when we look at items two through two, three, four, five, six, and seven here, even more difficult because like you said, if we're gonna if we're gonna add anything, we have to take something away.

And we've done so much taken away, it's really difficult to kind of figure that piece out.

So that's kind of something I kind of struggle with.

The other thing I need to understand a little bit better is when a department, and and I'm just I'm just gonna tiptoe on the number two a little bit, but we'll come back to number two maybe later, but just use it as an example.

When when homeless and housing is allocated 11 full-time positions, but then only has five.

Are we we're budgeting for the five, or what are we budgeting for?

Because it's you know, it's supposed to be eleven, but we have five.

And I don't know how that kind of works because it it that department did get hit with the hiring freeze.

And so um, can you explain like what the differences are um in that kind of scenario?

I mean, are we budgeting for the 11 when the department's supposed to have 11?

Yes, I can address that.

And can you hear me okay now?

I just want to verify.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

So in 2025, the housing and homelessness response department was authorized for 11 positions, and there were I think four in the general fund and the rest were in the grant fund.

And because we did need savings in the general fund, we were holding some of those positions open.

So they were authorized, but due to needing expenditure savings, then they were not filled.

Now coming into 2026, on the other hand, in those situations, we went ahead and said, okay, we're actually taking away the funding, and that's what we're gonna base the budget on.

And so in that department, we decreased the number in the general fund, and then I think pushed um one or two into one position into the grant fund so that we now only have two positions budgeted in the general fund.

Now, because we made the reductions to balance, then those two positions in the general fund are authorized and currently are filled.

You're muted, sir.

So how so we're not thinking so it's no longer 11.

So what what's the new number then?

Uh and and I guess you if you could split it, like how many are we going to be able to get through grants?

And then how many are gonna come?

Is it only two positions versus four?

Is what you're saying for the general fund?

In the general fund, it's two, but then they also have seven in the grants fund, so there's a total of nine.

Okay.

And you know, I did uh receive some information from Amy Cox, and I've included that um in the email that I provided just contextually, so for your awareness as far as what her plan is and uh in a way to operate in that way.

Okay, so but there's other departments that are going to be kind of a similar type thing where there was an allocation, but we can't actually fill the allocation.

I guess that gets to my initial thing, and why I kind of don't think, although I like what brought what um Councilman Risling is suggesting.

It's really duck, it's really it's really tough timing at this place when we we just laid off a bunch of people, and I think we already took a hard look at everything with 70 five-ish percent of our budget coming from payroll.

It it almost would have to come from um some form of laying off people, and and then uh the idea of hiring the back on and training them and all that that just um that just concerns me a little bit.

And I I would rather try to kind of like hold my teeth together really tightly and see if we can squeeze through here and see if we can see what's gonna happen and then make a decision later in the year, similar to what um um Tom has suggested, Councilman Bailey.

Um so I'm kind of following along with Councilman Bailey on that one.

Thanks.

Councilman Rainey.

Thank you, Madam President.

I actually a couple of my questions have already been answered uh in regards to conservative numbers.

Uh the question I have is I guess twofold.

One, had did you take a look at all the other regions to see if they're increasing, staying flat?

Was the county doing?

I believe Denver is doing three to maybe three and a half.

Um did you look at those and what was your assessment from that if you did?

I've looked at a few.

Uh and yes, the way that I understand the the Denver budget is three or three and a half, and yes, the county, I believe is two-ish, and I've not um looked at other cities.

I am on a kind of a listserv through the Colorado Municipal League, and there are a wide range of sales tax forecasts going into 2026.

I don't know, um, some of them are quite small or they're mountain towns, so I don't use them necessarily for uh comparison because they're quite different in their makeup.

And I will I think sort of the the underlying struggle is that all of these numbers that we're talking about are forecasts, and so it's just um and various like the county has very specific reasons, I understand you know, why they made that forecast, and I'm sure the state does as well, and the building department and Tatiana, and but the under kind of underpinning all of that is they are estimates, and so it's just different um assumptions for each of those, and different assumptions based on what that organization uh puts into the forecast.

And so even if you know the employment numbers or the building numbers or sales tax numbers or whatever the case may be, um that's why they all vary because they're all uh educated guesses, and that's what a forecast is.

And so even when we compare two other entities, there are a lot of various assumptions and actually differences in what is taxable actually between Denver and the county and City of Colorado Springs.

We have a little bit of a different base, which has some impacts on that sales tax collection, but again, it is just a set of assumptions that each organization is using or each person is using, and it's those assumptions then that create that forward looking estimate.

Stan with that mindset based on the projections to council uh member Risley's point, based on the projections and and yes there are some external factors, you know, well outside the scope of Colorado Springs that had some effect based on the projection projections going into 2025.

What did you look at I don't want you to get too far into weeds here but what was it about your projection model that made things different for 2026 compared to 2025 knowing that we missed a mark.

Yes I understand.

We did modify the models that we used because based on that we did a very deep analysis on which models were not being reliable.

And so we threw out we use um multiple models because what we try to do is um get the ones that um have kind of the best fit I guess and are not outliers and so what we determined is which ones were the outliers and so we're no longer using those the other items that were expectations at the time that we made the budget um were uh the interest rate interest rate cuts and of course we didn't foresee um tariffs and you know all of that kind of thing so I think that combination of factors is what created the disparity between what we're experiencing and what what had been in the budget.

So this year going into the budget we are using only those models that we found were the best fit and doing the best job of forecasting but also trying to look at other items such as you know what's a GDP estimate or what is a um consumer spending estimates or um and also taking into account we are seeing much less building material revenue um absolutely accurate that building material category is down and the building permits you know seem to be varying widely but are definitely much less than um certainly they were in 22 or three so looking at the models but that's we don't use only that we try to use also just kind of that economic news and looking at um I was looking at unemployment rates which is slightly different than employment rate employment activity so I'll um be very interested in follow up with Tatiana on that so those were the type of uh pieces of information that we tried to uh put behind that forecast okay thank you councilman rainy I can answer some of that I did call over to the county's finance office and ask them that those questions myself and they said in the last few years they've stayed flat they've built up the reserve and they have more property tax rather than sales and use tax which makes them a little bit more stable than than us is why they made the decision for what they did this year.

And you know feel free um to do the same thing.

Councilman Donaldson Yeah thanks Madam President and I'll make it short.

If we're kind of going back and forth and trying to figure out which would be the the way to do this is it go with the uh projections by our our CFO and and the budget office or stay flat um I think it's it's worth remembering that this is the mayor's proposed budget.

You know he has uh an interest in this being accurate and not being off the mark.

So I think it's fair to uh go ahead and and you know if we're not sure which way to go or it's difficult decision to uh weigh that also and uh you know there's the old saying about only one one captain's uh steers the ship and when we do if we do this if we make cuts you know 3.5 million we don't have a lot of of uh fluff in the city budget here so it will impact services to citizens and we are stretched very thin right now as far as uh code enforcement public works roads filling potholes police fire so I wouldn't want to pull the trigger on that any earlier than we have to and I I prefer to wait and see how it goes into next year and and make those freezes or cuts uh when that time comes versus planning for it now and and canceling training uh not hiring people uh so please consider that councilman hindom uh thank you yeah and and hopefully we'll we'll be able to move on to our next item after after the all these comments but uh you know I concur I I do really appreciate um um genuinely you bringing up the the matter uh Brian it's a good important conversation how we do this one thing I've kind of

Um so please consider that.

Councilman Hindum.

Uh thank you.

Yeah, and and hopefully we'll we'll be able to move on to our next item after after the all these comments.

But uh, you know, I concur.

I I do really appreciate um genuinely you bringing up the the matter, uh Brian.

It's a good important conversation how we do this.

One thing I've kind of learned a little bit more through this conversation is that um, you know, whether it's the county of Denver or the County of El Paso or the city of Denver or uh building um, you know, whose revenue is entirely based on how building goes.

So of course, building uh budgeting flat for them makes sense based on that particular forecast.

But the point being that every municipality or county or or budget entity is gonna have their revenue sources are gonna be slightly different in different contexts.

And so um, you know, with with appreciating that, I I I would like to stick with what we have.

And um, you know, and and Tom, I don't think this is what you meant when you said it's your challenge, not ours, um in the sense that we're a part of it.

I I don't know what you meant by that, but I would just say it is also our challenge.

And um we're all in the pickle um in the city, we're all in the pickle, and um losing 38 FTE and people taking furloughs next year, that impacts all of us.

That impacts the city staff, but it impacts the city.

So I just I just don't want to minimize um this challenge that we're facing.

Um I also not trying to spin it up or make it a bigger issue than it is, but it's it's not nothing.

So um this has been a really good conversation, I think.

Um I do hope that we will um be able to move on with the 1.4 and um and to your request, I think earlier, Tom, about how do we as a council um stay engaged a little bit earlier and and so that you know, as as we see what's really happening, we can be flexible and adjust and work with you in real time.

So thank you for your work on this, Shari.

Councilman Bailey.

Thank you, Madam President.

And I and I I think I did acknowledge that we're all in this together and that we're part of part of the process, but ultimately, more to Councilman Donaldson's point, there is one captain of the ship, and and ultimately the mayor's budget, the mayor and the executive branch is gonna have to execute.

And so um yeah, certainly don't minimize this because it's gonna be a hard task.

I believe it's gonna be hard because I bel I agree with Councilman Risley that the projections are overly optimistic.

And that's fine.

So I guess may maybe I guess for me, I know for me, it would be useful if if the chief of staff maybe could weigh in on this a little bit and and kind of give us the assurance that the priorities, the prioritization is going on, that the thinking is there, that if necessary, the administration can react to this in a way that doesn't we made this seem like a crisis in the last few months.

It's not a crisis because we know it's coming.

And I guess that's kind of let me put it that way.

Can we can we can we cast it differently next time so we don't make it so you know seemingly so political sure?

Thank you for the question.

Um what Shere says and and what Councilman Bailey said is correct.

We forecast and we are used to doing this.

Um in my 10 years at the city, there have been multiple times when at any point in the year there might be a spending slowdown.

There might be uh Sharey likes to use the term green light, yellow light, red light.

Um we might Sharay uh harasses her staff several days before the sales tax report comes out so she can give us a preview.

How are we looking for February?

How are we looking for March?

Um, and keeps a very close eye on that so that we can adjust, much like any of us who own businesses or in our household budget do, we know that a budget is an estimate and we make adjustments midway through, partway through, three quarters of the way through as appropriate.

Um the levers that you guys have mentioned up here, spend uh spending slowdown, hiring freezes, um, hiring delays are just some of the methods that I've seen uh used.

And the way we kind of select those methods is overarchingly what has the least impact on the services to our citizens.

Um sometimes that means some painful cuts to us, sometimes that means our staff taking on additional roles uh to maintain those savings, especially when we're holding positions open.

But those are things that we are used to doing and that we're committed to doing so that we can always maintain a balanced city budget, and that's something that we would commit to in 2026 as well.

Does that answer that?

Probably is as well as you can or willing to right now.

So but yeah, thank thank you.

Well, I for one agree with um Councilman Risley, and I think you know, instituting a hiring freeze for 3.5 million takes care of this problem right now moving forward, knowing that you know, in the news it says that there were 2700 jobs created, but what were those jobs?

Do they have the discretionary spending with them and are they just paying the bills?

Furthermore, we have a government shutdown.

Um you I don't know if you've seen nationwide where retail stores are closing on Friday because all the benefits are ending for TANF and WIC and whatnot.

And I think we're in for a bumpy couple of months that we'll go into the next year, and I don't know how much we've calculated in to this government shutdown to this.

It hasn't ended.

There's no idea of when it's gonna end in Collar Springs is going to be hit with it.

We know that the state's gonna be hit with it as far as job growth in the state.

We know that the state is not business friendly.

It is very hard to recruit companies and good employees to the state because of the legislation.

So just taking all of that into account, um, I fully support um staying flat.

Um, just so we're not here again.

Having to close another community center in a year is gonna be bumpy and it's gonna be in one district.

Um I agree ramping up as a business owner myself.

I see it the other way around.

I would rather save and ramp up.

It just worked for me over 23 years and it worked well for me, or I wouldn't be sitting here.

Um so I just wanted to put my support for that.

And Councilman Williams, did you have I can't see your hand?

Hello.

Hello.

Um, I think it's been a great conversation.

It's really just two different approaches.

Um neither of which are good or bad.

Um I would say probably before the government shut down.

I was comfortable with the increase in sales tax.

Mid-government shut down.

I'm not as comfortable with the increase in sales tax because we don't know the outfall and the unintended consequences from that, especially being such a habitly government reliant economy here in Colorado Springs.

So I think the majority of council is comfortable with the increase in that um sales tax projection, but I think personally we're ready to um vote one way or another and move on to the next item.

I think we're good moving on to next item.

Okay.

But we should give an indication now, thumbs up whether we uh what we're gonna do.

Are we gonna oh there is?

I was waiting for so was Williams in support of I don't know.

Like existing.

We need to do thumbs up or down for changing the proposed budget on this item.

And which ones which council member Donaldson, thumbs up changes it, thumbs up keeps it the same.

Yeah, councilman Donaldson, which would you like you're running the meeting?

Go ahead.

The way I would no I'm not running a meeting, but I would propose I would propose that those who um would like to alter the proposed budget, which would be change uh from the 1.4 increase to just flat that they would indicate.

So if you if you don't want to do that, then don't indicate it.

Councilman Williams, do you support that or I think that therefore if I want to change it, I'm a thumbs up.

Councilman Lineweber?

Thumbs down.

Yeah, I'm gonna have to I have to go thumbs up.

Okay, got it.

I got your thumb.

Councilman Rainey.

She did say that.

That's correct.

No, no, want it to stay flat.

So I yeah, maybe we could just go through and just yeah, so councilman Williams was a thumbs up to stay flat.

Councilman Lineweber was a thumbs down.

Councilman Rainey.

Down.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

We'll move forward to the next item.

Thank you.

The next item on the list is uh one that is for the housing and homelessness response department and uh indication of being interested in perhaps expanding the staffing for that.

So I'll turn it back over to uh the council for those that would like to comment on that or propose that modification.

That would be councilman Lineweber, Councilman Gold, and Councilman Henjam.

Councilman Gold.

Um I had a conversation with Amy Cox, and it looks like she's gonna be outsourcing some positions.

So I'm I'm good with um supporting her via outsourcing.

Thank you.

Councilman Henjam.

Uh same.

Councilman Lightweber, do you have anything to add to that?

Yeah, I'm I think I'm the same, but I think um I I kind of like the thought as we look at all of these, um, they may not necessarily like again, we're gonna have to find something to cut to add any of these things that are there.

And I think we've already cut quite a bit.

So um I I haven't heard any good suggestions up to this point.

Um so for that reason, um I think we might want to consider how we prioritize these things or suggest a priority that if we have a two percent increase or something like that, where we have the opportunity um to do one of these things to do any of these that we set some kind of priority to them or something along that line.

Councilman Henjam.

Uh thank you.

I guess I would just add one piece.

It it really has not so much to do with the budget, but just the operation and the facilitation of all things related to homelessness, which touches pretty much every single department in our whole city.

And I think the thing I would just like to underscore is that um given that Amy is, if you will, the the tip of a spear um that is you know potentially cutting cutting the way for for various departments.

I just would encourage all of us, every department head, city council, et cetera, to consider um at least ensuring she's informed, if not engaged in conversations and decisions that are related to um how we approach homelessness and all the various functions.

So it's it's more of a leadership collaboration uh comment than it is related to the budget.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, the next item is to add additional funds for abandoned vehicle program.

And again, I did reach out.

Um I it I wanted to let you know all know that in the 2026 budget already included is an increase of eighty-two thousand dollars in that towing contract because it was recognized that that contract was not sufficient for the desired effort by the neighborhood services um program that monitors that so we did in the existing budget have eighty-two thousand dollars already.

And then I did include from Rich Mullady, the public works director, some information on uh their plan and that they believe that that would be sufficient for now.

They don't have great history before it went into public works, but he believes that uh it would be sufficient.

But um I'll turn it back over for any discussion related to that.

That's helpful.

Thank you for that additional information.

Councilman Donaldson.

Yeah, and and that may be fine to start the year, but I would ask that you come back and ask us if they need more money to tow vehicles off the streets.

Uh we need to we need to do that.

And and that includes if we need to dip into the reserve fund, because that creates a sense of lawlessness and disorder and chaos on the streets, and it brings about more vandalism and more crime, and we're it's an investment to get that broken down uh vehicle out of a neighborhood or off the street.

So I will just ask here, please, you know, and I'll I'll talk to public works too.

Let us know if they are not able to respond to all requests by citizens to get these vehicles towed because of funding, right?

Sometimes citizens ask for something to be towed and they can't do it because it's just not right.

But if it's a money issue, we should do it.

Okay, thank you.

Councilman Gold?

I'd I'd really second what Councilmember Donaldson is saying.

Um something that we um see a lot more, I think in District 4 and uh would love to keep a pulse on that um uh so that we have better enforcement for that.

So thank you, Councilmember Donaldson.

Thank you.

I know last year we did add a position for code enforcement that was doing some of this work, and then it got switched or it got I wouldn't say rift or replaced, but we gave a position last year in the budget, right?

And then this year they took it out.

Uh in the 2025 budget, we moved that program from PD to public works in and because we had moved neighborhood services from planning into public works.

So I don't recall a reduction in a position.

We'll double check, but I don't believe that there was oh and you're saying you added yes, I apologize.

Yes, we did.

Last budget season we added an EFT, but it was take but it was taken out with the budget reduction says from what I understand.

So could you check into that?

Yes, we will.

Because that will make a difference.

Okay, yep.

I understand.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

I was just making a note.

Uh the next item number five is um interest in restoring the crime lab position.

And so I did reach out to um Chief Vasquez to gain some clarity on that.

And he did provide some information on uh that there wasn't a backlog uh created there.

So I don't know if that um might have been a misunderstanding, or he may um not have made that very clear, but they were already looking at not having the crime lab in PD because they don't use it as much as uh they think would be required to maintain their own crime lab.

And so they have coordinated with CBI um who has indicated that they would be able to handle that.

So if that if you have additional questions, I'm happy to try to address them.

Councilman Risley.

I mean, Rainey.

Uh thank you, Madam President.

So I want to make sure I hear it is absolutely correctly, because I'm gonna tie two to three things to this.

Okay.

In his lens, currently not having that position is not a factor because there is no backlog.

However, CBI will take on any cases, investigative cases that come up since that position has been removed.

Is that an accurate assessment?

Yes.

That's my understanding.

When he says there's no backlog, is he looking at that from a CSPD lens, or did you just show excuse me, did you just use system lens?

Because there's two different lenses, and I can tell you they're intertwined.

I see it every day.

So I want to make sure that one decision here may make sense in that office.

But in two to three different offices, it doesn't make sense.

Do you know if he has, and and maybe uh the chief of staff can chime in here?

Has he coordinated or communicated with the DA to make sure that there is no impact there?

I don't know that.

I do know that he has coordinated with um CBI and that whatever the caseload is that was being handled by the Colorado Springs Crime Lab can be handled by CBI, and they've indicated that that's not a problem.

So from what I understand from the DA's office, the DAs that are working in the DA's office that they have a backlog of cases because they now have to send a CBI because they can't send to the crime lab for drug testing sheriff's department any of those.

And so I think that's what um councilman Risley is Rainey is getting to, the Rs.

Um, is that it may not affect the local PD, but is it affecting the DA cases and the sheriff cases because they used that department for all their drug testing?

And the backlog may not be with CSPD, but with other regional partners.

Is that correct?

That is a very accurate assessment.

I talk to judges all the time.

I I vet these judges, I interview these judges, and we're not even getting the amount of candidates anymore because of the docket load, and there's a direct correlation between being able to get cases investigated, get them processed to alleviate a lot of the pressure than anything else.

So that's why I want to make sure that one decision in a stove pipe that that decision took into account other external factors that have direct ties to that particular position.

Okay, I I under I believe I understand now, and we will get the answer to that question.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Councilman Donaldson.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah, Chief Chief Asquez, he didn't talk about the DA's office, but he he has talked about CSPD, and um, it's not going to impact in a negative way CSPD at all.

And as far as Councilman DA's office or the county yeah, using our CSPD lab.

I I don't know about that, but uh you maybe maybe the chief can call over and see if he knows about that.

Um and that's what I'm getting at is I I get it.

And in his lands and his budget and his bucket, yeah.

He's seeing probably no impact here.

I want to make sure, because I hear it too often.

I I've I've heard it way too often of kind of the the backtrack of things that are missing to help alleviate the pressure of the docket.

So I will I just want to make sure that he has spoken with the DA or spoken with other entities to make sure that putting that responsibility on another department or division is not going to impact the DA's office or the deputy DA's uh in so many cases that day or processing.

Okay, that's an interesting question.

Whether uh Colorado Springs and our police department should have to run a lab for the use of the county and uh and the DA.

I mean, I don't know that that's really the right way for that to work unless they're gonna help fund it.

So but it'll be interesting to s to see what you what you hear.

Okay.

So do you want to continue pursuing any changes, or we can get you the additional information and it we'll provide the input to you?

Very good.

Okay, thank you.

And the item number six is restore funding for the 2026 fire academy, and that is funded and addressed on the RMJ tab.

So we're gonna get to that one, and then allocating funding to support the CSFD training and equipment upgrades.

That's also addressed on the RMJ tab, and we can have that discussion when we get there.

So if I believe that we have that addressed um, other than the general fund, unless there um would like to be additional discussion on that.

Okay.

Um sorry, Councilman Donaldson.

I just didn't hear what what topic is this one.

This is for both the um number six and number seven on this sheet, the restore funding for the 2026 fire academy and allocate funding to support the oh, I'm I think one of them should be PD training and equipment upgrades.

Yeah, are they both fire?

But yeah.

Okay.

So I have we are addressing that on the with the RMJ money, which will be on the next tab that we go to.

So if there are no other questions for general fund portions of that, um if the council would like, we can move to the RMJ discussion.

Um we have the municipal court I'm sorry, did I skip one?

You did.

I apologize for that.

Right.

Restore funding for the critical municipal court positions.

And uh in looking at the positions that they had reduced, they reduced four positions and unfunded half of a position, but the four positions that they reduced were um RIFs, and so those are not eligible to be restored.

I understand that.

And those four positions that were riffed were we're in probate, so I would like to restore a full-time clerk for the judge.

Okay.

Um for Judge Kane, just because that was four and a half positions in probation that he's gonna have to make up with one clerk.

So I would like to see one clerk position restored to help him with those positions being riffed.

Okay, so Jen can update um to add a municipal court clerk position.

Um, and I think that we have that I don't remember.

We have an estimate for that that we'll um insert here.

So we'll modify that description to say a municipal court clerk, and then um if we want to have a discussion on adding the clerk municipal court clerk position.

Yes, okay, thank you.

I'll turn it back over.

Um at this time, can I can I make a reallocation from LART funding?

From LART funding.

So um the 2026 LART funding.

Um, and I think I modify please go ahead.

Okay.

So I understand there is $75 of unallocated funding from an organization for the last two years that were able to spend their money due to not being able to pay some city fees.

And so I would like to take that $75 and put it into the outdoor recreational bucket with the intent to give an extra out an extra $75 to the PPORA.

They just recently received a $2.5 million grant from the state, and they need some extra help implementing this and managing this grant, which is going to be very, very good for our region.

It's outdoor recreation, it's for Ring the Peak.

So I'd like to, I would like to take that $75,000 for the record, put it into the outdoor recreation bucket, and then have that money allocated to an extra 75 to PPRA to manage help manage that grant for our region.

And just some contextual information.

So that funding is allocated in 2025.

And so the funding is still in that designate, it's still designated in that account.

And I understand that, but we know that and so I've had contact from that organization indicating that on Friday that they plan on paying off that invoice, in which case they would still be eligible to receive a 25 award should they choose to do that.

But what we can do is if that doesn't occur, we can then make an indication to them that the time is up, and then we would have to have a council action to release the funding from that project to be reallocated.

And so we would be able to bring that back to you at a later time.

Okay, so yes, I will support that.

But if for some reason they do, um there's that extra $30,000 from USOC P that were they were unable to take that LART funding.

So if in the case they do pay it, which would be great, um, then I would like to reallocate that 25 that they were unable to take in this round and they gave it back to add to that 70 to that 25 to bring it back to the 75.

Okay, so and now you're referencing the 2026 funding.

Okay.

So the way that the new process is working is that the amount for the awards is provided to the um uh tourism the buckets, and so right now it's in that bucket, and the way that it was to be working is that if throughout the year an uh event canceled or was not able to occur, that that bucket would be able to allocate the funding to something else that's compliant with the rubric and to generate the room nights.

I haven't seen anything that that's been reallocated.

We have the one spreadsheet that was sent out to us.

I haven't seen anything different.

So as far as I know, it's still sitting in that bucket.

So I would like to reallocate that 30,000 or that 25 in the case that we need it.

If we don't need it, that's one thing.

If the organization does pay, which is great, and they get their allocation, that's one thing, but I haven't seen an allocation of those dollars.

I understand what you're saying, but nobody has sent anything over saying those dollars are reallocated.

So before since they're not reallocated in my mind, because we haven't seen anything, I would like to take if if the first one doesn't work, that 20 an extra 25 out of the 30, and then put it towards the outdoor recreational bucket, bringing that up to 75.

Okay.

And that was gonna be um discussed at the LARP meeting since that was where we sort of decided on those buckets, but I understand what you're saying.

Yeah.

And um, okay.

That's what I would like um to do in in this funding for that um reallocation.

Okay, and then that would be modifying the LART budget.

And so or do we have consensus on modifying the moving money from one bucket to the other bucket for the LART funds?

No councilman Williams.

Yeah, Tom.

Councilman Williams, Rainey, Risley.

Me.

I'm just getting account first.

So um I'm not ready to put a thumbs up or thumbs down until there's more conversation.

Hi.

I'm a little confused.

So I I want to go back and forward at the same time.

I'm a little confused on line number five on restore the eliminate eliminated crime lab position.

Because I wasn't sure if that was a yes.

Was that a no?

Is that something we're getting consensus on?

So that's one.

And the second is with LART.

Folks made a decision and we approved.

So I'm just, yes, I'm just trying to make sure that uh whatever we're doing is equitable, especially considering the organization that was named.

Um I would hate for us to come off as overly political in some of our decision makings, especially when it comes to um some actual money that will go to an organization.

Yeah, one of the two things.

We're we are hoping and given them we've given them plenty of time to come in, and I'm hoping they do pay that.

That's why I allocated the extra USOC that wasn't used in case they don't.

If they do pay the bill and they do get the funding allocated to them, that would be the best case scenario.

That's why I reallocated money from the USO CP that couldn't take theirs in the case of.

So this isn't the case of, but we haven't voted on the largest.

So just for your information.

I can't answer the question on the crime lab.

Yeah, so I believe on the crime lab, the consensus was that at this time we're not going to change anything, but we're gonna um run down some questions and some provide some additional information on the impact of the CSPD not having a crime lab on the other agencies.

So that's more information to come.

And then on the 26th LART, um, that is included in the budget ordinance.

And so the council has not voted on that yet.

And what President Carrivason is indicating is she would like to make a movement between the tourism sector funding buckets based on the fact that there was one organization in one of the sectors that has already let us know that they will not be taking the award because their other funding didn't come in either.

And so they're foregoing that award.

And so what President Car Iverson is indicating is she would like to take the funding out of that bucket of money and put it in the outdoor bucket of money and have it go to PPORA.

That's accurate.

Yep.

Councilman Henjam.

Uh thank you.

Uh just first uh well, the chief of staff actually had up, so I'd like to hear from her first, and then I'll yeah, sorry, just procedurally.

I want to let you guys know that Chief Vasquez is trying to call in right now for Councilman Rainey's question.

He's on.

Do you want to hear from the go to the chief and we'll come back to you.

Hi, Chief.

Hi, uh good afternoon, everybody.

Sorry about that.

Uh uh Adrian Vasquez, Chief of Police.

Um, happy to answer that question if you're ready for me.

Yes, please.

Okay.

So I I also sent uh all of counsel and email basically saying what I'll say, which is uh we did have uh so first we have uh three Al Pasco County Sheriff's Office employees as part of our lab.

So they interact, they're working here in our crime lab every single day.

So they aren't actually part of our lab.

Um, but through the course of evaluation and the evaluation on the chemist positions was happening um well before this conversation.

We were already looking at um whether we would use those positions for something else or whether there was a need for it.

Uh the commander over uh investigations, uh Commander Thompson had been doing uh an evaluation of those positions for a while.

We had already started down the road of eliminating those positions uh because quite frankly, we just weren't getting the use out of them.

We did have uh prior to doing that as part of the budget uh uh uh downsizing that we did.

We had conversations with EPSO uh to ensure that they didn't see something we were missing.

We also had conversations with uh uh DAL and in his office to make sure that uh they understood uh what we were wanting to do and why, and additionally had conversations with uh CBI to make sure with their crime lab to make sure that uh they could fully support the the the relatively small number of of testings that we were doing.

Um all of those offices uh confirmed that they did not have any concerns that they felt were our information was accurate.

Uh and so uh EPSO DA's office were on board, CBI on board for taking over uh the the testing that we were doing with those two chemist positions.

Greatly appreciate your follow-up on that question uh with those agencies greatly appreciate it.

Absolutely.

Councilman Hindem.

Uh yeah, actually are we done to move on to the next thing?

I I don't have anything for for the chief.

Are we done with that conversation?

I'm I'm on to the next thing.

So okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um so this is just really more of a process question in terms of how we're going through each of the changes.

So we did thumbs up, thumbs down for number one.

Uh we had a conversation on two, I think uh determined that that didn't need a thumbs up or down.

Um three we determined it we we came up with a alternative solution other than okay.

Um on four, uh a request of a council member is is that a thumbs up or thumbs down now, or or how do we handle that one?

I I'm just trying to understand process in terms of like how we're handling each of these items.

Uh thank you.

And um I maybe we need to have additional conversation on that.

I don't know if we were um trying to come up with the we were renaming it and coming up with the amount so that the council could know how much of an impact that would be.

And so President Um Cryverson.

Which one are we on?

The municipal court clerk too.

The missing municipality.

So we're just trying to get to a total right now.

We're trying to see is there consensus for making that change for the clerk.

That specific change or for a total change work.

We agreed on the municipal plan.

Yeah, yes.

Okay.

Okay, yes, I will support that.

Brandy, I mean, councilman Williams and Councilman Line Weber, can you yay or nay on a clerk for the judge?

Yes.

And and then and then we'll later have a conversation whether it's this and anything else where that money will come from, that'll be a separate conversation.

Yes.

Correct.

Okay.

So okay.

But that'll occur today.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

Now, moving forward.

Um if we could, I I do have a question about the one that we just kind of went right past.

Is the the clerk court the clerk for the for Judge Kane?

Um you know, I I mean, I haven't heard from Judge Kane.

Uh I don't know if any who else has.

So I I just I really don't no one's talked to me about it.

Oh, okay.

And what well could you just tell us like what is Judge Kane say?

I mean, I'm sure a lot of departments would like to have one of their one of their positions filled.

Well, he lost four and a half positions.

Four and a half in probation.

You've seen his caseload.

We've all seen his cave flows when we went over to his breakfast.

And I think just adding a clerk, one clerk, EFT to help him with the loss of four and a half people would would take a lot of stress off of him and his other clerk.

And it would generate revenue where where maybe we're gonna hold this for a separate discussion.

Where is that money gonna come from?

Um I think that after this, we would be moving on to LART.

So if we want to go ahead and address that now and wrap up general fund, and then we can move to LART, but I leave it to the council's direction.

Sure, that's fine.

Okay, so we can have that conversation now.

Councilman Bailey.

Yeah, I guess on on the process question, I I if I understand the chart that we're looking at correctly.

Shouldn't that three and a half million dollars go away?

Um, so what the three and a half million dollars on row 35 is I believe what you're looking at is that so what we're doing with the budget on a flat sales tax projection.

Yep.

So what's in the gray are all of the proposed modifications, and then once we have consensus from council, we move them to the approved columns.

So I'm looking at the I'm looking at columns E and G, not you're looking at columns E and G.

Gotcha.

And thank you.

Yep.

So if we have consensus to add, well, do we have consensus to add the municipal court clerk?

Can I just add ask a couple more questions?

The four and a half positions that were removed from the municipal court, that was their recommendation, right?

If we have to cut this percent, this is how we we can do it.

That's correct, because the um court the judge was trying to protect kind of his core staff, and so felt like he needed to release the probation um positions.

That's correct, because the um court the judge was trying to protect kind of his core staff, and so felt like he needed to release the probation um positions and can you explain what those probation positions do or maybe perhaps if the council president has discussed it with uh Judge Kane and and she can do it I don't I I don't have um full knowledge of what the probation I didn't get into detail.

I just know that he needs some help okay.

Well I don't know if we can uh say pending further information, you know, but I'll I'll I'll talk I'll talk with them or perhaps we can get that information from Judge Kane.

Uh I don't I don't what's the title of the position?

Municipal court clerk.

A clerk.

Okay.

I would suggest that you do talk to him.

That's it.

I I appreciate it.

Um and if everyone else is in favor of it, it doesn't really matter what I think on that one.

So there's Councilman Hindum?

Um, well, I I I will talk with him too.

I I'm you know, as feels like we're moving pretty quickly on this, but I I guess I have a question.

Does he have open positions?

And in this context of budgeting flat, and now we're adding a position.

I mean, I'm just I here we are like dealing real time with real needs, right?

And I I have no doubt that he has this need.

Um and um and I appreciate you bringing it forward.

And I guess you know, that's kind of what we were trying to do with the homeless response.

I mean, we all care about all these areas, and how do you pick and choose?

And um, so uh I don't know.

I I yeah, I mean, how does this fit within a flat staying flat?

You know, we're adding a position, but how does he have any open positions right now?

And we're not moving forward with modifying the sales tax to being flat.

We're leaving it as is.

Well, I get I get that.

No, I I do understand that that was the decision we made.

Um he may have position vacant positions listed on a vacancy report, however, he is hiring temporary employment to fill those positions.

He takes that approach to um use temporary staff and then fill the position if that works out.

So I think that he right now is in the process, he has one vacant position, I believe, and is in the process of hiring for that position.

Yeah.

So otherwise he would be once he gains that position, he would be staffed.

Yeah.

So so council president was your recommendation.

I just kind of jumped on the bag bandwagon in supporting there, um, trusting your um investigation.

But was what was the driver of that because it is relates to revenue, or maybe you could just share a little bit more about well, I think we were all at the breakfast and saw the need.

Yeah.

Okay.

And I'll I'll just say if I if I if I could, um have we voted and everyone supported it?

I don't know.

My vote for now will be will be thumbs down and and until I talk to him.

And once I talk to him, or there's an explanation of what the position is and what the result will be of filling it, then I might support it.

Chief of staff.

Sorry, I left that on.

I was trying to answer the same question.

Um Shre answered, because I had you have the vacancies up.

I've got a vacancy for a courtroom assistant.

Uh administrative assistant program nope, sorry, administrative assistant and another courtroom assistant.

So I'm showing three vacancies currently.

And then Share, there are several that are on hold, and I will admit I don't know what that means on this spreadsheet.

And that's a current spreadsheet, and those are either unfunded or removed for the 26th budget.

Thank you.

Councilman Gold.

So Chief Jamie was does that mean that those are positions that can be filled?

No.

I'm gonna just go ahead.

I'm sorry, I'm gonna step in and thank you for her.

Not on hold.

The three vacancies can on hold, cannot.

Am I correct, Sheree?

Yes, but the vacancies are currently, he's using temporary employment for two of those, and one of those is vacant and but in the process of being filled.

Okay, got it.

Thank you.

I'd like to hear from Judge Kane until I make my decision.

Thank you.

I'll talk to him as well and then I'll determine.

Yeah, you bet.

So can I just be clear on what the total number of support is?

I mean, there's three right here that want to talk to him first.

Councilman Line Weber and Councilman.

Oh, okay.

So we have Brandy and Line Weber, Rainey, Risley, Crow, and Bailey.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

And then uh thank you.

So we can put that in the approved column, Jen, and then we can have a conversation of where the funding for that should come from.

Do you want to power through or does anybody need a break?

Do you want to break or power through?

Okay.

Okay, we're moving on.

Okay.

So we just um can have a conversation about what we'd like to reduce for the 71,000 to cover the ad of the municipal court clerk.

Thank you.

And I'll turn it to council for the conversation.

Say it again.

We need to reduce somewhere else by 71,000.

We need to identify a reduction somewhere else of 71,000.

Since we added the 71 to the current court clerk.

Well, in my opinion, that's your expertise.

I mean, you were able to find money to move our budget money back from legislative staff, so you could give us some suggestions.

I don't know your budget like you do.

Okay.

Um I think that it would probably be fine if we looked at it at the macro level of the appropriating departments.

Um so which would leave police fire, public works, um, mayor and support services, IT, parks.

Or we could up the revenue estimate.

Okay, it was a joke.

It was just a joke.

Just kidding.

So I'll look to council for their preference on where to take the 71,000.

Again, you know their budgets better than I do.

You know what they have and where they're more expendable.

Um councilman Bailey.

Yeah, again, broken record over here.

I I think there should be a prioritization.

The process is going on, you're kind of identifying things that you may have to cut in six months.

So give us give us some options and uh and we can come there.

I mean, this it uh anybody that you ask, you know, if we if we give you another one, will you take it?

Sure, absolutely.

But I don't know that it's our job here to micromanage down to a 71,000 dollar number in a budget that's this big.

So I I don't know that I don't think it's inappropriate to ask for some recommendations from from you, from the chief of staff, from somebody, and I don't know that it has to happen right this minute.

I mean, you can come back to us tomorrow and say here are some options we can vote by email and have it have it done when it needs to be done.

I I'm I'm not as clear on the timeline as I probably should be.

That's okay.

And so I'll just indicate that the budget that was presented was um we did go through a robust prioritization process and a robust conversation on where the reductions were gonna have to be made and what uh being very clear on what those impacts are and so that is the process that we went through to create the document that was submitted to the council.

And so that that is the priority, and that is where we went through the process already, and that was the best recommendation we had.

And so my you know, from my side the recommendation would be to not make any modifications because we did go through that process.

But if the it is the council's um ability to make modifications to that budget, and so that is then um based on whatever it is, and if that's a priority, then um if there's an identification of the priority, then perhaps there could be an identification of something that's of lesser priority.

So that's why I'm looking back to the council.

Councilman Gold.

I would like to remind everybody that we met with the public on Monday, and us as council, we said to the public that if they had a recommendation for something that we should add, that they should also give a recommendation so where they should cut.

So if we're gonna put that standard on the general public, we need to put that standard on council.

And that was the recommendation from the administration, not from council.

I'll have to look more into the book then that you provided us, and I'll see if I can I'll give you a couple if you want.

Do we need all fifty million dollars in the Daniels Long Chevrolet vehicle purchase account or the 10 million dollars in Phil Long Ford vehicle purchase account or language line services to the tune of 10 million dollars?

I mean, you can find some big numbers if if you look, and we're talking 71,000.

So I'm I'm just tall timbers, tree and shrub service.

Um so that one relates to forestry and the care of the city trees, and then uh there's an there's an explanation for every single one of them.

There sure is I get that.

And we've got 502 million dollars worth of contracts, and I don't know that our budget's quite that big, so I'm not sure where where we're I know that this is not salaries, this is all operating.

So um there's there's places we can find it, and sure, we'll we can come back.

I can spend a little bit more time and give you a handful.

How many do I need?

How many, you know, I guess we just we have I just need to.

And we would just need the appropriating bucket.

I mean, I don't we don't need you to go to the you know, eliminate 71,000 worth of equipment, you know, maintenance or replacing of police vehicles, which is what that other line is.

But if you could indicate if you want it in parks, public works, police fire that would be enough.

Councilman Rainey?

No.

Oh, Risley.

Knowing that public works has a lot of moving parts and a lot of other places that they can pull money from, including grants and PPRTA and so forth, I would recommend that we pull the 71,000 out of the um public works bucket.

Okay, is that agreeable?

Councilman Williams and Councilman Lineweber, do you agree with pulling 71,000 out of public works for a clerk for the judge?

I would say that's a recommendation, but if the mayor has somewhere else that um he feels is more appropriate, I'm open to that as well.

So I think we're in a position to have more of a conversation and less of you know meet our demands, but I'll leave that up to Shere.

Yeah, I like I like what Brandy suggested.

I'd probably be the same.

Rainey.

Uh thank you, Madam President.

Um it appears that it sounds like you're looking for an answer to a location right now, but is that something that I don't know if we provided you two or three different locations, and then you along with the mayor and the chief of staff, you figure out from those locations.

Because I I do agree and um concur with uh my colleague here, council member Risley's recommendation, but I can give you eight.

And I've had these hot for a long time, but I I don't want to just jump into a bucket right now.

So I guess my question is do you need a specific location right now, or could we provide you I don't know, two or three, and then you all determine what's the best course of action um it would be preferable to have at least one location that uh we have consensus on because what we're doing is establishing that the clerk we're putting that as the priority, and so then we're having to identify um an area that would be of lesser priority that we would take it from.

And so, and again, it I don't need you to get down into you know the finance budget office.

I just need just the bucket the the bucket.

Yeah, that would be great.

So with that being said, Madam President, I actually concur with my colleague, Councilmember Resley.

Councilman Gold, do you do you agree with councilman Rosley's suggestion to take it from public works?

Well, I didn't want to add the position in the first place.

Okay, so you're no okay, Donaldson.

No, Benjamin.

Uh well, Chudge Kane is here, and I would actually like the opportunity to hear him talk about this position, and then we can continue the conversation about where funds might be.

Um Judge Kane, if you would come up.

We have been having a conversation.

Um the president made a request that we fund uh basically put back into your budget a position for a clerk, County Clerk too to support you concerned for your workload.

And so if you could just speak to us about um Yeah, that's uh I guess that uh I I'm here to clarify what uh you know what what the situation is.

My job uh is to make sure that court operations can continue.

And so in these discussion uh the discussions of the budget, uh my job was to protect the court side of operations, right?

So that's clerks, that's uh you know, that's court side of operations.

Probation is they quasi quasi judicial function, right?

Um and so that is why the cuts came from the probation side, even though I had all these vacant uh uh spots on the court side, uh I saw it as my job to protect the court side of operations, and so it was uh uncomfortable uh walking, you know, live bodies out the door when I have all these vacant positions over on the court side, but that's the I'm just here to explain that that that's why that happened that that at the end of the day I had to make sure I've got enough people to to run the courthouse.

And that's why I as suggested adding a clerk to help you with that caseload that we've been talking about for years and years and years, and we're in the discussion right now of where to find the money for that clerk to help you access some of that caseload that we discussed.

I I think every department would love more help.

Uh you know, I'm I'm I'm certainly not alone in that.

I do still have some vacant positions I do need to fill.

Uh and so I really can't give you an answer as to whether or not uh I can I can run operations uh because I haven't filled all those positions.

Um I do have concerns with photo speed coming on online next year, but again, that is that's a worry down the road.

So as our last discussion, would this clerk help you?

Uh of course, but but again uh uh I I really won't know the real need until I get up to full staff by by filling all the positions that I have vacant.

I I've got two temps starting one this week, one next week.

There's one more position there and one more.

So I've got about three more spots to fill, and and then I'll have a much better sense of the case.

So these are temps, and when we talked, you thought a clerk would really help you.

Of course, but but I uh as far as a need, I guess it's a want versus a need, I guess.

Well, if you don't have a need, then it's a me point.

I was just from our last conversation, there seemed to be a big need for a clerk.

And there are, but but it is also true that I have vacant spots that I have not filled yet.

Uh and so uh it may make some sense to hold off on that until I get everything filled, and then if that need comes up, it was on my wish list in the in the budget documents I presented to you all two more clerks.

Right.

You know, that's on the case.

And that's what we discussed that that would really help you with your caseload, which is why I'm advocating.

But if you now have changed your mind and that is not important to you, then that's fine.

It's a mute point.

But that was a real need for you a week ago, two weeks ago, and and you really needed that clerk.

So I'm here to advocate for that clerk if you need that clerk.

If you don't, and it and you can do without, then that really helps the budget process.

Yeah.

And I think given the current budget situation, I think it makes sense for me to fill all the positions that I currently have.

And then I will come back to you if that is not enough and we will talk about adding additional clerks at that point.

Okay.

Is that fair?

Um things change every week, apparently.

So yes, that is fair.

Okay.

Okay.

Right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Judge Kane, we have a call up if uh the president's um council McDonaldson.

Did you have any more?

Um thanks for coming over, Judge King, and thank you for that uh uh willingness to say, hey, we'll hold until we see what we need.

But this is a probation clerk that we're talking about, right?

It is it is not.

It would be it would be the court side.

So my understanding how the process works when those when those positions are riffed, that I cannot fill those positions for a year.

And I think I signed documentation to that effect.

Okay.

So that and again, it's this weirdness of saving positions on the court side of operations that are vacant versus actually walking people um, you know, uh actual live bodies.

But that my goal and my job is to protect court side operations.

And so the position we were considering would be for a municipal clerk.

Correct.

And that would but you have some that are vacant now that you can fill first.

Yes.

And then you'll see how your caseload is at that point.

And if you're if you're short, if you're underpowered by clerks, you would come back and ask, and I would please do.

No, and the situation has gotten a little better in the last 30 days.

Um, in that we've got some temps in, and and the idea is we bring the temps in, if they work, then we post, and those people that have already been there take the position.

So we're in a we're in a better spot than we were 30 days ago, but I I would I wouldn't be truthful if I didn't tell you I'm worried about photo speed and the the impact that may have on operations.

That from what the numbers Denver given us of of case generation, it's roughly 200 citations a day.

So you do the math on that, that's 40 or 50,000 more cases that my my shop will have to handle.

And those photo speed, they won't get points on their on their like but they still can come in and dispute whether or not they were really that's their vehicle or they were going that fast.

And uh it and I have to have people to for lack of of you know to process the payments on, you know, it's a case that needs to be dealt with.

Okay.

So yeah.

Well, I guess that should pay for itself in a sense.

I hope do we expect that?

Okay.

Councilman Hinge.

Uh thank you.

Yeah, so Judge, um, just so I'm really clear then, because I think the intention, and I appreciate the intention, is to protect what could be revenue generating.

Um, and and court side operations.

At the end of the day, I'm obligated to arraign people and try people.

Right.

That's what I'm obligated to do.

The pretrials, probation, teen court, all these kind of quasi stuff around the edges is great.

Uh and I I don't want to give them up, but at the end of the day, that's that's was my intention on protecting the court side of operations.

Right, right.

And and and so given that, and I think that's helpful for all of us to hear, and I do appreciate the intention.

Um I'm just repeating what has just been said, but you're you're you feel like to to fill the vacant positions first is the appropriate thing to do, and then we'll see where we're at and given where we're at, given where we're at.

Yeah.

Okay.

I appreciate I'd love to have another clerk, but I yeah.

And and this is a silly question, maybe, but um, and maybe an HR related question, but the people you walked out, are they qualified and or potentially interested in those other positions, or are they so different that there's just no there was no ability to or when you riff.

I I I guess I'm making my way into HR law here, but it it is not a silly question, and frankly, we've had a person that was riffed from the probation department accept a position on the court side.

Oh, fantastic.

And so they're coming back into the building.

So yes, it's okay.

A nice silver lining to this cloud.

Thank you for your work, Judge.

All right.

Well, when you ask me for something, I try to get it.

So no, and I will continue to ask.

Thank you for your support.

You're welcome.

So I guess that's a mute point now.

Okay.

Thank you very much for coming over, Judge.

Okay, thank you.

Um with that, then if we remove that item, then uh we're good on the general fund at this time.

And if there's no more discussion on the general fund, we could move to the RMJ fund.

Yep, that pleases counsel.

It's in the gray, which was the proposed, it is not moved to the approved.

So we're good.

Okay, we're gonna take 10 to empty the tank.

Great.

Okay, yeah.

Staff members with short legs trying to sit in the chairs.

We need a we need a footstool.

I know.

It's a sh it's a short short leg person problem.

Okay, we're back for the last discussion.

Um we have two items.

I want to just circle back to the LART fund so that we may accurately reflect um those modifications.

So Jen quick put this together.

It's not completely filled out on the top and everything, but what we have here is um President Cariberson, your proposal to reduce the arts and cultural destinations sector.

Should we after Friday, I can know whether we need um we need to take step two.

So we have step one that I understand your direction, and step this would be step two if that didn't occur, is my understanding.

And so we have your proposal to reduce the arts and cultural destinations sector by thirty thousand and increase the outdoor recreation sector by thirty thousand.

That is correct, and for clarity, it's it wasn't money that I'm taking directly from the arts and culture destination, it's that one of their grantees was unable to take a thirty thousand dollar grant, so it was back on the table.

So I'm that I'm taking that off the table, not away from anyone.

I just want to make that very clear.

That is okay so we understand.

So my colleagues understand that it was money that was allocated back because they could not use the money.

Yes, I understand.

Okay.

Councilman Donaldson.

Yeah, thank you, Madam President.

Yes, it was uh currently in the arts and culture sector.

It's an exhibit at the U.S.

Olympic and Paralympic Museum.

They were going to change out a display, and they had applied for other funding that did not come through, and this was just going to be a piece of that funding, the total funding.

And then I would ask, is the is the normal process that then we go to the next ranked item down in this bucket, you know, our favorite word in uh culture and arts.

Yes, and so what um uh I would say is going to be what my direction was to them, uh, of course, outside of council is that we expect you to generate the room nights and comply with a rubric, and if there's a cancellation in the year, then you need to allocate that back out in your sector because that's what was um you know with the recommendation by the law committee and through the decisions, it stays in that sector, and you just need to either award it out for something else that comes up in this case.

Um prior to the knowledge that President Cariberson wanted to move that money, the plan had been for that um sector to distribute those funds on their highest ranking three, the three highest ranking in their rubric scoring.

And there are other uh applicants in that bucket.

Yes, they had fully allocated the funding to awardees, and then the one uh awardee indicated that they would not be taking the funds.

Okay, but there are others that it could be awarded to.

Yes.

Okay.

So that makes it a little tougher for me because what we're doing then is pulling this out away from them and making a decision to put it into another bucket to award it to an organization.

Which uh I you know I would want the process to be very transparent and not look like there's uh influence or anything like that occurring uh with this decision, if we make this decision.

So I believe if we want to just recount that the members of council that were in support of moving if we needed to, based on if we if plan A doesn't pan out, this is plan B agreement that we want to move the 30,000 from arts and culture to the outdoor recreation.

Well, it was 75 in total.

Okay, I'm sorry, then I didn't understand that the amount that's available in 2025 should the entity fail to comply, that's the 75.

That is correct.

Okay.

And then if they do comply though, then that's when I thought we were moving to this step, which was step B.

I They have there was two allocations in 26.

Well, there was the 25 we're still waiting on.

Yes.

And then there's this then there's 26 that was 15,000, I believe that's not getting funded.

No, they did not apply in 2026.

They did apply.

Yes, they did.

At the LAR meeting, it went from 15 to 0.

Okay, and don't put that out.

So it was so went from 15 to 0 and the 15 got moved somewhere else.

Within the R commit um, oh, it stayed within the R three.

It stayed in the bucket.

So you want to take the 30 and the 15?

Yes, that is correct.

I'm sorry, okay.

I understand now.

What I would like to do is to be able to do the fifth 75,000 back to the outdoor recreation for the intent of this um LART administrator for the 2.5 million dollar grant that we're getting for our region, which will just bring morsels and use tax.

Okay.

In our remote.

So they currently are allocated in the 26th budget 75,000.

So you want to add another 75.

That's correct.

Okay, thank you.

Yes.

Councilman Bailey.

Yeah, I just want to be sure that I didn't tune out at the wrong time.

This is we're we're basically asking for 75k to leverage two and a half million.

Yes.

Okay.

They have an award for two and a half million already, and I believe that the 75,000 is to um help with other things associated with to manage the grant.

Yeah, which all the way technically okay.

And I I also will just indicate and um looking at their LART application.

I I'm assuming we would comply with what they submitted in the LART application.

That is correct.

Thank you.

Uh Madam President, can you I I was not fully paying attention.

Where's the other 45 to make a total of 75?

Well, there was 15.

So there's 30.

We're talking a total of 75.

No, there's two scenarios.

Okay.

If the bill isn't paid by Friday, there's 75.

Yes.

Then right?

Yes.

Which would take a separate action besides the 26th budget, because that deals with 25 money.

And then if for some reason that does that does happen.

Then we're gonna go to the 30 and the 15.

The 30 and the 15 for a total of 45.

That's correct.

Okay.

So Jen, could you change it to 45?

Sorry about that.

That was my misunderstanding.

All the same applicant.

I I didn't I still am not quite following the 75, 35.

Nope.

So in 2025 LART funding for this year, there is an award of 75,000 for an applicant who at this time has not, we've not executed a contract because they haven't paid a city bill from 2024.

If they pay that bill by the end of the week, then we would that come the 75,000 in the current year comes off the table, and then we would move to this as a plan B, which is the current allocation for 2026 LART funding has already preliminarily been designated into the four tourist sector entities or the buckets.

And since the time of allocate the LART committee's recommendation on how to allocate the funding into those four buckets, the one of the applicants that was in the arts and cultural category is no longer able to accept that award.

So that frees up 30,000 in that category.

In addition, the same applicant who was not compliant in 25, because they're not compliant in 2026, they had applied and tentatively received um consideration for 15,000.

But during the LART meeting, because of the noncompliance, the LART committee agreed that they should not receive funding.

And so that 15,000 then was also contained within the arts and cultural destination bucket.

And so I believe what Council President Crow Everson is indicating the 30,000 that was freed up because the applicant can't take it, and the 15,000 that I thought was reappropriated, but maybe not, it that is still in that bucket, she'd like to move to the outdoor recreation bucket for PPOR.

So the 25 money gets rolled into 26 because I'm sorry.

I'm really sorry, I'm still not understanding this.

Yep.

The 2025 money right now is 75,000 pending payment of the 24 invoice.

Right.

Got that.

Okay.

If they don't pay that, that becomes available and can be allocated to PPORA in 20 in 25.

Um in either year, but it be the ties, the um tie on that money is will be released.

So it's 25 money that can be allocated.

And if I can get an agenda, I don't know that I can get an agenda item to you in 25, but it would become available and we could appropriate in 26 to the outdoor recreation bucket with President Crow Iverson's intention of it going to PPRTA.

Got that.

Yes, PPORA.

It's okay.

So yes, I'm just moving buckets.

Yes, moving buckets.

I'm moving money from buckets that's sitting there that hasn't been appropriated.

We're taking from no one, but we're but we're putting it into a bucket that I believe is going to be transformational for our region, which is why I'm advocating for it.

Right.

But if the 25 money is not available, what President Crow Iverson is indicating, then as backup plan, okay or secondary plan that these two um amounts that equal 45,000 that are currently in arts and cultural be moved to the outdoor recreation bucket.

Okay, they're really two separate.

So okay, so two separate.

I can okay.

So I I can support the first, I can't support the second.

I can't I can't support the reappropriation of arts and cultural money to outdoor recreation money, but I can support the if they don't pay that that go.

Okay, yes.

That's just what that's just me.

Okay, now that I fully understand.

And then and that the 25 money will come back to council regardless, either way.

That's right.

So now we're only discussing this plan of in 2026 changing what's in the budget to move the 45 from arts and culture into outdoor recreation.

So let me get one more clarifying question, but maybe before I'm so adamant about my position.

So we went through a process on the LART this year about which which sectors would get which percentage of LART funds.

Is that what that's not what this is?

I will.

It would just change the percentages slightly based on that's right funding that doesn't um where the applicant was not able to get the funding.

And just for my colleagues, that's not unusual.

In the LART committee, we moved money from buckets.

Yeah, we did.

So that's this is not unusual.

No.

Um we did that in the LART committee.

We're not doing anything that's out of the ordinary.

Yeah.

No, I agree.

I agree with that.

Councilman Gold.

Thank you.

I just want to clarify back to what council member Donaldson asked about process.

Did I understand correctly that typically if a month if money is not able to be awarded to someone, it would typically stay in that bucket, or for the start term for the sake of today's right now conversation, that sector.

I'm gonna make one little qualifying statement and that this is the first year that we've done it specifically in this way.

So we don't have a usual, but once an appropriation is made in these buckets, which is what will happen when we approve the budget ordinance.

So we're not there yet.

When we approve that budget ordinance, if in the middle of the year an event says, Oops, we're not coming, then it would stay in that sector's bucket for appropriation to another event.

Sector's bucket.

We've moved on to that.

Okay.

We are we are just before the approval process, and now making council requested changes between the buckets so that when we appropriate it, then it goes in the buckets in that way.

And to uh to confirm what councilmember Donaldson's question and and the answer was there are applicants in that arts and cultural destination sector that could potentially be funded if that money stayed there.

That's correct.

Well thank you.

The applicants were funded.

There's no new applicant.

But the funding could be distributed among the current applicants, or they could take additional applications, run it through the rubric process and make an award with the money.

They could, but it's also not unusual to move money from buckets.

Right.

Okay.

So councilman Bailey.

Thank you, Madam President.

I just I I want to opine and again because I can beat the drum.

This is another example, much like the overall city budget and the cuts that we just kind of gave everybody a percentage across the board by allocating money by percentages into the sector buckets, and we'll get more words that we can add to sector buckets at some point.

But we we run the risk and probably quite often put ourselves in a position where a very high priority project project in one bucket doesn't get funded because something else which must which has much less impact gets funded in a different bucket, just because we arbitrarily say 15% here, 20% here, 20% here, or or far worse.

Well, it's it's it's not arbitrary, but it is not it's the the money is not allocated based on a prioritization of all applications, it's instead kind of fair sharing it across, even though there are some events that don't bring nearly as many people to the region, which is what LART's supposed to be about.

I just wanted one more opportunity to reinforce my my fervent wish that we prioritize how we spend money everywhere in the city to make sure that it has the greatest impact for the people in the city.

Councilman Donaldson.

Yeah, thank you.

Shrey, what what's the organization that has the 75,000 dollars that's we haven't Juneteenth event Juneteenth, okay.

Um that's really it for me.

Thanks.

Okay, so I have a thumbs up from Councilman Williams Rainey.

Can I make a comment?

Yes, please do.

I didn't see your thumb.

Thank you.

I didn't put up a thumb.

I figured I'd just wait until we got a little quieter.

You got it.

Um I I think it was said best, this is a new process.

So I don't know that there's you know, a precedent for how we deal with funds that weren't spent.

And if there's a policy, then by all means I'm open to that.

But at the end of the day, I think there's a role for city council to play when we get to this point, because I don't know that opening up new applications in October, slash almost November is probably the most prudent way to do it.

But I do agree with council member Bailey.

We need to look at the the dollars and cents.

And I know we're doing that in a lot of different ways, but if we can get the most bang for our buck, which I know we all believe and want to say, and and we're gonna, you know, study the heck out of this till we get to the point that we can articulate that um with less words and more data.

I think that's the goal.

Um 2.5 million dollars is huge.

I can't wait to learn more about how we get this from here to somewhere.

And just putting people together and really leveraging that.

I appreciate the fact that council member Lineweber gives us numbers from all across the country.

So it gives us goals to shoot for.

So I don't think we have a process.

If we need a process, maybe this goes back to the LART committee for how we discuss it at the end of 2026.

But um, as of this moment, I am in favor.

Councilman Hingum, yeah, thank you.

Um, you know, going back, and this was this is actually one of the benefits to our having gotten a administrator and uh who put together uh an incredible report with pie charts and you know, has all this and and actually all of council needs to get this.

So without maybe spending the time necessarily right now, but the but the but the memo and this document does say actuals include a redistribution of $30,000 under arts and cultural destinations due to a last minute application, withdrawal, and reallocation.

So maybe something's gone on within the sectors that we haven't taken in that information because it's a new process because we have a memo.

So I would like to request that this is I mean, I think we're all interested in how do we get the maximum amount out of these LART dollars, right?

I mean, there's no question about that.

But I I think going back to we have an administrator, we have a committee that's meeting.

Is it this next Thursday?

Yep.

Um that information was going to be brought there.

And this information, this memo, which I will make sure I will send to everybody as soon as I stop talking.

I will I will make sure that Michael sends it to all of council or Michael, you can't.

If we could hold if we could hold it for a minute because um I wanna we have some uh we need to change some words on there, like we can't call things policy.

So I'm gonna have some edits to that prior to the alert committee meeting.

So if it's possible to just after you have your edits, yeah, Michael will get it out to everybody.

So if we could just hold on this particular decision for right now, I that would be my request.

I'm gonna call for a a vote because um it's already here and it's on the table, and this is all news to me, and um, we need to move forward for it.

So I have four over here, gold Donaldson.

Are we signaling approval of both of those things or one of them or both?

Both.

Then uh I I'm gonna honor Councilwoman Henjum's request to hold off.

Bailey.

So there's five to move forward.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Okay.

Thank you for that.

And uh that brings us finally to the uh discussion on the RMJ funding.

And we do have the spreadsheet uh before you now that is reflective of what the mayor discussed at his lunch on um yesterday, Tuesday.

And you'll see in the D column on the first two lines, we have the 2025 funding of the 1.7 and the 2026 estimate of the 2.4.

And there is a 2,700 in there because that's an interest and we have bank fees and things like that that we have to pay.

So that's the um slight modification there.

And then row 12.

Um, I'm sorry, on the spreadsheet, row two is the downtown clean and safe contract for 700,000.

There is on the line three public safety priorities for 3.2, and then on line four the mental health services for the 200,000.

So I have a question about the clean and safe contract.

Um, after speaking with um the committee, some of the committee people, um, that specific contract um doesn't work for the downtown because it goes to it goes beyond that border.

So what I've asked um and um what we asked in the ordinance and what those of us that support the clean and safe is that 700,000 specifically go to the downtown partnership clean and safe pilot program in that destination area.

So I just want to be very clear about that 700,000.

Did I know that contract passed out last night?

It was the first I've seen of it, and it goes to South Nevada, it goes outside of that district, and they can't um that it won't work for them because they don't that's not their service area.

So I just want to be very clear about the 700,000 going to the clean and safe pilot program, the 19 month pilot program that everybody's um working on right now.

I just want to be very clear that that's where it's going because I don't think they can even enter into that contract because it's not their service area.

So I just want to be clear about that.

Okay, thank you.

And it was my understanding that it was specific to the downtown area.

It went into South Nevada, which is outside of it, and that is that they cannot provide those services because it's not in the downtown area for that.

So I just want to be very clear so that that we understand where that's going.

Because if that contract was handed to them today, from my understanding that committees, like we don't service the this part of the South Nevada, so we can't enter into it.

So I don't want the 700,000 to be to be determined on that contract.

I I want the 700,000 to go to the downtown clean and safe pilot program.

Okay.

Um I don't know.

Are there any comments?

I can speak to that.

So I spoke to um the downtown partnership actually during our break.

So we're going back and forth on the contract and redlining.

And so um what we talked about was trying to match the coverage area with what the homeward Pikes Peak um outreach people do.

And so there seemed to be an appetite to only go to Dorchester Park and include Monument Valley Park, since that area send tends to see people who maybe cause a disruption in a shop and go and conduct activities that are not beneficial in those parks and return to cause problems.

But that is an ongoing absolute recognize it was a draft, and so we are talking with them and meeting with them again to discuss what that contract would look like.

Excellent.

I appreciate that additional information because I know it was a lot was going on last night.

So I appreciate you following up on that.

But to be clear, that's specifically 700,000 was to the downtown clean and safe pilot program.

But I do agree with what Home Lord Pikes Peak is is doing in that regard.

So I think there's some synergy there.

Councilman Risley.

Thanks, madam president.

I just want to make sure I understand the revenue calculations, and I think we talked a little bit about this yesterday, but the math is still fuzzy in my mind.

So maybe you can help me understand.

The 1.7 million that you believe will be booked in 2025 is for three quarters of the year.

Uh yeah, so it's half of April.

So mostly May to December.

So not three quarters of the year.

Not quite.

Okay, let me do some quick math.

So but the 2.4 you thought was the full year of 206.

Right.

Plus some interest and plus some interest.

Okay.

So if I take 2.4 million and divide it by 12, I get 200,000 a month.

Okay.

And then if I understood what you just said, basically May through the end of this year, that would be seven months.

That's 1.4 million, which was the number we were talking about previously.

Okay.

Um, and I believe that what we're seeing is slightly over the 200,000 per month.

And but uh to council uh President Crow Iverson's uh comments, I think that that is potentially a declining revenue source.

And so I didn't necessarily just take 200,000 for all of the months of 2026.

We're seeing a bump right now because um I think it's new.

But you did because I mean, unless I'm missing something.

Okay.

Well, would you or okay?

I mean two.

It's 200,000 times 12.

But the 1.7 is more.

Okay, I'm sorry.

I think that what we're doing is seeing an additional amount now.

If I'm the one, I don't know.

I'm just trying to explain your logic.

The 1.7 is more than 200,000 for five months.

Is that accurate?

Because 200,000 for five months is 1.4.

No, for seven months is 1.4.

I'm sorry.

For seven months is the 1.4.

But what we're seeing is a bit more than the 200,000 in 2025 so far.

But I didn't want to budget that larger amount going forward because uh I think that there could be declining sales.

But you weren't seeing that increase over the last five months, just over the last two months.

Well, as we have each month coming in, and when we initially did the 1.4, we had I think only a couple months.

And so as we've come forward and had a couple more months between when that point and now the lag in reporting.

Well, yeah, because we have the activity month, the collection month, and the report month.

Lag in the reporting.

Yeah.

Okay.

And then maybe you're going to get into this, but I I'm also just curious to understand a little bit more about the public safety priorities.

Are you going to talk about that specifically or is it?

Um I think the chief of staff is prepared to speak to that.

Thank you.

Yes, I had a feeling that question was coming, so I have it upright here.

Um the public safety priorities were identified by Chief Royal and Chief Asquez.

And so what they had given us were for CSPD uh overtime and supportive technology.

So you guys have heard about some of the technology we use in the real-time crime center, et cetera.

Uh, overtime, um, especially utilizing some of our specifically trained officers who deal with some of the more challenging people we have in the area who might have mental health, et cetera.

They're specially trained.

So we want to make sure they were funded to have additional overtime for them.

Um, as we talked about at our lunch, uh, reinstating the CSFD training academy and avoiding the delay, as as much of a delay, avoiding as much of delay as we can for CSPD training academies, and Chief Ask has presented on that.

Um, and then safety equipment for CSPD, and that can include anything from riot gear, other safety stuff for officers that they have to replace regularly, um, and canines, etc.

Uh, and then I think that was it for the technology.

Yeah.

And we had, I I guess more in the overtime.

We did specifically try and focus or or focus the request on some of the negative impacts we see um that come from urban camping.

And yes, as we spoke about earlier, that does often involve our unhoused population.

I think that is the rundown.

So I I thanks uh Chief Jamie for that.

I I just am trying to reconcile in my mind how this list of priorities, and I we did talk about it at lunch, so I don't mean to re-repeat or reiterate, but how this list of priorities is now somehow different than the list of priorities that uh the police department and the mayor's office had a few months ago.

I mean, we got a whole briefing one day at lunch about drones and how that's the greatest thing since uh since sliced bread, and that that's really what we want to use this uh marijuana money for now that as I understand it isn't even on the list anymore.

Well, technology is on the list, and still one of Chief Vasquez's top priorities.

Um my understanding is we did save some money with the axon contract with drones.

Um, Chief could speak about that in more detail, but that did relieve some of the problem.

But I think technology is absolutely still, if not his top priority, one of his top priorities.

Um so if you look at the initial when we start talking about the RMJ monies, the recommendation that came from the administration did list out those priorities, and I believe all of those were on there from um drones or technology, we called it safety equipment and overtime.

Um the one that is added were the academies because at the time we were first talking about the RMJ money, we had not made the decision to cut the and delay the academies.

So that was a new need um that came up when we started making those reductions.

So we just the last thing that was cut, so it was one of the first priorities for the funding for the RMG.

So we can expect to see drones still flying the skies next year?

I believe so.

Definitely sweet.

Thank you.

Councilman Rainey.

Uh thank you, Madam President.

Before I get to my question, I want to piggyback on a comment you just made.

So I want to be very clear here, because I'm gonna use exactly what you just said.

Technology is the utter definition of service that you were able or the chief was able to leverage via axon.

That's not drones, that's service, meaning that software pushing data.

So my question is is the money to go get drones or is it to purchase software licenses?

So axon data can be pushed across the one drone that we currently have.

The axon contract currently is a combination of a number of systems and equipment.

So it the axon contract encompasses tasers, the body worn cameras, and some of the other technology, for example, um not the current drones, but the drones that would be purchased.

And so it's a whole platform, and it does include the software, but it also includes the hardware, the cameras, the tasers, the drones, and the whole uh system behind it, which allows all of those to communicate.

So there is plans to purchase another drone using some of this funding.

Um if that's that was a part of the priority list that came to us five months ago.

Yes, that is part of the bucket of technology that is being considered for the sure of.

Yes.

Okay, great.

So my question is more of an administrative correction on um item number four, line 14 of your chart.

Uh estates mental health services.

I I want to make sure what's clearly that was provided by the mayor and what's written here.

Should I want to make sure it's state's PTSD?

Okay, yes, mental health separate.

Yeah, and PTSD were two separate buckets.

Yes.

So I want to make sure based on what he provided that that reflects accordingly there.

Mental health services and PTSD.

Is that no?

I'm sorry.

Based on what the mayor provided, it should be PTSD.

PTSD.

Right.

But I noticed that one says mental health services, which is a whole separate bucket.

I just want to make sure there's clarity there.

Thank you.

Councilman Donaldson.

Yeah, thanks, madam president.

Um, after the presentation, well, presentation, the speakers uh from the fire department the other night are retired uh firefighters.

And considering the emails we get and um the incidence of crime and um urban camping and homelessness that go throughout the city, not just downtown, but uh certainly in District One and District Four and three and and five, all the districts.

I would prefer that this uh the RMJ money is used in all those areas, and for me that would mean putting it all into public safety priorities and using it for our police and fire, not just for the downtown area and not for one specific uh mental health need, but in a time when we um have all when we have a lot of needs in our fire and police department, um I think that's a a wiser use of uh these these tax dollars and one that is would be more supported by citizens because in every every district uh the these problems exist and to limit uh the range where that money can be used, um I think is is not the best decision.

So I would ask that we see if there is support for that uh here on council.

Councilman Lineweber.

There we go.

Got it.

Um so this whole RMJ thing, it's it's not a mayor's thing, it's it's a council thing because it was a ballot initiative.

And in that ballot initiative, it clearly stated that this money was to be used to offset the impacts of marijuana, and that included public safety, mental health, and PTSD, clearly written in the ballot.

So I have a hard time not finding some kind of balance in the way that is.

I mean, if you can find something that fits all three buckets, I'm excited, but there are three buckets that a large part of our city voted for in a ballot initiative that council is to determine how to spend that money.

Now, I understand that the mayor will write the check, but we're to actually drive this bus.

And I feel like we've got a little bit of a shell game going because I don't remember us having a conversation about 2026 numbers.

I don't remember us determining what's the best use for those dollars.

We've only had a conversation about 2025 numbers.

And and so I'm kind of taken by surprise that I see 2026 written on here.

I understand we're dealing with the budget.

I know I know that we're looking forward.

But um, you know, again, I I'm what voters at voters voted for.

The three buckets and the impacts of marijuana.

And it's our job as council, I believe, to make sure that those priorities are looked at.

And I'm not diminishing public safety whatsoever.

I'm just saying that this needs to be looked at in a broader sense of those three buckets.

And yes, could public safety have more of the bucket?

I don't think I disagree with that, but there are widespread ramifications to having marijuana in our town.

And we just need to be thinking thoughtfully about how to make an impact, not just to defend ourselves against it, but get ahead of it.

And so sometimes we've got to think about proactive things um to kind of keep people um from getting to the place where we need police um type piece.

Again, this is this is an issue I keep having is we keep thinking about enforcement, and we're not thinking about getting ahead of the problem and programs that are actually documented as working.

So that's that's my concern.

And I and I don't know why.

I mean, did I miss something?

Why are we talking about 2026?

We haven't talked about 2026 that I that I remember until I I'm seeing it right here.

So I'm maybe I just missed something.

Uh that's not surprising, but anyway, that's kind of what I'm concerned about.

Councilman Bailey.

Thank you.

Um it seems to me that we're we're looking at a situation where we've got three fourths, three fourths of this goes into public safety priorities in a very broad sense.

And we've heard all kinds of different priorities for it.

Ultimately, we don't get to look in and and uh earmark that for anything specific.

Um public safety is a priority.

I don't know that I'm comfortable with 75% of four million dollars going in just uh you know without any kind of assessment of the impact, which is something that we will have by funding a pilot program is something that we can certainly have by funding PTSD programs.

You know, five percent of it's five percent of it's going to PTSD programs, 20% is going to clean and safe, and the rest is going into this broader set.

Um I could probably live with this.

Would I like to see more specificity with how it's going to be spent?

You know, if you would, you know, if we would commit, absolutely commit to a training academy for X number of people for the fire department, for the police department.

That would make me sleep a little bit better at night because I know how it's being used, but whether it's just a little more software or the next version of something that might have an impact or maybe not.

I do trust our our police chief and our police department and our fire department to make good choices, but the things that they've been doing, we haven't necessarily seen the results going in the direction that we want in all cases, and we still have a public perception that there are problems.

So uh, like I said, I can kind of support this in general terms, maybe a little too heavy on throw it in the public safety bucket and and hope for the best.

I'm overstating it for effect.

That's not what I think is going to happen here, but that's uh uh that's my two cents.

Councilman Gold.

Thank you, Madam President.

I just like to remind everybody that the bat language did not assign intent that this money was sent was going to be used to offset the challenges that recreational marijuana might uh bring to our city, may or may not.

Um the ballot language does say that it should go to PTSD treatment for programs, veterans, public safety programs, and mental health services.

So if we are indeed looking to uh have the spirit of honoring voter intent here, then maybe we could put uh to just get real down to the nitty-gritty here, PTSD treatment programs for veterans here, but or a little dot dot dot, so we know that we're using voter intent there.

I agree with that.

Councilman Hinjam.

Uh yeah, actually I would uh appreciate if our attorney could clarify for us the the question that um Dave Limeweber brought up about um council's role versus the mayor's role and what the ballot language says.

Ben Bullinger City Attorney's Office.

So uh the RMJ tax question uh designated the revenue from that to to the three categories, right?

Public safety, mental health, uh, and then BTS uh treatment programs.

And it all and it said that the those designations would be at council's discretion.

So it is for council to decide how much of the money to put into each of those three categories.

Um you are not obligated to fund each of those three categories.

You could put it 100% into one, or you could split it equally or or or however you wish.

So I think that's the conversation you're having.

What I heard from Councilmember Lineweber was probably more of a philosophical statement of why he believed that uh PTSD treatment um was a reasonable uh uh allocation for this money.

Does that answer your question?

Or was there Yeah, I I think so.

I I guess my my question then about the um 200,000 that is categorized two different ways, but I think uh uh Roland um clarified mental health PTSD.

Yeah, that that's a good point because I I I appreciated when council member Rainey said that those are two different categories.

And so the the ultimate budget document I suppose it could have both in it, in which case the mayor would have some discretion to do that.

Well, right.

So on the screen, we we're we're doing I mean it's kind of a slash.

And so I I think they're probably so there should be clarification about category, but also I don't know if we're talking about internal versus external, because the only places where I see that we kind of could categorize that we provide services is through our homeless outreach program of the the community health department of or the community health division of fire, where there are more services provided or clean and safe, uh where they are responding to and helping connect with services, but they're not we're not actually a service provider of mental health or PTSD services.

So are we, I guess is the mayor is the is the recommendation that these this $200,000 would be um uh put out to an outside uh provider.

I can talk a little bit about what we're doing right now in that area.

One um of the ways we are dealing with, especially the homeless veteran population is through the hop with a PCSFD program.

They travel with a representative from the VA.

Currently, that person is funded by the VA.

Um, and he uh makes contact with people on the trails and asks them if they are military affiliated.

The reason for that asks is if they are military affiliated, it immediately opens up access to resources and many cases housing, that he can connect them immediately.

He uses deers and and makes it happen.

Um so we have talked about, although exploratory, how we could expand that program, so we'd have more outreach.

Um the other outreach arm that we're doing currently is uh through a contract with Homeward Pikes Peak, and we could anticipate potentially expending expanding that.

Um those people are actually social workers, and so they have a unique skill set um when it comes to interacting with people who might be suffering from these disorders on the trails, et cetera.

Okay.

Well, and and the other one I mentioned at lunch uh yesterday or day before, whenever it was, that there's also the potential of step COS.

I mean, there's probably many organizations, but but to get philosophically, because we're just in the role of not determining the line items but the buckets, I I do support the idea that some portion of this money um be designated to PTSD mental health services, because while I absolutely appreciate the the priority of addressing public safety first, I think we always have to look at the system and helping to take care of people's mental health needs ultimately, ideally, and be it one or 10 or 50 cases, if they're being treated, there's going to be less need for public safety intervention.

So I I am supportive in concept of 200,000 um going to those services with it not necessarily being determined right at this minute.

Um would love it if council could be a part of that ongoing conversation and decision that uh the mayor makes when um that money is is contracted or spent.

Jamie, can I get a clarifying question on the hop team that's doing this?

Did they get them treatment?

Is there treatment provided for these veterans or just an assistance with housing?

Um how far does that go?

Are they actually getting referred to providers?

Are they getting the treatment they need for the mental health piece?

Because that's different than housing.

I I get that it works together, but what kind of treatment are these veterans getting?

That is a great question.

And I would probably have to ask the VA.

I know about housing vouchers for sure.

I'm not sure if any of our military friends on the dais know a little more, but I can certainly ask.

Councilman Reid.

Thank you.

Uh what I'm aware of at this moment is the representative that does go around with these teams, does have a device that is connected to deers.

And when and if they can get the information uh from the individual who is homeless, they will uh see what their service is like and then refer them to uh not just a VA center, but also to Mount Carmel.

And then they collectively will work to see what area is the best area for them to receive treatment.

Uh quite often the most prominent referral is directly to the VA.

Uh however, depending on what stays potentially that they're at, whether it's homeless or mental health, they may just get a service directly out of Mount Karma.

Okay, so it sounds like we're kind of missing the treatment piece in this, but I just wanted to get verification.

Thank you.

Um Councilman Donaldson.

First, I want to recognize that Shere's been on her feet for three hours and ten minutes now.

It might be a Share recording water.

Do stay hydrated, don't lock your knees.

And then uh secondly, you know, Councilman Bailey said, you know, he wishes you had a little more specificity, like, you know, would there be a training class?

Yesterday I asked Chief Royal in an email, so there's a paper trail, uh, what his number one priority would be if there was 1.5 million for the fire department.

And I I said, would it would it be the 28 man class?

And he said, yes, that that is his priority.

So that's pretty much a commitment right there.

Um that would be helpful, is what he said.

Thought I'd share that.

What?

If it all doesn't go to CSP.

Yeah, there it's not the plan for it all to go to CSPD.

Part of the part of the plan, um, chief of staff, it is to run that uh uh 28 man or woman uh class, correct?

I believe the way we left it with Chief Royal was he gave us estimates for both a 14 person class or a 28 person class, and they were going to make the determination based on injuries and need.

Okay, thank you.

And the proposal I I suggest just asked him, is it the 28-man person class?

And he said yes, that would be helpful.

Okay, so for clarification, Ken.

So you already have the support for the um clean and safe.

Yes.

You saw that in our emails, right?

We're good with that.

Okay, and so you're gonna get the clarification on what I asked for, and then I guess we need to um do a thumbs up on the public safety priorities and the PTSD.

Is that what you're asking from us?

Um yes, if there's concurrence with these amounts in the buckets.

Okay, councilman Hingum.

Yeah, so I guess um specifically to look at the 32 million 32, 3.2.

God, I wish it was.

I wish um the 3.2 in public safety.

Do we I am really grateful that we have this money, by the way.

Um do we as council members um have a preference of you know, should it uh like do we want to be in conversation with the administration about you know, like how much to please, how much to fire, or do we?

I mean, I don't know that it's a smart thing for us to say X should go to fire and X should go to police because there's just too much variation that we're not involved in that level of detail.

But how do we I'm fine with the buckets the way they are right now?

I mean, let me just start with that.

But given that, you know, once we move on from this, I guess around that 3.2 million, do we have do we want to ensure this is split between in some fashion to be determined by the chiefs and the mayor?

Do we want it to go to police and fire?

Or is this it looks like I guess it does say never mind.

I didn't read the memo.

The memo does say it does say CSPD and CSFD.

Okay.

I just spent a lot of time wasting people's time.

Sorry about that.

Okay.

Is there any disagreement with the buckets?

Maybe we could go there.

Do we have any disagreement with the buckets?

I just want to make one comment.

I wanted to concur that I agree with Councilmember Leinweber.

I I feel like if there was a 2026 conversation, again, I might have missed it as well.

I'm pretty sure I'm trying to overly listen since I'm attending virtually, but I feel like there wasn't a 2026 conversation, but I am comfortable with the buckets, and maybe that just means we start the 2027 conversation earlier rather than later.

So I just wanted to add that if if it did exist, um, if someone would enlighten me as to when that conversation occurred, I would appreciate it.

I think um and I don't know if there were informal conversations more formally to the council yesterday at lunch.

That's correct.

Lunch yesterday.

But that would have been the extent of it, Sheree.

Yesterday to the full council, I believe, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

So councilman Lineweber, um, do you support the three and four 2026 allocation buckets?

Yes or no.

Um, Councilman Williams, while we're waiting on him.

Do you support the 2026 allocation or do you do you have a different thing?

I support the buckets.

Okay.

I support it as prevent it.

Okay.

Councilman Rainey.

Yeah.

Okay.

Although I support the buckets, I would really rather have more of a robust conversation around the allocations for 2026 as opposed to a conversation at lunch yesterday and then this conversation today.

So I don't know if that's a yes or a no.

I guess it's kind of a no.

So no.

I think I'm on now, right?

Yes.

I'm sorry, Councilman Laneweber.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So you know, I get kind of sick and tired of this conversation that us and the mayor are not like having a great conversation or that we're not doing because here's a case in point where this was dumped on us.

This shouldn't have been led by the mayor.

This should have been led by council.

Council is the one that should be allocating these funds.

Not the mayor telling us what he's doing with them.

I feel like this is past tense.

So it's really kind of irking right now that I feel like there's a shell game going on here.

And like I'm just I'm just irritated that again, the ballot language said city council.

I'm just trying to live up and be responsible for what it's requiring me to do.

And so I you know, I'm fine with this right now because of the budget restraints and stuff like that.

But I could tell you, we need to start, we need to start like we need to be strategic with this money, just not just throw them into the general fund, I feel like, just to support our our downturn in the economy.

I mean we we need to be seriously looking at this.

And I don't feel like we're strategic at all.

I feel like we're just like trying to fill some gaps.

And you know, to some extent, I don't think that's bad, but but I'm I still feel like it's I feel like I I have not been communicated with, and I'm not very happy about that.

So um so but with the way it stands, I'm I'm fine with it, but I'm not happy with it.

And uh to Brandy's point and all that kind of stuff.

I'm uh we we need to start working on 2027 to be strategic.

That's my comment.

Councilman Gold.

Um, I hear your frustration, Councilmember Line Weber.

It is indeed frustrating when you're not communicated with.

I do share that sentiment in some other regards.

I support this.

Thank you.

Councilman Donaldson.

Um I I support this.

I would prefer honestly that all of it goes into public safety.

And um we address these uh these issues through the the services which we are the provider of, and that could be through the hop teams, the hot teams, uh police, fire.

Uh just a couple questions for Sharay, so that uh citizens who are listening in understand this.

The money from RMJ goes into a special account, correct?

Correct.

So it's separate from the general fund.

Correct.

Getting thrown into the general fund.

And then as it is uh used or appropriated out of that account, it will have an expenditure code, correct?

Correct.

So it will be we can track okay.

That went to fire.

This much of it went to fire, this much went to PD, and also uh to more in more detail than that.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

And we'll know if there's a fire class next year, so it doesn't disappear into uh the trees and we don't know what happens with it.

Um it's easily uh trackable.

But and I'll I'll support this.

Thank you.

Councilman Hinjam.

Uh thank you.

I hear the frustration as well about communication, and I would just say I think in any relationship, um communication is goes both ways, and every party, in this case, two parties, or maybe nine and one, or a body and an administration.

You know, we all have some ownership in communication, all everybody, and I'm not pointing a finger solely at one side or the other.

We all are a part of that communication, and so I support this with the hope, the wish, the desire to hear where can I, where can we communicate more effectively and with greater trust with the administration, and I hope the administration is open to hearing why there's frustration on this council in communication.

And so um so we have an opportunity.

I mean, I think there's there's gonna I'm hearing overall general support, various levels of frustration.

So let's let's work on that in 2026.

Thanks.

Councilman Bailey.

I can live, I can live with it and hope we do better next time.

Councilman Rainey.

Thank you, Madam President.

I know I already gave you a thumbs up uh and didn't really make a comment, just I'm I'm good with it.

Um I'll just I'll put a different turn on this.

And and I hear a lot of frustration, rightfully so, communication, the way it was presented, who's responsible, who's not responsible.

But I'm gonna leave this topic on a positive note.

Where we were and where we are now is night and day.

It really is.

I mean, we were talking about cutting police department, academy, fire department academy.

Uh you saw local five here, they're very frustrated.

Um there's a lot of things that you know really transpiring.

But when you now look at this, now we have a pilot program that's gonna be downtown to help our downtown flourish.

Hopefully, we have our academies back on par and leave that up to the Chiefs to figure out how many people are gonna be in those academies.

We're also gonna have uh the ability to put services to look at our veterans that are intricate part of our society and take care of them.

And then technology try to advance us a little bit more.

So, yes, trust me, uh, Councilman Lyon Weber.

I feel every inch of every sense of what you are are or feeling along with other colleagues, but I will say from where we were several months ago to where we are now.

Uh at least we've made a stride forward and to our public safety uh individuals out there, our firemen, our police officers, uh, you know, bright brighter days ahead, brighter days ahead.

I'll leave it on a positive note.

Thank you.

Okay, that settles that.

Great.

I just have one more request.

Okay.

Um back to that proposed salary schedule.

Yeah.

Can I get a redlined of how that changed in 25?

From 25 to 26?

Yes, absolutely.

Thank you.

And I'm sorry, I do I owe you a piece of information you had a request.

Is it to make sure that the contract is sufficient and agreeable to both sides on the that is correct?

Very good.

What it needs to be is to specific to the downtown partnership pilot program.

The clean and sorry, I'm sorry, the clean and safe pilot program, the 19-month pilot program.

Great.

Thank you.

For the downtown area.

That is I just wanted to be clear.

Great.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

And then, yeah, just the red line of that.

Yes, we can do that.

And uh thank you very much, council, for the conversation and the communication, and I appreciate it.

And for your time today and all of the input and um hanging through this process.

And so, what will happen?

We will create the budget appropriation ordinance, and we will attach that to the agenda item that will come to you at the regular portion of the meeting on November 10th.

Okay, any other questions or comments for me?

Well, we really appreciate you and all the work that you've spent answering, Mayor, many, many many questions 24-7.

And we should buy you a pair of UGS.

We can do a GoFundMe for you for standing here all day.

But I'm just gonna go get more water.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you so much for your time.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Um, that concludes our special meeting, and we are adjourned.