All right, so it's five o'clock, five forty five o'clock in 46 seconds.

Um we'll get this um meeting started and let's start around the table.

We'll start on this in.

Parliament seven color fifth board Ben Job Jen 6th board breakdown first board.

Uh Frank Holly, Service Commissioner and uh uh Commissioner Gusler will not be here tonight yet in the family, so it'll be absent with post control.

Sorry, Nicole Gleason.

I'll grip aldermen at large.

Mary McGinnis, third board, Jasper Newton.

Alder Woman at large and Tim by Gelease and uh interim city administrator.

Thanks to me.

And over here, yeah.

Oh no, um see a call.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

All right, so um we had three items, uh three updates tonight on business before the um uh council and commission.

And the first is uh update on um discussion on the job jobs posting.

Um I believe that uh you have received an email about this.

Um and um Miss Fleming, do you want to um do you want to have any comments on this or or anything you want to want to run over the highlights?

Sure.

So um I distributed a memo yesterday of Mr.

Neaton uh with an update on the job postings.

I can give you another update on that.

Um we worked with Director Lacy today, and those jobs, uh the three remaining jobs are actually posted.

So they are out and live on the city's website.

And does anyone have any questions up from the commission or anybody from the council have any questions about the thank you?

So basically we have uh for the the um the ones that are um were union, it was like we're passing the hurdle.

Um, and it looks like the it's at the state, there's a final ratification or something in the state, but that is typically not an issue.

Is that correct?

Uh so this is the first time we've done uh unit clarification like this.

Um what we are doing right now, there is a um proposed decision from the state that has to be posted and provided to potentially affected employees.

That's been done yesterday, um, and that has to be posted throughout the different city buildings uh through November 17th.

After that, the board will make their final decision if no objections are received by the board.

All right.

Anybody have any questions about this or comments?

Can you elaborate?

What do you mean you said posted throughout the buildings?

What does that mean?

So we give notice uh as I said to the potentially affected employees, so that's directly emailed to them.

There's three specific notices that you can be given to them.

Those same three notices are posted in city buildings where there are other apps meeting bargaining unit employees.

So, for example, public works, police department, city hall, uh, a few other buildings, uh, just to make sure their um bargaining unit members are aware of the uh the clarification.

So the jobs haven't gone public yet, is what no the jobs are live while we're waiting on the final decision from the state.

We've the jobs.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions about that?

Okay, um, let's uh move on then to the update on office space, and I'll ask um director Gleason uh to Nicole Gleason to talk about that, please.

Sure.

So um city staff had Bray architects um do the due diligence exercise.

Um, and we received um there was a little bit of back and forth with Bray on some confusion on and what exactly their estimates meant.

So we went back for clarification and received that October 24th.

Um I then presented a memo to city council, which um I just distributed.

Um they they presented costs um for the ADA accessibility um and the remodel for um basically a ground level renovation, um, and then you can obviously read the full memo was around 1.2 million.

Um full full remodel, I think, including the upstairs was 1.8.

Um, and then obviously again the the city hall space, we still have estimated at 280, and then staff just said another option that council could consider was if if they if none of those options were amenable was potentially a lease, but we have not had a chance to meet with city council on the their preferred budget for this.

So we thought we would at least give you the information, um, gain any feedback, and then where we will defer to council um on next steps as far as a budget goes.

Question what was that last option?

I missed it.

Um, we just said if none of the three options, one of the uh options council could consider is a lease.

Um, not a lease, yes.

Okay, yeah.

If if you look on this this gives you the four um, no, I just I didn't hear it.

I'm I'm old, I need to hear it.

But she she she clarified it.

Okay, okay.

So I think um obviously we still need council direction on that, and um, but just wanted to provide that memo so you would know the feedback that staff had given council.

I guess my question is for uh direct relations and commissioner.

I mean, what do you feel like you need space-wise?

I mean, I don't I don't know how what you need to operate.

Um, fire station three.

Obviously, there's a lot of space there, but that's a pretty size chunk of change.

Um I think just just have you seen these options.

So just seeing these, we would have to take these and evaluate these before answering that before coming back with the reference.

And are there any other options?

So these are these are all our options.

These are the options we have right now, but staff is um happy to consider if if other things are brought to our attention, certainly.

And then if we do have any other ideas, um happy to keep council and the commission up to speed.

I guess one other thing.

Um this might be for our CFO.

So one of the things that's been asked, I think I've heard from her place in the commission, you know, with all the back and forth and not being able to get people hired.

You know, there's been money that has not been spent on salaries.

Yeah.

What's that?

That's up.

That's item three.

That's item three on this agenda.

Sorry.

Never mind.

Sorry.

That's okay.

Any email's on the office?

So have we exhausted all of the um city building that have aren't in use as well?

There was one um actually older one McGuinness brought to my attention um that hasn't been used in a while called the Collins House.

I have not laid eyes on it.

I have asked to get a tour of that.

I'm getting a tour Friday.

What's the Collins House?

It's a facility next door to our parks and rec facility on 29th Street.

Um, it had been formerly leased to some sort of senior activity, but again, I've not I don't know what the configuration, the number of offices.

So I intend to go to go visit and just see the condition of it and how many square feet it is and whatnot, and then if we think it could be a viable option to the mastery by Duck Creek Park?

Yes.

Okay, we would then if it looks like viable, we would then invite um for a tour, of course, but I haven't even seen it yet.

Okay, well, we get a breakdown of what these numbers are um I can send you the detailed architecture report.

Sure.

Yeah, conversion.

Yeah, truck maybe good.

And you would share that with us as well.

Right.

And it's in a bus line.

Collins is on a bus line, yeah.

Yes, it's very close to Eastman.

Yep.

Yeah.

So we'll check it out.

Right on.

Yep.

Okay.

Any other questions about the office space?

And I understand this is this is new information and it's a lot of information.

So I don't think there was any any um.

I guess my last question is uh will we know because we keep spacing out these meetings are is it gonna be another couple months before we know, or will we know this like maybe in a couple weeks, so we'll know that this is something if possible, we would move forward with as opposed to waiting three to six months on an update.

So I think after we see the facility, if if we think it's viable, we would invite for a tour to see if with director Lacey agrees or not.

Um, and then of course, at the end of the day, we're gonna need to defer to council on what the actual budget is.

For sure.

Yep.

Okay.

Yep.

Well, I think council wants to know from the commission out of right now, there's four options whether all of them are viable from the commission's perspective or not.

Once the council knows from that, then the council can decide which direction it's going to take.

So obviously, I think this will be a consideration at budget time in light of the numbers.

I think the commission would prefer to uh not respond to that at this point.

Oh no, no, I agree.

I agree.

I'm just making it clear in light of the question Alderman Kelly posed in terms of what's the next step.

It appears that there's two steps.

One, Gleason's going to go and look at this other building to see if it's even a viable option, and if so, invite the director of the civil rights to see if she believes it's a viable option, so it would be added as maybe an option five.

The commission is gonna look at the options provided and get back to the council in terms of yes, from the commission's perspective, we think all are viable, we'll take any of them, or we prefer XYZ, but we'll do you know that sort of information so the council can then make its decision because ultimately, if I understand correctly, the council has to make a decision regarding the budget for option one, two.

I think four would probably fall within the normal budget, right?

So it's really one and two.

If it's one of those options, it has to be a decision made at budget time, correct?

So the whole council and with suffice to make it look already at 35th and Harrison.

I have not had anything to do with looking at any options.

I'm just I'm I'm getting the same information you guys are.

Okay, that's a partial renovation and the full uh renovation for for that.

But that for that location.

So that that that's that encounter in entails options one and two.

So what I'm understanding is so so then this needs to be clarified before we even look at it because it appears there's budgetary limitations being applied to this at this point.

I don't know.

And based on what I'm hearing you say.

Based on what I'm saying, this would require council action based on the number.

I believe the council's already in place.

CFO, correct me if I'm wrong.

The council's already approved option number three.

Correct?

Option number three, I think it was approved for about 200,000 dollars originally.

Okay, and it's my understanding we don't have a bid at this time.

No, frankly, you do not have a bid.

Um, I think it did go out to bid and we did not receive any um bids from contractors.

I think there was a misconception on timing.

Um so if option three is chosen, we would have to take it out to bid again.

Okay, so so they all have uh the limit budgetary, they would all have to be gone back through for budgetary decision because nothing has been approved financially at this point, from what I can see or for the any of these options.

Is that oh, it's a CFO answer that since it's a budget question.

So um if we do have the funding, which I believe we do have the funding for option three.

Um, you said you had to go out for a rebid.

We would have to go out for a rebid um because we did not receive any bids from contractors in order to um remodel the space.

So yes, we would have to go and rebid that particular project.

So those no financial decision has been made on that, then if you gotta go up with rebid that the but Mr.

Play, the approval for it was done by council.

It's in the budget, but when they sent it out for bid, they didn't get any contractors to bid on it.

No contractors came back and bid on it.

Right.

So it will have to be rebid.

But it wasn't so so when the contractor comes back and rebids on it, it's got to go back to council for approval.

The uh the amount that the contractor comes back in for it that's so the contract is gonna go back out to bid, right?

Anything over $50,000 would have to get a reapproval by by council.

So require or it will it will require resolution.

Okay, so it's gonna require uh uh a reapproval by the council.

Yeah, all of these would require an approval by the council.

Well, just for clarification, would four require council approval based on the amount being under the 50,000.

If it's under the 50,000, it would not.

Okay, so only options one through three would require further council action, correct?

That is correct.

Okay.

Okay, so so let me just get clear here.

Four is under the 50,000.

So the 50,000 has already been approved.

Doesn't require a council.

So it doesn't require anything under 50, the council doesn't have to do an actual vote on.

Yeah, okay, that's it.

Right, okay.

Thank you.

So let me be clear, I wasn't talking finances, I was just saying the communication level.

So what I was asking is if Director Gleason's go see this property, how long will it take to get back to Commissioner Lacey, and how long would it take to get back to us before we would move forward with 29th Street?

That's what I was saying because it seems like we keep having meeting the three to six months later.

That's all I'm saying.

So I wasn't even speaking finances.

I was just trying to say if this is an actual option, how long until it comes back that this is a viable option one.

And since we're speaking on $50,000 and under knock on wood, we're not gonna find a good lease that's under $50,000 because what's gonna happen is you're gonna find a place that is viable, then there's still gonna have to be some things that are gonna have to be some sort of renovation.

So we can hope it wished some private $50,000, but we're not gonna get that.

So I mean it would be nice to get a lease, but then there's still the accommodations of soundproofing and things of that nature that were so again.

You know what I mean?

So yeah, and so Rick has been on different locations Artman Down, I'm sorry.

So I'm just saying I wanted to know are we gonna tighten up the communication?

That's all.

So we don't have to sit around and wait for another couple months to make the next decision, and then the next decision being financial.

So if that's where I'm coming from, sorry.

So after I should know by next week if we think it's viable, so I'll commit to um emailing director Lisa by the end of next week whether it's viable or not, and if it is viable, establishing a time for her to see it.

That's all okay.

Thank you.

When does your commission be done?

I don't know.

Tuesday second Tuesday of the month.

That would be next week.

So hopefully we can have that information to you before you guys meet, so you know if you have a fifth option, and then your commission can discuss what what your preferences are.

So that's that's that's great.

It's wonderful.

Thank you.

All right.

All right, I didn't clarify that.

I kind of understood what you're saying.

So then if the commission meets next week, when is a commission going to provide information to the council in terms of what the commission would like to see in terms of viable options?

Yes.

Okay.

Understanding that you might know not know much about this other thing that might be out there as is listed here.

Based on us having all the pertinent information, then we may have follow-up questions.

And when once those questions are answered, then we would provide a final answer.

But if there are questions, we would feed those back to back to you.

Okay.

Anything else on the update on office space?

Okay, and so the final um is an update on the request for budget rollover, and I'll ask our finance director to comment on this, please.

Um, so director Lacey requested that some of the general fund money that um is not spent in the general fund be rolled over from fiscal year 25 to fiscal year 26.

The amount is just over $9,000.

Um, it has been the city's practice not to roll over um salary savings from one year to the next.

We see that as one-time money at that moment in time.

Um, and it just has been the practice of the city to not roll that funding over.

Oh fair housing and general fine.

So when it comes to the fair housing monies, all of the unspent fair housing monies that we have received have been rolled over.

How much was that?

You don't want to ask it.

Um I believe it's salaries.

Um, I believe it's a line of administration was just over $30,000.

Um, they also do have um fair housing, also has other types of monies um that also has been um rolled over as well.

Um, there's partnership money, there's other training money, and all of that that is unspent has been rolled over.

And so I guess one of my questions where I was going before was and maybe the segues back to two.

So we're in FY26, right?

And obviously, they have not had the opportunity to fill those positions for which they've budgeted.

So most likely not gonna use 100% of budgeted dollars, would be my guess, correct, Director Lacey.

Well, we plan through this year because we're gonna hire interns with the surplus.

Okay.

But we actually had 75,000 left over in the fair housing fund for salaries and 9,000 in general fund.

So it's 84,000 total.

Okay, so I'd like to um kind of explain the fair housing money.

Um, I think I've mentioned this before.

When we budget fair housing, we budget an estimated amount.

Um, it's difficult to um budget for that particular contract because we don't get the information until the following fiscal year.

So we budget like currently, we budget for fiscal year 27.

We're in the midst of budgeting.

Um, and we don't actually know what the dollar amount is going to be for fiscal year 27 until next year, sometimes in October or November.

I'm not even sure if we received our contract yet for fiscal year 26.

So when we budget that particular money for fair housing, it is an estimate that is budgeted.

Um, and once we receive the funding, um, we do have to spend it on that particular purpose.

So if it is not spent for fair housing, we will roll over whatever is remaining of what is received.

So we do not um roll estimated budget.

This is not an estimated budget.

This is if we had the staff, we would have been able to use it, and this has been kind of an ongoing conversation with why that's confusing the way that it's structured by the city.

It shows on the budget what council proves that we're getting this full amount.

It's offset by the amount that we get from our contract.

That doesn't mean that we can't use the full amount, it's just offset by the amount that we receive in our contract.

So if we had the positions and they were filled, we would have been allowed to use the 84,000, and that's the amount that council approved.

Okay, I'm confused.

Um, I it sounds like we're talking about two different budget lines.

We're talking about a fair housing budget line that has within it salary figures and other things.

Is that correct?

So we have we're talking about that, and then we're talking about, and that's a certain amount, and I don't we don't have copies of the sheet, so I don't know what that is, and then we have um 9,000 that's in our regular city salary line.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Okay, so is the question is the question before and it sounds like anything that was in the fair housing amount was rolled over.

That's not anything that was received was rolled over, okay.

Correct.

Received from the federal government, correct.

Okay, okay.

And that funding isn't used for the salaries.

This is overreading.

Excuse me.

Yes.

Are you here for planning and zoning or for the civil rights meeting?

Then this is a public meeting.

Yes.

So I don't have my CD should be right.

Sir, you need to sit down.

You you you the public can certainly be here.

We have people from the public, sit down, but you can't comment.

So okay, peace.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sorry.

Okay.

Um so um, I'm sorry, uh it's a bit of a distract a distraction.

Um so there is not within the fair housing dollars salary funding, funding for salaries for fair house.

Um just um again, I don't have the sheet in front of me, so I'm confused.

So fair housing has seven.

Yep, fair housing has several different lines when we get the agreement, one of which is administration, um, and those dollars are used to um fund salaries when we receive it.

Okay, and that amount was rolled over.

Is that correct?

The amount that was received and not spent, yes.

Okay.

So the that's not so something the thing administration you're saying is for salaries, but you're disagreeing, it's not for salaries within the fair housing dollars.

Is that correct?

And so we have it.

Is uh budgeted at out of I don't know the specific number down to the cent, but let's say 150,000.

We never would receive that from HUD, so we may get 80 or 90,000 from HUD, and then we the 70,000 is supplemented from the general fund.

That's how it is every year, but there are positions that are assigned to that account, and so those salaries are paid out of the account regardless of what we get from HUD, and so we were not allowed to use it because we couldn't hire, so that's how much was budgeted through council, and you all approved it, and then it was rolled into the general fund.

I was told.

So it was when you go into Muniz, it says we had $75,383 and 24 cents left in the fair housing fund and $9,000, $9,019 and 40 cents left in the general fund.

And I know that we don't generally roll over salaries from year to year in any department.

Um, but I'm still confused about where this I guess I'm still confused.

So my understanding is that we do not roll over, and we never have if there's salary in the general fund, we have never rolled it over in any department.

It it is it is a you for that particular line is it use it or lose it.

Is that correct?

That is my um historical knowledge that we do not um roll over salaries.

Um I'd like to clear up something to what um director Lacey is um talking about historically.

Yes, we do budget um an estimated amount for the HUD contract that we see for for fair housing.

If that particular fund is overspent, um it would be subsidized by the general fund, or some of the expenditures would be moved to the general fund.

Um because once again, it is an estimate that is um that is budgeted for that particular particular revenue line.

We never budget a transfer to um the fair housing fund or anything like that.

Um so if we were to roll over the amount that was not spent but budgeted, it would definitely come from the general fund.

And I want to clarify it's not overspending if we are using the funding that council has approved for it.

So if council approves us for five positions and we're paying salaries for five positions that council has approved, that's not overspending the budget, that's using the budget the council had allocated to the commission.

But that was it is based on an estimated figure that comes from the federal government.

No, it's based on the amount this the salary line is based on the salaries for those positions, and so that's been an ongoing conversation for me to say why do we have these positions in this account when it creates this confusion as to what amount is actually there, how it's supposed to be used, and it creates the impression that we are overspending as just described, and it's not if this is the amount the council has allocated for salaries.

So if you authorize us to have five positions and we have five positions, that's not the commission overspending, but it creates that impression on paper that we're overspending if you have to supplement it.

So question, so then I guess are we just so we budget and we're just kind of hoping that or just saying thank you for whatever we do get from the federal government basically that it so then it offloads the general fund?

Is that kind of the philosophy that I'm hearing?

Um I do want to say that when we do our department meetings, all the department directors are part of the conversation and part of the um the budgeted process of um any grant monies that is received.

Um so everybody is involved in the conversation, so it's not just an estimate that the finance department um comes up with.

It is definitely something that we work with um all the directors to come up with that dollar amount for the estimate.

Um but essentially, yes, we budget hoping that we will receive um as much as we can, and if we don't, and we have to subsidize that particular fund, then um we do it at that moment in time.

Okay, and the funding for fair housing does fluctuate.

Um, some years we receive less, and some years we receive double than from previous years.

So it really is a shot in the dark of how much money we're gonna receive from them.

And again, if we have 100 grand budgeted position wasn't filled, was it used?

We get nine, we get 10 grand from the federal federal government.

That 10 grand rolls over, and we essentially just have 90 grand that wasn't used.

We 90 grand we didn't need to subsidize from the general fund.

Is that that is correct?

We didn't receive it, so we didn't roll it.

Yep.

So really not nothing was used, it wasn't overspent by the commission.

It was a transfer into it that was approved a couple of weeks ago of 30 something thousand dollars.

So that with us having 70 something thousand remaining just in salaries, I'm not sure what the 30,000 transfer was for.

I can explain that.

Um that was a transfer, it was actually reconciling transfer that we needed to make that cash equal of what was still owed to the fair housing fund.

Okay, um, I believe there's about $80,000 of unspent monies that is allocated to the fair housing fund, and that transfer needed to happen in order to have enough cash to cover that liability of unspent monies.

A liability of unspent money.

That is correct.

When um you receive um funding from the federal government or any um agency and we have not spun spent it on our balance sheet, it becomes a liability until it is spent.

And the 30,000 is transferred to so historically, um, my predecessor in the accounting department did not um how do I want to say this?

So I have a question.

My question coming from nonprofit, you're saying use it or lose it.

So you're not clarifying on the end for folks that don't understand this piece.

So what monies you bid in for, what monies you got, what monies were they returned because the way you're saying I can't tell if they were returned or if you rolled them over into general funds.

So explain all of that.

You bid for what you got, and what you did with the excess amount of money.

Is that a question for me?

That's whoever um I'm not sure if I understand the question.

Okay, so you asked for 200,000, you got 150.

Yeah, um when I hear use it or lose it coming from nonprofit, they will ask for the money back.

So was any money's return?

We turned to whoever, so if it was federal money, did you return the money to the feds?

No, it's still on the balance sheet.

Okay, so that's not user losers.

If I'm the one that used that term, if I could clarify what I'm in, so uh and I and I don't have the answer to the question, but so from we have general fund, we have salaries and general fund.

There are salaries and different obviously in different pots of money, and the there's there's administration funding within this house fair housing funding that has it is tied also tied to salaries, but there's also a salary line and a general fund, and generally this they have it.

You have a salary line and um public works.

There I'm simplifying it.

There's a salary line and legal, there's a salary line in every department.

And if at the end of the year, for whatever reason uh people have left, they've been hired new people are hired at a lower rate uh thing wasn't filled.

If you're at the end of the year, if your salary line was 200,000, right?

In your in your particular department, and there was 150,000 actually spent the department had the the departments can't roll over the 50 extra 50,000 dollars to the following year.

And so my understanding in general, yeah.

I got okay.

So okay, and that's what I was talking.

So that's that's what I was talking about.

My what I'm hearing is that there was $9,000 and a in general fund salaries, but there was also housing dollars, uh uh how the fair housing dollars that in the budget was an estimate, and then the figure actually came in, which I don't know if it was close or and again, we don't know what's gonna happen with that, right?

I don't know if it was close or far from the budget that has to, and we know how early we all have to budget.

Um, and so um but that has been rolled over, including the administration funds that has salaries in it, but there's another 9,000 that's in the general fund.

Now, am I simplifying that too much, or no, that's not what I'm asking.

No, that's two.

There's two, there's two budget lines there.

The general fund and the fair housing, and it appears that the fair housing was funded based on two two elements, it appears that your subsidy and also the the federal funding.

Is that how that fair housing line is?

So typically um in the fair housing fund, we do not budget a subsidy.

Oh, I mean, but I thought I heard you say that you subsidized the uh if if if the uh we had in the past we have subsidized the fair housing fund um if it needed it, uh it was overspent, um it's something that we have to do, um, so there is not a negative dollar in cash.

Um but when there is not a needed subsidy, we don't do that because it's not a budgeted um okay.

So let me just ask the question then.

So the fair housing was budgeted at 9598.

Okay, and and so um 20,594 was used of that of that budgeted amount.

Yep.

And so that left the balance of 75383, and and that's what we're talking about that should be rolled over because the the uh positions were not able to be filled, so and I would 100% agree with you that it should be rolled over if we actually received the estimated amount that was budgeted 95,000.

However, that amount was not received, so that is why there is no money to roll over.

Oh, okay.

And see, that's the distinction.

If the if it's budgeted for staff salaries, and we had special circumstances that were outside of our control why we couldn't hire.

So that's the reason that we asked for it to be rolled over because this was not our fault that we couldn't fill these positions, and it put us at a disadvantage and behind on several things, so we need to catch up with those.

This is how this account is budgeted.

So if council approves us has five staff members, and the finance staff puts two staff members in fair housing and two in general fund, we don't have any control over that because that's how it's put into the budget, and we would never receive this amount of funding to cover the amount that comes out of that account.

It has never covered it in the the 11 years that I've been here and in the years before that is never covered it.

So there's always a supplement, but it's not documented on paper anywhere.

And so my concern, and I have raised it over and over again every year, is that it looks on paper like we are overspending, but we're not because these are the positions that have been budgeted for by the city council, and so to phrase it as overspending is inaccurate because that is what is budgeted for.

That's not overspending, but it is gonna the amount that we receive from HUD is never going to completely cover those expenditures.

I think my question wasn't answered.

Your question was did we have to return those fund that funds?

So my question is you you budgeted for one thing, you asked.

So you asked, what did you receive?

We're not you're not telling me what you received in order to roll over, or somehow jumping into this 37,000.

We're negating the fact of what did we get?

What did we actually get?

So I hear what Lacey is saying, and I hear what Boss is saying, but nobody's answering the question what actually was received from the funding, and now because now we're playing this.

Well, we only rolled over 37,000.

What if we've received 60,000?

Nobody's talking about that.

How much money did we receive?

We haven't received the funding for this.

No, how much money does the city would be?

I'm saying we haven't received it for this year yet because it crosses over two fiscal years, it crosses.

Yeah, but we're still no, listen to what I'm saying.

They asked for 200,000.

What do they get?

So we don't actually ask for any funding, the finance of the case.

Okay, well, we're going to be able to do that.

And Director Lacy, please correct me if I am wrong.

Um, but so it's not a request from the finance department.

Um, it's definitely something that the civil rights department works with HUD on receiving that funding.

Um, and I can certainly tell you via email how much we received um last in fiscal year 25.

Um, the fiscal year that we just closed.

Something to also keep in mind is when we roll funding, there is actually I have a rolling um spread sheet of how much funding we roll because um we receive monies, for example, receive partnership monies, and there is monies that is not spent, so we roll from year to year.

So the money that I'm currently rolling, rolling could have been received two years ago, but it's still not spent.

Um, so um you continue to roll that money as well.

Okay, my cousin still didn't have to do that.

We we haven't received the funding that we would have received in October, November of this year because of the government shutdown.

Okay, so but when we receive funding from HUD, it it we're usually notified of it in October or November, and so it's crossing over to fiscal years, so it'll start in October of you know, whatever year it is.

So, what do the government email you and tell you that you were going to receive?

We haven't received it yet because the government shutdown.

Oh, okay, okay.

So you have to having to estimate your work and budget, so you're having to estimate your work.

Sorry.

Um, and budget and and budget for staff positions um ahead of what you know the funding will be, which is it, I mean that's quite it.

No, it sounds like we can't create new positions based on us thinking we're gonna get more funding from HUD.

So it's whatever the funding, whatever many positions council has approved us having, and then they just offset it with the money that we get from HUD and EEOC.

Okay, it's just not okay, documented on paper.

So it creates I got one other question.

Um, how does gap impact this outcome?

How is how you say you based on gap?

You said you were using gap because your predecessor was doing something different, so now you're using gap.

So now you're using gap.

So how does that impact the decision that we're we're looking at here?

So it doesn't have an impact on it.

Um we do just have on our balance sheet on our financial statements on earned revenue, which means revenue that we have received um that has not been spent.

Okay.

I want to say one thing.

I alderman grip hastily at 545.

I was gonna say that at the beginning, but that then we can keep, but he has to be gone today.

If he leaves, that's why.

Sorry.

So um does anybody have any other um training session and um with uh human relations and follow-ong and um there's a lot of mistakes that you next uh a lot talking about home and um is that what no I was on somewhat lost in discount?

I didn't know I'm taking it.

No, that's confusing.

That's that's that's no, it's not um so so really.

So what what is the what is the uh question that's on the table here?

Uh there's the money that's being rolled over.

Well, well, the the balance, I should say, not being rolled over, and so uh director Lacey is saying that it should be rolled over because we're rolling over the 9,000, right?

No, no, no, we're not rolling out reasons.

So we're not rolling over any of the remaining balances.

The second finance department, no.

Okay, so the nine or the or the 75.

Okay, so so those remaining balances, so that's the question on the table is is is uh is what how to address those funds.

Okay.

Well I'm still confused is she's saying she's rolling over two years, so two years of this funding or funding.

So I you every time you guys say something, it poses another question.

So HUD might give us partnership funds to like let's say we pay for um a subscription to West Law, and then it's a three-year contract.

So HUD would give us funding for it, and then we can pay on it out of that funding, and that's how it's rolling over because it's being deducted monthly, but the funds have already been allocated to that based on the request that was made to HUD.

But is it rolling over as a benefit for civil rights, or is it rolling up because the way she's explaining it, it doesn't it's money that you can't they can't take that funding and roll it into the general fund because it was given for a specific purpose.

Okay, that's so we get like a certain amount for travel, we get a certain amount for whatever we have applied for for if it's a partnership funds or if it's what's called C funds, special enforcement, or if we have like um, let's say we have a complicated public hearing and we need to hire an expert witness, we would have to ask them for that, and then they give it to us, and then we use it to pay for that, but then they also give us administrative costs, which is funding that we can use for whatever we want to use it for.

They give us a certain amount of funding to like support our infrastructure, our computers and stuff like that.

So this is funding that you guys can access, is what I'm asking.

Yeah, the actual HUD funds, they those aren't what was taken.

This is the amount that was budgeted and it wasn't rolled over for salaries.

I know, but I'm just listening to all the language at the table from Alder Woman McGuinness to her of the user.

I don't want to throw that, but I'm just making sure that I understand that.

Yeah, like if we had a position that was budgeted for at step five, and then the person left and took us two months to hire somebody new, and the new person started step one, there would be a budget difference, and so we wouldn't expect to get that given back to us because that was a normal circumstance, but this we were repeatedly asking for the actual fund amount so that we could post a position for hiring, and then that wasn't given the position was taken down, uh, and nobody knows why.

So that was several months of not being able to hire, and then the union issue that has been going on since at least February of this year.

So we weren't allowed to hire, and so then we just were placed at a disadvantage.

Um, and so we were trying to roll that over so that we could use that to supplement what was lost last year.

My question is I mean, I understand being a kind of a deficit uh personnel-wise, right?

Not being able to hire how would you kind of stay fiscally viable then going forward?

So if money gets rolled over, I mean you're gonna have to hire somebody, but you're only hiring on a temporary basis, correct?

But just to catch up, so and I I get that, right?

I mean, I guess that's what you're asking, you're asking for, right?

Okay, and I can't it's not an ongoing thing, it's just a catch-up.

Okay, we're playing behind from that.

Okay, I mean, yep.

Okay.

Okay, so is there another option then in terms of uh employment to address that some of that workload that didn't get done in terms of what in the next coming year?

Can we bring uh part-time or uh interns or somebody to address that uh that piece of work that would have been done here that you're you want to address with this in the next fiscal year?

Yes, if we had funding, yeah.

We could hire part-time people or interns to work on that, getting us back up to the data.

So and it could be done on a different line, or uh it would have to be approved again.

But say with this, you rolled it over, you don't have to go back and have any approval over there.

And again, I I am lost again.

I thought you said money had been rolled over.

But some of the money had been rolled over.

So some of the money that has been received that was not spent, just the HUD money didn't roll over.

Okay, and how much was that?

That's what I was trying to do.

So in salaries, it was about $31,000, so that's the administrative costs.

Okay, yeah.

Okay, so $31,000 was rolled over.

So then that would either we have an additional $31,000 on top of what was budgeted, or is that offsetting what was already budgeted?

Can you answer that, Basha?

Um, I believe the budget amendment was done by my accounting manager, and I would have to just to make sure that it was done correctly, but it wasn't added to the salary line.

However, we're still waiting to receive the contract for this year that we haven't received um in order to throw up the account.

Um this is the money that we're gonna receive um for the contract um that typically we receive in October.

We budgeted this last year, so it was 12 months ago that we had to come up with the number um and to budget that particular line.

Um so right now that money I believe has been rolled over, and then um we're waiting for the contract in order to throw up those numbers.

So if it's been rolled over, is it available to the civil rights commission?

Is it available for use?

Yes, okay, so to for salaries or whatever.

That is correct.

Okay, yep, it's in the salaries line.

And when did that when did the rollover happen?

I think we processed the budget amendment maybe two weeks ago.

Okay.

That is correct.

She's only referring to the 31,000 now, not the not the 84.

And and we're we're what is the relate the 37, 31,000 to the 84th.

What is the 84,000?

This is where I'm completely.

Okay, so I'm gonna just use round numbers.

Okay minus unfortunately.

So I believe for administration, I believe we received about 50,000 of which we spent 20,000, and 30,000 was remaining, and that's the amount that was rolled over.

Okay.

So you've never there's never been 75,000.

You're they're talking a figure in the seven around seven.

That is correct, because we estimate how much those salaries are going to be.

So it was estimated to be 70,000.

Okay, sorry.

So it's it was estimated, I believe, um, Director Lacy just said that her salary line was at 95,000 dollars.

So it was estimated 95,000.

We only received 50,000 dollars.

Okay, of which we spent 20,000, which then the remaining amount is 30,000, and that's the amount that got rolled over, the amount that was not spent, and not the um not the budget number against what was actually spent.

Okay, so the budget estimated 95.

We actually only got 50.

20,000 was spent, and so 30,000 was rolled over.

So that is correct.

I think it may be confusing to say it's estimated.

This is what's allocated.

This is the budget.

But the but if that if the if it doesn't become a reality, right, so that's what the without the reality.

So this is what I'm getting from.

And once again, without the reality, the city would have offset the 90.

So therefore the 50 was there, the city would have kicked in 40,000 to make it make sense.

But since it didn't come in, the city didn't have to make it make sense.

So the money that was there, we've utilized this amount of money to do this.

So now we rolled over the 27,000 because this is the amount of money that was left over from what we utilized.

But they say it's a good thing.

There should be no more questions about that.

To say it's estimated would indicate that if we don't get that amount, we're not gonna spend it.

And that's not what the expectation is, and that's not how it is presented in the budget documentation.

I understand that's an amount budgeted, not an amount estimated.

The amount that it's going to be offset is the estimate.

That's not the budget, though.

And that's why we have been requesting for years to remove those salaries out of there because it creates this confusion of you're looking at it thinking that this is what's allocated and budgeted, and then it's not, and then at the end of the year, it's presented to council that we overspent.

And so the council and the public think, oh, we gave them 150,000 dollars, and then they overspent by 40 or 50,000.

So they've spent 200,000.

So we're going with the reality of it is until it's actually changed, that's why I broke it down for me.

I gave the Sesame Street version until it's been changed.

I understand what you're saying, but how do we make that change to accommodate you?

But we're already here.

So how's that change made?

You know what I mean?

Well, what's left over in according to Munis was 75,000?

So there is no, like if if our budgeted fair housing fund for salaries is 95,000, it's not now a hundred a hundred and twenty-six.

It still says ninety-five.

So it doesn't show that there's been 31,000 added to it.

And I think what she's describing is they're offsetting this year's budget with the 35,000 31,000 that rolled over versus adding 31,000 on top of what the budgeted.

I think I have it, and then I fall back again.

Sorry, I thought I am I am trying to understand this.

So do do and it and I hear um I hear sensitivity about overspending, but I mean, if you have, and and I so I hope I uh you're in a the civil rights commission by the way this is funded by the federal government is put in a difficult position because you have to plan your work, but you don't know how much you will have.

So well, I'm yeah, I think that's well, but sounds because it sounds like and and and so I'm not I'm saying that's a very difficult position to be in.

Um if you don't know from one year the next, we don't know right now how much we're gonna get in this fiscal year.

Is that correct, Basha?

That's correct.

Okay, okay, and so the city is always in the position of subsidizing, or maybe not, maybe there's a great year when uh the the goals that you set um and set correctly as the the administrator um or met with the funding um and there isn't an offset, but there it so the the question is does the city assume there's gonna be some kind of offset.

So I don't think it's overspending, you can't it's it's difficult to do work and not know how it's gonna be funded, you know, what amount is going to be funded.

Very difficult.

The council is approving for it to be funded.

I understand that, but it's not what level we're not the what the funding that we receive is doing is just offsetting what the city is expecting to spend.

So you might not have to spend the whole 150,000 because we might get 120 between HUD and EOC, and then you're only spending 30,000.

But on paper, it looks like council is giving us 150,000.

But I don't like what I don't I have a hard time understanding right now, and it sounds like the money that came from the federal government is being rolled over, but what is being requested is the offset that didn't happen last year be rolled over, and that I think is difficult for the city because it is it is only offsetting what the overage was.

It wouldn't be there, it doesn't exist unless um there is an overage, and again, I don't mean overspending on the part of the civil rights committee.

The budget isn't changing.

She's saying they quote they rolled over the amount that's going to offset what the same budget is.

So if we were budgeted for 95,000 for two positions, then we're budgeted this year again, 95,000 for two positions, and the 31,000 rolls over and offsets the 95,000, plus whatever we would get this year, which would further offset the 95,000.

Which means from general fund would only be like 50 or whatever, 60, right?

Coming out for that.

But we do not, as a city, we do not we have never in terms of the salaries in the general fund, which never rolled it over.

I hear you there, but I've done understanding.

I think the math is actually fitting in my starting to make it.

So we take that out of the fair housing fund, or we disconnect the fair housing fund, right?

We say, all right, it's 95 grand for this position.

We're not even gonna worry about what we get from the federal government.

You know, general fund is paying for that.

Okay, but then we get 30 grand.

What do we do with it then?

We already have 31.

Okay, but he's being hypothetical.

But let's say it, so then so then what do we do with that?

What does that money get used for then?

That's fine to offset the salaries with it.

Okay, I'm saying the way that it's structured, it looks like we are expected to maybe get 150,000, which gotcha.

Okay, just based on the size of our city.

There's an expectation that we would typically get about eight fair housing complaints a year.

We get exponentially more than that, but that's the expectation based on our our the size of our city.

So that would never cover two positions coming out of that funding.

But I guess my question for you is because it's what I'm hearing is you're wanting you're wanting the city, you want general fund to be 95, whatever else we get to come add on, so that now I got an even greater number in my misunderstanding.

I'm saying it should all be on paper where you can look at it and understand what's happening.

And that's not what's happening.

So if we have 95,000 for these two salaries, if they were in the general fund, you would see that along with the other salaries that are in there, and then whatever we get from HUD, they could just offset it with with the funding that we get from HUD that's that is unrestricted, and then the rest of it is paid for through the general fund.

But that's not what's happening.

It's these two positions are in a separate account.

Council is approving it, I think, under the impression that they're improving this to be paid from public from council funds, and it's not that's not how it's structured, and then at the end of the fiscal year, you're told we need you to transfer money into the fair housing account because it's overspent.

Okay, so there is no expectation that we're ever going to have this amount of money come in to cover this.

So, like, let's say if we don't get 95,000, we're not expected to fire that person.

It's just it's being supplemented by the general fund, but it's not documented on paper anywhere, and it is presented as overspending.

So, so I mean, so the rest the question on the table is what are we gonna do with this uh roll over the funds or not, correct?

Yeah, 30,000 of that was already rolled over 31 out of the 84.

It's not in addition to what we budgeted.

What she's saying is they're gonna roll over the 31 to offset the amount that's already budgeted.

Okay, so so if they don't roll it over to do that, then what what else are you gonna do with that 30 to 30 31?

If we had that added, we could hire more people.

Okay, so I guess that's the question for the council to increase the uh staffing level.

Well, yeah, and I can't let the that's not on the agenda, that's a budgetary, and I don't think that's the question before the council.

It appears that the director acknowledges that the way that finance works is that if it's not spent, it's lost for every single department.

And she acknowledges that.

Yeah, that's typically what happens.

However, if I'm hearing her correctly, and please correct me if I'm wrong, she's saying we have unique circumstances here, right now, this one time, because I wasn't able to spend the 95 and hire those positions for whatever reason, we're not gonna go into that today to say it's not a trial, but nonetheless, those positions weren't filled, right?

So if what she's trying to say is one time, I want that extra money to allow me to hire either an intern or whatever extra work that's not gonna be a full-time job, it's not gonna be a permanent job, it's going to be temporary in nature made to help me catch up to make up for the fact that those positions were not hired, and I I am now behind on work.

That simplify it.

So if 95 was allocated pursuant to the budget that council approved, and out of that, we got 50 and 20 was spent, she's saying as a one-time deal, we should look at it as if what the 95 would have been, what the difference is, and that's where she's asking council, which I think would require if it's gonna be more than 50,000, a resolution as a one-time thing.

She's not asking them to add any FTEs or anything like that, or change that.

She's just one time set it aside, make this one exception on the basis of the commission is behind because the commission wasn't able to hire.

Right.

Is that essentially what okay?

Yes.

That's what I'm understanding.

So it sounds like 31,000.

Huh?

And that dollar value is 31,000.

Well, no, the dollar value would be stuck at 80.

Out of this one, it would have been 95.

84,000 is the budgeted amount, correct?

Yes.

And what was what was actually spent?

20,594 dollars and 75.

So that leaves the 75,000.

That's essentially the number that she's requesting, out of which 30-ish we have in our possession, correct?

So it's a sent, you know, but the 30-ish technically rolls over and is used for the following fiscal year as money there, correct?

And she's asking for it not to be counted as a rollover used in that account.

She's saying the $75,000 difference on this plus the $9,000 in general, that is what she is requesting, which would require resolution and a council vote because it's over 50,000.

And it's a one-time thing that goes outside of what typically happens.

In a nutshell, is that is that your understanding to you, CFO, of what is being requested from civil rights?

Yes, that is my understanding.

Um I'm not sure if we need a resolution.

You can technically do it with the budget amendment when we do that um in April.

But I mean it's over 50,000.

Yeah, and you would be that.

Oh, you're doing it with it at the okay.

That's what I meant.

Yeah, sorry.

It action is what I meant.

Excellent.

That's voted on.

That's what it would require.

Okay.

There.

Any questions?

Well, I have a concern about the precedent of the 9,000.

Um, because again, we've never, you know, we've never allowed money in the general fund, money that comes out of the general fund to go and be rolled over.

So what we are setting a precedent here, and um that's a concern because what happens when the next department says, Well, you rolled it over here.

So that's anyway.

That's just my concern about the 9,000.

So that would be an April discussion, I believe.

Could be.

I don't know.

But I bring it forward as if it's something to leave on the table.

When you try to make that amendment, I believe.

Yeah, she's saying they could allocate it now, and then council doesn't approve until I okay.

Yeah, that is correct.

But she's saying she doesn't want to allocate that.

The 9,000 the 9,000 because of what it would, you know, create not potentially create another departments.

Right?

Just historically we have not.

Okay, so I mean that's a few.

So you don't want to set that precedent.

I don't want to set that.

I mean, I that's me.

It may not be anybody else's opinion.

That particular part of the money, that is a hard bright line that the city is not crossed.

And uh you have they ever crossed it since you've been here?

No.

Uh I know uh Basha has said it is not.

We don't have a lot of other Miss Fleming.

Have we ever crossed that line when you since you've been here of the uh money coming out of the general fund for salaries?

Transferring them over, carrying it over into another year.

No, okay.

Not that I'm aware of, but I'm not in finance.

Okay.

But you're okay with the 75.

If they're you know, at the well, there it sounds like some of that is already in.

There's 30, so it sounds like less whatever that number is.

40, so yeah, so additional.

Right.

Yeah, I'm just I'm concerned about that that other precedent on the 9,000.

Okay, so that's just me though.

Well, we can't take any action today.

Uh we can't is um I understand what Alderwoman McGuinness is saying.

I'm always about what is done, what should be done.

Right.

I'm about the rules.

I think if you guys don't know that by now, you clearly have missed several meetings.

I also understand the concern director Lacey is setting forth in the commission in terms of they're behind, they have workload that needs to be taken care of.

We have positions up, but there's additional work that it would be helpful if they could get some extra help, like interpart-time.

So perhaps I'm thinking outside the box, and again, we don't take any dis direct or decisions at this point in time, but it hypothetically speaking, if the council did a one-time allocation for just one year for intern or something like that at this at this upcoming budget, would that be something that the commission could work with, Director Lacey, to account for that amount um of hypothetically what would have been spent had you had those positions filled?

Yes, thank you.

That is exactly what I was going to suggest is we maintain the integrity of the process and we don't roll over.

But if there are special circumstances, uh prepare a business case or a memo for council to consider that this is unique, and this is uh not an ongoing request.

This is for a moment in time based on the facts and circumstances that we have seen this year.

So you're asking the commission to prepare the business case, or the director.

Well, I mean, yes, sir.

I wouldn't say commission, I'm speaking with direct secretary.

I wasn't trying to put work on your book, but uh regular is the year enough.

I think that's the last one on the agenda, correct?

Yep, I think that's okay.

And uh, I guess there was a question someone had about um when we would when would that be due to when when would that be decided when whenever appropriate uh whenever you want to submit it, and it can become an action item for council to consider at any point.

But we have one cycle in December, but two weeks, one two-week cycle in December.

So there so after I think it's about December 8th, because I think December 1st is on a Wednesday, there's only there's only one cycle.

I let me give you that.

Let's see.

So that would be yeah, I'm sorry, December 10th would be the last city council, the third and the 10th would be the last cycle in December.

All right, and you're having your meeting next week, so you might you might have some input back about options and additional option is being considered, so you'll be sharing that information.

So I think there was some question about when the next meeting would be, and I don't know if we know that right now.

We we could table, we could take care of that uh discussion on Tuesday at our regular meeting.

So we should have something following that meeting.

Okay, we can get that back to you.

Okay, that way you can table that with your next session.

Okay, pretty good.

All right.

Um does anybody have anything else?

Thanks, everybody, for coming today.

Thank you.

All right.