Welcome back to the but the expanded budget finance and audit standing committee for the purposes of the budget budget process today.

We're dealing with the uh executive session.

Uh Madam Clerk, good afternoon.

Afternoon.

You please call the roll.

Councilmember Scott Benson.

Councilmember Letitia Johnson.

Present.

Councilmember Denzel Anton McCampbell.

Present.

Councilmember Renata Miller.

Member Miller indicated that she would not be present, so our absence is excused.

Clerk was so notes.

Councilmember Gabriela Santiago Romero.

Present.

Councilmember Mary Waters.

Councilmember Angela Whitfield Callaway.

Councilmember President Pro Timber Coleman A.

Young the second.

Council President James Tate.

Yep.

Mr.

President, you have a quorum present.

Thank you, ma'am.

We have a quorum present, which means we're now back in session.

And this is our part two of the day of our executive session.

And no part of the major reason we came back is to deal with this document that was requested for the oversight agencies and the request for proportional funding.

And we placed all of the oversight agencies' request for proportional funding into executive session.

And Mr.

Corley has provided us with a spreadsheet.

Now the floor is yours to walk us through it, sir.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

So before we go there, can we um kind of go over maybe a little housekeeping?

Um you want to do that first?

Yeah.

Is that okay?

Listen, um Mr.

Corley says we want to do something first during budget.

Mr.

Corley has the floor.

Okay, thank you so much, Mr.

President.

First of all, I want to thank um all of the responses that's coming in from the various agencies to council's questions and our questions on the budget.

Um so you see a slew of email coming in from Mr.

Malik Washington.

And I know that's not easy for them to prepare those responses.

I'm so I want to thank the administration for that.

Um we're gonna get to the proportional funding.

Um the border zoning appeals has an issue that uh Mr.

Ribrine is willing to chime in via Zoom to talk about.

Um so we can cover that as well.

What's the issue?

Just so we'll know in advance.

Um dealing with the uh recording of proceedings.

Um sounds like the issue that we've been addressing at this point.

Does he have anything you want to add to it beyond what we've discussed?

Because if not, just reiterating it, um, it's not gonna move us forward.

I think he may just want to explain um a contract that's in the works to help address this issue.

And um there's some language from uh state law that I think he may want to speak to.

So it sounds like it is advancing us our our discussion, so we'll definitely receive it.

Okay.

So that um and if we can click clean up as many pinned items as possible this afternoon, because we you know we're gonna provide we and the LPD fiscal will be providing a new spreadsheet, you know, in the morning.

Uh so we want to try to clean that up as much as possible.

Yes, sir.

Um, so any pin items we can clean up.

And tomorrow, um, Mr.

President, if it's okay with council, we probably should be prepared for a longer day tomorrow.

Because you know, Friday when I hear Monday, you know, is it's the last day.

That's probably gonna be a marathon day as well.

But tomorrow, um, if we can work, you know, as long as we can to go through the remaining items, talk about the funding sources for council's changes.

You know, we'll of course give you a new total on council changes, you know, in the morning via the updated spreadsheet.

Um, and we're gonna need to talk about that, you know.

So that's kind of like I just want to outline that.

So, colleagues, if we can have someone cover food for tomorrow, I'll be covering for Tuesday.

Okay, and that's a real talk.

Johnson says, All right, okay, thank you.

Thank you so much.

We can prepare to be here later tomorrow.

Thank you so much.

Mr.

Corley, we do have the uh oversight agencies that are here.

They've joined us, so that's the reason why I would like for us to go there first.

We I have the oversight agencies online as well as in person, uh, if you wouldn't mind going through that one first.

Okay.

All right.

So um, based on a request from Councilmember Benson, he wanted me to verify you know the figures that were um that's basically being requested by the oversight agencies.

And so the top line, and and and just for me to kind of understand this as much as possible.

I prepared this spreadsheet.

So the top line is the proposed budget amount for fiscal 2026.

That was last year.

And the resolution that council approved back in I believe April of 2025.

So these individual amounts, you know, Auditor General, uh 467,000, uh Ombudsperson, 315, so on and so forth.

Council approved those during executive session last year.

So the total where it says adopted fiscal 2026 budget amount.

Um about 5.85 million, ombuds person, office of inspector general about 2.3 million, Board of Ethics, uh about 900,000.

Um that's in the adopted budget for last year.

Now, this next line reduction amount in fiscal 2027 proposed budget.

Um the administration um reduced the adopted budget amount of last year or 2026 uh for Auditor General, they reduced it by 217,000.

Ombudsperson about 79,000.

They reduced the office of inspector general about 55,000, and Board of Ethics about 82,000.

And so in the proposed fiscal 2027 budget, general, this is after the administration chose to reduce their budgets, Audit General about 5.6 million, ombudsperson about 1.95 million, office of inspector general about 2.2 million, and Board of Ethics about 817,000.

So I I guess I'm suggesting before I go further, it would be great to hear from administration as to why they chose to reduce their current year's budget.

And if you know that's okay, or if we can stop there, so we can understand the rationale behind that, and then we can move forward.

Mr.

Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um, so the reductions to the oversight agencies were in line with the same amount of reductions we would take from any other general funded department when our revenues are down.

Um while I know there's always a goal for proportional funding, um, the fiscal realities of the city override any other um resolution that may be adopted to this effect.

Our revenues were down in the general fund, and all of our operating departments had to take reductions.

Um we it would not be proportional to raise other general funded departments' budgets by substantial percentages when our core operating departments had to take reductions in order to balance the budget.

To do this would be I would need to the OCFO would have to unfund other critical operations of the city in order to fund this, considering our revenue situation.

And we proposed these reductions, and we propose to keep them where they are in the or where they are in the proposed budget, because one, we didn't reduce them below what was already added to their budget.

They are reduced to a portion of what was added to their budget for fiscal year 26.

We have kept their funding proportional to the general fund almost exactly.

So when we adopted the 26 budget, the percentage proportions of the recurring general fund revenues.

Something happened to your mic.

Can you hear me?

Yeah, I think it was probably covering it.

Oh, sorry.

Um, the proportion of the general fund uh revenue that each of the entities uh took is almost very close to the same as it is in the current fiscal year.

So on terms of proportionality, if we want to be proportional, they are proportionally roughly the same amount, and then the reductions taken to them were proportionally the same type of reduction that was taken to all of our operating departments.

I would also note that each of the oversight agencies has never spent their entire adopted budget in the last four or five fiscal years, and that we pulled the numbers up for.

None are over 95% of their budget.

And Ombuds person also a little average of a little over, I believe around an 89% average spend of their budget.

Ethics has the lowest spend rate, never exceeding 80%, never exceeding 78% or 79% of their adopted budget.

And Inspector General has generally had a relatively successful spend rate around between 85 and 90% of their budget.

So again, appreciate the desire for proportional funding, very much appreciate the underlying philosophy of it.

It's very important and critical.

The administration absolutely supports oversight and the critical work that these agencies do.

But at the same time, adding budget on top of unspent budget in a baseline when our revenues are down considerably year over year is simply not fiscally prudent.

If departments wish to move proportionally, they have to move proportionally with the revenues for the current fiscal, the year that we are preparing.

And if that means those revenues are down, then they have to be subject to the same reductions, the same sacrifices that have to be made by the other departments.

Otherwise, we have some users of the general fund that do not have to bear the pain of revenue reductions.

Perhaps in fiscal 28, our revenues will recover and we will have much more success in that regard, and we can have a conversation about resuming an upward path.

But at this time, it simply is not fiscally prudent, and it simply does not make fiscal sense to continue an upward push on these budget baselines, considering the facts that I have given you.

Okay, thank you.

How do we define proportional?

Do you have that in front of you?

Because it sounds like it may be uh uh potentially a translation issue, uh definition issue uh of what proportional funding truly means.

I think that gives us an opportunity level set at least there.

Uh yes, sir.

Uh Mr.

Keller, uh attorney from LPB will speak to the issues concerning proportional funding.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Keller.

Attorney Phil Keller, LPD, uh to council president.

The proportional funding um percentage is calculated by you divide the agencies target equitable funding amount, which is based on a projection of their um organizational structure and operational costs, and you divide that by the prior year general fund adopted budget.

And in last year's executive session, um, instead of implementing that TEF all at once, uh council decided to do a ramp up period of of three years.

Um so at the end of the three-year period, the resolution specifies um specific percentages that each agency is supposed to be at to reach the full um TEF amount.

Okay, okay.

So um we can go to the line that's bold and bold amount requested for fiscal 2027 executive session.

I would like to start because it's a little easier for me to explain this.

Um I would like to start with uh Ombudsperson, Office of Spector General, and Board of Ethics.

And so their request is based on taking the ramp up amount that was in the chart, in the chart, and the resolution that was passed by city council um last April.

Plus the amount that the administration deducted their budgets by in the in the in this proposed budget.

Uh with a slight exception with an ombudsperson's office.

Um they took about a they agree to not restore or asked to restore the total amount of what the administration cut their budget by.

Um so it's so that line where it says under ombuds person, about 77, 79,000, they're suggesting to restore about 65,000 of that.

But other than that, again for the ombudsperson, Spectre General, Board of Ethics, they're taking the ramp up amount according to the chart that was in the resolution, plus restoring the amount that was cut, you know, by the administration.

And Ms.

Goodspeed Order General rightfully pointed out that that does not doing it that way, does not comport to the ordinance.

So with Order General, she initially was requesting 945, 946,000.

That's based on the interpretation of the ordinance, which basically says that the base year is the prior fiscal year.

So just to indicate the chart that was attached to the ordinance, the uh budget of my general fund budget amount is based on fiscal 2025 all the way through the ramp up years.

That would be 2026.

The 2026 budget is higher than the 2025 budget.

And so she's basing her calculation on the ordinance.

Um the other agency, oversight agencies are agreeing to go with a smaller base because they recognize you know the overall challenges that we have dealing with the um overall general fund you know situation being in the straight state that it's in right now.

Um but Ms.

Goodspeed, you know, after conversations with her during lunch, um, there's language in the ordinance, and she probably can speak to this better than I can, but there's language in the ordinance that allows for an alternative minimum calculation for the ramp up, again, based on the um state of the general fund.

So on this sheet here, her request initially was 945,000.

She's now willing to just uh request for about 700 and uh 25,000.

And so when you add all the requests up together, including uh Miss Goodspeed's reduced amount, we're talking about a total of about 1.77 million.

So that's basically uh it.

You probably want to hear from Ms.

Goodspeed, and if you wish to hear from the other side oversight agencies, you can, but I think I try to try my best to explain overall what's going on and what the requests are.

And Mr.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Johnson.

So I know that one of the things is that we are, you know, the the intent was to benchmark to the prior years um revenue.

I think this year's a great example of why that is not a workable fiscal solution.

If I benchmark to a year where I had more revenue and I'm trying to budget for a year where I now have less revenue, that leaves me pretty hamstrung.

How am I supposed to allocate resources using a baseline for calculation that does not match or comport with the revenues the city receives?

That does not make financial sense.

So we we simply cannot agree to go with a prior year revenue estimation because that's not how our revenue estimating process works.

Um the way that our budget processes work is dictated by state law when it comes to how we allocate our resources and how we estimate them.

State law controls that.

Regardless of the ordinance's intent, the state, the Home Rule City Act amendments of 2014 absolutely controls in this regard.

So Ms.

President, so make sure I understand.

So I think what Mr.

Johnson is saying, so for fiscal 2026, the estimated budget was 1,587,000.

So for fiscal 2026, the estimated budget was 1,587,000.

But based on the revenue conference coming out of February, that amount reduced and reduced by primarily by the um shortfall in corporate income tax revenue.

There was a cut in state revenue sharing.

So I think what Mr.

Johnson is saying is that that figure for 2026, if you're using it as a baseline, it's not a real realistic figure based on what actually is is going on.

Is that pretty much what you're saying?

So I I understand better their rationale.

Okay.

So I know Member Benson, you had requested this particular document.

Do you have any particular questions you wanted to raise as a result?

Um Mr.

Chair, what's point information?

What's line item are we on?

We're talking about the spreadsheet that was provided at your request for the oversight agencies.

I don't have any questions at this saying.

But I take more time to digest, basically.

Okay.

I do see a uh hand of member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, so as I look at the document that has been provided to us, um, can someone help me to understand the reduction amount in fiscal year 27's proposed budget because it it does not appear to be proportional just based on the amount that the uh various agencies are receiving.

So when I see a reduction of 82,000 for the Board of Ethics, who has the smallest budget of the four agencies, and then see a smaller reduction for the ombudsperson and the office of the inspector general.

Can somebody help me to understand that?

Because that that just does not look like it's proportional.

Um Mr.

Johnson.

Yes, uh, through the president to member Johnson.

Um, it is proportional in the total of the departmental budget.

So when we made the reductions, we did our best to keep their proportional share of the overall general fund to the same, roughly the same proportional share that they have in the current fiscal year.

So for example, um the Board of Ethics um constitutes in the current fiscal year 0.063 percent of the general fund, and in fiscal 27, they constitute 0.057% of the general fund.

The auditor general is currently 0.408% of the general fund, and in 23 they are 27, they are 3.393 percent.141% in the current fiscal year and 0.136 percent in in fiscal 27.

Inspector general, 0.157% in 26 and 0.153 percent in fiscal year 27.

So we roughly kept them close to the same within you know hundreds of a percent of the general fund year over year in terms of their overall budget, but they were there were reductions just as there were with any other department.

But we tried not to take reductions that would meaningfully take them down.

We also targeted reductions based on their spend rate um year over year.

So as I indicated, none of these oversight agencies spend their budgets in their entirety um in a fiscal year.

And since fiscal twenty-two, we have been increasing their budget year over year.

Um, in 20 fiscal twenty three, I would say since fiscal year 22, the um Board of Ethics budget has been increased by 79.8 percent since fiscal year 22.

The auditor general has been increased by 43.5 percent, ombudsman 74.3 percent, and inspector general 66.7 percent.

So we've been on a ramp up in their funding since fiscal year since the budget development process of fiscal year 23.

Um, and as we've increased their budget, they've not increased their spend in line with the increase to their baseline budget.

So we continue to have spend rates that you know they're not using all their resources.

So, similar to the same discussion we have when we're talking about let's say non-oversight agency budgets, and I will often chime in and say, you know, this I want to caution that adding you know a million dollars on top of a budget that's already being underspent each year on average by a million really just creates a two million dollar underspend in that upcoming fiscal year.

So adding money to an agency does not mean that agency can spend that money or will spend that money.

None of the oversight agencies have yet spent their entire allocation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Can I see any additional discussion with further discussion?

Member Benson?

I thank you for yourself to uh Mr.

Johnson.

So the conversation earlier was that they had spent but up to 91% of their budget.

We are not 91% of the way through the fiscal year.

So that would indicate that they as a burn rate are overspending.

Sorry, through uh through the chair to council member Benson.

No, I meant on their average spend rate over the last four fiscal years.

Okay.

Um so each fiscal year spend rate.

Um, sorry to be tedious, but um, you know, for example, Board of Ethics Fiscal 22, they spent 76 percent of their budget, 79.1 and 23, 70.3 and 24, 78.8 and 25.

Um, in 26, um, their run rate right now, all of them are on track to spend comparable to their 25 number.

I mean, none of them are on track right now to spend any more than their spend rate was in 25 based on their burn rate.

What was the highest percentage spin in 25 or 26?

Uh 25, excuse me.

25.

Uh that was the auditor general at 90.7 percent of their budget.

At the at the on June 30th, they spent 90 percent of their budget, 91%.

Yes, upon the closing of the books for 23 and the publishing of the audit, they had spent 90.7 percent of their budget for the last in 25, yeah, the last audit.

Okay.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Chair, and good afternoon, everyone.

Um, miss through yourself, Mr.

Chair, to um Mr.

Johnson, are you saying um that our revenues are down into this new fiscal year?

Do we know what that number is and what percentage through the chair?

And also, while you're looking for that information through the chair to you, Mr.

Johnson, you also indicated that all operating departments have taken reductions.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Through the chair, that is correct.

Okay, uh, we removed a number of vacant positions across the operating departments.

We removed contractual services dollars, we spent quite a lot of time reconciling and rationalizing the budget based on people's contractual spend rates and what they were actually uh managing to accomplish within a fiscal year, and so we made reductions based on that.

So, you know, if a department was always consistently spending only 60 percent of a particular budget item, we targeted that for a reduction.

We might not have taken all of the underspend, but we took a substantial portion of it because over the last few fiscal years, when we average it, they've never indicated that they could actually spend all the dollars.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Johnson.

Thank you.

And I will say that uh the general fund is down.

Um it's around uh so the recurring general fund revenues are down about about 800,000 dollars year over year.

Um number of other revenues are also down.

So this is our first, this is the first time our revenues have been lower than the prior year before.

Um, and in the current fiscal year, we continue to um project and we do expect to have a pretty sizable undercollection in the current fiscal year.

As we know, our municipal income tax, when I come to you with the monthly financial report every month, um, I continue to stress that our municipal income taxes, particularly corporate, continue to under underperform pretty substantially.

We're on track right now for a $56 million under collection on income taxes for the current fiscal year.

Okay, thank you.

So I know uh Mr.

Corey, you did indicate that um AG Goodspeed uh was available and they have uh a different perspective of what has been presented would like for us to uh promote her, allow her to uh have an opportunity to speak speech.

Hi, good afternoon, honorable city council members.

I do appreciate your allowing me to speak, and I will try to be brief and cover uh my request and the reasons why.

Uh the proportional funding ordinance went through two years almost of rigorous debate and language clarifying language with both the OCFO as well as the law department as well as LPD.

This honorable body passed that language.

The intent of it is that your oversight agencies would be proportionally funded, in proportion to what we agreed that the it would be the prior year the budget.

I understand the uh issues raised by Mr.

Johnson that our current budget is decreasing, which would mean that our next third year allocation, if we were to follow the proportional funding ordinance would decrease as well.

The intent was that your oversight agencies would be protected somewhat from the ebbs and the flows in the revenues so that we can accomplish what we have chartered to do.

The ordinance also allows several options for you, honorable city council.

One is that in situations like this, it does allow for you to ask for us to calculate an alternative minimum funding.

And if you can make that bigger, um, Renee, that would be great.

So as Mr.

Corley has indicated, my initial calculations was based on the ordinance as presented, because that's was my understanding of how we should uh proceed with our budget request.

Notwithstanding the current situation with the city and the decreases in revenue, which I'm kind of surprised that he says that the general fund revenues are down about eight hundred thousand dollars, yet my initial budget was cut two hundred thousand dollars of that.

Um I'm prepared to I have calculated what my alternative minimum would be according to the ordinance.

The ordinance says that we are to reduce our uh targeted amounts by 10 percent of the non-personnel, and so the 220,000 difference in what I originally presented represents roughly a 10% reduction in my non-personnel costs as well as one of the FTEs uh that would have been included in my ramp up.

Uh, I do want to speak, and so my current request is at 725,000, but please note that of that 725,000, 217,000 is to restore the reduction.

Originally, and I presented in my budget hearing, that reduction totally wiped out our uh training expenses that we're required.

Uh it wiped out one of the FTEs.

And so it would be challenging, if not impossible, for us to meet our goals and our responsibilities with that reduction.

I just want to speak briefly to Mr.

Johnson's uh record of our spend rate.

Yes, we are at 91%.

However, as and as I reported to you, we are on track to spend uh to to fully expand our budgets.

One of the things that we have been faced with over the last two years is the fact that 63% of our staff did not receive their general wage increases nor merit increases due to the ongoing negotiations uh with their bargaining units.

And so, as I've indicated, that contract was just ratified in December.

They are due some retroactive adjustments, and so we're still waiting to see what that full impact would be.

So that is one of the major reasons, if not the only reason, why we were not able, why we were underspending our budget.

You will find that it was in the personnel cost.

Um, with that, I just like to open it up to any questions, and uh I appreciate you hearing from me and understanding my request.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And uh seeing that we have uh allowed uh AG Goodspeed to uh provide uh commentary would also uh open up the floor to the other agencies as well briefly so that we will give them uh a chance to rebut if needed uh or confirm whichever is most appropriate.

Is it best to uh ask questions of the auditor general now be while we're waiting for the others?

Um I've got a question regarding looking at page Bravo 50 TAC 4 for the Auditor General's budget and positions by FTE.

The positions hold fast from the actual uh 20 FTE positions to 23 as adopted, but in 27, there's still proposed 23 positions.

There's no loss of a position as indicated by the auditor general.

Could she just please um elaborate so that I understand the conversation about a loss of an FTE versus what I see in the budget proposed budget?

Madam A.

G.

The proposed budget does does keep the FTEs at the same amount, but as I indicated in some of my responses, we're not sure that these the amount for personnel can be that the 23 FDTEs can be sustained by the same amounts in our salaries and wages.

And again, that is because of the unknown impact for the uh based on the ratification of the contracts and what those general wage increases and merit increases will look like.

We're still uh those uh some of those increases have just taken effect.

They're still being processed.

There are some issues with the calculations.

Uh I can put that out there.

And so I'm not sure how we would be able to keep the same 23 at the same amount that's in the mayor's proposed budget.

Okay, so basically, this is my edification.

The 217,000 reductions would not result in you being able to keep all your 23 FTEs, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

As far as from based on my calculation and looking at our budget, correct.

Okay, and just a quick drill down, just looking at salaries and wages.

There's a loss of about 12,000, which wouldn't necessitate the reduction of FTEs just based on salaries and wages.

Well, it wouldn't necessarily through the chair.

It wouldn't necessarily be end up in a reduction, but it would preclude us from perhaps that general wage increase and perhaps uh awarding our auditors with performance-based merit increases that are uh awarded to them in per their contract.

So then my takeaway, and I um I probably wouldn't disagree here, would be that you would not be able to provide a cost of living or a merit increase or bonuses for the staff who are performing well based on the proposed budget.

It may not result in the loss of a FTE, but people would not see a bump, which everybody likes a bump, and with inflation away it is, it's necessary.

Is that accurate?

That is accurate, but it's not just warning a bump.

I uh through the chair.

It's that for two years, and and it not only affects the auditors, for two years, there's about at least 1,400 of our employees that have not received anything, and so it's demoralizing.

It also impacts our ability to retain the level of skill for the auditors that we need in order to do these increasingly complex audits that we are required to do.

The other part of the 217,000 is as I mentioned, it totally wipes out our training budget.

That is totally unacceptable for us.

Our standards require us to provide at least 40 hours of CPEs.

Our auditors have to be uh trained and educated yearly in order for us to pass our peer review, which we have our third year peer review coming up in August.

And so for us to maintain our standards and and uh to maintain the requirements, we really need that training budget.

Okay, and and just last piece here, Mr.

Chair.

I don't mean to diminish the cost of living or other pay increases are all very important.

Uh and I uh honest days work for honest days pay is something that we should all expect and receive.

So I don't want to think I'm diminishing it, but just based on our own challenges as well, I've got to be realistic in how I look at increases.

Just thank you.

I understand.

Thank you again.

If I just I know not going back and forth, but the challenges that we faced in the office of the auditor general are similar challenges that you were here and you've heard that we faced with the appraisers in the office of the assessor, as well as some of the analysts and other IT technicians uh that provide services for the city of Detroit.

Mr.

Johnson.

Um thank you, Mr.

President.

So a couple of things here.

First, I'd like to note my my staff are also affected by the AFSME contract.

So they're in the same union.

So what I can assure you is we did not forget to budget for that in the budget.

So the Auditor General's staff, just like every other city's department staff, are budgeted fully for what they need to be paid, including merit, including union contract increases, including the general uh two percent COLA that applies to them.

Absolutely.

We do not submit a budget that has not fully funded personnel.

That is not how we do business.

That would not be a balanced budget.

So they are fully funded.

Those staff members are fully funded.

They have the money needed for a full staff to go through the full fiscal year with no financial issues.

In terms of their spend rate for the current year, I will note the auditor general has four vacancies currently.

So they are not on track to spend their budget for the current fiscal year.

Um I will note the retro pay will hit in the current fiscal year for the contract negotiations.

It will not hit fiscal 27.

27 will just be standard based run rate at that point, and we've said already budgeted for it.

Um that means what does that mean?

What do you I'm sorry?

We you said that the numbers that the increase won't hit the fiscal 27.

It'll just go explain that to me, please.

Through the chair to council member Benson.

So um when union contracts are negotiated, in this case the AFSME master contract was negotiated.

Um it was negotiated that staff that were affected by the multiple years of no increases would receive retroactive pay.

Um that retroactive pay is provided as a lump sum.

That will happen in the current fiscal year.

So that retroactive pay does not put any pressure on fiscal year 27.

All retro paysable have been taken care of by the time we close fiscal year 26.

What's in 27 is just the new baseline run rate of their pay based on the union negotiation, which we already we budgeted for.

Because remember, one thing to remember is the Office of Budget is one of the parties to the union costing and negotiating.

So we know exactly what the labor tables are and we update them accordingly when we prepare the budget.

You did note that there was a reduction on part of their personnel budget.

That would be in the benefits, and that is because we had really good valuation results in our pension.

And so the fringe rate for all general city employees went down a little.

So the cost to the city of paying into the um this employer contribution for the pension went down a little because we had very good valuation results in the last um year.

So that would be why you saw that twelve thousand dollar reduction in the sort of personnel and fringe benefits categories is because of that savings there.

And that was citywide.

We did we did receive savings because of that that fringe rate reduction.

Thank you.

We'd now like to uh provide the oversight agencies an opportunity to speak, and I'll start with my right headed over to my left with um Ms.

Uh Phillips.

Good afternoon.

Thank you to this honorable body again.

Um Councilmember Johnson correctly pointed out that the Board of Ethics is the lowest funded oversight agency, and we had the we had more reduced from our uh fiscal year 2027 budget than the inspector general and the umbuds person, and it feels like um we are being punished for being physically prudent.

Um the 308,593 that was allocated for proportional funding for our first year, that is not an arbitrary number.

That number was to go to uh specific projects that we have implemented this past fiscal year, including our learning management system and hiring two new staff persons.

The deduction of eighty-two thousand dollars is untenable for my office.

How are we expected to pay two new staff persons and maintain a learning management system with a a reduction that will take us even less than our current year budget?

That it's impossible for us to maintain this and and continue to pay our staff.

We have not no one on our staff has received raises in the last two years.

And I'm not even going there, but I'm not discussing raises for the next fiscal year.

I'm talking about maintaining what we have right now, um, keeping the learning management system and being able to pay all of our staff and having enough money um to fund everything else in our budget.

It's it's impossible.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

Whitaker.

Uh, in light of the discussions that we have had regarding the Board of Ethics and the need for um legal assistance, uh the Board of Ethics and the Law Department and LPD have been in discussions about trying to meet the request that the Board of Ethics have voiced uh over the years, really, regarding the need for legal help.

And we would ask that at the end of the day, that monies be put in the budget to allow for the Board of Ethics to have a staff attorney.

And we're working through the language for that to bring to council.

Thank you.

And with the request for proportional funding, would that cover that particular individual?

I think we Mr.

President.

Yes, sir.

I think we have to discuss that with the Board of Ethics and the Budget Department probably after this meeting to determine whether or not this understand that Mr.

Johnson has spoken to is sufficient to cover, given the fact that they're facing the $82,000 cut.

I suggest that it probably won't.

And there may have to be some consideration for adding something to the budget to accommodate that.

But I think given that is uh the issue that I raised regarding the staff attorney has been discussed with the Board of Ethics and the Law Department.

We just haven't arrived at a at a uh position to bring to the council to resolve that outstanding issue, but it's probably going to necessitate some monies being added to the budget.

We just don't know how much at this point.

Thank you.

Um no, I I don't really have anything further to say uh say, but yes, the proportional funding ramp up for the three years is to eventually cover independent council.

Um but um the the money that we're requesting is to really just cover what we're trying to sustain right now, our learning management system and paying for two new staff members.

Um and eventually in our third year ramp up, we would begin discussions about um hiring our independent council.

And yes, we do have um a meeting set up with uh the law department and LPD next week to discuss a staff attorney.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Inspector Jones.

Yes, good afternoon uh to this honorable body.

Um it's kind of surreal.

I feel like we uh took a time machine uh back two years ago.

Um so I like the level set, so I'm not gonna specifically talk about the budget uh for the Office of Inspector General, but the process that this honorable body um took over the last two years and in passing uh proportional funding ordinance uh and the resolution that went with that.

Um last year you last April you all passed that um resolution, which set set out these figures.

One of the things that's not noted, we're talking proportionality um now, but we have not reached what we call our our uh total equitable uh fund, uh which is the target uh which council agreed to last year.

We div we decided or we volunteered to divide that over three years.

This is the second year.

Um we can all if you ask us why different monies weren't spent, um, you all know operating in the office that if if you can't find right staff member, then that position doesn't get filled as quickly as you want.

That contributes to that.

We have a plan, we've presented that during our presentation to council, how a proportional funding would would be spent.

Uh I would just ask that um so when when Mr.

Johnson talks about proportionality this year, it's unfair.

We've not gotten to our level set, which council agreed to with the figures in the ordinance in the resolution.

So I would just ask that council keeps his commitment um to these oversight agencies and get us to that point.

And at that point, the ordinance takes care of itself.

The resolution takes care of itself.

There is an AMF that if there is uh a fiscal issue, our budgets would be reduced.

But to give it to us now, we would all not be able to reach the level for us operating properly.

And we started underfunded.

Um I I've told that story.

I said I wouldn't talk about our office, but um I've told that story time and time again.

We came into existence during bankruptcy.

So I started this office with a budget of uh where B and the Inspector General at that time started a budget with 285,000.

And we incrementally over 12 years had to grow it where we have a symbolist of a working office of Inspector General.

But I think the ordinance was passed with giving oversight agencies the ability to operate without uh the umbrages of these type of discussions, and and we've devolved into talking about positions and and whatnot.

Um, all I would say is for council to give us an opportunity uh to get to that level set for us to do the job which the charter requires us to do.

Humbly.

Thank you.

Gentlemen Button.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Uh and this honorable body um ask for patience uh with me with trying to break this down um in in somewhat of layman's terms.

I'm I'm in a very precarious situation.

Uh I'm thankful for all of you who helped to appoint me.

Uh and I took the seat on October the 6th.

I made a commitment, even when some of your members asked me, so do you have your team?

I said it would be irresponsible for me to come into an environment and unseat all the staff members that are there without even understanding the structure, how the office functions, um, etc.

There was no institutional memory, no book, no guidance, no notes, no blueprint uh in my office.

And I just want you to know from my perspective what had to happen.

On October 6th, I took the seat.

Uh on October 7th or 8th, I received the Rachel Woods email from assistant doc director of OCFO saying your budget is due on Thursday.

And I was like, what budget?

Uh it was very difficult for us to kind of pull it together, but myself and my chief of staff started scrambling trying to figure everything out, and I had to come become a quick study of understanding this.

I sat down with the oversight um uh my colleagues to try to even come up to speed with the April 8th ordinance.

Now that I do understand.

Uh and so once I understood that basically that there was a payment plan to bring all of the oversight agencies uh to equitable funding over the term of four years.

I'm like, okay.

So my increment in that was the 314, uh 752.

So I understood that uh to be.

I did watch the budget hearings last year, and I do remember at one point that there was almost a commitment of 18 staff members, uh, but then it was reconciled to being 15.

Um and I just want to point out um member Johnson lifted up proportionality with respect to um staffing allocations, but I don't think that is the intent or understanding of what the ordinance pointed out.

So I want to just we're talking the differences here, apples and oranges, the proportionality with respect to bringing us to equitable funding versus now the staff persons, which doesn't look equitable.

Uh and in this construct, I am losing or would be losing one staff person.

For me to have been in this role, I had to first do an audit, and I I promised to listen for 90 days.

And actually, it went to 175 days uh of listing and meeting with department heads, meeting with staff individually to understand what role uh were you hired for, what do you do, and just seeing a new construct of what I believe it would actually take to do this work.

Then in the audit to find 5,500 unclosed cases and then meet with department heads to understand well, why did we have so many cases that are not closed?

And I'm grateful that all department heads were willing to sit down, work together with us to make sure that we had shared smart sheets and the like.

We had to work with our vendor to restructure some of the the um the setup uh the structure of our dashboard, even with um our vendor that takes the complaints, and then to later find that we had 2,357 online submissions that have been existence since 2021 to now, and so I've come in almost like doge, if you will, and trying to understand everything that was taking place in the office.

So it would have been irresponsible for me to bring in and start hiring a bunch of people since I've been here.

I've kept the remaining staff uh and just recently transferred one, uh, but brought in only two staff members because I wanted to understand fully what the uh complement would be to our office, and so to take my take the ability away to now uh uh to stay on the trajectory that we're on with committing to do city council uh partnerships, department of neighborhood partnerships, the departmental partnerships, education stakeholders, legislative partnerships, that would be hard to do, uh, and it's not fair uh with just six months of being in this role, most of which was listening and fact-finding.

So I am very hopeful that I am given the opportunity uh because the years that was spoken of uh were not on my watch.

I've just only been here since October the 6th.

And so I would not dare bring in a bunch of staff people just to say we gave people jobs, but I want to make sure that we are clear, we are intentional, and we have a structure that meets the needs of Detroit residents, and so doing so, I am hopeful.

I have to say one more thing.

Uh I had to immediately restructure in just two days to restore training for our budget, um, as well as legal representation, which were both zeroed out.

And I'm grateful that we were able to do that, but um, I don't think that we should handle um the the intent of this office, uh, you know, kind of like a jigsaw puzzle of trying to figure out where you can cut to do what we were tasked to do by the charter.

So I am hopeful that you will understand um uh the position that I'm in, but all of the oversight agencies, we're not asking for a number that is higher than what was promised by the April 8th resolution.

I think that is where we are all in sync for the most part, minus one.

Uh so I'm hopeful that we can get to the place where we do uh stay on the payment plan, if you will, that was committed to by the resolution, which is the proportional funding resolution.

So thank you again uh for hearing um our concern and explanation to the issues that we're faced with today with proportional funding.

Thank you.

And I'll open up for questions for oversight agencies, and then we'll get back to Mr.

Uh Corley, and we'll go through the rest of the agenda for today.

Um, Member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, thank you all for the additional information.

Um, I do just want to correct Madame Ombudsman.

So I asked about proportional funding as it relates to the Board of Ethics.

I didn't relate it to the number of staff members that you all have, but I'm curious to know what Mr.

Johnson pointed out, the percentage on average, the percentage of your budget that you all spend um on an annual basis.

And and you may not know the answer to that now.

Um, if if you can go back and look at perhaps the last four years since I've been here to just kind of indicate what your um allotted budget funding was and how much you spent, that would be really helpful.

Um, as you all know, I'm sure you've all been listening to our budget hearings, and when I look at this document or everything that's been put into executive session, there is very little as it relates to funding that we are asking for now because of the the conversations that we've had with the administration.

Um, and while we appreciate everything that was put into the into the budget, there are still things that we identify within the community that we would like to see addressed that we believe is extremely important to be addressed, right?

And so now we're going through this back and forth with the administration, trying to figure out where we can push, how we push to add some additional funding to address the priorities that we have and that we see.

And so I think it would be very helpful for me if you all can provide what percentage um of your budget, and if there is anything that may be an anomaly that says, you know, we didn't spend um a hundred percent of our budget this particular year for any particular reason, that would be helpful as well because I'm trying to crunch numbers.

I've created my own little spreadsheet here, trying to crunch numbers to come up with a happy medium.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Mr.

Hodanji.

Just real briefly, we can definitely do that uh through the chair uh to member Johnson.

But I just want to point out that the whole being of the ordinance kind of speaks to what you just spoke to, is that the administration will always have priorities.

Council will always have priorities that are quite frankly sexier than funding oversight.

And it is that is the very reason why the charter said that you gotta have this ordinance in there to make sure that they're funded properly.

Um so this doesn't slip as a priority.

I don't know if we can win a priority conversation.

Um, but I think that's why the charter uh demanded a uh proportional funding ordinance to make sure they were funded properly.

Uh but we can definitely provide the information that you've asked for.

Okay, approach him young.

Mr.

Johnson, uh, correct me if I get this right.

You said that we're headed for $54 million income tax loss.

Oh sorry.

Mr.

Johnson, sorry, correct me if I get this right.

You said we're headed for $54 million income tax loss this year.

Is that correct?

Through the chair, yes, uh, $56.2 million is our current projection for our lost revenues in the current fiscal year.

Okay.

And then from my understanding, this budget is the bare bones budget, right?

This is just what you were promised via proportional funding.

I heard about um legal representation.

That that's not included in this.

I I I heard the uh auditor general talking about giving people uh get their staff pay raises.

That's not included in this, right?

Uh through the chair to to Per Tim Young.

Um so all of the all of the oversight agencies staffing are fully funded.

They are fully funded to include all expected raises based on union negotiations based on the general cola that is awarded each year of two percent and any other no escalators.

We also include a merit factor.

So if the oversight agencies wish to give merit raises to their staff, that is part of our staffing budget calculation every fiscal year.

We already take into account union negotiations, cola and merit.

That is an assumption in the budget for that.

Every single agency, including the oversights, are funded fully for their staff.

We would never underfund staffing.

That is not the case.

So I I oh so I'm assuming people from the agencies are disputing that statement.

Correct, that you are not fully funded.

That's why we're having this discussion.

Correct?

Through the chair.

Um no, we're we're not saying that um, well, they had did reduce our budgets on top of that.

We're saying that a year ago, council voted on and approved an ordinance with a resolution um stating that one, the oversight agencies had historically been underfunded.

Um we presented, each of our agencies presented a plan with what our agencies should look like and the corresponding dollar amounts to that.

All of those added staff.

Uh, we we just need to did not have enough staff to properly do the job.

Our whole budget presentation was about what we've done with the with the additional money in year one and what we would do in year two.

So we're not saying that um that for what we have now we're underfunded.

We're saying that we believe that council made a promise based on that ordinance and that resolution, so we can grow our agencies not beyond where we need to be, but just to get to where we need to be and operate at at a a level of sufficiency that we've never been able to do.

So this is not an issue of you not having enough funds.

What you're saying is this is an issue of us not adhering to the promises that according to what you're saying originally the proportional funding or this was supposed to fulfill.

Yep.

So if we don't pass what you're asking us here, you will be able to operate.

That's that's that's that's basically what I'm trying to get to.

You will be able to operate.

What you're saying is you won't be able to operate at your optimum level at your maximum level or above average.

And do we have some metrics?

Do we have some like a total uh factor production for that?

Relative strength index, uh, you know, some measurements for me to be able to look over that to solidify.

But look, yeah, this is why artificial intelligence is important, but you know, I would really like to just know that.

Through the chair.

We we provided all of that last year when you voted on the ordinance and the resolution.

We we can definitely provide you that information and provide it again.

But that's that that is the operation that we undertook last year before this body laying out what how many staff we would need to get there, and each of us had a dollar amount in a percentage that would ultimately go to the budget, and we're not there yet.

And and we've made plans um to to get there so we can operate.

So I guess when when you ask, are we sufficient?

My answer would be no.

We are operating with less than sufficiency.

Right.

That's that's why we needed the ordinance, and that's why we needed the resolution.

And let me be clear.

I'm not talking about uh oh, I promise I'll make it quick and I'll get to you.

I would never try to cut you off.

Uh just what we're gonna do is you always you always stop?

No, no, no, no, no.

I can't.

You can have a question.

So we're gonna go to we're gonna allow you to continue your line of questioning.

I know that um AG Goodspeed had something she wanted to offer as well.

Then we're gonna go to member Callaway, and then we're gonna start to wrap this portion of the day up so we can move again further into our spreadsheet.

So, Pro Tim, you have the floor remaining.

Uh, and then we'll go again to AG Goodspeed, then member countless.

Okay, yeah, because I understand what you're saying, and that makes this term staff, but I'm not talking about Juran Stay, we're talking about actual in terms of are you doing more with less that you've been given?

And those are the metrics that I'm referring to.

I'll send it to you uh because I really don't want to get into that.

But I just wanted to say, because I'm looking at some of this stuff, and it seems that your budgets have been underspent in some areas.

And normally I wouldn't have a problem because of the work that you do, but when we're talking about a $54 million decrease in funds, I think that we need to be able to spend those dollars as much as we possibly can.

I understand the issue that you have with the law department, and I and I'm not saying that they're not legit, it is.

I just I just do not think it's appropriate, and I think it's gonna be a slippery slope.

If people start getting their own corporate own council legally, we have a corporation council for a lot of things.

If you want to talk about reforms to the to the to the system and reforms to the department, I totally agree with you, and I'll look it up and send you stuff.

We could trade notes, but having people get their own lawyers and lawyer up, I think that's wrong.

That's a bad move.

I don't support that, especially now in this particular time.

Um I also just wanted to say really quickly, uh Mr.

Johnson.

Um hypothetically according to you, I'm I'm not saying anybody is right or wrong here.

It's just I just trying to get all the facts here.

So according to you, let's let's say we did approve everything that they're asking for to the letter.

What impact does that have on the budget?

Would we have to start making cuts to the budget?

What does that look like?

Uh through the chair to Pro Tim Young, yes, we would need to make about two million dollars of recurring cuts to the budget.

So we would need to identify which services the city is going to reduce or eliminate.

And how many layoffs is that FTEs we would try?

I mean, to be honest, we would try to avoid anything that would affect staffing, but it would certainly affect programmatic dollars.

Um so it would be a matter of deciding, you know, do we reduce recreation?

Do we reduce um, you know, uh police, like you know, where do we reduce the operations of the city?

Supplies as well, right?

Supplies, I mean consumption.

Not just bodies.

I mean, I just absolutely fire and safety.

Exactly.

We would be but but to your point, Mr.

President, the two largest budgets in the city are police and fire.

So they're generally the place we would go.

We would always focus on non-personnel expenses first.

We we're never looking to to create a layoff situation.

And do we have uh and do we have an analysis of what the impact would be economically?

You know, you know, every time unemployment goes up by one percent, you know, nationally, 30 to 40,000 people die.

It's like I think it's like uh 60,500 here in the city of Detroit, according to estimates.

So we we are talking about life and death here.

Well, um I I don't know that I would quite frame it as life and death.

I think I would I think I think I would more frame it as um, I am that's why I said it.

I don't know, I don't know what the economic impact would be um uh of that kind of action.

I just know that it it would it would certainly have an impact on the services we're able to deliver as a city because we would have to choose which services we're going to cut in order to do this instead.

All right, thank you.

I'm done.

Thank you.

Uh AG goodspeed.

Hi, thank you.

Uh, and through the chair to Pro Tim Young.

Uh two things I want to point out.

One is that you asked us a very in-depth question, and that is to provide you with information as to the impact of our recommendations in terms of potential cost savings and or cost recovery.

I think I provided you.

All right, tell her to send it to me.

So we're gonna allow her system to weep back up and she come up there.

She is.

She's just going too.

Yes.

Where uh we've identified many areas where you just speak.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Can you hear me?

We couldn't.

You you you froze up after you were uh making note of a document that you had either were or had sent to Pro Tim.

In response to his budget questions, we provided you with a document.

I think there's about eight pages of details for uh based on our recommendations from our audits from 2022 to the most recent one, uh the citywide payroll audit, which comes before the BFA next week, where we've identified millions of dollars in this time I can say millions of dollars in potential cost of recovery and or savings that could occur within the city if our recommendations are implemented.

Um so that's one point I want to make that the work that we do can identify money within the budget if those recommendations are put into effect.

And secondly, just going back, and I don't want to go back with uh Mr.

Johnson about it, but tell me how can a salary budget fiscal year 26 for 20 23 FTEs remain the same or actually $7,000 less in the proposed budget, but yet you're saying the next year proposed budget does include at minimum the two percent general wage increases that those uh bargaining unit uh members are entitled to.

So I that math just does not make sense to me.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh member Callaway.

Oh, thank you so much, Mr.

Chair.

Um through yourself to Mr.

Johnson, can you repeat that figure again?

I think you said 56 point two is what?

A loss of what?

Through the chair to Councilmember Callaway, uh 56.2 is the loss in our municipal tax uh municipal income tax revenue in the current fiscal year.

Okay.

In fact, I would note that we had to establish a special reserve in order to absorb this hit in our revenues.

I will also note that we took about I think a four million dollar cut in our state revenue sharing, both statutory and constitutional in the current state budget.

So our revenues are down across the board in the current fiscal year and the next fiscal year.

Thank you.

Um through the chair to you, thank you, Mr.

Johnson.

This is a very serious matter.

Um we we want um to keep promises, um, promises made, promises kept, but a year ago, yes, a year ago is not what we're dealing with today.

What happened a year ago is different today.

It's different today.

Our our revenues are down.

They weren't down the way they are today, yesterday or last year this time.

They just weren't.

We have an entirely different administration.

We have a different makeup of the city council.

We have to take all of that into account.

If the revenues aren't there, they aren't there.

And it's a hard pill to swallow, but we all have to swallow it together.

So we don't have to file for bankruptcy.

Additionally, and and all the operating departments have taken reductions.

And it wouldn't be fair to have all the other operating departments to take reductions, and we set aside a few that don't, who haven't even spent their budget.

They haven't even spent their budget.

So I would say, like my mother would say, you're not gonna get anything else to eat until you've eaten what's on your plate.

And that's from Mississippi.

Bless her, bless her memory.

But we can't give more when you haven't used what we've given you already.

That now that doesn't make sense to me.

That is not fiscally prudent or responsible.

So I I don't support it.

Um we got a new administration, we have a um a new makeup of this city council, and we are going to go into the new fiscal year, being fiscally prudent, and we gotta make cuts.

We gotta make reductions.

Everybody's making reductions.

And that's just my take on.

I've listened to what everybody said, but I gotta listen to the person who's dealing with the the budget from the administration, and then our um budget person, Mr.

Corley.

And the numbers are what they are, the numbers don't lie.

And so I I hope that we'll be responsible, which we are as a body, we're very frugal, we're very responsible.

And we have to make tough decisions, and these are gonna be some tough decisions, and we all have to swallow this pill.

It's difficult, but we gotta do it.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and thank you, Mr.

Johnson.

Thank you.

So I know Member I I did say I was going to end with Member Callaway, but Member Waters said she had a burning, burning, burning question she had to ask is it was burning.

So you gotta put out the five.

It is certainly quick.

Yes, ma'am.

Um, and and this uh it's going directly to the CFO, uh, Mr.

President.

I just want to um what was our loss in the what was the revenue sharing cut again from the state?

Uh through the chair to uh council member waters, I believe it's around four million dollars.

I'm not quite sure of the the split between statutory and revenue, but between the two, it totals around four million dollars.

Okay.

To the general fund.

All right.

So have you exhausted all of your vacant positions that you can roll in, and have you identified any duplication of services at all?

Uh through the chair to council member waters, yes and yes.

So when we prepared this budget, so I think a really important thing to note, and I think it it is salient to the conversation around the oversight agency budgets is we budget each department from the ground up every year.

So we establish a baseline proposed budget by taking the component parts of a department, recasting them, you know, determining what's working and what's not.

And as part of that, we look at their where there are maybe duplication of expenses across the city budget where there may be something I noted earlier.

If a department is consistently only spending 60% of a particular line item in their budget, I'm gonna circle back and go, well, first I'm taking 20% off the top, and then I'm gonna ask you, do you even need that other 20%?

Um is this a place where I can find savings?

Um, in terms of savings from vacancies, yes, we took a lot of vacancies out of the budget for this fiscal year, uh 27, I should say.

Um, and so a lot of departments are sorely disappointed, and I can assure you that uh my office um receives that feedback quite strenuously from the directors when we're on our side of the budget development process.

Um so a number of positions were removed in order to get this budget to balance by the time you know uh getting this budget to balance for 27 was and I have been doing this with the city for in the office of budget for almost nine years now with the city for uh almost eleven.

This was by far the hardest budget to close the gap because the the revenue losses were so uh I don't want to say unexpected, but we just never expected to hit a year where our revenues would actually go the other direction.

And so closing that gap and still accomplishing all of you know um the administration's goals to help Detroiters rise higher and and and get these investments out into the neighborhoods, it was very difficult to close the gap.

Very hard decisions were made.

Um it wasn't just on the backs of the oversight agencies or the city council or anybody, everybody had to bear a part of the burden, and it was unpleasant.

And it leaves me in a position that I do not enjoy um of being everyone's enemy for a period of time um because of these difficult decisions.

But as member Callaway indicated, these are difficult decisions we must make.

Um it is simply the nature of our job in our respective roles as they are, and you know, I think what what sets us apart from many other cities is we have the courage to make them.

And let me just finally say, Mr.

President, that I had been warning departments year after year about those vacant positions.

If you need them, you better fill them.

If not, I mean I knew this would be the year that people would lose um those positions.

And so I I just wanted to point that out.

Every year people would come to us, Mr.

President, with four, five, seven, ten vacancies.

Well, if you didn't fill them, you didn't need them.

So and now what they say, the rooster comes home to roast chickens come home.

That one.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Thank you.

And so I know uh Mr.

Johnson, you indicated that you you're taking everybody off.

Uh and that either means that you're a jerk or you're doing the job right, right?

One or the other.

And I've learned that in life myself.

She said, let me think about it.

I didn't say that, that wasn't me.

I just amplified it.

Um so what I will say though is colleagues.

I mean, we've got to keep in mind, uh, while I do know that we do have a more uh uh streamlined, if you will, budget this year that we're working with.

Uh we did indicate in the resolution what our actions were going to be and how we were going to move.

So we we we're not making that making the decision, we're we're deliberating the entire budget.

This is a piece of it.

We don't have to make that decision right now.

Um, but we are uh being tasked to keep all this information in mind as we move forward.

But uh again, uh I don't want us to dismiss the fact that we did outline the way that we were going to move um year by year along the way, and that may be interpreted differently depending on who you talk to.

Um, but uh you know, similar to what uh the IG said, you know, your priors are never going to match, you know, the things that we're looking for.

But we do rely on these oversight agencies when it comes to uh the oversight.

We do rely on you when it comes to uh providing us with information that we don't necessarily have in front of us.

So uh as we execute our jobs, we've got to also keep that in mind to make sure that they're able to do uh their jobs to their fullest capacity.

And with that being said, we want to thank you all for joining us today, as well as uh AG Goodspeed online, and um we will be in touch as we move forward with this budget.

Thank you all.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, Mr.

Corley.

So, Mr.

President, in terms of our um revised second session space sheet, does council want me to include the current requests from the oversight agencies to put them down, right?

We did not remove them off the list yet.

Okay, so Mr.

President, if we can go to the issue of Board of Zoning Appeals, and hopefully uh Mr.

Ribbon can be um included.

Just want to get that issue.

Is uh Mr.

Riberon available team?

Oh yeah.

If so, we can uh promote him.

All right, good afternoon, sir.

Thanks for being here.

Uh council members.

All right, we were told you had some information you wanted to offer to us.

I know we've been kind of discussing this issue uh from our perspective, but it sounds like you may have some insight on either some new legislation or uh new opportunities to address the concern uh that has been brought before us.

The floor is yours.

Thank you, council members, uh council president, council members.

Uh, took two issues.

Uh, number one related to the BZA court reporter services contract on February 19th.

Um, I sent an email to the Office of Contracting and Procurement uh asking for a cancellation for convenience of the report court reporter services contract and a request for rebid.

Uh I am currently waiting for a response to that um request.

Uh, but I did want to uh let you know that uh I am taking action on that court reporter services contract.

Again, that was February 19th, 2026, when I sent that request, and I am still waiting for follow-up on that.

Uh the second issue is related to before we go, before we move off of that one, just because I'm not sure what the time frame typically is for a process like that to take place.

I mean, we're here now here in budget.

If that request was made, you said February 26th, is it uncommon that you and Mr.

Johnson, you may not know.

Uh I I'm not sure, but you may.

Is that uncommon to to have this process without lack of a knowledge myself and context drag out from February 26th to now still not having any response?

Um through uh to the chair.

Um uh I would say if we only just terminated the contract, if we if the formal legal termination only went through toward the end of February, then the timeline run right now is still pretty standard for our procurement process of going to bid and and having it out for we usually try to have bids out for around two weeks, sometimes three, depending on the service and how hard we might have to shake the bushes to try to get people to bid on certain services.

Um so I would say we're still within a pretty normal procurement timeline right now, but I do want to make sure to note that you know we we certainly wouldn't have cut, we didn't cut anything from um uh from uh the BZA budget related to this service.

The the the funding is still in place, it's just the vendor will change.

Um, but the funding for this is definitely still in place.

We we certainly want to continue to ensure that they can provide that service.

Okay.

Um Director Ribron, that's that comport with your information uh is on your end?

That's correct.

The court reporter services have not been impacted.

I'm only trying to um deal with reducing the cost of the transcript itself.

Okay, but you're you're you're currently awaiting feedback from uh procurement, correct?

It's correct.

Okay.

All right, you may proceed.

Oh with a point of clarify clarification, uh, point of information, rather.

I'm sorry.

Member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So, in regards to that point, though, doesn't the contract include the uh transcript and the cost of the transcript within the yeah, that's that's my question.

Doesn't the contract include the cost of the transcript?

So hold on one second, Mr.

Rembrandt.

Let's let her finish the statement, please.

And if that is the case, how is it that um the contract amount?

I thought you just indicated would not change if you are negotiating the amount for the transcript.

Mr.

Ribround.

Let me let me correct um my statement is that the current contract will not be impacted uh because the it has not been reduced.

Uh so we will continue with the current six dollars and seventy-five cents per page cost until uh I am able to work with procurement to uh rebid this contract.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Cheer.

Uh and and Mr.

Mr.

Johnson, Mr.

Johnson.

So it has not been rebid at this point, or is it out for bid?

Uh Mr.

President, I that I do not that I'm not aware of.

I don't know the size of it.

I would have to talk to um uh Sandra uh Ustall and get a clarification on that.

Okay, thank you.

Member Kelloway.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Chair.

Six dollars and how many, and what changed through you, Mr.

Chair to Mr.

Johnson?

How much are they charging per page or to Mr.

Ribro?

Whoever can answer that.

75 per page, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

That's a lot of money through the chair to you, Mr.

Ribros.

It's not, I know you're not setting that rate, but six dollars and seventy-five cents for one page of information.

That sounds like that's part of the reason why he's looking to avoid this contract.

Okay, so to thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So to Mr.

Johnson through the chair, is there um some money that we can find or funding that would help for people who are experiencing a hardship and just don't have the money, but are requesting the information?

What 10, 15,000 until the contract is rebid.

Because that's one of the big through the chair to Mr.

to Mr.

Johnson.

That's one of the biggest complaints that we get.

It's about the um the amount um that they're being charged for one piece of paper they picked that they already paid for in the first place with taxpayer dollars.

So we're actually, and they pay for the ink, they're paying for the printing of it, and they're paying for the paper.

So we're charging them again for something they've already paid for.

And six dollars and seventy-five cents is a lot of money.

It would be a lot of money for me.

So thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Before we go down that line of question, we wanted to give Mr.

Ribron an opportunity to fully uh flush out what he came to tell us.

I said that was just a piece of it.

Maybe more.

Okay.

Mr.

Chairman, the uh second issue is related uh to the transcripts and the responsibility.

I I just wanted to uh make sure that the board that the council members understood this.

Section 50-26 of the city code states that the border zoning appeals shall cause a record of its proceedings to be prepared, which includes a stenographic record.

We interpret this to mean that the city is required to ensure that the record is created.

Individuals have argued that the code requires that the city to purchase the transcript and make them available to the public for free, which would require the city to purchase and store every transcript of every appeal.

This language could be clarified to reflect that the position.

While the city must ensure that the record is prepared, the appellant is responsible for purchasing the transcript.

Additionally, the requirement of a stenographic referen record is imposed by city code, not the enabling act.

Uh we uh the the enabling act requires that a BZA decision must be based on competent material and substantive evidence on the record.

The Michigan Court of Appeals has held that there is no requirement for a verbatim transcript in order for a record to be sufficient for judicial review.

Uh so I wanted that to be uh clarified that the courts have said that there's no requirement, but through this process of working with the court reporter to ensure that a a uh transcript is available, that is the reason we have that process in place.

And finally, uh I am working with uh IT and media services to uh ensure that the BZA Zoom recordings, which are not official, are made available to the public.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

So I know uh I did remember Calibury did have a question on the on the floor.

Um Mr.

Johnson, I don't want to bypass my colleague.

Uh I don't know.

If you're gonna restate the question.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So the question was the amount that the um taxpayers are being charged, the 675 per page.

And I don't know if you can answer that because I think it went through a contract process.

So I don't know, Mr.

Chair, I don't even know if Mr.

Johnson even knows what what the specifications are in the contract.

Um I through the chair to Councilmember Calloway, I think building off of what Director Ribron was uh has said, um, I think when we rebid the contract, part of that rebid process is going to find a vendor that is not going to pass through that much cost to us.

I think that's really what we're gonna have to really drill down to with all of the bidders is say you can't you need to find a way to to charge us a lower amount so that we can charge a lower amount because really what Director Ribron is having to do is he's having to pass through the expensive cost from the vendor in order for us to recoup that expensive cost.

And so I think as we go through that bid process, I you know I know he's very committed to uh making sure we find a vendor that brings more reasonable pricing on their per page amount so that we can create more reasonable pricing.

You had asked um as well about um could we create a fund of some kind to help folks who maybe do have a hardship?

Um it's something we could look at.

I wouldn't be comfortable setting aside dollars for it yet.

I think I need to talk to the law department, I need to talk to Director Ribron.

I think there's some questions around that, how we would set it up and how you know access would be um mediated to it, like how would people qualify and and would there be an application process?

There's a lot of logistics around it.

So it's a it's an it's a good idea, it's a neat idea.

I just don't think it's actionable yet, but it's something that I think that's the kind of thing that I would I I would think would be a great um closing resolution item to say let's have this conversation and let's figure out if this is an area where we could have a hardship um process um for folks.

Thank you, Mr.

John.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Um Member McCampbell, followed by Member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, so I have moved a part moved um to executive session on this topic on the transcript cost.

Um my original uh point was about the court record court reporters across our city government.

So I have a few questions on that.

Do we know how many contracts exist right now for court recorders for the city or court reporters?

Either Mr.

Brynbron or Mr.

Johnson.

That's Mr.

Ribbron would know at all.

Yeah, um the chair to council member McCampbell.

Um, you know, I obviously Mr.

Ribron has a contract for for stenography services um and transcript services.

Um I don't know.

I I would have to go back and have a conversation with um director you stall in procurement and find out you know how many other places we may have that.

Uh presumably we do.

There are other entities that are required to maintain transcripts and things like that.

So um I can definitely get that information and get it to you.

Thank you.

That would be helpful because I'm also like as I thank you, Director Ribron, for um their action on the contract.

But I'm thinking if we are having if we can have a contract that has more volume of uh the need for court reporting um and such court recording and such, um, we could bring down the cost in that way as well to have just one unified contract on that.

Um, but also uh for a question for Director Ribron, you say that uh the court of appeals has affirmed that uh officials uh transcript is not needed on appeals.

Knowing that they have held that when in your experience that we've seen folks go to appeal, and have we seen anyone without that official transcript?

And if so, have we seen that appeal be successful?

Mr.

Ribron, uh Director Ribron.

Up to the Chair, the cases that we are having the issue with related to transcripts are the community appeals, and those are the community groups.

Um and they are all in court right now uh fighting the issue of whether they should be required to obtain a transcript or not.

So just so just to follow up, so just so I have the correct it the lack of a transcript is becoming an issue in court.

Uh yes, because it's the appellants' response responsibility if they are bringing a case or suing, it is their responsibility to maintain an official transcript.

And uh again, that cost can't be prohibitive, but the rules do require that an official transcript be required.

Okay, I guess I misunderstood that because uh it was my it was my understanding that you have said that the appeals court had affirmed that they did not need an official transcript, but they do need an official transcript on this.

I'm reading from the uh the Michigan Court of Appeals has held that there is no requirement for a verbatim transcript in order for the record to be sufficient for judicial review.

And this is um Swan Wow versus brewer 225 Michigan APP 26, 1997.

Um I would also suggest that we may want to ask for uh an official opinion of this from the law department so that we all understand what these technical terms mean and how they apply to uh the BZA.

Thank you, Director.

I will definitely follow up with that request for the law department um in a memo forum.

Uh that is the end of my questions for now, Mr.

Chair.

But I I still want to keep this item pinned, but I know this is a wider discussion, but that's the end of my question.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, Mr.

Corley.

Okay, so uh Mr.

President, so the item that we're still keeping pinned is line 210 on page 15.

I want to make sure I'm clear.

That's the one.

Okay, so we're keeping that pin.

Um and uh I wonder, Mr.

President, uh line to 11 with the entire BZ budget.

Um Benson, do you still want to keep that pen or prepare for a motion?

All right, member Benson.

Thank you.

Having had conversations with the administration as well as Mr.

Ribron, my motion is for ten thousand dollars to be added to the training for BZA, and I will request a closing resolution after this motion.

Umber Benson, is that one time?

Uh recurring reoccurring.

All right, colleagues, there's a motion for 10,000 dollars reoccurring uh for line item 21.

Any objections seeing none, that action shall be taken.

Mr.

Chair, motion to a closing resolution to encourage the administration to fund the lost FTE uh moving forward for the fiscal year 2028 budget and forward.

Is that in BZA, sir?

Yes, all right.

Colleagues, there's a motion on the floor for closing resolution language.

Any objections?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

Mr.

Corner Mr.

President, um also line item 212 is is BZA, and that was the community outreach review.

Uh potential incorporation to the community our reason ordinance.

That was pinned.

Um, I'm wondering does council member Johnson have any further on that or uh member Johnson?

Uh 212.

212.

Page 15.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, I don't have an update as of yet.

I just wanted to make sure that member Miller and um her desires were included within um how we move forward.

So I'm not certain I have to follow up with the team, so if we can keep that pinned for now.

Okay.

Okay.

Um, are there any other pinned items that can't be resolved right now?

Yes, I will like to for line item one fifty-seven, return back to it.

And that is the be next program.

Uh would like to I know yes, either yesterday or today.

I'm losing it.

I think it may have been yesterday that where I changed the closing resolution language to simply retain the funds.

I actually would like to return back to my original language that I had here to increase the budget uh by one million dollars to the be next program.

Um would like to uh uh move one million dollars in general fund one-time funding for that particular program.

Uh this is one fifty-seven, colleagues, one fifty-seven page 11.

Discussion with discussion, member Benson.

But first, can I get a motion, colleagues?

Motion.

Thank you.

Uh with discussion, member Benson.

And just so I'm clear, so increase by one million dollars, and you added a source of that in the conversation?

No, I will have a source though.

Yes, sir.

But it's general fund one time.

Okay.

Yes, sir.

Are there any objections?

Discussion.

With further discussion, member McCampbell.

Just uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Just want to say uh support this.

I know it's just an um uh I'll join you on I know it's symbolic, but I'll join you on the well technically is not symbolic because we did our staffs did work together to uh create a program where we're right next to each other and uh instead of uh recreating the wheel, we would be um expanding uh into district seven as well.

So that additional five hundred thousand would assist with that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, there's a motion.

Uh I think we approved that one, didn't we?

Motion on the floor, any objections?

Hearing none, that action shall be taken.

Uh and we'll have some additional closing resolution language that it will clarify uh how this would work out.

So um Mr.

Chair, um discussion, member Benson.

Does this now mean that line item 158 will be removed as we all combined into the million dollars?

That's where I was going next.

So, Member McCampbell, how do you want to handle uh line item 150 ahead?

I know we had discussed our our staffs have discussed this particular issue.

Um still want to keep it in closing resolution that way we can combine our closing results.

Yes, you wouldn't have one.

Um we can we can combine them, um Mr.

Chair.

So will there need to be a motion to send it to close a resolution?

Uh either that or remove or I mean or remove, seeing that we're gonna be working together on this particular item.

I re would like to do, sir.

Well, let's go ahead and motion to remove it.

Okay, colleagues, there's a motion to remove line item 158 from the agenda.

Of course, I heard uh discussion was that member just where would the with the closing resolution go?

Would that be in line item 157 or 157?

Okay.

So did we motion for a closing resolution 157?

So I did initially uh the other day.

All I'm doing is changing the language.

That's what it would be.

Okay, so then now in 157, there is approved money as well as approved closing resolution.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

So Mr.

President, of course, I um by removing this removing the 500,000 on line 158.

There's a and then we motion for one million dollars one time 157 for 157, yes, sir.

Okay, great.

Okay.

Are you any other?

Yeah, um pin items.

Um Mr King.

Mr.

Chair.

Did I not close that loop?

Close the loop, sir.

Close the loop, colleagues.

Any objections to adding one million dollars, one time general fund for 157.

See none, that action shall be taken.

Thank you.

Mr.

Corley.

Um sorry, any other membership.

Are there any other colleagues?

Uh member Johnson.

No.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So I'll start with line item 212.

Um, that we were just referring to.

We have gotten confirmation that um there is no additional funding that's needed.

So I'd like to make a motion to add this to the closing resolution, and we're working with member millers team um to just ensure that any language she'd like to include is included.

Okay.

Colleagues, there's a motion for closing resolution language for line item 212.

Any objections?

See none, that action shall be taken.

Um, Mr.

Chair, line item 15.

Line item 15 on structural and demolition, enhanced trash out services for boarded properties for potential sale, had conversations with the department, and they do not need any additional funding to do more trash outs.

So I would like to make a motion to add this to the closing resolution.

All right, colleagues, there's a motion to add closing resolution language to line item 15.

Any objections?

See none, that action shall be taken.

And Mr.

Chair, line item 17, complete a truck route study on the east side of the city of Detroit, particularly around fiat Chrysler and Stallantis.

I know there was another line item that was more citywide.

Um in communication with Director Brunditch, he did indicate that the department is able to do any truck traffic study.

Um if we can just identify where they we're requesting that they have the studies.

Um my team has already prepared the uh language for the closing resolution.

So I'm asking colleagues if you have specific areas in your district that you'd like to include, please let us know so that we can include it within the closing resolution language.

Um with that, I'll remove the pin and make a motion to add line item 17 to the closing resolution.

All right, colleagues, there's a motion to add closing resolution language to line item 17.

Any objections see none, that action shall be taken.

And member Johnson, just for clarification, uh is it you know one uh study per district?

Or is we talking potentially more studies if you have um uh busier routes in district fill in the blank?

So Director Brundage did indicate that they have received some feedback about um perhaps the larger industrial complexes throughout the city, uh Stellantis, FCA in particular, I believe um Amazon um and the um AMC coming online in district seven.

So if there are any others, there there was no finite amount or one per district or anything, but if there has already been challenges or concerns elevated by residents, if we could just identify those areas and get that to the department.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Corley.

Mr.

President, so for four line item 17.

I had a note that we were council was considering $300,000 one time, so we do not need that.

Uh motion to remove the dollar amount associated with line item 17.

There's a motion to remove the dollar amount that was discussed for line item 17.

That was uh 300,000 one time.

Yeah.

Any objections?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

Uh Pro Tim.

Thank you.

Um, I know there was a pin involving that Charles H right.

Find it here.

Give me a second.

Here we go.

Uh 120.

Or I want to move to I know I think we've already had $700,000 that I wanted to appropriate.

And I wanted to assign it to, I wanted to move to approve that.

And the source of funding that I have for it is line 233, is where it's decreased appropriation in City Detroit Capital Projects.

That's page B 47 15.

It says $12 million.

I was gonna reduce that to $11,300,000.

First, let's deal with the uh line item 120 on page nine.

Uh colleagues, there's a request for one-time general fund allocation uh for line item 120.

Oh, unless you have money in the general fund.

No, then they're mine.

Discussion with discussion.

Member Santiago Romero.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I what are we can you just repeat what the ask is again?

For 120?

The ask is to increase the budget by the additional 700,000 to result in three million three hundred thousand for operating support for the Charles H.

Wright Museum.

So it's 300 three, so it'll be overall three million three hundred thousand budget is going up from two million six hundred thousand.

So it's a seven hundred thousand difference.

So it's an increase to 700,000.

I'm asking for for Charles H.

Wright Museum for operating costs.

Yeah, one time.

All right, call it with further discussion, member Benson.

Now I support uh sending money to our cultural institutions.

When we talk about one-time operating support, are these salaries pro tem or is this energy gas bills, things of that nature?

Energy and gas bills.

Pro Tim.

That's our energy and gas bills.

This is for their operating budget.

But operating budget also includes salaries and stuff.

Right.

I that that you know what I could I could come back and confirm about salaries, but from my understanding, this is primarily about their operating costs.

This is about in their operating budget.

I'll take your word for it, then I'm there.

But no, but I can come back.

I we we could put we I could put a pin and come back and get some clarity.

I have no problem with that.

Let me look so so.

Let me just sit since I'm here, and this is like the last thing that I have pinned.

Yeah.

So just do it.

Just move forward.

You sure?

All right.

Uh motion to move forward line item.

Motion to approve line item 120.

There's a motion again on the floor, colleagues for um line item 120.

Any objections?

See none, then action shall be taken.

Ms.

President, yes, sir.

Proto.

I just wanted to uh uh to move two items to um close the resolution.

They are thank you, Ms.

President.

They are line item 218 uh to assign executive protection unit to the city clerk office.

I just talked to the police chief.

He said that they have two vacancies in the budget now, so this isn't needed.

So um I would like to make a mo, but I will say this, and I'll actually add this in the resolution as well.

But I like to make a motion to move or is it moved to approve line item 218 immediately?

Uh so move to approve line item 218 immediately.

Well, we wouldn't be able to do that because this is the budget, so um it would have to take place post uh this fiscal year.

Well, it's as soon as as soon as possible.

All right, but it's but closing resolution language.

So uh I'm sorry, I forgot.

Mr.

Johnson, this is based on the conversation that my staff had with you about this.

So you understand what I'm trying to say.

Okay.

But I think that that could be hashed out in the closing resolution language.

Yeah, I'm gonna do that too.

Um so colleagues, there's a motion for closing resolution language for line item two eighteen.

Any objections?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

And then Mr.

President.

Oh, go ahead.

Floor remains yours.

I was gonna say, Mr.

President, um, I'm gonna remove the $75,000.

Which line item for line item 221.

That's the that's the last line item.

That's uh for the uh that's for the budget for uh the office that's for the office of early learning to conduct a five-year impact study on the increasing the literacy rate to 75%.

Um they have a very robust budget, as I heard, uh the library department, and this will not be needed, but I will move this to closing resolution.

So um I would like to make a motion to move line item 221 to close the resolution.

So first let's uh remove the dollar amount.

Yeah, I'm sorry, I thought I did it already.

Uh motion to remove 775,000 dollars from line item 221.

Colleagues, there's a motion to remove a 75,000 dollars for one time general fund for line item two twenty-one.

Any objections?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken with uh discussion.

Wait, uh before we go to that, let's finish Pro Tim's item.

Pro Tim, I know you want to line item two twenty-one for closing resolution without that dollar amount.

Right.

Is there a motion?

Uh motion to move to approve line item.

No, motion move line two hundred and twenty-one to close the resolution.

The language for a closing resolution language for line item two twenty-one.

Any objections?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

Any further?

All right, uh member Benson.

Um, just going back to line item two eighteen.

I believe if you wanted to expedite that conversation, Pro Tim, a resolution could be written from this body to go to the chief of police, strongly urging an immediate implementation of EPU force.

Because right now I believe she received protection from DPD as well as the sheriff's office.

Pro two uh Mr.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Uh absolutely I totally agree.

I know I I think we've already pretty much written a closing resolution for this.

We're just kind of signed across the T's of Dotty I's, but I definitely could be able to write one for city council as well.

Uh I I think that's an excellent suggestion.

Uh member Benson, I said uh Mr.

Whitaker, did you?

You look like you trying to build a take it if you give us the make a motion and send us a note, we'd be happy to undertake to resolution.

Yes.

So uh I would also like to make a motion to send a resolution in the name of city council to uh to the police chief uh as well as uh the administration uh for the purposes of being able to have an executive protection unit staff assigned to the city clerk.

All right, colleagues, there's a motion on the floor for an assignment.

Any objections?

See none, that action shall be taken.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

That's all you collects.

Any additional items that we would like to unpin member Santiago Romero.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um for my items, the changes that I uh would like to make.

So I did go back just to make sure that's whatever we approved, um, would be used.

Uh I want to make sure that whatever we approve the administration will spend down.

Um the million dollars for Chinatown.

Really, this is for sidewalks.

It's Mr.

Santiago.

What number?

This is for uh line item 21.

21, thank you.

Item 21.

Uh uh, although it says Chinatown, it it's it's in Detroit.

It is cast corridor.

It is it is in our city, and it's for sidewalks, it's for what everyone needs.

Um it's it is just so sad and disappointing.

Um, let me really try to other ourselves and we shouldn't.

Um, so would like to add to closing resolution that we ensure those sidewalks are repaired with the eight million dollars that we already have for sidewalk repairs.

So, Mr.

President, this has already been approved, but really can remove can can motion to remove the one million dollars for item 21.

All right, colleagues, there's a motion to remove the one million dollar one-time amount for line item 21.

Any objections?

Discussion.

Uh with discussion.

Pro 10.

Is it too late for me to join you on this is just about the one million.

Oh okay.

Okay.

Any objections, colleagues?

Discussion with discussion.

No objection, just in that conversation around the sidewalks we've had already.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Line item 21, colleagues, motion on the floor to remove one million dollar one time.

Any objections?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

Member Santiago Romero.

Would you like to adjust your motion for the closing resolution language?

Yes, sir.

For 21, uh, we'll add to closing resolution that we do ensure the sidewalks are repaired.

Um, and this would be for the Peterborough Streetscape project um to support um with sidewalk improvements here.

And we'll send over that language.

Colleagues, there's a motion on the floor for closing resolution language for line item 21, amended closing resolution language for line item 21.

Um pro Tim Young.

I I just wanted to ask, um I'm assuming this is something that's also going to be built around or is going to include um Vince Chin and um what happened to him as part of this as well, and then after this, I would like to join you in this resolution.

So through the chair to Santiago Romero.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Through the chair to um member uh pro Tem.

Uh yes, this is um working on those efforts of us bringing back historic Chinatown because there were many many Chinese folks that were living in the city.

Um are you asking that you be included in the closing resolution about the investments of of the okay?

Sure, that's okay by us.

All right, colleagues.

There's a motion on the floor for closing resolution language again, amended closing resolution language for line item 21.

Any objections seeing none, that action shall be taken.

Mr.

President, Member Santiago Romero.

Thank you.

I have a few others that would like to go through.

Um the other would be for line item 61.

Uh look like excuse me, 69.

Line item 69.

This is under CRO.

And this is continued discussion around language access.

We'd like to add this to closing resolution.

Um in discussions with our director of one uh of CRIO, and we'll be in in the conversation with our incoming director for the Office of Immigrant Affairs around language access, um, but would like to add uh line item 69 to closing resolution.

All right, colleagues, there's a motion on the floor to add closing resolution language to line item 69.

Any objections?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

Member Santiago Romero.

Thank you, Mr.

Presidents would also like to add uh or discuss line item 130.

This is regarding the photography program here at K Mac.

Um, it did stop by uh the um the billing authority, and I do believe we can we can try to make this work, it just probably won't get done um in the immediate.

So we would like to move this to closing resolution for us to begin that process of uh figuring out how we can display um photography and and how we might be able to work with the DIA on this.

All right, colleagues is a motion for a closing resolution language for line item 130.

Any objections?

Seeing none, then action shall be taken.

Member Santiago Romero.

Thank you.

And would like to also through you, Mr.

President, to member Benson.

I did reach out to um our director of sustainability.

And um they would like to present their their budget to us if we have the time tomorrow.

If not, um there was nothing flagged of urgent need.

Um if anything, myself and the public.

I think we we have a lot of interest around this department and just want to know what its funding.

It doesn't, it's just one line item in the budget book.

Um, so if we could get that information for us to have a a clear picture, um uh that would be very helpful.

Uh but I think for now, this item.

Uh, but I think for now, this item, I'm comfortable with removing it.

What line item, ma'am?

This is 174, excuse me.

Item 174, and this is regarding the whole office of sustainability budget.

Okay.

Closing resolution language, ma'am.

I'm I'm okay with removing this.

Okay.

And I'm just checking with Member Benson if he had any questions or other motions.

Gotcha.

There's a motion on the floor with discussion.

Member Benson.

All right, thank you.

Um, through yourself to member.

We open to language, just urging the continued support of the Office of Sustainability.

That's not an office always been there.

And so I can make sure that we continue to support that.

If there's no money being added, that's fine.

But it's like to at least put language in the closing resolution that urges the administration to continue to support that office.

I'm so sorry, Member Benson.

I was reading a message.

Can you repeat?

Just looking for instead of uh removing adding language urging the continued support of that office because it's a relatively new office.

Uh through Santiago Romero.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Through you to Member Benson.

I I believe you also have a line about how to sustain the Office of Sustainability.

Can I join you on that and we can remove this line item?

Just for the discussion.

Where's that other Benson?

Where's the other line item?

175.

175.

That one is different.

Okay.

Sorry.

Oh, that's a different one.

It's about the actual fund.

That's about an actual fund.

Okay.

Okay.

So I'd like to keep yours and then add language to the CR saying continue urge continue support of the office.

Mr.

President.

Member Santiago Romero?

I'm okay with that.

All right.

Is there a motion?

Uh motion to uh move this to closing resolution.

As a motion for closing resolution language for line item 174, colleagues.

Any objections?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

Mr.

President.

Member Santiago Romero.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Would like to also move to closing resolution 177.

Um, and we'll add language um confirming uh that we repair the soccer fields uh with this with this incoming budget.

All right, colleagues, there is a request for excuse me, a motion for closing resolution language for line item 177.

Any objections?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

Member Santiago Romero.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Last thing that I have for now is for CRIO for language access.

Uh 67.

That's page five, I believe.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

For line item 67.

Uh, would like to reduce this number?

We have we had already approved 250.

Um, but after checking with the OCFO's office, um currently the Creole department utilizes around 200 each year for language access.

Uh there is a gap of 72,000 to bring us to 250 for this upcoming budget.

Uh so we'd like to make the amendment to reduce the 250 to 72,000.

Colleagues, there's a motion to reduce the 250,000 dollar reoccurring that we had approved earlier or discussed earlier to 72,000.

Uh for line item 67.

Are there any objections?

Discussion with discussion.

Member Benson.

I just needed to get to line item 67.

Okay, so from 250 to 75.

72.

72.

72.

Thank you.

All right.

Are there any objections, colleagues?

Seeing none, that action style be taken.

Member Santiago Romero.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

And again, that that takes up that takes us to 250.

We're gonna continue to work with CREO.

Um, really with the public, uh, we we have a lot of needs for language access.

Um we are going to look at the language line to make sure um that we have something that is working for us.

Uh we also need to really build out our programming for here in-house when it comes to translation, as we saw on Tuesday for for the budget hearing, someone had to translate for us.

I think that we can get to a point where we can use headsets um and have people staffed and ready for those major meetings so that we are ready for language translation.

Um and I know that when it comes to do our just our disabled community, we're supposed to also have heads in the auditorium for those that are hard of hearing.

So I wonder if we can use the headsets for both.

So those are discussions that we're having.

I'm just wanted to share because I know that there are people listening who are really pushing for us to do more for language accessibility.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any additional items that we would like to unpin this afternoon.

All right, member, I have some.

We're gonna start with member McCampbell, then we'll go to Member Benson, then we go to Member Waters.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Just want to um go back to line item number 81 related to do it.

Yes, sir.

I believe, and um, through you, Mr.

Chair to Mr.

Corley.

I believe we approved this by uh appended for uh the amount is that correct.

Yes, yes, yes, Mr.

President.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

And through you, mr.

Uh Mr.

Chair.

Um, I there will not be an amount needed for this.

Um we talked to um folks and do it, and it seems like they'll be able to do this without additional appropriation.

So we're good with just the close of resolution language.

So a motion to remove the amount here.

There's a motion to remove the general one time general one time general fund uh allocation to line item 81, colleagues.

Any objections seeing none, that action shall be taken.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Member McCampbell.

Uh okay, thank you.

And does that do you want to remove that item totally or do you are still closing resolution because right now closing resolution just the amount because I don't think we put this in closing resolution though.

Actually, okay.

Well, I will make that motion to add to close the resolution.

There's a motion to add closing resolution language to line item 81, colleagues.

Any objections?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

Thank you.

All right, member Benson, followed by Member Waters, followed by Member Callaway.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

Chair, line item number six motion to approve three hundred thousand dollars, which will incorporate three FTEs, which will include three FTEs, plus a the education program.

The three FTEs plus benefits will be two hundred and fifty-two fifty-three thousand dollars.

The education program will be 47,000 for a total of 300, and that will be funded by the construction fund.

So member Benson, initially, I believe we had uh 390,000 in there.

So do you want to amend you looking to amend that amount?

Okay, so it's looking to uh there's a motion to amend the amount of three hundred and ninety thousand to three hundred thousand dollars one-time or general uh recurrence.

Reoccurring reoccurring.

Any objections, colleagues with discussion, member Johnson.

Uh for clarity, which line item are we?

Line item six and through you, Mr.

President, to Member Benson.

What exactly is it for?

I heard you say three FTEs for this is code of Member Benson.

Code enforcement plus the plus member McCampbell and I agreed to combine combine number six and number nine to also incorporate education around code enforcement here.

And so this would pay for three FTEs plus the code enforcement supplies um education material to for the public here.

And line up number nine was removed.

Member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I I have an ask for BC, and I'm just trying to figure out whether or not that this can be incorporated within what you all are referring to, but I'm not sure what code enforcement education or education outreach is, what that looks like.

Member Benson.

Uh through yourself to Member McCampbell for a greater explanation.

All right, member McCampbell.

Thank you, uh, Mr.

Chair.

Uh through you to member uh member Johnson.

This was to um as I'm referenced the need of making sure that our residents know about uh the code and the need to for those around upkeeping their yards or um upkeeping their home because we're running to a lot of folks that may not know.

Member Johnson.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

All right, colleagues.

There's a motion on the floor for 300,000 dollars reoccurring for line item six.

Any objections?

See none, that action shall be taken.

Mr.

President.

Uh Ms.

Short, yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Um is um Mr.

Um sorry, Councilmember McCampbell.

Are you joining uh council member Benson on this item?

Um McCampbell, I believe.

I believe thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I believe we are we did uh action to join it um earlier on.

Yes.

Thank you.

Um with further discussion, Member Benson.

And just want to make sure this because this is both there's funding attached to both of these, so uh this one wouldn't be ceremonial, something similar to what uh the president and member McCampbell did.

Just FYI.

Okay.

All right.

Colleagues, are there any other motion?

Any other motions for unpinning?

Oh, I'm sorry.

I apologize.

I had a I had a cue.

I had a cue.

But before we go there, uh Mr.

Whittaker.

Uh are you were you intending to combine six and ten?

Was that the thought?

Six and nine.

Six and nine.

Yeah, we removed nine.

Okay.

Okay.

Um, Member McCampbell.

Yeah, so let me just clarify.

This was we removed nine earlier on and and combined, yes, six and ten.

That was the earlier action that we did when we discussed this.

Okay.

You okay, Mr.

Whitaker?

Okay.

Uh if he has issues, he'll you you okay with I guess.

Okay.

Feel free to chime in if needed.

Member Benson, floor is yours, sir.

Oh, uh, line item number one zero seven.

Conversation with Member Miller.

She's asking for the removal of the three point two million dollars and moving to closing resolution urging a budget for the distor the Detroit Historic District Society, which is different from the Detroit Historical Society.

Okay, so uh which number again?

107?

Line item 107.

Okay.

So your staff had a had an opportunity to speak with member miller staff.

Okay.

All right.

I spoke with her staff, excuse me, that's but staff.

Thank you, sir.

Uh, there is a motion to remove line item 107 from the agenda.

No, motion to move the 3.2 million dollars.

Oh, I'm sorry.

My apologies.

I missed that.

Miss Underheart misunderstood that.

There's a motion to move 3.2 million dollars to the Detroit Historical Society.

Again, that's line item 107.

Uh General One Time.

Um, for line on the 107.

Any objections, colleagues?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

Uh Ms.

Short, before we go to the vector.

Uh Councilmember Benson, sorry.

Uh, can you clarify the name of that group again?

Motion to move to closing resolution urging the administration to create a budget of 3.2 million dollars for the Detroit Historical District Society, which is different from the Detroit Historic Society.

So this is not for the actual funding, this is for the closing resolution language.

It was for the funding.

I removed that.

And now I'm putting this line item as a closing resolution item.

So what we should have been doing is removing the the funding for this period.

No, I I misunderstood it.

Okay.

I'm sorry.

So I I so just so I can be clear.

The motion for line item 107 from the very beginning.

Please restate, sir.

Motion to remove 3.2 million dollars from a reoccurring line item.

Okay.

Colleagues, there's a motion to remove 3.2 million dollars from reoccurring uh for line item 107.

Any objections?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

Now, Member Benson, I'm clear.

Motion to encourage the administration to create a budget of 3.2 million dollars for the Detroit Historical District Society.

Gotcha.

Which is not the historic society.

Yes, sir.

There's a motion on the floor for closing resolution language for line item 107, colleagues.

Any objections?

Hearing none, that action shall be taken.

Any further um pinning, and we'll go now to member waters.

All right, thank you.

Um Mr.

President.

I'm going back to line item 16.

Uh the retirees.

General um service retirees.

Yes, ma'am.

It was 16.

The correct number.

I was pretty good with that math, you guys.

1 million 962, 1348.

It's what came back from Mr.

Nagley.

Did you all receive um that sheet?

I think I gave it to all of my colleagues.

Yes, ma'am.

Can we round that to 197?

2 million.

Huh?

To one?

Uh to 193.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, 193 million.

That's my motion.

1.93.

1.93.

Yeah.

1.93.

Oh, yeah.

Oh my God.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes.

All right.

There's a there's a motion to because we had that item pinned, but there's a motion to amend the two million dollars for line item 16 to 1.93 million.

Any objections, colleagues?

See none.

That action shall be taken.

Okay, so that's amendments.

So now I need to I want to make a motion.

Is there a motion for line item 16?

That would uh replace the 1.9 excuse me, $2 million with 1.93 million dollars, colleagues.

Any objections?

See none that action shall be taken.

We we just did that one.

We want what we want to do.

What I want to do is make a motion to adopt it.

That's what I just did.

Well, not really.

You said to replace the number, that's what we did.

Now replaced the number first, and then I just read the actual item.

Oh, we did.

Okay.

All right, gotcha.

I I I it's not wondering.

Madam Clerk, or somebody tell me if I did it wrong.

Okay.

Mr.

President, that's one time.

One time.

Let me show yes, sir.

Yes.

Okay.

Member Waters, the floor remains yours.

All right, thank you.

And then if we could go to line item um 86, that will be the pilot program for defraud, which would be house and all department.

And it will be a two-year pilot.

250K per year for two years.

I believe that this would better protect um Detroiters with uh deed fraud.

I also sent my colleagues a copy of the pilot program as outlined by members uh Miller and I.

If you can see on this Waters and Miller, it's from the both of us.

So for clarification for me, uh can we do a two-year commitment?

Um, because it doesn't sound like it's reoccurring, but this looks like it's one time, so that's the only challenge I have.

Is that possible, Mr.

Quick?

Okay, all right.

Well, all right.

Recurring for two years.

That works, right?

Uh Mr.

Johnson further discussion.

Here we go.

The chair, I I would just note that the recurring budget is where we have the tightest thing.

So by calling this recurring, it would have to come out of other operations of the city in order to fund it.

So that's sort of my hesitation of calling it recurring.

Is I have a lot more flexibility on the one-time side of funding.

Okay, well member waters, would you be willing to do one year one year, one time, and put in the closing resolution two years?

And we'll again we're gonna have to come back again and that makes it a little cleaner for you.

We can do that.

Okay, and I'm just lost my place.

What number is that again?

Uh 86.

86.

Thank you.

All right, so there is a motion for 250,000 dollars, uh, one-time funding for line item 86.

Any objection, colleagues with discussion.

Member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, through you to member waters, can you just share a little bit more about what the program looks like?

Oh, okay.

You know, I gave you a copy of the whole thing.

You hand David.

Um, I think she provided yesterday.

Pass that down to her.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Member Ward.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Colleagues, there's a motion on the floor.

Any objections?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

Member Waters, you want to uh give the language for the closing resolution.

Oh, yes, please.

Thank you.

All right.

There's a motion.

There's a motion for closing resolution for line item 86, noting that it shall focus on a two-year commitment as opposed to one.

Okay.

Any further, Member Waters?

Line item uh 88.

Wanna move that to closing resolution?

There's a motion to move line item 88 closing resolution language to oh language to closing resolution.

Any objection, colleagues?

Session with discussion, Member Benson.

With the closing resolution language would be along the lines of good catch.

I haven't done it yet.

Oh, okay.

But member wards, I I I didn't catch that one.

Thank you, Member Benson.

So what what we're in the senior office of senior affairs.

It sounds like it has been established.

It has.

So now it's a matter of what would that closing resolution language look like from our end since there's no funding or no request to establish it.

Well, I I can do one or two things.

I can get the language um from the mayor's office since they've already established it, or I can remove it.

Are you looking to establish one?

Because it's already it sounds like it's being established already.

What would it's been established already?

I um Mr.

President, I'm not sure how it even got here.

Okay.

Yes, ma'am.

Is there a motion to remove if you're if you're fine with the fact that it's that it's already established, yes.

Yes, motion to remove okay.

There's a motion.

Mr.

Corey is okay with it.

Yeah, okay.

Yes, thank you.

There's a motion to remove line item 88 from the agenda.

See no objections, that action shall be taken.

Member Waters.

All right, so we're gonna go now to line item 96.

Um my um issue with uh 96 in that it's already it was already passed last year.

Now number one, it was one time last year.

Number two, it is not in the mayor's office, it is in HRD.

So of course, the um the agency name is incorrect.

First thing I want to do is correct the agency name.

So motion to correct the H agency name from the mayor's office to HRD.

Okay, there's um 89.

Yeah, 96.

There's a motion to uh well, member waters, we can do all that together.

We can do all that together.

What what what what should what's the motion in total?

Motion to correct nine line item 96 to reflect HRD and to remove the mayor's office from that agency name.

Um but did we we we have not approved the the 500,000 dollars?

Is that still in play?

Well you that's that's my dilemma, and if you don't mind, Mr.

President, let me just ask um uh Mr.

Corley, because the money was approved last year, is all I'm saying.

In fact, I've had a brief conversation with the director of HRD just a few months ago about how to set up this fund.

So we had that conversation.

The differences that we were having had to do with the uh AMI at that time, and then we got in right into the heat of things that we have not been able to get back to it to complete our conversation.

So do I leave this here?

Can I remove it since the money was passed since it was allocated well passed last year in last year's budget?

Ms.

President, I know Mr.

Johnson agreed to roll over monies in another line item.

So hopefully he can agree to do that for this line item since the money is there, but if it's not spent by June 30, it's gonna go to surplus.

So if you want it to be rolled over, you know, it's gotta be a new administration needs to agree to that.

Mr.

Johnson.

Uh through the chair, um, I before I answer that particular question, I'd like to ask one of my own, which is if I could ask a little bit of clarification on what exactly this so I have in my notes from our last session where this came up that this was really the AMI caps were part of the conversation because we were talking about a home repair program for people who fell within that let's call it that awkward space.

They don't make that they make too much money, so they don't qualify for low-income programs, but they don't make enough money that they can handle covering this on their own.

So we're really looking for my understanding was it was like a home repair program for people who are in that workforce category of AMI.

Oh uh workforce and remember I also named the um the program um capital improvement as well.

So workforce capital improvement program.

I wanted to try and capture a number of things within that program.

It was the purpose was to have it to become a public private partnership.

That is the purpose of it.

Because if we don't create such a program so that we can have a public-private partnership, we can never get there to help other people who fall outside of that that low income category that we are always promoting here.

So that was that's the intent of the fund of creating the fund.

Um I I was gonna start writing uh grants myself to both state and federal and pushing it and pushing and pushing it.

It's just that I can't do anything until the fund is is established.

Um through the chair, I I think my concern at this point then would be that we cannot use general fund for home repair programs or or repairs to private property.

So all the home repair programs that the city currently undertakes are funded through CDBG or the federal-led um grant program, which allows for home renovations.

So we're not currently, you know, we are we are we have clear guidance from the law department that home repairs we cannot utilize general funds for homework.

So so no capital improvement at all?

Not if it's to private property.

So Mr.

Johnson, so what in the world happened last year when this money was approved.

I it I it was.

I so I believe so.

Somebody said a word to her last year.

Through the chair.

Uh last year, when it was adopted, I believe it was framed as for workforce development.

Well workforce development for capital improvement.

I said workforce development housing for capital improvement.

That's that that is true.

That's what I said.

Yeah, and I think last year, and I think what we were doing with the current allocation was including that as part of the city's um funding supporting the affordable housing development team as they do their work to secure the construction of more affordable housing units.

So I believe it was put toward the construction of new units.

That was the intent, that's what we believe the use was.

The way you're articulating it this year is a little bit different than I believe we had it from from the current year.

Oh, well, I knew what my intent was.

Maybe I did make it clear and you guys thought it was one thing and I was doing another.

So but but but the dollars are there.

I still want to be able to use those dollars.

And I I am not happy right now with uh with DESC, given what they did to my skill trade program.

They just kind of toss it aside.

So, and I know that's where those dollars will go.

I'm just not I I don't feel happy about it, frankly.

So um there has to be some other housing area that I can use these dollars for since I they were approved last year.

Um through the chair, um, to council member waters one way that we could utilize these funds if we want to particularly support people who are in that sort of workforce category, that you know, uh higher slightly higher income but not high income category.

Um, it could be these funds could go toward can essentially continue kind of what we're doing this year, but it could also support the what the pilot team as they go through and secure more developers who are willing to undergo utilizing the state and our and our city pilot ordinance to more rapidly establish workforce housing because that is a space we we know we need to fill that gap too.

It you're you are correct.

It is not just affordable housing, meaning below 80% AMI.

We definitely need that 80 to 120.

That it that is a bracket in the pilot program, especially that that this body adopted last year.

Yeah, I was a co-sponsor.

Yep, that it that is that is really targeting that workforce housing need.

And one place that I know HRD does need support is the the team that does that pilot work that secures the pilot deals that that you know manages all the logistics of it.

I think this would be to my mind, that would be a great place to put this money because I think it would turn into more units overall for the city.

Okay.

Okay.

Now, how am I gonna get my fund established eventually?

We're gonna have to have a conversation about that.

So I'll I'll move to to place this in the what would the uh the pilot program, the housing pilot program.

Yeah, in HRD.

I say if we place it in HRD's budget, I can help you, I can provide more refined language specifically where it would go.

Okay.

So for for clarity though, uh member waters, you're talking about money that is currently in this year's budget.

Mr.

Johnson, are you talking about a different pot of money for next year?

Next fiscal year.

That's what it sounds like I'm hearing.

Yes, Mr.

President.

So the the can we roll it over?

Because this is general fund, I cannot roll it over.

Okay.

Um, but what I what I have been doing for the other items where we've been talking about rollover, we've been using rollover more as a colloquialism.

What I'm really doing is I'm I'm I'm programming dollars in the 27 pot of the same amount as uh and so it will look as if it has rolled over, but it's really new resources.

Um in this case it would be the same same amount, $500,000, you know, would go to you know HRD for the purposes of supporting you know the creation the the development of more workforce housing, which is really what we need a lot of okay.

All right, well, I can't say no to that.

I've been wanting to see that, and plus I'm a co-sponsor of the ordinance, so yeah, you thought about that.

You said I'm gonna I'm gonna get her president.

Um administration's closing resolution can reflect that they're gonna use $100,000 of next year's okay, all right.

Sure thing.

So I will I will agree.

Yes, I welcome it.

All right.

Thank you.

Colleagues, there's a motion for uh closing resolution language for uh line item 96 that Member Waters will provide as well uh for uh noting that it will uh be directed to HRD and not the mayor's office.

Are there any objections?

Seeing none that action shall be taken.

Colleagues, we should also remove the five hundred thousand dollars as well.

Uh is there a motion to remove the five hundred thousand?

Um yeah, I guess that would be appropriate since it was passed last year.

Motion there's a motion on the floor to remove the five hundred thousand.

Any objections?

Oh, sorry, Mr.

President.

No, we do need to keep the five years.

You need to keep the 500.

We do need to keep the five.

Oh, that's right, because we're talking about this correct, correct.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

I was about to get rid of my little 500.

Okay.

Okay.

Any further?

All right, yes.

All right.

So on line item 125.

I believe that's 125.

Mr.

Whitaker.

By keeping it on the sheet.

Are we supposed to find this 500,000?

Mr.

Whitaker, your mic, please.

Keeping it on the sheet, it it seems as if you have to find this money, and if the administration is going to take care of it with existing funds, I don't know if it should be on this sheet.

Mr.

Johnson.

Uh, through the chair.

That was my question.

Yeah, through the chair to Mr.

Whitaker and to the council.

Um I would be taking this out of the one-time funding pot for next fiscal year.

So I would be allocating money away from either capital or blight, most likely.

But should it be reflected on the council's yes, because I because Schedule B will show a debit from one portion of the um fund 4533 or fund 1003 and a credit to um an HRD cost center in the same amount.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

President.

So line item uh 125.

Moves that moving that to a closing resolution.

Congress, there's a motion to move line item a link closing resolution language uh for line item 125.

Any objections?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

Mr.

President, are you looking to remove the six million?

Is there a motion to remove the six million dollar funding allocation for line item 125, colleagues?

Yeah, I guess so.

All right, there's a motion.

Any objection?

See none that action shall be taken.

Member Waters.

All right, and I'm gonna go down to um line item uh one forty-eight.

Um I wanted to request one million dollars for the project for that proposal that I gave to all of you, in fact.

But uh according to the mayor's office, they say that they have um already the encumbered dollars to help with technical support.

I'm gonna take their word for it.

I don't know.

But I but I will say this.

We've been doling out dollar after dollar after dollar and lending them the support.

We we are failing to give them the support that they need in order to survive.

We have got to start making sure that when we give those dollars out that we're prepared to sit down with them to make sure that they succeed.

And we're not doing that.

And we need to tap into some of this wonderful talent that we have right here in the city of Detroit, who is really good at those kinds of things.

And we don't want our departments, DEGC or any of the others to be too proud to say that they need help.

They don't know what to do.

And that's that's where I think we are right now.

So um so motion um to put it place it in closing resolution, and I'll be saying some things just like that.

All right, colleagues, there's a motion for language to be applied to closing resolution for line item 148.

Any objections?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

Member Waters?

Uh line item 155.

I know that I I moved it to DWSD.

And DWSD has in has agreed to encumber um this program themselves.

They have the the money themselves.

They will do it.

So that's line item 155.

So I just want to place this in closing resolution.

All right, colleagues, there's a motion and and also to remove the funding.

Yes, remove the funding.

Let's do that first.

Colleagues, there's a motion to remove the uh funding for line item 155.

Any objections?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

There's a further motion to send uh closing resolution language for line item 155, noting that it is in DWSD now.

Any objections?

Seeing none, then action shall be taken.

And then line item 200, back to the smoothies.

I have some numbers.

So okay, take these.

If you can pass that down, Member Benson.

Take one, member Young and pass it down.

Thank you.

Um, so here's what we decided to do after staff had a conversation with uh G GSD, Mr.

President.

You you said bring me some numbers.

And so uh we have some numbers, but what we had to do is to break it down to the summer months because smoothies cost a lot more than I imagine.

So we're talking about if you can see in those categories what what the number of free smoothies.

Listen, when they're gone for that month, they are gone.

And so that way, Mr.

President, as you as you indicated, you know, the vendor can't say, yeah, well, we did this and we did that.

No, you have a certain number that you can only reach, and we expect you to adhere to that.

If you go over that number, you can pay for them.

Well, any thoughts?

With discussion.

I think you get that number down.

Ten dollars of smoothies is extremely high because there has not been yet a vendor that has been identified.

I think that's the the wells are out.

Okay.

The RFP is out according to GSD.

Okay.

Okay, well.

Yeah, um, I think that there's a tremendous uh health uh aspects to this.

Has there been an analysis in terms of what the health aspect would be, would it be an house in terms of the ROI of that?

Because I think there's a real opportunity here.

I think it's I think this is a real good thing, and I have a lot of senior citizens that I talk to and they enjoy smoothies and they enjoy, you know, um water aerobics.

And so if we're gonna do this, I'd be I would at least like to know what the benefits of this, the long term is and what the benefits potentially could be in terms of more revenue and more benefits um on the long end.

Maybe this is what you would call a you had making a high capital investment, you know, but you're making investments, so over the long term the benefits will be greater than the money that you're investing short term.

So there'd be an analysis.

I think that might help what you're trying to do.

Well, you know, Member Young is always throwing some things out there, but listen, uh I don't have all of those things that you you mentioned.

But I can tell you that there are times, for example, a friend of mine had some dental surgery yesterday and they were not able to eat any regular food.

So that smoothie really came in handy.

Smoothies, in my opinion, because you can get the ones that were vegetables and fruits, um, are good for people.

Did I go out and do research analysis?

No, sir.

I I did not.

I know that they're good, and I know that um seniors really like smoothies a lot.

Um so knowing those those things, it'll be it would be a value added, I I do believe.

And the rest of the month, anybody that wants to purchase a smoothie will will be doing so, and hopefully, that will certainly help to generate some some income as well.

Okay, so that dollar amount looks like you're uh now putting forward instead of 75,000, it is 71,000.

Yes, all right, colleagues, there's a motion to amend the dollar amount, a one-time general fund for uh 71,000 dollars.

Um discussion discussion for line item 200 with discussion.

Uh member Benson followed by Member Callaway.

Thank you.

Just to my colleague, um actually to LPD free smoothies for our seniors.

I think it's a fantastic idea, and it's well deserved for our senior community.

I just have a concern regarding our ability to do that.

Would this be considered a lending of credit?

Or would this go with one of our nutrition programs?

And then the other question is would there be opportunity for a partnership with Eastern Market to make this a free versus a ten dollar per smoothie?

And I and I didn't see the addition of kale or avocado to those smoothie ingredients.

I just want to make sure if we're paying ten dollars, that's gonna be included.

Uh who's that to member Benson?

LPD.

This is a question around lending the credit the ability to do this.

Yeah, you can take it.

Mr.

Whitaker.

I I don't know.

I guess you can you can have the the department supply the the smoothies so that it you've you're doing it like any other any other food supply program.

I don't know, maybe Mr.

Johnson has a has a different thought, but there may be a way in which you can you can craft the program in such a way that you take away any lending of credit considerations, but maybe Mr.

Johnson has something.

Mr.

Johnson?

Yeah, through through the chair to council member Benson.

Um so I think because the smoothie bar is gonna be operated by a concessionaire uh under a concessions agreement.

Um I think what we would the way we would structure this, and I I want to be very clear one, I do not work for the law department, two, I am not the attorney for the city.

So setting that aside, I think my my my assumption here is that what we would essentially do is we would allocate these additional funds to the concessionaire to the vendor for them to set aside a certain amount of product that is prepaid, it's paid for um because we're going to be paying them for them delivering these services anyway, um, as one of the amenities in the recenter.

So in this case, we would simply be setting aside amount of money to pre-purchase um a certain number of smoothies per month that are allocated to people who show an ID and meet a certain threshold or or whatever.

So that is how we would avoid a lending of credit issue.

Um, if we were giving people the money directly to help them buy a smoothie, that would be a problem.

Um, but because we're doing it via a concessionaire agreement and a vendor, I think I think we're I think we're probably okay.

Um again with the caveat that I am not I am not your lawyer.

Um it sounds like a reasonable workaround me.

Um thank you, Mr.

Chair, and to um through you uh Mr.

Chair to Member Waters.

This is one time because all that build out over there at Northwest Activity Center just to run it for one year, they're gonna call me.

And um, I won't know what to tell them that it's just it can't be temporary because the structure, um, the build-out is permanent.

You can't it's it's just built out like a cafe.

I mean it's it really is it's built out.

I don't know where that money can did.

We pay for that, yes.

Oh okay.

Well, it through the chair to you, Ms.

Member Waters, it would have to be um more than one year because that's like a trial basis.

We have permanent fixtures in this space.

I mean, I'm over there every week.

And so we have to figure it out because it couldn't, it couldn't just be one one one time.

It's a permanent structure now.

It's a whole smoothie cafe.

It's nothing temporary, it's not plastic, it's stainless steel.

So it's been built out.

Yeah, it is.

So my my question is are are they just doing smoothies?

Because I know that most places that serve smoothies or smoothie type uh beverages also have sandwiches and other things to maintain their bottom line.

It's very rare that you have any entity that solely uh makes it uh off of smoothies and loan.

Very, very rare.

Um, and that's from experience.

Tell you what I know, not what I heard.

So are are they are there any other offerings that you are aware of that because to to member Callaway's point?

I mean, we may get them.

We may get them to the point.

Cafe sounds great, but if all we're hearing though is smoothies.

Well, that's that's what my focus is.

So it's I don't know what else you're gonna serve in the cafe.

But I think that's important to know as we start.

Yes, ma'am, because this is about sustainability to member Callaway's point.

We've got to sustain this um beyond just this period of 71,000 because that may get it off the ground.

It's pilot it kind of increases it, you know, the the experience for folks at that point.

But if they're not if they're only doing smoothies, uh that that might be very challenging moving forward.

Mr.

President, and so uh to your point.

What I will do if if my staff could go and call GSD and ask them uh what else is gonna be sold in the cafe, because I I don't know.

I my focus was to have a smoothie bar uh built there for for seniors, but they've sent the bid out, and I'm pretty sure that included in that bid are probably some other things.

So I we can find out what those are.

Discussion with further discussion, member Benson.

Thank you.

And so now I I believe I'm a bit confused.

So is the RFP to build out a smoothie bar or build out a smoothie bar with free smoothies attached to that build out, and then if that's the case, then what we're doing is providing guaranteed revenue to a small business.

I'm not I'm not opposed to if I were a small business, I'd like to have guaranteed revenue from the city as well.

But to have guaranteed revenue, I'm just not sure that would be part of any RFP that the city would put out typically.

Although if it's for the seniors, I I'm just a bit confused on this one.

I I'd like to do a little get more information from GSD.

If we could pin this one, we'll pin it again.

This is this item we shall remain pinned.

Okay.

All right.

Okay.

That's a re excuse me request.

I think that's it for now.

We're gonna get these smoothies together.

Emma Callaway.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um line item 26, 25 and 26 regarding um the whole conversation around recycling tires.

We did put in uh $50,000.

I'm going to unpin this and put all of this into the closing resolution.

We have the language is line item 25 and 26 regarding the use of recycled tires.

Um we do believe that we could um have a pilot program um through DPW, Mr.

Chair, and it it may not need that $50,000.

So do you want to so first what we'll do is remove the uh $50,000 amount for line item 25 colleagues?

Any objection?

See none that action shall be taken.

And member Callaway, are you looking to combine the language for or do you just want to build on the language in line item 26 and just remove 25?

Um well, I'm gonna use the language that I have in there.

So for line item 25, we're just removing the 50,000 dollars, Mr.

Chair, and I want to combine the language from 25 and 26 into the closing resolution as one item.

The whole discussion around um the use of recycled tires, which we dumped for according to Mr.

Brundish.

So just combine the language and then remove the 50,000.

Okay.

So Mr.

Corley, if you can note that the language will be combined.

I know it's two, but it'll be one.

Yeah, we'll come up with colleagues.

Any objections seeing none, that action shall be taken.

I got you that time.

Mr.

Mr.

Johnson.

If I might, um, I do have a small update related to the use of of asphalt uh uh tires and asphalt.

So uh an uh a grant appropriate acceptance and appropriation resolution will be coming to this body.

I actually approved it a couple hours ago sitting here um in my inbox um to accept an award uh sub award from Michigan Technical Technological University for the FY26 municipal asphalt paving with recycled tire rubber in Detrete in an Arbor grant for a total of 65,000 dollars.

So there is money coming in for us to continue work on this.

Um through the chair to you, Mr.

Johnson.

Member Callaway.

Thank you.

That um exceeds the fifty thousand dollars that we just removed.

And so this is a grant, which means it doesn't have to be paid back.

And I didn't hear a matching amount, so this that's wonderful news.

So thank you for that.

So um we're on the right track over here.

All right.

Um Mr.

Chair, may I continue?

And thank you, Mr.

Johnson.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Um Chair.

Line item 55 regarding the advertisement and funding for childhood led prevention program.

Going to um make a motion to unpin that and also to remove it from the closing resolution as well.

All right, colleagues.

There is a motion to remove line item said 55 member.

Yes, yes, sir 55 under health.

All right, there's a motion to remove line item 55 from the spreadsheet.

Any objections?

See none, then action shall be taken.

Mr.

Cowley, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um line item.

I think line item sixty six.

Um I do believe we move this to closing resolution and miss through yourself, Mr.

Chair, to Mr.

Um Johnson, he agreed to help develop the language for the closing resolution.

Okay, so I've done that.

Well, let's just make sure.

Okay.

I don't think we did close the loop on that one.

Uh okay.

Colleagues, is there a mo?

I mean, uh, member Callaway is there a motion to move the line item 66 to closing resolution?

Yes.

Motion to move line item 66 to closing resolution.

Colleagues, any objections?

See none, that action shall be taken.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Yes, ma'am.

And then also uh remove the pen from line item 70 regarding the 350,000 dollars that was um provided to Creole three years ago that they didn't use.

We're just gonna remove that entirely.

Okay.

Uh which line item again?

I'm 70.

All right, colleagues.

There's a motion to now the 350,000.

You're looking to remove that number?

Yeah, remove that number.

Okay, colleagues, there's a motion to remove the 350,000 dollar uh allocation to line item 70.

Are there any objections?

Seeing none, then action shall be taken.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

With discussion, um member Benson.

There's number seven been approved for a closing resolution.

Uh yeah, uh on my sheet it says it has been.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

Closing resolution.

Well, if motion to put it in closing resolution.

So we're already doing that.

I think we did it.

Okay.

All right, thank you so much.

Thank you, Member Benson.

Um I think that's going to be it for me.

Uh I Mr.

Chair, I just want probably need to be reminded um by Mr.

Johnson and Mr.

Corley through yourself.

I know that I removed all um 78 and 79 regarding um I'm sorry.

Encapsulation program.

Uh we remove those, I do believe.

I have a 76.

Okay, so I have both of those pin, member.

Both of them can be removed.

The pins can be removed.

Okay.

So for line item, you said line item 77.

Um, you were going to remove the pen, but is that a closing resolution or you want to remove the items?

I'm gonna Mr.

Chair, I'm gonna leave it in the closing resolution because there was five hundred thousand dollars left over from last year, and so we are under the understanding through yourself, Mr.

Chair to Mr.

Johnson, that that five hundred thousand dollars is going to continue to be used for that program, but we won't need another million dollars to continue the program through yourself, Mr.

Chair to Mr.

Johnson.

Uh so no million was for uh seventy-seven.

I think the million was allocated for 78.

Yeah, um the million was for 78, but I'm I'm trying to unpin them and just I'm gonna get rid of the one million and seventy-eight, but I just want to hear from Mr.

Johnson that they're so can we do 77?

We can't want to do them one by one.

So 77.

Uh now you're looking for a closing resolution.

Uh there's a motion for language for closing resolution for line item 77.

Colleagues, any objections?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

Uh member Callaway 78.

Yeah, but Mr.

Chair, there was 500,000 in line item 77.

I just need an assurance from Mr.

Johnson that it was left over from last year, and the program has been very, very successful according to HRD and Mr.

Razo, that that 500,000 dollars will remain to complete the program.

That's what I wanted to know.

Mr.

Johnson.

Uh thank you through the chair.

Um, I I will need you to have the 500,000 in the budget um because I will be it will it will fall to the surplus and then I will bring it back out essentially, is what I'm proposing to do for next year.

Since I can't directly balance forward general fund under state law, I'm kind of that's the role that's the rollover.

That's the rollover.

You will still end up with the same.

We will see you'll still end up with 500,000 dollars in the account.

Okay, that's fine.

But I do need a I do need that a specific schedule B item.

Okay.

So that language, Mr.

Chair, through will go into the call.

Yeah, it'll be 500,000 for one time in the closing resolution, and we'll provide the language.

Well, not not just closing resolution, but the actual funds.

So the executive session as well, yes, ma'am.

These are the $500,000 in actual uh funding allocation.

All right.

So Mr.

Chair, the motion is to put it in closing resolution and the executive session for the $500,000 rollover.

Thank you.

There's a motion, colleagues, for $500,000 uh allocation, one-time allocation for line item 77.

Any objections?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

Okay, and then line item seven.

Yes, sir.

Um, and then line item 78.

Um motion to unpin that and to remove the one million ask.

Okay.

Colleagues, there's a motion to remove the one million dollar allocation for line item 78.

Any objection?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

Uh it did appear that there was a uh request for a closing resolution for line item 78, but we did not vote on it.

Member Callaway is there.

Motion to motion to move this to the closing resolution and we'll provide the language.

There's a motion to move line uh closing resolution language, uh apply it to line item 78.

Any objections?

See none, that action shall be taken.

Okay, Mr.

President.

Uh Mr.

Whittaker, yes, sir.

For clarity on the items that are that are sort of rolled over as you just described it.

Are those items also going to be reflected in the administration's closing?

It'll be in our closing, but it will it will it be in the administration's closing so that there's a match and we can sort of track it.

Mr.

Johnson?

Uh through the chair to Mr.

Whitaker, actually, they would be in schedule B.

So they will be adopted changes to the budget.

Yeah, I will be providing the sort of the again the debits and credits, the offsets for them.

So again, there'll be actual changes to the budget.

All right.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I think that's going to be it for me for right now.

Okay.

Um, I don't want to hold up my colleagues, but I think that's going to be it for me for right now.

79, let's see.

79.

Oh, for 79 regarding the young adult age.

I thought I removed that.

If just said I would put it in the closing resolution.

You did.

Okay.

No, it was not in closing resolution.

You just removed it.

Okay.

So for um line item, Mr.

Chair, um 79.

Um, it'll go to um the closing resolution.

We'll provide the language.

So we're resurrecting it.

We're bringing it back because we have removed it totally.

Yep.

Okay.

Colleagues, we do want to uh place there is a motion to place the original language that was uh assigned to line item 79 into closing resolution.

Any objections?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

And um, Mr.

Chair, I'm looking at line, thank you so much.

I'm looking for line item 91 regarding um installing signs for littering and illegal dumping along with penalties.

Um we do believe um we're gonna put this in the closing resolution, and we do believe that we'll get the funding um from our conversations with Mr.

Brunditch.

We won't have to have um an ask.

Okay, colleagues.

There's a motion to place closing resolution language to apply closing resolution language to line item 91.

Any objection?

See none, that action shall be taken.

Okay, and um that is it for us right now, Mr.

Um Mr.

Chair, and thank you.

Thank you.

Member Waters.

Okay, thank you.

All right, so uh GSD says it is going to offer smoothies and cafe food, like sandwiches and ready-made food.

Procurement is currently accepting bids.

Once bidding closes, the lease terms for the cafe will be set uh for at least two years.

So and given um this information, what I what I'd like to do at least um recurring for the 71K, and we'll have them the vendor to identify uh smoothie day for the seniors, and that way it won't be all over the place.

Number one number was that again, I'm sorry.

That was um number um 200 line item 200.

Okay, line item 200, and if you can please restate one more time what the motion would be.

Oh, well, the motion would be um 71k recurring, yeah.

That's what it would be.

Um and I can certainly put it in closing resolution.

What I believe um how how it should be handled, of course, ultimately that'll be up to um to GSD and the um and the vendor in terms of how it will um be handled.

Okay.

Um I think one day it would be smoothie day for seniors, and they'd have to prove that they're seniors, so everybody else won't be coming to get the smoothies.

And we're talking for with discussion about smoothies.

So we're talking one day now.

Well, absolutely.

That's what I that's what I say.

But remember now you only get um what 2,364 per month.

There are a lot of seniors there are members over at Northwest Activity Center, and I can assure you they don't come from district three when they hear about it.

They're gonna come from district four and seven.

I'm telling you, that will happen.

So more people are gonna be drawn to Northwest Activity Center.

All right, colleagues, there's a motion to uh add 71,000 reoccurring uh to line item 20, excuse me, 200.

Are there any objections?

Further discussion with further discussion.

I heard it first over here, Member Johnson, then Member Callaway.

It's gonna be thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Through you to Member Waters.

So with them identifying one day, I would I would think you can you're you're expanding this so that it's not just for the three months now, right?

No, no, it'll be for the three months of summer months, you know, June, July, and August.

I just said that I don't know how GSD and the vendor will lay it out.

That that was just my thought.

I don't know.

I'm leaving it up to them to uh to map all of that out.

Okay, so quick calculation.

That's about 75 smoothies a day.

Okay, you mean for for one one per um smoothies a day for a month for a month to get to the 2364 reference?

Okay, well, it's not that many.

Well, you when you get them, you get them.

Maybe somebody else can come the next day and get one.

I I don't know.

I would just trying to be you know responsible in terms of how how we laid this out.

I I don't want it to be extremely costly, you know.

Um I don't want to belabor this, but I would um perhaps consider a discount so that it's offered more like for longer than the three months.

Oh, what kind of discount?

So they paid three dollars for a smoothie or something.

I don't know.

Oh so that it's offered what well can um GSD do that outside of this piece that they can they can set it up that way.

I think you can dictate how they set it up since okay.

Then I'll make sure that it's included in that closing resolution.

Okay.

That Mr.

Johnson says yeah, Johnson and Johnson.

I just encourage you to kind of dictate how it should be set up, considering you are you know offering this for the seniors.

Whether you do it for free, if it's 50 a day that they can offer for free or whatever it is, but I I think it would be really nice if it's for more than the three months, quite honestly, especially if they're gonna do a two-year um contract with the vendor.

And smoothies are, as you know, good for um the fruit and vegetables that you can get in there.

So I wouldn't just make it for the summer months.

Okay.

Yeah.

So that's just my thought.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Okay.

All right.

That's the thought.

I'll I'll um I'll I will certainly um put that in the um closing resolution.

Yeah.

With further member Callaway.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Chair, and I'm absolutely not trying to prolong this conversation about the smoothies, but we have just probably twice as many youth in the building.

And um I I just don't want to leave them out because they also have resources.

So I don't know if you want to have a youth day in smoothies because you know we have the wraparound services at the North at the Northwest Activity Center, and they are there all evening after having been in school all day, so they might have an appetite for a smoothie as well because smoothies are enjoyed by seniors and youth.

So um maybe you can also consider offering it to them because they have resources, and you know that.

So um, maybe not 10, maybe five or you know, five dollars, um, but they do go to school with money, and then they they have vending machines there that aren't the healthiest treats, right?

So um, I don't know if you want to consider having a youth day in smoothies.

I don't know.

Okay, because there's hundreds and hundreds of kids in the building every single day.

Yeah, there's a ton of them.

That is true.

Every day they're there, more than seniors, and they're there right now.

Discussion.

They're there right now.

So I mean, that's it.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Member Waters.

Just for your consideration.

Okay.

Thank you.

With further discussion, Member Johnson.

So um, in regards to that point, does GSD have a summer program for youth at the Northwest Activity Center?

I know they have it at other facilities.

Um, there are programs during the Member Keller.

Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Yes, there are summer programs for youth at um Northwest Activity Center.

All right.

All right, thank you.

Oh, colleagues there, oh, member um Pro Tem Yo.

So I did an analysis of 31,000 for smoothies.

10 cost per senior uh for meals, nutrition coverage, $3 or 10 supplemental service per senior.

Your calorie nutrient boost will be increased by 5% to 15%.

Daily nutrient intake, your hydration impact increase by 10 to 20 percent improvement.

Your hospitalization reduction would go down by one to three percent, nutrition related.

Your energy mobility go up by three to eight percent, your malnutrition risk will go down by five to twelve percent targeted groups or higher.

Your chronic disease risk long term, two percent to five percent, your health care cost savings, a hundred thousand to three hundred thousand equivalent voided costs, your return on investment, public health, one point five times to four times, and your equity impact for Alice.

That's low-income constrained employees.

So those are folks who make too much money be considered poor, but don't make enough to be considered middle class.

There will be high targets, food insecurity, and aging population.

Smoothies deliver fiber, the protein, vitamins, and minerals in one serving.

Seniors often lack protein, muscle loss, calcium, slash vitamin D, bone health, B12, neurological health result, stronger immunity, better metabolism, and reduce frailty.

So just want to get everybody know that.

Little FYI.

Okay.

Thank you.

Is there further discussion?

Discussion.

Uh member Benson.

So just a cons well, the mayor announced the food at senior buildings.

So this would be in line with that.

I'd like to pin this to have a conversation about how we can align these two prior to approving a line item for free smoothies in the city of Detroit.

I I think we could have a alignment conversation, how we get this done and then come back and get this done tomorrow.

So I don't disagree.

I just would uh I think out of respect the way we've been operating, the ones who pinned the items would be the sponsor.

Um, but I I would I would tend to agree, Member Benson.

With that, but okay.

The floor is all right.

I you know, I'm always amenable to my colleagues' orders.

Motion.

So are we looking to we're gonna pin line item 200?

All right, we're gonna keep further pin line item 200.

Colleagues, any additional unpinning of items, member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um line item 18 is to implement a public education marketing campaign on reducing litter.

It is in the name of the council.

I've spoken with Director Brundage, and he is very interested in doing a more robust um campaign that's more consistent.

He indicated that they have done public service announcements in the past and that they do have um they have purchased anti-littering billboards.

Um and so the request is um I'm asking everyone because I know we all kind of identified 18 line item 18.

I know we all identified um or requested to do greater work around littering and anti-littering.

Um so the motion is to move line item 18 into the closing resolution, and for everyone to provide language, all right.

Colleagues, there's a motion to place uh language for line item 18 into closing resolution, noting that it was sponsored by member Johnson.

Any objections seeing none, that action shall be taken.

Any further colleagues?

Oh, member Johnson, sorry.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Line item two fourteen is the 36th district court request for 1.8 million dollars.

Yes.

What number again?

214.

Yes, ma'am.

My understanding is that the administration is amenable to a $500,000 one-time ask, particularly for the specialty court.

And we will seek additional support from the state.

Um so with that, I would like to amend the 1.8 million to 500,000 motion.

There's a motion to amend 1.8 million to 500,000 for line item 214 uh with discussion.

Uh member Johnson, how firm are we that they're gonna be able to help close that gap?

This is still a pretty large delta from 1.8 to 500,000 that's a great question.

Uh I haven't yet reached out to any state legislators, but I can certainly do that um today between today and tomorrow morning.

So um I'm open to pinning the item as we continue to seek support.

Line item two fourteen.

214.

Discussion.

Uh with further discussion, line item 214, Member Benson.

Thank you.

And I have support the uh half million for the special court all day long.

The in addition, there was another half million for employees increasing them to the city's living wage.

How would that impact?

Are we not looking to do that?

Were they not thought to be included in the living wage bump?

Member Johnson, I don't know if that was part of the conversation.

Oh yeah, Mr.

Johnson.

Um thank you, Mr.

President, through you to um member Benson.

So because the 36th district court is under technically a separate branch of government, we can't mandate that they do anything with their wages, and so they would like to mirror the living wage.

Um, but we cannot subsidize that.

Um they would have to do what we did when we implemented the living wage, which we had to find savings in the budget in order to make that work.

So that's how I was able that's how we were able to do that and get a balanced budget for 27 and and and on onwards.

So um, you know, the court is currently funded at exactly the funding levels it needs to maintain its current level of operation, including its already negotiated labor increases and and other cola adjustments.

If they wish to do the living wage agreement, however, we we're more than happy to work with the court.

Um both the um Chief Judge McConaco, um uh the court administrator and CFO O'Day um to help them figure out um you know how to make that work with their budget, um, since we just went through the exercise ourselves, we're pretty experienced at it, but we really can't subsidize that because we're not able to subsidize it for anyone else who wants to do it.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Uh so uh there was a motion to uh well there was a request to further keep line item 214 pinned to have a stronger uh understanding of how the requested gap um of 1.8 to the uh proposed 500,000 uh that was uh committed to by the administration would be uh addressed.

So we're gonna further pin line item two four discussion, Mr.

Shear.

With further discussion, Member Benson?

Um, through yourself to Member Johnson is advocating to add uh to closing resolution on that line item um encouraging 36th district court to bring all of its employees up to the uh city's living wage.

Thank you.

Is there a motion for that line item uh for closing resolution?

Motion there's a motion for closing resolution language for closing resolution specifically targeting or focusing on the $500,000 increase in 36th district court encouraging the court to do so to bring them up to a living wage uh based on the separation of powers.

Uh that is for line item 214.

Any objection, colleagues?

Say none, that action shall be taken.

Member Johnson okay.

That's all for me.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Member Waters.

All right.

Um I just realized that I had placed the veterans' affairs in the um on the spreadsheet.

I don't see it anywhere.

Ms.

Brennan, we can add it to make sure.

So you want to add um yes.