All right, thank you, Mr.

President.

So just a recognition that um customer Miller was a part of line item 157, um creating a construction mitigation fund, and uh council didn't approve $500,000 one time for that, but it's just a recognition for her to be a uh part of that.

Um let's see this.

So Mr.

President, that's all that I see on this um spreadsheet for council member miller.

I'm wondering, does she have any other you know um changes or any other items that she may want to address?

Yep, thank you.

Member Miller, I know you uh may have some items that you want to include that we did not have an opportunity to hear from you on.

Uh and if that's the case, the floor is yours to do so at this moment.

I will say no at this time.

I have had some amazing counsel by some of my colleagues on the council.

I said this was not the time to present certain things or question certain things, so I will await when that time comes to further indulge some of my desires um for our residents.

So at this time I rest my case.

All right, thank you so much.

Okay, Mr.

Corley.

Okay, and um uh my mistake, this is another recognition.

Um, thank you, Mr.

King, that uh council member Miller did join um council member Johnson on line item 226.

Um community outreach review.

Um council already approved the resolution, but just again just recognizing that she was a part of that.

Okay.

Um so uh Mr.

Corley, we still have a pen uh in terms of action.

Maybe I should have no, you know what?

We did that.

I should I cross it out.

My apologies.

Okay, okay.

Um I want to take the opportunity just to ask Mr.

Johnson.

Um in the proposed uh budget for 2027.

Was there a reduction or a total elimination of travel and training budgets throughout the city?

I'm noticing council's office budgets, uh let's say the policy division budget, the train training and travel was totally eliminated for fiscal 2027.

Um is that the case, you know, throughout all city agencies, and obviously the answer is because you know, you're working with um the the challenges that we have, you know, on revenues, but um just wanted to hear your global um understanding of that, Mr.

Johnson.

Uh through the chair to Mr.

Corley and and to the council, yes.

So we did eliminate those budgets.

Um only we left them in only for departments that have like legal mandated um legally mandated um uh things.

So that's gonna be do it.

Um obviously human resources maintains a training budget because there are certain trainings we have to do with employees every year, you know, sexual harassment awareness, these are all things that we have to do and research every year.

Um fire department has legally mandated certifications and uh uh police.

Yeah, police obviously has a lot of M COLS requirements.

So we left in trainings for that trainings in areas where there isn't a legal mandate to do a training.

Um they were removed in some cases.

Departments were able to identify other cuts to their budget in lieu of losing their training dollars.

That was pretty rare.

So, you know, we're down training budget across the city is about two million, it's about two point one million dollars across the general fund, primarily clustered in police, fire, and human resources with a little bit in do it.

Um travel was almost completely eliminated.

Um there's 130,887 across the entire general fund um for travel, and the remaining travel were for um very specific items where the travel is a requirement to get to certain um mandated activities um or activities um like the National Police Chiefs Association, the um mayor's conference, these sort of the national, you know, the the the conference of mayors and things like that.

So travel is um extremely limited, um, and the expectation is that departments in fiscal 27 will limit their travel if they wish to travel, they'll have to find reductions in their budget, things they're gonna give up in favor of traveling um or doing some type of training.

Ms.

President, that um so this Mr.

Johnson, so does that also include the mayor's office reduction of travel and training, and as well as the new department of um HHFS.

Do you know?

Uh through the president to Mr.

Corley, yes, and I'm pulling up something specific now.

So the only training remaining in the mayor's office, or there is none, actually, because those were homeland security grant funded, and those are now um in the police department.

Um and HHFS, I don't they didn't have any train, there were no training dollars for HHFS, and then I'm going to travel.

Um the mayor's office in the general fund travel budget is 20,000.

That is for the mayor, primarily for the mayor to attend the National Conference of Mayors meeting, annual meeting, and a couple smaller items.

And then for HHFS, I don't believe there's there's no travel at all for the new department.

So, Mr.

President, Mr.

Johnson, so again, roughly was the total amount of savings to the general fund by eliminating these travel and training budgets, roughly, you know.

One second, Mr.

Corley.

I'm gonna up right now.

Um, so for travel, we saved, yeah, about half million, five hundred and twenty thousand in travel year over year in training.

Let me say about half a million as well.

So about a million in total.

Okay, okay, Ms.

President.

Um I just want council to you know understand that and um we can go from there.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Whitaker, Mr.

President, uh, it's sort of you know, given the position taken by the auditor general when she's indicating that it's necessary to have certain training in order to maintain certifications.

Was there any consideration given for cutting training in areas where the staff must be trained in order to maintain their certifications?

There's some professions require uh long-term training, lifetime annual training.

Was there any consideration given to those um departments that have those types of positions within uh within their operations?

Uh Mr.

Johnson through the president to um Mr.

Whitaker, yes.

So um, in cases like the auditor general, um we were we took the training budget because again they underspend their budget every year, and so we expect that they will have the cushion in their budget to accommodate any of those necessary certification trainings.

Same for departments um, you know, that employ attorneys that are required to do CLEs.

Um I'm fortunate I'm barred in Maryland, we're not required to do CLEs in Maryland, Mar, um, which is great.

Um, but uh the um so those things were taken into account for where there is a you know, yes, in order to maintain your professional licensure or your certification.

Um we did know that we would need to accommodate for that um in the budget.

So Mr.

Johnson, I got a question.

I know you you you've mentioned about the some of the oversight agencies not uh expending their entire budget.

Is is is that uncommon with departments as well?

Uh uh no, Mr.

President.

It's not it's not unbelievable it's not super uncommon.

I would say the oversight agencies have tended to have a much higher underspend rate than a standard department.

Their their percentage of underspends are typically higher than the average department um would be.

Um I think part of that is a factor of you know, since fiscal 22, their their budgets have grown considerably.

We were doing double digit increases to their budget every single year um prior to proportional funding, and I think that their budgets have grown larger than their um capacity to spend.

Um so I would say right now what we're seeing with the oversight agencies is they're definitely um spending their underspending by a greater percent than say the general services department or the health department.

They definitely underspend, but it's a much smaller percent of their overall allocated general fund budget.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Corley.

So that make could be a good segue, unless council members have other questions uh to go into the oversight agencies if you think that's this is a good time to do so.

Sure.

Uh colleagues, uh is there a motion to take up line items uh 221.

I'm sorry, let me go in order.

124, that's the board of ethics.

Uh 221, that's the auditor general's office.

Uh 229, that is the embudsman's office, as well as 230, that is the inspector general's office.

Motion.

All right, there's a motion on the floor.

Uh another those items were moved.

Um there's a mixture between member McCampbell and I on those uh for the purpose of of allowing this conversation to take place and um for those particular uh oversight agencies with discussion uh pro Tim Young.

Yes, thank you.

I just wanted to make sure.

So this is this is us moving this forward.

Is this us approving these budgets yet?

So are we just moving it forward to have that discussion?

Well, we're right now having the discussion, sir, and then we will uh dig into these items as we have with a line by line how we uh uh want to approach them in the requests.

Okay, sir.

All right, um member caliber.

So, Mr.

Chair, um, through yourself to Mr.

Corley and Mr.

Johnson, um, these are just recommended um cuts in terms of traveling and training, is that correct?

Because we have it in our budget right now, so we could find like if we don't do a lot of hiring, if we have a lean team, we've not um used all of our resources to hire or through the chair to Mr.

Johnson and Mr.

Corley.

I can only speak from my own budget.

We always come in way under.

So um that being said, would I be able to, because I'm not sure, be able to move if the training and um travel is zeroed out of each council person's budget.

Is that what we're saying through the chair to Mr.

Johnson and Mr.

Corley?

I'm just trying to understand what we're doing.

Mr.

President, so if I may ask the question first to Mr.

Johnson, so um if council council member offices has you know excess dollars because of not you know hiring or whatever.

I I thought that the tradition is that you cannot move salary and benefit dollars to other line items within your budget.

I'm hoping I'm wrong about that, but that's my general understanding from the Department of Um Development Services under the OCFO.

So maybe Mr.

Johnson can share some light on that.

Mr.

Johnson.

Uh thank you, Mr.

President.

Um, through you to member Callaway and to Mr.

Corley, um, you can do it.

It just requires my permission, um, basically.

Um, those kinds of requests, those budget, those budget transfer amendments come to me for my personal approval, and it's just to make sure that if we're moving money out of the personnel object, since personnel is a non-discretionary um account structure, that making sure that if we are doing that, I'm confident that we're not gonna end up in a situation where we are short on our salary side.

So you you can do it.

Um, and usually if those kinds of amendments come through, I'd say, you know, nine times out of ten, it's usually the math's already been done, and they are fine to proceed.

One time out of ten, I have to follow up and go.

Let's talk more about this and figure out what we can do.

Um you know, to you, member Callaway, for your office particularly, yes, you you do underspend um pretty substantially, and so I would not have that concern for you.

The chair, thank you, thank you very much, Mr.

Johnson and Mr.

Corley.

Thank you.

So, Mr.

President, I don't know if you want to go line by line.

So for the oversight agencies.

So we I know uh we were provided a document as well.

It's not a new one, it was uh from uh the day we spoke.

Was that yesterday?

Time is flying.

And we when we spoke to the agencies, we had a document.

It was yesterday.

All right, losing time.

Uh we got a printout of the uh requests.

I do know that uh in total it was uh for all of the three uh or four agencies, excuse me.

Uh it was one point nine, excuse me, one million nine hundred and eighty-seven thousand dollars and one hundred, excuse me, one million nine hundred eighty-seven thousand nine hundred and six dollars.

That was the total um all together, but there may be a motion uh for them individually or all together at this amount or partial or more than they're looking for.

Well, that is what's on the floor at this moment.

I know that I am in support of the request that all of the agencies have put forward.

That is just me personally.

But again, motion is on the floor for discussion.

Member McCampbell.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

And I am also in support of the request of funding.

And I understand that we are we have constraints with our budget.

I and I was not here when the resolution was passed, but I have a belief that we uh keep our word and intent around what we pass here.

And I know this is a uh with city council that passed a resolution, um, especially since we are dealing with oversight agencies.

I I take um particular uh care around that because these are the agencies that are um uh in power and that our residents rely on to ensure that our city government is working in the way that it should, and um that it's not with corruption and that we're held accountable.

So I am in favor of this request.

Um I understand that uh again that we have budget constraints, but uh it's clear that these agencies are not yet on um fulfilled on the steps that we have committed to them.

Um and I just believe that they we should continue on getting them to the true aspect of the proportional um funder.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Any further discussion, colleagues?

Mr.

Chair, uh member Callaway.

Thank you so much.

I do not support um um through yourself to Mr.

Corley and particularly to Mr.

Johnson.

Um we have the um we um have a um estimated 56, I think it's either 56.2 million dollar reduction.

All operating departments have had to take a reduction.

It it appears that we're gonna have to take a reduction, and um the promises made uh may not be the promises kept.

What happened um a year ago, things have changed.

We have a brand new administration and a uh new makeup of our city council, and um what happened a year ago um can happen this year based on um dollars and cents and just logic.

We if we're listening to our CFO, um they're here to assist with our um uh our finances, and I just don't want to throw us back into bankruptcy or borderline um tinkering around bankruptcy, and this is from in my opinion.

Um, if you haven't already spent your budget, and I know I come in low every year.

Why would I ask for more?

You haven't you haven't used what has already been awarded to your department and to come back for more.

Um sometimes we make promises based on what happened a year ago and based on the finances at that time looking through that particular lens, but it's a whole year later, and it's a different type of lens, and we're looking at 56.2 million dollars reduction or slash loss, and knowing that other departments have taken a reduction, we all have to swallow that pill and not pretend that that pill is not in front of us.

We all have to um do our part to make sure we're not thrown back into bankruptcy or even borderline bankruptcy.

So I don't support um, and they're doing a great job, but they can do continue to do the great job with the budget that they have, they haven't even spent down.

That's just logic.

Um, so um I I cannot support it.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

With further discussion, I saw Member Johnson's hand in pro Tim.

Oh, I'm sorry, before we do that, I saw Member Miller's hand earlier.

Member Miller.

Oh, she took it down.

Uh, member Johnson, followed by Pro Tim Young.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, so although I have not received a response to the question that was um asked of the independent agencies as it relates to their average spending of their budgets.

Um I did adjust the numbers based upon that.

Um so I have suggested amounts um that I would like to share.

Um, I don't know if I do that now because it's it's four different amounts um for all of them, of course, but it does provide a slight increase, but um takes into consideration how much they have historically spent um of their overall budget.

Okay, I think now it's appropriate to uh raise it.

All right, and so with that for the auditor general, um I have an increase of one hundred and fifty-two thousand six hundred forty-four dollars and thirty-seven cents, and I can send this to you, Mr.

Corley.

For the ambuds person's office, I have one more time, member Johnson.

152,000 644 dollars and 37 cents.

Okay.

For the umbuds person, and it's just a calculation.

Yesterday when we were talking, I crafted my own little spreadsheet based on the conversation, and um this is the Excel formula that's coming back to me.

Um, President may ask a question.

Can she round it up?

Thank you so much.

So your calculation, I I I get it, you get to 153,000 rounding off.

Now order general request was 726,000 rounding off.

So you realize that.

I just want to make sure that was Mr.

Courley.

Can we first allow her to give the numbers out?

Okay, then we are before we do that.

Um I think I messed up, Mr.

King.

No, you didn't, Mr.

President.

Just for the um the body to know, is this uh motion you're presenting?

Not yet.

Okay, just discussion.

Yes, just discussion.

Um, and then Mr.

Corley, I'll try and tell you how I came up with this calculation because I figured that's probably what you wanted to hear.

Um for the umbuds person, it is 123,000 five dollars and eighty-five cent for the office of the inspector general one hundred twenty-two thousand six hundred ten dollars and thirty cent and for the board of ethics fifty-one thousand two hundred eighty-eight dollars and fifty-two cent.

Ms.

President, can you please repeat that again for um board of ethics?

I'm sorry.

51,000 288 dollars and 52 cent.

Okay, thanks.

So if I can share with you what I did, let me see if I can remember.

Um so I had listed on my Excel spreadsheet their fiscal year 26 budget, um, what was proposed in the fiscal year 27 budget, and I essentially took the percentage of their spin down on average that Mr.

Donnie Johnson provided.

So I took the fiscal year 26 amount, adjusted it based on their spin down.

I'm just following my calculation, and subtracted out the proposed fiscal year 27, and came up with the difference.

Okay, Mr.

President, this is their their proposal.

The the administration's proposed administration, Mr.

President, Mr.

Strace's proposal is a reduction.

Correct.

So to restore some of that.

Yes.

Gotcha.

Okay, so you you're restoring some of that, and then you're you're basing you're you're you're looking at their spend their spin.

And um, okay, I I guess I guess so I I think I see what you're doing.

Um it sounds like, and I'm sorry, I'm so sorry I don't have that uh chart before me.

That's dated up like two o'clock in the morning preparing that chart.

I don't hear it in front of me.

Um so um would you like me to calculate it through you, Mr.

President, based on their requested amount?

That might be and that may be better because I would I would hope that at least council would consider restoring with administration cut out because I think a lot of you thank you so much.

You know, I first okay let's get auditor general as an example okay.

So Mr.

Corley, actually, um when I look because I was about to do that calculation, that is what I have.

It is the agency's requested amount multiplied by the percentage of their average spend.

Okay, and that is the number um that I came up with.

So their total would be whatever that number is, and I subtract it out what the administration proposed, and that is the addition that I have left that I just shared.

So I took the agency's requested amount based on proportion proportional funding, multiplied it by the percentage that they are likely or have in the past spent down, yeah, and then subtract it out the administration's proposed budget for them.

Oh, Mr.

President, so you're basically subtracting out what they reduced because administration proposed budgets are reduced their budgets.

Like for let's take let's take order general example.

Okay, the administration reduced order general's budget from the current year's budget by 217,000 dollars.

And so I think maybe an easier way is to consider at minimum restoring what the administration took out.

So let me let me let me rephrase this.

Okay.

Um so I'm starting with the requested budget that the agencies are asking for.

Yeah.

I think the real difference is the percentage that they typically would spend.

So the auditor general's request was 636 million.

Let me make this a dollar amount.

It is 6,359,507.

According to Mr.

Johnson, they spend about 91% of their budget.

Yeah.

So 91% of that $6 million that they've requested is $5,787,151.37.

When I take out what the administration has at included to provide to them for this fiscal year 27, that's the difference that I have.

Okay.

So that is the amount that I'm suggesting we increase for them.

Okay.

So it's essentially their ask with the anticipation that they are going to spend 91% of their budget.

Yeah.

Mr.

President.

Uh Mr.

Johnson.

Um I can say that um council member Johnson's proposal and compromise.

Um, I am empowered to say that we would accept that funding solution for the proportional funding agencies.

That would be a solution, essentially restoring the budgets with a little bit more here or there um on this on some of the budgets.

But the numbers you you read out, I believe it was 51,288 for ethics, 152, 644 for auditor general, 123 um and six 12306 um for um budsperson, and then 1226 10 for inspector.

The administration would accept this compromise.

Discussion with further discussion, member Benson followed by Member McCampbell.

Just for my own edification, then Member Johnson, where does the one in the auditor general's line, where does a 152 get added?

Does it get added to the 5.6 million or to the 5.8 million?

Through you, Mr.

Chair.

Member Johnson.

It gets added to the 5.6 million.

Okay.

So it doesn't quite take them to the 5.8, but it softens a bit of what okay.

Thank you.

Discussion.

Further discussion, member McCampbell, followed by Member Callaway.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, and I appreciate Council Member Johnson's um compromise and the numbers here.

And I and I appreciate the bringing up of the spend the spin rate, um, and I hope you know, I hope that as we come back and continue on fiscal years, if this is the number that ends up with that we we do still um get to the proportion um of the budget because what I'll bring up here is that absolutely this is a new council.

I would say seven of the nine members on the council are the same council from before and one of those members is the mayor.

Um so I I would uh uh assume that the spirit of what was passed in that resolution remains um and that we if we are making policy as such on this council, um that is multi-year that we stick to it.

Um, and that's what expect people expect of us.

So I just want to name that, but I um appreciate the work in this, and and I would I would be inclined to support those numbers.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um pro uh member Callaway followed by Pro Tim Yao.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Chair, and um thank you, Member Johnson, for your um your budget analysis with your Excel sheet.

Um I um I support still um the the um the recommendations from the administration coming from someone who served on this council for 12 years who has a full understanding of the budget, and I trust the administration, their decisions that they're making in regard to this particular issue.

Um I don't know about the others, but this is the one that's before us right now regarding the um the cuts or um the compromise for these agency request.

Um but we do have a mayor who served honorably for 12 years on the city council and what's on this side of the table and has a clear understanding um of what she's doing, and I trust that.

I trust that wisdom and I trust that experience, and I still support um although Mr.

Johnson through yourself, Mr.

Chair has just agreed that this is a compromise that it is acceptable, then I agree with that.

But um moving forward, I absolutely know there's a new sheriff in town, and she has she is working from a lens and experience from sitting on this side of this plexiglass for 12 years.

Um not the plexiglass because it wasn't here before 2019, but um you under you all understand what I'm saying.

So I trust that wisdom and I trust that um expertise, and um so thank you so much, and thank you again, Member Johnson.

All right.

Um pro tumya.

Thank you.

Uh if you would have adopted artificial intelligence, we probably could have saved a lot more money, not being in this situation a long time ago.

I'm just saying, um, you know, if you just did what I told you to do.

But uh listen, what I wanted to say is a couple things.

One I wanted to say, I just got this um a directive from the former CFO, Stephen Watson.

And what he says that the proportional funding ordinance would not require the administration to set forth or agree to any specific appropriation amounts in the city budget.

The proportional funding ordinance would have an indeterminate fiscal impact on the budget, because given that the ordinance as proposed did not specify the exact funding levels or methods, the fiscal impact could not be determined.

So I just want to say, according to the deputy CFO, that there are not specific numbers that are that are determined in the proportionate funding ordinance.

So from my understanding, we have a little more leeway in terms of how we operate with these funds.

Now, member uh Johnson just came up, I think, with a pretty reasonable compromise, and I'm definitely open to compromises and voting down things, but if not, we don't agree to that compromise.

I was gonna say with uh what member Callaway is saying is absolutely correct.

Uh we have to be able to, I was gonna be able to vote this down as well.

I don't see why you have people who have money in their budgets that have not spent.

I think that's just wrong and reckless.

And I also think in the future, not now, I don't I don't I don't know if this is gonna be appropriate, but I definitely think we need to start talking about whether it's contingency contracts, so hiring people to be able to find savings in the budget, and then those people get paid from those savings.

Um also I think staff to employee ratios in terms of how many employees each staff each staff um head has.

I think that's something that we need to look at in the future, as well as artificial intelligence optimization of these budgets and how this money is spent, as well as uh total factor production terms of the efficiency.

Are you doing more with less money?

I think these are things we need to look at, not because we're not gonna have these problems.

Of course, we're gonna have these issues where we're gonna have less money, but we gotta do everything we can with our metric system and within our power of the contract.

And uh also I forgot to say, um, as well.

I I know member waters talked about this, but basically it was zero-based budgeting.

So every dollar that we have, we have to justify before being spent, just so we have more metrics in place to be able to deal with this shortfall if it so happens to happen again.

I don't think it's going to, or I hope not, but I think with the economics that we have, you know, the go-go years aren't gonna last forever.

And uh right now, I think with oil prices, the way they're going and the economy, we have to do everything we can to make sure that we do what we can not to prevent to protect ourselves from not getting to a precarious situation.

So with that being said, all things uh short, I just want to say I hope that we take a uh member Johnson's compromise.

You've already agreed to that.

I don't see why we kids can't do that and be done.

And uh that's all I have to say.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Uh before you go, I I just want to say that I do support uh, you know, again, when we make a commitment, I support that commitment as we move forward.

I I'm thankful that Member Johnson is able to um was able to call together uh numbers that it sounds like uh this body is more willing to accept as opposed to um uh not approving any additional uh funding.

Uh I would like to see uh more closer to what they were looking for, not all of these uh entities though and agency based on the numbers that I see.

Uh but at this time, I mean I guess the question is, Mr.

Whittaker, um just want to hear from you uh if we do not move forward just based upon the numbers that have been provided to us by the um the uh uh oversight agencies, um, in your opinion, and you have not gone back just now to look at the documents and um, but you've been dealing with this for a minute.

If we move in the direction that member Johnson has brought forward, is that a viol uh a violation of the uh of the ordinance that was approved?

The ordinance has has been stated many times is somewhat problematic given the fact that you do have to you cannot predict one year what you obligate yourself to spending in another year.

It has been stated, you have you're stuck by the revenues that exist in the year in which you're budgeting.

And so the whole concept is somewhat difficult to wrap my head around legally, trying to justify uh in advance what you would have to appropriate for each of these agencies.

But having said that, I think recognizing that these agencies are there, as Mr.

McCampbell has indicated, they're they're there to give some assurances on the part of the public that voted for this charter that these agencies would be in place to prevent us from entering the the spot where we're in before this charter was written.

So to avoid that type of history, these agencies have been in place and they should be empowered with sufficient dollars to run their agency in an effective way.

But that is tempered by the economic ability to carry that out.

And so trying to find a compromise as you've you've done today, I think is more than justifiable.

And uh certainly I would not be one advocating for a greater span than you've come up with.

So the question is it sounds like when I when I ask you, said it it's it's more than you have the ability to wrap your head around right now.

What would be your recommendation to clear this up?

Because this will end up being groundhogs day every year, it feels like if we don't find some way to address this concern.

I think I think that the spirit of normally a lawyer doesn't talk in terms of spirit is either writing or not.

But in this particular instance, you have to recognize your ability to pay.

And so casting uh a certain hard number in advance of a budget is problematic.

And and so I think every year you're gonna be in a position, unfortunately, to try to figure out how you adjust the budget to raise the allow for the these uh oversight agencies to be funded sufficiently to carry out that work, and it's going to largely depend on your ability to financially cover it.

So the formula that's cat this cast in the ordinance and in the in the or and the resolution it was passed last year, in my opinion, has to be adjusted annually.

And it has to be based on your ability to have the funds sufficient to cover it.

And certainly what Mr.

Johnson has said about spin down and spin rate has to be calculated as well.

Because you have to have the ability, as has been stated, you don't want to put money in to a budget that they cannot handle, especially if in lean times.

So I I said a lot, but I think the the bottom line is where you arrived at now with with member Johnson's suggestion, I think is an appropriate spot.

And you know, they may not be satisfied.

They probably won't because they are not getting what they asked for.

But I think you have to look at what they asked for in light of your ability to fund it.

So let me last question for me.

How soon uh or how far out from the budget process uh moving forward would we be able to alert the oversight agencies and this body of what that bottom line number would look like.

I think that also helps because for us to get it during you know the actual budget process just creates a little bit more.

Certainly the the uh the revenue consensus conference gives you a bead on where you're going to be.

If the estimated uh revenues that the city is is projected to receive is low, then I think I think promising or an expectation that you will reach a certain plateau every year, and that plateau will rise every year when the realities are that you don't have the funds to do it.

I think I think the logic is member Callaway has indicated, so to speaks for itself.

If you don't have the money to do it, it's like anything.

No, I get it.

I'm just I'm I'm just looking for a timeline, right?

So that we can get a little closer.

The revenue consensus, Mr.

Johnson may have a comment, but I think the revenue consensus conference is is you're you're sort of stuck by that number.

No, I'm with I'm I I I get it.

I'm uh again, just want to put so that so that as we move forward, I think again we don't have the same conversation last year.

We're now have a uh uh a target to look at, right?

A date to focus on and not just during this budget period when it finally hits us.

Mr.

Johnson.

Uh thank you, Mr.

President.

So, you know, I think this process would make the most sense to to follow along with the budget development process.

So when the Office of Budget establishes what we call the baseline budget, we do that off of the September revenue estimating conference numbers.

We know they're not the final ones.

The real conference for us is February, because that's when we know what we really have available for the next fiscal year.

But the twenty the the September revenue conference lets us set that baseline from which we then build up each department's proposed budget, then send them to the departments, do the back and forth with them, all that process happens.

My expectation would be I think what we would do is create that proposal around the numbers from the September conference as an initial number, just like we do any other departmental budget, and then in the February conference that would fine-tune the final proposal for what that looks like.

So when we proposed the oversight agencies budgets for next fiscal year, like I noted yesterday, you know, we did try to keep roughly the same percentage of the general fund budget.

It's not exactly the same, because that wasn't feasible, but it's roughly the same percentage of the general fund.

And so we tried to keep it so that was the consistent variable so that I know that every year my goal is to try for the Board of Ethics to get 0.057% of the general fund based on the revenue estimating conference's general fund recurring general fund total number.

So that's what I try to benchmark to is it's kind of that kind of percentage, because that's objective, right?

That's an objective number.

One of the issues we have with the the resolution that came from the ordinance, that resolution having been drafted by the oversight agencies themselves, I should note, which no other department really gets to draft their own funding mechanism in the city.

Um, you know, when they did that, they set this sort of total equitable funding benchmark thing.

Again, they're kind of setting their own budget goals and then we're and expecting us to be bound to them.

And that's just not how municipal finance budgeting can work, um, as Mr.

Whitaker said.

So, you know, my expectation would be I would probably be using these percentages, the same ones that I'm using this year as my initial benchmark when I get the September revenue estimating numbers, my team is gonna go, all right, here's what that equates to there.

Then in February, we would provide that revised final number before the mayor's budget is submitted um by her deadline.

So by March 7th.

So that to me, because that's objective, right?

It's an objective black and white number.

There's no quibbling over what it means or anything like that.

And as another thing, Mr.

Whitaker and I attorneys like we like black letter law.

We don't like ambiguity, we don't like uncertainty.

I'm both an attorney and a numbers person.

So combine that together, it's an unholy mixture of someone who wants I want absolute certainty in all things at all times.

And so anything that leaves me with that sort of ambiguity is tough.

And a government, it's hard to have ambiguity in our policies because they need to be clear and transparent for everyone.

So um I would also note if it gives an give gives you all comfort in a certain sense, the ordinance itself does take in this into account, the situation.

It does specifically say in 17-2-75 that notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the requirement for the city council to approve any amount of proportional funding for the oversight agencies is contingent on the city council's determination that such an appropriation is in the best interest of the city given the budgetary condition and all other critical needs of the city for that fiscal year.

So the council gave itself the ability to make those targeted decisions when it needs to.

And that's the ordinance.

The the resolution is what provided the current funding mechanism, but resolutions obviously do not bind the way ordinances do.

So anyway, all that being said, I also agree with Mr.

Whitaker.

I think Councilmember Johnson's uh compromise is a good one.

It's one the administration is comfortable with, and we have no problem would have no problem moving forward with it at this time.

Okay.

So we will end debate on those petit on this particular item.

So we do have them before us, unless there's any further discussion, it doesn't look like it.

Uh if we can go line by line, if we will, Member Johnson, um I guess put or we have member McCampbell who actually moved the items, and member Johnson, if you can provide the uh number, uh, and we will plug those in.

Line item 124, member McCampbell.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and again, uh much appreciation to member Johnson on this.

So um I will add to the can we round up and kick knock the cents out?

Absolutely.

Uh you don't want we got you.

Okay.

So for uh a motion to add uh 153,000 um to uh for the Auditor General's office office.

So that's for uh line item two twenty-one, you're saying two twenty.

Let me make sure I'm making that I had it all written down.

I was just trying to go in order in terms of uh one twenty-four.

Absolutely one twenty-four for border ethics.

Um motion to add fifty-two thousand uh for border ethics.

All right.

There's a motion on the floor for one-time um allotment for a reoccurring reoccurring uh allotment for uh line item one twenty-four.

Any objections?

Discussion with further discussion, member calloway.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So are we removing the the amount that's been asked the 282,344?

We're removing that and then adding just the 50 something thousand.

We we never put the numbers in.

Okay.

Thank you.

Oh, we didn't it is uh through the chair.

I believe that was just a note that uh is what they requested.

Yeah, we didn't we didn't move any numbers.

Yep.

That was what was requested, but we never moved actual numbers.

That was then we just put them all in for discussion.

Okay, colleagues, there's a motion to approve 52.

Those 52,000, correct?

For line item 124 um reoccurring, member McCampbell.

Yes, that's correct.

Any objections?

See none, that action shall be taken.

We can move over to line item two twenty-one, please.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, for line item 221.

This is the office of the auditor general uh motion to add 153,000 recurring there's a motion for 153,000 reoccurring uh dollars uh allotment for line item 221.

Any objections none that action shall be taken.

Let's drop down to line item 229, please.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Line item 229, the office of the um busman uh motion to add 123,000 to uh office of the business.

Colleagues, there's a remotion for to add 123,000 reoccurring uh allotment to line item 229.

Any objections?

See none that action shall be taken.

Um for line item 230, Mr.

Chair for line item two thirty the office of the inspector general motion to add one hundred and twenty-three thousand as a motion for one hundred and twenty-three thousand for uh reoccurring for line item two thirty.

Any objection?

See none that action shall be taken.

Mr.

Corley.

Okay, Mr.

President.

Um, so we have about 41 pinned items, and it would be great if council members have some resolutions on your uh outstanding pin items.

Colleagues, any items need looking to unpin and first pro Tim Young, followed by Member Santiago Romero.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Uh Mr.

Johnson.

Yeah, I got you.

Thank you, sir.

Uh Mr.

Johnson, have we made any resolution on uh one on line of 191 involving that uh state grant for uh food restoration pilot programs rushton?

Or you won't bring that back to next week.

Um sorry, uh President Pro Tem Tate.

Um, yes, I would need to bring that back.

I was not able to get clarity.

Well, oh, actually, no, I lie, I lied to you.

I'm so sorry, I was thinking about something else.

It's all right.

I was able to to communicate with Director Perkins.

Um her she indicated to me that right now um the two state grants that we receive.

Oh let's let's let's keep it down, everybody.

The two state grants that we receive for food support for both children and for seniors um to the general services department.

We are actually behind on the spend of those already.

Um getting those dollars out the door has been a very slow process.

Um and so she indicated that right now adding more money to the program it it wouldn't be able to get deployed.

We we're still behind on getting the grant funds spent.

Um there's just a I think uh organizational um capacity issue with the organizations we work with to get the the fund to get them distributed.

Um thing I think that would possibly help Director Perkins is if she could add if we could, you know, instead of adding money directly to the for the program, if we instead added some one-time dollars, maybe 150,000 for two temporary positions to help get the program caught up.

They would be task positions, and we would examine whether they should continue permanently in the 28th budget, but they would be so additional resources to help her actually get the program deployed.

So it's it's really she doesn't need the dollars, but she does need a couple more sets of hands to help move through it.

So if we did about 150 in one time dollars, I could get her the two that would allow us to get her the two task positions to help deploy the dollars.

I I understand it, but I think this is a little bit of a different program than the one I'm doing with uh Tefara Rushton.

So I just I saw I I just wanted so I just want to know maybe maybe I made a mistake earlier thinking those are the same thing when they're not because I don't think they're different, and I know when I talked to Miss Rushton, she said the $500,000 number that I that I had was good because it would help her with being able to procure a vehicle.

Okay, um look can we put a pin in this and let me talk because it sounds like there may be some uh a failure of communication between Director Rushton and Director Perkins.

Okay, and it's really Director Perkins who makes these decisions okay.

So I re I I need to make sure we get that clarified.

Yes, let's make sure we get that clarified.

I appreciate that.

All right, because other than that, that's all I have left.

So that's it for me.

Does anybody else uh chair recognizes member Santiago Romero?

Thank you, Mr.

Pro Time, Mr.

Chair, through you.

Um to Mr.

Corley.

Uh item.

Oh I apologize.

I I have all my notes on the old sheet, so let me pull the number for the new sheet.

And then this is for media services.

Okay.

Um, so for on the new sheets, line item 128.

This is the media services line that's still pinned.

We'd like to remove the pen and add this to closing resolution 128, Mr.

President, on our new sheet.

This is page 11.

And um, just for just so that everyone can know.

Um, I still will be having discussions with our director on Monday, um, but not adding anything monetary to this, uh, but would like us to get to a point where we have either utilizing our existing channels or a new channel.

Um productions and programming that is in multiple languages.

We I don't think we need to necessarily reinvent the wheel.

I think some things can be dubbed, I think some things can be translated.

Um, but just to provide um more language accessibility and programming as well.

All right, colleagues, there's a motion to place closing resolution language in for line item one.

So one twenty one thirty.

No, one twenty-eight.

128.

I was like, huh, 128.

Any objections?

See none, that action shall be taken.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Thank you.

Um my remaining pinned items.

I can go through those now, and then we should be all done with all our items.

Um I've had some discussion for the remaining items.

Um, and I'm going to make some changes.

So apologize again.

I'm going to begin with 16.

District Court.

So on our old sheets.

I'm looking for 36 district court on the new sheets.

Should be at the end.

Oh, I see it.

Yes.

This is going to be item 233.

Line item line item 233 on page 21 of our new sheets.

This is regarding the Southwest Detroit Community Justice Center.

300 one time.

Would like to remove the 300 one time from this item and add this to closing resolution.

The language here will state encouraging our we are it's not it's not the community, it's not the Office of Violence Prevention.

We are calling it the Office of Neighborhood and Community Safety, I believe.

But encouraging us to look at more community courts as a way to also help decriminalize and help people go through the the court processes in community.

So we're going to add that to closing resolution.

All right, colleagues, there's a motion for closing resolution language for line item 233.

Any objections?

Say none, that action shall be taken.

Ms.

President, you're gonna vote to remove the thank you, Mr.

Corley.

Uh colleagues, is there a motion to remove the $300,000 allotment of general fund one time uh dollars?

Motion as a motion to remove that $300,000 amount for line item two thirty three.

See no objections, that action shall be taken.

President Yes ma'am.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um next on our new sheets item two eleven.

This is I would like to remove the dollar amounts of 500,000 for the animal care and control and add this to closing resolution.

Um as I'm sure people have heard, we have a new director, a new staff, and renewed energy.

Uh they would like some time to evaluate their current needs and come back with us supporting them.

Uh but for now, we'll remove the number and add this to closing resolution.

Okay.

Colleagues, there's a motion to remove the $500,000 uh allotment to line item 211.

Any objections?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

There's a further motion that to uh place um closing resolution language for line item two one one.

Any objections?

See none that action shall be taken.

Santiago Romero.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Almost done here for line item 210.

Also would like to remove the pen here.

I'm going to reduce the amount of 500 to 200.

And this would be again for a water feature at Kemini Rec Center.

Um, this isn't 4217.

Okay.

Colleagues, there's a motion to amend the dollar amount, one-time general funding for line item 210.

Any objections?

See none.

And it move it to a 200,000 dollars.

Any objections?

See none, that action shall be taken.

Santiago Mero.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

And with these changes, um by removing three from the court center, the justice center, two from Kemini, and the five from the animal control.

I'm going to go back and revive the one million dollars for Chinatown.

After going back, um, talking with my team and community.

Um, this is something that is being um urged by our office to support again.

As I mentioned, um, this will be for CAS Corridor.

This will be to do streetscape um redesign for Peterborough.

And it really is not just sidewalk repairs.

They're doing brims, they're doing um trees, uh, they're doing a whole streetscape.

Um so we'd like to add one million dollars back to our line item investing in Chinatown.

And unfortunately, I need to find that item in the new sheets.

There's 21 in the old sheets.

It was in DPW.

DPW.

Mr.

President.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So, Mr.

President would like to add one million to line item 23.

Discussion?

Is that one time or one time?

All right.

There's a motion for one million and one time general funding for line item 23 with discussion.

First, we'll go with Member Benson, then Mr.

Jones.

Just for my own own edification.

This is for streetscape improvements around the Peterborough and Cast intersection.

Okay.

So just wondering if it's appropriate to title a Chinatown or just the Cas Peterborough area.

So it seems more inclusive than exclusive.

Sure.

I mean, it that's where it's at.

So if it's at that helps people, um this is this is for Cast Corridor Peterborough Streetscape.

Yes.

Um with further discussion, member Pro Tim Young.

Not to be Debbie Downer here, but isn't the purpose of this to celebrate the Chinese heritage and the wonderful contributions that they've made to Detroit and America?

I mean, I'm not saying I'm opposed necessarily, but I like the fact that it's named after Chinatown.

I thought that was kind of the point.

Am I missing it here or the chair to Professor?

Member Santiago Romero.

Um, Mr.

Pro Time, you and I can be there at the grand opening celebrating the investment in Chinatown.

Absolutely.

I I to member Benson's point though, we we hear often from residents as if this is exclusive, it is not.

Um, and and I I actually don't like to go back and forth and and and I I I hear and I listen and and I move and I work for everyone.

And this streetscape will enhance the lives of every single Detroiter that goes to Cast Corridor in Midtown.

Um, support us in walking and biking and driving safer.

Um, and yes, it will also support the historic recognition and celebration of Chinatown.

Um so you're not wrong, Pro Time, and I appreciate your support.

Yeah, this is discussion.

Pro Tim.

Followed by member Cow.

And let me say this too, and by the way, I I was gonna say this later, because I I'll probably have a conversation about this um offline because I know I introduced a while ago in the budget uh a st uh a study for Africa Town to be built.

So I'll probably check it, but I don't have to do that here.

We check up on that later.

But let me just say, just because we're invested in Chinatown, doesn't mean we take it away from anyone else.

Of course, I support African town, I've always supported Africa Town.

You know, my my father supported African town.

And you know, and I'm a little bit more flexible.

You don't have to call African town, you want to call it Wakanda or whatever, that's fine, but we could we could do that, but but this is not a zero-sum game.

And also and also let's remember it if I may about this really quickly here.

We're talking about a group of people who the only group of people in the country who had we can please your mic, please.

No, yeah, the only group of people in the country that have had language specifically targeting them, specifically African American people, it was indirectly, but specifically with the Gary Ad, specifically with the page ad, saying that their women were so lascivious that it had to be uh rejected from the country with the Chinese exclusion at the cooley labor when they were building the Trans Pacific Partnership.

These are things that were happening that people need to understand about this country and about what contributions are, and the fact that they're still being discriminated against.

You if you're an Asian, you make a 56% of Silicon Valley, and you're only three percent of all the CEOs in the country.

They clearly call that the bamboo ceiling.

So I think that that's discrimination and ease we talked about, not to mention also the fact that the um the Heart Sellers Act was targeting the best of our Asian brothers and sisters to come over into this country.

Um, and also the fact that the United States, because they needed allies in the Cold War, would on a positive image campaign highlighting the truth about the Asian community.

That's why we think the way that we think about them.

I understand they need to do that for other people, other cultures, but they did that in order to be able to um mascot them and turn them against other groups of people.

That's why they that's why they did that.

The laws that they passed, part of the reason why they are in our communities like they're in, is because if you have a small business, you could be able to establish citizenship.

And another part of that is because they tried to go to places that were not as diverse and they couldn't afford it and they wouldn't let them.

That's why they came into these part of the this part in these urban areas and were able to buy these businesses, start these businesses because of the affordability because they were allowed to be able to do that.

But those were all laws that were targeted against black folks.

This is not them trying to fight against black people.

This is a system that was designed to use other groups and other minorities to depress black people.

And I don't think that we should have that same mentality towards them.

We should have a mentality of a group collection where we all lift each other up, not where we all oppress each other, because that's what the system was designed to do was for us to attack each other rather than unify come together.

So I so long story short, I support Chinatown.

Thank you very much.

And the title of Chinatown, thank you very much.

Thank you, Pro Tim.

Chair.

A member Callaway.

Thank you so much.

The Asian population, and by the way, Silicon Valley is in California.

Um the Asian population in Detroit proper is small, comprising approximately 1.6, possibly 1.7 of the city's population with a notable concentration of residents in Midtown and near Wayne State University.

However, the broader metro Detroit area, Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb Counties, has a rapidly growing Asian population with over 184,000 residents identifying as Asian American as of this year, 2026, representing a total of 4.3% of the total regional population.

And it goes on and on and on.

And I don't know if that's AI generated or not.

But I know as a lifelong resident of this city, and um have been hearing from Joanne Watson and others who have been asking for African town, and even you, um Pro Tim, through the chair, have been asking for that.

Where did that conversation go?

So I could not support this without supporting um African town.

And I think the city is comprised of the close to 80% African American um population.

And we didn't leave the city.

We stayed, we stuck and we stayed, and we deserve nothing less than what we've been asking for through Joanne Watson and you um Pro Tim Tate.

I don't know if you've I don't know if you stopped the fight, but um we can't stop the fight.

If Joanne Watson was here, she would say something.

So maybe you know her spirit is speaking through me.

I don't know.

But I've heard her advocate on behalf of African town for decades.

Even when she was the president of the NAACP, she always advocated for that.

So we can't lose that in this conversation.

Um, one town is no more important than another town, but I will speak on behalf of my people.

We have stuck and stayed.

We have stuck and stayed in this city, built businesses, lost businesses, open businesses.

Um, but I can't say that about other races.

I can only speak about my race and knowing what's here.

We it's almost 80% African American um population, and we didn't flee.

We're here.

We are here, we never left.

We're here.

Our children are in these um school systems.

We're here.

We're paying all these high age property taxes and auto insurance.

That's not everybody's story, but that's our story as African Americans in this city.

We're the ones losing $600 million or have lost $600 million worth of property.

For whatever reason.

We didn't get that back.

We're struggling, we stayed together and we struggle.

So if there's going to be a conversation, we need to have a more expansive conversation, including African town as well.

That is my um, I guess you would call it commentary.

Um Chair Tate.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm surprised that we ended up on this uh when we were talking about this item.

We're talking about a street improvement and it devolved to them versus us.

Um, in my opinion, it it devolved into them versus us.

Uh I do believe that we listen, I don't talk when other folks talk.

I'm sorry.

Um, so I I think it's it's unfortunate that we devolve our conversation into them versus us when uh we weren't always in the city of Detroit.

Uh we are here now, we're absolutely here.

We're gonna make sure, as far as I'm concerned, I'm gonna stay here.

My family's gonna be here, but this city is comprised of so many different cultures, and that's what makes the city of Detroit so awesome.

Yes, we as African Americans are indeed the uh majority population.

Uh, and I don't want to see it any different because I'm very comfortable in that space.

Uh but I think it's it's important for us to to to not um uh uh over over to pass over the um accomplishments, achievements, and the presence of other races, cultures within the city of Detroit.

Uh, this thing is cyclical.

We see it happen all the time.

Folks move in, move out.

Uh I would hope that we as a body do not take in to that negativity that has been pressed upon us by certain individuals in the federal government and elsewhere where they're constantly seeking to divide us because we're stronger, much stronger together.

And I would just hope that we keep focused on the items that are in front of us.

There is nothing that's precluding not one member of this body from moving on African town.

If that is an issue and is something that they're looking to do as a member, anyone can do that.

We don't have to wait and uh or or look at the archives where members have past push forward.

Anybody who's sitting here can push this forward.

So I don't know who the they are that's being indicated that's not allowing it to happen.

We are sitting in this seat right now.

If we want to see that happen.

So we, if that's what this body wants to see, um put it on the table.

Let's start moving on.

But I don't think that we should start demeaning putting down separating other races just because it's not it's just become unfortunately a popular thing now.

I just and that's just my personal view.

It's unfortunate.

Um Member McCampbell, followed by Member Waters.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I would just say I support this item.

I support the streetscape, I support walkability and the history that is around the area, especially when it comes to Chinatown, and I and I look forward to reaching out to pro-Tim Young on African town because we love to have that in District 7.

So thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I'd rather have in District 1, we got a lot of higher African immigrant population in District 1.

So I'll take it.

I'll take it.

Member Waters.

Well, thank you.

Uh, when I think about the majority of population here uh in this city, first and foremost, we know that it's African Americans.

Then secondly, it is Mexicans.

So let me just say this.

This is not the time to be creating any town.

Uh we say that we have a budget shortfall.

Uh we've outlined uh, you know, different departments taking cuts and so forth.

There's no way we can afford to do this right now.

And I do expect the CFO to step up, speak up, say something about whether or not we can afford this.

You know, we need we need to hear that.

You've been telling me all day long what I cannot afford what I could not put in the budget because of uh, you know, this the status that we're at.

And so, you know, just like some folks told me the other day about a few dollars.

I was trying to get a what was it?

Um stuff, I mean, that was like what 25, 50,000.

If I was gonna do it, even though I just ended up putting it in there.

But what I'm saying to you, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, is what I've heard.

So, less if if we're going to be uh really frugal about about our budget, if we're gonna be concerned about our budget, then there are certain decisions that we cannot make at this time.

And I'm not anti any race.

Of course, you know, I think about my own race first and foremost, but I'm not anti-any other race, but I'm just saying let's be smart.

That's that's all I'm asking right now.

It's budget time.

Let's be smart about what it is that we can create right at this time.

Thank you for recentering us to on the issue that is before us, member waters.

Um and then we're going to have pro-Tim Young here.

If it's going to further us in this mission, please, but if it's just commentary, I'm just asking us to this bitch.

Because it sounds like there's a motion on the floor.

Yes, I will make this quick.

But I gotta get this out.

Raw internally combust.

Well, not yet.

Um, yeah.

Mr.

Johnson.

Uh thank thank you, Mr.

President.

Um, so um I am chiming in, and I am I am going to say that we do not currently have the funding to do this.

The funding for these streetscapes is going to come when the state determines that it has enough money later this fall from the marijuana um uh wholesale tax revenues.

If there are sufficient wholesale tax revenues, then we will get a distribution of additional funds, the NRF, the neighborhood road fund, and those funds are being earmarked for streetscapes.

At that time, and leading up to that time, the administration intends to go through a pretty intensive process of determining and selecting which streetscapes go, and that would include involvement with your offices, it would include involvement with the community, etc.

So at this time, what would be accomplished with this motion would be um kind of a wish list item.

Um it's not something we would be able to move forward with at this time with the existing road funding.

Um, and so uh, you know what this is the kind of item that I think is truthfully better in the closing resolution as an ongoing conversation because these funds don't exist yet.

We do not have them in hand for streetscapes.

And our last voice on this particular item, it will be pro Tim Young, and then we're going to vote.

Yep.

Thank you so much.

First of all, I just want to say I started my career with Joanne Watson.

I would not be where I am without her and people here at Red.

I am eternally grateful.

I am also Coleman Young's son.

The legacy that's on the side of this building.

Part of the reason why we have a black town is because of that legacy.

And I have sacrificed for that, not just politically, but personally.

I have lost, and my family has lost because of that.

So I understand what African town means.

I understand why we need to build African town, and my family has shed blood, sweat, tears, toil, and lost lives so that Africa town can be built.

So I understand respectfully the purpose of it.

And I just want to say I'm so proud to be able to work with Mr.

Johnson.

We had a study that I issued for Africa Town.

It is complete.

Oh sure, we'll get the results of that quickly.

All I'm saying respectfully, humbly, respectfully, is that we also just have some empathy and concern for our Asian brothers and sisters and their contributions to this city as well, which has been great in terms of Vincent Chin and what they've done.

And you're right.

Silicon Valley is in California, and I'm pretty upset about that.

Should be Detroit.

You're right.

You're like, you know, I'm wearing North Pete shoes on Member Calloway, because I stand corrected.

You got me there.

But I was just using that just as an example of what it's like for you to be an Asian person and for you to excel in every area academically and financially, and still be told that you are not good enough to lead the companies that your ideas and contributions are responsible for making in terms of innovation.

I just think that's fundamentally wrong.

And so I think to have Asian town will be an opportunity for us to be able to recognize that, and for all of us knowing the experiences that we've had with racism, knowing the experiences that we had with discrimination, knowing the experiences that we had with the Fern of Action, where they used it abused, mascot it our Asia brothers and sisters to take away affirmative action from black people.

I just think we are in this all together.

We might have come on different ships, but we're all in the same boat as our Audible Reverend Jesse Jazz would say.

And I thought that this streetscape would be an example of honoring that, recognizing that, and moving that forward.

So now I realize we don't have the money for it.

But uh with that being said, that is all I have to say.

I strongly support this.

Thank you.

I'll return to the sponsor of the motion.

Member Santiago Mero.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

And do you two member uh Mr.

Johnson?

I remember you telling me that, but I have concerns about not having enough money.

It sounds like there's already been a decrease to uh the the funds, and um because this is a streetscape for Cast Corridor, Peterborough in Detroit.

Um just what happens if we don't get that funding?

And you know, quite frankly, I'm inspired by Mr.

Corley, who's saying this is our moment to talk about our priorities and going back, this is a priority that we have.

Uh so just wondering how how guaranteed, and if not, you mentioned closing resolution.

What does that mean if we don't get the money from the states?

Uh Mr.

Johnson, and I do see that Member Miller's raised her hand as well, but we'll go to Mr.

Johnson first.

Uh, through the chair to Councilmember Santiago Romero.

I mean, if the money doesn't come in, the the truthful and hard answer is that there won't be many streetscapes done.

Um it's dependent on us having the funding availability.

Now, that's not to say none will be done.

Um, we can always choose to allocate some of the existing baseline street fund dollars towards streetscapes, but again, with those sort of rarefied resources, that's gonna be a it's going to be a conversation that has to be had between the administration, the council, the community.

Um at this time, binding, attempting to bind the administration to any one particular streetscape at this time is just not going to be feasible because we simply don't know what our final total resource allocation will be.

So committing to one already starts to sort of hamstring the conversation about what else we can do.

And so this has to be an ongoing conversation, but like all other things we're talking about.

I you know, Mr.

Corley's right.

This is of course your moment.

You were in the executive session in the legislative phases, but even that is still bounded by the number of resources we have and um the you know consequences of moving resources away from where they currently are to other things.

These are consequences we can choose to to to bear, but um you know, my role is to advise um and say here's what the consequences would be, and here's what I advise that we do or don't do um in regard to these items.

So I know this is something that's obviously there are very uh strong feelings about.

Um, but uh uh there are also equally strong feelings about many other corridors in the city, and so that's why we would caution against you know um trying to set aside any one this early before we know what our total resource allocation is.

Mr.

President.

Uh before we go to you, it did have uh member Miller in the queue.

Member Miller.

Yes, thank you, uh Mr.

President.

My hand was up long before Coleman.

But I just wanted to say I do understand now this is a sidewalk tree scape and not a repair.

That's why I was raised my hand long before because is it misstated or that's just because this is a commercial corridor?

Because it's stated as far repair, so it's not a sidewalk repair.

Mr.

President.

Um Member Santiago Romero.

Through to Member Miller, this is a streetscape project.

If you were to Google Detroit's Chinatown streetscape projects, you will see the proposed projects um from I believe Midtown Inc.

And and what they have.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

And I just wanted to say uh Mr.

Uh Pro Tim Young.

Please do not have identity crisis regarding this.

I am willing to join you, but I was advised against bringing up one of my proposals similar to the African town, but I would like to join you on anything one for it, because I was told that this wasn't the appropriate time.

So I did not.

But I would like to in the future, for the future, uh, join you because I do have some things in the works regarding that.

And I look forward to talking to you and also McCampbell, uh, Mr.

McCampill uh member about it.

And thank you, Member Waters, because I know the first thing that I said when I walked up and I came on was that we don't have money for that, and I was immediately shot down.

So I would like to put uh motion uh continue with that same energy because what I offered was a 200,000 dollar act for the fire department, but really it's really free just to bring it back and have a discussion because it's just seven appointments that would be very notable for the mayor.

Now I hope she's listening.

That we can move forward with that.

With that being said, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Member Santiago Romero.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

President.

So um would like to thank you.

Um, because it is rather heartbreaking that this became uh us versus them.

Um wholeheartedly agree and supports the creation of African town when a member decides to do that work.

It's it's it requires work to be done in order to get done, and I support those efforts.

And uh just as I'm I'm sure people know that I am not black, but I do live in Detroit.

I love this city.

I love this black city.

I feel safe here.

This is my home.

I support public transportation, affordable housing, public safety, mental health for black Detroit.

And I will continue to do so.

I'll continue to serve everyone, and I just really encourage all of my colleagues to do so as well.

Um with that, Mr.

Presidents.

I'm going to remove the one million dollars for a Chinatown that already exists.

That already exists, that has always already been here that obviously has been forgotten about.

I'm gonna remove the one million dollars for a streetscape repair for walking, biking, and safer driving, Mr.

President's motion to remove the one million dollars.

There's a motion to remove the one million dollar allocation for a line item 23.

Any objections?

Say none that action shall be taken.

Any further unpinning colleagues?

Discussion with discussion, um member Benson, followed by Member McCampbell.

Uh dear shelf to Member Santiago Romero, despite the fact we don't have the money now for a streetscape project at the Cass and Peterborough uh intersection.

Uh I'd like to see this go into the closing resolution to have the DAP DPW and um the ops mobility and innovation talk about the need for additional streetscape improvements in that area.

And while I understand the topic around the naming can be divisive, the need for safe streets, I hope can be something that is um appreciable by everybody.

And as a person who used to work for Midtown Detroit Incorporated, this is the historic area around Chinatown.

You still see some of those historic limits there.

Uh but the need for safety for those who are walking, biking, um, I think is necessary.

I'm hoping we can do at least a closing resolution in that space.

Your motion, Member Benson.

Motion.

As a motion for closing resolution language, uh tied to line item 23.

Any objections?

See none, that action shall be taken.

With uh discussion discussion, member uh waters.

All right, and and as member Benson was making that that motion, I thought about Ms.

Verner, who's always calling here regarding the FICA corridor.

So I want to make a motion for a closing resolution to support the thinker corridor because she calls every single day asking for help over there.

And so that is my motion.

Are you looking for a streetscape on the Franco?

Uh whatever, whatever she'll say streetscapes to start.

Yes, she needs streetscape, she needs boulders, she need all kinds of things.

Okay, so yeah, I'm gonna put it in closing resolution.

So there's a rec there's a motion on the floor for closing resolution uh language as mentioned by member waters.

Any objections, colleagues?

No, we didn't closing resolution.

See none that action shall be taken.

Ms.

President, that's DPW, right?

Okay, uh member McCampbell.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I'm gonna go through a few items that I have here.

Um so for item number sixty seven, and it is in HR, but also um thinking more about this.

I believe it should be for both HR and uh uh Office of Contract and Procurement as well.

So is there a motion to I have a motion to add this for OCP also?

So that so you want the same uh contra same language that we have for line item 67 to also be in OCP?

Yes, all right, colleagues.

There's a motion on the floor, and that language is discussion on uh looking in contracting, looking at contracting services that can be brought in-house.

That closing resolution, sir.

Yes, this is a closing resolution.

Yep, to urge the administration um to work to bring um contracting services in house as much as possible when appropriate, but we'll get that final language.

But yes, motion to move to closing resolution.

All right, colleagues.

There's a motion on the floor.

Any objections?

See none, then action shall be taken.

And then to item number 135.

Uh this is a non-departmental but related to D dot.

Um, we previously um approved closing resolution language.

Uh so that action has been taken.

We pinned for funding amount.

Um, and I appreciate member Benson for joining us and supporting the efforts on this.

I did have a conversation with the administration, um, and they are gonna add language to about this um to the their closing resolution in relation to more infrastructure um on bus routes.

So uh motion to remove the pen for the funding amount.

Uh there's a motion to remit remove uh the pen for any funding that would take place for line item 135.

You know, objections that action shall be taken with 135 is to urge the administration to continue increase general fund support for D dot.

No dot no dollar, no dollar we had already placed it into closing resolution.

Okay, all right.

And then last one for item 223.

This is um related to zoning.

Um motion so we'll get the final language, of course, but um motion to move to closing resolution language to um encourage the administration as they are going through the contract to get a new contract to make sure that the fee for transcripts is lower and to not pass through all of the costs to residents.

Member McCampbell, I have on here that we've already approved a closing resolution language.

And the pen may have been for um uh maybe a dollar amount, I'm not sure, but I have on my list that it was approved for closing resolution.

Mr.

Corley, is that what you have as well?

Yes, Mr.

President.

Oh, my apologies.

So remove the pen.

Remove the pen, yes, sir.

There's a request to remove the pen for line item 223, colleagues.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I just have two remaining items, and we'll we're working hard to get those finalized.

Thank you.

Okay.

Member Johnson, followed by Member Waters.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I almost responded to Member Waters.

Um line item 76 is the entire Office of Disability Affairs budget.

Motion to remove that line item, noting that we've taken a closer look at the Office of Disability Affairs budgeted amounts over the last five years, and also reviewed how much they have spent over the last five years.

So member McCampbell and I have had conversations and we are comfortable with removing this item.

All right, colleagues, there's a request for there's a motion to remove uh line item 76 from the spreadsheet.

Any objections?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

And Johnson?

Thank you, Mr.

Mr.

Chair.

Uh line item 144 is a request for HRD to map and develop a reactivation plan to reactivate vacant and underutilized apartment buildings.

I've had some discussion with uh Director Schneider, and um HRD is willing to do a preservation strategy around NOAA naturally occurring affordable housing focusing on vacant and underutilized apartment buildings.

Uh and so I would like to move line item 144 into the closing resolution.

There's a motion to move uh language for a closing resolution language uh for line item 144.

Any objections?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

And lastly, Mr.

Chair, Member Johnson.

Uh line item 146 is a request for HRD to identify city owned property that can be utilized for a transitional and emergency housing.

Uh motion to remove line item 146, noting what it takes in order for that to happen, but we will certainly continue to work with HRD to identify properties throughout the city for emergency and transitional housing.

Thank you.

Colleagues, there's a motion to remove from the spreadsheet line item 146.

Any objections?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Uh I know Member Waters did have her hand up uh for some items, but she stepped away.

Uh any other unpinnings, colleagues.

Member Benson.

Thank you.

Like to go to line item 70.

78.

Yep, 78.

Life and learning, uh, life and legacy planning.

Sir reduce the number from one million to 400, excuse me, 500,000.

That will remove the general fund dollars, and this will allow for the program to continue while we go back to the uh philanthropic community to re to refund as in provider more funding for that program so it can continue.

It's using ARPA funds until November.

This will allow for two staff members to remain on staff and the workshops to continue.

Okay.

Uh for uh for clarification, member Benson.

I know that we have I see yes on the closing resolution.

So we did have the closing resolution.

Um, but so we're amending the proposed.

I don't think we approved the one million dollars, but it was proposed.

Um we want to adjust that number from one million to five hundred thousand thousand.

One time general fund.

One time general fund.

All right, and remember the discussion.

Typically, the one time isn't used for staff, but staff is already there and it's being funded by ARPA, so this will allow for the continued search for dollars and a conversation of how to permanently fund this program because it's hybrid where you have uh services that could be that will be considered linear credit, but the staff can be funded, and so allows for the the city to go out and talk to the philanthropic community about funding the services while the city continues to fund the staff.

Thank you.

There's a motion to amend the dollar amount, one-time general fund allocation of one million dollars to five hundred thousand dollars for line item 78.

Colleagues, any objection?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

There's a further motion to approve line item 78 with the amended dollar amount.

Are there any objections?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

Member Benson.

Mr.

Chair, let's go down to line item 125.

Yes, sir.

That is the Charles H.

Wright Museum Capital Improvement 7.78 million dollars.

To move that, change that to 1.5 million dollars.

College, there's a motion to amend the uh dollar amount of seven point uh seven million seven hundred and eighty thousand dollars to what was that amount again, sir?

1.5 1.5 million dollars.

Any objections, Mr.

President.

Um, with discussion, Mr.

Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

So I would note that we are kind of at the point now with the one-time capital funding where this we are now at the point where we will be having to cut back the number of police and fire vehicles we can order in fiscal 27.

We have begun to cut into the remaining the fleet part of the capital.

Um, and so our next order of police and fire vehicles is now going to be reduced for all the additional capital items that get added.

So I'm just I'm letting folks know those are the consequences of of what's being done right now.

Discussion, Mr.

Chair with uh this further discussion, member Benson.

Um this uh and thank you, Mr.

Johnson.

Uh not my intent to cut back on public safety within the city of Detroit, um, but it is my intent to reduce the amount from the 7.78 to 1.5, which would allow the continuation of the work that's already being done.

This also means that there's hard work ahead, and I'll be working with Mr.

Corley to try to identify a source for those funds that will not be fleet from police and fire.

As difficult as that may be, we're going to do the hard work and try to see if we can't find it.

You can only be heard colleagues.

There is a motion on the floor.

Any objections?

See none that action shall be taken.

There's a further motion to apply the 1.5 amended dollar amount to line item 125.

Are there any objections?

See none that action shall be taken.

Member Benson.

All right, thank you.

That would take me down to line item 194.

I have four that's a four million dollar from the street fund recurring.

Motion to reduce that to one million dollars.

Recurring from the street fund.

There's a motion to amend the dollar amount of four million dollars for line item one ninety-four for uh reoccurring, correct, sir?

To what was that dollar amount that you were looking for?

Well, one million.

One million dollars for again line item 194, colleagues.

Any objections?

Mr.

President with discussion, Mr.

Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um this will require a reduction in our street resurfacing program.

We're now we're now cutting into the allocation of the street fund that would be used for street resurfacing.

So just I need to make that clear, Mr.

Chair, discussion.

Member Benson.

Thank you for that, Mr.

Johnson.

I am aware I've had conversations with both directors.

I do understand there will be this is a zero-sum game here, and so if you take away to make sure we might manage and maintain our existing tree portfolio, which is in our public right-of-way, which doesn't get maintained, there would have to be some negative impact there.

So still looking to have conversations about this.

So this looking for the approval, but still having conversations about that.

Okay.

Okay.

Colleagues, we have already um altered the no, we did not.

Uh there's a motion again to uh alter or um that's the word, the four million dollar um reoccurring funds to one million dollars for line item 194.

Any objections?

Seeing none that action shall be taken.

There's a further motion to uh apply the one million dollar uh reoccurring funds to line item 194, colleagues.

Any objections seeing none that action shall be taken.

All right, colleagues.

Oh uh member waters.

All right, I just want to go back to line item 212 at this time.

Um I change the name to nutrition and wellness.

Then I want to do the 71 uh thousand recurring and leave all of the planning up to GSD and H H FS in terms of nutrition and wellness.

They can outline the program however they want.

Okay, there's a motion for 71,000 dollars.

Um I think we already did that, but we'll do it officially.

Apply 71,000 dollars to line item 212.

Any objections?

See none that action shall be taken.

There's a further motion to no what we did was we changed the name.

That's what it was uh to nutrition and wellness.

Colleagues, there's a motion to uh approve line item 212 with the new name as well as the dollar amount of 71,000 dollars.

Recurring reoccurring.

Any objections with discussion, member Johnson?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Through you to member waters, the um RFP that has gone out will still remain, so they will still set up shop and create like a cafe space.

Yes, okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Any objections, colleagues?

See none, that action shall be taken.

Any further unpinnings, colleagues?

All right, Mr.

Corley.

Looks like we've gotten to that point.

Um just remind you.

Um this morning, 7.6 million was uh was discussed for the elections department.

So we'll know how you want to handle that one.

I'm I missed the conversation unfortunately, so I'm not sure what was all discussed.

Colleagues, is there a motion on that item?

I know I brought that up earlier.

Sounds like there may be some uneasiness at this point uh on the dollar amount.

Uh I saw Member McCampbell's hand first before you said that member McCampbell, followed by Member Benson.

I uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I so I know in the conversation we had talked about um I know the administration said once the uh the what is left over if there's what is spent, that would be the first priority for the administration seeing that this equipment is um in the contract is not until 20 will be for 27 um and that we will have that year to test equipments as well.

So I would be inclined to make a motion for a closing resolution to uh make sure that that to urge that that happens, but um before I do that, I know uh member Benson has something.

Thank you.

Member Benson.

Line item 70.

I'm sorry, uh that would be line item 236.

It's just the full budget.

Yeah, but the request that came before us member McCampbell.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh motion to add to closing resolution language to urge the administration once the FY26 budget is reconciled to um fulfill this budget request for equipment for the department of elections.

Okay, and is that the full amount that we're talking about that they requested?

For the full amount, yes.

All right, colleagues.

There's a motion on the floor to place into closing resolution language for the departments of election, uh which would encompass their requested amount of seven million five hundred and ninety-eight uh dollars and one hundred and uh seven million five hundred and ninety-eight thousand one hundred and seventy-three dollars and fifty cents uh to go to be allocated towards the various items that they presented before us today and in the spreadsheet.

Any objections for that closing resolution language, colleagues for line item two thirty six seeing none, that action shall be taken, Mr.

Corley Okay, Mr.

President.

Umbers have gone over their pinned items.

If we can take about 15 minutes, I want to get with my team so we can quickly give you a new number for the one-time journal fund items, and then we could talk about funding sources.

So about 15 minutes.

Sure, we'll we'll recess until uh 450.

How's that?

Okay.

Thank you.

We shall stand and recess until 450 p.m.