Good afternoon.

We'd like to now call back to order the PM portion of our executive session, which is part of the expanded budget finance and audit standing committee.

Councilmember Scott Benson.

Councilmember Letitia Johnson.

Present.

Councilmember Denzel Anton McCampbell.

Present.

Councilmember Renata Miller.

Councilmember She is here, but we're trying to see.

Oh, she's joining now.

Okay.

We're going to allow her when she pops up to join.

Miller, if you hear us, say here when you when you get on.

I am here.

All right, there you go.

Oh, okay.

She's here.

Councilmember Gabriela Santiago Romero.

Present.

Councilmember Mary Waters.

Here.

President Councilmember Angela Whitfield Callaway.

President.

Council President Pro Temporar Coman A.

Young the Second.

Council President James Tate.

Mr.

President, you have a quorum present.

Thank you, ma'am.

We have a quorum present with means with now in session.

Mr.

Corley, I was asked if because uh Julie Snyder, Director Schneider is at training, uh, and she was able to kind of pill away from that training.

If we can take up the item that uh deals with uh her space, and I was told that was 148, that's member Callaway's item.

If we can take that one up first, 148 148.

That is, and for the record for those who are watching, line item 148 is discuss the city's willingness to support in supporting and rehabbing the 12 to 13 properties identified by HRD for the historic buildings in district two.

We did approve the closing resolution language for that particular item, but I believe that there was a request for an additional conversation on that item.

Yes.

All right.

And uh Director Schneider is available and she's on screen right now as we speak.

Director Snyder, please introduce yourself for record.

Make sure you can hear us.

Good afternoon, Julie Schneider, director of the housing and revitalization department.

Um for clarification, I thought I was on to discuss fellowship estates.

You know, this is what happened when you get uh all the ripe age of 51.

Your eyes don't uh your eyes deceive you sometimes.

Uh the six sometimes look like eight.

So I was reading 146.

I apologize.

148 is an increased budget to uh provide two million in gap funding to the fellowship chapel housing project.

So again, I apologize, colleagues.

We did uh approve closing resolution closing resolution language for that particular item, but it is pinned based on the conversation now.

I recall that one clearly.

Um so member Callaway, the floor is yours, ma'am.

Okay, thank you so much, Mr.

Chair, and good afternoon, everyone.

We are talking about fellowship.

Is that correct?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, thank you so much, Mr.

Chairman.

Ms.

Schneider, I'll defer to you.

Um we did have brief discussions over the last few days regarding possible funding sources for fellowship chapel.

They're nonprofit, they've been in the midst um, I'm sorry, in the process of building um some affordable housing, really affordable housing, multifamily units, not just apartments, um off the west outer drive behind their church.

And um, I know that we for nonprofits, we can't support them.

I know um for profits we have with ARPA dollars, so I was just trying to have a conversation with you to see if there are any opportunities to offer funding.

They just have like a million or two million dollar gap in funding.

Director Snyder.

Through the chair to Councilmember Callaway.

So there the development that's proposed at Fellowships Estates is a two-phase development comprised of 90 units across both across both phases.

The first phase being 46 units, and that is what they're they're currently uh is the the first one that they would be discussing.

So um that they are anticipating or they will be applying for a we understand that they're applying for a long-income housing tax credit award.

So affordable housing typically is funded, uh, a development of this size is typically funded through a long-income housing tax credit award.

Um the most recent application closed on when last Wednesday, April the 1st, and we confirmed with Mr.

today twice.

They they did not apply for the LITEC award at this time.

So until they receive a long housing tax credit award, they do not have their and and receive that award, but but first, of course, you have to apply.

They do not have the the basis of their financing together or a path to do that based on how the project is currently um proposed, which involves both a nine percent competitive award, which is what just closed on on Wednesday, as well as a four percent um lie tech transaction, which they would apply for um in the summer.

So that's um where that project is in terms of its application for financing.

It's a project that HRD through our Westide team have our public private partnerships team have been looking to support to try to um help them get the project into a place where it can be funded.

The project I think was conceived prior to the pandemic and financing his and funding as in cost of construction have really changed, and um we would really need to see them apply for for LITEC or have a competitive project at that stage in order um to see that that project is actually gonna be um underway and under construction and completed.

Um it's yeah, that's also I'll pause there with where that where I understand that project to be in terms of information I have.

Okay, all right.

Well, thank you so much, Ms.

Snyder.

I'm through um the chair to you.

Um so when is the next life tech opening?

I mean, if the application just ended, I think April the first and you said that that they didn't apply, when would be the next application period?

Because I'm sure they know.

I just want to know for my own information.

Yeah.

Um thank you.

And through the chair to council member Callaway, and I'll just go into a little bit more detail.

So typically we have an April 1st and an October 1st funding deadlines, or I shouldn't say typically, we always have an April 1st and an October 1st funding deadlines.

If it falls on a weekend, it's um that's accounted for.

And then typically we we receive notification on awards in either uh for the April round in June, in an October in December or January.

So the next round closes on October 1.

Okay, all right.

Well, you've done your due diligence.

We appreciate I appreciate you so much.

Um, you shed a lot of light on um what they should be doing.

Um if they want support from the city, they have um the ball is back in their court, and so hopefully they will apply.

I'm sure they're listening.

October 1st.

You've done your part, we've done our part, and we um we did what we could to support them.

I don't have any other questions, not unless there's more information through the chair you want to share.

I don't have any other questions.

Um to the chair or through the chair to council member Kelly.

No, that that's my um understanding of where the project is in terms of it's getting its finances together.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you so much, Director Snyder.

Appreciate it.

All right.

Uh member Callaway, what is your desire for line item 148, ma'am?

Um, we'll just leave it in the closing, put it in the closing resolution.

If it's a pen, unpin it.

I don't have my spreadsheet.

Um, and I'll just put in further discussions with the um with the nonprofit associated with the church about the October 1st deadline for the next Litech application.

Okay.

So I do see that we have a two million dollar allotment uh that is uh in line item 148.

Would you like to remove that item that dollar announcement?

Motion to remove the one point um would you say one million?

A two million okay.

Um motion to remove the um two million dollars from the line item.

Thank you.

There's a colleagues a motion to remove the two million dollar allocation for line item 148.

Any objections?

Hearing none, that action shall be taken.

Uh noting that again the closing resolution has already been approved, so we can remove the pen from that item as well.

Absolutely, thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

President, yes, sir.

Yeah, good afternoon.

Um afternoon, Ms.

Corley.

Um, we have representatives here from the OCFO on the ARPA um items.

Is it possible we can absolutely that was where I was going next?

Oh, okay.

Yes, sir.

Yeah, Miss Terry Daniels and Miss Virginia Greer here uh to speak on the ARPA.

I don't have that exact um a line item, but I know member Waters uh brought it before us and 47 yes, yeah.

Line item 47, a discussion on the remaining outstanding unspent ARPRA funds.

That again is line item 47.

We append that one.

Ms.

Daniels, Ms.

Greer.

Good day.

Good afternoon, Terry Daniels, Deputy CFO, Office of Development and Grants.

Good afternoon, Regina Greer, Chief Deputy CFO.

OCFO.

So we were asked to uh give an update on unspent ARPA dollars.

Yes, ma'am.

And we are 87% spent of the $126 million.

We have about a hundred and three million dollars left in projects that are currently underway.

If there are dollars that would need to be reallocated, we will be bringing an amount to this body to decide how those funds uh would be reallocated.

But um as you may be aware, ARPA funds can only be reallocated for existing projects on existing contracts.

I know this was one that you brought before us.

Well, see, initially it was my understanding that you had about a hundred and three million dollars that we could uh reallocate to existing uh projects, but now you're seeing I I'm hearing a different message at this time.

Uh through the chair to council member waters, what I meant by 103 million dollars left to spend that is money tied up in existing projects that are currently underway.

And if we if there are any funds identified as those projects wrap up that are left over, we can reallocate those to existing projects.

And so uh where's the hundred and three million dollars right now?

It's just it kind of spread out.

Where is it?

Uh through the chair to council member waters, it's wrapped up in projects like uh construction, demolition, detract housing services.

Um, those are some of the larger projects that are still ongoing.

Um we do have a few projects that will be wrapping up in the next 60 to 90 days, and and we're sure that there will be some funds that need to be reallocated.

Okay.

Well, I you know, I there were I just want you to know that there were two different messages, different message initially than what you just said now, and then I don't think you were at the table when it was set.

Uh but I thought it was 103 million dollars that we could begin to identify some of the previous projects that city council had and could say at least uh put the administration on notice a hey, this is something that we want to fund with the additional ARPRA dollars, but just hearing what you just had to say, that is not the case right now to council member waters through the chair.

We are working on identifying dollars for this body to reallocate.

Um, we're looking to do that within the next month or so.

Um, so there will be an opportunity for for this body to reallocate dollars.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Daniels.

So uh member waters, uh, what would be your uh wish and will for line item 47?

Resolution motion put in closing resolution.

Um there's a motion to place closing resolution language um attached to line item 47 uh with discussion.

Member Waters, what would what would you want that language to to sound like?

Well, uh exactly uh what she just said.

We we uh we'll be ex we will be expecting um an opportunity for city council to be able to re uh allocate some of the the opera dollars that would be outstanding so something some something along those lines but just so the uh the intent is there okay colleagues there's a motion on the floor, any objection with discussion, member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um I'm sorry, Ms.

Daniels.

Can you repeat if you have it if you have already stated when you anticipate getting the information over to us?

Council member Johnson through the chair.

Um we are ac actively working on identifying uh dollars for reallocation, and hopefully by the um end of this month, we should be able to identify some funding for this body to reallocate.

Thank you for that.

Um and did we already receive a list of programs that are active um in the works that were the dollars can be allocated towards?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Colleagues, there's a motion on the floor again for closing resolution language uh pertaining uh related to line item 47.

Any objections?

See none, that action shall be taken.

All right, Mr.

Corley.

Of course, Mr.

President, we remove that pin for line item 47.

Yep.

And there's a request to remove the pin for 47 as well.

See no objections that action shall be taken.

Okay, great.

So Mr.

President, um, there's now 10 outstanding pen items.

Um, and so we can go back through the list and see if there's some advancement in terms of you know information or resolutions.

So if we can do that, that'd be great.

Absolutely.

Okay, so um let's go to page two.

I think that item is going to require um uh line 18.

Yeah, I think that one is going to require uh from what I understand uh CFO as well as done, uh Mr.

Johnson, they were waiting to come back and speak to that one from okay.

So we'll come back.

Okay.

Let's go to see page eight.

Line 78.

Line item 78.

So this is the um Office of Veteran Affairs um conversation.

Yes.

That's where we had talked about combining the name.

Um we've already moved the dollar amount to 500,000 about the name and the personnel is what was being contemplated and discussed.

Member Waters.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um CFO's office, he said that um he was gonna check on some things.

He's not back yet.

Okay.

Through the chair, we are contacting the budget director to wait till they get back because uh and we'll keep that one pinned until he arrives.

Further discussion, approaching y'all.

Yeah, I wanted to ask with the merging of both the veterans and the senior affairs, does that mean they're gonna have more requirements than they would be if they were just veterans?

And are they gonna be compensated financially for those requirements of those costs?

I'm assuming you if if if if you're absorbing them, I don't know if that means you're either reducing staff or you're increasing it for that, but are they gonna have more budget workload for that?

Are they gonna have more?

I'm assuming they probably would have more overhead, but they have more you know workload for that, more what does that look like yourself?

Is the budget gonna reflect that or not?

Yeah, I think we can wait until Mr.

Johnson.

Oh, okay, no, no problem.

Full discussion.

I just didn't want to act like you couldn't answer that if you was here.

I didn't want to like yeah, I didn't want to disrespect your expertise.

That's why I was asking.

I appreciate that.

But and but just to answer um the information that I am aware of uh with the naming and the consolidation of the two um offices that would be the teams really coming together doing a full look at both the senior and veteran affairs um holistically, understanding there will be some synergies, but in addition, ensuring that both um the seniors and the veteranship affairs have the correct team, right?

So all that analysis is still needs to be done and set.

And it won't have a major impact on the budget too, it turns out.

It will not be a major impact.

Yeah, no, I understand why I just want to make sure.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Are we gonna keep the line item 78 pinned for now?

Mr.

Corley.

Um let's go to page 11.

Line 108.

Is the board of police commissioners on the stipend conversation?

And Mr.

Corley, if you can uh just so you'll know that we've been joined by Mr.

Johnson.

So okay.

And then he's behind you if you have any questions.

Yeah, the the famous Mr.

Johnson, famous Mr.

Johnson.

Line item 108, uh, member McCampbell.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So had opportunity to have additional conversation on this and get a clear picture.

Um, I know that originally this was around the stipend, but um further seeing that you know commissioners want to they express the desire to be able to have research to do more community outreach and engagement beyond their weekly meetings that mostly occurred during the day on a weekday.

Um, and we know that the need for a robust civilian oversight agency uh would especially with BLPC exists today.

Um I know it was mentioned that the board has some unspent dollars, but it's my understanding that was due to the lack of a board attorney.

Um so I wouldn't want to uh and we know that's been a topic of conversation, so I wouldn't want to have it on them to use that funding for other means.

Um and also is noted that their travel and training budget has been cut in this body does go to NACO's conference that we heard in the presentation, I believe.

So uh one to provide the context.

So actually we'll be moving to add 210,000 to the BLPC budget, 100 for community engagement, and 110 for uh training and travel.

This will be one time in hopes that some of this would be absorbed into further budgets moving forward as things become clear in the next fiscal year.

Uh member McCammel, that was 210,000 and one time.

Yes.

All right.

Uh there's a motion on the floor for 100 excuse me, 210,000 dollars, uh general one time for line item one oh eight uh with discussion.

Member Benson.

Uh 108.

Any discussion, colleagues.

Are there any objections?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

And we will remove the um pin, Mr.

President.

Member Campbell, no additional items, uh action needed on that item.

That is it.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

All right, there's a request to remove the pen for line item 108.

Okay, Ms.

President.

Next one.

Uh let's go to page 13.

This is line item 124.

Um this is uh the adding of the final thousand for the black bottom archives development.

Um council approved the final thousand, but uh member miller wanted this to still be pinned, so be great to hear from council member miller.

All right, good morning, everyone.

Okay, can we start with uh line item 123?

Oh okay.

Okay, after speaking with line item 123.

Yes, I'd like to make a motion to decrease the budget to 100,000 dollars and move to the executive session.

I spoke with them and they were able to come up with some funds, and that is the amount in between that needed to be reached to provide the box item, the box lunch for the program.

Okay, colleagues, there's a motion to amend the dollar amount of three hundred thousand one-time general fund to one hundred thousand dollar general fund for line item one twenty-three.

Any objections?

See none, that action shall be taken.

Member Miller, we would also like to just move the item because we have not all we did at this moment was address the dollar amount, but we want to actually move that particular item.

So is there a motion to move for approval a line item 123 with 100,000 dollars?

Motion.

Yes.

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

Any objections?

None that action shall be taken.

Mr.

President, also item 124.

I'd like to make a motion to decrease the budget to 300,000 for the bot by the black bottom archives development, and that is for their museum interior, and they have a complete phase one, which will be located at the corner of Wilkinson in Orleans.

There is no break and mortar, but it's at the grant location.

Okay.

I thought I heard three.

Okay.

All right.

Colleagues, there's a motion to amend the dollar amount uh from $500,000 general one time funding for line item 124 to $100,000 general one time of funding.

Any objections?

See none, that action shall be taken.

Uh member Miller, is there a further motion to uh move line item 124?

Uh noting that the dollar amount being requested is 200,000.

Motion.

All right.

There's a motion on the floor, colleagues.

Any objections see none, then action shall be taken.

Of course, Mr.

President, we will remove the print of the pen.

Yep.

Uh no further action uh requested on 124, Member Miller.

No.

All right.

There is a request to remove the pen, colleagues, for line item 124.

Mr.

Curly.

Next um pinned item is page 14.

And this is line item 135 media services.

Council President Tate.

And I know earlier Council approved a one-time 225,000 allocation.

But I think you, Mr.

President, you still wanted to uh do some further investigation.

Yeah, I'm I'm locked in now.

I'm solid with the 225 at that number.

Not no need to go up at this moment.

Uh Congress, can I get a motion to approve line item one 35 to reflect 225,000 dollars?

Motion.

Any objections?

With discussion, uh, Member Benson.

Just want to verify one time.

Discussion.

With one time.

One time, and we will address this as we move forward.

Um, because I know that the reoccurring is is extremely challenging at this moment, so I don't want to create more problems than we need this year.

Discussion.

With further discussion, Member Miller.

Uh it was a total of 225.

Can you just give a little more detail for that?

I missed that portion.

Yep, so 225.

This is going to go towards uh allowing the board of review, CPC, and other agencies an opportunity to uh address their um oh that's right, budgetary concerns, but we also needed to split this up into our divisions as well.

Uh LPD, and that is the piece that I did not get a chance to do.

Um so Mr.

Whitaker, uh these would be two different uh line items.

Thank you for uh stopping slowing me down, Member Miller.

These are two different line items.

How do we split this up from no?

This is no, that was exactly what this one was for.

It was another item that fits that amount.

That's what it's for, Member Miller.

And to allow for our offices also to uh be able to uh utilize media services.

Are you looking to divide all those departments into 225,000?

Yes, ma'am, which above and beyond what's already in the budget.

If you have a different number, can you refresh me on the amount that's in the budget for that?

If I had a Lime item as well, and I was still coming up with a number, that's why I asked.

Okay.

I don't have that number in front of me.

Um Mr.

Corley or Mr.

Johnson.

You want to know what the total budget now is in the proposed for media services?

Yes, sir.

Yeah, that's not departmental.

But in the meantime, as I go there, Mr.

President.

Um, I did receive a text from Mr.

Todd, and I think hopefully part of the emphasis would be to allow CPC, planning commission meetings, and border police commissioners, border commissioners, yeah, and border review meetings to be recorded.

Yep, that's what I have on the list.

That's what I mentioned.

Okay.

Okay.

So I think that's what the 225 is addressing.

Yes, sir.

Yeah.

And so council member uh millers uh um question about line 136.

Um, I know council approved a closing resolution urging administration to fund dedicated media services staffing for the city council, and council agreed not to you know put any money there at the present time.

So if we if you want to go further with it, it's fine, but I think that's resolved in terms of the closing resolution.

I I do as well.

But again, Member Miller says she wanted to see the okay.

Um chair, the reason why I brought it up is because when they were in what's present there was no mention uh well, we we know that we have had um our services has not been prior provided timely.

And so I was trying to come up with an amount for us.

I know that one time prior, there was an additional person that was strictly for council.

So that's why I put in line item 136 to see if we could come up with something for ourselves.

Um so that was I would I was working on that number.

I would have hoped to have had it at this meeting.

I would have it later on today, but I noticed that you had made one um for everyone.

I just don't see 225,000 covering uh nine council people and BOPC and the other entities.

That's why I was asking that's like 22,000 dollars in person, uh office.

Yes, ma'am.

I so the most the motion I had was not for necessarily for council offices.

I so the most the motion I had was not for necessarily for council offices, these were for the entities and agencies that work uh alongside city council again, board of review, uh CPC, uh as well as uh Board of Police Commissioners who typically don't have those resources available at all.

Can we further discuss maybe offline uh appropriate number if we're gonna accumulate all the uh necessary offices or make a decision to separate um we can make a decision to separate?

I I know that that's where I'm focused on at this moment.

I know that uh there may be an additional uh request for additional funding for uh individual offices, but I do know that in the count line item uh two thirty-four, it may address some of those concerns.

Mr.

President, uh Mr.

Johnson.

I will note that the mayor's proposed budget for media services is um four point, it's about four million two sixty-eight two fifty-six, so four point two six eight million dollars.

We do think some of that may end up getting pulled back over to the peg fund, PEG.

Um, but we're going through a process of reconciling and and determining what all of the eligible peg expenses are.

They clearly stated that their staffing was adequate, and there was no need to add additional people to accommodate city council.

That is fine.

So unless someone knows otherwise, please let me know.

With further discussion, Member Benson, I would just suggest that city council should be the ones making the decision if that staffing is adequate, and if our experience has been that we are not properly staffed, then we need to make the decision to provide more funding staff to adequately support this body.

If that's not been our experience, then I would suggest that we need to uh properly fund that department to properly support this body.

Okay.

Are there any further motions on the floor?

Discussion.

I don't know if we dealt with the line item 135 just yet in terms of that particular motion.

But with further discussion, Member Johnson, followed by Member Waters.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Just to add to what Member Benson um just indicated.

I know in previous years there were conversations around making sure that media services could accommodate city council adequately.

Um the reason I kind of pulled back was because there's a new uh department, um new department head, and I wanted to give them an opportunity because they did indicate that they were shifting um the way their team was deployed.

Um so wanted to give them an opportunity to go through one year at least to uh see whether or not there are any challenges with city council in providing adequate support and supportive services to the council uh prior to requesting any adjustments.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Member Waters.

Um thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I'd like to return to where is that item?

The retirees.

Um, before we do that, we have to close out uh 135.

Is that mine?

No, that was the one we were discussing just now.

Oh, okay.

We haven't oh, you thought it was regarding that.

No, no, we haven't completed it yet.

All right, colleagues.

Uh there's a motion on the floor for 225,000 dollars one time for line item 135.

Are there any objections?

See none, that action shall be taken.

Uh and we can remove the pen from that item, Mr.

Corley.

Okay.

And member waters indicated she would like to return back to her item.

What was that item 40?

Was that 47?

40 is it 47 or 48?

Oh, that's the offering.

You said the pension room was the one.

I don't recall that number.

Page two on line eighteen eighteen.

182, yeah.

Line item 18, member waters.

Thank you.

Um we'd like to uh if it's okay with you, Mr.

President, through you'd like to hear from the mayor's office line item 18.

Is it chief or director?

Uh director.

Director.

All right.

Director Durha.

Thank thank you, Mr.

President.

Fred is just fine, by the way.

Uh, through you, uh, Mr.

President, to Member Waters.

Uh, for this particular line item, uh, the mayor has committed to utilize surplus dollars uh in the future uh for this specific item.

Um noting uh as a former member of the retiree task force, uh we know that we have you know heard the ills of this, and the mayor is very well uh aware and committed uh to ensuring uh that we get this exact funding amount uh with funding uh to come from future surplus dollars, uh noting that we will also be putting this in our closing resolution and following through uh on this uh with you and working with you, member waters.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

All right, all right, thank you.

Member Waters, how would you like to deal with line item 18?

Um yes, uh motion to first motion is to remove the the dollar amount 1.93.

Okay, colleagues.

That's a request.

There's a motion, excuse me, to remove the dollar amount of one million nine hundred and thirty thousand dollars from line item eighteen.

Are there any objections?

See none that action shall be taken.

Member Waters.

And then motion to place into closing resolution um the um the agreement.

Okay.

There's a motion for closing resolution language for line item 18, colleagues.

Any objections?

Mr.

President uh with discussion, no noting that that the mayor's office will also place that in their closing resolution.

Yes, ma'am.

That is correct.

With further discussion, uh Pro Tim Young.

Director Durha, good to see you, man.

My man, that came up.

Uh listen, I just wanted to ask you really quickly.

Um, and I'm sure I'll probably answer or answer my question, but does this also include commitment?

Does this also include grants from the state?

Because I know that was something that I worked on, you know, getting 23 million dollars to drop it to the general retirement fund.

And I know this is something that member waters is very committed to.

So does that also include potentially being able to not just surplus dollars but also being able to get grants from the state as well.

Uh, through you, Mr.

President, to President Pro Tim.

Uh this does not specifically include uh grants, uh although we are monitoring uh the state budget very closely, as you know they passed their budget after ours.

Uh so availability with grants will also be discussed for possible future items uh as whether as well as other retiree issues, uh, but right now uh this is not speaking specifically to those grants, it's speaking uh to surplus dollars in an agreement between the administration uh as well as member waters who has worked so diligently on this on behalf of our retirees.

But it's not a limited just it's just just just in the intro, you're not talking about that, but in the future, it could be up, you know, it's like big wins.

It's a possible right.

Uh, through you, uh Mr.

President again to President Pro Tim.

Uh if we were able to get more grant money and you are uh amazing at delivering it, please send that message up to Lancy.

Uh President Pro Tim as I'm going up there.

Uh we will take all the dollars and help that we can possibly get for our retirees.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

And thank you, Mr.

President.

And further comment, Mr.

President.

With further discussion, Member Waters.

And and I just want to say yes, I am in touch with the folks in Lansing.

I'm advocating too on behalf of all of us, and I do want you to know that.

Through you, Mr.

President, uh, I will come to you as well.

Uh my Lansing experts who were in Lancy before me.

Uh and so uh and work with you on in on any issue as well as other council members uh as well.

Thank you.

All right, I see a hand, member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, just to clarify, so the additional funding will um be added to the existing 10 million for the 13th check to equate to the same amount that the police and fire retirees are receiving.

Is that correct?

Through you, Mr.

President, to member Johnson, yes.

Uh, if we add it after, uh, yes.

Uh as you know, right now there is a contribution between both uh that equal five million dollars, one for general, one for fire.

Uh, through the issue that member waters raised, uh, there's often a discrepancy and discussion from the general retirement system uh because the pool is a little bit bigger uh on that end.

Uh and so their 13 checks uh look a little bit different uh from the other system, uh, but we want to make sure that we bring some level of parity.

Uh but we also note uh as you guys heard me preach a thousand times on the other side that this budget is probably a little bit tight.

Uh and uh the few the future uh of what is to come in the next few months or so may look a little bit brighter than it does uh today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Uh colleagues, there's a motion for closing resolution language for line item 18.

Any objections?

See none, that action shall be taken.

Mr.

Corps, I'm sorry.

Mr.

President, I know that um Mr.

Durhal is proud of House Member of my camera.

He is he is chanced.

Really is very, very proud.

All right.

Um remove the pen.

Oh.

Uh thank you.

There's a request to remove the pen for line item 18.

Yes.

Um, member Waters, any further action?

Requested.

Yeah, for 18.

Yes, ma'am.

Not for that one, Mr.

President.

All right, there's a request to remove that pen.

Because we did do the closing resolution, right?

Yes, ma'am.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yes, ma'am.

So that's good.

You want to go back to the um hold on one second, Member Waters.

Oh, regarding the language that you're adding to the closing resolution.

Should we look for language from the table or should we prepare it ourselves based on the discussion?

Uh Mr.

President.

Uh member Water.

That would be great if you could.

We'll do the best we can.

I know you will.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Mr.

Corley.

Okay, president.

All righty.

Um we can go to page eight.

And that's page 78.

Oh, we can wait back to that.

Okay, I'm sorry.

We're coming back to that.

Okay.

Let's see.

Um, while you search for that next number, I want to ask um Mr.

Johnson a quick question about.

So we got uh a number of uh concerns from our fire department about um capital improvements that were not on this particular list.

Um if we were to apply all of that, it would you know probably bust the budget at this point.

How how are you all determining?

Uh and maybe you're may um you may not know this answer right now.

How are you determining the most critical needs with the actual personnel in mind?

You know, it's one thing to hear from the heads, but those who are actually the men and women who are out there, you know, uh putting their lives on the line on a daily basis.

How are you getting that?

How are you getting the prior?

How are how is their feedback playing into the prioritization of the capital uh repairs?

Uh thank you for the question, Mr.

President.

It's a great one.

So the the construction and demolition department facilities division, previously the general services facilities division, um, is in pretty active contact, not just with leadership in fire or police or any other department.

They are frequently in contact with the commanders over specific precincts or the you know um uh commanding uh officers over uh firehouses um and and things like shift watch commanders and things like that.

So um they are regularly being told what's needed.

Um the thing about the fire department is it does not um it is not shy.

Um they will reach out and say what they need.

Um, however, um, like any other department, um there's the needs versus the wants, and every year for the last eight years, we have put a substantial amount of money into fire facilities and fire equipment.

Um in the current fiscal year alone, we actually amended our capital plan and defunded certain other capital projects in order to fund additional work uh to fire facilities.

So um while I understand they may want more done, um what we're doing is what we can do within one year.

We can't repair every facility all at once.

It's not going to happen.

So, how we judge what needs to be done and how we do what we do.

We first, of course, look at life safety um and quality of life, especially for the fire department.

These are essentially quasi-residential buildings, right?

Folks live in them for a longer period of time than we do our offices.

So we have to make sure these are livable and safe.

After that, we look at the most critical building systems.

We look at what's failing or on the verge of failing, and then we address that.

Over the last eight years, we've addressed a lot of that.

None of our firehouses are in a position where they are imminently unsafe.

We have made a lot of investments in them.

However, the fact remains that a lot of our firehouses are very old.

Several of them are over a hundred years old.

It is what it is.

You can only do so much to a 100-year-old building that wasn't built to do the level of modern operation that it was.

And that leads to something that Councilmember Benson has been advocating for, along with a few other council members, which is for us to sit down and do a comprehensive assessment of fire facilities and determine what the future of those facilities is.

So at this point, we're doing state of good repair stuff.

We're keeping up with what needs to be done and is most critical.

But what we want to do before we invest, you know, a huge amount of money into continuing state of good repair improvements is we want to determine what is our path forward more holistically.

How many fire stations do we really need for our deployment?

What does that look like?

Do we need to build new ones?

Do we need to build annexes onto the current ones?

Is that adequate?

Each location may have its own unique solution.

So just plowing 20, 30 million dollars into fire facilities in one year is not the answer.

The answer is sitting down and having a comprehensive top-down analysis of what does it look like to deploy our fire department from specific locations and what is at those locations?

Could we co-locate certain functions there?

These are all things we have to look at and do.

So while I, you know, appreciate that, you know, fire would like more to be done.

We only have so many resources, and I will note that we have been prioritizing public safety facilities above all else for the last nearly decade.

So there has been no disinvestment in that regard.

I I feel very comfortable with what we have allocated there.

I do not see the need to add more than what's already there.

And I will note the 27 capital budget.

There is 10 million in for facilities capital, and a good and a good chunk of that facilities capital is police and fire.

So I mean uh I I just want to make it clear.

You and I and those who sit at this table, we know that.

Yeah.

The men and women who are out there putting out fires and again putting their lives on the line, they're not so well versed in this budget.

They just know this is wrong, this is prone, this is causing a challenge for me.

I gotta look at this to your point every day where I live, right?

So this is how do we get and again I I think you're spot on about not throwing this money into this problem without you know examining what this problem truly will cause.

What solution would be called for this uh issue we have.

What is that timeline of this survey analysis and then action to be taken?

Um my expectation is that we probably are going to go ahead and have this, you know, once this budget is adopted tomorrow, that will let me know that we're locked in officially on our budget plan, including the capital dollars for next fiscal year.

And I'll probably um go ahead and encourage the construction and demolition department facilities division to begin the process of procuring um the experts to do this.

Obviously, we will need to bring in experts.

There are experts who specialize specifically in public safety facilities.

That's their whole bread and butter.

And so we're gonna find those folks, we're gonna get them in and work on this.

My guess is by this time next year, we're having a conversation about what we're using the capital budget for for 28 to kick off some of the first stages of actual investment stage.

That's that's the hope.

Um we all know the winds of fate can blow any number of ways, but um we can set our course and we can hope we can stick to it.

So the plan is by this time next year we have a report, we're ready to have that conversation, and we're going into the well, probably a little earlier than this time next year, because we'd be going into the 28 budget cycle with some initial, all right.

We're allocating capital, and here's what it's going toward.

Gotcha.

So now what last thing for me on this item, then we'll move down the spreadsheet.

What would be your recommendation uh to make sure that the items that have been presented to me, again, not from leadership, not from union leadership, uh, but from the men and women of the fire department, um, which did not match up apples to apples with what I saw with the capital improvements.

How how do we get that at least raised to the level of eyeballs who can actually make some movement?

Because there may be, again, like you say, the wind shift.

Uh, and what may not be critical today could be critical tomorrow.

So that we're making sure we're keeping an eye on and keeping a track.

Don't want to throw all this into a concluded resolution item by item by item by item.

What would be your recommendation to ensure that we keep track of uh and we uh review what's being presented by the actual uh men and women who are out doing the work.

Well, um I think I would go back and note that one of the things we did when we did the amendment to the capital plan this year and reallocated capital resources to do additional funding for fire capital in the current fiscal year fiscal 26.

That list had been generated by the those particular firehouses.

So we had a list generated by each firehouse, and it was a mix of capital and operating dollars.

So there were some things where we went forward and replaced all of the mattresses.

We bought new bed frames for a lot of the places.

We did a lot of the replacing appliances, um, you know, those sorts of things.

Um, dining room tables.

There was a mix of using operating dollars.

They did note that I just want to say they did, they give you credit for that.

So that they noted.

Appreciate that.

Um, and so you know, we tried to take care of those sort of quality of life improvement items as well as critical um facility needs.

Um at this point, I I mean, I have not yet seen the list that was circulated to the council.

This was not done with the administration's knowledge.

Um, and so um we would need to review that list and find out how that syncs up with our understanding of the capital needs based on what the construction and demolition department has put in place for their overall investment plan.

So once I have a chance to review that, I might have a more informed opinion.

But um, as of this moment, I've not had a chance to really review that list.

It has now been forwarded to me, but I haven't had a chance to really review it.

Okay.

All right.

So I do want to place some language in the closing resolution.

It won't be specific to uh A through Z, but just kind of umbrella language to allow us to uh continue to track and monitor review along with you.

So Kylie China motion for closing resolution language uh in the um uh that that speaks to the administration are reviewing, uh analyzing and working to address in the best way possible issues being brought forward uh concerning um capital repairs at firehouses.

Motion all right.

There's a motion on the floor.

Any objection?

Discussion with discussion, member Johnson.

I was just pointing out that Member Miller had her hand raised.

Member Miller.

Member Miller, I told you we need to put some brown on that hand, and I can see it.

I told her that I told her that earlier.

Uh member Miller.

I want to thank you for uh putting some additional eyes on what I would say number 57.

I think the answer to your question would be to appeal to the mayor to install that advisory council.

That's how you put eyes on it.

You put eyes on it because you get to she gets to pick seven residential Detroiters because they have to live in Detroit to serve as the expertise, the eyes and with the experience.

See, if you're not a firefighter, you've never been a fireman, a commissioner, or have served, it's easy to say what you should do.

But if you live in those houses, if you've been preparing those meals, if you have slept there three out of seven days out of the week, you have the knowledge and the experience.

So I I look forward to what you were about to say, but I just wanted to commend you for bringing it forward because I am still trying to press for number 57.

I heard uh a friend of mine spoke earlier today.

I got a few text messages from it, and I wanted to applaud him.

I hope he continued to speak because we're talking about 150 million dollar budget.

That requires some advisement.

And even the commission himself said that if it was voted on or it was made uh mandatory, he was supported.

150 million dollars, I believe that we need to have some of those expert people that live in Detroit to help us navigate that instead of having uh money put over here and money put there.

We know it takes about six or seven years to actually get a fire truck.

Uh, it takes about eight years to receive some of the other equipment.

You just don't think you need it overnight.

I mean, even in two, there's a missing tanker that they need there that someone has overlooked.

When the flood was down river, I'm sorry, it was in Southwest Detroit.

Do you know the firemen used their booth as flotation devices?

They took their boots off and walked in the water and used the booths as flotation devices when that really should be under emergency management, but some people don't seem to agree.

So I even commend um councilwoman Gabrielle Sandia Romero on that.

Some folks need to be changed.

So we do need to bring some ranking files, some people that are knowledgeable.

And also want to thank Councilman Descent for also adding another Lyme item.

There is several Lyme items, and I just believe all that could become uh commercial one thing where we could have that oversight that was actually mandated in the charter um to provide the check and balances and to give the amazing um advisement to our mayor.

But it's it's her decision.

So um carry on with your motion, and if you need to, we could eliminate 57 because that is a major discussion for me to reinstate the fire advisory commission for the Detroit Board of Police Commissioners at the the rate, and I did remove the money, it was 200,000 last time.

I figure whatever money could be used, what could come out of the budget?

That's 150 million dollars.

Thank you.

I'm done through the chair.

Oh, no problem, no problem.

I just want to make sure we kept in light that we had a motion on the floor.

Any objections see none that action shall be taken.

And it sounds like you had one you wanted to put on the member miller.

Were you adding something?

I may have missed it.

She wants to eliminate no, I was just saying I had 57 on there.

We hadn't got to it.

You you jumped in and started while we were waiting for Mr.

Curley to do something.

You made a conversation with the gentleman in the black.

But I thought we would discuss 57 first, but you had your questions asked, and it kind of overlapped number 57.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, we'll be making our way down that down that stretch shortly.

Mr.

Corley.

Mr.

President, so um the closing resolution item that council disapproved.

I think that we're going to the construction demolition department.

Probably.

Yes.

Okay, that's that construction demolition department.

Okay.

So it shall be okay with that language as well.

Uh Mr.

Whitaker.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, page um 14.

We got three more pin items.

Actually, four more.

Um, but let's go to page 14.

Yeah, what about number 78?

I know member, it sounds like member miller wanted to go back to line item 70.

No, 507.

57.

57.

I have 578.

So, Mr.

President, I know that council uh uh previously approved um a closing resolution for the reinstatement of the fire advisory commission.

Um, so this just to remind council about that.

Right.

So, member Miller, I know that uh you did bring up 57 again, and because you are remote, I wanted to make sure that we were providing you a full opportunity to participate.

Was there anything else you were looking to do with line item 57?

I was just making sure that your motion wasn't bumpy heads with them 57.

That's all got you.

All right, thank you, ma'am.

Uh and member waters, you said 78.

You had yeah, line 78.

Um waters.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I um all right, so you you you wanted to change this um agency for veterans.

So we'll be now called seniors and veterans affairs.

Is that what you're saying?

Mr.

Johnson uh through through you, Mr.

President to Councilmember Waters.

Um, I am withdrawing that suggestion.

Okay, it looks it looks like that would probably require an EOP amendment.

Um Mr.

Whitaker nailed that one.

Um so as usual, another one.

So um uh so uh I think we would be leaving it in creole okay, fantastic.

Member Benson likes the idea being a veteran himself.

All right, so I think the only thing for me to do then, I did we not approve the 500,000?

What do we do?

I don't think we approved that dollar amount, did we, Ms.

Corley?

Because I still have my seven not check.

Approved.

Do you have it approved?

I thought so.

Okay, so then I I'll put the other part of it in uh closing resolution, and we have approved that as well.

So looks like the only thing left is the pen.

Well, it's just remove the pen motion.

All right, there's a request to remove the pen in line item 78, Mr.

Corner.

Okay, no further action taken.

All right, three three more pinned items.

Let's go to page 14.

Okay, and that's um line 135.

Um that's the discussion about the oh no, we we did that one.

We did that one.

Okay, so um line 138.

Yes, sir.

Increased budget by 2.5 million for infrastructure improvements in the Boston Edison area.

Um council member waters.

Oh, yeah.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

All right, so now through you, Mr.

President, I want to ask a CFO's office that they found out any information because we have to when you have a community organization to take the time to submit a big long proposal, we owe them a response.

And you're saying, well, we can't do this because of lending of credit.

And so what can they do?

And are you willing to place that in writing and make sure that we outline those things?

Through the chair, with his permission?

Okay.

Um through the chair to um Councilmember Waters.

Um, so there are a number of neighborhood beautification and improvement programs that they can apply for, both general fund and non-general fund.

Um so I think we would be more than happy to lay out all of the different options and different things that are you know, different services or programs that are available for community groups or neighborhood groups, um neighborhood associations and block clubs to apply for and let them know what it is.

But you know, uh a direct infusion of 2.5 million dollars is is not feasible from both a lending of credit issue as well as just a resource availability issue.

Um then let me ask you this then.

Um in the future is there anything that any place that we can put ARPA dollars that they could draw from?

I mean, is that is that possible?

Uh through the chair, yes, sir.

Um through the chair to um council member waters.

Um ARPA is ending, so we are past we are sort of past the point where we can do more with ARPA.

So um once once we get to the we're we're sort of at that stage now where we're starting to wind down a lot of what we're doing with ARPA.

If there's a you know, if there's an eligible program and there's additional dollars and we think it could be expended in time, it's always a conversation we can have.

But um we're we are kind of no longer counting on ARPA as one of the resources.

Oh, oh I I agree.

I'm I'm just trying to look at all the angles.

Of course, that's all for the community organizations are asking us uh for assistance and so that that was the whole purpose.

But are you willing through you, Mr.

President, to make sure that you write this up, outline it for this community organization their options writing from from from your office uh through the chair uh to council member waters?

Yes, we will do a essentially a uh like a one-pager resource guide that sort of says here are all the resources that are available for neighborhood community groups to access, whether it's through us or one of our partners.

And through you, Mr.

President, and then I want you to tell them why they didn't qualify for dollars right now, if you would I mean many lending of credit issues or something like that, uh what you couldn't do in the general fund, opera dollars are running out, whatever the reasons are that they could not because when you have people to take the time to write that kind of proposal, they're thinking that they can get something.

I know that's what they were thinking.

I just want to make sure that we lay it out, we take the time and lay it out for them the right way.

Right.

Well, uh through the chair and and to you, member waters and and to to the the public uh generally.

Um the reason we can't move forward with this allocation is that there is a constitutional bar on what we call lending of credit or the use of public dollars for private purpose, and um this would run afoul of that restriction.

Um other resources we have available right now are simply you know, either running out like ARPA, those funds are coming to an end.

Um there may be other non-general fund sources, but at this time they're all currently programmed, and we would need to sit down and look through and see what's available.

So um I I would say this isn't a closing of the door, it's simply a we need to keep talking and figure out what solutions we have available to us, not just for the Boston Edison group, but for all the neighborhood associations and block clubs and distribution.

Look, I'm in support of all of them.

Sure.

But what I'm saying to you is that they took the time to write up a bit really big proposal.

That's that's why, and and I just don't want us to ignore them.

That's all I'm saying.

CDD, C D B D G dollars.

I mean, whatever options are through the chair, these would all be things that would be included in our resource guide discussion.

All right, then that's true.

All right.

Uh see member miller's hand, followed by uh member McCampbell, followed by Pro Tim Yo.

Member Miller.

Through the chair, I have a question for Councilwoman Waters or for just the body itself.

Would this be the same instance as if this is for the Detroit Historical District Alliance because it covers all the historical districts in Detroit?

Uh the the funding to help maintain and preserve those historical districts.

Would that be more feasible opposed to uh one city who does have an amazing association that does a great deal of work, especially when they're helping other uh neighborhoods become organized?

But would the association itself um for the historical district alliance, would they have qualified for this?

Um member Waters.

If uh because I got emails on a everyone, hold on one second, member member miller, hold on one second.

She was responding.

If if the historic uh district is itself submit a proposal, just as may Boston Edison, and I know the same person chairs the the other one, but if Boston Edison uh uh being a historic district themselves would qualify for any of our programs, then so would the rest of them.

Member Miller and then they would have to submit their proposals as well.

I just heard the uh I heard the gentleman say that there's multiple districts, but I believe everyone on the panel receives something from the DHDA as a whole, representing the all of the historical districts.

I'm not sure.

Member everybody on what panel?

The council.

You're about on the council.

Member Waters, it it it appears, Member Miller that member waters has not seen that document you're referring to.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Oh I'm a little confused.

Um okay, line item 78 though.

How do how do you want to deal with that one?

Oh, my apologies we still going in the queue, going in the queue.

Member Campbell, followed by Pro Tim Young.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Just really quick.

Um, through you to Mr.

Johnson.

If once you have that one pager of those items, if you can share widely with the council members, because that'd be helpful in our conversations for associations.

Uh, through the chair, yes.

Uh the intent would be for this to be a uh a document that could be used by anybody who who might enter have one of these conversations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Pro Tim Young.

I don't know if this be to you, Mr.

Johnson, or um to um uh so Ms.

Schneider, I think she left, but I was gonna ask the same question I asked previously about uh community housing development organizations.

Uh I feel that this this money might be good for that type of vehicle for the neighborhood for the beautification of that neighborhood if they had that.

And so if we kind of like directed them to be able to create a Choodo, they could then use this money from that budget for that purpose.

I think that would be a better way to do that, but I don't know what the process of that is.

I mean, if you can't if you can answer it, fine, but if not, I I think that'd probably be something for Miss Schneider.

Mr.

Johnson uh through the chair to um President Pro Tim Young.

So Chootos are uh I mean uh they're really primarily focused on developing housing, right?

You know, the construction of housing.

Um they do other functions as well.

Um, I think a lot of those funds are gonna come via the federal grant process.

They're usually applicants and considered for you know HUD dollars and and things like that.

So um not saying that they may not be eligible to participate in this kind of program as well, neighborhood beautification stuff, but I think their primary a chodo's primary concern is the construction of housing and focusing on those light tech credits, federal um HUD dollars to build um affordable housing.

And so what you basically tell me is that that is primarily excuse you uh through the president, sorry.

So that so what you're telling me is basically that is for the business strictly of building housing, it can't be used in the temporary because you're right.

I'm not talking about beautification.

I'll talk about like you know, you might use it to board up, you know, a band house, or you might use it to like bake the house that has no windows, might have some windows or some basic, you know, uh repairs that you might want to use those funds for.

You're saying that it has to be solely for the purpose of like either building a new house or for the complete preservation of existing houses, not for short-term beautification style gas, like I'm thinking.

Right, through through the chair, um to President Pro Tim Young, correct?

Um, their primary focus is the construction or rehabilitation of affordable housing.

So that's that's really what they focus on.

And that's federal, so it's like sorry, it's federal, so you gotta be careful because you misuse that investigations potentially can start.

So yeah, through the chair, yes.

I keep I'll pick it up with you putting now.

I just want to make sure I got it.

Okay, thank you.

I'm done.

Colleagues, any further on line item one thirty eight.

See none, member waters.

Was that a motion that you put on the floor?

Thank you.

Um first I want to remove the dollar amount, Mr.

President.

Colleagues, there's a request to remove the dollar amount, one-time general fund allocation for line item 138 to a dollar amount of two million five hundred thousand dollars to request to remove it.

Any objections?

See none, that action shall be taken.

Member Waters.

And then I'd like a motion for closing resolution.

Uh, both from on council side and the mayor's side, please.

Okay.

As a request for there's a motion, excuse me, for uh closing resolution language for line item 138, colleagues.

Any objections?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

And Mr.

Johnson, is there a commitment for closing resolution language for the administration as well?

Yes, sir.

All right, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Is no further action on that item, member waters?

Um, that is it, thank you.

All right, so we shall remove the pen for line item 138, Mr.

Corley.

Okay, um, go to page 17, and that's line item 163 at the top there, page 17.

Um small business support, particularly in the areas of coaching, technical assistance, leadership development.

Oh, okay, thank you.

Um I'm gonna go to uh a motion for closing resolution with the understanding that I want to revisit this item when we get to our dollars.

That I think that might be an opportunity.

Um using one of our uh other agencies.

So member waters, it does indicate in my uh spreadsheet here that we have approved closing resolution closing resolution language.

Oh, it's just unpin it.

So it looks like you want to amend that language and unpin.

Yeah, all right, colleagues.

There's a motion to amend the closing resolution language for line item 163 and unpin it.

Any objections?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

Mr.

Corley.

Okay, so the last um pinned item will be page 24.

Page 24.

With discussion, Member Benson.

I have SPS here.

I have mine is taken off.

We took care of that one, thankfully.

What number was that again, Mr.

Corley?

Okay, so page 24.

Um, line 234.

And then we'll have um also line 237, and that'd be it.

But yeah, line 234.

Um discussion about um council administration, LPD.

Um member Benson, this is for one million.

Oh, I'll let you call it.

Member Benson.

Thank you.

So this was approved uh several days ago.

Um, I believe the conversation now is about the 350,000 yes for council matricians, which would have been a an additional line item.

And we I think this one just got called into play because it's going to support um council's uh budget.

Right.

Yeah, Mr.

Corley, this is separate, it's different.

It's actually not council offices.

This is for council administration, and so this is where I said I was gonna need some help.

I was actually pivoting to this particular item.

So it's one thing when we talk about council administration, but we're also looking at the various divisions as well, um, being able to address some of the challenges that are are faced.

Again, we talk about the retreat when we talk about travel as well that comes out of city council administration budget, not the individual office budget.

So that's where the request for $300,000 one time came from.

So Mr.

President, so doing want to remind you that uh Mayor Sheffield does have $150,000 as one time for city council's retreat.

So that's so so she does have that, you know, in her use of surplus dollars.

That was um, yeah, that was so this spreadsheet that we did that broke down how um roughly $53 million is being used, surplus dollars.

Uh city council.

So I'll give you an example.

So we're being told that um the cost for these uh just travel and period period has um skyrocketed exponentially.

Yeah.

Uh so we're trying to get ahead of this this challenge to allow for uh travel to important um conferences that this body and others need to go to to help execute our functions.

So is that number because I know the Mr.

Uh Whitaker, the budget for the retreat, what would that what is that current budget?

Yes it has been historically 150,000.

That's why Mr.

Quarley is indicating what he says.

So it satisfies that one item.

Right.

There is an issue or maybe an issue.

Uh we probably should keep clarity on this.

We examined our budget, it looked like we would be okay.

There was uh last year, $300,000 that was placed in our budget to undertake take a study, the economic development study for district six that would be looked up looked upon.

We would try to do that so that it can be applicable across the city.

That has not been done yet.

We haven't had an opportunity to spend any of those funds.

So the question is whether or not those funds will be rolled over to next year or not.

If that's not a problem, uh we didn't really have a problem with our budget.

Yeah, so that's that accurate or Ms.

President, that is correct.

That that is correct.

Okay.

And we still have to address again the rising cost for city council administration who will uh take care of things on this floor.

So it may not be so it sounds like the $300,000 that you're looking to roll over at this moment only satisfies the request for the study in district six.

Right.

That you wanted to take citywide, but it still does not address the other concerns.

So if you're if LPD is okay budgetarily, then there still is a request for uh $100,000 for uh city council administration.

I know you have many, you have more uh personnel uh than just the city council administration on this floor, uh, but we wanted to make sure we took care of all uh needs as best as we can for this one uh one-time funding allocation.

Uh with further discussion, I know Pro Tim had your hand up and then we go on to member Benson.

Yeah, forget forgive me for uh being fanciful here and mixing this up.

But you saying it's $300,000 for District 6 that we have not used.

We're not talking about are we talking about taking that money and move it over?

No, we Mr.

President.

Uh Mr.

Whitaker, because we have we have been doing preliminary work preparing ourselves to utilize that money.

It's just that things have gotten so busy in our office that we haven't gotten to it yet.

And so I I don't want that money to go away because we have every intent to completing that study.

So we want to make sure that that 300,000 remains available because our intention is to use it.

We just haven't had the opportunity to to spend it yet.

Okay.

No, I'll I'll get ready to say, okay, well, we we gotta talk to the member from district six first.

Uh we was gonna do that.

Um, exactly, I just want to say the 100 and the the what was it the 100 the 150,000 that we that we have currently set aside?

That's just for the um that's just for the retreat.

That's not for Mack and all, right?

Yes, yes, sir.

That's just for the retreat, that's not for Mac.

Okay.

Are we are we looking good with the CBC and with Mackinal trips as well, too?

Or do we need to adjust our budget for fuel costs because of that as well?

So just a reminder, council, um Mr.

President Pro Temp Um Young, um, as Mr.

Johnson indicated, you know, I think Thursda last Thursday, um travel and training budgets have been depleted, other than departments that they deem need travel and training budgets for specific um certifications and credit accreditations, so on and so forth.

So you know, police fire and others that they mentioned, but across the board, and I and I asked a question about the mayor's office.

I think they got just maybe 20,000, the mayor's office for um Mayor Sheffield.

Um, but um, and I asked about the new newly formed um HHFS.

Is there any training dollars there?

They said no, Ms.

Johnson said no.

So across the board, they're saving about a million dollars by depleting travel and training budgets.

Okay because of the you know the tightness.

So does that so does that mean that if we're going to CBC or Mackinac, most of that's coming out of our budget now that the city will usually cover that not gonna be covered anymore?

Does that mean every little step I take for a CBC is gonna be around this office building now?

Like what what is that what does that mean?

So Ms.

President, so that would require reallocation of your dollars without the if council does not add money back, yeah.

You know, then you would have to um use your dollars to try to find those within our office to try to find those things.

Yeah, office where we usually normally get support for the city now is within our office to do that.

Okay, Mr.

Johnson wants to add to that.

Yeah, Mr.

President, um, so the council members' participation in in you know these critical sort of national and and and state level events, those have always been paid out of the office budgets.

There's never been a centralized budget for councils travel and things like that.

It's always been because some members may choose not to go.

You may they may choose I don't wish to go to Mackinac this year.

It's a choice, you could make it.

Um, and so um that's always been part of the office budgets.

Um so when we set the budget for this year, there was the understanding that you know, after the last few years, um council has been increasing the size of the office budgets.

So the assumption was that we should be getting to a point where these sorts of things are understood to be covered um as part of the office budget.

Um and so um we didn't add any feel the need to add any additional funding in for that because it it was part of our planning essentially for the lump sum of money.

We generally when we craft each council's office budget, we generally don't make many assumptions other than personnel.

So personnel, we know who's there, we budget for that.

Everything else just kind of we allocate, but we know it could get moved around however is needed.

Once it's in your office budget, it's it's your all's to do what you need to do with.

Um so you know, however, it's budgeted, you can always request to sort of shift it around or change it.

So you know, we tried to make sure that what we proposed for the council office budgets was enough to cover these sorts of critical expenses as a base as part of the baseline operation that each office would undertake.

So basically what I'm hearing you say is that from the baseline of our budgets that those expenses are covered.

So it's not like we would have to have a special appropriation because from what was from the baseline was been appropriate, that'd be covered.

So now really what we're talking about here, or what I'm hearing the president talk about is just the administration staff, the people who go about the business of actually making that happen through the process that needs to be covered.

That's not covered.

That's a different conversation, correct?

But through the chair, um to pro Tim Young, no, everything is covered.

So all aspects of the travel like for travel.

So the the staff in the office is the info that process the travel vouchers and all that kind of stuff, that's all already budgeted.

No, I got no, I got no, no, you know, no, you you you want me over.

I got what you say on that.

I just want to make sure like the staff that we have that goes through that process of doing that.

They're they're covered.

Like Yolanda and everybody, you're saying they're covered to the admin staff.

Yes.

Okay.

But when you say they're covered, uh travel.

We're not talking about cola, I mean cost of living.

Those are the things that are not necessarily covered in that dollar amount.

Mr.

President, are you so trying to kind of sort of understand here?

So are we talking about, you know, if council staff wanted to join in on the travel or participate in travel and no, no, no.

What I what what my concern is just like everyone else is that we may end up leaking uh uh our employees, they end up going somewhere else and try to ensure that we're able to keep the institutional knowledge that we have on this floor, who works in our city council administration, and as we've uh worked extremely hard to take care of the members of our you know individual offices, I think it's imperative that we also um take care of those who take care of us from an HR administrative standpoint.

That's that was my uh intent, my goal with this dollar amount, also including uh LPD in this, but when uh Mr.

Whitaker said that they're covered, it now uh but then unveiled that the $300,000 is still needed uh from the survey that never got utilized.

Uh now that number looks like it's gonna look like $400,000 as opposed to three, because again at $3,000, $300,000 needs to roll over because it didn't get a chance to touch, because it's going to go in the surplus, it has not been touched.

So I'm asking for that extra $100 for uh HR one time.

Okay, uh so Mr.

President, the $100,000 is intended to cover essentially salaries in some way.

Yes, sir.

We okay, so we definitely budgeted for everyone to have their normal cola and merit raises and all of the usual stuff.

That's part of the base budgeting for the city.

So we assume uh um uh two percent cola, two percent merit, um, and then if there were any union staff, we would also include something in there based on their steps.

So um council staff have you know, we've accounted for all of that um is part of the budget, these sort of baseline assumptions.

We do that for all city staff.

So when we budget the personnel budget for the city, we already have baked in raises both based on cola and merit and any step increases required by a collective bargaining agreement for all personnel.

So, what I will do, I'll stand down on that additional dollar amount.

Uh I know we still need to move that 300 so I can have that conversation with you.

I know it is last minute, so maybe a last piece that's added uh as after we have that conversation, but I'm willing to stand down to allow that $300,000 to be uh moved over uh or retained, however, we want to whatever we want to roll over, whatever we want to call it uh that is currently in LPD's budget uh that was uh earmarked for uh the study.

How would that happen without any new money moving?

Uh Mr.

President, I think I have a question that I think should go to Mr.

Whitaker, which is the $300,000.

How is LPD planning to conduct the study?

Are you going to contract it out?

Are you gonna work through the DEGC?

Um I think that it's kind of a if that is a key question for me.

Mr.

What a question for me too.

So my propos the reason I asked this question is if LPD wants to work with the DEGC to undertake this, then what we can do is we can transfer the money to the DEGC in the current fiscal year.

It doesn't lapse then because we've transferred it to a component unit that will then undertake the work at the direction of LPD.

Um if we don't transfer it before the end of the year, it will lapse because it's just it's general fund one time dollars.

Um so my advice would be we just do that.

And obviously, that's a commitment I would put in our closing, the administration's closing resolution that just says we will transfer the 300,000 to the DEGC in order for them to then work at the direction of with LPD to undertake the economic, you know, the economic study um in whichever scope you wish, you know, you could really craft that with them.

But that would be a way to preserve the dollars so that they don't lapse.

Ms.

Mr.

Brad, this is a question on that.

So that that sounds you know reasonable.

But let's say uh we in LPD choose not to use the DGC, you know.

Let's say we coordinate with PDD, coordinate with HRD, whatever, or coordinate with an outside agency.

You're saying that Mr.

Johnson, that we could still work with the DGC in the scope of work to do that if we choose not to use D the DGC in particular.

I guess that's just that's my my only concern.

If we're if we're having money go to the DGC, but we do not use them at all.

Is that a problem?

Yeah.

Mr.

Mr.

Johnson, I think I know the answer.

Yeah, through through the chair to Mr.

Corley, yes, that's a problem.

So um if you go to if you if you give the money to D E G C then D E G C is your contractor essentially.

Um you can treat them like a general contractor and have them bring someone else on board under their aegis to work on the project with you, but um as a general rule, that's you know, they they work directly with the city there, you know, that's their function.

Mr.

President, can we pin this for a minute?

Because I think we need to talk with the councilwoman.

You know, we had a thought at one point that we would we would hire TAS someone that that we could control ourselves to do this work.

We had lots of different thoughts.

We never did settle on anything, and then Mr.

Um Mr.

Todd had some difficulties.

So we haven't been able to really sit down as an office and sort of solve this problem.

So if we can pin it, give us some time to talk, we should have an answer.

Um maybe by the end of the day or first thing in the morning.

Okay.

Uh with further discussion, Member Santiago Romero, and uh note that we've been also joined by Director Todd.

I don't know if you have anything you want to add.

If so, I will allow you to have that mic following uh member Santiago Romero.

Well, thank you, Mr.

President.

Um I'm okay with the PIN.

Um as Mr.

Whitaker was saying, we have been working on this.

We're just waiting for the rights uh process or are set up to do this, and then just so that everyone's aware, um, this is money to look at.

Um and this is something that it's formed into an economic study.

Um also for um our nighttime economy.

Uh this was something that was really discussed prior to COVID as something that the city really wanted to look at.

Um so we're gonna use that funding to look at um what support for our our nighttime economy can look like.

And I know we say district six, but again, that also is a large portion of downtown, midtown, so all of uh well, not all, but a a good number of our of our bus of uh of our business corridors, but frankly, we don't have this out just yet.

So I can see us going outside of district six.

This is really for us to study what we can do to support our nighttown economies, which I believe we can all support and benefit from.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

So we can pin this item.

All right.

Side note shall remain pinned.

Um notes understanding that we have more discussion on that particular item.

Um, Mr.

Before we go to you, uh uh Pro Tim.

Mr.

Director Todd, anything you want to add to it, sir?

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Uh good afternoon to you and this honorable body.

Just here to answer any questions with regard to it as I heard the matter coming up and look forward to discussing it further with with Mr.

Whittaker.

Uh we did have a discussion with DGC to the very point that Mr.

Johnson made, but as Mr.

Whitaker said, uh, you know, we've been looking at the various ways whereby this can be done.

And uh certainly uh the administration generally and DGC have been very supportive as they see this as an opportunity to shore up previous work that's been done.

Uh and as the council member indicated, this having a much greater benefit than may have been originally uh projected when these dollars were put into place last year.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Mr.

Corley, uh and and member Santiago Romero, seeing that my original uh motion is now no no no no no.

It it's now it appropriately uh a vehicle for the 300,000 dollars that is in the study.

I would uh request that the motion be in your name as opposed to mine at this point.

That way the conversation can be uh direct uh as opposed to having me as in between.

Any objection, colleagues, to putting that motion in the name of Member Santiago Romero instead of mine.

See none that action shall be taken.

Approach him young.

It's not on the list.

When we're talking about nighttime economies, you're talking about um, I'm assuming we're talking about bars, talking about casinos, talking about restaurants.

Are we also talking about the gig economy as well?

In terms of that aspect of it.

I just I I and I just and I just want to know is it just talk about just growing that aspect, or is it also talking about the the um taxing aspect of it as well, or is it both?

Remember Santiago Romero?

Through you, uh Mr.

President to Pro Tim.

I believe all of the above, right?

How do we support?

How do we structure?

Um, what do we currently have?

What are the opportunities?

Um, and and that is what the money is for.

We got to figure out staffing to help us figure that out.

Yeah, I know we've had I'm sorry through the uh president uh to Member Romero because I know we've had discussions about or people have been coming at me from all different angles about Airbnbs and what that is and what that looks like and the gig economy and should it be taxed or should it not, and what that looks like, and what you know what's the appropriate tax.

I just want to know what that was.

If it's not included, then I didn't want to add that because that's a lot of heavy stuff to add something that's not mim.

I just want to understand.

I support it.

I think it's a good thing.

I just want to make sure I understood what we were talking about.

So when I'm looking at, I know what to look for.

Thank you.

I'll done thank you, Mr.

President.

Thank you.

Director Todd, I see your hand.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Uh, just to add to that and to add greater uh clarity, as it's certainly been discussed among us.

We are certainly talking about that which you might traditionally think of when you mentioned nighttime economy, but we're also going back to some of the same conversations that were had decades ago with the advent or with the possibility of casinos coming and others, that it's not just that which is maybe related to nightlife to entertainment, but in fact, once you begin to have more of a 24-hour city, which in which of course we do have to a certain extent, to the extent that outside of entertainment, you do have people who are working uh night shifts in various places.

We need to have establishments that can be open um and services that are provided to those individuals who do work those shifts, whether we're talking about daycare, which was a huge discussion around casinos, uh, or if we're talking about other services, whether it's grocery stores, cleaners, those things, the more you do have again a broader, if you will, nighttime economy in place.

What do you need to support uh that economy to support people?

Discussion for further discussion, uh Pro Tim Young.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Todd.

I appreciate that, sir.

I just wanted to ask you as well.

Is that also includes sex work as well, particularly in terms of placement?

Because right now, a lot of my constituents are saying they're saturated over there in eight mile and downtown is kind of emptying out.

So I kind of think that we kind of talk about re relocating some of these places through zoning and other ideas.

I think that's the the purpose of having for pinning this item and having that discussion offline.

Never mind.

We're drawing.

All right, thank you so much.

Okay, Mr.

President.

Um Mr.

Johnson.

Um, if I might um there's uh are we are we out of discussion on a specific item at this point?

I believe yes, we I just want to make sure I'm yes.

I'm in order.

Um I wanted to circle back to um item 234, the million dollars for the city council budgets.

I'm wondering if there's an appetite for um reducing this to 900,000 so that it's an even hundred thousand per office because right now a million dollars divides to one hundred and eleven, one hundred and eleven per office, except one office which needs to get one hundred and twelve.

So um I would really love it if this was divided a number divisible by nine.

Um, member Miller, uh so the the motion was moved by member Benson.

So we're gonna turn to Member Benson.

The floor is yours, sir.

Um at this time I'm not willing to have that conversation.

We could look to have it later.

Okay.

Okay.

We're gonna have it.

All right.

I would like to return to line item 194.

Colleagues, 194.

I did that is regarding the uh creek, the Rouge River Creek uh behind the homes or the adjacent to the homes.

Uh certain between six and eight mile.

Um and we talked about a mosquito abatement.

There's also uh stagnant water.

We did receive, and part of the reason why I gave the number of 100,000 dollars is because I got that number uh from departments uh and was sent this morning from uh Mr.

Washington, but it came during this meeting.

So I didn't get a chance to review the entire document, uh, which meant I didn't turn on the back of the document and see that the actual number is 250,000.

So that 100,000 was uh only partial for a uh low-end minimal addressing of that particular issue, but to take it to where it needs to go.

Uh that is uh two the dollar amount that they gave was uh 100 to 250,000.

I'm willing to go to 200, uh meet in the middle there.

So 200,000 as opposed to 100,000 for line item 194, colleagues.

Mr.

President, one time one time, yes.

Noting that I mean there will be in the closing resolution.

We're there's an expectation that we maintain it um and not just do this one year, but as a city maintain it so that we don't have to fight for it every year.

We take care of our folks.

Uh so colleagues, can we have a motion to amend the uh 100,000 to 200,000 for line item 194?

Is there a motion, colleagues?

Okay there's a motion on the floor, colleagues.

Any objection?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

Um and is there a motion to approve this item?

Motion.

Thank you so much, sir.

Uh, there's a motion to approve line item 194 with the amended amount of 200,000 dollars.

See no objections, that action shall be taken.

Mr.

Corley.

Okay, um, this um quick question for Mr.

Johnson.

Um is the OCFO looking to provide an Irata letter by the end of the day, you're thinking after um Mr.

President, Mr.

Johnson, Mr.

Johnson.

Uh through the chair to Mr.

Quarley, yes, we will be providing in a rata letter.

And Mr.

President, would that red letter um impact any of the items that's on the executive session spreadsheet to your knowledge?

Do you know?

Uh through the chair, I don't believe so.

Okay, I don't believe so.

Okay, so that'd be great to get that into the day.

And um, so now we can hear from Mr.

Johnson.

Um with respect to the um recurring source items.

If he's ready to lay that out, um Ms.

President Mr.

President uh her I thought I heard a couple oh member Santiago.

No, no, go there for member water.

Okay, member Santiago Romero.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Yes, I heard myself and the member Benson.

Um it's I just want to discuss one more item because it sounds like we're we're getting towards the end here.

Um, through you, Mr.

President, to Mr.

Johnson.

Um wanted to get some clarity arounding that we put in our budget last or this for for this budget cycle, the 200k for staffing for CREO.

Um I have the understanding that the 200 that we set aside for staffing for language access did not happen, and that instead it was used for something else.

Would you happen to know if that's true?

Because it sounds like maybe the 200 was not used for staffing at all.

Um and we need staffing for language access.

I know that we put 72 TA2 to meet us at 250, uh, but we do not have enough to even currently do what we have to do for our ordinance.

And those of us that were here heard during the budget hearing, the biggest ask that we got we're supporting language access services.

So wondering um if we do have that funding available.

Um we've reached out to HR to set to create the the the role because it's it's not being created.

So it needs to be created, it needs to be funded.

So want to check with you to see if we have that funding available.

Mr.

Johnson?

Uh through the chair to Councilmember Santiago Romero.

I'm not deeply familiar with the with that in CREO.

I would need to go back and have a conversation.

Um it it's a challenge, you know, a little bit of a challenge.

We've had some turnover at CRIO, and so um I need to, you know, talk to some folks who are there.

Um my understanding, having spoken to Crio is that the staffing levels are fine.

It's the contract amounts.

It's really we rely a lot on the contracts for translation services in particular, um, interpretation.

Um I know that there's a a broader conversation to be had there about you know about that, but um my understanding from my conversations with um uh director Mathis was that um the staffing levels are are generally fine.

Um it's the it's the making sure we have adequate contracting because a lot of the the a lot of the work from the ordinance is really related to translating the critical documents and getting those sent out.

So when you look at the invoices for the translation services for the last year, year or so, um the biggest invoices are for like batches of documents we've sent out to get them translated, and I think we're still working our way through that backlog.

I can't I think I think we all know we're we're not gonna have document translators on staff.

That's just not gonna be a thing we can do.

Um, because it's not a permanent operation that we would be doing.

Um might periodically need it.

I think once we get through that big push of documents, I think we're back to sort of um you know um spoken um interpretation and things like that.

Um so my understanding was that the contractual service needs are more are there more than the personnel services needs, but I'm more than willing to go back and have a conversation um with Director Mathis and and you know hear more about that.

Okay, through Mr.

President, thank you.

Um Mr.

Johnson, so I I I still think that we have then the 200,000 available that was not used last time.

Uh so um Mr.

President, I am going to uh well this is a a new budget.

This is really something that I need to make sure we use um and gets used um before um we we are to close this budget cycle because if not then I need to then make that that that motion.

Um so then I'm going to add this and pin it um because want to have this discussion to see whether or not uh we do have funding for for the staff that we added that we already add that we already added added last year, um, but that has not been hired for.

Uh so we can have that discussion offline then.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Uh further discussion, uh member Benson.

I just want to make clear that I'm just want to make sure I'm clear.

So you're just looking to have those dollars continue to roll over.

Was that a one-time ask and not a reoccurring ask?

For the staff.

Member Santiago Romero?

I'm gonna assume it was a reoccurring if I if I asked it for staff.

I just need to make sure that it's still available.

And if it is, that we I guess close in resolution that it be used for for for language access.

But your closing resolution would really apply to fiscal year 26.

Not work okay, thank you.

Yeah.

Any further?

That is it for me.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh pro Tim Young.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Johnson.

Has there been any discussion about artificial intelligence language translation?

Through the chair.

Um I not to my knowledge, I think only because um I think we've all seen enough examples of I think that's still a very experimental situation.

I don't I don't know that it's quite to the level where we would have, especially folks who are seeking services that have legal implications in their lives or you know, critical service delivery needs.

I don't think we would take any chances right now until it's a little bit more tried and true.

Um I understand what you're saying.

Usually I would agree with you, but I disagree on this point because this is a technology that is growing rapidly, is improving rapidly.

So I mean, even if it was what it is now, maybe maybe two, six, seven months from now, it's gonna be better, it's gonna improve better, it's gonna update itself.

So I definitely think that's something you should reconsider in the future, sir.

Thank you.

We will consider it in the future as we monitor how things with the technology development.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Discussion further discussion, Member Benson.

Oh, not that point separate uh Mr.

Chair, this is for line item 201.

It's all yours, sir.

All right, thank you.

So line item 201 is regarding 300,000 dollars going for security at rec centers and our parks.

I'm going I had a conversation with the director of GSD.

She indicates that she needs more than just security, and security is not going to be enough to actually handle the level of of enforcement and compliance that's needed at our parks.

That really needs to be somebody who can write tickets and can make a rest when necessary.

Not advocating for that, but you need to have somebody who can do that.

So my motion is to switch that 300,000 to DPD to ensure that our park patrol is properly stood up and maned for this season.

Okay, so this everything stays the same, only the funding will go to DPD as opposed to GSD.

All right, colleagues, there's a motion on the floor to change the uh landing place for the funding.

Any objections?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

Then further discussion, Mr.

Chair.

Member Benson.

So I've also been approached to please remove this amount based on the fact that we have a tight budget.

I appreciate the fact we have a tight budget, but this is also not new.

So last year I wrote a memo asking for park patrol.

That was not stood up, and the same behavior that I was concerned about and said that I experienced as well as other parents at our parks, specifically at Chandler Park, did not change.

We also saw the third district at Farwell, where young people started bringing guns to the rec center, and there had to be a sit-down with DPD as well as uh GSD to handle that.

We saw a situation where parents were encouraging young people to bring guns to handle uh beefs at Farwell.

Not appropriate, not acceptable.

In addition, we've just seen twice in the last week where our youth, our teens have made it very clear that they're gonna have a lot of fun this summer with the level of chaos that's just unacceptable.

So we need to ensure that we're encouraging compliance, and that can be done in many, many different ways, but I believe at a certain level has to be about enforcement.

So I'm more than happy to have a conversation with the administration at a later date, but they need to verify.

I have yet to see any verification of any type of enforcement, any type of plans to ensure that our parks are of space where our families and children are safe, feel safe and feel welcomed at all times of day.

I'm not saying at midnight, there's a certain time for that, a certain certain group that we're looking for.

But the six-year-olds, 10-year-olds, we're not looking for that.

We're looking for an environment at our city parks and rec centers where they feel safe.

So I'd like to see the opportunity.

This is an opportunity for the administration to prove, show that we're going to see a reduction in these types of activities.

Show that we're prepared to actually compel compliance, show we're prepared to do enforcement, show that at the basic level at our parks, show that we're not going to allow for chaos at Chandler Park, show we're not gonna allow for chaos at Farwell or people bringing guns and it'll just be kind of brushed under the rug.

No, address it, then come back to this body and say, hey, we don't need the 300,000 dollars.

We need a budget amendment, and we'll use that that funding someplace else.

But until that time, I'm unwilling to go with trust me, councilman.

I asked for it last year, I trusted nothing happened.

So now you have to prove it to me.

Prove to me that you're prepared to do something about that.

Then we can have that conversation through a budget amendment, which is the typical process, and that can happen immediately following the new fiscal year, which will be July 1.

We will be well into our summer activities at our parks, and we're gonna see how the behavior and how the environment will be at our parks this summer by the time the j by the time July 1 hits.

So that's my response to the request to remove that.

Come see me after July 1, once you prove that you were serious about compelling compliance for safety, security, and an environment of family-friendly at our parks and rec centers.

Discussion.

With further discussion, Member McCampbell.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

And and um threw you to Member Benson.

I completely agree about also if there was a commitment for uh park patrol and such to be stood up.

Um that it should have been and that should be the focus and enforcement should be the focus.

I have a question for you now that the funding is shifted to DPD.

Um and we know that DPD also got an increase in this budget, and that commitment came from a budget that also is larger now.

Um and I know I understand what you said to come back to us if you need a further amendment.

But I'm wondering is since that commitment was already made, can't they just absorb that into what they were supposed to be doing already with DPD?

Member Benson?

They absolutely could.

But what they can't do is say, trust me, is going to happen.

Show me.

And then come back to me on July 1 and say, we have shown you we don't need this money.

Please allow us to repurpose it someplace else.

So this trust me, I'm not for this year.

I'm for show me.

In addition, I've had the conversation with the Sheriff's Department, who has indicated they will participate in support on the park patrol, which they are more than happy to do.

Talk to GSD, talk to DPD.

They're prepared to have those conversations as a group on how they're going to coordinate and collaborate this year, but show me.

Talk is cheap.

Work is hard, and it's very expensive.

I hope to see it quickly.

As we were shown by our teens twice last week.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Mr.

Chairman.

Yeah, thank you.

And I agree that our teens uh they're there'd be a creative.

Uh this I'll say that.

But um, I do hope, I do hope that the department will use the funds that they have now on an appropriate amount to make sure this happens because I also believe that you know, now with the more focus on youth education and recreation, that we can use this 300,000 for something also um through you, Mr.

President, to the administration.

Um please show Member Benza that as well.

Thank you.

And discussion, continue discussion.

And so I appreciate it.

Show me when all reality you'll be showing the entire city of Detroit as well as my colleagues.

Absolutely.

It's not just about me, it is about the children, the families in the city of Detroit.

It has to be order over chaos.

We cannot authorize nor support that.

If you want to keep our population, if you want to grow our population, order over chaos.

Protect and provide an environment of safety and security for our families.

Mr.

Johnson, did you have anything you want to add?

I I uh I I do.

Um, so uh two things.

Um, one, this kind of sets up a segue into our funding sources conversation.

Um, but first, it's you know, we we can add we can do these sorts of things, but at the end of the day, um, it is the chief of police's responsibility to determine the right allocation of resources and where the city needs it in terms of policing.

And so uh at you know again, this action can be taken, but the chief will always make the final decision about how he or she allocates resources moving forward um to best address um the the needs of the city of Detroit.

So um, you know, we can have this conversation.

Um, it it simply it will not it cannot bind the chief of police to make the decisions he needs to make when he is overseeing the police department.

Secondly, I would note that in order to fund all of these recurring items that have been added, we are cutting the police department to fund them.

So this money that was just added to the police department's coming right back out in order to fund the rest of the recurring items.

Police is the largest budget, it is the only resource we have to go to for the recurring budget.

Mr.

Corley, we we are actually after reviewing all of our options, we've agreed with Mr.

Corley.

The police department is the source to go to for recurring.

So we will be cutting the police department by over two million dollars in order to fund all of these recurring changes to the budget.

That would include the increases to the council budgets.

So I want to make that very clear.

Um so just to be clear, put an even finer point on it.

You're not talking about cutting police officers.

No.

Okay.

Uh what are we talking about that fills that blank of potential things being cut at this point?

It's going to be a reduction in our bulletproof vest replacement schedule.

It's going to be an impact on all of the other things that we buy for the police every year.

Because we're not going to agree to release any police officers or reduce our police headcount, the only place to go is non-personnel.

And non-personnel is where police buys their equipment, purchases certain services, that's going to be reduced.

Okay.

So so nothing's gonna get eliminated, but it shall be reduced, is what you're saying.

Yes.

Okay.

Pro Tim Young.

I was getting ready to say for the issue of dealing with the parks.

Has there been a discussion at all at partnering with uh the county police or with the state police to be able to do that?

Has there been a discussion maybe later on in terms of uh contracting with private security and things that nature and make sure that we keep those parks those parks safe?

Uh or public private partnerships, right?

Uh through the chair uh to pro Tim Young.

So yes, those conversations have been had and will continue to be had um with regard to private security, secure private security, or the city's security department is not the solution because those companies they cannot enforce the law.

They cannot write citations, they cannot arrest folks.

That is not their role.

Just it's just just from observ.

I'm just talking about just from observer support or observe a report, excuse me.

Yes, I I mean they could absolutely do that.

Um that would be a very expensive solution.

Um further before we go into funding sources.

Uh member McCampbell.

Uh it was is gonna be about funding sources.

So I can ask in all our way to sure.

Uh through you and Mr.

Chair to Mr.

Johnson.

Uh just a question on the on you said on the the two million dollar cut.

Is that two million dollar cut?

Is that does that mean that they will still have an overall two million dollar increase, or does that mean that they will be cut by two million dollars overall from um the previous fiscal year?

Mr.

Johnson?

Uh through the chair, um I would need to go back and look at my numbers on what that would actually mean um in terms of the overall growth.

I I don't think it would completely net out their year-over-year growth because they're a very large department and they have a lot of union mandated cost inflations on personnel in terms of their step codes.

Um so I don't think it would a hundred percent net out the the the um uh what uh what increase there is to police, but it would be substantial.

I mean it would be getting them closer to being truly flat to the current fiscal year.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Ms.

President.

All right, mr.

Uh Mr.

Stanley has hand.

Yes, sir.

Thank you, Mr.

President for Stanley LPD.

Uh I don't think we addressed item 237.

Um 36 district court still has a pen in it.

He said he said he was interested.

237.

Yep, I think we do still have that pen, Member Johnson.

Yep, thank you, Ms.

Down.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, I'd like to proceed with removing the PIN.

Um we have again been in communication with and and now are working with the 36th district court to um request the additional funds from the state.

So let's request to remove the pen, colleagues.

Uh, with further discussion, Member Johnson, just to make sure the 500,000 dollars has been secured though, correct?

For specialty court.

That is correct.

And that is the only uh dollar allotment that we're speaking of uh that has been um uh allocated at this point, correct?

By this body, yes.

Okay, all right, just make it sure.

Okay, a pen shall be a pen shall be removed from line item two thirty-seven, colleagues.

Hey, Ms.

President.

Uh we can go back, please to the funding sources.

So just a reminder, council, on our spreadsheet, um the total recurring items that council has on the table is one million nine hundred and seventy thousand two hundred.

Um Mr.

Johnson is suggesting that line item two thirty four could be reduced by a hundred thousand so that the allocation per office will be even.

So if if council agreed with that, that would reduce the total one million nine hundred excuse me in 70,200 by 100,000.

I don't know if you want to address that now or you want to come back to that.

Yeah, member member Benson did uh touch on that item just a little bit earlier.

I don't know if we want to circle back around this early in the game.

Uh with discussion member Benson.

Uh Mr.

Chair, I believe you said it very tactfully.

That came up less than 10 minutes ago, and we and I responded.

Okay.

Okay.

I leave it there.

Okay.

So thank you for that.

So um let's go to page 25.

And assuming that the total recurring remains at a million nine hundred and seventy thousand two hundred.

We have three sources for recurring.

Yes, the largest amount would come out of police, and again that one million six hundred and eighty-two thousand is based on the addition of 71 positions that the mayor has proposed and police department.

Those are civilian positions for police emergency response and not uniform positions.

And so we're saying that you know all 71 positions will not be hired by July 1st.

So these are turnover saving dollars.

So that's one thing.

And then Mr.

Cully, we're line on them again.

I'm sorry.

Um, and I'm sorry, that's line item 250.

That's the that's the the largest funding source for um recurring.

But we're also looking at two other pods.

Um line item 248.

We're saying 170,200 will come from citywide overhead.

That's a non-departmental.

Um, and we feel that that appropriation can absorb 170,000, 200,000 dollars um cut.

And then the other part is line 249.

That's 118,000.

That's the money that um director Willie Donwill has indicated that he does not need in his budget.

And so the and the total one million nine hundred and seventy thousand would not come out of police.

Now give us a better understanding of what that one hundred and eighteen represents.

And you said he does not need that in this budget.

What is what did it represent previously?

I do not have his uh I'm so sorry, I don't have his detail in front of me, but I do recall he was indicating that this was money that was in the current year's budget, and he does not need that in the in you know future budgets.

Um, and that's why that's why he's willing to give up an 118,000.

If you want more specifics, you know, please we we could maybe bring on Mr.

Domwheel.

But no, it's just good to know.

Okay, yeah.

Definitely good to know.

We don't need to port him in or promote him yet at this moment.

But if he has said himself as a department, yeah, he did.

It doesn't need it.

Yeah.

Mr.

President.

Uh that is line item 249.

Yes.

Yes, ma'am, in the blue.

Uh column U.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Mr.

Corbin.

So um, you know, if if Mr.

Johnson and OCFO has any other uh comments, you know, again, I just wanted to make sure that council understood that that total one million nine hundred and seventy thousand for council's recurring is not coming out of police.

Yes, the largest part of it would be, but there's about three hundred thousand from other two other sources.

So just wanted to make that clear.

Mr.

Johnson.

Uh thank you, Mr.

President.

So we couldn't agree to the reduction in the citywide overhead appropriation.

That appropriation is now currently primarily it's it's obviously our utilities and stuff, but this is where the living wage um money is for fiscal 27.

So um this is where the workforce investment fund is.

So the large increase we see there is the increase to cover the rollout of the living wage for city staff.

So our we would we would not agree to reduce the citywide overhead.

We would in we would increase the reduction of police in in lieu of that.

So Ms.

President, so so we could add, so I guess you're suggesting can we change that?

We're not we're not reducing police reducing funding in that space.

You're reducing funding in that space.

Reducing the budget of the police department.

All right, there we go.

All right, it's it semantics count.

Semantics count.

Sure.

Thank you, sir.

So Ms.

President, so um we would council, you know, would keep the 118,000 that uh Mr.

Donwell is giving up, and so we would add the 170,200 to the police one million six eighty-two thousand.

And so um that would be the amount that would come out of um police's budget.

So one hundred and seventy thousand two hundred plus one six eight two zero zero zero.

That'd be um one million eight hundred fifty-two thousand and two hundred that would come out of uh police's budget.

And so when you add the one million eight hundred and fifty-two thousand two hundred to the hundred and eighteen thousand, that again, Mr.

Donwill is giving up that would that would cover the um constant recurring of one million nine hundred seventy thousand two hundred.

Mr.

Johnson.

Uh Ms.

Resident, I think I think our numbers are off a little bit here.

I think the totals um that Mr.

Corley, I think we're missing the one thirty for the FTE for the Office of Sustainability.

I think that's missing from the total.

I think you're right.

Um, Mr.

President, I think you're right, Mr.

Johnson.

I think that's yeah, I don't think we think my team is coming up with 2,100 200 as the total recurring number.

Ms.

President, Mr.

John, what would that one thirty, 130,000?

It was just added today.

That was just added today.

Right, yeah.

Yes.

Yeah, for the Office of Sustainability.

So that would be that would need to be added to the uh one million.

Um so you come, okay.

So 1 million 970 200 plus 130,000.

That's 2 million 100,000 and 200.

Yep.

Okay.

That's the same number we are coming up with.

So Mr.

President, so Ms.

Johnson, so you're saying that 130,000 would also be added to the amount coming out of police.

And um, so that would be so 1 million 8520.

5220.

Plus 130,000.

That would be 1 million 982,200.

Uh so that's what's on the table right now.

So when you add, excuse me.

Um you add 130,000 to to that item for coming out of police budget.

That's 1,982,200 plus 118,000 from board review.

That gets you to total recurring of 2 million 1,200.

So Mr.

Johnson, um director Drew.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Uh and uh to you uh and to council members, uh it is from our understanding we do not need the 130,000 for the FTE for the Office of Sustainability.

Uh they will be reaching out uh to speak to you stating that we do not need that one FTE.

With discussion, Member Benson.

You don't need the money or you don't need the FTE.

Through you, Mr.

President, uh to member Benson, we don't need the money or the FTE.

Why don't we need the FTE?

Uh that is from our director.

And she is gonna be reaching off.

I'm sorry, through today at this point.

So I can run it later.

So today or tomorrow, do you know or tomorrow?

Today would probably be even better, so we can not have those type of conversations tomorrow.

Okay.

So this evening, once we wrap up, maybe this evening, Ms.

Uh, through you, Mr.

President to Member Benson, we'll have her reach out this evening to have that discussion as well.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Pro Tim Young.

I just want to say that uh from the board of review, Mr.

Donwell is requesting that any leftover.

I'm saying that from the border review, that uh Mr.

Donwell is requesting that any leftover budget from his current fiscal year remain in his budget.

Discussion.

Yeah, but but but Mr.

Whitaker, that or this amount of 118 that was mentioned.

Does that include that amount?

Protein you know what happens when you assume, but that's what I'm assuming.

That that that totals to 118.

So yeah, that's the one 118,000.

Yeah.

So Ms.

President, so though, so his current budget would stay intact.

118,000 is part of the proposed budget for a um border review.

And he's indicated that he doesn't need the 118,000 in fiscal 2027.

Seven, gotcha.

But he wants whatever's in his budget now to roll over, essentially, like we've been saying.

So he sounds so the money that he has currently in this budget, which would include 118,000 in the current year's budget.

He's gonna spend that.

You know, he's gonna spend that.

He's just saying that he does not need it in 2027, 2002, you know, in the mayor's proposed budget.

If you want to get to I'm so sorry, I can't remember specifically what that was, but he just he came to me personally and and explained that he does not need that that that funding.

Gotcha.

All right, Mr.

Donwell.

I see you joined us.

Um wanted to know you don't you don't have to go into full detail, but um the 118 thousand dollars.

Talk to us about um that amount that we have here in our budget.

We were told that you don't need that in your new 227 budget, uh, but you don't want uh that amount to be pulled out, if you will, uh, or taken away uh for this year 26 budget, is that correct?

Or is there any additional information you want to provide us?

So that that is correct to the chair.

Um we are in the process of wrapping up uh marketing and equipment for the 26 budget, uh which will get used.

Uh but there may be some funds remaining, and we'd like to have those funds rolled over uh into the 27 budget, and that will allow us to be able to release the hundred and eighteen thousand.

Mr.

Donwell, what does that dollar amount look like potentially that your request would say?

Yes, uh yes, sir.

Uh I would say it's gonna be in excess of 45,000.

Okay, Mr.

Johnson, what does that look like from your spreadsheet?

Uh thank you, Mr.

President.

So that's gonna look like it's still just a net ad to 27.

This is the general fund, so I can't roll it over.

We we can call it a rollover, but it isn't.

I'm I'm kind of creating a little wheeze here.

Um, and so we would be utilizing some of our um presumably one-time resources to just allow this to finish out in the amount of 45,000 dollars.

If that's the case, that that should be fine.

So you need someone to move 45,000 as a one-time as a one time for the border review motion.

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

Any objection to moving 45,000 one time to the board of reviews budget?

See no objections, then action shall be taken.

Thank you.

Any further, Mr.

Donwell?

No, sir.

That's it.

All right, we appreciate your presence.

Thank you so much.

Member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um my apologies for the late request.

I have had conversations with the administration though.

Um, I'd like to make a motion to add 75,000 um to the neighborhood improvement fund for Jefferson Chalmers, as progress is is happening on um the development of the pump station in the in the community.

Member Johnson, that is a new item that you that is a new item.

It is a one-time request.

Okay.

Discussion.

There's a motion on the floor with discussion, member Benson.

Yourself to Member Johnson.

Does that mean that that pump station uh I know that was a gliwa um process in public health?

Is that going to occur?

Yeah, is that going to be approved or has it been approved?

Member Johnson?

Through you, Mr.

Chair, to member Benson.

Um, my team and I have been doing everything we can to advocate on behalf of the community to get the community support.

So the item will actually be in PED next month, next month for the public hearing.

So we're trying to corral a number of different things, just making sure that we are continuing to support the community.

Um to get the community support.

So this is one additional item.

So is this a bit of foreshadowing that this is a bit of foreshadowing that this item may be approved in the okay?

Thank you, Johnson.

That that is the hope.

Thank you, Mr.

Mr.

Mr.

Chair.

I'm I'm good, Mr.

Chair, and I'm supporting the 70,000 dollars as foreshadowing.

Thank you, sir.

Uh pro Tim Young.

Mr.

Quarley, do we have this in the budget?

Yeah, I I would Mr.

President, um, to you, Pro Tim Um Young.

Yeah, we can we can cover that.

Okay.

Uh Ms.

Johnson, same question.

We had this money in the budget.

We're good.

I'm sorry, could you please um do we have this money in the budget that we're that that uh member Johnson is requesting?

Uh uh yes, because it's one time dollars uh through the chair, sorry to pro tem money.

Uh yes.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Ms.

President, what what department council member Johnson would just be maybe PDD or would it what you think?

GSD or um I'm I believe if I can read lips, it's the housing and revitalization department.

Yes, HRD.

Okay.

All right, Miss Corley.

So um that covers all of the outstanding items other than uh we have pinned steel page 24, the new item or city council administration.

I think he's I think you want to come back to that.

And um to the council.

So I think beyond that, Mr.

President, we're we're done.

So um I know it's getting kind of late.

If I can if I can if you can take 10 minutes, if I can contact my uh my team and see if they could provide a revised um second session spreadsheet, maybe and if they can do that within an hour, would that be amenable to council members to come back at six?

What what will be the action after we get that spreadsheet?

What would you like for us to do after we get that spreadsheet?

Hopefully, uh Mr.

President, you can resolve those two pin items, you know, city council, you know, council administration and the other conversation you want to have about the million versus the nine of thousand.

You know, I think that's how colleagues would you like to take those items up tomorrow?

Seeing that again it's two items, and we've kind of dealt with one uh already today.

Um what's that second item uh outside of the line item 234?

Um you know does council change is a million versus the 900,000.

That was that's 234 for 34, and then other council administration.

Um 300,000 rollover, right?

Well that but we've kind of dealt with that at this moment.

So 300,000, I said would well I know that's in the in member Santiago.

Did you need some additional discussion on that particular item?

No.

We just need to check that.

Yeah, okay.

Okay.

Yeah, but do we need to come back for that is what I'm saying to this this evening?

Okay, because that'll give you you don't have to rush and do this in an hour.

Yeah, um, and get back to us and then we just come back and go, oh, thanks, and then send you on your way.

That way we can we know what we're dealing with.

You can email uh each um a member in office because there won't be any movement until tomorrow anyway on the full um uh uh spreadsheet.

Um that'll allow for Mr.

Whitaker.

You say that I know your team said you said your team may be sending something.

They're still working on the closing resolution.

If we can send it to send it to you electronically tonight, you can deal with it tomorrow, first thing, and we can make the changes and we won't be here to listen.

Yes, sir.

And and and and I think it's important to uh just send a message, send a word out, whether it's to my team, me, to all of us, the council members I would say, to look at email so that when we come tomorrow, we'll give you a call.

We'll already have review the lion's share of the language, and we're not seeing it for the first time because we know that's typically the thing that kind of slows the gears a little bit uh as we go back and forth.

So um if you can let us know, what time do you think just to kind of keep our eyes peeled for the uh sent Mr.

King down?

He hasn't I know they're typing.

Well that's fine.

I mean we'll we still gotta go public comment, so by the time we finish wrap up public comment, maybe your your team will be able to give you some estimate on when we should be looking out for the document.

Not pinning you to an exact time, but again, know when we should uh start keeping our eyes peeled.

Uh Pro Tim Young.

Yeah, I'll probably the minority.

I was our team, let's just get it all done right now.

But honestly, if you want to do it tomorrow, that's fine.

I just wanted to ask, um I just wanted to ask um you, Mr.

Quarley, how are we looking with this budget?

Are we over?

If we are over, how much are we over?

How much will we how much we had to cut back?

I just want to know just what where where are we at in terms of the budget figures in terms of asks and where we need to be.

And do we have that number uh in terms of how much that is?

Just so I know kind of a picture of how much we gotta cut and go back.

So we so Mr.

Cole, give them that same speech you gave them the other day now.

Same energy.

What we want to hear.

I needed a lever to you.

Um thank you, thank you for that.

There's this there's two ways that you can release pressure either by crying or by laughing.

So I thank you for the laughter.

Because I ain't trying to cry right now.

Right.

So the total budget is not gonna change.

Okay.

Council is making changes to the budget, but you're reducing priorities, you know, from the administration to do that.

Yeah.

And so we're looking at a total of about 20 million dollars in total.

Okay.

Which is the one point four percent of priorities that they would have to reduce to meet what we're asking, right?

Exactly.

Okay.

But the total budget is gonna be the same, you know, one point five five uh general fund um one point five five billion is a general fund proposed budget from Mayor Sheffield.

Okay.

That's not gonna change.

We're just shifting shifting the priorities around a little bit.

Yeah.

And and then um the thing as always, thank you, Ms.

Quarley.

And then Mr.

Johnson, um, you you told me that, and I just want to make sure that we're still correct, that the priorities that we're reducing are gonna be solely from the police department.

Are there any other departments that might be affected?

Or is this just storily gonna be the police department?

And this is and this is this is this rec thank you, Mr.

President.

This is recurring.

And we so you so you're talking about police department, you're talking about equipment, you're talking about vests.

It is there anything else that they might be that that we should be aware of that they that we might be just just from my understanding.

Uh I'm I'm not trying to pay the nightmare scenario here.

I I just want to know what is, just so I know what I'm getting myself into.

Uh through the chair to President Pro Tim Young.

I mean, I can get a more granular list of what is in the non-personnel budget there.

I also note that is it tanks, is it military equipment, it was cars, what is it?

Yeah.

Through the chair at not those things.

Um I will note, however, that the the it it's not really turnover because we already took the turnover as part of the original proposed budget.

So we not only took turnover, we cut their overtime.

So um but I can I can get um you know, I can kind of look through the non-personnel budget in the in the in that appropriation and and give you a sense of what kind of items we're looking at.

And then and then if you also just tell me like the point of like no return where we ask for so many asks for the purpose where we're gonna have to lay people off.

Or we're gonna have to lay people off.

I just want to know what that line is and how close we are or how far away we are to it or from it, just so I can have a little bit of gauge of what I'm doing and what I'm not doing.

Just just I'm not saying I'm gonna try to get to the line or go past it.

I I I just want to know like you know what I'm getting myself into here a little bit.

You know what I'm saying?

I I just want to know what the temperature of the pool is if I just jump into it.

That's all I'm saying.

Uh through the chair.

Yes, sir.

To President Program.

We're further discussion afterwards.

Um we uh we are not at that point.

Um it would be considerably further away um than we are now.

Um what is considerable?

I I I couldn't put it I couldn't put a number to it.

Um it it this is a you know it's uh it's an over uh one point five billion dollar general funded it it it it would take quite a lot.

But what we would do is we would be, you know, it's it's it's we've got to remember that a lot of our services are not delivered by direct people doing them.

A lot of them are through vendors, a lot of them are through service providers.

And so those are what would get cut.

We're gonna cut folks first before we cut any personnel.

Personnel is always the last place to go.

Um so we're not anywhere near that point.

If we were, I would have hollered a long time ago a lot louder.

Okay.

I I I just I just want to know what that number, if you can get one or if you can get to be, but you don't have to like say it publicly.

You know, maybe you can like you know, through sign language or blink your eye three times, send it to me, but just tell me what that number is, just so I can understand what that is.

I would I would appreciate just from my own understanding.

Thank you.

I'm done.

Thank you.

And I just want to make it very clear.

This is what is before us is a proposed budget.

So this is not a final budget that we're taking anything away, it's adjusting the budget.

It is shaping the budget, and what comes from this budget is going to be what is on behalf of the residents of this city.

So whether it's coming from this side of the table or that side of the table, we're green.

We're this Mr.

Corley, how much in terms of percentage in terms of changes from the proposed budget?

1.4%.

So I don't want us to any media who may be listening.

This idea that we're you know, completely shifting.

What we're doing is we're working together.

This is a very, very, very uh clear example of how the administration and council is working together.

Um weaving in priorities that the administration wants at a high level, but also weaving in the priorities of this body as well.

That's what we have before.

So I don't want it to be characterized that we're taking away from or anything like that because everything before us, nothing has been approved, and what is before us is a proposed budget that's being altered, altered.

Nothing is final until tomorrow by midnight.

So we just want to make that very, very, very, very clear.

I want to go to Member Miller, uh, followed by Member Johnson, followed by Member Benson.

Member Miller.

Mr.

Corley, were you able to obtain your 15% rainy day phone portion?

Well, Ms.

President, so Mr.

Corley.

Um Mayor Shiffield has you know agreed to keep the 150 million, you know, at as as the as a as the amount in the budget stabilization fund, or also called rainy day fund.

Um there was a closing resolution sponsored by Councilmember Benson.

If there's an opportunity to grow that 150 million in the future, that you know the administration would work with city council to try to do that.

I think you know, 150 million represents about 12 percent of the city's general fund appropriations.

Best practice is 15 percent.

So 12% is pretty good, you know, given our overall financial situation.

Plus, we got another um about 300 million in the retiree protection fund.

Um we got about another you know, 100 million, maybe 80 million in the risk management fund.

So when you add all that together, um, you know, it looks pretty good in terms of our ability to be resilient, you know, as a city.

So I think we're pretty decent shape when it comes to that.

Member Miller.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I just want to be sure we took up my motion to add the 75,000 dollars to the neighborhood improvement fund.

I don't think no.

We didn't make it a we didn't close the loop.

Nope.

That's because Ed King stepped away.

That's what it was.

See what happened when specifically for the Jefferson Chalmers community.

All right.

There's a motion on the floor, colleagues.

Discussion with further discussion, Member Benson.

Statement, I look forward to this foreshadowing.

Thank you.

Foreshadow.

Any objections, colleagues?

See none, that action shall be taken.

Discussion.

Umber Benson.

Just wanted to uh remind my colleagues that when we talk about oversight committees, Detroit City Council is the chief oversight for the city of Detroit.

And oversight quality oversight requires quality staff.

It requires thoughtfulness and it requires deliberation.

Not forget that that we are oversight, and we have to have the quality staff necessary to provide the oversight that this city deserves and expects.

We have had 12 balanced budgets.

This will be our 13th.

That requires oversight, which is not free, nor is it cheap.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Pro Tim.

Yeah, I just want to say um to uh Mr.

Johnson um about artificial intelligence.

Make sure you look at agentic AI as well.

Um traditional artificial intelligence you responds to prompts, whereas agentic AI usually kind of sets goals and tasks a little more autonomous and makes decisions based on data.

So I think if you're looking for something more advanced for the programs you're talking about, that'd be the place to go.

Okay.

Colleagues, any further before we go to public comment, unless you have anything else.

Just one more real quick, Mr.

President.

Thank you.

So we'll put in all of the changes that we went through today, and that'll be um draft number four.

We'll have that ready for you.

Now I know tomorrow's former session.

I haven't had a chance to look at the former session agenda.

So I don't know if it's a lengthy one.

So do you want to uh set the time that we come back for executive session at two o'clock tomorrow?

Uh it's currently set at two o'clock.

That is that two o'clock.

It's currently set at two o'clock.

Okay.

So we'll have our version four.

We'll start working on Schedule B.

And um we should be at a pretty good place tomorrow back by two o'clock.

So, Mr.

Corley, just based on if we keep this same clip, again, all the information that we have.

Uh, I would assume that most of the closing resolution language has already been provided to LPD.

We have pretty much knocked out uh the lion's share of the uh financial uh uh allocations in the budget.

Uh are we looking at, you know, I know we hate to give a number, it's almost like predicting if the Lions are going to win us getting to the Super Bowl, but are we looking at closer to uh eight o'clock, nine o'clock tomorrow?

Yeah, um, you know, I would say definitely not 12 o'clock.

12 a.m.

Okay tomorrow.

I would say definitely not.

So hopefully within that eight to nine nine p.m.

Um, you know.

That's what we're shooting for, colleagues.

Just letting you know I wanted to put it out there because you gotta set a goal, yeah, and then achieve it.

There we go.

All right, Mr.

Whitaker.

I did want to tell you that uh it looks like we're gonna have a draft to you around seven o'clock.

Okay.

So if you can start looking at that, and uh we'll share it with you as soon as we get it, but it looks like seven o'clock.

We did circulate uh a notice that a special session to deal with the budgetary items will be set for four o'clock.

Of course, that'll be rolling.

Okay.

Uh probably won't go at four, but it's set at four now.

Gotcha.

Okay.

Mr.

President, so I sent an email um to um director Denise Starr for council to receive their proposed uh conversation book.

And so um, hopefully we'll get that fairly soon.

We just talked, we talked about earlier about the rattle letter, so when it'll be coming, I guess by the end of the day today.

Um then schedule A.

Schedule A's, so again, that's the changes that council makes to the community development block grant, neighborhood opportunity fund dollars.

We have a draft of schedule A.

Uh, I think there's a few outstanding questions that I need to get with uh Mr.

Johnson about because again, schedule A is it's gonna be different this year.

We got some uh dollars in HRD.

We got probably the lion's share of them and the new um HHFS, and then we show the revenue in OCFO, because you know, as you recall, OCFO is now um recording the CDBG revenue since it's not OCFO.

So I'm just letting you know that schedule A is this gonna be a little different from the past, but um beyond that uh it should be fine.

And so uh schedule A should be ready, you know, by definitely by four o'clock tomorrow.

Just to let you know.

Okay.

All right, colleagues.

Any further before we go to public comment?

All right, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Corley, Mr.

Whittaker, and and all.

We shall now go to public comment.

If there's anyone from the public who would like to speak in person and or online, please raise your hand now.

I see two hands in the committee of the whole.

If you're at home, going once, going twice, going three times collection of public comments have now concluded, as I've mentioned for the duration of our budget proceedings.

We will have abbreviated public comments.

Take everyone to one minute.

So please be mindful of your time because I have to be fair to everyone.

We're gonna get that clock up, team.

All right.

We'll start from my left and move over to my right.

Sir.

Just depending my comments from this morning to this honorable body through the chair.

I want to make two comments.

Number one, the reason rationale why collectively this body should advocate to the mayor for the reinstitution of the Board of Fire Commissioners.

One example.

250 West Learned is the old fire headquarters.

That building was sold for 1.3 million.

That building currently is worth four times that.

Four times that.

That's number one.

Number two, I sit here and listened at what the board uh commissioner Sims indicated that he wanted to talk about.

That piece was that if he wanted to implement the board, he had no problems with it.

However, he said that we're doing a great job.

And God we trust is on the dollars, and that's who we trust to handle those dollars in a sense.

So I want to ask you all to collectively advocate for re-implementing.

Thank you.

Smiles, thank you for joining us, sir.

Floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Uh so my comment is regarding a few things that were on the ledger today.

First, um, I know everyone wants safe parks, so do I, but I urge this council to be extremely careful about how to achieve this.

Kids can be wild, teenagers certainly are wild.

Uh, but there's endless data that shows that there are ways to deal with situations like this or to provide more services, not to increase police presence.

And uh so many examples from cities across the country show that an increase in policing in situations like this result in more crime.

Um, I'll remind everyone that crime has been drastically falling throughout the city in the in the uh previous years.

I also want to lift up the need for further funding of the oversight agencies at a minimum.

I would encourage council to take up new proportional funding ordinance as soon as possible after this budget season closes, and look to adjusting oversight agency funds as necessary when the mid-year adjustment occurs.

I'm aware and sympathetic to the strains of the budget, but this is obviously extremely important to run a fair city.

And finally, for accountability purposes, it would be great to have a draft of the closing resolution on the website in the document session before tomorrow's hearing starts if possible.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Um Mr.

Whitaker, you the draft of the closing resolution.

I'm gonna go to online public comment.

Uh do we know when that may be available for the public, or do we not provide well?

We should provide drafts.

I mean, it's maybe not the first draft tonight.

It's changing, yeah.

And we we try to put the final product that council is voting on online as soon as we can.

Okay, but we're still working, it's still a draft, it's still a working document, and we'd we like to avoid putting working documents out because it may stir up a hornet's nest before you even see it.

Well, the only reason I ask that question is because uh we've all talked about these items publicly, so it shouldn't be hidden.

And if there's a way to put draft on there, you know, where it's very clear that it can't be confused with the final that comes our way for approval.

Is that possible?

We work for you, Mr.

President.

So if you'd like us to put out, we're we're somewhat reluctant.

I'm a lawyer, so I don't produce you about it.

I just wanted to I I don't produce drafts for public consumption, and but it we work for you, and if you're insisting that we put a draft out, we will.

But but I would caution against it.

Okay, we'll get a document that that the council that the council and the public can review uh this much more final than then not uh as soon as we can.

Okay, thank you so much, Mr.

Whitaker.

We shall now go to our online uh commenters.

How many do we have and who do we have first?

Sorry, good afternoon, council president.

We have file callers online.

Our first call is going to be the caller ending in 039.

Caller ending in 039.

The floor is yours.

You have one minute.

I know you're there.

There you go, my man.

All y'all city council people are busted, keep it in officials in y'all busted.

Brendan the taxpayers dollars.

You know you keep it in.

I got evidence that Janet's been cheated elections for four years.

2021.

2022 and 2024, you cheated in over in District One, along with all the rest of the city council members.

And y'all got spending millions.

Hundreds of millions.

And billions of dollars of taxpayers from Detroit City's money.

That's criminal.

You know you cheated in.

And that Daniel back, you're walking up on me in a room outside the committee, your whole room that just took it to another level.

I'm not gonna play no games with you, suckle.

Joker, it's up.

Next caller, please.

Next caller is Miss Betty A.

Varner.

This is Betty A.

Varner.

The floor is yours.

We have one minute.

General, public comment.

Uh good afternoon, Betty A.

Verner, president of the Soda Elsewhere Black Association, asking the administration and the council to consider monies for our Finkel Corridor.

We are not asking for anything different than what has been spent and evident for other beautiful corridors throughout the city of Detroit.

We are uh especially my members, the majority of us have been committed to our community.

We've lived in our homes 50 plus years.

We just want to be treated equally.

We want the same attention for our corridor that has been uh money that has been spent in other areas.

We deserve it.

We are doing the work to do what we can do to improve our corridors.

There's been much conversation, but we need things to become a reality.

Please, I'm getting to the point to feel like thank you so much.

Next caller, please.

Our next caller is owner Papa.

All right, caller, the floor is yours.

You have one minute, general public comment.

Well, good afternoon.

And through the chair, may I be heard?

Yes, ma'am.

Power for the course, Miss Varner.

This is a body who really doesn't know what they're supposed to do.

Um Mr.

Whitaker says he works for the city council, but I thought we paid his salary.

You all work for the citizens of the city of Detroit.

And I think the reason why in the charter we have oversight committees that oversight for the people.

Maybe that's why you don't want to fund them.

But their responsibility is to report to the citizens.

I don't know who you're reporting to, because you've heard a lot from the citizens, Miss Varner.

Uh a whole lot of other people have spoken about what they wanted.

And myself, I want to see a rec center newly built.

We have surplus dollars that are our property tax dollars that you all sit over as if it's your money.

If you have 130 million dollars of our surplus tax dollars, why can't we build our own recenter?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next caller, please.

Next caller is William M.

Davis.

Mr.

William M.

Davis, the floor is yours.

You have one minute general public comment.

Uh good afternoon, can I be here?

Yes, sir.

Okay, I think you know, as you many of you know, I'm a former elected Detroit police commissioner.

I think it would be very helpful, especially as it relates to risk management and the vast number of lawsuits as y'all start negotiation with the police department this year, that y'all adjust things in that contract so that they have it has to comply with the charter.

But whereas the board of the police ministers should be the last word on discipline, but it's not because of uh arbitration.

And don't get me wrong, I was a strong union advocate and asked me and the UAW.

In fact, I organize UAW supervisor group in the water department, but uh you can't have officers that could go out and uh shoot a black girl, you know, six times and get don't get fired or anything.

You can't have people have really bad records being promoted, but that's happening today.

I was one of the few people that actually voted against promotions for people because of bad records.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next caller, please.

Council President, this will be our final caller, and the name is Jacob R.

All right, caller.

The floor is yours.

You have one minute, the general public comment.

Caller, you there going once?

Caller, are you there going twice?

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, sir.

Um Council President Pro Tim Young.

Uh, thank you so much for listening to our comments at the DPW hearing um and and increasing the budget by two million dollars for traffic calming on Kirchhoff Jefferson and Lafayette.

Uh I'd just like to point out that along uh East Werner and Charlevoy, there are there are six schools within a block, uh Garvey, Nichols, Hutchinson, Waldorf, Boggs, and Southeastern High School.

And I hope that you could consider uh amending your budget request to include uh East Werner and Charlevoy uh in in order to help reduce the drag racing so that kids can safely cross the street uh without being afraid of cars driving on the sidewalk.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

And then now it takes us to the end of our public comments, and we will be back at it uh to wrap things up starting at 2 p.m.

tomorrow.

Um Mr.

Corley, anything before we leave?

All right.

Uh we will be providing I guess dinner tomorrow, uh, colleagues.

So lunch is on you, but we'll be providing dinner um to make sure we can get over that hump, if you will.

Uh we'll have it for you.

Is there a motion to adjourn?

Seeing objections that action shall be taken.

Yes.