Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Miguel Sanchez uh calling to order special committee on ways and means uh Wednesday June 10th.

The time is 5 33.

Madam Clerk, can you roll call?

Chair Sanchez.

President.

Vice Chairman Taylor.

Yes.

Townsar Davidson.

Councilwoman Graves.

Yeah.

Councilwoman Peterson.

Yeah, hi, President.

Yeah.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Also want to recognize our leader councilwoman Harris is here with us today.

Yeah, features director, and our policy staff, clerk's office of course, our friends from City Solicitor.

Thank you for joining us.

Four items to have.

Yeah, I think that's five.

Um Chris, are you guys gonna join us?

Um, yeah, I was like, Yeah, I don't know if you guys have anything you wanted to share.

I mean, I was gonna speak.

I'm gonna speak about um changes on our end.

I don't know if I make sense to speak any changes on our eyes to that.

Yeah, sure.

I actually have to record a little company.

Um yeah, yeah, when uh or I could just verbally go through it for that to interest.

Um yeah, it could be like a co-conversation at the ask on top of us and go in there.

All right, perfect.

Great.

So this should be some clerks or should we just ask time?

Okay, so is this all one item right here?

Uh clerks?

Um how do we just take two of these?

I probably should do separate substitutions, I think for each member.

Okay.

It's not an exhibit, so it's just substitute, you know, item one.

All right, so we'll take care of these motions uh quickly.

Uh is it five different substitutions then?

Is it five different?

Yes.

Okay.

Uh motion to substitute item uh one.

Uh motion made by Vice Chair Taylor, second by councilwoman graves, all those in favor, aye.

Any nays, any opposition, any discussion?

Ayes have it.

Uh motion to substitute item two.

Motion made by councilwoman graves, second by vice chair tailor, all those in favor, aye.

Any nays, the ayes have it.

Uh motion to substitute item three.

Motion made by Vice Chair Taylor, second by councilwoman Davidson, all those in favor, aye.

Any nays, the ayes have it.

Uh motion to substitute item four.

Motion made by Vice Chair uh Taylor, second by councilwoman Davidson, all those in favor, aye, any nays, and the ayes have it.

Uh motion to substitute item five motion made by councilwoman graves, second by vice chair tailor.

All those in favor, aye.

Any nays, any extensions, ayes have it.

And then motion to enter exhibit one.

Um I don't know.

35.

Um motion to answer exhibit 35 into the record.

Motion made by council graves, second by vice chair Taylor, all those in favor, aye, any news, and attention, the eyes have it.

Um before we get started, uh Councilman Person, do you have a question?

Um yes, but I think maybe what I'll do is I'll ask it as the conversation goes because I'm using this to sometimes maybe I'll be explained if we worth it.

Or if um if you want to bring it, I don't know, or if it's a um before we get started, I just want to thank everyone, of course, uh, for engaging in this uh at times um lengthier process uh nights.

Um I enjoy being here as a late as possible.

I don't know if everyone else feels um thank you to the committee members, our staff, uh clerk's office, thank you guys so much.

I know we got a lot of consecutive uh nights.

There's a couple weeks where we're moving Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursdays.

Uh sometimes even Monday, so we can appreciate your service to the people of Providence in the forest committee.

I'm also the same goes to uh service off this.

Although you guys rotated it, but I think we'll put it on and last uh but not least, uh cities by IC and Bristol, Sarah, Chief School, um staff.

Thank you guys uh so much.

It was a pretty smooth uh process, I would say um, you know, there's a lot of constraints um and you know stuff moving to the last second.

Um wanna uh thank you guys uh from from the heart uh for you know engaging and working together on having the people that put us in these positions.

So thank you.

Um that being said, I think we'll get started from this exhibit.

I don't want to anticipate a super long meeting.

Um, but of course, if anyone has any questions or comments, uh please uh ask um uh square them in.

What was that?

Would you like to screen in it?

Um, I think that anyways I know I mean the experiment of penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is the whole truth, nothing but the truth.

I do please take me in the title for the round.

Sorry, so there I can ask that.

Crystal and very definitely accepting.

So before you begin, I'll have one small request of the committee members.

Obviously, you guys don't have to group community members while looking at the camera.

I should posting a speed.

What about you?

You're the main star.

I'm okay behind the scenes.

Let me have your camera just real quick since we've been a mistake.

I'm not on the committee.

Sorry.

So everybody looked this way to get anything.

Just in case it's not again.

All right, sorry about that.

No, I think that's a good one.

Excellent.

Um, so I did prepare a quick document just to walk through what the change were on the budget to the final budget so that everybody was on the same page, and we're informing the public um transparently about what has uh conspired the task makers have.

Um first off, I'd like to just uh you know let everyone know what the final levy was.

Um after as we know when the budget is proposed, our assessor is still assessing, receiving abatements, receiving information, and so that levy is constantly in flux until she's ready to certify.

Um at this point, she feels confident and she is ready to certify, so we will have a total levy at 418 million,954,285.

Um, this is a reduction of about 500,000 from last year's levy, so it is something that we're gonna want to keep an eye on.

Um the bulk of it is in the tangible personal property and is related to a specific tax case, and if you'd like to talk to the assessor about me, we'd be happy to do that.

Um, but just in general, this is how the levy moved from one year to the next.

Um to slide three if there's no questions on the levy.

Um, there were a few revenue adjustments.

We proposed the original general bundle names at 635 million 7001, 697.

Um since the budget had been proposed, we had been informed that we were going to receive additional um motor data for reimbursement from the State Rhodes Island that accounted for additional revenue of $696,692.

Um, the levy changes that we reviewed on the previous slide resulted in a real-day tax revenue pickup of $734,916 and a tangible test tax revenue loss of $1,105,123.

Um, and the last line item that was adjusted to bring this budget to balance as parking meter revenue.

Um it was determined that there was a slight overage in this line, and so it'll be a little more cautious.

If there's no questions on revenue on the last expenditure adjustments, you proposed originally general fund expenditures of $635,701, $697, which is a balance budget.

The first is uh in the non-departmental department.

Um this is the funding to PPSD.

Um the calculations date aid had changed uh kind of dramatically when the house has the budget.

Um, and so while we were tracking about a $600,000 increase all you know all throughout this season, we did find out that you know on the 29th it was going to be this additional 2.6 million dollars, and so trying to find and balance for that has been you know where we've been at in the past week or so to get to that point, and I'm sure the chair has more sales, but I think we're in a place where I feel very good about this budget and that we will be able to live within this, and that this is a balanced and responsible budget for next fiscal year.

Um there's additional funding that's been added to the sustainability department for the um energy administrative assistant position, which is going to assist uh tremendously with the volume of work they have in our department, much of which is managing utility accounts.

Um additionally, the market has also changed.

I believe we reviewed this in sustainability's hearing that we would need to potentially add additional funding to this line item.

So there has been an additional 250,000 to be added to the key fighting power budget to allow for market changes, and you know, if we're lucky we won't need to have that, but it's better to have it in the budget in case we do kind of see this trend continue into next year.

Um there's been an additional preparedness coordinator funded in the human department.

Um in Pera, we've funded an investigator and created a new policy and community agent manager position, which is a combination of two previously um existing positions.

And the Department of Housing and Human Services, a veteran support coordinator position was added at the cost of just over 70,000.

Um housing and human services also had an additional $50,000 added to their budget to provide funding for a grant to Mathison Street Church.

Uh there was $25,000 added to the recreation department for additional programming funding, and an additional $80,000 to CLPVD to help support their continued business operations to help pay race increase costs.

Um we had choose reduce the police salary line item by a little over $340,000.

This is for officer attrition, that is of officers who have either who've left city service since the budget is proposed to now.

We typically see this budget adjustment and in all budget hearings.

Um additionally, on the staffing level, there was about $336,000 in staff kind of changes from what the budget was proposed until now.

And so typically one of the things our budget analysts might do is if someone moves positions mid-budget, we're trying to re right side that and make sure that everybody's in the correct position for final budget.

That resulted in about a $300,000 savings for the final budget.

Um, and last but certainly not least, um there was a decision in an agreement to move neighborhood infrastructure funds into the capital improvement um budget and fund this year's allocation with the pending fund.

I have a question.

Yes.

Um correct me if I'm wrong, but this is just for this year, is it quote unquote?

I am not uh to my knowledge, this is a one-year agreement, and and I don't know what has been agreed to in writing.

I propose one operating budget at a time.

I'm so it's just that I'm sorry, I'm looking ahead, and it looks like this is appropriated for five years, which I'm not necessarily sure that I'm supportive of at this point in time.

So it's um it's in the ordinance uh vote we uh it's not necessarily funded for five years, so we want to move it back to uh general funds.

That's been about an hour.

Where did it say that?

So in the breakdown of the budget book, you'll see like all of the other projects where there's a funded line and unfunded line, you will see a funded line for the neighborhood for the neighborhood infrastructure, and then you'll see the unfunded out here.

So the unfunded out here is don't should be there.

I think those out for final.

I thought that that would be provided comfort.

For me, for my comfort level, I would prefer to see this in somewhere in the ordinance so that we can assure that we can have it back in the year should we decide to do that at the council.

We we have that control.

So then what exactly would you if we do have a control wire reprogramming from one side of the next?

I just don't understand.

Like so many of the judges funds are something that we didn't have in CIP before.

Right.

Why are we moving it that way now?

If we're just doing it for this one short term for the year, yeah, why is it that it's showing for the full five years adding this to them just going off of what it's up here?

Finally IP adjustments and I um NIF funds going from FY27 through FY1.

Um, because all CIP allocations are on a five year projections.

Okay, but if it's it's not necessarily funded for five years, so it doesn't necessarily delineate that that we're specifically saying it's only going for this particular year.

Um was that I'm sorry, no, um I think this is what we've been doing for a while.

Is that what we get okay?

Um I'm not familiar with my best okay, and we're never continuing to do that.

Okay, okay.

So I I guess my question on uh the NIF is the I guess these are continuing propositions we have, but have you guys made the decision if we're gonna increase the next bond or is it is the vendor to use premium funds that's been discussed or reality projects, I guess what's the weakness on that.

Certainly, so I believe right now our options are to either add another 1.5 million, like the options that I think are the most viable are pursuing either uh adding 1.5 million dollars to issuance amounts or utilizing bond premium to change the neighborhood infrastructure fund allocation.

Um we typically see at least 10% bond premium.

So look if we do a 25 million dollar bond issue, we will have probably likely 2.5 million dollars in bond premium to use towards either additional projects, however, that also um provides funding for the public public how this public building authority administration of that bond.

Um, and so again, we're gonna have to to make that decision shortly, but not necessarily today.

Um, we believe a resolution will be coming forth you know to this council with the amount of the bond when that decision is made.

Um, if I'm being candid, I would like to do a debt projection with our investment advisors before that decision is made to just see what the actual cost of one and a half line is over 30 years.

Um the annual debt service, I imagine is going to be pretty small, but at this point in time when I don't think that decision is going to be into my knowledge.

When um what's the timeline on what when's the estimated project data to go out for bond?

Um so we would want to start certainly just talking today about starting that process uh as soon as next week.

We wanted to get you know through tonight in these hearings, um, and then kind of shift years over to beginning with the buying process.

Um you know, we needed to make sure that the the bond would actually make it out of committee and be approved, and you know, would be something we want to be for before we start the work of actually you know pricing and all the time.

Council agrees.

Um what is what was the reason like moving that was okay?

So your question, yeah, progression.

Um Crystal, do you want to say a nicer words of me, but I think if we summarized it?

Yeah, so certainly um, so like I said earlier, throughout this budget season, I've been kind of keeping a number in my head that we need to balance to to meet this whole appropriation number, and not 600,000.

And we were we were we were gonna be able to meet that with little to no pain in this budget.

Um that number went up by two million dollars, we then had to start looking into what alternatives there were in the budget, and so this was one of a variety of things that could have been done.

Um financial perspective, I will say one of the things that I have seen as a challenge with NIF in general, is that typically these projects don't start and end within one fiscal year, right?

And so by nature they're not operating type will end even by definition, right?

They are infrastructure, they are capital expenditures, and so from a technical standpoint, it they they should be in the capital budget.

Um, and so you know it's it's been in the operating budget and we've been affording it, um, but there have been historical issues with council not being able to spend them in fiscal year, trying to figure out how we then transfer balances out of this account and these other accounts, um, and then we have you know the part it it does become a little bit of an administrative fiasco trying to track how much was spent out of the general fund and how much is left, and then we're transferring over this fund for the balance of it over those years, and sometimes it ends up with um braiding with other capital dollars, and so you know it is cleaner this year in a solution this year to move it out of the operating budget and into the capital budget because we know we're going out to bond, we know there's a certainty that those funds will arrive.

And so, you know, it is cleaner this year in a solution this year to move it out of the operating budget into the capital budget because we know we're going out to bond, we know there's a certainty that those funds will arrive.

Um, and we know there's nothing preventing this from putting put back the number in the budget next year.

Um, you know, the the process is that the mayor proposes the budget, and then you know, throughout this process, we vet the budget, and then there are final adjustments.

So if this is one of next year's adjustments, then that may be the case.

But I think at this point, I don't I can't say what next year will look like.

There's a lot of factors that are going to be shared on what next year's budget is.

Um really primarily ready, and that is also what's making us really really hard is that typically between first and second passage, there's some sort of growth we're able to dig out to pay for these things, and we did not have growth.

We had an even greater reduction, and so you know there are a lot of economic factors that make this budget really challenging, and this was one of the solutions that was proposed, and then it was the one that was agreed.

So the big I guess practical reasoning um that made us even look at this the adoption was uh that we have to give the school more money because of our agreement, and because you know it's it's the right thing to do in the end.

But we were increasing our contribution in the proposed budget, uh, but the the our folks at the state house uh increased uh the state aid and uh we by law have to match a certain percentage of that.

So other alternatives would be um going on freeze higher, um, not adding anything that is on this list.

Um, you know, that that was uh the other alternative.

Um but I will the last thing I'll say about NIF is I was definitely very hesitant in question uh questionable uh about this at the beginning.

I think anytime a counselor hears that any of their um allocation uh funds to their neighborhood, you know, we don't have a lot of neighborhood uh infrastructure funds and C D BG are the little that that we do have full control in expenditure.

Um but as I talked to to Kyle and folks in the administration, um Kyle's very supportive of moving it uh to NIF.

Um one of my questions is all of my nits for next year are already promised to parks department.

Um and they're actually more uh pleased with it with knowing that this bond money is is gonna happen regardless.

Um, where it does uh take, you know, in full transparency, more uh logistical planning is for years to come.

If we're not going out to bond um year after year, then we do have to buy the money in our uh general budget.

Um, there is a way to you know plan, but it takes it's gonna take a lot of work, but between Kyle administration, say we go out to bond uh next year, and this is a route we want to say you know no one had major complaints or concerns uh or or troubles using uh the the bond money, we can project uh NIF for for multiple years in the CIP bottle, you know, where it's more than 1.5 million.

Okay, so we're saying really it's clean up.

I'm watching it saying that we need to do something because the school is paying that, but which is something that we all often I wouldn't even say like that.

That's the reason why we had to do something wasn't because of state increases.

So that's that has a lot of schools coming back or not.

Obviously, us having control of the schools in the very near future, I think uh gives us all a little bit more comfortable that more we're gonna be increasing allocations uh to the school's book.

That that has no network.

Yes, okay.

Um this might come in.

It's we know that I think I don't think added to that or it's gonna be the same time.

So uh because we will be going out to bond, and I don't know if the cash will be in our bank account on July 1st.

I think it's highly unlikely that that actually happens.

However, um the bonds there is a like a period prior to bond issuance where you can expend funds and then be reimbursed from the bond.

So as of and July 1st is well within that window.

So as of July 1st, you will have full access to these funds.

Whether or not the bond has closed, we will be working to get that cash in hand, but it may be where we um pay expenditures out of the general fund and then get reimbursed in the general fund from the bond.

Um, but we we will be um in England, you have access to those funds as soon as this way we've been assigned that.

Uh counselor Peterson and Council are oh, I should do it.

Thank you.

I understand all of these points, but I'm a little bit hesitant right now because as you mentioned, Chris, we need to kind of weigh out additional factors that we need to kind of get our head around what one and a half million additional would be to CIP.

And my concern is is that if our levy is kind of just staying, or however you explained it, um, but also we're not necessarily sure of our borrowing power, or should that we should borrow additional.

My concern is is that now we don't have this opportunity, which I know that I spend out for my community um as soon as I'm able to receive it.

So I I hesitate, and I'm trying to be very cautious in how I how I talk about it because I know that this is important and we need to be able to do this, but at the same time, we for our communities depend on this.

And if we're already having a little bit of a hesitation as to how we should borrow or whether we should, and there's all these other things that are prioritized in doing this.

We just lost our the one piece that outside of CDBG that we can control for any rooms.

And I just I'm very um I'm I'm hesitant to to say yeah, I'm I'm ready to move forward like this.

Council Bruce, I um I understand and respect uh the questions and the concerns.

Um I don't think any counselor is gonna approve a budget that doesn't include neighborhood structure funds.

This stops with us, and I for on the record will say that I'm never gonna approve a budget.

Uh as long as I'm a city counselor, that doesn't include NIF funds, whether that's coming from our general funds, um, or that's coming from uh a bond.

I uh there's no way that I'm gonna go back to my position and say I'm not gonna hide for a few dollars that we have.

So I mean those are decisions uh then they are up to to whoever is in the council.

Understood, but if our finance team is recommending that we don't move forward with appropriating an additional 1.5 million dollars for the future on a bond, we should be wise in accepting what potential decisions come with that.

Don't isn't that part of the responsibility that we have?

So uh I'm gonna let Sarah go and then council president want to recognize you, and then counselor uh and then council president.

We are fine borrowing 25 million.

Um, we have that in our debt projection.

The thing that finance wants to just be sure about is if we should add another 1.5 or commit to using bond premium.

So it's not that we're not that we don't have the ability for the 125.

We just we're just low to look at like what the best mechanism mechanism is for any of 1.5.

Go on, counselor uh president more.

Yeah, and I um it was helpful for me when I got the preview of this yesterday or very recently whenever it was.

Uh it was mentioned that this was like a non-substantial addition to debt service.

Correct.

Yes.

Um sorry, more specific than non-substantial.

I mean, well, you're thinking about 1.5 million dollars over a 20-year organization, and it's not I can't do the monthly math there, but it is not gonna be a material amount of money.

The entire debt service on the 25 million was about 780,000 a year.

So we think about you know one million dollars more.

I mean, again, I don't can't do the mental math, but I I'm not concerned that we could afford the payment if we added an additional 1.5 million.

I'd like to clarify that in case that's part of the concern.

My hesitation to borrow an additional 1.5 million dollars is we we do have considerable balances on hand, and so if we can use bond premium to pay for this, that kind of solves two problems, and then also doesn't add to the cash on hand issue we have.

And so that's and again, it's only one, I mean, like only one and a half, but like in the grantsing of our CIP, it's not a material number.

And so I feel very confident that like finding one and a half million dollars in CIP in any year is not going to be something that is a tremendous challenge.

Um it is you know, this year we know you're borrowing, so this year is a certain thing.

Uh, we are all in agreement.

At the end of this deck, you can kind of see the list of projects that are on there, and maybe the infrastructure is in there.

Um, but I don't want anybody to think that there's a concern that this bond won't happen.

Again, that's fair and maximum starting as soon as we get this out of committee to begin the work on borrowing for those funds.

Oh, wasn't it just following up on that?

Um two things.

One, I think this term in particular, we've done a remarkable job working with the administration on like looking at debt service and our borrowing capability and keeping that in line, and this is part of that.

And then two, um no, I lost it, but I'll come back.

Um, just that every year we do look at CIP even if we're not going out to bond, right?

And are able to reprioritize based on projects that were you know, we projected to be a certain amount and came in under, and or just construction, right?

Like, so we have also uh found money for priority projects of the council every year in CIP, whether or not we're looking after that.

That's my sorry.

Um just would we I know it's kind of just an A type of that people will not have any restrictions on this money?

C D BGO for this just because we're changing the myth to save all you can't do offense because I've no, it's gonna be the same, it is going to be the same rules and regulations that the the checks will be cut through the PBA process, but that's not going to impact eligibility or criteria.

I everything will function, I would imagine, very similar or identical to how it's functioning out from your end.

It'll be more of an accounting change than anything else.

And also the second thing is do we not have to do that?

We look at an orals look at the state and everything.

Do we look at federal funds?

Because I know this like do we have anybody in this city that looks into like say they call it out like um I know they hadn't had in the past of uh fire station.

So we're using money from the city.

We look into like the feds, like magazine or all that and say we need money like we don't money by the joint block over there, whatever it was common.

Yeah, not we got but is there any way that we look into that legally?

Certainly, um so I don't personally oversee or participate in that process, but I do know there are several departments that work with the policy team and grants manager to apply the federal earmarks and work with the federal government.

Additionally, the grants manager is constantly looking for any and all grants.

Um for example, um the the CPF grants that are happening in all of our rec centers, those are technically federal grants that have passed through the state program.

Um so we are you know, where possible looking for grant funds for capital expenditures, and I think you know, oftentimes that's kind of sometimes what gets graded with like your CDBG is technically a federal dollar.

Um, and and one of the things I do see pretty regularly is a project that is being funded by CDBG NIF, uh CIP, and maybe two different bonds in the CIP.

Um, and so you know, again, kind of shifting this over so that it's all in one bucket, I think it does kind of make a little more sense, and I think candidly it gives us a better opportunity in the long run.

Should Pyle want to to be more um trying not only transparent but but really promote more the projects that are happening with NIV because once they're in this capital budget, one of the things I've been trying to do is focus on project pages and show constituents like where their dollars are going and maps and all of that.

And so you know, I would be happy to work with with council staff to help build those sorts of things out because they don't necessarily have to live on the budget vote, they're actually kind of websites we create, they're called stories.

And so, you know, once we have this flowing through that process, I would be happy to work with Kyle and your team to help kind of even elaborate more on what these dollars are doing.

Thank you.

Uh any other questions on the speech meeting numbers.

Okay, um, so this is not a very exciting slide, but um, just in general, like to show that we always want to have a balanced budget.

So in 2027, we are again proposing balanced budget.

Um, it's a very small increase, 1.77% over the school year 2026 budget, which which is remarkable considering our contribution to the district, which is one of our largest increases, it's going up by more than three percent.

Um, so it really does show that we were able to contain costs while funding you know that that very large contribution this year.

Um the CIP did have some final adjustments that we talked about briefly.

Um the first project is funded, and um was at a request to this committee.

So I went ahead and added in the mile history into the final CIP.

Um, additionally, the unfunded application for the road improvements at DPW.

I hit inappropriately for some of the planning department, and so I shifted those over to DPW for the plenal um ordinance.

And then last but not least, again, we added the neighborhood infrastructure fund.

Only fiscal year 2027 is considered funded.

We outuse our unfunded years and open to review on an annual basis.

So it was very clear that it was to be meant for those specific libraries.

So you'll also see that change uh in the final red line version and uh final version.

Um and then I just wanted to provide a list that is what is currently on the final 2027.

Um the brand total right now is 26.5 million dollars.

Um neighborhood infrastructure has been included, um, but none of the other items have been changed on the list.

Um question uh council uh Harris.

Yes, I I want to go back to um the part with uh Trinity SquareMet.

Yeah, and first of all, I'm just trying to understand this fund was a 2017 bond, and it's extended to 2028.

Oh how is that possible?

So it might be so long.

No, I'm gonna clarify.

Um, so I think while we've been talking about Trinity throughout this season, there's been two lines for Trinity that we've been discussing.

There's the Trinity Square Improvements that are funded by the 2020 2020 bonds, and that is the 6.64 million, and we have that money in hand today, and that is currently in the planning budget.

This is an additional 6.6 million dollars for the road improvements we know will need to happen once the utility companies are ready for those to happen.

So this is separate from the correct yes, okay.

Not totally separate because it's the same area.

This is the version of the work that's been on hold.

Okay, yes, and this is on top of the other allocations.

Okay.

So right now it's 12 million in total for Trinity, not just the 6.4.

Oh, okay.

So does that mean that right now the the 2020 bond is it still in planning?

Yes, it is.

Okay.

This is just the changes.

So that one was in planning to begin with, it is remaining in planning and it will stay there.

And I believe it's in 2026 or 207.

I'm sorry, 2026.

Yeah.

Oh, okay.

Appreciate that.

I didn't want to.

I didn't want to confuse myself and then confuse the neighbors.

No, no, no, no, yes.

And I want to make that very clear that this is the additional unfunded allocation, the funded allocation is unchanged in fiscal year 2027 in the plan.

Right.

And just for the the committing to know, this is uh we're add some and you pressed them at the table as well that this be done in a democratic process because of the long um time of this bond being out there and the confusion of you know what what happened was happening with it.

So uh we're in a process right now working together to try to bring that process in place, what it would look like, you know, from trying to get the community to really understand what this can be spent on in the community, and the fact that we cannot broaden it as far as the training square area.

So it's a lot of work that's gonna go into it.

So I'm glad to see that you know it, you know, it doesn't have like well, this is something different.

Totally different.

Yeah, okay.

Does it the other one have a timeline?

I'm sorry, because the other one is all in fiscal year 2027.

So we are hoping that right now we're being optimistic and hoping we can spend it all in 2027.

We will reevaluate that probably in the spring of next year.

But I would love to see as much of those dollars out the door as quick as we can.

Very good.

Thank you.

Thank you, um, Chairman.

Um yesterday was um we didn't I think that we try to close the um so you're not getting up basically the same type of um remote because I think that was basically any uh what the five yeah so we um like crystal mentioned on the image of what has changed.

Um we did increase uh the contribution uh as a direct grant to uh the libraries uh because there's a specific ask on what is is happening what those dollars are useful, and it's to uh maintain uh existing um extended hours at two different uh libraries.

Um and at that point, you know, we we had agreed to to a budget with the mayor's office.

Um but what I've been talking to people um you know, between counselors and and the school board members and even folks in the administration, is that there is an additional allocation coming to PPSD uh in the form of uh state aid and our match, and what I've been telling people what I've been asking folks is uh to work with city year um to have some type of agreement like they've had in the years past.

Um so why we don't have uh direct uh authority over that.

Um I think there's definitely been positive conversations and there is really my opinion is no reason why the school district um can't work that out uh this upcoming uh year.

Um because yeah, that that's that's what's what's what's been in in the past, and that's what other uh school districts do across the country is have direct agreements with city here.

So while we are uh giving them a 225,000 grant um as a direct grant in this budget, um my task has been uh to school board members, to folks administration.

Um I've been talking to other counselors uh to find uh a type of solution.

So I would definitely say that that's something that you you know passionate and care about um to to encourage uh school board members and PPSD staff uh to try to try to make that happen.

Uh counselor Davidson, if you're all set, counselor?

No, no, thank you.

Um so maybe it's just caus that change, but for purposes of tidiness or clarity, wouldn't it make sense to move that grant line to the school budget?

Um keep out of the city budget if that's our intention.

I think at some point, I mean we we've all been very transparent that the city of Providence um issuing direct grants um kind of creates uh difficult moments at times.

Um so I I think that's a conversation that you know will definitely happen at some point in the future, but um we had made the commitment of 225,000, and I don't think it would be fair uh to city here um because we we didn't know that you know the state was gonna get this much in allocation, like Crystal mentioned, it was closer to 600,000, and then our you know contribution would be two percent or what was the percentage of that?

Um so we are uh so we were looking at like a little under two percent was gonna be the increase, and we're I think at 3.3% is the actual increase.

Um so it did it jumped our uh 3.559 um was the percent increase that we had needed to put in the final budget.

So that it really did, and it it was uh Friday evening that I found out.

So um, you know, we were working our best in a short time frame.

So you say the percentage again just remember, yep, so it's a 3.559% increase.

Thank you.

So are you also kind of making sense?

Yeah, I'll put it one different absolute want to open up the category.

Right.

But yeah, yeah.

At some point on that, you know, it was just that one, we feel like we want to have consistency with how city years and and I'll give the administration um some credit.

Uh I had three concerns uh when the administration proposed this last year when it came to uh nonviolence uh funding, it it took it out from uh from a grant uh you know as a contract with the city.

Um but it all worked out at the end of the day.

It's that initial, you know, when you hear okay, this money is not happening because it's happening, I mean it's kind of what's going on with NIF.

You have a lot of questions and concerns.

Um, but if we have uh the right systems in place uh to make sure that you know funds are being um allocated or appropriated in a fair equitable way.

Um I think that's our our main purpose here as elected officials is to make sure that we're doing our due diligence uh responsibly.

One more thing.

No, just not the bad talking about transparency always so much like that.

I think if the cleanup but the people don't know the difference between this and the difference between that if any of us should go to our yeah, we can say, okay, but there's money.

I mean we need to educate not only ourselves, but we need to educate all I think this is I think um the last thing I want to say is um to definitely you know encourage those conversations and uh I had a conversation with um the school board president today that he was uh in full support.

Um but yeah that that's kind of the you know we we want to approach it in in uh in a very um you know collaborative way we you know we don't we don't want to say school district do this, but you know, show them the importance of it and you know this is something they have been doing in the past, so it's not a new ask.

Um and there's definitely precedent for it.

So um yeah, to definitely continue that conversation, um, especially knowing that there is uh an additional almost seven, eight million dollars coming into the school district that wasn't um part of their uh initial proposal.

You know, obviously, just like us, uh, when we receive additional money, we've got to make different tweaks.

Um, but I have a strong belief that there's still um plenty of waival room um for uh a small or you know, not small uh 50 hundred, whatever thousand dollars is still important, um, but there definitely should be opportunity for some type of agreement.

Okay, but it definitely takes you know advocacy uh on on our behalf counselor didn't tell our thoughts that I think okay.

Um does anyone else have anything?

I think we're at the thank you page.

Um are you guys all having anything else, then okay.

The last thing I want to say with uh regarding the school district is that there is um you know a motion you could say, or or people saying out in our community that the city wants to uh clock back any surpluses and and from the conversations that I've had with city folks and in counselors, I don't think that is our intention effort.

Um so you know, while there is language that does say that, it is very outdated language um in this ordinance book.

And I'm uh encouraging and working with administration and our city solicitor's office that try to uh make uh that language um not so uh hostile uh as one you you could say um we are all on the same team, regardless of if the state is controlling the schools or not.

Um obviously starting July 1st, uh we're all gonna be uh on the starting lineup as you can say, uh and not on the on the sidelines.

Um and it's important that we all work together.

We we want to make sure that the schools uh have enough resources for our kids and and families, and there uh definitely is uh uh strong uh reasoning why the school district should have a surplus.

There is um pending litigation uh that might bring uh you know possible additional expenditures that aren't budgeted, so you know I think it's important to make sure that that is set here on the record.

Um I've had some neighbors call me uh directly about that specific question, um, but I just want to make it very clear that that's not the city's attention.

I I I will never you know advocate for such thing, and that that there is work happening to try to clean up that language.

Any other questions, comments, concerns as amended as a items one thing?

I think one thing as amended.

Uh motion made by Vice Chair Taylor, second by Housewoman Graves, all those in favor.

Aye.

Any nays?

Any abstentions?

The ayes have it.

Thank you guys.

Uh thank you, everyone around the table.

Appreciate that motion made by Vice Chair Taylor second by council degrees, all it's in favor, aye, other days, eyes have the meeting as a channel thing here.

No, no, no.

Oh, we have to meet.