Good afternoon, everyone.

Good afternoon, everyone.

The city council's budget work session will now come to order.

Madam Clerk or Mr.

Clark, if you would provide the emergency evacuation plan announcement upon activation of the emergency alarm signal, all persons should immediately exit the building.

Please use the exits to the left or right front of the council chamber or the east or west stairwell outside the rear doors of the chamber.

Do not use elevators or escalators.

After exiting the building, security will direct everyone down 9th Street to the assembly area located inside the former public safety building parking lot.

Able persons should assist visually and hearing impaired visitors with exiting the building.

And for the record, Madam President, all members of council are in attendance this afternoon except for counselor lynch.

Thank you, Mr.

Clark.

We will now have our council chief of staff, Mr.

Warren, provide the protocol for today's work session and then get underway.

Yes, may I please the council, RJ Warren, Council Chief of Staff.

Thank you all for being here today.

It was anticipated that we were probably going to begin some decision makings today, but because you all work so well on these budget work sessions so far and announcing your amendments last week.

We actually, I believe, have time for you all still to review, analyze and discuss some of these amendments before making any decisions, which can occur next week.

And before you and post it online is the most updated version of the proposed amendments submitted by council members.

They have been updated to reflect uh co-patronage, um, additional information provided to us by city administration or involved parties.

We went ahead and proactively combined certain amendments that uh were put forward by multiple members.

And I'm going to go through these in a moment, not one by one, but just note some highlights that I think need I need to bring to your attention afterwards.

Uh, we'll be available to answer any immediate questions from you all after that.

Um, I will then proceed through um uh specifically the text amendments and the capital the CIP amendments uh to see if you all have any specific questions on that and to invite city administration at that time to address uh text and CIP amendments uh to share information they have on the goals of those amendments.

Mr.

Warren, would you also re-emphasize the uh opportunity in terms of extended time for submitting patronage for papers?

Yes.

Um, because we have more time to make decisions on these amendments, the deadline to submit uh a request to co-patron any item has been extended to this Thursday, the 16th at 5 p.m.

You just need to inform me, and that will be updated.

And we hope to have a finalized document uh by Friday to put online and to provide to members and the public for you all to make decisions on on Monday.

And um, and then you know, if you all have any questions, we're not gonna necessarily we're gonna put the clock up to to be mindful of time, but uh I will be available in Soul City Administration.

Um Thank you.

Yes, so to proceed through uh if you can put that on line, sir.

Thank you very much.

Um, on the proposed text amendments, this is just something to note.

Uh the uh RPS audit um for funding uh for funding RPS audit independently.

Um it is both a text amendment and a general fund amendment uh because uh it has been estimated that a cost for this item would be roughly 175,000 that would be needed.

Uh so that has been updated.

And to note on page three of the first amendment, the um establishment of a dedicated mail line item.

We've been informed by city administration that item is already being currently addressed in the budget and will be as well next year.

The um third item, I just want to note a customer service representative to the city assessor's office to be allocated from the office of the council chief of staff.

That seems to be receiving um consensus amongst you all, and I don't see any issues with that provid going forward.

Another update.

Let me go to page five here.

And for the uh amendment forward by Ms.

Trammell for the Richmond Virtual Academy.

The thing I just want to note from council staff, we updated the the number of what that might cost.

Our initial analysis had that at 1.6 million.

We've been provided updated numbers from RPS that for that specific program, it would require 3.2 million.

So that number has been increased.

And one thing to note that may require additional discussion after I've concluded is Ms.

Gibson's amendment on pay or Miss Gibson's amendment on page seven, the first one regarding social services, FTEs.

There's been discussions between Ms.

Gibson and City Administration on this matter, and that this item may be able to not require such a large amendment of transferred funding as a lot of this might be redeemable funding from the state.

If you want to provide any clarity to that at this time, if that's that's available.

Yeah.

Um thank you.

Yeah.

So the uh let me find that line item.

I'm sorry, which page are we on?

Top page seven.

Seven.

Okay, yes.

So the um the ask is for essentially five FTEs.

The um the total cost of you know, whereabouts 460,000.

Um there is an 85% reimbursement for all our DSS.

So that brings down the overall city funding for this pretty substantially.

Uh yes, ma'am.

Um, in regards to CIP amendments, I don't have any specific notes, so we will allow those conversations to occur after I concluded when city administration um comes up to address any that I note.

Uh, one thing I just want to bring to your attention ahead of Monday as your staff try to identify available funding sources for your amendments.

One aspect that we are looking at in our office is the gap grant program.

Uh that was established in the fall of 2024.

It was supposed to conclude by December of 2025.

And uh at the end of 2025, the majority of those fundings in that program still exist.

Um and I believe it's going to be an option for you all to um work with city administration about what could be done with that money.

More conversations need to occur, more analyst uh analysis needs to be done on the possibilities of using that fund.

But I just want you to know staff are trying to identify available funding for you all to fund amendments, and we hope to have clarity on that by uh Monday when you are making decisions.

And uh President Evil, if council's ready, I will now proceed through through the text amendments followed by CIP.

Okay.

Uh going back to page one.

The first uh text amendment is to strike language concerning uh uh severance for senior executives.

As of right now, we have five uh co-patrons on this item.

Do we have any concerns about this item?

Oh, yes, thank you.

Okay.

Uh item two, uh, affordable housing trust fund language.

Uh, we have four current co-patrons on this, and this is uh, as you all may be aware of is to fix language to ensure that the affordable housing trust funds receives the funding that you all agreed upon a few months ago.

I'll just say the uh sorry, Lost and Woj Saria, chief of staff.

Um that we uh you know the administration is also supporting this change.

We have recommended some language.

Um, so I think just wanting we've just been asking for clarity on getting to see how that language is is getting designed when the text amendment comes through.

So we are in support of this uh and have been public about that support, um, but it will obviously we want to know what the actual language is that will be helpful to clarify and unify the um various support for it.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Gibson, did you have a question regarding this item?

I do.

I was just curious if the um the uh funding that is gonna be from bonds, if that is from a bond that the city already has, or if there's a new bond that's gonna be created specifically for um the trust fund dollars.

I can inquire for that question unless someone wants to address it now.

Anyone from finance to correct me if I'm wrong on this, but um so the way that works is uh essentially as a um line of credit, if you will.

And so um it gets bonded once it's used, it's then wrapped into a bond after its usage.

It's kind of the the model we use in other kind of the the pay as you go model.

Um so that's that's how that works.

It sits there as a part of our debt capacity, um, but until it is drawn down on it doesn't convert to an actual bond.

Understood, thank you.

Did I do okay?

Okay.

Thank you.

And when it comes to language, we'll make sure to collaborate with state administration on that.

Um the third item on page one presentation of standards for uh certain items in the budget uh put forward by Ms.

Robertson, co-patron by Miss Trammell.

Um does anyone have any concerns, questions on that that they should address.

All right, did you have a please add me as well?

Okay.

Noted on page two, the last page of proposed text amendments.

Um here we've included uh an uh uh an item that notes the encumbrance of remaining capital funds for the Fonicello Park improvements.

Uh the patron uh is requesting that this text amendment remain just to ensure that funding is not moved removed from this encumbered expense.

And as I noted, the RPS audit uh would is both a text amendment and going to be a general fund amendment.

And um there's any questions for me on that.

I'm available right now.

I support that as well.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, yeah.

I think I saw Ms.

Alpa Bach or So with the I you probably aren't gonna be able to answer this question, but I just want to make sure I'm understanding the superintendent is now saying that the virtual academy has the cost of that is two million dollars more than it was initially stated as at the beginning of this budget process.

Uh based on the analysis we did independently, um, but then when we reached out and spoke with uh RPS, that number was provided to us.

Was that the virtual academy was 3.2 million?

I'm sorry, can you speak up just a little bit?

Yeah.

Yes, we were informed by RPS that the actual number would be 3.2 million.

Um even though our initial analysis concluded uh identified one point.2 million.

Okay, so is that 3.2 million um captured in the total RPS ask that was presented to council, or is that take or give two million dollars more over the RPS ask?

I believe the budget proposal put forward by RPS included that and other items.

Okay, so it's not that they're asking for more money.

I just want to make sure.

No, no, this was being specific if you were to identify this sole item is what it would cost.

Okay.

Correct.

That's what they indicated to us for virtual academy only would be 3.2 million.

Okay, councilwoman.

Yes, Gibson.

I'm sorry.

Sorry, I just want to make sure I'm I just but the position right now.

I just I want to make sure I understand that the position right now is like if we don't fully fund RPS as a whole, and maybe this is for the body.

I just want to make sure I'm not trying to get anything, I'm just trying to really understand this.

If we don't fund fully fund RPS as a whole, the virtual academy goes away.

Because we can't say, hey, RPS, we're only gonna give you $3.2 million for the virtual academy because we can't encumber that money into a certain operating expense.

That is correct.

Okay.

I think that's like really important for people to get that like yes, even though that number is identified to fund the program.

If that number is given to them, it could be used for that purpose and it could not.

We could also fully fund RPS and the it could be the will of the superintendent and the school board to cut the virtual academy anyways.

That is correct.

Okay, thank you.

Um yeah, I'm trying to see the lineup here.

So I'll go, Ms.

Trammell, Councilwoman Robertson, and then back to councilwoman Gibson.

Off again.

It's one now.

Thank you.

Thanks, Candace.

Yesterday I was asked by a reporter from Channel A, how much?

I didn't have the answer because as we just now, as we're here and now, it's two different.

I guess two they want what is the amount?

That's what I was just asked.

What is the amount that they need?

Because this, like I've said yesterday, and and oh, and a couple of the days, a couple of the days ago.

Every time that this budget is presented to us from the school board or from the school superintendent, he does something like this, and this is probably the worst I've ever seen.

We use those children, those teachers to sit there and pull on our heart strings to say to make us look bad if we don't find the money.

You know, why don't he how much cut has he done or say for himself and for maybe over the top?

Because this is wrong to do these students and these teachers like that, and parents when they came down here the other day, begging, begging for us to support this.

So how much money?

Because I told I thought it was like 1.8 million, but you're saying is how much?

We were informed to fund the the Richmond Virtual Academy, it would be 3.2 million.

3.2 million?

Yes, ma'am.

Um my colleague saying no.

So just to because there was some discrepancy as well and concerned for me, uh, Ms.

Trammell, I call it the superintendent, and I asked specifically for the cost for the virtual academy.

And it's 3.2 million.

Well, how do we come out with one point?

That was based on analysis we did in our office, and we can, you know, we found out this 3.2 number today, and we can try to you know analyze and compare these two by the end of this week to identify if we think that is an accurate amount.

And the um the one one million or so would get you virtual for high school, but that's not for the entirety of the population.

That's only high school, but for the entire virtual academy, it's 3.2 million.

But if they had the one-point sum, would they be able to do it like a half of the year until we found the other money?

I can go back and inquire.

I don't have that answer, but I'm more than willing to have us get that information.

Sure.

Andor to have schools join us to for that conversation.

I think it was Ms.

Robertson.

Right, thank you.

Um what is what is uh I want to make sure I'm clear on what this striking of the language as it relates to the executive severance, and what does that mean?

Um, and what I'm asking is that my understanding is that there are severance pay agreements that have been entered into.

And does this striking of language um support agreements that have already been made as far as severance package, or it is counter to those agreements that have already been entered into?

I'll let the city administration respond to that specific question, but uh to go into what it would do and the pay plan put forward this year, the pay plan ordinance.

There was additional language added about um severance for senior executives.

What this amendment would do is simply strike that added text as a compared to the pay plan from last year and have the the process of severance built upon years of service to be what is provided to employees as they exit.

Yes, legal um is this counter to any employment agreements that we've already entered into.

I will defer if anyone has any comments on that.

Uh I don't know that I can um I would I would defer to attorneys on that specific question, but I can speak, I think, to what you're getting at.

Oh, tell me if if I am the so the the in our contract to hire Mr.

Donald, um, we we all the mayor and the council said that we would um make a good faith effort to look at the way that we do severance um because of those caps that had been put in place as a part of um a tool to use for recruiting at the senior executive level based on best practices of having that for those positions that are you know uh riskier to take and to to come.

Um so that that was the the what is what we put forth um was a fulfillment of that in the contract, but contracts that have been previously in place, of course, only can access the current law that governs severance.

So it is not a yeah, there's there's no there were no promises made in any contracts um that were not that that included severance that we couldn't extend.

Um, but in Mr.

Donald's contract, we said that we would pursue this process and make a decision about it.

Is that helpful or not helpful?

It is.

I'm not sure that I know what no, I'm not sure.

Um I mean we can I think we could follow up and we can get the specific language.

I I don't have that right in front of me, but um essentially that the this was not.

So I guess the question um Mr.

Warren, that I'm not able to see is find what the language is that we are striking.

And striking the new language.

There was new language in the pay plan that is one of the um submissions of the the budget ordinances, and there was new language in there, and this amendment is to say to not add new language, so to not make any changes to the severance, what governs the way we do severance.

Okay, so the question I'm asking is the new language making changes, and now we striking the new language because it changes.

What's the change?

It would be to allow up to a year of uh severance uh for senior executives at the discretion of the appointing authority.

And so no existing agreement that we've entered into would be compromised because of striking this.

That's uh that's a question I can look into after this, but I like to get uh legal to not necessarily write mail, but just to make sure of that.

Thank you.

If I may um for clarification, um and I want to co-patron Ms.

Lynch um uh text amendment as my understanding the 850 is already in the budget of this text minute amendment just as sure that it's going to be useful, what it was appropriated for, correct?

That is the intent.

Okay.

Yes, so yes, uh, like to patron that and the question regarding the audit.

Uh we asked is does this is this a text amendment that has that is requesting saying how funding in the general budget in the budget for Richard Public Schools must also include providing this uh the the funding that is needed for the cover, this third party audit.

Correct.

So if you go down in general uh fund amendments, you'll also see the same amendment listed twice.

That's both the text amendment and a general fund amendment.

And it is uh then too.

So the question has always been we can't tell Richmond Public Schools how to spend that money.

Does this text amendment go beyond what we've been told we can't do, or are we okay with that?

We all can I will answer, but uh we'll let the patrons speak for it as well.

But um, this would require that 175, roughly 175 uh K to be used to hire an independent third party party auditor that would be contracted out by the city auditor's office um to report back to the city auditor for information to be shared with council.

But if Ms.

Gibson's saying correctly, we this does include an additional 175 on for as it relates to council to our auditor to to conduct the audit.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, it doesn't come out of the city's budget.

I mean the school budget.

That would be an I uh do you want to speak first or would you like I'd love it?

I'll let the patron speak to that.

Thank you.

So okay, so first talking up uh to respond to council member Robertson, I had some other points as well.

Um the questions that we're having about the uh cost of the virtual academy is exactly the reason why this amendment is here, or one of them, just um for context, when the uh district first release their proposed budget for fiscal year 27, um uh it included uh 10 additional FTEs of the highest paid folks in the district.

And when it was flagged in the press, I noticed it myself, then they came out with a new version saying it was a typo.

It just seems uncommon to release a budget with such a big typo on it.

Um I've also noticed looking at the prior year budget that the district had identified 16 million dollars of funding for collective bargaining.

But when I looked at the budget detail, I I couldn't see that line item there.

I did see 10 million dollars for healthcare costs, um, but but the money for teacher raises simply I didn't I couldn't identify it in the budget.

So um so there have been questions.

And similarly, there are questions with the virtual school costs.

And so I do think that I it would be really very helpful because while conversations are helpful to call and say, hey, how much is it and get that information?

I'm a real fan of documentation.

And so what I think it would be helpful to see would be a breakdown from the district on how they get got to that $3.2 million number, and specifically to ensure that that includes also the comparable increases that the district could incur with this change.

We're talking about highly handicapped students that require specialized transportation.

Um many of those students, once in person might might require one-to-one support, which also is an additional cost.

Um some of these students may end up in private day schools, which has an additional cost for the district.

Some may unenroll from Richmond Public Schools, and then we lose additional state funding.

Um the district has also identified that the teachers that are in the program would still be able to work in the district.

So if that is the case, um the the cost of teacher salaries to me is a wash.

The way that state funding works is the state funding, the money follows the student.

So if a student is in the virtual program or an in-person program, that's where the money goes.

So um, but I so I do think it would be very helpful to see that breakdown and ensure that the $3.2 million is all inclusive.

All said and done, I do think that a an audit of the budget would be incredibly helpful to understand why there were budgets with errors in them, and um, and to ensure that there is alignment with what I'll call the summary that the district often reviews and the and the budget detail document that um you know that that accompanies that that presentation.

Um in the the uh kind of the deliberation on on how to proceed with this, um I I think it is uh helpful for us to say, hey, it you know, we would like to see an audit done.

I think that would be a great way to get uh community support and you know, uh of the cost, obviously the school district is is a big cost of the city budget, um, but to provide the funding for that as a courtesy to help ensure that that it happens.

So um, so that's my proposal if the body is not in support of funding the additional dollars, you know.

I I I follow the will of the body, um, but that was my proposal to ensure that we were being fiscal good stewards and also you know, supporting um supporting the schools is as I think is critical to do.

It is true that if we provide the school district with funding, that ultimately the school district determines how to use that.

But I also believe that um, you know it's it wouldn't be a great look if we were to provide them with funding to keep a program open.

We've had parents have come and talk in and spoken to us with you know handicapped students, um, disabled students, and for them to then decide to use the the money for something else.

So, yes, is it legally possible?

Sure, but um, but I I personally am hopeful that if we are able to identify the funding that the schools will do the right thing.

Um, and I don't think that that should stop us from doing the right thing.

Um yes, so so that is my request as it pertains to that.

I also wanted to just before you go leave that item.

Um, we will ask the schools for written documentation regarding the cost of virtual academy.

I've also asked legal if there is opportunity, because I know vaguely in the past we have uh within non-departmental, been able to almost create a reserve for something so our attorney will check on that to see if that would be applicable in this instance.

Don't know, but we certainly will get it in writing.

Understood.

Thank you.

I have a point of order question, Madam President.

Um the time yes, are we we should are we using the SOPs?

We five minutes, that's correct.

And we thank you.

Um we will um go back and we will observe that and I'm going to ask the clerk.

And so Ms.

Gibson asked that you close it out because I think you probably had five minutes, but I know you have another question, is that correct?

Yeah, I would just like clarity on what our process is.

This one is to kind of allow you all to have some discussion on this.

You know, we've been um adhering to a five-minute rule when it comes to comments, and it's been very efficient for you all to uh in the use of your time.

You know, if you want to try to adhere to that, would that would be appreciated?

Um, but you know, I want to make sure you all are able to discuss these important decisions you're about to make.

So what we've done in the past, if everyone had at least five minutes, their questions uh didn't could be asked, and any response did not count towards that five minutes of time.

You still could come.

So if Lawson was responding or you were responding, that did not cause the member to lose time in terms of additional opportunities for questions, and so that's been our protocol.

Councilwoman Robertson.

Madam Chair.

My question that I thought that you were asking Ms.

Gibson to give some clarification.

My question is simply this.

I'm understanding that we are saying that it's gonna be 175,000 to do an audit.

And this amendment, do we also need a general fund amendment for the 175 to go to our audit quad to do this audit?

That's the question clarification I'm trying to get to.

Funding could either be identified from somewhere through a cut to put towards a reduction to put towards this, or worse case, you could withhold you could just lower the RPS budget 175 to put towards this.

So either find a funding source somewhere else in the city budget or you know, directly from the proposed budget, you were gonna give RPS minus 175 or two options.

Thank you.

Want to come back, ums Gibson, you still had a question and something else here, or was it pertaining?

Okay, thank you.

Uh Vice President Jordan.

Thank you.

I just had a question about the audit funds, and I do think we have benefited so much from our uh audit department.

Grateful for the work that they've done.

Um, the last time I checked in with my school board counterpart, they had recently I think identified an auditor for RPS, or we're in the process of hiring them.

Is that redundant to this, or are they still asking for funding?

My understanding would be that the person would report to the school board, whereas this would be an independent audit put forward by council/slash the city, so that would report to the city.

So it would be two different reporting structures.

Is that that was the question?

Uh Councilwoman Abba Backer.

Thank you.

And uh with all due respect, I um and I have love this what we've done with moving the budget discussion along.

Uh I do think that for this particular forum, there should be opportunity for real discussion.

And I don't want anybody to feel encumbered by a five minute cutoff point.

I mean, I think every everything else, you know, I understood because there was presentations involved and there was QA, but at some point I would want to make sure that we're having a public open discussion and debate.

And I think that I just, you know, want to flag that I think that for this particular scenario, while we shouldn't go over our allotted time, and we should make sure everybody's gets an opportunity to speak.

The five minutes feels tough.

So thank you, Councilwoman Ababaker.

I think we also allowed up to 10 with questions and per person discussion once before.

I think we could certainly look at that.

I think everyone should have the opportunity to have their questions asked.

If there are um administration representatives here who can respond to that to get those responses, if not that we get those questions to RJ so we can get the answers back, theory.

Absolutely.

And then any questions of clarification of each other.

Absolutely.

So I'm trying we're trying to get through text amendments at this time, and the goal is to still go through CIP.

So, you know, just try to be as you know as efficient as you can through questions and discussion to allow us to get through the the list.

That's the only thing I'll share.

Okay.

All right.

Did you have a oh yeah, sorry?

Just my my SOP question was really, I just didn't get to this part.

I think you just answered it though.

We're gonna go through this list.

We're gonna we are gonna go through CIP list at this evening.

Just because uh this administration liked an oper asked for an opportunity to discuss the CIP with you all before decision making occurred because they wanted to provide you all more information on items that can maybe not be required.

Thank you.

Yeah.

RJ, before we go to CIP, um, I'm looking at transportation and security for PS.

Um 700,000 was requested.

When I look at additional funding requested, I'm seeing a different number.

Does this suggest that the Delta has been identified?

And so it's only 428 that's needed now.

Yes, I will have more clarity for that right now.

Welcome, Ms.

Popovit.

Good afternoon, members of council, President Newbell, Amy Popovich, DCO for human services.

Correct, we worked with our RPS partners to get more specific estimates for two security guards at all middle schools, as well as that transportation cost, and that's the total um that we worked together this week on on getting the total amount for you.

Okay, so similar to what um Ms.

Gibson indicated, I'd like to have documentation of saying because what I was given was that well, I was given a number that was out there.

Then when I spoke directly to RPS, they said 700,000.

I'm pleased that you know it's a little less, and that means we can put resources elsewhere.

So that's what I'd like to have that documented since we've had some movement there.

No problem.

You can you know follow up with RJ to get the response back.

Thank you.

Happy to do that, no problem.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Jones.

Thank you, Madam President.

I just wanted to add to the um requests for the transportation with that documentation, if it's possible that we could get um for the transportation piece, the schools that are actually I know it's for the middle schools, but in what areas because um I'm thinking in terms of like mile radius, some of those schools are pretty close, so I'm just trying to figure out how many buses are we actually using and how many students are we actually picking up.

Sure.

My understanding and my request was such that all not some, all middle schools would have access in terms of transportation and security.

But I hear what you're saying, and so that additional information can we can ask for.

Yeah, because what what I'm asking is not that they're not being picked up, but if you picking up four at River City, and then you write around the corner at Lucille Brown picking up six, I'm trying to figure out within the mile radius how many buses are we actually using and how many students are we actually picking up.

So, yes, all schools should be picked up, but Lucille Brown in River City is right within this vicinity.

So, are you using one bus, two bus?

And you know what I mean?

So that's what I'm just trying to get a uh a feel for.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And so we'll get the clarification in the documentation that we received, Councilwoman Gibson.

Thank you, Madam President.

So yeah, I I appreciate uh uh President Newbow your request for more clarity here.

The other thing that I mean, I just think it's important to highlight here is so it's very clearly identified in the RPS budget that the cost for this is actually $77,000.

And so it's not just something that we've heard, it's it that's that's documented in their budget proposal.

And um, and actually this is an item that they did not request.

This was not this was this was a cut in the budget that that the that the school board has submitted to us.

And so um, and so it's concerning because the question is, you know, what was the plan for these after-school programs to ensure that students would still have access.

Um I I I would welcome also an some type of explanation from the district on what was the plan B, you know, what was the plan B.

As a parent, too, who's had students in middle school, there are buses that are also available for students who simply stay after school to get help, you know, for for remediation and and and so on.

And so I struggle to understand that there they would have planned to have a bus that you could get on if you just happen to be after school and needed some remediation support, but that if you were there for an after-school program, you couldn't get on that bus.

And and how would that bus be efficient to have such a cut of students?

Like I'm just really struggling to understand what what the what the plan was here.

So, yes, it's important to know um, you know, why why there is this delta from what they've published to what this new um new amount is and and and also you know what what was what was the plan if if students could no longer participate in this program because they didn't have any way of getting home.

Um I I yes, I would absolutely agree that understanding that would be critical.

I wanted to make sure that that was not the case, that they would not have yes.

So there's additional inquiry to be added and clarification on that.

I just want to make one um just one comment at a partnership level.

So yes, absolutely we'll follow up with more information.

That is clearly needed, and we're committed to that.

Um the after-school portion of the relationship has been a shared RPS and city relationship for a while since the former administration.

And so um, there were things that were offered in kind um that they felt like they couldn't offer in kind anymore, with some of them meeting other other budgetary requirements.

And so we have been partnering with them to solve this problem and to evaluate what do we need, where, in which, and that's just been an ongoing process.

And so it changes over time from an estimate to an actual cost as you're making plans together.

Thank you, Lisa.

Yes.

Um question in regards to this.

Um it strikes me that the city provides a lot of additional services for children that is should be in collaboration with Richard Public Schools and what happens when they leave Richmond Public Schools and go to an after-school program and whether or not the after-school program is a continuation of the quality of services that are being provided to support academic achievement.

And I'm not uh the messages that I get back sometime, I'm not suggesting that.

And you know, I also know that Richmond Public School is planning on cutting at least another 25, 30 positions.

Um and we haven't talked about that at all.

And what those positions are.

There are some folk that are raising concerns that rich that the city council is putting money in that augmented some of the cuts in staffing that Richard Public Schools have made a decision, just like RVA, uh, as to their whole program agenda and what they feel is necessary to provide adequate education.

So I'm I'm just a little bit concerned that we don't know how they're gonna go about doing their programmatic implementation strategy.

Um and we're getting conflicting information as to whether or not the virtual school is also providing is beyond the services that are required to have only virtual learning.

And so I I think we we care about what's happening with that children and want to make sure that they're educated well and we're willing to augment the cost if that's necessary.

Um but it seems like we're trying to augment something that Richard Public School decided that they don't need part of their programming.

And then I'm not sure whether or not we uh really augmenting something or not.

Um I think we need a much broader conversation with Richard Public Schools before we try to augment their need in areas that they've decided they don't need uh and how it's gonna yield the outcome that we're looking for.

So two security officers in Richmond Public Schools.

Um is that every middle school in the district needing two security officers?

And are there security officers in some of the schools now and not in others?

And how do we choose which school needs security and which schools does not need security?

And why would we feel like across the district, two additional security personnel is needed uh in our middle school?

We over police our children and the quality of programmatic support systems that we put in our schools that help them really become well disciplinary kids that come to school ready and want to learn, we take those programs out and instead put security in.

And I'm I'm just a little concerned about why all schools need two additional, is it two additional or only two?

And what schools already have security?

Um we can just get those answers that'll be sure.

Um to your point.

I mean, because we're gonna have to have uh and would invite RPS, but also to get written uh documentation on the items that we've already um discussed.

Um that's the only way we're gonna get clarification.

We so RJ, if you would please uh follow up with those.

I will now proceed to uh council's proposed CIP amendments as we have uh members of the city administration here who are subject matter experts on some of these to provide additional clarity.

So I will just go through each one.

If a council member has an issue has a uh something to raise regarding the item they may, or if city administration wishes to come up to the podium to provide any additional information, they are welcome to do so.

Um so beginning of page 10 is where CIP amendments begin.

And I will just note the first one is the West Over Hills Elementary School External Facility redesign put forward by member Abubacher.

Thank you.

Does anyone from City Administration have any comments on this item or Ms.

Opperbacher?

None.

Okay.

All right, there's no comments.

I'll just move to the next one.

Uh the Forest Hill uh Avenue Traffic Study also put forward by Ms.

Opperbacher.

All right.

Uh third will be uh fun citywide school safety study recommendations put forward by Mr.

Breton.

I might have some updates for the um the rest of council later this week.

I'm gonna be discussing this with DPW to discuss how they get their funding with grants and how that um interacts with the the funds that we encumber.

So stay tuned for an update for me on the details of exactly how this one will look.

Right.

So can I be clear?

So with that one, Mr.

Brighton, and this is public works, and maybe since works, any of this already considered in the works.

Um well, I don't speak for them, but I think there's um I mean, it is it's also it's such a new report that like some of the planning is still so fresh that like um that also has made it difficult for them to to to point to where it is.

So um, I mean, maybe they can add more right now, but um I intend to be speaking with them, you know, in the next day or two to to crystallize what that's gonna look like.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Jones.

I just had a quick question on the Forest Hill traffic study.

Is the number that's requested?

Um, is it based off of like the length of where they study in?

Because I know most of them I've seen have been like 100,000.

And so I'm just wondering why is this one 500,000.

Good afternoon, Council Bobby Vincent, director of public works.

Um yes, the normal traffic studies are going for about 100,000.

We're already working with VDOT, and we've informed Council uh woman um Abu Baka of that uh with regards to not only the section of Forest Hill that she was referring to, but also um the section of Forrest Hill that also extends beyond the um fire station.

So the 500,000 isn't going to be necessarily needed.

Um, and we anticipate for that portion of the study to be approximately 100,000, but we're already working with the state um to try to get that project approved and extended.

So it should be about 100 to do the study.

Yes, ma'am.

All right, you can't add me today, Alja.

Um council uh Vice President Jones.

I'm sorry, Council Vice President Jerry.

I think so.

Um just wondering if we could get some clarity on whether or not DPW might be able to absorb the uh West Over Hills facility redesign for the traffic improvements.

That's a very good question.

Um the problem with that project is that that Jenk Row project is a um state and federal funded project.

Um and the funds are strictly for the public right-of-way.

So anything that takes place back up on private property would have to be worked out with RPS.

Okay, thank you.

I appreciate it.

More than welcome.

All right.

It's the same, it's this it's the same question with the with the school safety study, and this is 500,000 too.

Is that a is there a reason why um this fund cities citywide school safety study?

It's 500,000.

Is what is what is that?

Oh, I think are you asking mine, the five million?

You're coming back.

I mean five minutes.

Um the green row, no, the third row, the green one.

Yes.

Um yes, so that is not a study.

The study is complete.

This is the CIP to actually perform the projects.

That's what this that's the difference.

Um so they already performed a safety assessment of eight schools, and this is to prioritize the funding to actually deliver the projects.

And you said they did the study at what schools?

Eight schools, and uh it would be great if they could refer to them.

They were all not in my district, they're all across the city.

Um, they're along high injury network schools.

Can we get the list of that study of schools, please?

Thank you.

Okay.

And I'd like to know whether or not um in the DPW budget, some of this is already covered to do some of this work.

Yes, ma'am.

Must much of what you all and I've um been requesting is already covered within um line items of our budget that cover multiple projects within one line item.

And so that's why we're able to be able to provide um the answers that we are today.

Okay, so then it is well, once I guess we provide the information for the schools, we'll know how much.

And so this may not be uh additional funding requested.

It's right.

The additional funding won't be required because we're going to be receiving funding from state and or federal names.

Correct.

Okay.

Mr.

Brighton.

Yeah.

Well, if you want to hear the list right now, I'll mention them.

McLenry Elementary School, Patrick Henry, uh, Swansboro Elementary School, Thomas Bouchal Middle School, River City Middle School, Richmond High School for the Arts, Lucille Ron Middle School, and Huguenot High School.

So that's the list.

Um, but as he said, we may be able like to use grant various grants to perform to do this.

So nevertheless, we want to be sure that we're making a commitment to do them soon, and we want to make sure that we're using our funds to remove any blockers, bottlenecks, any matching that we might need.

So this might shrink, but it's still probably gonna be very important that we use this opportunity to to to make a commitment to make sure that nothing is preventing these projects from moving forward.

So it might shrink, but I would imagine that there might still be a line item after we talk about the details.

Yes.

I I appreciate shrinkage, but to your point, making sure that they are clearly earmarked in our budget.

That's there they're normally not clearly earmarked per school as per se, but the work takes place that covers the school.

So in other words, when they do work with regards to Force Hill Avenue, not the portion that councilwoman Abu Bakr was referencing, but we will do that work in front of Huguenot High School, which will be taken into account that it is in fact a school very similar to the work that took place on SIMS right there at SIMs and Force Hill that took into account Patrick Henry.

Um so those are the types of projects that we're doing that benefit the schools as well as the public right-of-way, as well as the high injury network, and that's how we're able to obtain the funding.

And for those of you all who have schools that's not located on the high injury network, we also working with safer schools for streets um in order to make things safer for pedestrians and our school children in those areas as well.

Thank you.

Okay, yes, I'm sorry.

All right.

Um it is a CIP related.

Um, but the next item is uh eliminating the new funding for uh for gas new business.

Does anyone have any comments on that one?

Uh it's the um fourth item on page 10, eliminating new funding for gas new business.

Um I'm just deferring to the choosing on it it appears that if I'm reading this correctly, there is funding to address this.

Is that accurate?

I'd be happy to speak to that, Madam President.

Yes.

So there is a fund that already exists for new gas business that exceeds the amount that'd be required for the department to meet new business requests.

So given that, and given um it's $500,000 is not needed in this budget cycle, probably not the next several, and our city's goal towards be towards transitioning away from fossil fuels.

Um opportunity to zero that out in a way that I hadn't fully comprehended in future.

I'm sorry, in past budget cycles.

Thank you.

I welcome any questions, and I see Director Morris in the audience.

Um thank you.

I highlighted the same cut in one of my amendments as well.

So please add me as a co-patron here.

Thank you.

Uh Scott Morris, director of public utilities.

Um you are correct.

There's adequate funding in there's work, the use for um physical year 27 and a couple years in the future.

Um, so it would be no impact from our rate study model or operations if this was eliminated from the budget.

Um, just want to make sure the council is aware that um those funds within the gas utility are solely dedicated to those utilities and they cannot be repurposed for other uses.

So, yes, Councilman Breton, did you have a question pertaining to this?

Well, I guess the question was actually about what it can be used for.

So um, and whether or not there are gas utility related expenses that we want to use or possibly uh, you know, knock a tenth of a penny off the gas rates or something.

Um, but I would also even suggest um uh the energy efficiency coordinator is directly related to our gas utility customers, so that might be a um a way to repurpose this money directly to something that's related to our gas utility customers.

I can address that aspect.

Um, so if it was directly related to a fraction of the use, so if it was some directly related to our gas customers, um we could do a fraction of that money towards the or use for the gas utility, but the holistic approach, if it was looking at um utility rate reductions or energy conservation programs across multiple utilities like the electric utility for like Dominion or something of that nature, you would not be able to use the funds for that purpose.

Okay.

Councilwoman Ambabak.

Um I guess I I wanted to see if there was any synergy between council member Jordan's uh reduction and council member Breton's reduction, and if that's something that we could all like coalesce around.

Well, I I think they're the same reduction.

Hers is larger than mine.

So um, and I though I recommend my proposal was to use it for the energy efficiency, which the question there was that you know depends on the scope of the energy efficiency.

So I think maybe what I'm hearing is there's room to do it, and unless you have another competing desire to use the money for something else, it this may be the direction that to try to direct those funds towards.

Yeah, and um just to take it a bit further.

Uh I appreciate that there are very specific rules and at the state and federal level on how these funds can be applied in our conversations prior to submitting this amendment.

Um, we'd like to have subsequent conversations about do we need to change some of our code language or what's in the charter to really dig into expanding the uses for this because there are a lot of energy efficiency goals that we you know would like to tackle and um as well as address affordability issues of our customers, you know, metro care.

How can we make that more accessible for customers who don't qualify under the current this current criteria?

So um House Member Breton or anyone else welcome you participating in those follow-up conversations and absolutely would love to find funds this year for engineer energy efficiency coordinator.

Um, if it's not from this 500k, if that's truly impossible, would love help finding other sources.

Thank you.

You can put me on as a co-patron for both or whatever we decide.

Noted.

Thank you.

Um the last uh CIP amendment on this page is infrastructure design and engineering put forward by Ms.

Robertson.

And um if no additional no additional comment on that, I will move forward to page the top of page 11.

Broad Street Central Business District Enterprise Hub put forward by Ms.

Robertson.

Are there any comments on that gallery or I do have a question?

I apologize.

I wanted to go back to the prior one.

Do we have um funding uh earmarked for what's being described here shovel ready projects?

Uh no, ma'am.

So for the CIP, I'm just going through them in the list of uh they're organized by a number of co-patrons.

Some have identified funding sources, some do not.

That is your question.

Okay, so there is okay.

Since I don't see anything under thank you.

So that'd be a question for me.

Yeah.

Moving on to the next item at the East End Seventh District earlier.

I think has a question as well.

Okay.

Uh yes, thank you.

Um Dr.

Newbill.

The the question I wanted to raise is in regards to my own amendment, and that is the Broad Street Central Business District.

We've been 20 years trying to do something in this central business area, and we got a lot of momentum gone with the Great Vision Transfer station.

Um, the proposed sole looking good for finally the demolition of the Coliseum, perhaps, and a new hotel.

So this funding request is specifically for additional infrastructure that we've been told that is needed, and maybe the administration knows that there's funding uh already appropriated to deal with the central business district.

Um if if someone can respond to give us some sense of what we got going on there because you know, we finally get in some momentum and is all public investment right now.

I mean, there's some public private but mostly public dollars uh that are being used for the central business district, but we tend to miss the opportunity to move the development from that initial stage to the second stage, and this is just for the purpose of keeping this bit maximizing the leverage of that, unless someone feel like we already have money in the budget for the central business district, that would be helpful to know.

Okay.

All right.

The next CIP amendment is the East End early childhood and child care center development or early childhood and education trust fund put forward by President New Bill.

And it looks like you have an identified move to make this possible.

Uh that's correct.

There were funds here marked for East End Teen Center.

Um in 24 during the intervening period.

We um as on the South Side were able to get uh a new uh community center Lux Field Um renovation of one of the existing ones, um Power Tan, and uh the Boys and Girls Teen Center added that's on um Crayton Road.

And so the next need, not just in the district, but in the city, is in terms of child care quality or accessible quality affordable child care centers.

So this would go towards assisting with news construction or indoor expansion such that there'd be uh greater availability.

And so those funds were already there, and so just asked that they would be redeployed for this priority category for uh certainly my district, but certain our city.

So children uh not just in the district but across the city would have access.

And there are any number of models.

Um of you are familiar with whether it's Sprout School, there are variety of models that have um that are under discussion.

So the next one is the splash pad at Broadrocks.

Oh, wait, wait, Councilwoman Trammell.

I'm sorry, I didn't look down at the Madam President.

Was there something that um Helen just mentioned something about the Coliseum?

I couldn't hear everything she was saying.

Did she say something about the Coliseum?

Councilwoman Robertson, did you reference the Coliseum?

And if not you Miss Tramwell, I didn't hear you.

Did you say something about the Coliseum?

Yes.

Um you repeat that because I couldn't hear you, please.

Okay.

Um I was saying that the budget amendment that I have in for capital improvements for the central business district.

We are in the process of entertaining a partnership uh for the development of a new hotel downtown in the central business district, as well as looking at as a part of that the demolition of the existing Coliseum.

Um that's been sitting there empty and blighted for if not at least close to five years.

Um this funding is for the purpose of making sure that the you know we're putting in a new transportation hub, we're tearing down, you know, social service.

You know, I mean, there's a lot of opportunity of public investments, and I just want to make sure that we uh continue to have the necessary funding in the budget in the capital improvement area to transform the development of the central business downtown.

But um right now the plan is to look at other ways, not city C D CIP direct for the demolition of the Coliseum.

Okay, I know that um in 2019, Councilwoman Kim Gray and I tried to go into the Coliseum um building just to see exactly how bad it was when we were told that we were not allowed to go in there.

Um, so we didn't go in there.

But I know that there recently has been a video posted all over Facebook social media in reference to all the memories at that coliseum.

And I know that I've had second thoughts and others has had um really second thoughts.

Once that video just hit social media, um how I I am not in favor of tearing down that coliseum.

I mean, so many things have been torn down, so many things have been done to erase all the memories.

And when you look back at that video and you see um Elvis Presley there, President Barack Obama there, others there, Tina Turner, and then we're gonna just tear it down.

You can't build, I mean, you can't build something like that and just stay in time.

And to me, I think that would be something that would draw people to that area more so than just tearing it down, putting a hotel that will bring in, you know, we don't even know what it we got so many motels now that's not being used, like we keep talking about um other things that are not being fully used, but that coliseum, I think we should take another look at it to keep it in that area and not tear it down.

And I know that there's been a lot of talk on social media, especially on Facebook and reference since these two guys made that video.

And and to me, when you look inside of it, it doesn't look that bad.

To be vacant for over five years.

But um, that's another discussion I'd like to have on this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman Brenton, did you have a question regarding this?

I actually wanted to bring up the gas utility again, but only if it's an appropriate time.

Uh I'll get I'll get you in two two jumps.

Uh next is uh the splash pad at Broadrock Sports Complex.

I think if Ms.

Schnell's wanted to add anything to that, uh that one has a few patrons to it.

Sure.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Warren.

Uh I didn't know we were supposed to speak to these, but yeah.

Um the request is for a splash pad at Borough Rock's Plus Park Complex Park or whatever we call it.

Um it's been in the it was originally part, it was part of the original build of the park, and somehow it was taken out of the plans um when it when the park got up and running.

Um and so for the last three years, I have been asking about it and requesting it.

And as I mentioned on Tuesday, I think it is, with all of our major sustainability goals and all the things that we're saying about the South Side when it comes to tree canopy, heat islands, and all of the things I am requesting a splash pad because all this summer there are a lot of kids that go to that park, a lot of parks and rec programs take kids to that part, and it's not much for them to do over there other than um that one little playground area.

So thank you to those who have supported it, and I look forward to keeping the conversation going.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um we will now go forward to Mr.

Brenton's amendment similar to Ms.

Jerdin's about the reduced reduced gas utility, and I'll let them speak to that now.

Well, actually, so I mean we've all kind of discussed it, but um what I did not know at the time was that there was already a large balance for new business already.

Um I would almost ask if we might want to adapt this and go negative and start redirecting funds from that balance to other things that the gas utility needs.

The gas utility has many, many needs, and new business is like less important than the maintenance of existing business.

So could we even actually redirect funds from the backlog fund for new business into other other needs of the gas utility?

Scott Morris, Director of Public Utilities.

Um the short answer to that is it would not have an impact of what you think it would be.

Um we base our cash flows off the model.

So it's definitely cash spending for those new businesses.

So if you were to type to call back those appropriations, we still have an expected spin down for the next several years for new businesses that have already been committed to.

Those are in our cash flows, so it would have no impact.

You couldn't redirect it to new items.

If you did redirect it to new items, I'd have to incorporate that back into the rate model for those new appropriations to those new spin obligations, which would actually have the reverse effect, which would increase the rates for the gas utility.

Well, I guess maybe um uh do we know what fraction of the funds are already like spoken for, right?

And are there are there some is there actually a large amount of distance?

Yeah, not off the top of my head, but I can tell you um probably go back and research a little bit and give you that summary.

Thank you.

And before we move on to page 12, I believe uh City Administration and uh director of budget Megan Brown wanted to address the East End um early childhood child care center.

And while she's coming up, I want to be clear that that is not sufficient to build a child care center that those funds would be utilized uh in a leveraging method to attract additional, it's gonna be more than that.

So absolutely understood.

Uh thank you, Megan Brown, director of budget and strategic planning.

Um yeah, uh Dr.

Newbill, we are completely okay with you transferring the funds.

Um the only thing is we just there wasn't a lot of detail as far as how that is going to work.

I don't know if it's gonna be stipends.

Um, I know at one point in the description it says the early childhood and education trust fund, which is in the general fund.

So CIP dollars can't be used for general operations.

So I just just to make sure that the geobonds can be used for whatever purpose.

I think it just needs a little bit more detail just to make sure those funds can be used.

I just wanted to point that out.

Absolutely willing to provide.

I'm clear it could not be used for general operations, otherwise, uh might have recommended otherwise.

Clearly, that is CIP.

So and just where that gets placed.

That was the question, and having uh that entity have some uh involvement uh in terms of uh identifying um locations of the potential partners, etc.

etc.

So yes.

Thank you, Ms.

Brown.

All right.

Last major page of CIP is page 12.

Um the first item on that page is transparent street safety spending.

Um Mr.

Brett might want to provide additional comments on that.

So the um page 12.

The top one in green.

And so the thing here is not to move any money around just to clarify its use.

So there is a, I believe about 32 million dollars of complete streets and safe streets for all that are not very clearly delineated.

So what I would intend to do is ask DPW and the DOT to clarify just in the last year of spending how it was broken out so that we can break that out as the expected budget this year.

So that the public can just understand how this budget is used because everyone wants to know how we're addressing these these needs.

I can imagine there might be needs to be, you want to be adaptable, you know, as funds grants come in.

You want to make sure you can adapt to that.

So you would I'm sure we would want to have some discretionary piece in there as well as an understanding of how um we would handle budget amendments that might be required as the year goes through.

Yes, sir.

Good afternoon, everyone, Bobby Vincent, director of public works.

If we can, um, one way that we have tried to um answer those questions and to maintain that transparency throughout the year is by having uh periodic presentations um to either informal council or to um the selected subcommittee.

Um that way we can give more up-to-date information and funding um that as it becomes available as well as when it's spent um basically um for our complete streets um program as well as our CBTA local.

Um and it also helps with regards to those projects that we have in CIP.

For instance, um the 21 million dollars of complete streets is broken down by 15 million dollars for paving, uh 1.5 million dollars for transportation engineering projects, which typically that's where we were um move the money for our speed tables as well as two and a half million dollars um for um side um for two million dollars for sidewalks and two and a half million dollars for CIP projects in terms of making up the difference um in projects between going out to bid and us actually receiving funding.

Um so we can continue to do it that way because within those four line items that I just called out, there's roughly about 120 projects that can be changed at any given week based upon um utilities or based upon another need somewhere else, or based upon um economic development projects.

Um and so what I don't want to do is to give the public the false sense that we're gonna be in the 3200 block of Hawthorne um in November, and then something happens and it doesn't allow us to do that.

Um and so if we can um please be allowed to make presentations um in the way that we have in the past, I think that you all will be able to see um a large amount of transparency, even more so than you probably would recall.

Also, we were also looking at putting up a dashboard on the DPW website um that will give people an idea of where we have completed um any of our sidewalk projects and what projects are upcoming, and we have a caveat on there talking about weather permitting, et cetera.

And uh sure you want me to stay up here for the next one.

If I answered that question, I'm sorry.

Well, I mean, I do hear that like um even the breakdown of 15 million paving, 1.5 engineering, 2 million sidewalks, 2.5 CIP, even that sounds more granular than what we currently have.

But if I was gonna go even further and say, oh, well, with an engineering, let's call that, you know, half a million speed bumps and quarter million stop signs, like um no, these are something that the people would would love to see.

Yes.

Um, but um, you know, I would love to get your input on what's you know appropriate and then won't won't create too much headache of uh amending later.

Well, one thing that I would like to ask of RJ and the acts of council is uh we're looking at the speed tables and the way that you all have made requests for them in the past is to work with council on obtaining um your requests based upon your citizen needs, and then that way our um transportation uh department of transportation can work with the citizens as well as the fire department to make certain that if we can put a speed table where the U.S.

citizens have been coming to you to make those requests, then we can proceed to do so out of that particular funding line item.

And we'll also be supplementing speed tables that we deem necessary um through um our paving budget as we have in the past.

Um, and so each speed table goes for approximately 10,000 each.

So what we have decided to do is to set aside roughly 900,000, uh, which will give um counselors the opportunity to um help us with the design um throughout your various neighborhoods off of the high entry network with regards to speed tables.

I think all of you all have come and work with us in the past, and I'm certain that your neighbors and your neighborhoods are flooded with speed tables, but right now we're just at about 415.

Um we have over 15,000 blocks in the city.

Not saying that we're trying to reach that number at all, but we we are making an impact and we want to continue to be able to make an impact um to slow people down.

So I think that too would be able to help us uh with regards to helping you all to obtain some of the goals for your neighborhoods.

Um thank you.

I just wanted to note I I I would, you know, I I agree and appreciate that you know, getting down to the granularity of per street doesn't allow us with the flexibility.

Um but these proposed, you know, kind of large buckets, I think are are really helpful.

And I um, you know, I'd like to co-patron that.

I appreciate that.

Ms.

Smith.

Mr.

Vincent.

All right.

Next would be the uh to fund lights for TJ High School football field.

Try to keep this short.

We um for years they have not had lights, I think in the past.

Maybe neighbors have even been opposed to wanting to hear the noise and the traffic and the and the the you know uh of uh high school football games, but it's very important to the community that we can rally around our local high school, um important to just keeping people engaged in in our schools.

So um actually Matt Percival and I have been working on various partnership grants opportunities.

So what we're gonna try to do is get just a quarter million dollars into the 28 CIP, but commit to it now, and that allows us to use that commitment to go after matching grants.

So that's the the idea there.

All right.

Uh go ahead.

Vice President Jared.

Uh yes, thank you.

I just want to make sure I understand the process.

So um, in order to commit funds in an out year, we have to identify where they're coming from now.

Is that correct?

Or can it be so yes?

So we would have to find a reduction or find the money somewhere else this year.

To go ahead and put it within the CIP, yes, ma'am.

Just want to make sure everyone understands.

Okay, thanks.

Five-year plan.

I still have to gotta find, yeah, I gotta go find the pay for a quick point of clarity, Ms.

Jordan.

Um, it can also be found in an out year.

It doesn't have to be found in a this year, but it has to be reduced from somewhere because the C the five-year plan is balanced in its own debt capacity.

So it can't just be added.

But it doesn't have to come out of fiscal year 27.

It would you could reduce an option in fiscal year 28 when you're trying to put it in.

Is that okay?

Thank you.

Councilwoman Gibson did a question.

Yes, I mean, I would just also like to highlight an interest and identifying, you know, what other schools too are are lacking the facilities, these types of facilities.

I um would love to see this as part of a broader effort to ensure that um the you know outdoor athletic uh facilities have um have sufficient lighting so that students are able to both practice and play.

I'd like to uh make sure we do an inventory across the city footprint to Miss Gibson's uh point of that very because I there are other schools simulate circumstance.

So yes, absolutely.

Yep, understood.

We can put that to work.

Uh the next item is acquisition of real estate for by Ms.

Robertson.

And all right.

The next item put forward by Mr.

Breton, um, which might require discussion is this file that was discussed briefly the other day was finance sports backers land purchase with debt.

We don't have to do this if you guys don't want to, but I know that there was some concern about the way that we finance that deal, and so I wanted to make the put the option on the table for us to long-term finance it rather than you know, in order to make our contingency fund more liquid.

Um talk to me after the meeting if you're interested.

Thank you.

All right, and the next two items um are put forward by Mr.

Brighton and they're slightly related.

So I'll have them just go ahead and address both.

One being uh dedicated portion of complete streets to the people's budget, followed by funding the people's budget um from what I understand a year early when it comes to CIP finding it now.

Um but Mr.

Brighton.

All right.

So um the major one is uh five million and twenty-eight.

I just want to start getting the commitment out there that we are planning or the plan was to put five million into fiscal twenty-eight to fund the next round of projects.

So there's no reason why we shouldn't already have that in our five-year plan because the people's budget plan is supposed to have five million dollars in fiscal twenty-eight.

Um, so I'm not sure where we're gonna find it, but I wanted to put out there that it is not there yet, and we should.

Um the other suggestion was related to um utilizing the community engagement mechanism of the people's budget team in order to augment the way that DOT and DPW um are applying their lighter cricketer cheaper engagement strategies.

So, you know, I'm not sure if moving the budget line item is exactly the way to do it, but um making sure that we had the option for those groups to work together of leveraging the people's budget engagement with the DPW funds for the things that that that engagement would ask for.

Um that is by yeah.

Good afternoon.

Perfect requests and very valuable.

Um last year we were able to work with the citizens as well as the team from council in terms of I think we spent about 600,000 um with regards to trees.

So instead of looking at the, and I think we spent about a million dollars all in all on various items.

So instead of working from the complete streets portion of our budget, we would like to work for my state maintenance funds because everything is being done within the public right-of-way.

Our complete streets, we really want to preserve that for our paving sidewalks, speed tables, and um, and projects of that nature.

Um, but with regards to our operational projects, it's all about prioritizing things with regards to the uh people's budget.

And so um we're able to move around those priorities based upon um the request of the people and take care of it that way.

And so that's that's a way that it's not necessarily costing us additional funds, but we're prioritizing what the people are asking for.

Thank you, um, councilwoman Jones.

Thank you, uh Madam President.

Is there a way that we can through the people's budget kind of compare based off of what the citizens are requesting and what's I know you I know you mentioned that the way you do your budgeting is not necessarily we're gonna do this amount of trees, this amount of this, this amount of that.

But if the requests are more than how do I say this?

If if the majority of the requests, because the figures just said, well, how much in trees?

600,000.

600,000.

And so we also have like a tree situation with sustainability, correct?

Correct.

So how are we working together?

Because I'm just saying to me, it sounds like there are three different initially like three different things happening.

So if the people's budget is saying that this is what we want, and rightfully so, we want to hear what the citizens are having to say.

Does it make sense to already be budgeting out of these budgets when we don't necessarily know what the people are gonna want, or how can we?

I guess what I'm trying to attempt to say is like how do we get ahead of this?

Because we have money for trees.

We have money for streets, we have money for roads, but then when you get those requests, is that an is that more or is that no ma'am?

Normally we leave about 10% because the volume of the requests don't equal what we're already doing.

Right.

So when we're looking at um spending 600,000 on trees, we're spending over $3 million a year with regards to urban forestry.

So we just wind up reprioritizing roughly 10% of what our normal output is in order to make certain that we take care of those priorities of the citizens.

So that's the way that the participatory budgeting um process has been working.

And the people feel as though that they not only have an input, but they get to see it, that input within their neighborhoods.

And it also helps us to focus instead of doing something on in an area where people be like, why did you do that first?

When we really wanted you to do that, we're able to take care of the really we really wanted you to do those type of requests.

Yeah, so I guess my question is going forward is really what I should be asking.

Will you be a part of the people's budget as it relates to what the people are asking for?

And so then in that moment, you can already then know what it is that they're requesting.

You know what I mean?

Because it seems like we're doing it kind of backwards.

It's like we're doing the people's budget.

We're getting what the people want, but we haven't budgeted for it, but we budgeted forward to be done, not necessarily knowing somebody would say, okay, I need this on Hey Road, but you budgeted for Bright's Lane.

So I'm just trying to figure out how do we get in sync with this process because the participant because people's budget is necessary and needed, but also honestly knowing that a lot of those requests are requests that they just been asking for for over the years.

Welcome, CAO Donald.

Yes.

So the first, you know, great uh observation there, you know, I would start with is all the people's budget, you know, the the entire budget, I think we believe is the people's budget.

And I think in our most recent uh partnership with the council when we did the budget town halls and we did the connectivity uh uh exercises, we brought forward uh some observations that we provided in the budget supplement uh that we did to follow up on what the mayor's proposed budget showed.

What the disconnect that you're identifying is in your wisdom as a council, you moved the participatory budgeting group under the authority of the CAO.

It was originally with the council and their process was misaligned with the budget process.

So they were making uh getting feedback and making decisions, and those things were coming forward outside of the normal budget cycle.

And so now that you have appropriately aligned them with your ordinance, we are now working through the process to be able to ensure that all of the decisions that the public makes are aligned with your budget decisions.

So there is a one or two-page explanation that breaks that down for the public and um might also be helpful to council in that document.

It highlights that you know the the time difference.

So that's why the 1.7 million, I think that was already allocated, uh has assignments, and then we'll be coming back with a supplemental report to tell you where those funds are.

And then I believe it was councilmember Bretton who highlighted what's supposed to be coming forward in 28.

So to your question, those things will be aligned.

And now that in your wisdom as a council, you have aligned uh those resources appropriately, we'll be able to deliver the ordinance as you intended.

Follow up, madam chair.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

So my my other concern then is, and I'm sure many of my counterparts can relate to this.

Like I have a spreadsheet of the amount of citizens that call me with these same types of issues.

Yes, ma'am.

So how do we align those?

Do we wait for the people's budget to then, you know what I mean?

Or like do we continue to just send in those requests?

Because I still think that we're there is still a little bit of a disconnect because if I have citizens that may not have participated in the um the peak the participatory budget, but we're constantly sending in our issues and our concerns, and you know, uh director Vincent and everyone else on the team is doing great by responding to them.

Then we come back and say, well, then tell me where the money is.

So I'm just saying, how do we get aligned?

Because there are so many things happening before the participatory budget is even is happening.

But we we are we're also sending in requests that are that aren't necessarily buddies.

Yeah, so you send in a bunch of different things, and there's some misalignment there.

But again, I think the first piece is you put a process in place for participatory budgeting to actually work.

It was in, and I don't know why these things were in the council piece, but the legislation said one thing, we fixed that.

Now, just because we've aligned it with the CAO's office, done happen just like that.

We actually did it in the middle of a budget cycle.

So that may be part of the reason for the misalignment.

Now that you have put it where it goes, it's a part of our process moving forward forevermore.

But what you're also referencing is you get one off request, you get uh, you know, additional activities where you're trying to uh provide feedback to the public.

I think for now you can continue to send those things to Mr.

Vincent and to our offices, but I would expect that all of the people's budget activities, now that you have taken the first step to align uh with the administration and say, hey, you handle this, develop a process and make sure it's there.

I think you did that uh three months ago or so, yeah, about three months ago or so.

So it's now being incorporated into our process and it will be forevermore.

I don't want to uh give comments on what happened before you did that because I I just don't know.

Councilwoman Trans.

I have a um question for um Odie.

I just want to say that I didn't think that the process was fair with the people's budget as far as with my district.

I can't speak for anybody else, because a lot of my people were promised this, promised that, and they filtered all the forms at different meetings that I attended, and I went too many of them.

And because I knew that this area wanted this, this area wanted that.

And then at the end, they couldn't get anything.

And they were like, where did all the money go?

Did it go in other districts?

Because we didn't get what we were, they were promised that they were going to get this and that.

And I said, Well, the money's not there.

So then they started tacking Bobby because they thought it was Bobby's fault.

It wasn't his fault.

And I'm glad that this that this now falls under you where you can monitor it better and make sure that the money or make sure that different things is distributed along with other council districts instead of just certain few.

So I just wanted to commend you on that and that thank you for coming here to explain this to my colleague and to myself, because I'm quite sure she feels like I feel because a lot of us did not get, or a lot of the people didn't get, and there are certain little areas that they thought they were going to get this and that, even to the lightings, speed tables, this and that.

Yeah, yes, ma'am.

I'll tell you very this is very helpful feedback, especially as we try to incorporate this into our process.

Uh we've started the engage RVA initiative actually today.

We just released the report on it.

And so combining the activities in a very transparent manner so that the public is involved and making all of those things into one large budget activity is our goal.

And now that again, in your wisdom, you have aligned those resources appropriately, we'll make sure that we respond accordingly and deliver.

I do just want to remind us because it's only been about two or three months, and we were already in the budget process, which is of course why you don't see those things currently, because you had a process or you know, you were doing something prior to doing that.

Now that you realigned it, uh we take that full responsibility and we will deliver in the way that you expect.

Thank you.

Councilmember Gibson.

Uh thank you, Madam President.

I just also wanted to uh I appreciate the comments of uh my colleagues, Councilmember Trammel and Councilmember Breton, um, as it relates to both the the people's budget and and transparency around some of the capital spending overall.

And I wonder if we might be able to um, you know, looking at that first line item about transparent street safety spending, if um if perhaps some uh detail also could be included again at a very broad level regarding the the allocation of of people's uh budget now you know it could be a a breakdown, it could be a um uh in in the description somehow, but just some clarity.

I think that um you know, given that this is an effort where we're asking residents to come and vote, um it then the expectation is that that we can see that in in this in this budget, it provides a di another level of accountability, um, and I think it wins us the trust of of constituents to be able to see um that that effort of engaging in the civic process is then reflected in in this budget documentation, which is a legal agreement, um, and and how that funding will be spent.

Thank you.

Um RJ, I would um join certainly Ms.

Trammel and thanking the CAO for the alignment uh relative to the people's uh the participatory budget.

I think also to councilwoman Strammel's inquiry, what predated that first iteration where those discussions were had in communities and the districts then identified the items for they wanted to prioritize.

Many of those were included in the budget, and so if we can get an update on what was identified as priority by in each of the districts based on those comments with citizens, and then um there was to be a crosswalk between that set of items and uh what was placed in the budget this current year, and so not necessarily in this for this purpose, but certainly at the next meeting where all council members are present, and so they can see what their constituencies answered, what was prioritized, what was included, and what's the progress in terms of that overall crosswalk.

Okay, I understand.

Thank you.

Uh the last item on page 12 is the pedestrian crossings on uh Chamberlain for by Miss Gibson.

Uh thank you.

As we keep reiterating that the interest and safety, um, this is an intersection that has uh you know, constituents have have identified as being one of great concern.

Um understanding that the um that the public utility new business uh can't be used here, you know.

I'm like to amend this to be 100,000, or um, you know, I would also support if if the body is interested in using some of the funding that's been identified by the council staff.

Um I'd also support you know putting some of that also towards the the interest in in lighting our our our school district based football fields.

Um but uh but yes, this is one of many areas throughout the city where um pedestrian safety is a big concern.

Uh council Andy Baino, director of transportation.

Um yes, we wholeheartedly agree.

This is on the high injury network and has been um uh tremendous focus for the city for for several years now.

Um right now the North South BRT study is going on, and this covers this section of the corridor.

So our suggestion would be wait till we find we have the findings of that study, and then we can implement uh where it makes sense findings directly out of that study.

Anything that's part of BRT is going to be a pedestrian safety improvement.

Transit, we know is an extension of a walking trip.

Um I I have in case in case you needed it or were interested, some of the the projects that have already been going, the Vision Zero projects that have already been going on on the Chamberlain corridor, some of them complete, um several on the way, but the big picture with these two intersections in particular, um would suggest waiting for that study to be complete.

Understood, thank you.

Okay, the last the last CIP item is on the top of page 13, and it is bike parking on Brooklyn Park Boulevard put forward by uh member Gibson.

Yes.

So this um there is a line item in the budget for essentially funding parking for some um owners or business owners on Brooklyn Park Boulevard for $50,000.

And you know, we were just looking for ways of um using that funding in a way that more folks would have you know would appreciate the benefit.

That is an area where there's parking in general is is of a premium.

There's there's not sufficient parking um for cars, and so absent that um it would be I think an ideal spot for for more bike parking.

Um, and so that is why we made that request to um to use the that existing funding um in an alternate way more.

Um Andy Baynow, director of transportation.

So we've got good news for you on that.

We we are already working on a plan through citywide for parking bike parking in areas just like this.

Um this area is part of the first phase for the first quarter of the new fiscal year.

Um, and we'll be able to use the uh money out of our operations and and state maintenance funding.

Wonderful.

All right, and just case you're curious, that life last item on there where it talks about Richmond Fiber Optic Network S.

We try to identify possible um funding to find for you all to put towards your amendment.

This was an option.

We've received feedback and concerns from city administration on this proposal.

So we'll continue to analyze that over the next few days.

I just wanted to note that in case you were curious of what that is.

And that concludes CIPs.

All right, Jake, just a couple questions.

Um, and maybe this is to come back for Monday.

Um, I am interested in the um final uh clarification regarding our commonwealth attorney's uh request and where we are with that with the administration.

I can wait, or if you have more of the administration or whomever.

Sure, understood.

I'll get clarity on the on the fundings for that department.

Our commonwealth attorney is walking down the aisle behind you actually.

Oh well, there you go.

Good afternoon, councilman and councilwomen.

Um I'm happy to answer any specific questions from council.

Um I will say that I have been in contact with a number of council members personally, and I have been in email contact with our budget liaison to Megan Brown and her supervisor or no person who works under Megan, um, and also with Julie Caldwell.

Yeah, she's here.

We city council's staff.

So here is here is my bottom line question and concern, which I appreciate Dr.

Newbell letting me address.

It seems as though the Commonwealth Attorney's Office budget has been cut by 241,000 dollars.

Council has received a chart from me at the March 23rd budget workshop that set out very clearly the amount of money that I was looking for to support the prosecution of violent crime in the city of Richmond and to provide restorative justice, recovery courts, all of the things that a healthy criminal justice program has and should have in our capital city.

The adopted budget for my office last year was nine million, eight hundred and seventy thousand, eight hundred and ninety-one dollars.

All I did was ask for that identical amount of money.

I understand the fiscal restrictions that the city is currently under.

Although I warn you that I will keep coming back in future budget years.

But at this point, I just want clarification that the city of Richmond is not removing 241,000 from the budget of its Commonwealth Attorney's Office.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And so RJ administration, I'd like to make sure we get clarification of that.

If I don't get that in this moment, certainly by our session on Monday.

Okay, Madam President, was this?

I'm sorry, was this in the proposed the mayor's this cut was in the mayor's proposed budget?

Yeah, I think it would be great for us to follow up directly.

Um we have followed up with your office.

Um the way that personnel is calculated in the budget.

Um there's a whole bunch of things that go into it.

It's a point in time count that takes into account what benefits people are signed up for, which vacancies there are.

Um so this was there are no positions cut.

This was not a funding cut.

This was not an operations cut, it was an adjustment of their the money that they need to support their current personnel based on how we do funding for personnel across the entire organization.

That same methodology methodology was used.

Um, and so happy to talk more about that.

Um, but it it it wasn't uh wasn't a put of funding, it was an adjustment that is the technical adjustment that's made across the board to all personnel as a point in time when those forecasts come in.

Okay.

So they have still all the same positions.

So we will um have greater clarification, more discuss all like that prior to Monday.

Correct.

Thank you.

Madam President, yeah, Madam President.

Yeah, I was just for I have a question.

Okay, okay, I just want to thank you for coming to our meetings over and over and explaining you know what you're trying to do for all of us.

And I was gonna ask you how much money did you say that you need for this program?

Because I don't my people said they definitely support this.

Thank you, councilwoman.

I'm asking for the same budget in F level 27 that I had in FY26.

I'm happy to meet with anyone to talk about how adjustments are not the same thing as my office losing 241,000 dollars.

I know that um Miss Brown and my finance director and myself and Miss Jackson have a meeting planned next week, but I wanted to make sure that my concern that we not lose prosecutors of violent crime was brought to city council before it was too late.

Okay, and you said you're scheduled to meet with the administrative staff next.

You all are scheduled for a meeting is did I hear you correctly?

Yes, okay.

So we'll get information back.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, councilwoman Gibson.

Looks like um thank you, Madam President.

You know, I believe council member Bretton identified some um funded vacancies in the police department.

I wonder if that might be an appropriate way that that budget could be held flat um to ensure that that you know that the um they're not forced to to reduce the number of of prosecutors that they have.

I don't have an answer for that.

I I think as they have discussion and they come back to us, that we'll look at options.

Wonderful.

Yeah.

Okay.

With that, uh president.

Um I don't see Richie here.

I had some questions for him.

I don't know where he went.

He's coming back to the chamber.

He's coming back.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, can we um I had I had a couple questions for Chip if it was okay.

Okay.

Chip, can you come up?

And so we'll have um with Mr.

Decker, and then you have uh questions for Mr.

McKeith, and um, I think that will bring us to a close, except you also wanted to make an announcement, Councilwoman Trammell, or provide some information at the end of the session, correct?

Okay, really.

Um I just wanted to say thank you for working with us, and I want to thank you, um Cynthia, for you know, you helping with this because we know how important it is to have um your vehicles out on the street when we call 911, and then if we don't have one that because as somebody told me last night, thank God you came your your people came to their house and probably saved their father, who they did not realize that he was having a heart attack.

So if we didn't have you out there with those amulamps to pick up the people and get them straight to Chippenham Hospital, we might have lost the father.

So I just wanted to personally say thank you and um you know for working with us and for because like I said, you can't put somebody in a police car, you can't put them in a in a fire truck to get them help.

And I just wanted to definitely say thank you.

And if you had any questions plus, this is your opportunity.

Yeah, Chip Decker CA, Richard Rams Authority.

Thanks.

Thank you, Councilwoman Trammell.

And uh and once again, thanks to council for assisting in uh right sizing our budget for next year.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Thank you, Mr.

Decker.

Appreciate it.

Um while we're waiting for Mr.

McGeathan to return.

You want to go on and Madam Chair.

Um likewise as relates to the Commonwealth Attorney's Office and the concern.

So whether or not there's another budget amendment that we need to put in place to restore the 241.

Um, and also I want to make sure that the concerns that we had about venture Richmond's budget and whether or not there have been cuts to that budget to make sure that the question about the appropriations and I think there was some misunderstanding as it relates to that as to whether or not their budget is made or yes.

Well, I'll state to that was in the the name of venture richmond is different than what was presented to us and what the the funding source is.

So that has been clarified, you know, still more to analyze, but that concern has been definitely noted.

Yes, well I'll state to that was in the the name of venture Richmond is it's different than what was presented to us and what the the the funding source is so that has been clarified you know still more to analyze but the that concern has been definitely noted nothing's been cut it's been correct you we have taken key yeah the additional information has been provided to us as we analyze analyze that and we understand what what that name means now that's venture Richmond all right thank you thank you and councilwoman Robertson um pending the outcome of the meeting with the administration commonwealth attorney I know I am certainly prepared to take a look at bringing forth any additional amendments that might be needed so with that councilwoman trammel you had question for our assessor Richie can you come up also madam president I want to support um Colette McKitchen on that too for our funding good afternoon Richie McKeith and City Assessor Richie you have a um you're asking for another position in your department yes I was asking for a customer service representative and um I know you get a lot of calls I know I know you personally get a lot of calls from from the people in the eighth district because they're very upset but I want to thank you for your job and thank you for all that you do and I definitely support you getting another position another person I think my colleague had a question um councilwoman lynch is are we now are we are we in free discussion where where are we in our agenda we're just if there's a question questions for him okay yeah um well I mean I think generally and this is more of a broader question about process when do we want to really start getting well then let so it let's let we'll let Mr uh Rich McKeathan sit down if it's not direct and then we'll go to that broader discussion I thought you had something directly for you hold on this only take me 20 seconds to get out um okay so just broader question about I mean we're we we're yet again talking about um you know all of our our asks which are largely hypothetical until we really start digging into where we're gonna get the revenue um so at what point in time RJ do we want to start talking about um potential cuts to the operating slash um uncertified revenues slash um any proposed additional revenues that um we may have identified to fund some of our budget asks sure we're yeah we're talking about Monday yes ma'am okay so that's Monday conversation okay well then I think we saved those questions for Monday yeah yes as far as my customer service representative position just needs some background I lost it during the COVID era I never got it back every time I asked for it back it was never um granted and so since then we've had things that have occurred over the General Assembly like the disabled veterans program which they're now coming in regularly and my appraisers as well as myself and my managerial staff have been having to go downstairs and meet individuals and so I was begging in Poleton again this year to get an actual person to actually handle that because we'll we could it's not the best use of resources for appraisers and myself and my manager of staff to be going downstairs and meeting people and individuals although we don't you know we don't mind serving the public is is I really need a customer service person now so I hope that I can actually get it granted thank you.

Thank you Mr McKeith and yes thank you Madam President also our population is growing we we I know that there's already what 2220 plus and I know that I said this at least y'all answer the phone and I appreciate that thank you you do answer the phone thank you thank you thank you thank you um just to put a just put a period on that are you going to address the yes the okay um yes we have the vacancy within our office of the council chief of staff Ms.

Abubacher noted in one budget work session the need for us to make sure that we're providing external employees external facing employees as much as internal and as I've left the building I've seen the assessors having to provide custom uh information to uh customers slash residents as the as they exit so I see this as a easy um um helping out uh of uh the city assessor's office and we have no issues so it should be a quick vote for you all to approve this transfer on Monday Vice President Jared yes I want to thank RJ because he actually called me and said Richie don't you know I can help you with this so I haven't had that a lot in the past so don't go anywhere don't get anything I could get to help me.

So I haven't had that a lot in the past.

So don't go anywhere.

Don't go.

Anything I could get to help me.

I do have a question for you.

Thank you so much.

Um, we do have some amendments that are being proposed to be funded by uncertified revenues.

Okay.

Um, how are things looking currently?

I know finance department actually certifies, but any updates from your floor.

All right, so if one little brief discussion on what I'm seeing in the real estate market.

Um, as you know, we're not having a reassessment next September.

Um, anything that will be put on the books will be new construction or major um actual permit work and things like that.

Um I think by the time we roll out for the next reassessment, which will be in May of 2027.

I got my fingers crossed.

I'm hoping the world economy will a lot of the stuff we're into now will be you know smooth out and Richmond will continue to see increases, healthy increases in our real estate market.

Um, I will be doing a discussion with you guys in August and September to just to talk to you about what would have happened so you don't get you know overly surprised by the time we actually roll out in May of 2027.

But um, you know, all of the actual uh experts uh in a quandary right now.

Some of them are saying um whatever's going on in the Middle East is not necessarily going to last long enough, and then some of them are saying it could wind us into a full-blown, it's just a lot of craziness right now, and we have to see how that actually affects us.

So I got my fingers crossed.

I'm hoping that we can continue to have a healthy market and not be as affected, but I mean it's it's it's up in the air right now.

So thank you.

Members, yes, councilwoman.

One more thing.

We have our auditor here.

I would like for him to come up and he's here and just have questions for him, or just general update.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I know that I'm getting a lot of calls, and when I get them, I usually send them to you or used to send them to um G.

But anyway, I guess that you're working on some things.

I don't know if you can discuss it.

Um I mean, the reports that you give us, I really appreciate that because they're thorough and and the right.

I mean, you do it, you do a great job, you and your staff to make sure that we are informed on different things, but there's a lot of times that people want to know how come um how come we don't go further as far as trying to get our money back?

And I told them I would ask you when I when I got to see you.

Yeah, sure.

Uh Rihanna Lee, city auditor.

Um some of the things we're working on.

Obviously, what we're working in process, the details are confidential until they're concluded.

Um, but what we're working on, I think the the biggest high priority item right now that we're working on is uh the revenue, the refund audit.

We're looking into you know uh the city's process uh if they are there in compliance with the ordinance that uh council passed last year in in regarding giving back the public, especially the business's refunds that are due.

Um it it was a small compliance audit that's turned into a very big performance audit uh with benchmarking and in-depth recommendations and root causes of of some of the problems the city has seen.

So that is our number one priority.

We're trying to finish that one as quickly as possible.

Uh, we're also working on uh an accounts payable, really a procurement to payment audit.

Uh you know, we did the PCART audit uh uh last year approximately.

Um and as a part of that audit, we identified significant problems uh in uh in you know payments and purchasing, and some of that was related to accounts payable.

So we are looking at that now as one of our priority audits.

And uh we're currently working on an audit of the fire department's payroll processes as there's been issues with you know the payments to leave accurate payments on the system utilized, and that that is our third you know, high priority audit that we're trying to get out.

They're all in-depth audits with root proper root cause analysis to help you know identify the recommendations to fix the problems.

So they're all very long-term, very long, very difficult audits uh that are currently ongoing.

Thank you, Mr.

Riyadh, and again uh Ali could absolutely congratulations again on your national award.

Thank you.

And your team, thank you.

With that, um, I want to say, members, thank you for your attendance today.

Believe Ms.

Trammell, you wanted to provide just a quick update in terms of availability of materials for uh elderly disabled.

Is that correct?

Madam President, we have them.

We have forms.

Okay.

And I just want to thank Odin um their CA the CAO Odie Donald for uh making this happen.

He said Monday that he would definitely look into this.

And today we were told we could go downstairs and pick up these um applications for 2026 for people to fill out because I have so many people that are trying to find these forms.

Also, this is your form that you must fill out if you already have tax relief.

You must fill them out ASAP.

Thank you, Madam President.

If you have any questions, you can call myself at 804-240-5050.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Tramble.

With that, members, uh, thank you for your uh attendance.

The work session of the Richmond City Council now stands adjourned.