Good afternoon, everyone.

The budget work session for the Richmond City Council will now come to order.

Madam or Mr.

Clerk, if you would provide the chamber emergency evacuation announcements.

And that will be followed by our chief of staff, Mr.

RJ Warren, who will provide the protocol for the work session, and then we'll proceed with the proposed city council amendments.

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 in the inside the former public safety building parking lot.

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

Thank you.

Mr.

Warren.

Yes.

May it please the council, RJ Warren, Council Chief of Staff.

The amendments are before you today that you all have agreed to co-patron.

And I believe that there is a possibility of us become uh agreeing to final consensus today on the proposed budget.

And how this will work is we'll proceed through the amendments and co-patron order, because that indicates uh consensus on a particular item.

And we will continue until all funds have been uh exhausted uh for council to reallocate.

Uh for uh for the record and for clarification on today to and it's gonna lead off how we're gonna be making decisions today is that uh city administration agreed to collaborate with council and council staff on the the reallocation of the three point one six eight million that was dedicated to the gap grant fund in October of 2024.

And what is going to occur is let me bring the language up here is that the full 3.168 million in remaining gap grant dollars will be dedicated to the following active FY26 housing initiatives currently serving city residents the Family Crisis Fund, eviction diversion, real estate freeze, and right to council.

And because these programs are ongoing and will carry on unexpended balances into FY27, the GAAP grant fund and directed toward them will now match their proposed FY27 allocations, which releases the equivalent general fund dollars for FY27 amendment considerations.

So basically that means the 3.16 million will now be available to you all to allocate towards proposed amendments to the FY27 budget.

That would require us to do a text amendment, and um I just need to kind of nodding up heads that council is an agreement on this process.

Okay, thank you so much.

Excuse me.

Councilwoman Tramble, I don't fully understand.

Would you sure summarise so 3.168 million was dedicated to the gap grant program in October 2024?

Okay.

It was to be exhausted by December 2025.

That has not occurred.

There's a little over three million left in that gap grant program.

City administration has agreed with our proposal to reallocate those funds to pro housing initiative programs that are working and are active for the money, and then that would free up, make available to council the equivalent of proposed dollars and FY27 to put towards your amendments.

So that's why we have enough funding for amendments today.

Yeah, councilwoman Robertson.

Thank you.

Um thank you.

Um Mr.

Warren.

So just for clarification, the gap funding that was appropriate for 24.

Um, what was the total amount and the balance is to 3.168?

Um, what was the purpose of that funding?

And I think some clarification on that would be good just to get us started.

And then how we uh selecting if we uh augment this budget with revenues from the balance that's left over for the four items that or four or five items that have been selected and the amount that we appropriating in each of those.

Okay.

So in October of 24, city administration provided council with options related to the uh RVA stay initiatives.

Um several items that were using the if you recall it was uh there was a rebate to residents, there was this gap grant program, there was uh a tax freeze for certain qualified individuals, and I believe it was 3.5.9 million was put towards the gap grant program, and two years later, 3.1 remain.

And we know that these initiatives that are currently working now could use these dollars.

Um, and therefore instead of it sitting onto the side two years later, we have recommended that you all put it to the initiatives working programs working to make available the equivalent amount of funds for budget amendments.

To be clear, uh there's a recommendation of four or five different existing right initiatives, and we have a breakdown of what we appropriate or being recommended for those areas of this 3.168.

It is the exact equivalent of what's proposed in the FY27 budget for those four programs.

Is the exact amount that the current budget has from the mayor as a proposed budget for those categories?

Yes, ma'am.

I'm right.

Thank you.

I follow you.

Okay.

Councilwoman McGibson.

Um I I think I I'm still can, you know, I we've talked about it.

I just want to make clear that these are these are recurring funds that we have access to.

Yes, and we have assured city administration that council will um you know make known that these programs need to be funded again next year in the budget.

Um, this is just a mechanicism, uh a way to make sure the funds are available for this for budget amendments in this tight fiscal year.

So right now we are voting on using one-time funds.

No, because we're putting them towards these housing initiatives, they can use them that will then free up available revenue in the proposed budget for amendments.

That is revenue, not one-time funding.

Okay.

Councilwoman Robertson.

Uh just a follow up.

Um this 3.168 million is not already included as a revenue source in the butt proposed budget that was sent to us.

Was that because the intention was to continue to attempt to carry out the ordinance as it was authorized for the use of the funds, correct?

Correct.

It was the the prior legislation was that was supposed to be exhausted by December 25, which had not occurred.

Do we have any other outstanding budget balances that I know with the affordable housing trust fund, we we had some conversation about that as well.

That's not included in this budget, but is dollars that is sitting out there.

Uh we have not looked into provide providing that for your consideration today.

No, but we can look at any other.

Because if it's not, then we need to make it real if it's not.

Understood.

Okay.

Councilman Breton.

I guess um in terms of the one-time versus recurring.

I think maybe it sounds like we're technically we'll be using recurring funds, but the reason we have access to them is because we have put one-time funds where they would be.

So we might want to think of these as one-time funds, even though technically we're spending recurring funds in a different way, right?

They are going to ongoing initiatives that would carry on over funds into the next fiscal year with this funding.

Um, it's the same thing as if when you use surpluses to reallocate money to some of these initiatives that we do throughout the year as well.

Yeah, and so um yeah, and we found we found money in the RBSA program, and so we've passed it through something else so that we get the equivalent amount back to us.

Okay.

Yes, sir.

Thank you, Mr.

Warren.

Let's proceed.

All right.

Now we will go through uh proposed amendments and descending order of co-patronage.

And then each subset of patronage, it's uh goes from the highest to lowest when it comes to costs.

So you know how much money would require uh the amendment to go forward and how much you have available.

Um first up is actually a reduction uh to receive consensus on the money cannot be used for other items, but it is to eliminate new funding for uh gas new business, which would be 500,000.

And that has eight co-patrons, so unless spoken otherwise, we will construe that as consensus.

Okay.

And the next item up, uh, you will see some items highlighted in yellow.

And what that means is that this item is either already in the budget or will be addressed uh collaborately by city administration uh in this fiscal year.

And for up next, that we have the establishment of dedicated mailing line item for Office of Older Adults and Pulsar Persons with Disabilities.

Can I ask a question before we proceed?

Just for clarity.

Um is this so you're saying it's either in the budget?

In other words, we don't need to find an additional appropriation for it.

A formal amendment is not necessary, that is correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Sorry.

Councilwoman Lynch.

Um this happened, this did happen to us last year, and the challenge was is that there is not a line item specific for the Office of Aging and Disabilities.

The question is, does the 75,000 that the administration has budgeted um does that actually live in the Department of Aging and Disabilities?

Where does it live?

With which department of budget.

I will defer to the administration on that specific question.

And even to get more granular, does it have an alias that Office and Aging and Disabilities can use?

So when they mail stuff out, they they can build that earlier.

Good afternoon, council.

Uh Amy Popovich, DCO for human services.

Councilwoman Lynch, um, to ask your answer your question.

Uh, this is my first budget cycle, so I am learning all these details.

But Office of Aging and Disability does have a specific um set amount of budget.

Uh, we did run the cost of a mailer for the approximate 21,000 individuals living in the city of Richmond who are age 65 and older.

Did the cost of the approximately 57 cents per postcard is about 20,000 per mailer.

Um, so we do have budgeted to be able to run a mailer through this fiscal year funds and through fiscal year 27 funds, which will be those two.

So the dedicated funding line is in the Office of Aging and Disability.

Um, additionally, they're working on a multimodal communications plan for uh seniors or aging adults and those with disabilities as well.

So I think would appreciate the opportunity to kind of look at their budget to see what are the different types of communication methodologies that they'd like to use.

Um however, we do have plan this fiscal year one mailer um and next fiscal year one mailer as well, which will incorporate both of those mailers.

Thank you, Ms.

Popovich.

Councilwoman Trammell, did you have a question for Ms.

Popovich?

Yes, I did.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you, Amy.

Yes.

Good afternoon.

Does this mean that um because over the weekend I bet I went to over 30 um elderly people, and they did not know anything about this tax relief.

How do we get how and I mean some of them is so it was just so pitiful to see when they were showing me the bills, what they got to pay, and they don't have the money.

They had to borrow it for January.

Now June is coming up, and they said they don't know how come something is not mailed out to them to say, hey, you're over 55 or you're disabled.

I met one guy that's like 55, he's got cancer, and he's been sick for over five years, and he did not know that he could qualify because he's permanently disabled.

So how do we do that?

I don't know.

I know that the CAO has said that eventually we're gonna have people at Southside Plaza to help the people with the forms and all, but if they don't know and they don't know what days, how do we get that out there to them?

Thank um our CAO, Mr.

Donald by comment.

All right, good afternoon.

Uh yes, so one uh today, I think from the last session that we had.

We'll be reaching out to about 20 folks that I think we got the list from.

So we'll be doing the hand-to-hand things.

You've done an extraordinary job of collecting names and then providing them to us, but we'll also be using um the location plan to accelerate that so folks can come in, ask questions and get the help that they need, as well as placing updates on the website.

So we'll kind of attack it three different ways.

One just hand to hand, because you've gotten us a great list, and I think you connected us to some people.

Number two, we'll make sure to upload it on the website.

But we're also gonna do one of the things that you've championed is just make sure that that space is available.

So if folks have questions, they can just cut out the middleman and come right in and get the information that they need.

Because this Thursday I have my senior day um at 11 a.m.

to 2 p.m.

at the TB Smith Community Center.

So I was telling them to try to get over there, but the problem is they don't have transportation and they can't drive, and they don't have a computer.

Yes, ma'am, and that's why we're gonna come into the community and make sure that we provide that service.

So great kitchen for bringing it to our attention.

And uh, we're also doing a review to find out why there seems to be a disconnect specifically um to that district and everywhere else, um, if that is the case.

So we're working on that now.

But in the interim, we're just gonna make sure to have those three available outlets ready.

All right, thank you.

Just me.

Thank you, Mr.

Donald.

Mr.

Warren.

I'm back.

Yes.

Um I may regret opening Pandora's box here, but just to go back to the gap grant funding just to alleviate any concerns that any of the individuals may have.

The money was uh repurposed before it was declared surplus in uh uh FY23 going into FY24.

So therefore it wasn't considered one-time funding, like we sometimes use with the 10% surplus.

So it can be it is not necessary to declare it a one-time funding item.

Councilwoman Gibson.

Thank thank you.

And that's um helpful clarification.

Um it does go back to um the question that I've asked a couple of times, just recur in terms of revenue estimates that are identified, because if that is the case, then that would mean then that 3.2 million if it had been repurposed and was part like then you know, is that essentially uncertified revenue?

Um that was not considered in the development of the budget.

Understood.

Uh yeah, we can talk more.

I understand that question.

Okay.

All right.

I believe we actually able to proceed.

We will now move to the first amendment that will require funding, and that will be the transportation and security for RPS after school programs, middle school alliance.

Um, and that was going to require that has seven co-patrons to the item put forward by Dr.

Newville, and that cost would be uh 428,000 to come from available funding.

Is there a consensus on that item?

Okay.

Ms.

Popovich, you're coming forward to comment.

Uh good afternoon again.

Um just wanted to update through an email that came for RPS.

Um, I don't believe we have RPS here, but we've been working in partnership with them.

Uh so just wanted to make sure everyone was aware the uh cost, the 428,000 was actually fiscal year 25-26 cost.

So fiscal year, let me scroll down.

2627 cost is 483, 483,000.

Um, in this email, which went to some folks, um, just breaks down the schools, the cost, the bus runs, et cetera.

So other questions um can be taken back to RPS, but just wanted to make sure everyone was aware that was the updated cost.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Okay.

So that'll be happy.

One second, uh, Mr.

Warren, uh, council member Jones.

Yeah, I was just wanting to know was that email sent to council?

Because that is questions that we asked at the last um session.

Um, I believe that was received by council staff.

Um, and I can make sure you get that now.

I can get that forwarded to you.

Well, we pose the vote on the money now.

Okay, yes, so it goes from the original cost up to 48 to 400 naked.

80, whatever.

Yes.

Okay.

Uh the next topic of conversation is going to be around the request for a cola for the Richmond retirement system.

And there are a couple options before you at this moment when it comes to the original retirement system and a collab.

A one percent cola um spread out over uh 10 years of payment from the city would require 971,000 each year for 10 years, which be known is that is not does not mean a cola would happen every year.

It would mean a one percent cola would happen now, and then the the city would be required to make that same payment nine years in a row to finish off that the payment for the one percent cola in 2026.

So there um it's been identified as an issue to for council to address.

So there's been conversations about getting trying to get a working group together to address this issue long term to find a solution.

Uh what I've tried to identify now is a bridge to that solution, and that can be done this year through a uh one-time payment until that um solution is identified.

So it is recommended that we proceed with a the equivalent of a one percent cola bonus payment to retirees um so that each individual would receive this year the equivalent of a one percent cola and before fiscal year uh decided next year that the uh the working group get together to try to identify a long-term solution.

So that would cost would be 700,000 six uh seven hundred and sixteen thousand dollars to address um a one-time cola payment for this year only.

It would not automatically happen again next year, it'd be for a one-time payment.

But preparatory to next year, we would have met in the group to ascertain how it is that we will address this ongoing need, not ongoing, what should be a part of uh the seat of our retirees from RRS and such that that would be built into next year's uh planning and budget.

Councilwoman Robertson.

Okay, I'm just trying to get some clarification.

Um if we're doing a one-time cola bone, a one-time bonus, not a cola.

That's did you what was the dollar amount for that?

Yes, ma'am.

716,400.

Okay, and if we do a cola, which is a continual debt, 10 years we're projecting at the 90s 971,000 for 10 years.

But that is with the understanding that you're getting a 1% cola this year, next year you'll stay at that whatever that dollar amount is, but you're not getting any increase for that year.

So we would still have retirees asking for a cola for each year, right?

That's correct.

Yeah, and you would still have nine years left to all right.

Just want to make sure we're clear.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Gibson.

Thank you, madam president.

You know, I mean, I just wanted to note I I would I support you can add me as a co-patron to whatever the body decides.

Um, my preference uh given the current understanding would be to um use the funding recurring so that while it may not be one percent every year, at least it would raise the bar and we'd make a commitment that that would be ongoing so that there'd be some you know long-term funding in place, and then we could look and see moving forward what we could do to better that.

Correct.

You heard people speak the other night about um some years it could be 0.4, some years it could be 1.4, but there's an account, there's a method for it to happen every year.

So that would be my preference.

Thank you.

Councilman Breton.

Well, there's also been some discussion about the health of the reserve and when it goes over 80 percent.

I know that you know, in some policies, you fund the cola just from the reserve rather than refunding it from our other budget.

Um I mean, is there appetite to consider that to allow the health of the reserve to drop a little bit um in order to avoid taking the the budget hit, but still fund a cola.

I mean that could be conversations for this week.

Yes, that's not something that that was not a path forward uh that was reviewed at this time, but certainly um the uh councilwoman Trammell.

Thank you, Madam President.

Now every year I come here asking for um a cola for the retirees because I know that many of them still live in our in our city, still paying a high taxes, still paying you know whatever they have to pay, and they their money, their tax dollars goes into these things that we're asking for to be funded, but yet though we don't want to give them anything.

And to me, I think that is really wrong.

Because like I said, I know that probably in every district there are retirees that have given their life for 35 years, 30, 25 years to the city.

And to me, when we don't show our support for them, why should new employees come here?

Maybe that's why they come here and get five years or seven years, and then they're gone.

Somewhere else where they're treated better, and they know that they will not have to come down here and beg, like every year they have to beg for what a one percent.

That's it's not right to give them a bonus.

Then you take it, you know, you got to tax them from the bonus.

What do they get about 200?

Give them the cola.

What is one percent?

They haven't gotten one, I believe, since Governor Um Wilder, who was our mayor, he gave them a cola.

And then I just heard that it was um Mayor Lavar Stoney that also gave them a cola.

So it had two, what one in last one 2008, the other one in 2020.

And the cost of living's gone up.

They're bonus.

The health insurance, everything.

Everything.

And and we all know it's it it costs to it costs a lot more money to live in our city than it does in some of the surrounding counties as of right now, because I'm hearing they're eventually going to go up on everything too.

You got 4,000 retirees in the system.

And to me, it is our duty and the mayor's duty to give them a cola.

The 1%, let's do that, let's do the right thing, do it today.

We can worry about next year with this the board and with the person that's in charge of the Richmond retirement system.

I think we need to have more conversation with him because when he stood up there, I do not believe that he was forthcoming with a lot of the information that he was holding back from us.

So I'm asking um I'm asking my colleagues to please support this.

And if not, maybe um I'm calling, I can call on all the unions to put a cola for the retirees on the agenda for all contract negotiations with the city from here on out.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Rammel.

Uh Councilwoman Jones.

Thank you, Madam President.

I just um I thought I had said add my name to this one.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Robertson.

Uh yeah, I want to go back to uh a couple of things.

The mailing um paper that we've already talked about, no added funding, but I wanted to make sure that the 75,000 that is set to already be included in the budget.

And my understanding is that they are speaking to doing two mailings.

Whereas the issue that we are putting a lot of emphasis on, which I think is absolutely valid, is the lack of uh uh effectiveness of getting this communication and assistance to our seniors to take advantage of the opportunity that is available to them.

And I'm not sure if so two questions.

One is it 70 5,000 or 70 75,000 in the budget.

And Madam Chair, I guess what I want to be sure is that if that is the budget amount that we get something back from the administration, that that money will be targeted, not necessarily just mailings, but targeted specifically to take advantage of the tax relief of seniors through through mailing and whatever other initiatives that are necessary.

And I know that Ms.

Lynch you'll delete it patron on this, so I'm not trying to circumvent what you saw as a need, but that seems to be the area that we have a lot of concentration and two mailings without it being a part of a strategy to really get to those seniors.

Um is what I would like to communicate is our mission.

And the other question I want to ask in regards to the COLA, um, can we officially put in a request at this time to ask the retirement board to give us a strategic strategy for future funding out of the level of reserves that we have and what kind of impact that would have.

Not for this budget year, but for so we'll be prepared for next year now.

I would say the answer is yes to that.

Uh plus we talked about that committee being formed that would include representatives from RRS.

I just want to say when Ms.

Tramell and I put this in, we were desirous of there being a 1.5% cola that would be provided to retirees.

Um we were um put in that there would be a review by RRS in terms of providing that, but the based on the information we're informed of the implications of that or the impact of that that would not uh be favorable.

And so uh we're amenable to trying to ensure that our retirees would be in receipt of some sort of profitably cola, but certainly not less than bonus.

So what we have on the table at this moment uh in terms of the one five percent.

Understood.

Okay.

Um bonus payment equivalent of uh over one percent cola.

The one percent cola.

That's right.

971.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, as opposed to bonus, Ms.

Trammel.

What we could get to based on the funding that has been identified is and in terms of uh cola versus bonus.

What was this a Cola versus bonus of one percent?

And it doesn't get us all the way there, but it gets us to a colour, and then the commitment to looking for a follow-up uh set of discussions that talks about how we will continue colas throughout.

So we're not back here every year.

I think I have thank you.

Okay.

Councilman Breton had a question.

Yeah, relevant.

I absolutely agree that it's uh a much better benefit to commit to that permanent cola than a one-time uh gift.

I guess I do want to mention, I guess warn about the cola method.

One is that you know the the money that we currently are taking it out of is is a one-time source that led to it.

So we're taking we're making an ongoing commitment from a one-time source.

Um the other the other um you know benefit of the gift versus the cola is that the flat dollar amount of the gift actually allows us to give more to the people who may need it more because rather than as a percentage, we give a flat amount.

So people on lower pensions would actually receive a larger amount in the flat gift scenario than in the percent scenario.

So those might be reasons that we might prefer the the bonus.

I just want to put that out there for consideration.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Trammell.

So he's talking about the bonus per se.

With I didn't, I didn't hear exactly what he said.

Councilman Breton referenced the fact that the bonus would be a flat amount that would be received by everyone.

The percent would vary based on what their um income, or I would think it, and I we can ask our representative about what their income uh I don't know so much currently is, but certainly was tied to uh income as uh retiree.

And maybe you could provide clarification.

I'm looking at our RS representative if you would.

Good afternoon, Kia Johnson, senior deputy director of the Richmond Retirement System.

So monthly pensions are based off of what that retiree was making at the time that they work for the system.

So who knows what they're making now, but we base that retirement contribution on what they are what they made when they work for the city.

So the one percent, let's just say someone makes 400 a month, and then you know, multiply that by the 12, 12 times a month, I mean 12 times a year that they work, you're gonna get one percent of that.

I see what he's saying is saying if you get everybody the same amount, the person with the lower pension will get the same thing as the person with the higher pension.

Thank you.

So um the the difference is here to Mr.

Breton's point, that flat amount received by everyone, regardless of what their earnings were as an employee of the city versus the one percent, which everyone will not get the same amount because they weren't all earning the same.

But it would be a cola that would be ongoing and expectation, not just expectation built in as ongoing.

Well, madam president, if if we can get the votes today to get this passed, I think there's gonna be a whole lot more discussion.

Absolutely.

And especially with the board and them coming for for us and give us all the information.

I was like, didn't they say they got like 85%?

I mean, and they want to make it more.

I mean 85, that's a lot.

So that means 85% of the people who are in the system now will be paid.

So if you don't pay the difference, the people that are in that 15% won't get their retirement.

So it's 85% funded, which was funded, you know, we're at that 85% or 84.9% right now.

So it's you've got 100% is what you want to be, of course, so you can pay every retiree that's in the system until the until they are passed.

And okay, but I think that if we can get this passed today, we can have more discussion.

And we know that with all the with the population growing in this city and with all the development going in this city, we just did a ribbon cutting in my district just about an hour 11 o'clock this morning, and got more.

I mean, to me, I I think we need to start putting our retirees first.

They need to they need they gave, like I said, they gave their lives to the city.

And I don't care if they worked in public works, public utilities, police officers, firefighters, everything.

They gave all of them to the city, to the to us.

And we need to give something back to them.

And every year they have to come down here and beg and beg, and they go back with nothing.

And then when they get a re when they get the little bonus, gets taxed.

So let's give them that, let's do the right thing for them now today.

Thank you.

Ms.

Trammell, to your point upon passing this today, there will be still further conversation.

What we're looking at right now is the cola that's on the table.

And with understanding that it would not be the same amount across the board, but there would be that commitment and then that agreement to get to the table.

So next year is just a discussion how much and from where from whence uh those amounts will come.

So thank you.

Thank you.

So to confirm we're proceeding with the one percent colour.

Yes, ma'am.

Not bonus.

No, one percent.

One time payment.

That's correct.

One, yes, with all of the provisos that have been stipulated getting to the table so that we're identifying cola for future years, the amounts, uh, the percent rather, but not if just what amount.

Okay, and from where.

And madam president, and also more discussion to follow after this.

That's what I'm saying.

Exactly.

Thank you.

Uh Councilman Breton.

I think Robertson was before me.

Okay, I couldn't, I looked up, and so I couldn't uh get my cue there.

Councilwoman Robertson.

I just want to make sure I know what I'm what I'm what I'm hearing.

Are we saying that the consensus is the one percent cola?

Correct.

Okay, not the one time payment.

It's a it's it's a one-time payment that is equal to a one percent cola, but it will only be occurring for one year.

But it will be a cola, not a bonus.

No, it is a bonus, but is in the uh the amount of what a one percent cola would be for one year.

Okay, so we would everybody everybody won't have 10 years uh debt if we only give it, so I actually it's not a colour as a bonus.

Correct.

That's right.

And I think we need to be clear with that because it may yield the amount of one percent, but it's not a call, it's a one-time one-time payment.

Yeah, it's been instead of a flat rate.

I you know, I my preference is to have a uh one percent colour um and we figure out how we can look at the continuation of increasing the colour, certainly maintaining it, that's for sure.

And that's what's on the table, councilwoman Robertson and council.

That's exactly what we're talking about, not the bonus, the one percent call of long-term planning, yes.

Correct.

Yes, okay.

All right.

Next before you has been brought to my attention that um a number of uh one item that should have listed more co-patrons than it did is the West River Hills elementary school external facility redesign.

Um I've been informed that Ms.

Jones had asked a co-patron that, but it was not included, so that would make that a sixth co-patron matter that's on page three.

So that'll be discussed now.

And uh if Ms.

Abibacher wants to provide any comments to that, um it has been proposed that um a equivalent reduction be made to the sheriff's office to fund that amendment.

Um, but at this time there's available funding for council if they wish to put it towards that item.

At the end of the day, I just want to do right by Westover Hills, so I'm agnostic as to how we get there.

I'm open to the will of the body.

And and the uh thank you, Councilwoman Alberbacher.

I think there is a commitment to this item with the commitment to looking at because we've had this discussion with several other entities in terms of costs of material supplies, materials, and looking at joint purchasing to get those costs down, and that would be the case in this instance as well.

And I suspect the sheriff would be amenable to that.

We talked about it with schools, with um other departments uh in terms that are spending a lot for the purchase of things, but we're not at all being strategic in terms of bulk purchasing to get prices down.

And I I did still have just inquiry about the jump in budget for the sheriff's office from last year to this year, and the contracted services and um printing and postage line items.

Yeah, afternoon, madam president, council members.

And we're specifically speaking of taking funding out of contracts for the budgeting, because my understanding to take funding out of contracts is against a legal aspect because we've already signed an agreement with an entity, and if you take those funds from that, then we violate the contract.

If you're saying take the money out of contracts, you can't it's my understanding you can't do that, take money out of a contract that has been signed for all the life, health and safety things that go on.

So maybe I'm misunderstanding.

I think um there's okay, so my my question on that would be why would we sign and commit ourselves to contractually to more money than was budgeted?

Because the money was budgeted, the contract, the funding was taken out of the contracts.

We were noted notified that they took money from the contracts when they were cutting the budget.

That funding was already requested.

We had meetings with the contractors, we provided that to the city as to what those be how those bids came in, and that's how we came up with those funding.

We didn't just pick a number out of the air and say we were going to pay for something.

Those contracts went through procurement and they went through a whole budget process.

And I don't know if it was a quick turnaround to find funding as because those were our higher um amounts that was a place that you could pull more funds from quickly because it was a large amount of money.

But we've been talking about this for a while now and you just can't take money out of a contract because if we don't satisfy that contract we'll be right back here asking for more funds to pay the contract that we've signed.

Sure it was it was contracts it was there was a uh at least a $30,000 spike in janitorial um supplies not services and then there was a hundred thousand dollar spike in printing and postage absolutely could you could you yes explain those as far as janitorial it requires us to keep the building clean to to cut down on germs and everything we have 600 inmates that move throughout the building this is only those contractual supplies for the inmate population for our secure area of the facility whatever that cleaning looks like to ensure that we cut down the probability of whatever germs that there may be and whatever illness that may come because of those germs that's what that's for as far as the printing is concerned we've taken on the printing for the jury and for courts and we send out all of the mailings uh for court that's something that we take on so has that money been deducted from courts to we've actually questioned two and haven't gotten the answer that's a big it's a big line item it is and don't think I don't complain about it.

Okay.

But we take on that responsibility we do the entire everything for jury we do to include staffing civilian answer one is that a recent change is that yeah no okay again I was just asking if that was recent like if that was a recent change.

The staffing was not a recent change but all the mailings and we are continuously mailing notices out to uh potential jurors and when jurors move and we don't have the appropriate information we get our stuff from uh state board of elections or from the the voter register to ensure that we're sending the items out to different residents and we're finding that those residents no longer live there and then we're continuously just remailing items out and getting no responses and that creates other issues when we try to have a jury for a trial thank you thank you so sheriff thank you um for your responses members I want to go back to have a question oh I'm councilwoman trammell I didn't see you in the queue I was just wondering um I guess you knew some of the questions that my colleague was going to ask before today I was just wondering why you didn't come before us earlier and explain these the reasons why you need the the money or the funding well I did not come we've been having this conversation um prior to with budget we've been back and forth having this conversation about funding and the budget came up council staff sent us questions asked us about it I was asked to come come when I was asked to come and I'm here I've I've not been avoiding anybody um I was here last meeting that we had and nobody called me nobody had any questions for me I'm a pretty open book Ms.

Chairman you know anytime you ask me something I'm always willing to have that conversation with you but we've had this conversation with budget since the first day we looked and saw that they had cut contractual spending thank you all right thank you I appreciate that thank you share thank you uh what I want to make sure that we don't lose is going back to the funds that um were found that we now have six persons on the Westover Hills um request for amendment and that those funds could go to address that item want to make sure we have consensus there we still have a lot of questions uh to be answered uh about uh the sheriff's department and contracts and budgets and why it case but that is for future follow-up I just want to make sure we have consensus to use that I think it was a delta of about half million for the Westover Hills.

Yes, ma'am, 500,000.

Yes.

And I meant to state this at the beginning of the work session.

Just a lot of people were talking at that one moment.

As members start to see us proceed through the list and are worried about some priorities or some minutes put forward that might not get addressed with the three point um one eight uh funds available from the reallocation of the gap grant program.

Council still has access to their 1.2 million uh 10% of last year's surplus to put to one-time projects minus for two projects that were already agreed upon, the uh Southside Community Lab and the traffic study.

Um so that that funding is gonna be available to us as well as we try to find for but they one-time funding items will have to be used for that surplus from last year.

But I'll when we take a break, uh, maybe a recess at some point today, I'll provide you uh clarity how we plan to do that.

So we're gonna be able to go through this list some more still and get get several things that has at least five members, if if not four voted on uh with available funding.

Although right now we are on the issue of uh Westover Hills.

I didn't see any disagreement.

I believe we have consensus there.

I do want to go, Councilwoman Robertson.

Miss Yes.

Um in reading the descriptive of what we uh wanting to get done, it sounds like a capital improvement project rather than a general fund.

That is correct.

But you can Westover Hill Elementary School and in speaking to schools about this, and so two questions.

Is this a city within the city property or city right-of-way that the money is capital improvement versus general funds?

And if so, let's answer that, then I can do a follow-up quickly.

You can use uh general fund or CIP for this tour, you can use either fund for this type of project.

We have available general fund dollars right now that can be used towards it.

Um regards to its relationship with RPS, I'll defer to the patron to speak to that.

So I'm not clear, is it general funds CIP funds for capital improvements or is it general funds?

It's general is general fund that we can use for this.

That we have available improvement project.

Yes, ma'am.

You can use cash to do it.

You know, you don't have to use CIP, but that's what we have available for council to decide on what is available to them as general fund dollars for this project.

So we're saying 500 for staffing to do a capital improvement project, which is a cutoff lane.

And is it on school property or in the city right away?

On that specific aspect, I'll defer to the patron if she has more info on that.

When I speak to schools about this, they their position is if this is capital, is this money is for capital improvement, they would rather put a roof on.

And I'm not sure, I just want to I need to know whether it's capital improvement.

Are we asking for 600,000 for 500,000 for staffing for a cutoff for one school?

And it appears that it's a request to do a additional reduction to the school uh sheriff budget, not the reduction that she's speaking of.

Okay.

But we're not talking about accepting the reduction proposed for the sheriffs.

Um in this sense, and I'm sorry it wasn't clear.

Um the consensus was to utilize the funds that were identified as a part of the 3.168, which would mean we would not be accepting uh the cut proposed for the sheriff's budget.

And I'm sorry it wasn't clear in that.

Ms.

Robertson.

Okay, I I still want to be told that this is 500,000 for staffing and not for capital improvement.

It's for a capital to improvement project.

The 500 is general funds for staffing that's needed.

So we're we're using we're using general funds, but this is for a project.

This is for a capital project that is now required because of the work we are doing on Jank Road and the new Westover Park that is going behind Westover Hills Elementary School.

So this is a really a joint project between RPS and the city to ensure that uh the school has the appropriate amount of parking because they're losing on-street parking from Jank Road, uh, that they have appropriate drop-off for families because they are losing their drop-off on Jank Road, and then simultaneous to that, that we're we're working together so that we can build parking and access for West Over Hills Park.

Thank you, Ms.

Albacher.

Um, but we now have clarity on this item.

The amendment in terms of uh Ms.

Alpabacher's description will be accomplished through funding identified out of the 3.168, and we would uh not be um looking to reduce the sheriff's budget for this purpose.

Mr.

Warren, next item.

Well, I we need I need to confirm a consensus of council on that item.

Okay.

Well, I mean, I I can imagine getting to the end of the of the 3.6 million and the another 1.2, and then wondering if $500,000 might still be best redirected.

So given that we still have these questions, I'm I wonder if if we're able to continue the possibility of this cut being used, you know late, you know, further down the list, um, as we still have questions about this contract.

You know, it you know, it does go by 3.5 million dollars from year to year.

You know, we have we have questions about what that means.

And so it there may be something we can do with the 500,000 when we get to the end.

So just the fact that we have other money available doesn't necessarily mean we should give up on the inquiry.

What was proposed to address this particular item was a reduction in the sheriff's office, and so that comes off the table at this point.

We have six persons who were amenable to this um proposed amendment by Miss Albacher.

We're addressing that.

We have the funding, and the proposed this cut was not proposed for anything else.

Well, then I mean, so in that case, then like you know, anyone who is voting to use the pool then is you know, voting against whatever the last $500,000 might be able to support.

Right.

I mean, like if because if we if we stick with the sheriff's cut, what is it off the table because we still have further questions because we're off the table because we've decided that it's inappropriate?

That was proposed for this particular amendment.

We have addressed the funding for the amendment out of funding that was identified.

Uh and so there is so that takes the sheriff's cut off the table at this point.

If we want to at the end of this process, come back with something that was not anywhere proposed other than this item.

That's correct.

Councilwoman Gibson.

Um thank you, Madam President.

Um, you know, I just wanted to speak broadly.

I've expressed this before.

I'm not a huge fan of this informal consensus process because it just becomes a bit muddy in um in whether the consensus is formed um through a true counting of noses versus um it it's it's it's it's just rather difficult to follow.

And so my preference would be that um that at you know, perhaps not in this meeting, um, but um, but that the next meeting that there's a more formal vote.

That's what we do very well here on council is is vote on things.

Um so if it is possible, um, I I think that would be very helpful.

Um, you know, looking at this particular line item in particular, you know, it it does appear that five people signed on to this particular amendment with that cut identified.

Um, and so I am unsure I have not heard explicitly from the five members that they are no longer interested in this line item as it is um uh identified here to be funded.

Yes, um, councilwoman.

Um, just in the interest of moving along as one of the five on this, um I support this project.

I did have questions about the collaboration, just you know, logistics of coordinating with uh RPS.

Um given the information from our sheriff.

Um I would like to hold I I don't support that $500,000 cut.

I do support the project.

Um so if we're talking about trying to move it forward and keep going down the list.

Um I did think the question about how is this reflected in the court's budget?

Uh I imagine the budget that they propose doesn't show a line item for printing that's the same printing category, and that it was submitted to be holistic of what they need in this given year.

Um so I don't think we'll we're likely to find just half a million dollars sitting in that pop if it's something that maybe the budget team could confirm for us as we move on down this list.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And um, councilwoman Gibson um Do Lee noted in terms of how for future meetings um doing count versus um consensus if that is the pleasure of the body.

Mr.

Warren.

Okay.

If we have consensus on that item, we will move to the next, which is the uh Forest Hill Avenue traffic study uh that has six co-patrons put forward also by Miss Abu Baker.

Um that uh would require 100,000 dollars.

I don't know if she has any comments on this particular amendment.

Uh you can highlight that one yellow because uh director Vincent at the last meeting came up so that that would be funded otherwise or was already funded.

I don't know.

It's good.

Okay.

So for the record, the Forest Hill Avenue traffic study will not require an official amendment that is being considered addressed.

And the last item here that has six co-patrons is an increase for the family crisis fund for 100,000.

Support that.

Okay.

Councilmember Jones, were you indicating you want it to be added?

Okay.

Okay, so therefore it would have seven co-patrons.

Um it would come from the pot uh as well for funding for this program.

Okay, my only appears to be a question a question.

Okay.

My my only suggestion on this one would be to pull it from the one-time funding to the 1.5 surplus monies.

Sure.

Understand.

Councilwoman Robertson.

And so I'm part of the funding from the gap is going to cover this, so it's not additional revenue, or is this an addition to it's gonna be from the gap funding or it can be used from the 1.2 FY25 surplus.

So basically, we're gonna go through today and identify what items can be funded through one-time surplus funding and what items can be funded through the general fund for FY27.

100 above what is in the proposed budget.

Yes, ma'am, 100 100 grand increase.

Thank you, Council.

I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

Councilwoman Gibbs.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um, I I would like to support this.

I I'd also be curious to know, you know, this is a program that's that's been um you know in existence.

They the the effort I think is very similar to what is proposed in the gap funding program.

And I would welcome um just an understanding of how much how successful this program has been in being able to um uh uh quickly provide funding for emergent situations given that the corresponding program has been a slower going program.

Um, but I uh I I believe that this program has been effective and and I and I would like to be at it as a co-patron.

Noted.

Okay.

That's receives consensus.

The number of uh six co-patrons, I would recommend that we maybe take a fifteen minute recess um to make sure that the rest of the meeting is productive.

Uh, make sure that uh information is valid and ready to go for the rest of the session, I think it would be beneficial.

Fifteen minutes, we will adhere to I see some uh I don't have consensus on twenty, so fifteen minutes.

And then Mr.

Brighton, did you have a comment before now?

So I mean for ten, because it'll be fifteen.

Members, members.

Members, if you would join me on the day, so that we can get underway again, would appreciate it.

Chief of Staff Warren.

We would go on to the next set of items.

Yes, Madam President.

We will now proceed to items that have a listing of five co-patrons.

We're at the bottom of the half of page two.

These three items are in yellow.

All these items are in yellow because they are being addressed, but just to speak them into the record, the customer service representative to the city assessor, that um transition of the council chief of staff vacancy will proceed moving over there.

Um at uh Broad Rock Sports Complex, and Ms.

Jones is not here at the moment.

Actually, I want to ask a question about process.

Um I have added myself as a co-patron of the um Clark Springs Elementary Property.

And is it um all right?

And and is there any like further ordering that is relevant like within the five that it would impact?

What we've been trying to do is go down from cost.

So that is 125, I believe.

So that would be near the bottom of the number five items.

Oh, we're starting, we're starting large instead of small.

Yes, so you know how much of the pot is being is being taken from as you proceed.

Yep.

And if you make one want a decision if you want to commit a certain amount to what's available.

So we have and the grouping of five, I will just read them off quickly.

We have the splash pad at Broadrock provide um all uh employees who are not included in the uh the July 1st, 3.25 uh salary adjustment.

Uh it would bring all those individuals from January to July.

Youth services programming at Southside Community Center, also put forward by Ms.

Jones.

And lastly, funding for a game room and fitness at Randolph Community Center and the study at Clark Springs.

Uh President New Bill, I'll defer to you now.

You want to get started on these.

Say again, I'm sorry.

How you want to address this since the uh patron for the splash pad is not present at the moment.

We can await her return.

I mean she is coming back, so we'll discuss that.

Just for point of clarification though.

Um Councilwoman Lynch.

If we were to um try to find money for this one, but what are we doing?

Just tell us like where we are so that we know how much this would impact.

David, can you bring up uh the calculator?

So voila.

There you go.

Um on the left is the uh funding made available so far uh from the release of the 3.168, and to the right is the available surplus funding uh from FY25.

Uh those two my those two items were uh identified in December.

The school traffic study uh missed put forward by Mr.

Brenton and the South Side Musical Ad put forward by Miss Jones.

Uh so those are included in that one time funding at this time.

So for the total overall uh in the uh available FY27 funding, you have a little under 1.8 million, and uh we have um sorry, my apologies.

You have 1.368 available, and then um the remaining uh from the 1.2 is a little over 1 million.

I'm sorry, yes, Vice President Jerry.

I just want to confirm the uh dollar amount for the RRS one-time payment that's equivalent to the one percent cola.

I thought you said a higher number is that it's 716.

Uh that number was provided to us today.

The nine, the 900,000 number was if we financed it for a year for 10 years.

Oh, okay.

This number is if we did the one-year payment.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Mr.

Warren, I just want to make sure I'm looking here.

The three point two 3.25% raise July one for all employees.

Yes, that number is uh 961 actually.

Um, but that did not take into effect into account salary uh benefits.

Um so it would go up slightly more than that, um, but roughly around that one million dollar number.

Okay, thank you.

Council Woman Jones.

Thank you, madam president.

I just wanted to add to my um amendments, and I just would like to note that as I stated on last Monday that this has been a budget item that I've had in here for the last two budgets since I was appointed on this council, and there are new priorities in these amendments that are getting funded or getting approval or getting support.

And I just want to put it out there.

So whether it gets funded or not, I want it to be known that we do we talk about prioritization, but we are not prioritizing.

We're prioritizing what we want to prioritize.

And I just want to make that a note, and I want it to be known because like I say, I put this amendment in for almost two years now.

And so, yep, I'm very upset.

And I'm I'm I'm very disappointed in just how we move and I want to speak to what Ms.

Gibson said about it doesn't feel good sitting here trying to like do you have a do you have enough votes?

And in the same way you we say we people begging for money, we over here scratching to get co-patrons on papers and not even really looking at these projects in a way that would benefit the community.

And so if we're gonna sit up here and say that that's what we're trying to do, then we really need to do that.

And I don't feel like this is the form to really be able to do that because we're not looking at this stuff.

Otherwise, we would know that some of this stuff has been a need for years, and not just today because you can eloquently speak to your your idea or your project.

Thank you, Councilmember Jones.

I uh certainly um hear you.

This is a project that's been in for multi years, but we've had projects that's taken much longer than any of us would have liked based on the availability of resources.

I hear you, and uh a process that lends itself to even more of that kind of due diligence moving forward.

Can I call you back?

We would look to I want to have more conversations about this and about how we really look at what we fund right here when this budget is approved.

I want to continue to discuss it.

And this is not about, and I said it on Monday, I'm going to say it again.

This is not about the ninth district.

This is about young people across this city.

And I want to be able to see in our budget how we are funding and we are funding equitably.

And when we don't have certain things in the areas of the city and other places do, that is not equitable.

And so I want to continue to have a conversation after this budget and continue to talk about what we are truly doing to fund and be equitable.

Thank you.

And uh absolutely in terms of that conversation.

Um councilwoman Trammel.

I think Mass.

I just want to say that you know, this is up to us council, not our chief of staff.

I think he's just he's doing a great job considering.

But I want to say that I agree with you because I know that over there at TV Smith Community Center, we have that, and it keeps the children.

That's what that's why we want these community centers to get the children off the street and keep them off the street.

And to me, that's why I added my name to it because I see all the children over there.

I see because it's fun.

It's fun for the adults, it's fun for the children because they get over there, because you know, I don't have a pool in my just well, over there in that area, you don't have a pool over there at the um Southside Community Center.

So, whatever we can do to make it fun for the children and make it so that they want to.

I mean, teenagers, I've seen teenagers jump, and it's like it's fun.

So I support you, and and but it's up to us.

It's up to us to say, hey, if we got to cut the mayor, got to cut CAO for something as we say for the youth for our children, that's what we have to do.

Thank you, Ms.

Trammel.

Councilwoman Robertson.

Uh, yeah, thank you, madam chair.

Um, I uh first of all, let me I want to commend RJ for his leadership and what he's done to try to help and support us getting through this budget process.

But I will say that uh in a lot of ways it seems to become a polarized process if you can get five people or six people to sign on.

And when we look at the sign off and where the majority of the funding is being appropriated, this is not an equitable budget.

And five patrons um and the collaboration uh to certain sectors of the city versus others is very obvious.

Um, and for the council to be able to really seriously think about what makes a difference and where we're going with the city and our total strategic planning process.

Um, you know, that process broke down after the first meeting with Ms.

Gibson asked for a budget, and the next thing we are doing community meetings where that the administration is having, and we didn't get to a place of even strategically coming to an agreement of do you put cola and retirees above or kids above, you know.

Do you deal with you know where the ills are in the community in the city?

And um, you know, I just don't think that you know, I appreciate the time management, you know, time management becomes the highest priority uh rather than quality and really making sure we're doing sustainable sustainable change to bring about the kind of quality living that we want to have in the city.

And um, so you know, we're far down in this process, we're ready to get out of the here.

We're just kind of, you know, everybody's getting a little burned out.

Um, and when you look at even the things that the administration have agreed to, that is funding already available.

Um there's a lack of equity of any sort in that representation of what where money is already being appropriate and founded.

So, you know, we really do need to look back.

Um, you know, I know uh polo has been an issue on this council for the past 20 years.

Every year we fight, we talk about cola, we don't get there.

And a lot of that is because of mistakes that we made, wrong decisions, I should say, that were made by the people that retired were never paying into a retirement system.

And trying to retrofit correct errors that were made and hopefully aren't still being made, but um I share uh the frustration.

Um I did not expect, I mean, it's very obvious when you look at the number of co-patrons and what is being co-patroned, the alignment is that being made, and it is not about equity, it's not about inclusing, and it's not about prioritizing really things that are sustainable change in the city.

And if we think that we all we'll play in a game with this house.

Thank you, Councilmember Robertson, uh Jones.

Um, as we move forward beyond this, those are items.

Correct.

So we are ready to proceed on uh more than items, but major concerns to be addressed.

Yes, 100%.

Yes.

Um moving forward on these uh we'll go in order of cost.

Um the first item up here is the splash pad broad rock sports complex.

I need to receive consensus on council's decision on that item.

Yeah, no question.

No.

Vice President Jordan.

Um thank you.

This was one that I support.

I'm just wondering, since we do have our director of parks and rec here, if maybe can speak to like what would it take to do this this year?

I don't know.

Um I know we've seen some collaboration or coordination with administration on where they were able to fund things from the existing budgets, but um, is administration able to speak to what is holding us back from moving this forward among the many CIP projects and parks and rec projects for this fiscal year.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, for this budget we're voting on.

Um I'm just speaking.

This is on page three of the document.

Good afternoon, Chris Frokey, Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Facilities.

Uh Councilor Jordan, currently we only have 250,000 in the capital improvement projects for all our aquatic facilities.

That includes all pools, all splash pads, and all pantoms.

So for a new splash pad, the 1.5 million, we just don't have that in the existing funds to cover that.

Excuse me.

Um just wanted to get a clarification.

I know I'll come back.

Yeah.

Um is 1.5 the full value.

Are there ways to phase it or and what is your budget look like, I guess next year?

Part of the challenge when you don't have the full funding to do a project like this.

You can design it, you can through the permit process, you can do those pieces.

But if you don't have the funding to do that, as we've learned, I think with several of the projects within our district when we previously did that, the permit process changed, different things changed, and so then we have to go back, spend additional dollars to make sure we're doing that when we have the year's funding for it.

So it does create a little bit of a challenge if we don't have it fully funded when we do those different pieces.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Trammel.

She has the question.

Thank you.

Actually, I'm I'm sorry, Mr.

Fralke, for having you get all the way back there.

I do have a question.

So you indicated not having funding at this point for the entirety of the project, but the first phase of it is that what is that cost design phase, all of that?

We haven't explored what the exact uh again, Chris Frontkey Director Park Trunk Recreation, we haven't explored what that piece would be in that.

Um, and like I said, we typically have not tried to just design things because prior to coming here, we had a lot of designs that we never implemented uh because we didn't have appropriate funding for that.

So sometimes that's not the best use of our dollars to design if we don't know we're gonna have the dollars actually and build out also.

Okay, thank you.

Councilwoman Robertson.

Okay, I may have missed this um earlier.

Um so the administration say we have money if I'm reading this correct for the fund citywide school safety study recommendation, uh five million dollars capital improvement plan.

I can speak to that.

I think though DBW might do a better job, but what that means is they did not find any money for it, but um the standard method by which DPW gets transportation grants is expected to fund all those projects through the natural course of transportation grants.

So they're calling it yellow by saying you don't need to actually do anything in the budget for it because the standard process of applying for state and federal grants will cover that project.

So that project did not get any money.

I think we've only we've only voted for actually like one physical location item so far.

Um and now we're on the second.

What you said one the only one we've done is uh Abu Bakr's you know bus loop for the school.

Um that's the only one that we've actually voted for, and now we're now we're on the the second.

But okay, but let me not clear.

I just want to be clear.

Um the funding for Westover at 500.

Are we saying that's already in the budget?

Is that no?

That has been uh allocated today to the center.

It's not yellow.

Oh, well, my point was to say that in terms of what we've been voting on today, you know, only one item has been like a a geographical item, you know, and that was Abu Baker's um money for the funding at Jank Road for the school.

Um, and then we are we are now at the second one.

So just in terms of like you know, the progress that we're making, like we're already we've already gotten to this this project, and we still have a few million dollars left to go, and and we can now discuss the feasibility of it.

Um which is a separate question from what you asked me, which is where'd you find this five million dollars for traffic studies?

And I said we didn't, um, but it's yellow because those projects will simply be funded through the natural course of transportation.

So I didn't get any extra consideration.

They just explained that those will be handled through the usual course of grants.

Yeah.

So I'm moving forward to the next amendment that did not proceed consensus.

I need clarification on that.

Well, actually, I still I mean I'm it's a pretty interesting thing.

Um I was I didn't understand the answers that we got about what it would take and what whether there's like a phased approach.

I um I was interested to hear more, but maybe that we've heard everything there is to hear.

So Mr.

Warren, if I understand correctly, because I'm trying to run with the balance in terms of funds based on the items that we've approved that have come and whether or not we would even have enough funding to do this out of what's there.

And the remaining of the um general fund dollars we have 1.368, and then remaining in the surplus, we have one million uh eighty thousand dollars.

So there is not current, there is uh a little over there's not currently enough in the uh general fund budget.

Thank you.

And we still have some other items.

Okay, okay, so we still have other items, and it seems that we we don't have enough to um for the full project, and then we don't have any indication what even a phase with a design phase would be.

So I don't see how we can proceed with this one.

Okay.

At this time.

All right.

We will move on to the the next proposed amendment, and that is to provide a 3.25 raises for all city staff uh beginning July 1.

So as of right now, um union and semi-union uh individuals in this building would receive their increase on July 1st.

Um a number of individuals will receive employees will receive theirs January instead as a cost saving measure.

And what this would do is just ensure that everyone in the building receives theirs on July 1st.

And as I said, the cost here noted is 947,000, but that did not include benefits.

Um so it will go up to um we'll say a million dollars, and we'll have to kind of facilitate um you know, sharing up that number uh by the few thousand that might be off.

Okay, just a point of clarification the 3.25 raise that would be applicable for all employees, July Y.

Yes, ma'am.

Um the amount seems to continue to change.

What I thought we started with was 948, then 961.

And did you just say one million?

Yes, we did, and we need to include benefits as well, and that's gonna be calculated, but it will still be roughly around a million dollars.

Okay, thank you.

Councilwoman Gibson.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um this this I appreciate um council member Abu Bakr bringing this forward.

Um, last year at this time, um uh she and myself both were were looking for opportunities on on providing additional revenue for council amendments um and identified that there were uh number of staff making upwards of 175,000, 200,000, um, and that by uh adjusting the the percentage for those individuals that um it it would provide perhaps one more equity in terms of pay disparity within the city and two um uh provide some funding that could be allocated towards other things.

Um in the proposal that was introduced by the mayor, rather than going that same path to um to reduce the inequity, the the line was made by um determining whether folks were in a union or not.

And I I find this approach disappointing because uh this language suggests that there are um employees who are have a distinction that um are not in a union but still are making the average, you know, an average salary um and and have cost of living needs that everyone else sees.

Um and so I uh would uh would support this amendment, but but keeping the same distinction that we had in the past where um where we do uh provide more equity and raises, right?

Which is that you know, if you're if you if you make 200,000 a year, you're you get a three percent raise.

That's a big chunk of money that the rest of the folks in the city don't see.

And so if there is any interest in um uh in in exploring a way to do this that it provides just a bit more justice, if you will, I'd be happy to um to sign my name here.

Okay, good afternoon, good.

Good and would you chief of staff?

Um, I just want one point of clarity there.

Um, since you were representing the um intent of the mayor's budget, it was not union membership or non-union membership.

Um it was um positions equivalent um to what was already agreed upon um in those collective bargaining units.

If somebody was not in a union or not in a collective um bargaining unit, but was doing equivalent work, they also were included because we also did not want to penalize or draw lines based on union membership.

Just wanted to clarify okay.

All right.

We have well, can I ask what a question?

Mr.

Bright.

So then question for about the ways they would use it for Mr.

Jeser about what that means.

Does that mean that without this amendment, the way the mayor's budget, it makes a distinction between types of work that have a union and types of work that don't, but not whether or not you're in the union in that type of work.

Is that what that the mayor's recommended budget does?

Yeah, the mayor proposal actually provides a raise to everyone in the government.

And the way that it was provided was to be able to provide more room in the budget for you to make decisions like you're making today.

So whenever you give anyone a raise, it's almost like an annuity.

You will now forever more, it's like your cola.

When you do a cola every year, that is the new salary for each person.

What we did here is for those highest uh paid employees for which were identified in the previous year, we made sure to provide them also with a raise uh so that no one in the government is left out, but we phased it in so that it begins in January so that it does not have the same level of cost.

So essentially the annuity starts later uh in the process.

So it does not segment between union and non-union.

What it does is it helps to lower the cost in the interim so that people can still receive their raises, is just time delayed.

It's actually something that was borrowed from the District of Columbia, uh, the city of Atlanta, and I believe Charlotte or another is Charlotte O'Reilly, one of the other large cities in the state of North Carolina does that as well.

It lowers the fiscal impact.

Councilwoman Gibson.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um I would love to see just like an export that shows the proposed if you could export by by um by job title to see um you know the the fiscal year 26 salary and then compare it to the fiscal year 27 proposed salary.

That would be um that would be helpful to see.

Got it.

And you want to do that for I'm assuming union, non-union.

Can you give some insight on that?

Yes, to have if you could include a column that notes whether or not those positions, which positions um fall into a bargaining unit, that would be great.

Got it.

So everyone who falls into a bargaining unit where their CBA has already been negotiated and we're just honoring it.

You sure I think we understand our numbers, folks know what you're looking for.

I hope.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Robertson.

Yes.

Would this amendment would provide the July increase to executive assistance in this building to analysts, auditors, um not just high earners in this building?

Um Madam President, have we have we kind of say again?

I mean, this one this seems like a worthwhile amendment.

Um have we looked at in context of the over the other amendments?

Can this work with our two kind of pots of money?

Uh, I mean when it comes as we proceed for there's there's adequate funding for this at this time.

Let's wrap it up.

I certainly would um support that the amendment as as we put forward so that yes, we want our members of our unions we want to preserve and make sure we are looking at internal equity across the employee categories for our city.

So if I could get some consensus on this I believe so.

Thank you.

Okay, go ahead.

All right.

How does that impact the outstanding balance that we have right now?

I think that is considered in there, correct?

It's so under.

It's a little less than what we first anticipated given the number increased.

Okay.

So we have 462,000 available in the general fund and still a little over a million remaining to be used from the surplus.

The next item is uh youth and senior programming outside at Southside Community Center.

Um that amendment request is for 300,000.

And uh Ms.

Jones is the patron of that one.

Right.

Yeah, sure.

I don't think that I mean we have say again.

Yeah, I mean, we have in terms of the number of patrons here.

Um I think pretty much consensus.

Yes, Mr.

Warren, next item.

Sure.

All right.

That's received consensus for that matter.

All right.

The next item is uh two put forward by Ms.

Lynch.

First would be uh wait one second, sorry.

Okay.

Next would be uh funding for uh game room and fitness equipment upgrades at the Randolph Community Center.

Uh that request is for 40,000.

We're still looking at five, Mr.

Warren, and I'm not seeing any hands going up.

No, I didn't support that.

We've received consensus on that.

That can be at that's a one-time funding that can be done with the uh available surplus.

Okay.

We will now proceed to the items that have um yes, uh been informed that uh one miscalculation was incorrect on here, and that Clark Springs had five co-patrons, so um that will be addressed, and it is an appropriation for funds for the redevelopment and planning of Clark Springs Elementary School.

Um it was informed to me that Ms.

Jones had co-patroned that, so that has five items.

Yes, ma'am.

No, okay, that isn't correct, then we will proceed as the list says.

Okay.

Um the next item then is the neighborhood displacement investment tax performance grant put forward by Ms.

Robertson that has four co-patrons.

The cost of that is 1.5 million.

Um of available funding, which I do not believe we have access to at this time.

Yes, we are on the top of page five.

Question, Ms.

Yes, Councilwoman Robertson.

Uh go back to whichever one, what page the uh clock spring is on.

We will proceed, we will get that in a moment, but go ahead.

Okay.

Okay.

All right, we will then move on to the um Richmond Ambulance Authority.

They had a request for uh 800,000 to complete their fleet.

This is received for co-patrons, and there is available funding in the one-time surplus dollars uh to complete that request.

Is there a consensus on that item?

Oh, sorry, I was waiting to show the balance so that folks could see that we have sufficient resources in the out of the 3.6A to cover that and then to see if there was uh a question.

Councilmember Trammell.

Thank you, madam president.

I know that on Sarity, um, thank God that we had the MLMs over there at the um 2026 Monument Um 10K Monument Avenue 10K.

There was 14 people that was taken to the hospital for heat.

Stroke, all of that.

And no telling how many um how many MLAMPs treated the runners that were there because someone refused to go to the hospital, but thank God they had them on scene to help.

And then also there was another incident um with two little babies that um I don't know everything, but I know that thank God we had the ambulance there that were there to transport both of those two toddlers, twins to the hospital because they couldn't be in the same MLS because they had to be treated different, each one of them.

So I'm begging my colleagues to please support this because we never know when one of us might need to call 911 and and re and have to have a rescue squad take us to the hospital or to even um because you can't be put in a fire truck and you sure can't be put into a police car to be taken to a hospital.

And I just thank um Chip Decker, the CEO for all his hard work and his staff and his and his board, the board members.

Um we listen and we hear, and we know that this is something that we need to definitely fund today.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you.

And duly noted I was out for the Sports Backers event, which was a great event in the city, both for the children who ran, but also for the adults.

And yes, that having that resource present because this was an unusual race where there's so much the the weather was just pretty unprecedented for the weather.

And so certainly do thank our uh RAA membership for members and staff for their presence there.

Uh councilwoman Gibson.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um, I'd like to uh support that amendment.

Um and and would love to to work to find funding for it if if there are not available funds from what we've allocated so far.

Um I I wanted to ask about um some of the items that were um noted as being addressed by administration just for for clarity.

Sure.

Um councilwoman Gibson before you move um to those items.

Can we get closure on this item?

Yeah, is there consensus on the Richmond name of that's authority?

I believe so.

I mean five.

Thank you.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Just closing that.

Yeah.

Back to you, Councilman Gibson.

Thank you.

So this is page for I had two items.

Um, one of them is the additional FTE for the inspector general and audit team.

Um, this would be a person that would do proactive investigations, and um, I'm thankful for the support from my colleagues.

But and so it's noted that it is addressed by administration.

I just wanted to understand what sure how that it's potentially addressed by city administration because we're we're working with them to see if we can identify current vacancies to make that request still to be to confirm when we gotta you know finish the collaboration on that.

Okay, but um though the council only put in a request for a few FTE positions, um, then that's one of the ones we're working on.

Well, that is a commitment from the administration.

I we still have to identify the the the vacancy for it.

The question I had to on this item was regarding the note um that said IG is under council and funding will need to be provided by council's amendments.

That seemed contrary to how we're addressing the rest of the budget.

Yes, that um I believe that was just a miscommunication, and that should be taken off.

Okay, great.

Yeah.

And then um, and then for the uh additional uh five FTEs and social services, the administration has made an agreement that this would happen too.

I I I want to ensure that for these things where the note says addressed by administration that um that means that that will be included in print in the budget as such.

100%.

Yeah.

Thank you.

At least in the council documents that will be included with the uh amended legislation.

Um I think we will need follow-up because many of the ones that we have worked with people on, what we're saying is that we can address them in a budget neutral way.

There's some that where there would be changes made, but some where there would not be a change to the budget.

There's some that where there would be changes made, but some where there would not be a change to the budget, we're saying that we are able to address that need in budget neutral ways.

So I think we should make sure that we're all speaking the same language.

The um a better way to phrase it is a formal amendment is not necessary to address that matter.

Um you know, I I'm not gonna look at gift horse in the mouth, but just for accountability, I do want to ensure that there is a way to ensure that these agreements are upheld, and and I think that the budget document is the document to do that, whether it be through a note or a line item, but um, but uh you know uh I I don't intend to uh peer um concern, but I I do have had experience where that when it's not explicit that they're can leave room for interpretation, and so you know, given that we also have a line item here of providing more transparency, for instance, and how you know safe street funding is used.

I think it's important to make this budget document as explicit as possible, whether they are budget neutral changes or otherwise.

We'll review that and there'll be council documents attached to the budget on these agreements, and I plan to uh request that us as council staff do 30-day follow-ups uh on implementation.

But I I think to Miss Gibson's point, we're also talking about clear delineation of these positions in the budget document.

Yeah, it would be required.

That would be the follow-up as you're also if the agreement is we're able to make that happen, it would require it to be in there.

Yeah, okay, thank you.

Councilmember Robertson.

Uh yeah, I just wanted to weigh in on this because um when we are not specific as it relates to these kinds of uh you know, finding monies, positions that's those kind of things.

I experience is that it doesn't happen the way that we thought that it would happen too frequently.

And when changes are made as relates to vacancies or whatever, uh, we don't want to be surprised that significant decreases in like for example the discussion we just had about the sheriff department, and those are decisions that are made afterwards to satisfy this promise without council fully knowing what those changes are going to be.

So I've experienced that over and over year from year.

And it's not covered in the way that we the budget amendment is requesting, so specifics on that.

And then once we adopted the budget, we out of the game.

We can't come back and make any changes, so it's problematic from that perspective.

Understood.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Gibson, you uh thank you.

The the other piece to that is that um last year when we adopted the budget, it took some time before the revised budget book was published.

And so um, you know, it was adopted, and the expectation was that you know, that day or you know, that we would see it.

So my I I think it would be very like when I was on the school board, the you know, the budget book was part of the vote, and um, and if there were amendments made, it was adopted or revised and then published again with some expedience.

I I think it would be very helpful that prior to the vote, given that we are working on these amendments that we are voting with the actual budget document, so that we're seeing that um, and it's not something that's published, say, two months out.

I mean, I I do recall there was a significant delay between the adoption and the publication of the final adopted budget.

Understood.

Thank you, Mr.

Warren.

Uh yes, uh, the last item that has um uh at least four co-patrons to be addressed is appropriation of funds for the redevelopment planning of Clark Springs Elementary School, which would require 125, which could be done.

Um, check my numbers uh through the one-time surplus funding.

And is there consensus on that item?

I'm sorry, I was looking at the numbers there.

Councilmember Jones.

Thank you, Madam President.

That's had a quick question for this amendment.

Has the school board approved this?

Because this is this is to hire a consultant to do study, right?

Has this been approved through the school board as well?

And can we do that?

Can we make an amendment to do a study on a school that we don't oversee?

So I just want to be clear is like the school board approved this as well.

Um yeah, we actually had a school board uh school board member Purcell's not with us anymore, but um we we just um I wish he was because um he would he could speak to this uh school board member Rossi who chairs the vacant facility committee um and I have had several meetings with um Miss Ebert, and you can attest to this that the school uh uh superintendent cameras and um the new COO Richter or new COO um who's responsible for um facilities and capital uh improvement projects, new schools plans, et cetera.

Um we all met and that was that was the their suggestion or their recommendation and their ask is that there uh we would have some resources and we do kind of a shared collaboration with them so that because they don't have that expertise in house to know how to do the procurement kind of the affordable housing piece of this development that would include because it's going to you know kind of proposal is to have open high school or a new school in place where Clark Springs is and then affordable housing mixed use development um in that's that's my that's my point.

That's why I'm asking has the school board, not two school board members, has the school board also approved this from a consultant standpoint.

Well, the the consultant would actually be working for the city office of economic development, yes.

It would not be through RPS.

It is it has to remain a school, like that site has to remain a school.

So we are inherently linked and tied to RPS, and they are in agreement um and would like it to make remain a school.

The reason being is that if it ever converts to any other use in a school, then it automatically goes back to Riverview Cemetery.

Um so their interest is to work with us and have kind of a collaborative process with us, but the really the first step um to that, there's nothing to really bring to the whole school board body at this moment.

The consultant would really help with kind of the stakeholder engagement, helping um helping the school board and the superintendent's office kind of navigate through this collaboration with us.

Um well, I'm not gonna go back and forth with it, but I do think that they should be a part of that conversation and not just too specifically when we're talking about housing, and we know that that is an area that has been heavily gentrified.

I think that that is definitely a conversation that should be all inclusive, and especially if we put in money to support it.

I think we need a it should be a conversation that is all encompassing.

That's this is my POB, but I couldn't agree with you more.

I mean, I'm excited about the opportunity to collaborate, have to have this be a really awesome model for collaboration with um with our with RPS and the community.

I mean, this is really this ask came from all of our seniors who were aging in place in Randolph who want an affordable senior um housing opportunity who we who we have young um families who would like to stay in that neighborhood who go back generations who would like affordable housing um opportunities and um and so this really was commute led by or this idea, this concept um was you know didn't come out of thin air.

It was really a culmination of many years of our neighbors asking for more affordable housing and for their to to not have a vacant school building for that to go to good use, and and our and our so many RPS families who year after year get stuck on open wait, you know, on the waiting list for open.

So we need a new school.

Councilwoman Robertson.

Uh yes, um I think Ms.

Lynch vision for that location is extraordinary.

I like it.

Um I have had some conversation with some of the school board members.

And they're the communications that I've had suggests that we um they are more interested in looking at um some of the other facilities as a high priority.

They already have a priority list as to what they're doing with facilities.

And the school itself, they said it's in pretty needs quite a bit of work done.

Not sure whether or not that's a restoration process that but the indication was that putting a plan together this time with them having this in their line of priorities would probably not be something that they would support moving forward on their level of priorities of facilities that they have lined up.

So that's the feedback that I've gotten personally.

And I mean, I love the concept.

I think it's beautiful, but I think we would be making better progress to have the um inventory surplus back to the city, and then we can move forward.

So totally agree.

This is not in their facilities master plan priorities, which is why open is nowhere in their um priorities to be rebuilt or renovated, which is why the triple P partnership and having the exploration of that model is so important because I don't think that CIP dollars are gonna fall out of the sky anytime soon for a new uh for that for Clark Sperance to be renovated.

It cannot be anything, it cannot be surplus back to the city.

It cannot be anything but a school use, and that is because and uh um PCO Ebert might be able to share more light on this or our council can.

Um there is a um ordinance on that property that if that is anything other than a school, it reverts back to Riverview.

The deed reverts back to Riverview Cemetery.

Um Councilwoman Gibson, and then we'll move forward.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um, and I appreciate the discussion to ensure alignment between the actions that we take today that that impact Richmond Public Schools and the will of that body.

Um my suggestion is that because we've had a couple of discussions about other other items, um uh other schools where we're looking to provide funding, you know.

I it it would be really helpful to see uh complete facilities plan from the school board um with timelines in terms of you know what they would like to see uh renovated and when, you know, that long-term plan.

This is something I I recall voting on early in my tenure.

Um I I believe that there's been ongoing discussion on this um uh recently, and I apologize, I don't recall timing for that, but I do think it would be very helpful um for us to request this and definitely to receive in time for next year's budget planning process that that as a matter of process, you know, that we always receive the latest facilities plan um to help us prioritize the decisions and how funding is allocated for various school projects.

Well, I mean, I was gonna Mr.

Breton.

Okay, I think something's happening.

Mr.

Breton trying to do that.

Well, thank you.

Okay.

I mean, my understanding was that the I mean, this is because this is our our funding, you know, this this is um not gonna show up in the school's CIP plan, but you know, in discussion with my colleague, he was supportive of it.

Uh Stephanie and Ms.

Lynch is saying that on their end, they're getting nothing but support.

This sounds like a positive partnership, um, something that they would need us to partner with them on, and they have indicated that they want our partnership on, so they can't do it themselves.

We need a portable housing.

Um, this is an opportunity that we've heard support from RPS to do.

And so um, so anyway, I'm I'm in support of this.

It's a um, you know, I like to add my name as a co-patron because I've I've gotten the support from my colleague on school board that is what they're in support of.

Councilwoman Woman Jones.

I just want to add that um I did speak with the school board chair, and she is not aware of this, and so I do think that we do need to make sure that before we approve anything that it is lockstep.

Again, we're hearing about individual school board members, and I think just in terms of integrity that we need to make sure that they are a part of this before we approve any funding.

I'm gonna do one more round and then we need to get to a decision here.

Councilwoman Gibson, further comment on this.

I don't have further comment on this.

I wanted to speak to the next item.

Okay, but then if you could just hold that so we can dispense with this item.

Given all that's been shared at your pleasure.

Councilmember Lynch.

I think we have five pages.

There's five members that support this.

I understand.

I didn't know if you based on what's been shared, if there was desire to have more conversation with RPS leadership, etc.

I am very committed to working in lockstep with RPS and have been on this project.

So I'm excited.

I think this will be a great catalyst for for further partnership and collaboration.

Thank you.

Uh I would say it looks like there's probably consensus without seeing hand raising.

Okay.

Yes, please use the surplus funding for that item.

It's 125.

Okay, can you go back to the calculator for a second?

Um between the two funds, as you can see, you have 107,000 remaining in general fund dollars and uh 115 of the remaining uh surplus uh from FY25, so a little over um 200,000 dollars.

We are now going to round we are now reached where there are three co-patrons items, and um President New Bell, I'll defer to you now how you would like to move forward on on this matter.

Do we want to go to items that could have put that these either this that the available funding could go towards?

Um Ms.

Gibson has her mic on.

Sorry, Councilmember Gibson.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um I wanted to speak uh regarding the virtual academy item.

There are currently three co-patrons, and then I have an item um page uh seven um for that would I believe it's page seven, my apologies.

Um to fund RPS.

Um and have identified funding sources that total, I believe about 2.2 million dollars.

Um if council member trammel is supportive of um merging our our our items.

Um I'm also happy to to co-patron her item.

I'd be happy to revise mine to focus on the uh virtual academy.

Um and then uh you know uh it may make sense since I've identified, I think, like I said, at about 2.2 million dollars in revenue.

Um while we may not make the full funding of the 3.2 that they've um uh estimated the program would cost, I think that providing the 2.2 million dollars is allocated would certainly ensure that some iteration of the program would still exist.

Um and that would bring that item to four for co-patrons, I believe.

Ms.

Gibson, just a question for you relative to RVA.

Um it is 3.2 was the number I was hearing as full implementation at some point that may have changed.

Then I heard a million as an iteration that would get high school RVA.

Do you have uh any or do we have more information from schools maybe out RJ relative to RVA and uh staff all we received is what they referenced in their um in their proposed budget that was adopted by their school board stating 3.2.

I have no additional you know information about a um okay partially funded, like partially implemented plan.

So what I'd like to ask, since we have almost exhausted the funding that was out of the three point one six eight if the next set of items would we could make any headway there and then can go to those that we haven't even looked at funding.

Yeah, so Ms.

Gibson has put forward proposed reductions to fund this amendment.

Out of the 3.168.

I know.

So she's identified her own.

This is on page nine.

She has identified proposed reductions to to meet this request.

Right, but I'm saying we still have some funding remaining out of the 3.168.

There are items that could possibly with that balance be addressed and taken off the table.

Because it's not significant.

You're talking about 2.2 million.

It is not 2.2 million remaining.

I mean, in terms just in from a process standpoint, given that we've gone through these um revisions based on the number of co-patrons.

Um this is uh this would now bring this paper to having four co-patrones.

So I think it would make sense for us to discuss it next.

Do I was think we were at three?

Okay, and you were saying that we had three of them that had three pay.

So I thought we I apologize.

I thought we were at the count of three.

So let's go there.

Sure.

Um I may require the administration to help discuss this matter since it notes uh she suggested um reductions that were take place in the city administration to to fund this.

Um for instance, and please correct me, Ms.

Gibson if I'm wrong on your new calculations, but um you have the first guy being strategic communication and then civic engagement, no FT increases.

Um you noted a 220,000 dollars press secretary that has never been filled, uh market uh analysts social media communications position, and then for economic development, um business attraction, you would request that 650,000 be reduced, economic development business retention expansion 400,000 would be reduced.

And then in neighborhood and community, you would request that eight fewer new FTEs removing an additional and your list of positions here be removed, and um an economic development facade improvements grant program.

You've requested that uh 250,000 be removed to facilitate uh the funding for this request.

Yeah.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Yeah, the this is correct.

And I I want to emphasize again, it's it's not that I'm sure all of these programs have merit.

Um, but but this uh the virtual academy is a program that serves uh students with significant special needs.

Um they are uh amongst the most vulnerable in our community, and the program has really been um incredibly successful.

It's one of the district's few uh fully accredited programs, it has a hundred percent graduation rate, and as I've mentioned before, I I think it really should be a model for urban school districts across and definitely in the state, um, perhaps beyond.

And so um these uh these funds I think are um are reasonable places to pull from, you know, we're talking about positions that have not been filled, um, you know, social media.

While I I work in marketing myself, I I I value the the the channel, but I think that um when it comes to prioritization, it's it's uh it's it's a no-brainer.

Ms.

Gibson, I was just making sure I was on the correct, I have a couple of versions of you.

Thank you.

Sorry about that.

Yeah, so I believe that these add up to about 2.2 million.

Um, and I would be in support of uh making this amendment, a 2.2 million dollar amendment um to put towards the virtual academy, and um, and that would allow that program to continue in some iteration.

And you know, as we my colleague, council member Jones was at, you know, emphasizing the value of ensuring that the things that we put funding for have the support of the school board.

I do want to emphasize that this is something that was submitted in the Richmond Public Schools budget, which was adopted by um the required majority.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Trammell.

Thank you, Madam President.

I want to thank my colleague for explaining all of that because we know that um we've heard the parents and the teachers come here and pour their heart out for these children.

And you know, we have enough bullying going on in the schools now.

And can you imagine if you were to put those children into the classrooms and with some of their special needs that they have, um, that would be horrible.

I think that um you know, we always say that we want to do the right thing by this by this by these children in our city, and we know that there are more children that would love probably to be in classes where they wouldn't be willing because of whatever the reasons are.

I I definitely will hope that my colleagues would support this and with um and also support um what the Skipson has proposed with all the schools because they they need this so that we can have them in the schools, want to be in school and not be out on the street.

Also, I want to thank all the mothers that I see out there um doing soccer with the children, um, baseball at TB Smith Community Center and also in the 9th district at the at the community center.

You go out there and you see all these children just all over the place, and you rather have them in a central location than have them on the street.

Well, we got to call 911 because one of them's been shot or stabbed, and then they're rushed to the hospital.

Um, and and then, you know, or other things could leak up.

But I think that the most important thing is to support all of her amendments that she has right now.

Thank you, Madam President, with the schools.

Thank you.

Um, Councilwoman Trammell, Campbell, Councilwoman June.

Thank you, Madam President.

I just had a quick question.

Is there um or did we get this information already from I know we are speaking highly about you know the um students with disabilities that attend the virtual academy?

Um, but did we get like a list then of because it's my my understanding that all of this that they are also a large, there's a large population of non-specioed um students that attend the virtual academy.

So I just want to make sure that based off of what is being requested to be funded, that we are aware of what the full population of the school is, including graduating seniors, et cetera.

Did we do we have any of do we have that information?

We were we sent those questions to RBS.

We received responses and we reported on to council members after we're yes, ma'am.

Okay, so I missed that.

I did we get answers to those questions specifically, like the number of graduating students.

Trying to identify that now quickly, see if we did the case.

Yeah, the number of these identifying students and the demographics and population that are non-special ed, um, that would be super helpful.

Okay.

Uh, and then yeah, uh just to note on this proposed reduction uh after speaking with my um counterparts uh administration that um right now the collaboration that they're doing with us to find vacancies for some of the position requests you all put in.

If these reductions were to take place, it would uh limit their ability to find their those vacancies for us for the other positions requested by members.

That was clear.

Vice President Jordan.

Thank you.

Um I struggle with cutting uh these funds without understanding and hearing from the agencies that they're impacted.

Um a lot has happened since we first submitted our amendments.

Do we even know if these vacancies still exist?

Would be you know part of that concern for me.

And then while it this did receive support from school board, it was not in their original budget.

And I know we have concerns any time we add on to the school budget in our amendment process that once we send it over, it might not end up in a different priority.

So I have concerns about this one and primarily want to hear more about the budget cuts.

I know I mean, just for example, the 250,000 for the facade grant program.

I mean, that's something that second district and sixth district have been working with downtown business leaders um for years trying to work through recommendations from the Broad Street Task Force, et cetera.

Um these are all funds supporting small businesses and enrichmenters here.

So I struggle with these cuts.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Robertson.

Thank you, ma'am chair.

Um I've had some conversation with schools, some of the school board members uh as it relates to this.

And so I agree with we previously we said about the reductions, we weren't agreeing to that, but if the reductions that we uh identify in order to fund an amendment includes non-departmental financing, include you know, economic development, community development, um, you know, some of these departments are the only place where we are doing stuff that generates kind of revenue to continue to be able to operate the city at the level that we want need to um without adding additional expenses to the taxpayer.

Um so I'm I'm concerned about what we are funding, but also what cuts we are making and not elaborating on the impact, the cuts are in order to find the revenue to fund uh some of these uh priorities that um that we are looking at or that have certain number of patrons.

Um now in and we're talking about and when we get the information from rich public schools.

Um uh I think it is important that we recognize that we don't have any control of what they decide they're gonna do even if we send them the money, and that's what they pretty much said with facilities as to their priorities to put a roof on rather than to do uh something else that we may be proposing.

Um they also have mentioned several things as it relates to the funding for the academy um, whether or not full-time council teachers are needed, and whether or not um so there are a lot of programmatic kinds of things that I can't make those decisions on, and I think we need to get more detailed information from them.

I mean just got an email that said we have 100% graduation because we only have one student.

I don't know if that's true or not, but um I think we do need to get you know the detailed information.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Lynch.

Um I mean, all for um trying to set it trying to implement and and get this to happen.

I definitely recognize um the need and um you know I'm concerned that if we just if this program ends without a really solid transition plan, because I don't know that we've heard that there's gonna be a solid off ramp or a solid transition.

There may very very may well be one, but um I don't know that we've got in detail on that.

Um, that that really is pulling the rug out from from under some of these families.

Um, however, I also don't want to pull the rug out from some of what's going on in in um uh DCAO Popovich's shop and realigning um the office community wealth building and um some of the offices that she's worked really hard to kind of realign.

She has um I think open recs.

I just want to get it because it's more of a point of clarification.

Um with some of these positions, do you can we say for certain that they are truly vacant or uh or do are there open recs out for these currently?

So my understanding is that there's actually open requisitions out for these, some of these positions.

Yes, they can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe um a majority of these positions are being um recruited for um at this time.

And do we know if there is it DCA Popovich here?

She not here.

Do we know if any offers have been extended and or if we're in the like where we are with those?

We've done that, and the reason why I'm asking is we've done that before in a budget process where we've made an offer and or had gotten down to the final kind of, and you know, I mean, to do a departmental overhaul and re reorg and restructure takes a lot of time and effort and resources, and and I my understanding is we've done that in some of these positions are a result of that.

Um regarding vacancies that are currently vacant and 26 going into 27.

Um the information we received is if almost almost all of them were in some sort of recruitment phase or offer phase.

That's why we were trying to collaborate with them to find the very few available for the positions requested by council members and their amendments.

Not that I'm not regarding proposed new positions, but current vacancies.

Okay, thank you.

Did that conclude your question?

Yes, it did.

I mean, I could provide more color commentary as to my opinion on that, but um I'll I'll leave it up to the body to vote on this measure.

I just uh I have a couple of questions as well.

Um I absolutely uh would be supportive of RBA.

I am not feeling very comfortable yet, Miss Gibson, that I know what the actual need is because we are um looking for it as that opportunity for especially for our disently abled persons needing um uh non-classroom um opportunities for learning.

And I don't know what that number is if we have to reduce what that number is.

And so I'd like to know that.

That raises concern for me, and I'd like to have more information there.

Yeah.

I I can't, I mean, I RBA is something I would support.

I just am not clear about how much is needed for the target population we're really looking to serve, and especially since we can't do the full as I understand at 3.2 million.

With that, yes, Ms.

Gibson, I'm back to you.

Thank you.

I think as a matter of process, it's something I think it's this is a unique because this is the first item that we're talking about where there the amendment does include some suggested cuts.

And um and so and I do believe that the uh that the spirit or the interest was that for council members that made that um the the those things that had cuts, you know, proposed cuts assigned to it would be prioritized for those particular you know fund uses.

Um you know, uh in it's it's not easy to make recommendations on where you would like to see funding come from.

Um, but that's what you know we're told the assignment is, and I and I take it seriously to to do that work.

Um and and it's it's important that you know, if you are talking about taking funding from somewhere that that where you're putting it to is something that is is important and that will make a difference.

Um in developing the the recommendations, um we did look at strategic communications as one item.

This is a department that's seen a significant growth in its budget in fiscal year 23.

The budget was 1.3 million, the proposed budget is $3.7 million this year.

It's more than double.

And um, and you know, where I have residents that are asking me, you know, we're seeing our property taxes go up, but where are the services?

I think I'm hard pressed to emphasize the benefits of additional head count that might be going towards um social media or um uh or other things.

The uh I didn't I don't want anyone to lose their job.

So we did request that the vacancy report be shared and it was helpful.

Um the positions that we identified specifically are positions um that either had never been filled, including the the press secretary position, or positions I think that were had been vacant for at least the past two years.

Um and you know, obviously, yes, uh, economic development is very important.

Um, but we continue to tell residents that they're uh you know that that when they pay more that they'll see the services.

And so to tell people that they'll see services and yet then to also say we're cutting a program that exists um is concerning.

Now, if the proposal on the table from the schools was to start something new that was untested, and we didn't have the funding for it, and they put that in their budget, that would be one thing, but this is a program that exists, and there are students that are um that are benefiting greatly from the program.

Um I pulled the uh the the performance in terms of graduation, I believe that's posted online.

Um, but I think uh I have spoken to the principal of the school, and she had said that I believe they're around 50 students of the 150 students that are currently in the program that have some type of IEP.

So that's like 30% of the student body, which is much higher than that average district wide.

Now, I don't know that we would say, you know, um the the program works with all of the students that are in it.

Many of the students that are in the program um have special needs, and the percentage of them is much higher than in most every school in the school district.

So um to to how you parse out how that funding works, I mean that's up to the school district to decide um you know how they would reimagine the program if we come with 2.2 million dollars or or thereabouts.

Um I I respect their ability to to do that work.

Um, but I think for us to make a decision that would essentially kill a program that does um fill a very important need and has been so successful, um, would really be a shame to do.

And I would encourage us as we again look next year at our budget development process, that we put scrutiny in how um you know we we come up with the proposals both to be able to have proposals on places where the funding can be cut.

I will be frank, it's difficult to do without having access to the payment register.

Um and and also to ensure that that for council members that do that work that um that they're able to um have that consideration prioritized, um, you know, I would you know I I understood the assignment as we say.

I'll just to close that conversation up.

Um understand process can definitely be improved.

Um thank you for following it.

Uh, because you followed it, we're discussing it now.

There's gonna be a lot of amendments on here that we're not gonna discuss, but but because you found potential cuts, it's on the floor.

So thank you.

Okay.

So we need to decide if there's consensus on both the funding request and the necessary proposed reductions for this item.

I still want I'll come back to that question.

Um I'm still just going by to the last conversation I had with school leadership, and um they were saying one million because it would cover 50-ish children.

Um and Dr.

Neeble, just so you know, uh DCO Popovich has her hand raised in the teams meeting, not sure what comments she has.

Wonderful.

I can't okay.

So I I I want to be clear, I support RVA.

I've reached out to have conversation and said it's you know, typically again, I'm being redundant 3.2, but if not that, then 1 million that covered like 50-ish, and it emphasized more of high school.

But for me, it's whatever that number of young people.

So it seems like it's about a different third of them.

So if we could get to that kind of consideration, that would be helpful to maybe.

But to your point, um Ms.

Popovich is online.

Yes, hello, council Amy Popovich, DCA of Human Services.

I'm happy to send a detailed list of I believe the seven positions in DNCS.

Um about half of those are and have been filled as they were a reclassification.

So uh to councilwoman Lynch's point, um, we did some adjustments of staff and made sure that they were in alignment with each other.

Uh the other three are in active recruitment, two had interviews last week, and one of them the position closes on Wednesday.

I hope that helps.

Well then it would appear that that this funding sources unavailable.

Okay, um couldn't hear totally what the comment so the positions that are available, the um dollar amount they are equivalent to the neighborhood and community services, it looks like that total was 765,000 put forward by Ms.

Gibson.

Correct.

Yes.

And I and then we have one second, then we have another almost quarter of a million.

Is that correct?

And the funds remaining that were found from the 3.68.

Uh Mr.

If you bring it up, you we only have about 107,000 left.

107.

Correct.

Okay, 872.

Ms.

Gibson.

Thank you.

I also want to note, you know, I'm I'm I consider it a win regardless of how much we're able to put towards this item.

So if um President New Bill, if you would support an amendment for a million dollars, then I'm I'm happy to make a revision to this amendment to be a million dollars.

I uh this is not all or nothing.

And I think if I I'm whatever we're able to identify for funding, um I I would support.

And um and my hope is that we can, you know, we do everything that we can to prioritize those things again that I think are uh are critical.

I I would definitely um support that million and then taking a look to try to find that we're at 872, give or take, and we can go back through and scrub.

Is that the desire of the of the consent of the whole body?

Right.

Yeah, and we'll be identified by this time.

Members did do um hear the proposal that Ms.

Gibson's asking for consideration of.

And yeah, and it's and it must be known that you all have to be confident that the funds provided to RBS will be used for that process.

Yes, uh for the record.

Would and I will um ask the city attorney at some point relative to that because we have had opportunity to create a reserve for a specific thing for RPS.

It's been a while.

Madam President, so first of all, let's go back before we even get to that point to what councilwoman Gibson is um suggesting in her amendment.

Did everyone hear?

Yes.

Um Madam President, I know originally we had the two amendments of Valoration Virtual Academy, and I had signed on when it was Councilmember Trammell's lower dollar amount, thinking we can't fund this whole amount, but maybe we can get something to augment it.

Um it changed in our last session to the full amount again.

I removed it, but when I hear in the million one million dollars, okay.

And then we still need to grapple with how we're gonna fund that.

We yes, okay, separate from the discussion of the cuts.

Yes, okay, yeah.

Is any other questions?

Councilwoman Lynch.

Just a point of clarify, and and uh councilmember Gibson, you you probably know this in your research of this.

Did you you did say that the school board did vote to include this in the RPS budget?

Yes, this is published in their budget.

So how did it not get funded?

And I guess I I asked this question.

So the school board approves was not fully matched by the proposed budget put forward by city administration.

That's the gap.

But that you could say for sure what you know, the the full amount was not received, and so therefore whether they have indicated is this is the program that wouldn't be funded, but the amount of money they have been proposed to receive.

Please correct me if I'm wrong on the reading.

So for clarity, the the school board submitted a budget that did include um the virtual academy.

The um mayor's proposed budget did not include, did not fund the full request from the school board.

Um I do want to note that another item that the school board budget did not include was the RPS, the after school transportation line item, um, which was identified as being $707,000 in their budget.

Um we've been now been told that that was $483,000.

We have already prioritized that ask, which I support.

I'm thankful that we are finding that additional funding.

Um, but this particular line item was submitted in the budget that was approved by a majority of of board members and submitted to this body for consideration.

Councilwoman Trammel.

Thank you, Madam President.

I have a question.

I know that we give the schools the money, but we're not allowed to tell them how to spend the money.

Is with the money that we're trying to get for them right now, is it's gonna be like definitely said this is what this money is going to be used for?

Because I've just got someone that asked me, is that would that money be moved somewhere else if the school board decides to do it because they do not want to fund the academy or some of the other things that we're proposing today?

If the question is directed toward me, I I think what I would say is that we've seen huge public support for this program.

This is why we're talking about it today.

And I think I think we would remember that as a body.

So I don't think that that would be in their best interest to do.

I'm not sure what the legal um requirements are, but I I do know that they there is the the law of the kind of what's right to do and and public perception, I think would not be uh well received to not put the funding toward the program.

Um and you know, as a as a reminder, I also suggested a text amendment that would um you know allow us the ability to see uh with more detail the uh the their budget ask and the reason for the various revisions that they had to make to their budget um and then to ensure that their that the line items that they propose in their presentations align with the budget that's provided.

Um and so I do think that that level of accountability is important and um and hope that there are other council members that would support that.

But um, but yes, the the you know the le I'm not sure what the legal requirement is or the legal allowables, um, but I I do believe that we would have uh public support on our side and um and this would be a good task to see how how we our two bodies can collaborate together.

Um and I and I don't think that for us to withhold the money um as a result is the in the best interest of students who um at the end of the day benefit greatly from this program.

Thank you, because I knew you would fully explain all of it and would be on record.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Warren, could we just get a run of tap at this point?

Uh based on what we are looking at in terms of balance from the 3168 is about 130.

I don't have it before me.

Um yes.

Available general fund dollars, we have 107,600 and remaining balance of the FYI surplus fund is 115.

Okay, so that would be two and change.

Well, more than the surplus funds must be used for you know one-time funding.

Okay, and then based on Ms.

Popovich's comment, it sounded as if there would be what availability again.

Um it was hard to hear as well in the chamber, but from what I understood, it was a lot of the positions that seem to be vacant or reclassified and um undergoing um to to be advertised and and uh interviewed.

Okay, I thought I was hearing something, maybe I was just hearing it, something in the uh category of seven sixty-five, something like that.

Um I'm not sure.

I want to be as accurate as possible here.

Is there is Ms.

Popovich still on, or can we get clear?

Madam President, we've gotten the full presentation on their physicians, and I can confirm, and I was also consulting with her earlier that the um portion of what is being proposed in council member Gibson's cuts is 725,000 for which all those physicians are out for active requisition or interview, is what she had um confirmed on that call.

Okay.

Just trying to see what the balance is as you work to get to the and then we would just need a commitment uh and then getting consensus if there's commitment for RBA with that amount of one million, which would mean a commitment of us going back to find those.

Yeah, we one of the questions we asked RPS about was if this was partially funded.

Um, and you know the Ms.

Ramble wrote the question about half a year, and they said no, you would need to pay is it for a full year to pay teachers and such a contract.

Um that but I believe more information is coming behind me.

And Mr.

Burton, I'll I'll definitely um I'll come to you.

Burton I'll I'll definitely um I'll come to you president newville thank you I think the main thing I just wanted to clarify so I do have the specifics in the human services uh of what is just actually not vacant anymore um I think I also just want to be clear it doesn't make the rest available the administration is not you know not in support of of these of these potential cuts so which is means it's fine for y'all to still choose to do that but it's not that there was some available amount that we are supporting.

Okay.

I just wanted to clarify that and I can clarify the actual vacancies that are no longer vacant if that's desirable and do you have a dollar in the economic development bucket as well just so you all are aware that 600 would be the enterprise fund money uh enterprise zones cares money um facade improvements would be you know the vast majority of what we have for small business development um incentives so okay Mr.

Brighton well I um I said I want I was pretty concerned about the possibility that we might be trying to cut a bunch of programs to make a you know a contribution amount that won't actually cover the program and so it's like getting half a baby from King Solomon I don't know if that would really do anybody any any good so um my understanding is that they need the full amount and so I wouldn't be interested in making a like so many cuts to give a partial amount that won't support the program okay any other question comment at this point prior to moving forward on the amended amendment of RBA at one million.

Well we just need to clarify if it's if it's desire of council to still try to partially fund it and that's what I think any other questions prior to moving on to that decision.

Yeah and I I want to state as well that you know the general assembly has yet to pass a budget so we don't know how much RPS is fully getting um you know from the state for their budget as well so potential but changes to their budget are still a potential as well okay did you have something else otherwise I'd like to move on to and we'll have some sense general assemblies back in session on the 23rd I have no real sense of when the budget will be completed but the end of May the end of May yeah okay thank you for that I think Ms.

Lynch okay.

So with that um we are look what's on the table is an amendment of the amendment uh to um identify one million dollars for RBA and so I need to get some sense of that willingness I don't see any no nod okay I I mean I hate to do this um would it be pop just because this is such an important um it has so much public support I mean can we do we have to decision on this now in other words if there might be some I personally would like to talk to our superintendent um and and ask why the virtual academy why he couldn't fund it and his existing budget if it's something that the school board members have uh voted for I mean he's had an increase of 36 million dollars since 2024 um just just just some more diligence perhaps I think would be helpful the other thing I'm I'm very concerned about is the council member Gibson um mentioned the number of uh students with an IEP in the virtual academy and I want to make sure that that is not in violation of any IDEA regulations.

So I that that is that's a new statistic that that popped up today.

So is it possible to do a little bit more diligence on this before we vote on it because it sounds like it will not go forward am I wrong about that.

We can certainly we have Wednesday meeting but I have the sense that there's people are prepared to move forward with this today.

If if there are five people in support of the million, I would like to move forward with that.

Um to answer the question about IEDA, it it would, I think it's ultimately the school district is still required to meet those needs.

So part of my concern with eliminating the program is that you would see uh costs go up for private day school, costs go up for one-on-one support that those students might need, costs go up for transportation with students with significant mobility issues.

So I do question if they're um you know what the savings are of eliminating this program.

Um, but if it I'm appreciate that there are it appears, you know, uh at least five that support the one million dollars.

I don't want to throw, you know, don't want to lose that support.

I'd like to start there and move forward.

And if there's additional funding that is it is identified as we proceed, um, I would certainly uh support applying that to this program.

Um so yes.

So at this point, I'd like to get some consensus relative to the amended amendment of one million dollars for RBA.

The proposed amend amendment to the amendment for to a create and not and for me, I mean, we can look at a variety of sources of funding given what's been uh offered as concerns for some of those that are in the category that you've submitted.

So I'd like us to have that opportunity.

Before before you all decide, you know, just a reminder that they said they either these cuts on the uh uh um reductions offered, but the other amendments for requesting positions um for other council requests that receive co-patrons, those would most likely be off the table now to offset the losses.

I want to make sure I'm hearing you correctly.

So if you would repeat that.

So city administration has agreed to collaborate with us on the request for uh vacancy position for FTEs that council members have put forward with the very few amount of vacancies that they do have available.

If these um specific positions are removed, it would most likely mean the administration would no longer be able to collaborate with us to find vacancies for our initiatives because they would need to they would probably be using them for theirs.

But there would also be opportunity to look at maybe other areas that we could consider given what at least an opportunity to look.

I just wanted to restate that.

I just need to know if there's five members who want to move forward on that amendment and these proposed cuts, and if I need to probably do additional research on to confirm that.

Oh last question, and then we'll move forward.

Councilwoman Jones.

Um virtual, sorry, to belabor the point, but um I agree with um what my colleague Ms.

Lynch said is that it it was already funded in the budget, and that the school board the school or the school board needs to, because we can't tell them specifically how to allocate their funds, and what we're doing now is once again trying to prioritize what student has more needs than the others.

If it's funded in the budget, then it needs to be moved through the budget on the RPS side, because we're getting into this battle that then says this student has greater needs than another student with an IEP with disabilities with this.

It's funded.

So if it's funded, then the school needs to allocate or do what they need to do versus us sitting here trying to, as my other colleagues said, cut positions and cut these things and do all these things to try to fund something that is already in the budget.

And we are again going back and forth, and we're doing exactly what we say we do not do, which is with prioritizing one community or one situation over another.

I guess for me, Ms.

Jones, it's a little confusing because it said you're saying that it's in the budget, but then that the school, how did it get to the place where it's not being approved?

That's my point exactly.

Isn't it was approved by the school board in their budget, correct?

Yes, it was definitely it was approved in their budget.

So it was but they did not receive the funding requests from the city from the city's proposed budget.

I'm just showing where someone where we are right now.

Okay.

So at this point, um, I would ask where folks are in terms of looking at this amendment amended amendment item to try to identify at least in part funding.

Um I would say not wholly from all the categories that are in that bucket necessarily, uh Ms.

Gibson, but to look at the opportunity to see what we could find.

I'm talking about the surplus we have already without revisiting things that we've already gotten consensus on.

Uh you know, I I would support um obviously whatever funding opportunities that we see for this.

Um my colleague um uh councilmember Bretton identified some vacancies and in the police department.

Um that wasn't a source that I prioritized when I was making this amendment, but ultimately it's an important program, it has the support of the school board.

We've heard from parents.

Um, and I would uh I'm hoping that we can provide the funding to ensure to help support keeping it open in um in some iteration.

Thank you.

Okay, and so for it would be looking at a an amendment to have some level of funding for RBA, preferably at minimum a million, but to look at sources that would not negatively impact as well other sort opportunities for revenue generation.

Um to make that commitment to look at other places also.

So with that, I'm just going to see if we have at least five members who are menable.

We do.

Madam President, I don't want to cut the police.

We're not going to cut the police budget.

That's fine.

That's not what um what did you say?

Yes, but you were articulating places that have been identified by other members for cuts, not to necessarily accept them, but to look at other uh cuts that have been recommended.

Yeah, I would say most of us would not be in amenable to budget.

Right, but there may be other recommended cuts that working with the administration that might get us closer.

It may not get us all the way there, but may get us closer.

Yes.

Is that I'm just looking at what I'm saying, I'm I'm flexible, y'all.

Let's let's figure out a way to fund the program.

I've identified the things that I think are the low-hanging fruit.

Um, and I am I'm you know flexible on the amount that we provide.

I think that it's an important program.

Um and so I'd like to see that it's funded.

Madam President, that is definitely low-hanging fruit because they've lost 170 police officers and they need more.

So let's not remove what we're doing.

I'm not it's not what we have not made that agreement to look at cutting that category.

That's been offered by another member.

But I got a text, please don't cut the police department, please don't.

We're not talking about cutting police.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

I mean, we can go on and take that one off the table as a consideration of cuts that have been offered that have been offered by members as one that would not be acceptable for this purpose, nor would we go back and look at those things we've approved already prior to this.

Those are done.

I would say um at this point, we know we have about was it 200 and what?

And we are uh would go back and see in conversation with the administration what opportunities there might be.

So with that, do we have at least five members who are willing to take a look at that?

No, no what?

None of the priorities are right.

So are members agreeing to go forward or not go forward with those cuts put forward by Ms.

Gibson, or am I being tasked to try to find it?

Not on the cuts per se, except where they would be something the administration could say, okay, this is something we will work with.

But we would look to the administration to work with us to identify other opportunities that might would get us past the 200 and something, 200,000 we have currently identified as surplus.

Surplus in quotes from the funding 3.168.

So there's 200,000 available, yes.

So does the body what does the body wish to do?

Like pause, see what can be found, or do y'all want to make a vote right now on the proposed cuts, or do y'all want to put these 200,000 dollars for something?

Miss Gibson, if you wouldn't mind, could we take those proposed cuts off, leave on an amendment for RBA of at least one million with that balance that we have out of 3.168, and then we're looking to work with the administration to identify uh you know the delta up to a million.

I'm on board with this, yes.

Okay.

Can I just propose adding the superintendent into that discussion?

Sure, he was invited.

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

Okay, do we have consensus to move forward with that last if that's it clear at all?

Okay.

So none of those cuts that are in the bucket balance we have identified.

So we have completed what we can do with the 3.168 that are found by putting a whole pressing pause on this 200 towards that million.

So at that at the moment, there is 100,000 roughly available in each the uh the FY27 dollars, 100,000 left and surplus, and at this time we are not gonna go through the list to put those two items towards things because we are pausing to wait to see what can be done about RVA.

Yes, it would be 200 and so it would appear the body needs to get back together on Wednesday at this point now.

Yes, and see what kind working with the administration, how much closer we can get.

Okay.

Okay.

I think with that we have exhausted the 3.168.

We have work to do between now and Wednesday.

We've not exhausted it.

If there's no additional funding that can't be made, then those monies would still be available for council to decide to put them towards things that could be funded.

It that's if it doesn't go towards RVA, that is correct.

Right, but we'll know that on Wednesday, right?

We either go back and put it towards that with some additional funding, uh funding, or the no um uh solution was identified, and council will have 200,000 dollars to figure out exactly we can live up to that, I believe.

Members, um with that, I think that we have gone as far until the additional work is done for Wednesday, and so thank you, everyone.

This meeting now stands adjourned.