On activation of the emergency alarm signal, all persons should immediately exit the building.

Please use the exit to the left, right or front of the council chamber or the north or west stairwells outside of the rear doors of the chamber.

Do not use elevators or escalators.

At the exit in the building, security will direct everyone down 9th Street to the fence area located between Clay and Lee Streets.

Able persons should assist visually and hearing a pair of visitors with exiting the building.

Persons wishing to speak during the public comment period and or public hearings are generally allowed three minutes to speak.

Persons apparent before the committee are now allowed to campaign for public office, promote private business ventures, use language or personal nature, which assaults or demeans any person, including comments directed at public officials or staff members that are not related to the official duties or just to question staff members directly.

All questions are to be directed to the committee chair.

Fair to adhere to the guidelines and result in speakers forfering any meaning time and further discipline action as necessary, which include borrowing from attendance at future meetings of the committee for a period of six months.

Madam Chair's concludes announcements.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Um we'll move to the public comment period.

Followed by the approval of the minutes.

Seeing none, the public comment period is now closed.

The minutes to be approved from the June 17th, 2026 finance and economic development standing committee meeting.

If there are no amendments or corrections, then those meeting minutes stand approved as presented.

Those minutes have been approved.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Let's move the partners of boards and commissions forward.

Good afternoon, Chair Robertson, Vice Chair Jones, Pamela Nichols, Council Management Analysts.

The vacancy report before you this afternoon captures current and projected vacancies through November of this year, and it consists of vacancies for the economic development authority, participatory budgeting, and um Richmond retirement system.

Madam Chair, there has been a request that the committee will continue consideration of the applications for the economic development standing committee.

Um and the request was that you all would continue it to your September meeting.

However, the committee could continue it to its October meeting, which would align with our quarterly um review cycle, and it also would allow for the submission of additional um applications.

Uh granted, October is great.

Continue to October.

Yes.

One for thank you.

And then moving on to the participatory budgeting steering commission.

The committee is considering one vacancy for a non-voting member.

And I just want to remind the committee at the May 11th council meeting, there was an appointment being considered, but then there was a request by a colleague that that vacancy would be continued and referred back to this body to allow for the submission of James Boshan application to be considered.

And so for that one vacancy, um, you all would be considering the reappointment of James Botion.

And then we have a list of other um individuals to Tyler Ellis, Hannah Jones, Samuel Jones, Diane O'Libnik, Kawisi Powell, Maya Rogers, and Joy Shaw.

And also after meeting with Mr.

Slat, um, they have indicated their full support for the reappointment of Mr.

Botion.

Who offered their full support?

I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

Um, Mr.

Slat has offered his support, of course, and also uh Mr.

Um Councilmember Bretton definitely would like to see Mr.

Botion to continue to serve as a representative.

Ms.

Jones.

I just had a quick question.

All of these that are listed are how many vacancies do they have?

Okay, so um currently they have, and then we're gonna move over to the next page as far as for an individual with a disability, but the current vacancies are for one non-voting um member as well as for a resident of the city who is a person with a disability.

Um, and um, as I mentioned earlier, I did meet with Mr.

Slat, and they indicated that two of the members who are currently serving as individuals residing in a council district south of the James River has failed to attend meetings.

Those um terms actually will end in November.

And if it's the will of this committee not to confuse anything, that those individuals that are currently listed on this report who meets that criteria that we would include those applications again for consideration.

So, but today we're asking you all to consider one vacancy, and that would be maybe the reappointment for Mr.

Botion.

And then we're gonna move over on the second page to a resident of the city who is a person with a disability, and we received three applications, and um there has been indicated support for Miss Ingrid Harding.

If the committee is willing to support that recommendation.

So the recommendation is for reappointment of James Botion and initial appointment of Ingrid Harding.

Sorry.

That's not that's not on the agenda.

I move that we follow it with the uh recommendation for reappointment.

And what was the other name?

Ingrid Harding.

Ingrid Hard.

Okay, um, I'll second that.

Uh it does appear that the uh participatory budget team steering commission has an uh a larger representation of the first district uh than it does of other districts, and uh I think this charge of this commission weighs heavily across the city, and I think the representation is not reflective of that.

So at the next opportunity, we need to look at that more critically, Ms.

Nicholas.

Okay, yes, because we only have one individual residing in the first district.

As far as actual serving, these are just okay.

Thank you for the correction.

Okay, all right.

So it is didn't want to overload the first district, and it you know, falling.

Definitely, that's understood.

Yeah, okay.

Yes, okay.

So we're gonna go with Mr.

Botion and Ms.

Harding.

Yes, okay, and then moving on to the Richmond Retirement System.

Um, we have one vacancy for a member of the city classified service, reappointment application from Faye Flickpo, and then for one vacancy for individual residing or have a principal place of employment and a reappointment application from Adam Grossman.

Consent.

Thank you.

Wonderful, thank you.

Madam Clerk, uh, we'll move forward with the docket as it is presented before us, beginning with agenda item number one.

Do we have a motion and the second for the board record?

I move that we um accept the recommendation for the two reappointments um for Richmond Retirement System.

Okay.

So for clarification, so we're doing the reappointment of James Botion for participatory budgeting and Ingrid Harding for participatory budgeting, and then the two reappointments for Richmond Retirement System.

Correct.

And do we have a second?

Thank you.

The committee is voting on its actions as stated, vote on its actions to forward as stated to council vice chair Jones.

Chair Robertson.

That motion has been approved.

Thank you so much.

Item one ordinance 2026 081 to a men's city code concerning the publication of the city's payment register for the purpose purpose of promoting transparency and accountability in the expenditure of public funds by providing public access to information regarding payments paid by the city to vendors for goods and services and reimbursements to employees while protecting confidential and personal information as required by law.

That papers before the committee.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

We will move to a presentation from administration on this paper at this time.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Robertson, Vice Chair Jones, Council members.

My name is Lawson Wijay Saria.

I'm chief of staff to Marevula.

Thank you for having me here today.

Today I'm here to present on ordinance 2026 81, the payment register amendment.

I'm especially grateful to share what we've learned by producing the fiscal year 25 payment register, which was placed in the open data portal on June 22nd, and our accompanying proposed amendments to our ordinance, which we're also presenting here today.

I hope we can work through these amendments so that we can start producing the payment register in a sustainable way as soon as possible.

As always, I'm eager to hear feedback and believe that we make better legislation when we collaborate and compromise, which I believe we have done in our proposal today.

I know we all share, oh, this is not advancing.

There we go.

I know we all share the goal of providing maximum transparency to the public, especially with our money, while honoring legitimate privacy concerns and following privacy laws like the ones we heard about from public testimony at the committee meeting in May.

In this presentation, I'll first cover the fiscal year 25 payment register process so that we all know what happened.

Second, providing you with key data points from that process that informed our analysis.

And third, presenting the proposed amendments to the city code based on our learnings.

Over the past few months, we have thoughtfully worked through the long-standing challenges that we inherited associated with the existing ordinance and the publication of the payment register, and we've learned a lot.

So how did we go about doing this?

A ton of gratitude goes to Director Todd, who managed this massive project because of his historical knowledge and his support of how we manage our data.

First, he and our finance team had to spend time organizing the raw data in a way to then process both formulaic redactions as well as distribute to all departments and constitutionals the raw data to review for manual redaction.

Given that departments do not have access to one another's financial data, this required lots of manual data organizing and time from our temporary staff.

Second, the staff created instructions that departments could easily and uniformly follow, and that made it clear redactions could only be made in accordance with the law.

Part of the instructions are these redaction rules shown here on this slide, which contain two categories what must be redacted pursuant to Virginia Code, what may be redacted, such as allowable exemptions pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.

And we'll get into which ones were used later in the presentation.

Third, we trained city staff to ensure they had the information they needed to carry out the work and produce trustworthy results.

And fourth, city staff diligently completed the process with a handful of reminders along the way.

And last but not least, senior staff completed final checks and rechecks necessary to ensure accuracy.

The active part of this process began in earnest on May 4th and ended when we published the fiscal year 25 register on the open data portal on June 22nd, so approximately seven weeks.

So where appropriate and feasible, we applied technology and filters to the data set.

This is what we refer to as the formulaic redaction.

In addition to that, where we could not do formula-based redactions, manual redaction was required.

Manual means a city staff person with knowledge of the transaction is required to go through each Excel row of data one by one to review each transaction and make a determination based on the instructions if any information should be redacted based on the criteria given.

And this process was deliberate and carefully planned and executed, and we wanted to share some data to highlight from what we've learned.

The payment register for fiscal year 25 contains 231,933 rows of payment data.

And that was what was needed to be reviewed to ensure private or sensitive personal data would not be disclosed.

This is a one screenshot of the very large payment register that was published.

So to be clear, um all of the rows of data were reviewed to ensure private and sensitive personal data would not be disclosed.

And an important learning to share here was that when the department level Excel spreadsheets were shared, we knew that there were only four fields that might contain information requiring redaction, and so they were limited to redactions only in those fields, which leads to some of the amendments we're proposing.

Just under 80,000 rows, which is 34% of all records, contained private or sensitive data, which could be redacted by applying formulas.

This included the social service payments, tax payments, jurors, and others.

Example of a formulaic application to the data in the redaction process for like DPU customers, for instance, there is a field called pay group lookup code.

If that field said DPUCIF customer information field, then that meant it could be added to a formulaic redaction.

This left just under 152,000 rows of payment data left, 66% of the total universe of the data that needed the manual review by city staff.

These rows of data were divided and distributed to appropriate city departments and organizations, organizational units for review.

So at the conclusion of that manual new that manual review process of the 151,000 rows of payment data, 2,799 rows were partially redacted.

This is 1.2% of all of the records.

And so some of the point here is that actually lots of time is spent reviewing for a very small number of redactions.

This is part of the basis for our proposed new approach.

So out of the original 231,000, 82,760 records contained either formulaic or manual redactions, 36% of all records.

And this is just really another way to look at those numbers, hoping just to help with understanding.

And we can come back to these if needed.

49 organizational units were sent data sets for manual review.

14 organizational units out of those 49, 28% needed to redact certain data fields.

This chart shows the basis for manual redactions in each organizational unit where redactions were needed, including the code reference and specific description.

So you can see what the basis was and which departments were using different aspects, essentially all being privacy or public safety related.

So as you can see, carrying this out was a tremendous amount of work to accomplish publication on the requested timeline.

We hired a team of temporary staff who spent over 400 hours on the project, costing us a little bit over 25,000.

These temporary staff prepared and processed the data, performed administrative duties to support the project.

They could not, however, provide the subject matter expertise to support departments in the manual review process.

In addition, city staff spent a significant amount of time managing temporary staff and managing the project.

Given the importance of this work, as I said, Director Charles Todd personally managed the project with the assistance of his staff.

He estimated that he spent approximately 80 hours of his own time on project management.

So including Director Todd's time and the city staff reported spending 375 hours for training, data organization, formulaic redactions, and the project management before it got to the departments essentially.

Following the work of the temporary and city staff, the prepared data was distributed to departments and the organizational units, such as the sheriff's office and the courts, et cetera, so that they could analyze the data and perform the manual redactions.

City staff reported spending 192 hours reviewing that 151,000 rows of data, making the 1.2% redactions.

But this number, however, just we wanted to share is only us reporting ourselves.

So we did not ask the organizational units outside of the city departments to report their hours.

As a reminder, this problem predated the administration, but we are committed to solving it.

We understand it's important, and we know that it matters for restoring trust.

And we want to provide information about how taxpayer dollars are spent and make it easier to identify spending patterns.

Our amendments include data fields such as account and cost center codes and descriptions that align with the approved budget documentation, for instance.

So as I've said, we've learned a lot, and based off of the careful work we've done, we have a better understanding of what it takes to prepare a payment register based off of actual financial records, given our actual realities of the system we use, which fields of data are standardized, which are not, who within the organization has access to which pieces of data.

Whereas our first proposed amendment to the payment register code was modeled off of the a level of disclosure offered by neighboring localities.

We're proposing a new amendment that we believe better meets the intent for transparency of our payment register parameters and addresses the process for privacy concerns.

So our proposed amendments, one, um publish transaction level data rather than data aggregated by payee.

Um, disclose payments to vendors and reimbursements to employees, avoid the need to include in our data set and then redact information that is protected as the current code requires, allows exemptions as provided by FOIA to be redacted, but any redactions based on FOIA exemptions would require the review of a supervisor as a part of the process, and by process exclude protected data instead of relying on the individual human beings to review and remove from the public register.

Do include the date, amount description, cost center, cost center description, and other these fields are the ones that would help with direct comparison with the budget book and other desires for the payment register itself.

So taken holistically, our goals are to preserve public access to the city's payment data while ensuring the system is practical, accurate, and compliant with privacy laws.

And we hope we've moved closer to those goals with this new draft of the ordinance.

Thank you very much for the presentation.

Um I'm sure that there are lots of questions that still have that we want to make sure we're clear on.

Madam Clerk, let's move to the public hearing and stand by follow-up questions.

Anyone that would like to speak in support to item one.

Seeing none of the public hearing is now closed, bring it back to the committee.

Okay.

Ms.

Jones.

Thank you so much for bringing this forward and this is a very challenging paper.

Um I do appreciate the work that has been put into it.

And I'm also, as I'm looking on here where it talks about like what you will produce and what you won't produce.

Um essentially what you're saying is is that there's no way to produce everything.

I mean, you've shared that before, correct?

And the things that you are saying that you will not present.

I guess my question is how do you plan to truly align that with being transparent, right?

Like I know we feel like there are certain names and we've had folks share saying, I don't want my information out there.

And so, how do we determine the difference between protecting people's identity data, all of those things, because that is a very real thing, versus holding back information in a non-transparent way.

So, how do we explain to the public?

This is why we're not sharing this information and not base it on just a few people saying, because I do believe that we have to begin to go deeper and really um assess what the people want, right?

And so, if this is something that we are hearing, folks want to hear, like how are we balancing that between protection of privacy and we just hold I'm not saying you are, but like we're holding it because we feel this is what we need to hold back.

Because that is a very important point that we need to address.

For sure.

I think that's the central question here.

So I think two ways that we're trying to balance that exact question.

One is what is the difference between proactive disclosure and transparency access, if you will.

So all of the data, every single piece of the things we pay for, we have to be transparent about.

So the, you know, going from what's currently in the existing code, um, the the few places um where we are not proposing to include that field, most of them the um like the the information um so for instance, like you know, type of disbursement, whether it's a check or an ACH payment, like that we just didn't think is necessarily super valuable.

I think that something like invoice description is an example of one where that there is sometimes valuable information in that field.

What we learned from producing the fiscal year 25 register is that that field was left blank a lot of times because it's a manual field, it's a field where different people track different pieces of information in there.

So it was kind of a minefield of needing to manually redact it.

Um that's an example of one where we're minimizing the resourcing needed to do that proactive disclosure, but not limiting the transparency and and understanding, because that if there were payments where we wanted to get that information, we would go in and look for it.

And if it didn't need to be redacted, we would share it.

Um so I hope that's a little bit of how we've approached that.

I'd say that very central question.

And then if there are places where um, yeah, you think that um yeah, that we're that we're you know, overdoing it, then let's have a conversation about that.

I think that that is that's how we're that's how we're approaching it.

How do we take take the individuals, which is where those privacy concerns are um and and treat those with the care that they need to be treated?

Yeah, thanks for that.

And then you mentioned all of the time and cost and staff that it requires.

So, in order to do this on an ongoing basis, do we see this as something that would add to, I'm assuming this would fall under the finance department, correct?

Well, correct.

As we've been sharing, why we went into so much detail about the process is that the you know, the finance department, you know, essentially owns the macro raw data.

Right.

But they, as a department, don't actually have the ability to do all of the work that they would need to do in order to disclose all that information in the payment register.

It has to be distributed to all of the subject matter experts in order to pull on those various privacy laws and parts of state code.

And so that process would have to continue, which as we understand it was why, you know, none of us were here when we made that decision, but that's that's how we understand the decision that was made back in 20 uh 19, I believe.

Yeah.

Okay.

So it would require more resources to continue it on an ongoing basis.

Because if somebody asks for it every day of the week, you need to be able to follow this somewhat process that you and so we're sharing, of course, the process that was producing an entire annual register in an ongoing way when we start producing this again, it would be monthly.

So it's not that it's every number I shared, you know, every single month, but it but um, but it's an understanding of the of the lift that would have to happen every month of distributing data, recollecting data, and getting all of the you know, 40, I forget it was 43 different component units um to contribute to that.

All right, thank you.

I just I will I guess my thing is I want to know if we can't produce it all, I guess my thing is what's enough.

Right.

And I think that's something that we're all trying to get to, even including my colleague.

I think what what is what is enough to be able to say we are being as transparent as we possibly can.

So I'll just consider in here more of whatever questions arise and how we are thinking about trying to um really handle this this issue because it is an issue and we really want to solve it.

So yeah, thank you.

And I and I think too, your last point very much like I think it's why we were excited to learn that there were actually only a few fields that we needed to consider and we could put everything back in um safely without the the manual process.

And so that that felt like a good thing.

We can share more.

Um thank you.

Thank you.

Um so I'm gonna have a number of questions.

Um if that's okay.

This is the this is the opportunity to talk to ask the questions.

Um I was wondering if uh you might also be joined by the director of finance who is directed in the paper to to do this work.

Thank you.

Um so just as um, you know, to set the baseline.

Um I I appreciate that this work is hard.

The work of government is hard.

Um, but I am taken by the emphasis of how difficult the work is when ultimately being transparent, providing ready access to public information is a legal requirement.

This isn't something we do because we want to, it's something we do because we have to, right?

Um, and that is the intent of the Freedom of Information Act.

You know, we are we are we are uh under requirement.

And so, you know, um just as it is difficult to do to do all of the things to ensure bills are paid on time, to ensure people get accurate bills, to ensure that uh you know the trash is picked up, that we have clean access to water, all of those things are difficult to do.

Um I I know that you have lots of specific questions, and if we can, if you will please let's get to the specific questions so that we can try to get those answered.

I appreciate the editorial.

I appreciate the uh commentary as it relates to the value, and we all respect that, but let's see if we can get to the questions that would be most helpful.

Yes, I I understand, but but the editorial is important because that was the the bulk of the presentation we received, which was how difficult it is to do the work, right?

There were several slides that emphasize the number of rows.

Let's proceed with the questions, please.

Okay.

Thank you.

So um, and and thank you both for for joining this evening.

Um so I'm I want to go through the edits in the in the um in the ordinance to make sure we're clear on the required, you know, the reason for those changes.

Um the first section um that would be redacted from the ordinance was um the uh definition of payment.

So uh the language says uh currently that um this would include not persons but only vendors would be included in in this document.

Um can you and and it doesn't have a definition for what the vendor is.

Can you explain why uh you are have requested to uh remove the language any person and to only have it say a vendor?

Yeah, so lower down, I think from where you're referencing says vendor means any person who provides goods or services to the city for operational purposes.

So we're um yeah, we're we're defining the universe instead of the payments to like kind of an undefined group defining it.

Um so yeah, so if a uh person received uh a payout, there was a very public um tax, uh I'm sorry, uh legal payout to a former employee.

Um with this definition, it would appear that a payment like that would not be included in the payment register.

Okay, thank you.

Um the um the database itself has a number of changes that are would be made.

Um so the revision says that um you would no longer include the check number, the wire number or electronic funds transfer number.

Um can you explain why that would be omitted from the register?

I know that was one of the fields that that where there were potential redactions that had to be reviewed.

Is there something you wanna add that of how that's standardized, how that field kind of appears in the data?

Okay.

Um seemed necessary to have that there.

Could you please speak into the mic?

I'm sorry.

Stage and A for the record.

Letitia Shelton, finance director didn't see the importance of having that on the payment register.

So we're not including it because we've deemed it not important.

No, I did not.

So what reference would that be for you plus to have that there?

Well, we're talking about changing something that's already in place, right?

And by having the the payment number, it allows us to ensure, and because I have further questions further on in terms of how the data looks like it's being condensed.

So um, so being able to see the the check number allows you to be able to see all of the different items on a specific payment.

So if they're multiple line items, either way, uh it's there.

Why would we not show it?

Uh my understanding was uh in when again there were four fields where there was information that is that that the subject matter expert understanding what that transaction was about.

And so the the check number, wire number, electronic funds transfer number like is not is not always standardized.

I know historically that was a place where you know the digits of someone's social security number could have been.

I don't think that was true in the more modern data when we did it this time.

Um, but yeah, that's the and I and I can look further into it, but um we we in order to address kind of what we thought the um what you know how that information would be helpful was the place where then it can be tied to other information like the budget book and so on, which a check number or a transfer wire number wouldn't do.

So I think that was part of our calculation.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Um line four regarding the amount of the payment and the register version that you've provided with the 2020 fiscal year 25 data, um, there's a line item both for the total amount of the invoice and the line item disbursement.

Um and it appears that you're requesting to only include the total line item for the disbursement, the total line item.

Doing it this way would condense uh multiple line items of an invoice and could a you know amount to additional redactions that are done if I'm following the way that the language is here.

So um where an invoice might have potentially one line item that may require some redaction for whatever reason, um, by only including the total amount, you would then redact the entire amount rather than that line item, because it doesn't appear that the actual line item amount, while it was included in the 2025 register would be included here.

Is that accurate?

Yeah, I was gonna say I have my understanding of it, but I will pull on both director Shelton and potentially Sarah Carpenter for this.

So there was, yes, in the fiscal year 25, there's a there's the the total amount and the distribution amount.

Is that what is that part of what you're referencing?

Yes.

So the yes part of we what the what we are proposing to do here is it would essentially be the distribution amount, the line item, if you will, because we're going to now do it by transaction.

What happened is when it if we were doing it aggregate, you know, by the month, that would have condensed something into because so for instance, um, and this was on mine that I had to review.

Uh, if the mayor's office makes um charges to the you know, Amazon account, like that is settled by one payment interaction between the city and Amazon, and so that's recorded of what it rolls up into, but what we are interested in and what this would produce would be that the mayor's office had that charge.

Um this was a discussion when we so we did a lot of this work last Friday, um, and um trying to match the legal language to whether or not it's the you know, field um name in the data or the understanding of what we're trying to get at.

And so I'd say we are we will work with, and again, this is draft, so we need to go to the attorneys um with this, but just if it's helpful, um, yes, we we plan for that to represent the um the distribution total amount, not the not the check amount.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Yeah, that that should be clarified.

Um, because when it says total amount, it would you would presume it meant the the bulk amount and not the line item amount.

Thank you.

Um the other uh a line item that has been just you know deleted and there's been lots of discussion about it is the invoice description, um, which is an important line as it provides an understanding as to what it is.

It sounds like you have highlighted uh an internal issue in terms of the method by which this invoice description is completed.

I would presume that the invoice description is a useful field for your internal work in order to be able to uh review payments with some expeditancy as you're going through the database yourself internally.

And so I wonder um why the choice is made to delete it here from the payment register um rather than to review your internal processes to ensure that the field is completed consistently and accurately without uh social security numbers, for instance.

That's kind of hard to do, especially if you've got social services who uses this line to put client information in for internal purposes, as you just stated.

So to publish that, that's given up privacy information.

So we did redact those, those separate disbursement lines where uh social services do put in client information that is not being shown on the register that's uh posted right now.

Yes.

So um I'm glad you brought that up.

The the social services and all of the that information, I I do want to clarify.

That's not a like again, it's not a we're doing it as a courtesy and we need to be careful, we have to do it by law.

Those redactions are required under code, I believe it is uh 58.1, that's taxpayer, 63.2-104, right?

And and I appreciated the fact that the download provided the details on what was redacted for what reason legally.

Um, that particular there was about 50 million dollars that was redacted under that code that was specific to social services.

Um I did find it uh noteworthy that the vendor name, the invoice number, the invoice description, and the distribution description were all redacted.

Likewise uh for the items and that were redacted that were what I'll call discretionary because they fell under uh the um allowable redactions under the Freedom of Information Act, um, that was 2.8 million dollars.

Also for every single of those line items, or so I could see the vendor name, the invoice number, the invoice description, and the distribution description were all redacted.

Then the final bucket um was the taxpayer privacy items.

That's another required uh redaction.

Um, but likewise I was surprised that it wasn't just the name of the person, it was the vendor name, the invoice number, the invoice description, and the distribution description were all redacted.

And so I'm I'm wondering why they're the redactions were across the board.

Um it from my perspective, you know, provide some rationale for this body to review those without the redactions that are not required by law to ensure that the redactions are being done, you know, as appropriate.

Um the other piece that was, I believe, not in the download that was provided.

So there's one column that is required, um, which is uh in the existing ordinance, which was item nine, the payment document used.

Um there's two fields and they're similar.

One is the payment document used, and the other is the type of disbursement.

Um you are I'm wanting to understand why both of those columns are being redacted, or you're requesting to not include them anymore.

Um they the type of disbursement is included in the download that you've provided.

And again, these are just columns that you can export.

So uh, you know, including them is not additional work if if this really was about you know the work.

Um the type of disbursement in that column is either check or ACH payment.

And so um, I didn't see any payments in that column that were noted as P card payments.

So I'm presuming that the payment document used might note which one is up where the P card payments are.

So my question is what is the difference between the payment document used field and the type of disbursement field?

And why is it that the administration has is requesting omitting both of those fields in the payment register, given all of the scrutiny that we currently have had as it pertains to P card payments.

P card payments are separate from the payment register.

P cards go through the Bank of America, which is our uh primary um processing company for P cards.

So they wouldn't be in the check register.

But this is not a check registry, this is a payment register.

So if the payment is made, it would need to be included.

The payment is made to Bank of America.

So okay, that so that that is concerning.

So that means then we don't actually see who any of the pay the P card payments, the person receiving the payment, we're only seeing the payment to Bank of America, the bank.

On the check register, that's correct.

This is a it's a it's a payment register.

So I'm I'm wondering, you know, I mean, I I think that the public would like to be able to see P card payments.

So good afternoon, ma'am.

Uh Madam Chairman, Charles Todd DIT.

The P card data is in the register.

You'll find it by using a vendor of Bank of America, is how you find them.

And because those payments employees aren't reimbursed for use of P cards, the payment goes directly to Bank of America.

So the way you'd find the P card transactions in there is by using the vendor name.

That's how they would find those P card payments today.

In the current register, back to a question you mentioned a minute ago, the current law requires that we reveal the invoice description.

What we found many years ago, which is still true, is that the bulk of the invoices in the city are processed in accounts payable by scanning.

So the invoice comes in and it goes through a scan.

Well, the scanner can't apply, come up with a description for the invoice, right?

And so that's why so many of the invoice descriptions are blank.

So the administration had chosen in past to go a level deeper in the column that you see that's called distribution description, because that was information coming off of the original um requisition or purchase order used for the transaction.

But by going to that level of detail, you you added even more granular things that needed scrubbing.

But the the P card transactions are in there at present.

They they don't jump out unless you you query that way.

I hope that helps.

Thank you.

So it it I guess the question then is why would we not continue to include the district the district the distribution description?

But also going back to the original question, which is why are we choosing, why do we not want to include the payment document used and the type of disbursement as we move forward?

Those uh those two fields, ma'am, those were always a question in the original law because we did not have two fields that matched up that way.

And so in past, all we produced or I was asked to produce was that one field, which was the type of disbursement, because no one could ever identify for me anything in the data set that matched up to payment document used.

There wasn't anything in the in the data.

So if you look at the old data sets, we had that same column like now where it says check wire or our ACH.

That was the only field that we had ever used historically.

I I can't speak to the desired path forward, but historically it was only one column.

Yeah.

And I think if it if we're clear about what that is, and it's just identifying check or ACH, happy to include that.

So yeah, I I think it would be if I I don't see a reason to disc to remove it, and and I do think that it should probably one of the fields should be amended to include the P card payment.

Um and I do think that line items, uh, I mean, we do receive a credit card invoice, I would presume, and the invoice notes some payer information, you know, when you receive your credit card.

And so again, this is uh this document is a reflection of how uh the fidelity in which we're doing a work internally, right?

And so given the concerns that we've had with P card payments, I I find it um it's it's interesting that this register is condensing all of the P card payments to the to the bank, and there doesn't seem to have the same database specifically that you know.

So if I wanted to know how much is Amazon, how much are we spending at Amazon?

We we don't have that information if it's basically all being hidden because everything says Bank of America.

It is being correct.

And in the 2025 data set, if you look at the distribution column, that is where the data that has come from Bank of America indicates who the payee was for the credit card, but it doesn't give any additional information.

So that column, its use would perhaps which you just spoke to, it might show you that a payment went to Amazon, but there's no detail coming back into the general ledger.

We bought pencils, we bought whatever for it.

The the description coming back through in the bank data is literally the merchant to whom the payment went.

Thank you.

Um the final questions that I have are specific to the discretion that is allowed in this version of the paper.

Um so uh the current language in the the paper or the ordinance says that the director of finance um will uh publish this at the close of each month and will maintain it monthly.

Um we know that that has not happened.

Um the new language said on a monthly basis within a reasonable period.

Um this you know, given that it has not happened with regularity, the discretion gives me some concern whether we'd be able to enforce, because then it becomes a question of how do we define reasonable.

Um, and so I wonder if you know what why we can't have more specificity there.

Um, likewise, the language um and under this new section F, uh, the director of finance shall establish procedures for the preparation, review, and publication of the payment register, um, including appropriate internal controls to ensure data accuracy, consistency, and compliance.

The departments shall cooperate with the Department of Finance as needed.

Um, the director of finance in consultation with the city attorney shall determine the appropriate application of exemptions and may withhold redact or aggregate information as necessary to ensure compliance with this section and applicable law.

That that seems um uh that language seems to allow a lot of uh lenience in in how that's done, given the fact that the laws in terms of what can be redacted and what must be redacted is very clear.

Um I'm not sure why we would aggregate information when line item information can be aggregated.

Um and again, I'm I'm looking for um a more clarity as to why so many rows all have redacted information.

Um, you know, I I it doesn't, it still does not make sense to me that regardless of the redaction, the vendor name, the invoice number, the invoice description, and the distribution description were universally redacted throughout.

Charles Todd again.

That I follow the pattern that we use from 2015 to 19 for those.

So for the four or five categories of formulaic redactions, so the transfers for social services, DPU, the automated taxes, the juror payments.

And I'm sorry, I'm drawing a blank.

That was the model we used then.

So for those things that had a flag, the decision was to redact all four of those columns because if you didn't, you were still then gonna have to put those thousands of rows back in front of the agencies to have them go through and read because sometimes those social services payments, for example, they had information about the person in the invoice description or in the distribution description.

So I am the one this time.

I simply followed the model from before.

If you look at the 2007 rows that were done by hand, we did require those individuals.

There were no blanket cell redactions.

So for those 2700, when the humans did it, we expected them to go in and actually replace the bad word or replace the bad term.

But but that's on me.

I followed the model we had used before for those formulaic and we simply scrubbed all four, which is what had been done in the past.

Thank you.

So that's on me.

Yeah.

So I I really do think that it would be helpful for council to be able to review and and go through this process to really understand um, you know, the the approach.

Um, and and I do think that there are perhaps some internal uh efficiency learnings here and in this.

Um, you know, if we are including the social security number, perhaps that's not a best practice to include in the invoice number.

You never know who might have and receive a copy of that check.

Um, so so you know, it it's like if we're finding a lot of social security numbers here or there, I would assume that that's probably something that needs to be fixed rather than covered up.

Do you know what I'm saying?

Like how can we, you know, how can we get better?

So um I I appreciate the the dialogue and and I do think that there is uh good rationale to to dig into this um so that we can say to our constituents that we are um prioritizing transparency, um, how public dollars are spent and um and and and living the uh the requirement of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act um to uh to the highest of our capacity.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Gibson.

Um there any other questions or need for additional information.

Ms.

Lynch, um I I apologize for being tardy.

Um this is more of a process question.

So the amendments that we have before us or the the amendment have we discussed okay.

Um and so those would need to be introduced on the 27th, yes.

We would go from this meeting um to submitting them to the work with the attorneys um at that point and with all due diligence speed, we would love for them to be introduced.

Um but we have not gone through that step yet.

Okay, so then that would put Miss Gibson or Councilmember Gets Gibson's paper and this paper, would they be on the same procedure?

Would they be on the same docket or which we have I dealt with the second paper at this presentation?

Only dealing with this paper.

Um so I think the the what needs to be done at this stage, we do have significant change amendments that uh the administration is recommending to their own paper.

Um many of them we've actually seen them just today.

Um, late last night I'm toll.

Uh I didn't see them late last night.

Um but um and we and they have not gone to the attorney yet.

So the paper would have to is to be amended at that request.

And we can take action at this time as it relates to moving the paper forward for introduction with the amendments and action that will be taken subsequent to receiving the amendments is difficult for a recommendation of support or even opposition without the amendments having been through the legal department at the present time.

So Ms.

Gibson, I appreciate your uh drilling uh down as relates to clarity as it relates to the paper that is before us, and I do think it's important that council fully understand the merits of the paper as well as the amendments.

Um and I'm hopeful that either uh we have recorded the questions that you've asked, we can make that document available so that those answers to those questions can be made available to council as well.

Some questions may be questions other council members may have, and we can uh forward those responses to the council as well.

Uh but at this time I think the most appropriate action is to uh move forward with uh continuing the paper with the with an amendment to the paper to be continued.

If that's a motion, Madam Chair, I would second it.

Okay.

The committee is so we continuing this to the next committee meeting, or we recommend it for approval with an amendment.

We have we're recommending that um the paper be can to be amended and continued.

No, that the paper be that it be amended that it the paper be uh continued uh to the next council next committee meeting.

That's correct, and then therefore it can be amended amended in between committee meetings.

And at that time, we are hoping that the amendments will be introduced by the administration, and so when the paper come back to us, hopefully it will be an amended paper, but we cannot continue a paper that amendments that have not been introduced yet.

So correction on the motion to continue.

Is there a second?

Second.

The committee is voting on the motion to continue item one ordinance 2026 081 to the August 19th Finance and Economic Development Standing Committee meeting.

Ms.

Lynch.

I Vice Chair Jones.

Hi Chair Robinson.

I did you have a question?

No, that motion has been approved.

Second.

Okay, um, just as a comment, um I would strongly suggest to the staff that any questions that council members still have about this and also the copy of the proposed amendments that we can forward to the full body and just make sure that they know that this is our proposal so that the council can review those and present any questions back to the staff that they would like answers to.

Thank you.

Okay, madam clerk, let's go to the agenda item number two.

Item two, resolution 2026 R019 to authorize the council's organizational development standing committee, standing standing committee to investigate the city's failure to publish a monthly payment register as required by city code and application of exclusions allowed under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act.

That papers before the committee.

See none, the public hearing is now closed.

Bring it back to the committee.

Discussion.

Okay, question questions members.

So I'll what I'll say about this paper is is that um I I appreciate all of the uh questions that you raised.

Um and I guess I'm still trying to when you said I think we should dig into this some more.

I'm trying to understand is that digging in through this paper, or is that digging in through the amendments that they're asking, and then we come back?

Like I just want to make sure that we're on the same on one accord because to approve a paper that says let's investigate, but then we're also saying that we want them to provide amendments and changes.

What are we actually doing?

Um, and I am still not really clear, and I think that I would be fine with um I'm trying to understand it.

I I was just trying so we are forwarding with no recommendation with the intent of hearing it on the 27th.

That's why I'm just trying to figure out when it would be with no recommendation.

Okay, so it's on okay, got it.

All right.

I'm I second that second that motion.

Okay, so there's a motion to continue to recommend moving the paper forward to council with no recommendation from the committee.

That motion has been second.

Ms.

Gibson, you want to comment?

Yes, thank you.

I just wanted to make the the explanation for the paper.

Um, you know, I I am appreciative that the administration has now um published more information.

Um that said, there uh it took a lot of work to get here, right?

Multiple FOIA's memos, lots of public scrutiny um over and and and and years late.

So um the uh information that is now been published is highly redacted.

And and redactions, there's lots of public discussion about redactions these days in the city of Richmond.

Um it it is unfortunately become the default that when information is is FOIA there are are many redactions.

Um so uh looking at the 2025 register, um, we're talking redactions in the tens of millions of dollars.

And so um while the public uh you know, we can uh redact information to the public as members of the governing body.

Um it is we are not required to have the same level of redactions that you might have with the public.

Um, and certainly the optional redactions would not need to be in place, and so this investigation would allow the body to be able to review the document with only the legal the required you know, redactions that they are required by law to redact for even us as as members of the of the governing body, um, to ensure that the redactions that have been done have been done appropriately, and to um make sure that we have clarity that if there is information that would not be included moving forward in the payment register, that there's a good reason for it.

Um and so with the information that we have, we have we just have a lot of redactions, and so um, and so I I don't think that we are able to to truly understand exactly what's going on here when so much of the information has been withheld both from us and the public.

Thank you.

Can I have some clarity on provided the motion in a second?

So I made the motion to forward to council with no recommendation.

Um and Miss Lynch seconds that thank you.

The committee is voting on the motion to forward item two resolution 2026 R019 to council with no recommendation, Ms.

Lynch.

Hi, Vice Chair Jones, aye, Chair Robertson.

That motion has been approved.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Uh agenda item number three, please.

Item three, ordinance 2026 164 to amend city code concerning the creation and administration administration of the affordable housing trust fund to assure our principal interest penalties, fees, and other receipts from the repayment and management of affordable housing trust fund loans and grants are reserved for the affordable housing trust fund.

That papers before the committee.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

I'd like to be added as a patron, and we'll move forward to the public hearing.

Is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition to item three?

Is there anyone that would like to speak in support to item three?

Seeing none, the public hearing is now closed, bring it back to the committee.

I'd like to be added to this paper as well, and I move that we forward to council for approval.

Uh second, I'll also be added as a care patron.

Thank you.

That has been noted.

The committee is voting on the motion to forward item three ordinance 2026-164 to council with a recommendation to approve.

Ms.

Lynch.

Aye.

Vice Chair Jones.

Aye.

Chair Robinson.

Aye.

That motion has been approved.

Item four, ordinance 2026-165 to authorize the CAO to execute a first amendment to grant agreement between the city 512 Hall Street LLC and the EDA for the purpose of clarifying the affordable housing requirements applicable to the residential development located at 512 Hall Street.

That papers before the committee.

Seeing none, the public hearing is now closed, bring it back to the committee.

Motion, please.

Madam Chair, I uh move that we forward to council for approval.

Second.

All the question members.

The committee is voting on the motion to forward item four ordinance 2026 165 to council with a recommendation to approve.

Ms.

Lynch.

Aye.

Vice Chair Jones.

Aye.

Chair Robertson.

Aye.

That motion has been approved.

Gender item number five, please.

Item five, ordinance 2026-170 to authorize the CAO to execute a grant agreement agreement between the city, ECG, Raddy, LP, and the EDA for the purpose of facilitating the construction of an affordable residential development located at 2811 Rady Street and to appeal ordinance number 2025008.

That papers before the committee.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

I'd like to be added as a patron and we'll move to a public hearing.

Is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition to item five?

Is there anyone that would like to speak support to item five?

Seeing none in public hearing is now closed, bring it back to the committee.

Motion.

I move that way forward to council for approval.

Second.

The committee's voting on the motion to forward item five, ordinance 2026-170 to council with the recommendation to approve.

Ms.

Lynch.

Aye.

Vice Chair Jones.

Aye.

Chair Robinson.

Aye.

That motion has been approved.

Gender item number six, Madam Clark.

Item six, ordinance 2026-171 to authorize the CAO to execute a SHACO Legacy Foundation grant contract between the city and the Shockle Legacy Foundation for the purpose of funding expenses incurred by the Shockle Legacy Foundation for the planning and development of the slavery and freedom heritage site, including the Lumpkins Pavilion and the National Slave Museum in the city.

That papers before the committee.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Public hearing on this, please.

Is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition to item six?

Is there anyone that would like to speak in support to item six?

Seeing none, the public hearing is now closed.

Bring it back to the committee.

Motion to forward to council for approval.

Second.

The committee is voting on the motion to forward item six, ordinance 2026-171 to council with a recommendation to approve.

Ms.

Lynch?

Aye.

Vice Chair Jones?

Aye.

Chair Robertson.

That motion has been approved.

Gender item seven.

Item seven, ordinance 2026-172 to amend the FY2627 general fund budget by reappropriating 3.1 million from the FY25-26 General Fund Committed Fund Balance, creating a new outside agencies and central appropriations line item for Presbyterian homes and family services in appropriating funds to that and existing Central Virginia Legal Aid Society Inc.

Freeze Program and South Side Community Development and Housing Corporation line items for the purpose of funding housing cost relief initiatives for city residents.

That papers before the committee.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

We'll move to a public hearing.

Is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition to item seven?

Is there anyone that would like to speak in support to item seven?

Seeing none of the public hearing is now closed, bring it back to the committee.

Motion.

I have one question.

Question.

Um, do we have the specific allocation amounts um to the family crisis fund and the section diversion?

Dominic Barrett, Senior Policy Advisor and the Office of the DCA for Human Services.

Yes, within this ordinance, a million dollars is allocated to the family crisis fund, and that's in addition to the 100,000 um dollars that council uh added to the FY27 adopted budget.

Thank you.

Um forward to council for approval.

A second.

The committee is voting on the motion to forward item seven, ordinance 2026 172 to council with a recommendation to approve.

Ms.

Lynch.

Chair Vice Chair Jones.

Aye.

Chair Robertson.

Aye.

That motion has been approved.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Uh, discussion items.

Um is there a motion to not have a meeting of the committee in August?

I motion to, yep, second.

Double intro and second.

All the question, Madam Clerk.

I don't guess there's a need for question.

No.

Okay, there will be no meeting in August.

Thank you.

Um second uh agenda items, Maria.

Uh in regards to the adoption of the committee presentation.

I hope this entire committee you receive that uh list of presentations that I've had a detailed discussion with the staff on yes.

No objections.

Uh this is the schedule, and we'll send in that to the administration with the hope that we will be able to stay on schedule with these uh recommendations for presentation.

Any other staff report?

No, ma'am.

Thank you, Maria.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Thank all of you for attending.

Appreciate your time.

This meeting is adjourned.