You're watching WSTV Digital Media.

The last one for this fiscal year.

We're gonna start all over.

I'd like to call to order the June Finance Committee meeting.

Uh will the city clerk please call the roll.

Chair Clark.

Here.

Vice Chair Adams.

Here.

Councilmember CBO.

Present.

Councilmember Taylor.

President Thank everybody for being here today.

We will start with a consent agenda.

Three items.

Is there any one?

Are any of these anyone would like to pull?

If not, can I get a motion to approve the balance?

Move to approve the consent agenda.

Is there a second?

Okay, we have a motion second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those likewise.

Those are approved.

We will now go to the general agenda.

Item G1 resolution awarding a contract for security and company police services.

Allied universal security services in the amount of three million two hundred thirty six thousand four hundred seventy-five dollars and fifty cents.

Excellent.

Good afternoon, Finance Chair Clark.

Darren Redfield, the purchasing manager.

The item before you here is to award a contract for security and company police officer services.

One item note this contract combines the city contract with the transit contract.

So those are together now.

So it's a very robust uh contract.

It uh includes entry screening, armed officers, authority to detain after hours security, uh a new component is roving security of various city facilities on a random schedule, and uh three dedicated vehicles.

Uh the evaluation panel had uh property and facility management, um transportation uh risk management, and an assistant city manager.

We received four proposals, which was great.

Uh when we evaluated those, uh Allied Universal and North State came out as the highest scoring vendors.

Um we offered a virtual interview with both of those vendors since they were the highest scoring, most qualified vendors, and we gave them a the same list of questions as well as some scenarios to run through, and that uh that interview is worth an extra 20 points.

So in the exhibit, you'll notice that there's an interview panel extra score for those two vendors there.

Um the final results in the indicated that Allied Universal was the highest scoring vendor, and so we're recommending award to Allied Universal.

Um, this will be a vendor change, and there will be time for them to do this before August 31st before the North State contract uh terminates.

Um we went through this six years ago when North State took over the contract from Allied.

Um wanted to point out that there's um two things in here that we uh have asked the awarded vendor to retain current personnel, but we also reserving the right to, if there's any personnel that we're not in favor of continuing, that we have the right of refusal for that.

Um my final comment is related to pricing.

Uh that the contract is for three full years fixed price for the 3.2 million, um, and then it does have two one-year renewals for a total of five years.

Um, if you noticed a cost difference in here, I had one sentence about that.

Their bid of 3.8.

What happened was we need to do a get within budget, particularly for the transit contract, its unit prices, and so staff reviews reduced the number of hours in order to get us down to that final 3.2 million figure.

So um that's for three years.

That's for three years.

So it's a million a year, roughly, roughly.

Okay.

Yeah, yep.

Very fairly comparable to what we've had actually in the past four years.

Okay.

Yep.

So uh as you've noticed, Allied submitted the lowest price.

Uh, North State actually submitted the highest price.

That's uh on your on your carf there.

So um, so I'll take any questions.

Also, have uh Jeff here with transportation, I have George with property facility management if you have any detailed questions.

Okay, thank you, Saddam.

Yeah, and how is this this new contract or vendor uh going to work with uh with uh and others in light of all of the issues that we've been uh made aware of over the past couple of years or whatever?

And how is this gonna be any different or would the the being on site at the buildings listed be any different than what we already have?

Wow, Jeff.

Thank you.

Uh mayor pro Tim uh Jeff Hansen, Director of Transportation.

Answer your question.

Uh one thing is that this one opportunity this uh new uh solicitation allowed us the opportunity to do was to refocus on the deliverables for our security.

So we have post orders and we also have uh strict uh FGA guidance on how we render security services at the public transit facility since the funding that we have is uh subject to FTA uh oversight.

To answer your question very plainly, though, we will follow uh the existing staffing model and then uh try to do a better job with the post orders to make sure that we are addressing all the security needs there.

Uh this does not fund any metal detection or anything in that in that facility, so it will be very similar to what is there today, and we'll continue working with the the police department for their foot patrol uh and various things in the area.

So we'll do our best to uh to monitor all the activity that goes on, um, but at a high level, this contract provides very similar level service to what is there today.

And they did just say that uh the employees basically will remain the employees that we have working now with us.

We we've asked them to retain those employees.

They'll probably what happened last time is they needed to apply to that company, go through their background screening process and be onboarded as a new employee.

So I believe that most of them were.

And I'll I'll make a comment to that the contract language just gives the the city the opportunity to approve uh those those provide or those individuals.

So uh, for example, if they do choose to onboard with the new company allied, it would the contract language would give the city uh the opportunity to unfortunately authorize that.

In other words, if they were proficient doing their job, but we would want to bring them on board, but if they were deficient and we had issues with that, and it was documented in their performance, we would scrutinize their our interest in bringing them over to the new company.

Okay.

Kind of like what we did with the union in the tech exactly the same.

Okay, exactly.

Got it.

Thank you.

Uh Mississippi O.

Yes, I see that Allied is headquartered, I guess, in Charlotte.

Does a contract require the company to hire a a certain percent of local residents to serve our facilities?

I I don't believe so.

I don't know if George wants to speak that.

I don't believe that we can restrict that, but what we did ask for is the contract manager to be here locally, um, who is head of this contract.

So that's our direct uh liaison, who is you know, David is the one right now here is on site.

So is there a reason why we don't try to increase our tax base by having these people live in our community?

I'm gonna say imagine that they do most of them.

Well, and I was gonna say um attorney French can jump in as well, but I would say even for our city employees.

Um we have a requirement for department heads and above to live within a 30-mile radius of city hall, but to to be fair, we don't have the or to be transparent, we don't have a requirement for our own employees to all live within the city limits.

Preferred, obviously, but not a not a legal requirement.

Okay, any other questions, comments?

Can I get a motion from someone, please?

Move for approval, move for approval of item G1.

We have a motion and a second, and I think we will vote electronically on this.

Let's see.

Yes, we are that is approved.

Thank you very much.

We will now go to G2.

Okay.

City Clerk will please read this, please.

Item G2 resolution awarding a lease agreement for Kimberley Park Hydroponics Greenhouse Facility to Anders family farms.

Dr.

Miller, you have the floor.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

So this is a food resilience project, which many of you know that began when the city entered agreement in 2016.

Can you forward the slides?

Oh, sorry.

Found it.

And it did use original funding use bonds, which means that it is required to continue to be owned for a period consistent with compliance with those bonds.

The facility has not been active as hydroponics since June of last year when Hope of Winston-Salem uh two-year contract went uh was completed, and they chose not to take the one-year extension offered.

So we began this request for proposals to ID an operator to advance our food resilience goals and take responsibility for the facility.

And it began last year when we started with the letters of interest.

We received three letters, and based off these letters, we modeled the RFP to transition from a city paid operating contract to a lease model.

This allows the facility stewardship to reduce taxpayer subsidy and to keep the facility alive and with the food resilience goals.

So we received four that we were able to score, and the scoring was structured to focus on mission and execution and to sustain operations and protect the city's investment.

Anders Family Farm scored highly overall and not just in one factor.

And you can see a little bit from their uh their submission that they were uh NC finalists for small farmer of the year.

It is uh a female-owned company, and they have certified practices for several items.

They've already have a hydroponics facility, and they propose a 2500 lease rate, but they plan to completely offset this through education and outreach.

They are plan to take care of the facility and document in the ways that they're going to keep it up.

And here are some items that they plan to do.

Partner with schools, partner with the co-op extension, they had uh references for all of these items.

So, and with that, I ask for any questions or comments, Mr.

Adams.

Um thank you.

Um we all know some of us that have been here a while, this project.

Uh the one thing that uh that I my my concept and Councilman McClark will always say he's a tomato is five dollars or ten dollars, whatever.

But the concept was to ensure that people that lived in marginalized communities in our city because we don't have grocery stores, and in the neighborhood that this uh hydroponics farm was built, there was a food fair right there where the dairy owns that, and then it became the discount house on Paterson.

Uh, but that was it, and then it closed, and that was decades ago.

So, you know, sometimes I tell people when you have an idea, we just discussed that, and you you create a it in your mind, it seems like it can get done, it could be done, it'll it could be successful, but you don't really think about the hurdles that you have to succumb, you know, surpass to get to where you want to be.

Fast forward, uh, this concept was thought of back in 2014, if not earlier, uh, and it's taken 12 years, but it was always the intent to be able to feed the community fresh vegetables, as well as start helping our children to understand how they have to understand what they put in their bodies, families, maybe cooking classes, interactive type education, uh, so they could become more interested in their health and welfare.

Uh, also uh making sure that there were tours for the community and others that wanted to see this process because a lot of people had not heard of hydroponics until I dropped it back in the day.

So uh for me personally, as long as the dream stays alive, and there are people now that are doing this all over the place, hydroponic growing.

Uh I am very uh supportive of this lease, and uh, but I also know that they know, and you've let them know that I visit and I go look and I do my own homework.

But uh I look forward to working with Anders Farm, and I wish them much success with this collaboration with the city.

Ms.

Shipio.

Okay.

Um thank you.

I had a couple of questions about uh this proposal.

First of all, um the way it's written, there is no access for the community to come into this facility and benefit from any of the foods grown, because it seems like all the food's gonna go to restaurants or something like that.

Is that right?

They had to agree per the RFP that 51% would stay local, and they plan to participate year-round at the fairgrounds.

Um and you know, so we do expect a good portion of the food to stay local.

It is not going to be given away as it was in the previous operating case.

But we did not require it on site's location.

And and it says there's the lease fee is I think 2500 a month with an in-kind offset.

Uh so in actuality, if they do the in-kind services, there won't be a fee.

Is that correct?

Correct.

And how much of those in kinds would offset the fee?

They have laid out a proposal of what's uh items they expect and what it would what they are asking as a rate.

Could we possibly see that?

Whatever that is.

Okay, the details.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

I might add the last couple years when we had another person in there, we were subsidizing that to the tune of a couple of hundred thousand a year, I believe.

So the fact that if we can do this for zero would be a significant increase for the budget.

Okay.

With that, no other questions.

Can I get a motion, please?

Second.

We got you.

Uh all in favor, please vote accordingly.

That is approved.

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to G3 if the city clerk will please read that one.

Item G3 request for a public hearing and consideration of items related to the long-term lease of city park land in support of the downtown empty theater.

Public hearing date, June 15th, 2026.

Okay.

Before we get into this, we will probably have some type of motion at a committee, but uh the ordinances should require a public hearing at the city council meeting.

So for and I see some folks here from it.

Uh the committee will simply make a some type of recommendation, but it'll go to the city council next Monday night where a public hearing will take place.

With that, Mr.

King.

All right, good afternoon.

Thanks, Chair Clark, Mayor, committee members.

Um I'll give a brief rundown of this request that's before you today.

So in September of 2025, I think this concept of leasing some city park land in support of the downtown amphitheater was first brought to city council.

And what was before you at that time was a five-year lease with two one-year options for extending that, and the rate on that was basically $12 annually.

I think the discussion at that time was that the parkland, roughly the one acre of parkland adjacent to the amphitheater site, will be used for the artist village in support of the amphitheater.

And I think the concept at that time was the use of temporary structures on the artist village.

As conversations around amphitheater progress and this has moved along and gained steam, I think right what has happened is that there's been a need for those structures to become permanent in nature.

And so the concept of leasing as parkland has changed.

And what is before you today, umphitheater LLC has submitted a request to the city to lease basically the same land, same acre of parkland for a term of 30 years.

Um the terms of this would be 1,000 a month for the first five years of the lease, and then years six through 30 would be $1,000, and then they would increase annually commensurate with CPI.

Um you can see the site plan there that's been um submitted with this request that kind of shows how the land would be used to support the artist village there.

Um so in this image north would be to the top.

Um the amphitheater site would be kind of to the bottom of the screen there.

Um Sixth Street is kind of running right through the middle there.

So essentially you're going from a five-year lease to a 30-year lease of this parkland, different terms on the lease amounts.

And in terms of processing this request, there are really two functions for city council.

Um in 2001, you adopted a resolution that required that the sale or long-term lease of parkland have public hearings at the City County Planning Board and in front of City Council itself.

So this item went to the Recreation and Parks Commission in May.

It went to it was a public hearing advertised at the planning board from May 28.

It was heard there.

There was no nobody there in opposition.

The planning board voted unanimously to recommend approval of this to you.

As Councilman McClark alluded to earlier, a public hearing has been advertised for your June 15th meeting to satisfy the second piece of that resolution from 2001.

That's part one of the process for handling this request.

Part two of the processes to handle this, essentially deal with the lease terms and any lease of ten years or over is treated by the statutes essentially the same way as sale of city-owned land.

So it goes through the upset bid process.

So the applicant has submitted the 5% deposit to the city that's on hold on file with the clerk's office.

Um and essentially if city council decides to move forward to this at your June 15th meeting, we will advertise the 10-day bid period starting after that.

If there are no upset bids after that at the conclusion of that 10-day upset bid process, the manager would be authorized to execute the lease with the terms described within.

So I'm glad to answer any questions on this.

I know there are folks here with uh the amphitheater development that are here if you have any questions for them as well.

Ms.

Mayor.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um there we go.

Thank you, Aaron.

Uh obviously the deal is changing a bit uh to our favor, in my opinion.

Uh my understanding, and Bucky Dam is here at Live Nation, who which we hope will join us in this partnership, uh, needed this longer term of thing.

But if I remember correctly, the tax value on this property is about 240, 220, something like that.

That's roughly correct.

Okay, well let's call it 2240 just for Google's.

So we're gonna net 360,000 at least based on the initial uh contract.

So we're getting over the 30-year period getting more than the actual tax value of the property there.

Uh it's going to uh create some permanent structures there that uh technically would become ours if uh they walk away from the from the lease lease agreement unless they took them with them, I guess.

So um I I think I can see that the need for the longer term to make this work out because there's a huge investment that's going to be made here.

I think it's gone bucket to 20 million plus a dollar, so it seems to me very reasonable city from a financial standpoint.

It's it's a better deal for us than the original one.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr.

Dane, would you like to say anything?

If you give your name and address to the record, uh Bucky Dame, 3780 Kirklys Road, Winston-Salem.

And uh Councilmember Clark, Chair Clark, and the members.

Um just appreciate your considering this.

Obviously, we're looking at this because uh the investment has increased considerably, and we want more permanent stability as we go through this process and the project.

Uh our plan right now is to break ground on the amphitheater in late July, early August of this this year with an opening of spring of 27.

Okay.

And this this what we're trying to procreate here with this artist village is more of a park-like setting for the artist to enjoy when they're here, and hopefully that spreads the word in the industry and other artists want to come and uh come to Winston-Salem.

Thank you, sir.

Okay.

Any questions, comments?

Ms.

Sipio.

Let me cut mine off.

Just uh uh for clarity, this artist's village is open to the public, or is it a closed facility for just the performers?

It's a closed facility for the for the crews that are traveling, the local crews that are working the shows as well as the artists themselves.

It will be fenced and gated off, yes.

So it had restrooms on it.

Are there going to be restrooms for amphitheater uh people come to see the shows?

Oh no, definitely, yes.

That's on the other side of the state.

It's on the other side, on the other side of the street.

Definitely.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you, Chair Clark.

A couple of questions.

The first question, uh, when this first was presented to council in September, I don't remember.

Were we told that Live Nation would be the concert promoter uh for this venue?

I think the council to clarify that we were in discussion with Live Nation.

They haven't committed anything.

Um obviously, this is some things they looked at when they looked at the site that uh Okay.

I'm sorry, that they would like to like to see.

So uh that that's that's where this is kind of involved.

At the same time, I think we realized once we got into the project and got well into the fall, we realized that the temporary structures weren't going to be adequate uh and that the total investment of the entire amphitheater was increasing such that we needed more stability there.

Okay.

I I knew that uh in my mind, this was the first time I had heard of that live nation would be connected to the amphitheater, and the statement was made just a little while ago that the reason for the 30-year lease request uh was coming uh because this is what live nation needs.

Someone just said that.

I talked with the manager uh yesterday about uh live nations participation, and I had some questions and concerns because they have uh recently uh been accused of um uh ticket inflation, uh, and they were found guilty.

And uh I just uh am very concerned about entering the city entering into an agreement where we will be the vehicle for live nation to have 30 years to uh monopolize uh this uh concert promoting for the amphitheater and maybe possibly uh inflate ticket prices that our citizens will have to pay.

So I'm just really concerned about uh an agreement with uh a company that was found guilty of those things.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions, comments?

Always forget to cut it on.

Uh just a brief comment.

Um the entertainment venue, and I'm aware of some of the articles that you've read.

Um my answer to that is quite simply, you don't have to go to a concert.

Uh the last concert I went to was a Rolling Stones concert, and Mick Jagger was 15 years younger than he is now.

Uh to me, this is discretionary income.

You can go or you're not go.

Uh I do think uh the developers, actually, I I believe we're going to be dealing with the developers.

You will have a contract with that if that happens, it will be a contract with Live Nation.

Or whoever it could be.

Yeah, the reason third party.

Whoever they sign with makes a commitment to bring so many shows through.

That's really what they're doing.

And they would be looking at, okay, we have a venue here, here, and here that we can work this and here, and therefore that it makes sense to them.

But but uh there are other folks I know you're talking to.

Um I think it's great if we have a private citizen that's paying us market rate.

And by the way, we call this park land.

This is really just land.

There's no picnic tables, there's no bathrooms on it.

It's it and it's quite hilly, I believe.

If it's the land I think it is.

Uh not good for much other than I guess walking around on it or whatever.

But uh I'm extremely supportive of this.

I think it is a great idea uh to get we're having some concerns with downtown.

We need to get more people downtown.

We've had a number of restaurants close, et cetera, and we need to get the critical mask back downtown.

So with that, oh Ms.

Scipio has a question, and I will I will.

Uh my question is I uh just clarification.

If at the end of this lease or any time before the end of the lease, I think someone just said that the buildings that were constructed would be the cities.

Is that accurate?

I think what we put in the terms in your car for Council Recipient over the conclusion of the 30-year lease, or if the amphitheater ceases to operate before then the developer to return the land back to green space, or if an alternative agreement could be reached between two parties, i.e.

if there were buildings there at that time that were of value to the city that we wish to have some interest in, and it was mutually agreed upon, and we could work out a deal, then we could we could structure a deal where that we could take possession of those buildings if that could be worked out.

But otherwise it would be returned essentially to green space.

That's correct.

All right.

Thank you.

Uh I move for approval of the second.

We have a motion and a second.

Everybody please vote when this comes up.

And that is approved.

Thank you all very much.

And again, Mr.

Dane, it will be at we will have a public hearing Monday night.

It's good to see you.

Mr.

Dane is a former retired employee of the city.

And I think you live in the West Ward if I caught that address correctly.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

We will now go to G4 if the city clerk will please read this one.

Item G4, consideration of items related to the fiscal year 2025, 2026 budget ordinances.

Mr.

Tesh, this is the current year budget.

Not to be confused with the new budget that starts in 21 days or so.

This is the current year budget, yes, sir.

So uh good afternoon, Chairman, mayors meet them, members of the city council.

We do a year-end amendments every year.

Generally speaking, this amendment is on consent as a results of one of the items and for transparency, both for the council and the public.

I had asked the manager that we actually put this on general agenda.

There are quite a few, uh, a number of amendments uh tied here.

Uh generally speaking, like I said, they would go on consent.

I will not go through each one of them unless uh the council members would like me to.

There are several of them that are technical in nature, uh, several of them uh that record expenses at the Benton uh per financial uh um accounting standards that we have to do.

Uh there are some additional areas where we are cleaning up some accounting entries that we have done uh in our housing programs.

There are a couple of entries related to motor vehicle privilege tax and Powell bill funding.

Again, these are very technical in nature.

We're not adding anything to the budget.

We are just moving money around uh as the state requires for street resurfacing and general fund operations.

There are four amendments on here that are smaller in nature, so there is an emergency solutions grant increase from NCDHS and an amount of 163,000.

There's a 150,000 transfer from the general fund to the ballpark fund to cover insurance and maintenance and other operating costs at that facility for year end.

We have included the parking fund payment, so you approved uh the termination of the lease with RJ Reynolds.

Uh part of the money that we would get from RJ Reynolds is going to go to the county per the original economic development agreement.

So we have an amendment in the parking fund for that amount that would go to the county.

And then there's also no amendment in the occupancy tax fund for 125,000 to support bus services at the International Black Theater Festival.

Uh aside from that, there is one uh larger amendment there for the general fund as well.

Uh during year end, we often transfer money between service areas inside the general fund.

We are doing that as well as asking for an appropriation of general fund balance in the public safety service area, which will help cover uh expenditures mostly related uh to police department and attributable to overtime for special events, uh training costs for increased BLET classes, which is a good thing.

We are hiring more police officers.

We are getting many more of them into the classes, uh, and increased benefits costs.

So several years ago, the city council authorized increased benefits when we had roughly 20 percent vacancy across the organization.

Many of those benefits were covered by salary savings, and as we continue to hire, uh we don't have the salary savings in the public safety service area of the general fund to cover things related to recruiting incentives, the vacation payout policy change, as well as the uncapped holiday accruals.

Uh again, in prior years, we would have expected salary savings to cover most of this.

We will be working diligently in fiscal year 27 to make sure that this is managed correctly.

And I will say that the police department has cut its uh average overtime expenses by period pay period by 36 percent since January to help get closer to this year's budget.

But again, we will come back with a better plan for 27 as well.

So um wanted to do this one on general agenda in case you had any questions, as there were many things on the amendment itself.

If I were to add all these up, what's the impact on the fund balance?

General fund balance.

Generally speaking, to be offset by any in word about decreases in fund balance.

So the police one is about a million and a half, and it's 150,000 for the ballpark.

Those would be the two majors.

The rest of them may have very large amounts, but they would have no effect on general fund balance.

Yeah, and on the public safety side, we have been uh a little conservative with the number, so I would hope that we're not actually spending that much of fund balance, but uh we did project a number so that we made sure that we came in underneath it.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Any questions, comments?

Can I get a motion?

Move for approval of item G4.

Motion approval item G4.

We have a second.

If everybody please vote when that comes up.

Okay.

Done.

G five.

Let me introduce this one.

When we oh, excuse me.

Yeah, good.

You want to say something?

No, I'm good.

Okay.

Oh, yeah.

If the clerk will please read G five.

Item G five, consideration of resolutions approving funding for nonprofit agencies.

At the budget meeting, last council meeting when we approved the budget.

The budget we approved simply had a one-line item for nonprofits, which was 941,000 or something like that.

Thank you.

Approximately, thank you.

Um, but we still need to allocate that.

And I deliberately put that off until today.

We're not behind schedule.

We typically adopt the budget, the second meeting in June.

So we're actually two weeks ahead there.

And this is less than we're a little bit more than one percent of the budget, so we're not talking a lot.

Do you have the pages that you were going to hand out or go over?

The the city clerk does have uh copies of what are included in the CARF.

Uh so if you would like to physically have a paper copy of it and if we could, because we may want to mark through things and it is my intent that we will get this resolved so that we can vote on it Monday night and be done with the budget for uh for the year.

And so once everybody gets one, I'll make some further comments.

Councilmember Clark, I'd also note the 956 number is the general fund number.

You have the occupancy tax as well.

Thank you, sir.

Okay.

Just I'm gonna go over the general fund community agency proposal first, and on the back is the other one.

I've got an extra copy if anybody needs it anyway.

To remind everybody, the 841 thousand, all those items above that were organizations that got at least four votes, so to speak, from either a council member and the mayor also uh voted as well.

We did, I don't know if we officially approve it, but we did, I guess, accept that, and then we had to deal with, and it's the difference is 114,000, as you see there.

If you'll flip to the back side, I'll talk a bit more of that in a minute.

To the back side, uh totals 406 and the first, I think that's five items, uh got at least four votes, and we kind of uh agreed on that, and we were left with 28,000.

What I did for better or worse is several people offered additional ones they wanted included from the mayor on down, and I will say I did contact Miss Adams who wasn't at the meeting to see if she wanted any.

I took the ones that were there and kind of prorated it down.

Uh is that what the group is below?

I think it is, yes.

Uh basically took what the originally amount um came out, and this just prorated it down, is what it did now.

On the other ones, there was a suggestion, and this is the way I interpreted it, it may not be incorrect.

People say, Well, and by with collideum, just for the record, was the one that I put on there.

I didn't think we were giving them enough money.

But anyway, since they do help put heads on beds to use them over here, and again, these three organizations, I think uh, for example, James Taylor, I think that's your use summer programming.

Uh, and I can't remember who did what, kind of prorated these as well.

So, what I would like to propose today that that we limit our conversations to the 28,000 and leave the 378 as is, because that was agreed to by at least four, and on the front page or the other side that we look at the 114 and leave the 841 as it is.

Uh for better or worse, I accept the wishes of the council members, and I was one of them that voted, and that's why I think the 841 should stay as it is, because that's kind of what we selected, and the 378.

With that, I'm open to any type of suggestions on what to do with 114,000 and 28,000.

And I'll start with Miss Adams.

Yes, thank you, uh Chair Clark.

Uh my only request or concern again is that we hear the constituents of the city who paid the taxes in order to be able to do this.

And there have been a lot of concerns in the media, social media about colliding.

And I'm not saying that we need to pull back on the money, but I'm also saying right now I was on that board uh when I first got on the council in 10, 11, I think in 12.

And even then, my concern, this is when they were at the CyWorks building on the north side.

My concern is again, just like a lot of the citizens, is verifying that agencies that get tax dollars, that the programs that they do, that we ensure that everybody has access to those programs or an opportunity, whatever that means.

Somebody from the city is gonna have to go to work, and we're gonna have to make sure that that is done.

Because if we have citizens accusing us of voting to give money to agencies that don't uh cater or want to deal with marginalized youth or children, then that's a problem.

So but we can't prove that unless we actually audit programming like we do uh for vendors or anybody else.

So it's not like a heavy lift, but I think in order for us to be able to show a good faith effort to our citizens that we care, and we heard them that uh, and I'm not just singling out collideum, it could be a couple others on here too, that we need to make sure all of them have programming that's equitable to the diversity of our city, and if they're having programming that children, marginalized children don't get an opportunity to go and participate, then that's a problem, and not saying that the city has to solve it, but there has to be some collaboration done with other agencies to ensure that these children have an opportunity to be there.

Again, when I got on this this board back in 09 or 10, 11 and 12, I communicated the same thing because nobody could tell me the numbers and the races of the demographics of the children they were catering to, and the city was given a lot more money then than it is now.

So I just want us to be cognizant of that, and I want that on the record that I did speak to that uh for our citizens that have that concern.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Any other comments, Ms.

Shorner.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh it was it was stated in the uh last meetings that we had two pools of money, and the occupancy tax um money fund would need to go something that dealt with heads and beds.

There are several um folks uh organizations that are listed that contribute to heads and beds.

Um there are very few organizations, and I'll bring up collideum that um that asked for a certain dollar amount and has gotten as close as collideum has to their full ask.

The fact that the occupancy fund needs to at least in some way touch heads and beds.

There are several other organizations that deserve some of that, need some of that, and would make this a more equitable equitable um choice.

If there is 12,000 that we're gonna put on a secondary funding to Collideum, my recommendation and suggestion would be that 12,000 go to either to the youth overall, and as those programs come up, we help fund those.

We all have that same challenge and passion to make sure that the youth are um taken care of as much as possible.

Um, so just to put that over in that fund, and as things come up throughout the year, use it for that would be a great thing.

Yes, collide does do things with the youth, but I was told at one point that the ass, the total ass from collideum, it's just a small part of their overall budget.

If it's that small a part, then their budget would be okay.

Might have to tighten the strap a little bit, but it'll be okay.

But for our youth and so many other ways, not that they can't go to the collide, yes, they can, but there's more programming than just the one that needs that kind of thing.

So it was also suggested that you would uh prefer not to have any organization dip into both pockets, and so if that was the statement, what's good for one is good for all, let's not double dip for any one organization, and let's spread it around.

It's not a lot of money, it's not it doesn't go but so far, but let's let's see what we else we can do and help another area of the community with it.

Thank you, Chairman.

Ms.

Schorner, you're suggesting giving this to an organization that doesn't put any heads on beds.

No, sir.

So I I'll give an example.

Um not listed here is bookmarks.

No, I'm talking about the youth.

You wanted to you if I must go, you said for the youth programming.

That is not a heads-on-beds organization.

That's summer stuff.

I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.

Well, because it is already listed in that category.

If if we turn to the back.

No, it's not on, it's actually on a category that's not on either one of these.

Youth summer programming.

The youth program is on another another page in the book.

In the book.

The youth summer programming is already part of what's set aside in the occupancy tax fund.

At the request of one of the council members in a former budget workshop, it was that we would set aside a smaller portion additionally for youth summer programming.

Uh, this could be used and has been used for things like Fairgrounds Fridays in the past and other events that take place during the summer.

I would also note, although we historically use this for heads in beds, again, the statutory requirements.

But somewhere in the budget, I saw it was 40,000, and what was the source of that funding for the youth summer programs?

It's in the occupancy tax fund.

This would be adding to that bucket.

Okay, but it's not on this sheet up top.

It is part of a separate to the occupancy tax fund is nearly a million dollar fund.

And so, that's a whole different in the operating budget.

It's not a community agency.

These are city-sponsored programs.

So anyway.

Any other comments before we go around?

Uh I'm trying to take everything and then I'm going to try to come up with a great compromise.

Uh, Chair Clark, you've done a great job, first of all.

And you have to, Scott.

Uh, but I'm in agreement with uh council member joyner uh for a collide to uh receive money from two pots, and no other organization receive money from two two pots.

I just think that that's not the look that we want our citizens to see.

I think we need to have a look of fairness and uh equitable.

Thank you.

Okay.

Let me make a proposal when we may get out of here on time, that we I'll drop the collide off of the back page, and that 12,000 I will prorate it into the one, two, three, four, five, six, seven items on the other page.

Well, Mr.

Chairman.

Drop the 12,000 on the the back page and move that money to the front page.

The lower half.

But you couldn't that's right.

That's the wrong part.

Excuse me.

I would want to drop the collide and take the 12,000 and prorate it amongst the ones up top.

Yes.

And that way it kind of stays heads on beds.

Uh and I don't know what that is.

That's it's one or two percent more, but amongst Old Salem National North Carolina Black Theater, South River Run, Piedmont, and one Salem Symphony, I will take the 12,000 and prorate it accordingly.

So each other.

Each, yeah, something like that.

And then that will get everything balanced.

I would like to make a comment.

I have in my office the collideum annual report.

The fees people pay to enter pays about a third of the cost.

Two-thirds of it is raised by donations and whatever.

I I am visibly upset of some of the comments made that for some reason that is some type of an elitist organization.

Um ask the Chamber of Commerce what are the five places they take companies to.

It's one of them.

It is that impressive.

I was just in Charleston and paid the same fee I pay for my two grandchildren to go to the children's museum in Charleston versus Collideum.

Ours is ten times better than this.

It was no comparison.

It is a super buy.

They certainly, to the extent of 67 percent of their budget, does not come from admissions.

They do lots of programs for folks here, and it is an invaluable part of this community.

It obviously stands out downtown.

But when people, okay, tell me about once in Salem, they take them to Collideum, they take them to Old Salem, they go out and rent all the house.

They don't show them our home, our office depot or our home depot buildings.

They are the same as everybody's across the country.

But when they ask what's unique about it, those are some, take them to White Forest.

Show them some of those type things.

But I I think we have been bad mouthing one of the best organizations in this city.

And it concerns me, but I'm willing to move the money around to get it done.

But I I just think, and anybody wants to, it's on my round table in my office.

You can come see their annual report and how many people come through it.

It is a big budget.

I think it was three or four or five million dollars.

It's a lot of money down there, four million.

But it is a super organization.

This town should be very, very proud of it.

And I'll just leave it at that.

But anyway, those are my suggestions.

We take the 12 prorated up top, and we're done.

To the 2400 each.

Each one of them, yeah, whatever the math is.

Yes, ma'am.

Um thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I think I sort of caused this collide issue when I said, since they are doing so much with uh beds that they probably should go under the occupancy.

You can blame me for that.

I did not at that time mean mean that they should get one something from one budget and something from the other.

That's fine.

And so um I am very happy with eliminating that 12,000.

Now I do want to speak to Collideum and all of our nonprofits in this city, and the perception that they are only for certain classes of people in this city.

I do know that collide early on made an effort to offer free access, and they were doing outreach to underserved communities.

Uh, and it's a very real challenge to um get our people to go to those places where they perceive themselves not welcome.

It's not part of what they do.

So I challenge all of our nonprofits to assess what they do to truly be receptive to all of our residents coming in.

So if you were regular at Collideum, you wouldn't feel that way if that's something you do and you want to do for your kids.

But people who don't, who've never had that access, uh, there is a different perception, and we must not act like it doesn't exist.

And to that end, I'm going to say that I am not in favor of giving O Salem an additional $2,000, because in the past year, they would not allow a film company to come and produce uh production about African American in North Carolina.

Uh and I felt that was just a blatant slap in our faces for whatever reasons, and we move that production to the Coliseum.

Um so I was I'm not in I mean to the fairgrounds, thank you.

And it was a beautiful production.

So I say that to all of our our nonprofits.

When the city gives you money, it's for all people in this city who have paid taxes regardless of race, and they should examine what things they do not want and why they don't want it.

If it's truly an interruption of their normal business, I could see that.

But what was desired was not that because they were willing to work off site.

Um, so I am truly in favor of moving the money, but I I personally would not uh like O Salem to go through um to get an additional amount of money.

You know, sometimes all of us have to be reminded what our mission mission was, purpose, objective.

And also within all of that, the perception of any business institution, whatever you want to call it, organization, if there are people, customers, or you have not been able to get, or customers that leave your business or doing service with you, and their perception is that you didn't treat them right, or you didn't respond to them the way you treated the person in front of you, that's a real real life perception, and there are some of us in this room that go through this more than most.

All I'm saying is to what you're hearing, Councilmember Clark, and it's unfortunate that you feel like the community and others are giving collideum a bad rap or giving old Salem a bad rap.

But as long as there are people that can talk and breathe and speak truth, we are going to do that.

And whether you want to hear your perception of what people, black people, brown people, white people, poor people, rich people think of you, then that's that's your thing.

But all I'm saying is all of these it's like council member Scipio, all of the nonprofits need to check themselves.

Are you doing really what you start started out to do?

Do you actually ask your customers from all areas of humanity?

What is your perception?

Just like you get the surveys on your phone when you go to Lowe's or go to the grocery store or wherever.

How did you feel about your experience with us today?

I think they need to do more of that.

It could help to alter their programming as to what they think the community wants versus what they want.

So, you know, going forward, uh, I agree.

I remember sitting on this board with Councilmember Clark and Councilmember Taylor, and I was very adamant about these same agencies getting money forever.

Why?

Why do they well, you know, people come here, they want to see this and they want to see it.

Well, that's because we don't market any other things in our city besides the big three or four, and that's unfortunate.

Because Winston Salem would not be Winston Salem without all of its people.

Whether that's Winston-Salem State, whether that's Delta Arts, whether that's any of the museums that we have, whether it's the theater festival, you know.

So for me personally, Councilmember Clark, and I'm gonna end my comments, and I'm gonna get ready to vote or do whatever.

But uh, I agree with Councilmember Scipio on the old Salem uh the money uh because they did not, and I heard about it, I got emails about it that they were gonna be up at my ward doing their filming because they didn't work welcome at this organization, this icon that's supposed to represent our city, welcoming people, and uh I also agree with uh dividing the money appropriately between the one, two, three, the other one, two, three, four, five, or four.

Four, okay.

Ms.

Burr.

Thank you, uh Count Chair Clark.

I also agree with uh not uh with dividing the money among the others and not giving the 2500 to O Salem.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh then I will make the motion that we eliminate the 12,000 collide and uh distribute that money amongst the four items, the four organizations above, excluding Old Salem.

Can I get a second to that motion?

Second.

Okay.

All in favor, please vote when it comes up.

Councilmember Clark, we are distributing that evenly, not on a prerata basis, correct?

Three thousand dollars across the four equals twelve thousand.

Yeah, that's fine.

It's not enough money to matter.

That's fine.

This will uh be voted on Monday night, and uh so just to remind everybody we didn't change anything on the front page of mine, and on the back page, we move that 12,000 up.

Okay, I think is that the last item have we voted on the general fund amounts in total?

Oh, oh, excuse me, yeah.

Well, let me amend my motion.

We'll revote that we accept pay the front page as shown, and on the back page, reappropriate the 12,000.

Would you take that as a friendly amendment?

Yes, I would.

Okay.

Let's vote again, please.

Be sure we do it right.

Thank y'all very much.

And if y'all give me one second, I think that is it.

That will be the only budget item Monday night, I believe.

Oh, yes.

By the way, we have a list of what organizations people are on the boards of, and we will make unusual motions so that you get excluded.

So instead of being one motion, it may be five or six, but it'll all make sense.

Please look at it when you get your thing and be sure we have the right organizations for you.

Okay, that's it.

With no other comments, we are adjourned.