City Council Budget Development Work Session   4/10/2025

It's six o'clock and I will start the meeting.

We have everyone here except for Michael Payne, so all except for Michael is present and accounted for.

This is our last work session.

for the budget, and so we are going to get down into some more weeds.

Is this also a public hearing at the end?

You know, if public comes, it's okay.

So if public is happy to be here when we're done with the presentation and discussion, we certainly will take public input.

So good evening, mayor, councilors, members of the public who are tuning in.

We are welcoming you to your last of the scheduled work sessions, although there are still a couple of steps and a special meeting that needs to be had.

We'll talk about that as well.

I want to remind you all to this evening please lean forward and speak into your microphones or just pull them closer because we do have an event at Ting that will be competing with you for those to be able to hear you.

This last session is really the wrap-up.

The goal for us of course is to make sure that we are now all on the same page as we conclude the great experience of putting together a local government budget.

I'm making sure that we are ready to move forward into our new fiscal year that starts July 1st.

We have a couple things to go over.

Ms.

Hammel is going to do her thing of walking you through a couple of things that we have in some course corrections and some identification of additional funds and pointing out

some recommended uses and have you all confirm and then go over for you the dates for the remaining steps as we work to complete the recasting your consideration of property taxes.

I just want to make sure that we get those steps right for the public to be able to follow along and to participate as they may be interested.

So I'm going to turn it over to Ms.

Good evening.

So our revenue team has continued to meet during this time that we've been holding work sessions.

We did have a couple of revisions on a few of the revenues.

Personal property tax, we revised that up.

There's about an $84,000 change there.

Vehicle Daily Rental, a big $5,000 change there.

Plastic bag tax, as we have continued to look at the trends for collections this year, we are revising that down about $15,000, which is, if you will recall, when we talked about that tax, that is hopefully, if the tax is doing its job, that will continue to decrease.

That's not necessarily a bad thing.

And then business and professional license, BPOL, those assessments were due March 1st, well after the first projections.

And so we did see a $700,000 increase there.

Okay, this is Todd Divers, Commissioner of the Revenue.

You know, I don't know that anything in particular is going on.

The nature of BPOL is that it rolls in at one time.

It's due on March 1st.

So that money comes in over the course of March and April.

So we don't really have a very good idea of basis to estimate it until the very end.

I think, you know,

Oh, what's proposed for next fiscal year is going to be in line with what we're going to end up with this fiscal year.

Yeah.

What I'm looking at just looking at the two lines, where it says proposed 10,010,100,000.

I think it was maybe a little bit more than what we were projecting for this fiscal year.

When did we give you that number, that 10-8?

So the fact that you're suggesting we put 10-8.

We think so, yes.

We hope so.

To have a change of 7% in a number that is that large is kind of an interesting point.

to hit.

We have some large, large taxpayers that swing by hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.

And they can make or break it.

And so we just, we just have to wait to see what happens.

That's a business license for law firms.

Yeah, just about anything.

Correct.

Well, that's not like your NDS license.

building permits and things like that.

It's just business license.

I always hate to describe it as a, I mean, it's a privilege tax.

It's for the, technically, I guess the code says it's for the privilege of conducting business in Charlottesville.

But it's really a tax, you know, it's a tax receipt.

The piece of paper, it's just a tax receipt.

Okay, so those are the revenue adjustments.

So essentially, adding $774,000 to the budget.

So before we talk about what to do with that, we wanted to go back one last time, because we've spent a lot of time talking about your council's discretionary funds.

And there's been a revision one revision there that we wanted to just talk through.

So you all remember that I pulled together a series of funds including a series of funding resources to create a larger fund for you to disperse this proposed budget year.

including your strategic initiatives fund.

It started with recommending increasing your strategic initiatives fund to $500,000 so that you would have that in reserve for the full benefit of the calendar year to make certain decisions as things come forward.

I'm kind of thinking that with all the volatility that we have in DC there could very easily be a series of moments that come up and that this would give you the flexibility to make some decisions and how we could support gaps and what could happen based on decisions and how it actually lands in the community.

In addition to that, we realized the reduction in what the cost of the ACRJ project was going to be.

We had some funds available in our housing opportunity program support, and the CAF pulled all of that together along with

some available unspent CIP funds and a balance out of the CDBG account.

I have since learned that I should leave CDBG alone and let our analysts work on that by themselves because it is a little bit more complicated.

So I have found myself needing to withdraw those funds which reduces the $1,002,001 that I had accumulated for you to $915,000.

620.

And the reason is CDBG is very prescribed.

It has limitations on how you can spend in these different categories.

What we had on the list I thought would qualify, but once we got through all of your variations in considering what options you wanted to find, which is this list here, the PHA and BRAC items don't actually fit because they are considered public service and we always exceed

I'm sorry I'm having a hard time tracking here.

These are all your decisions that we walked you through before from the... So it takes you to 660.

Yeah, so here is a spreadsheet.

I also gave you a copy because it's a little bit hard on screen, but this first column is the $774,000 of new revenue that we just showed you.

Your council strategic initiatives fund, right now there's $364,000 in there.

We're going to show you how we're adding this $185,000.

These other columns are also the other funding sources that got you to that 915, so the CAF, the HOPs, the CIP contingency, and the

the CIP amendments.

So the idea of this spreadsheet is to kind of show you what we've done here.

So as you recall, the first proposed budget we had $140,000 in your council strategic initiatives account.

That plus the 364 was going to get you to $500,000.

Then through a series of meetings, you made some allocations to different agencies, which was on that slide we just showed you.

So the Boys and Girls Club down through the PHA, all of these numbers here were on that list.

That's how you spent the 140.

And then some of that was the jail got reduced, the Blue Ridge Detention Center went up, we had to change bridge line.

We also added funding for CRHA and then anything that's highlighted in green is this is the tonight's the first time you're seeing that so we we're actually requesting a change for Home to Hope to provide some additional an increase in direct aid

The Treasurer's Office has some annual maintenance fees for their online tax business portal.

The SPCA budget based on the new contract is reducing by $68,000.

The African American Heritage Center was not in the first version of the budget.

That has been added back in.

And then based on our tax assessments, relief assessments that were just being finished by the commissioner's office,

Can you please help me understand with the African-American Heritage Center, is this this thing's an evident counsel firm?

Let me slow down.

This is a recurring thing that comes up, it seems like every year.

Right, so the prior year, you all, through your conversations, we concluded that the Jefferson School African American Heritage Center was to be designated fundamental.

because we had continually came up with the rent consideration so the mistake that happened and I'm owning the mistake that happened is that we missed the Jefferson School being on the fundamental list and that was just an oversight on conversations with them on submitting through Zoom grants so by not submitting through Zoom grants they didn't appear on the list but they didn't know that they had to still submit through Zoom grants so

We have some course corrections that we need to do there in making sure that everyone understands what they have to do still even though they're in a non-competitive round.

So this is just recognizing that error and putting it here.

Thankfully we have this realization of additional funds to make it that much smoother to be able to accomplish.

and of course that same thing applied as we told you as it related to CRHA and adding the, because we're, and actually we're not going to label it resident services, it's just CRHA because what we're going to say to them is it's the same situation of council has made the decision that annually you will not compete for funding by our designating this amount of money to you.

If you are in search or pursuit of additional funds then through that submission is where you make your request.

so that we then can highlight that for consideration separate because part of what was part of the evaluation that I have to make as Kristi comes to me and says, are we going to give fundamental agencies an increase as they requested or not?

That's the actual decision point.

No, they would have this year because of this error because we missed it and that's part of what we were of course correcting by adding them back in this fundamental category based on your prior decisions.

We have to have conversation with them about their pursuits of funding going forward.

To your point, they could be here and in the competitive rounds.

I don't particularly care for that.

I think that makes it double-dipping in a way.

I would rather them come through one lane, make your ask however you make your ask, and let us consider that in that moment, and then leave the competitive rounds open for those that don't have the avenue for the non-competitive space.

And then we hopefully, we won't necessarily reduce who's in the competitive round, but we just eliminate

So, if we're, I've often wondered what exactly the financial arrangement either is or ought to be between the city and CRHA.

Where CRHA, where we basically, we bought for them, I don't know, five million dollars at least of assets that they are supposed to be turning into

and more income, more revenue for them to help cover other shortfalls and so on and so forth.

Well, I think that's a consideration that you all have to make.

What I would say to you is this is what's leading us to more of the program relationship, the distinction of the relationship, because we're doing a number of different things with CRHA today.

And I think part of what we need to do is get our arms around that, which Deputy Freese is working with the Community Solutions staff right now.

and what I would generously call an audit.

And that is just going through all of the different things that we are doing today, working with them, making sure that we're all on the same page.

It's not viewed as a negative moment.

It's about just getting our ducks in a row and making sure that we're clear on the expectation on this is for you to do this by this date.

The need and desire expectation for you to do this is on this date.

We're working through all of that because honestly, that's never happened.

Right.

and I think what we're gonna find ourselves at from what my appreciation and my conversations with Mr. Sales has been is he would very much like council to consider that 137 being dramatically more than that and then he would not come through competitive rounds at all and it would just be for a packaging of the things that the city identifies as supporting CRHA because of who they are and what they do for the population that they serve in our community.

I think Council Payne has spoken to that in the past as well so that may be where we go to over time but I think we have all these other relationships that we need to work out like the managing of the portfolio and what becomes of the revenues from that portfolio and how do you then decide whether or not you should come in the competitive rounds.

and I think that will be a very important topic going forward and I think there's a planned work session between city council and CRHA in several months and I know that CRHA, I think I could speak for them in saying they would

As many as those, as council would find useful, they're open to doing if councilors have a lot of questions.

Just quickly, I think they did not apply, or they did apply through HOPPS and CAF.

I could be wrong, but I don't think they received funding, so this would be the only one this year.

and this isn't any request they're making but they recently adopted their budget and something that should be on our radars whether we do or don't do anything is CRHA's properties with the Dogwood portfolio and the ones they're attaching vouchers to are turning a decent profit but they are losing a significant amount on each public housing unit and the federal government has already removed I think around 1.3 million dollars in funding for CRHA and they're

Partially making that up with some of that revenue from attaching vouchers to units, but we should anticipate that over the next several years their funding will probably be reduced by the federal government on the level of several million dollars.

So that's definitely something we should be aware of and talking with them about.

Yeah, I was just going to chime in to say that we should have a work session because I want to know how what's happening in Washington will impact, because I haven't heard about it here, but just in general that some of those funds for projects like that just over the United States have been really competitive or drying up.

So I'd like to know if we still remain on the same time.

And so a couple of things.

One was something that just came up at a United Way meeting that Ashley and I were with.

And Ashley, was it the Prosper?

Can you come up and maybe give a little background on that program?

Sure, I'm happy to.

Good evening City Council, City Manager.

In full disclosure, I am on the United Way Board.

It's the only local board that I do serve on because of how we fund them and I do not vote in any funding that they receive from the city.

However, they are engaged in a program that I think is pretty important for not only our community, but communities, honestly, across the nation.

Many of you all may have heard of an acronym called ALICE, but I will make sure that I share for any individual who is watching this meeting.

ALICE stands for Asset Limited Income Constrained, but Employed.

We all know someone who is ALICE, whether they are family members or a friend.

They are working maybe one or two jobs, trying to make sure they keep stable housing, doing everything they can.

They earn too much to receive supportive services, such as maybe even SNAP or Section 8 opportunities, or housing choice vouchers as they're called now.

but they don't earn enough to make it.

They are the individuals who are literally one paycheck away from being homeless.

And so United Ways across the country back in the early 2010s started focusing in on who is this population and is there anything that can be done to help support them.

And this population ends up being extremely important.

They are your managers, they're your childcare workers, they're your teachers,

Sometimes they're your social workers, maybe even your police or firefighters, and they don't have other options unless people decide to invest in them.

What Prosper does is it's a unique program that individuals go to the United Way because they are interested in receiving

comprehensive help thinking about their finances.

So they receive everything from budgeting education as needed, other wraparound supportive services, maybe it's to find new housing, a different apartment that might be a little bit more affordable for them.

They help with things such as individuals getting to and from work.

One of the changes they've made to a program, many United Ways help support programs that can get people to vehicles, but this United Way supports a program that helps fix the one they have.

So we're not only being good stewards because that car isn't going to junk or anything like that,

But they're making sure that the car is safe and sound while also helping them save to maybe get the hybrid that they've always wanted, maybe even an EV at some point.

We heard today from a lovely young woman who finally earns her first home.

And when you do that so many more things open up for you and so many more opportunities.

So Prosper really is a comprehensive program.

It comes with an infusion of funding for individuals who are eligible.

There is $2,500 that's available for that family to help them meet a need, whether it's an immediate need of maybe paying a bill, or maybe it's to help them be able to fix an item, fix a refrigerator, all those things that add up and end up putting someone really behind

in their bills and possibly jeopardize their stability.

I'm really excited about the program because as another note, I'm a bit of a ringer.

I ran a bank on program for United Way and that's a particular population that I was really invested in because quite frankly they're my family.

and who my parents were.

And I think that with that investment, I believe that this community will thrive and this council will be really surprised at how that supportive services for individuals who are still on lower incomes, but aren't our lowest income, but certainly aren't our highest income.

That little infusion of support we heard from two individuals today, where it was this one thing

that completely changed their trajectory.

One individual is in HR at a for-profit company, another individual, actually I think now that I remember, they might both be in HR, one at the university, one at a private company.

And the way that they talk about the opportunities that that little bump gave them is just

Exactly.

$800 a month on Lyft to get to and from work.

And that's actually another part of their program.

They want a grant from Lyft, so they're helping people get to and from work.

So it's very narrow right now.

If you need to get to work and there is no other way, no mass transit opportunity, certainly you're going to connect them to that.

But we do know that there are some places where individuals in our community may work within our counties, for example, where transit simply at this point doesn't go.

And so think of what would happen to everyone's bank account if you suddenly got $800 more a month.

Think of what you could do, what you could dream about.

So really excited about that program, happy to answer any questions.

We do have data on Alice.

So the reason we bring it up is because that program had received $31,000 in the past.

It wasn't from the city, it was a grant they got, but they only got 15 this year.

And we wanted to see if we can help fill in part of that short form of $16,000.

So it was the last request I got before I got here.

So one thing we can do is we can change this sheet to kind of memorialize any of these changes.

How much are you saying you want to add?

It's 16.

So there's also, that I'll offer for you, a conversation that Council has participated in in the past week that I just discovered in leaning over to Ms.

Hamillen saying we forgot one.

The Tonser League indicated a need for consideration to fill the gap that they are now going to face in 2026 because the

the item that Senator Deeds had presented for a second year of funding was vetoed by the governor and there does not appear based on even my direct conversation with Senator Deeds an opportunity to reconsider that because they get to reconcile that by pushing back to the governor an opportunity to

possibly get him to change his position.

They did not see that in this instance.

So that $250,000 grant that they were hoping to get in 26 or a new for our fiscal year 26 is now gone.

Uh, and in my conversation with Dr Bellamy on his abilities to see how to just carry the concert league forward and his main concern is how to have a league this summer.

He identified 25,000.

He

I would too.

It's a big draw.

It's an outlet for many of our

Community for all summer, really.

And they expanded things with kids, females, anyways, it's hopefully next year.

I am going to try to work with him on, he's been, he received a $250,000 grant for this current year that ends in June.

I am planning to check with him to see if he will expend all of that and avoid the risk of having to send anything back.

Because you've all heard me say I'm not a fan of sending money back.

If there is a possibility of getting an extension,

So at least his activity period gets extended.

There might be a shot at being able to restore a little more for what he was able to spend this past year.

she was waiting to type a number and right now this is math so we're just is the question that we are really posing at this point is is there anything else that you all have been pondering because we try to remind you that this is the end of the road and we are truly down to

$394,000 that today, right now, at this moment, is your council's strategic initiatives fund.

That's correct.

We are already

If we spend everything we've allocated here, we are already, without even having gotten into the fiscal year for which it's allocated, we are already below zero.

We start with a reserve.

and by the time we allocate all this money, what's left will be less than the present reserve.

We will have allocated more money without even having gotten to the fiscal year to cover emergencies yet.

into the reserve.

$364,000.

And it is what I'm suggesting.

In particular, I have to say, and maybe I'm just being a process nerd here, but coming up with at literally the last minute another $16,000 for something to put into the budget without

Council as a whole having examined it critically.

Admittedly, Deputy City Manager Marshall knows about it and the Mayor knows about it, but maybe it's something we want to allocate out of a contingency fund or a strategic initiative fund after some further examination.

but I just find myself trying to figure out what possible process we're advancing here and the answer is it's still back to whatever anybody throws up against the wall at council at the last minute.

I just think that's a terrible way to do business.

We've allocated, we've decided to create a council strategic initiatives fund that will allow us to consider such things in a more orderly course

Admittedly, it's for the next 15 months.

And I still don't suggest that we spend that freely.

But I find myself really rebelling against the idea that we're going to add now it's apparently a total of $46,000 without really any deliberation.

So I think so.

We'll go back to the prior slide.

Okay, so help me understand I'm not tracking probably because I'm tired.

Adding 136,000 to it basically.

All of this.

Yeah.

Yes.

500, 234, 4, so 915.

Okay, then go to the next slide, please.

These are the things we discussed in the last weeks.

Correct.

And Lloyd's point, I guess, is that because the 660 is greater than the 500, we've already gone above the council's strategic half a million dollars.

I mean, I understand the other points.

Because, I mean, this is the number we're talking about, right?

OK.

So I have two thoughts on it.

The first is that

We do have the rainy day issue, the fact that this is money that is to be spent for things that haven't yet happened, and we've got more than a full year that that's supposed to get us through.

So point number one, particularly with all the other uncertainties we're dealing with, that's something that I think we ought to be loath to spend.

The second piece is simply the practice of having

Tonight, I mean, admittedly, we at least had some emails over the last week or so about the Consulate League, although there's now a proposal to raise it by another $5,000 over the amount that was suggested in those emails, and then $16,000 more for the United Way for reasons that sound

Sure.

But one of the things that Sam said was hype.

No, Council Snook is correct in that you're not obligated to do this.

You could leave the balance and move forward, adopting the budget, agreeing that the Council's Strategic Initiatives Fund is at the raised amount that now exists.

It's 440.

440, or I want to make sure we're right on that before I say that that's the number.

I don't think it will change anything.

Yeah, I'll be honest and say that I understand the sentiments that are being expressed and I am a person of rule and order and I have offered on more than one occasion process and I've also been reminded that you all prefer to have some discretion at the end.

So I'm respecting that and I've tried my best to bring you the best version forward that I can with me compromising a little bit of what I would prefer.

because that's not my job to make the decision I'm here to bring it forward and I do I understand and appreciate the last-minute nature of it and I'm not a fan of always doing that and I think in these two moments specifically we can identify a way to bring you

Critical information so that you can have that presented to you and then you can make that determination on if you believe the item is ready to go forward and we can bring that item forward.

Ms.

Marshall can bring you more details on the PROSPER program and stand before you at a council meeting and make the request.

The same as we can have Dr. Bellamy do the same or have the United Way come themselves.

The issue is when you open that door that way, others will always attempt to come through the door the same way.

We're going to need to figure out a way to not have you bombarded with many ongoing requests because the Vibrant Community Fund program and HOPs and CAF is your process.

and we have been reluctant to require everyone to go there and only there so we have more or less compromised to make it where we can still preserve the opportunity for discretion.

So this is our best attempt at working with you on what feels right because we do want the vibrant community process to uphold and really stand up

to your review, I almost said scrutiny but it is both, your scrutiny and review so that we can continue to maintain quality relationships with the community reviewers that we engage.

They feel undermined if we change too much.

Yeah, and I appreciate all of that.

Every year with VCF we have the same conversation and I think it gets better every year and I think we're always going to face, I mean Dr. Bellamy couldn't help what happened with the, and I think

I realize every dollar that we appropriate, we have to be judicious about.

On the other hand, in terms of scale, these are relatively small things.

And, you know, exercising the machine, the bureaucratic machine to have it come before us again, I think, you know.

The United Way one, I'm a little more frustrated about because I think they could have come

earlier to appeal, we did have that process.

And I also feel like with the United Way, they're a fundraising machine, so they'll find that $16,000.

We know why the Tonsler League funding situation got a little wonky.

If I recall, what it is is that the United Way did receive less funding in the VCF process this year

than before for you will see it listed in VCF as the Financial Resiliency Task Force because that is the old name for it.

It has been revamped as this title of Prosper as of February of this year to expand on the program a little bit more.

And so I know that that is the reason why they have less funding for that financial resiliency work.

is because of that.

Now, again, I do not rate, so I don't know why.

Unfortunately, I cannot give you any of those answers, nor would you want me to.

That'd be a little biased.

OK, so sorry.

When you first presented, it was my understanding that this was a new request.

Yes, and I was trying to come up to just kind of explain the program, so I am not, I also just again want to be very clear, I am not asking for money on behalf of United Way.

So that's what it sounds like.

They went through the VCF process.

They were recommended for funding at a lower amount than what they requested, which is a cut based on what they had received the prior year.

And that is what amounts to the $16,000, if I'm piecing together what I think has happened there.

So this would be the consideration of what you all did for Loaves and Fishes, Lighthouse Studios.

In that moment, that would have been

More perfect time because you would have had that on the list of consideration.

And so sorry, my understanding was that the 31 they got was not from us.

I thought that was a different grant and we were helping them make that up.

So I will submit again, we can get the information and as Ms.

Marshall is trying to walk that fine line about not showing a bias for anything, we can gather the information, bring the item forward, make sure that you understand exactly what happened in that transaction.

Because we do have, I mean there is the process of appealing and coming back and presenting and we didn't get that from them.

Right.

Do we have a

I think ultimately that's what I was getting to in pointing out the recommendation to increase the amount and then to basically encourage you to think more about it.

I am, as I said, planning to pull together what will be a retreat and I think this is the kind of topic that would give us the ability to do that.

This whole thing came from a prior council choosing to set aside funds for them to make some decisions and do some things.

It was a choice of things to do.

I, of course, would like you to have a process because, one, we're going to continue to get requests from the public saying, well, how do I get counsel to consider this and how to consider that?

So it would be helpful to set up some parameters.

The off-cycle request is really what I have said is the process that if anything comes in and it's outside of a competitive round, it goes in a file on my desk and it will sit there until I bring it to you.

And when I bring it to you, it will be with enough information for you to be able to look at it and say, yes we should do this or no we won't do this.

Yes.

I mean, I think it's... That sounds punitive, but it is kind of out of...

process.

And we do have time.

I think I think we're all probably in agreement.

Tonsler League, we've gotten more background info about.

We had emails, we've talked about it more than just today suddenly.

So I think let's move forward with the 30 for that.

And then let's have United Way come.

You know, maybe they were busy and they couldn't come that day.

Yeah, so we're in support of Tonsler for tonight.

I think three of us are, maybe three.

Just to be clear, I'm only partly concerned about process for the discretionary fund or the strategic initiatives fund.

I'm really more concerned about criteria.

What kinds of things do we regard as a strategic initiative?

Typically, I don't think of giving an already functioning organization another

15 or 20 thousand dollars as being a strategic initiative and if we don't mean it to be a strategic initiative fund then let's change the name of it and do whatever we want to do.

I think that's a great point and that's probably why we should have a work session.

I would say that, yeah.

They need to be a little finer to that because anything can fit into what we've come up with.

Absolutely.

Yeah, to the point about Rainy Day, we have other funds for Rainy Day.

We have contingencies that are still available.

That's what we're doing there.

That's what the highlighted green section was our caption that because again that that's just our owning that there was a mistake made there.

I'll just share just again for public benefit there.

I've had conversation with Dr. Douglas.

I share with her that it is my desire that we steer away from the notion that the city council is supporting the rent payment for the African American Heritage Center.

That's not really what we're doing.

We're supporting the African American Heritage Center.

They use the money for whatever operational expense that they may have.

That's really what that is meant to reflect.

So as she, going forward, will submit her request to us, to the city, it will be anticipated that she's telling you what the African American Heritage Center is doing.

So it's their scope and scale of projects, things that they're doing, what's new, how many people have attended, come through the center, that kind of thing.

Because in that moment, this is more of a partnership opportunity, that you're preserving heritage and culture by supporting an organization like this.

So that $200,000 doesn't have to be exclusively tied to rent.

And therefore, if she got a grant for rent somewhere else, then it would preclude her from coming to you.

He's coming back.

I don't know why he didn't just stay up here.

We found, we

kind of just wrapped up real estate tax relief for elderly and disabled folks and we've found that we've got a lot more applicants than we've had in the past.

What happened was we

I instructed my folks to encourage CHAP applicants who were over 65 to apply for the elderly and disabled program because it's more beneficial for them.

They did, by a lot.

I didn't realize.

They listened to you.

Yeah, they listened to you.

What a thought.

Yeah, I gave them advice that was in their best interest.

So we had a lot of folks switch over from CHAP to real estate.

And it's a more generous program for them.

Correct.

Yeah, yeah, basically his first time in 12 years that we've gone over.

But we went over.

Okay, that's what you want.

I mean, we want to we want to get

So I'm going to toot our commissioner's horn because he won't toot his own horn.

We have had conversations about just trying to make sure that we push more information out and try to encourage people who might be eligible to really attach themselves to this program.

This is really a sign that they did that, that his team has done that.

Correct.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you, Todd.

So this came up, was it last night?

It was IMPACT last night.

I feel like we're bearing the lead here, man.

You go ahead.

So a funny thing happened on the way to the meeting.

Of course.

On Tuesday night, the mayor and I went to the IMPACT

So we fortunately weren't the county.

They really got a close eye.

But the challenge for us was around transit drivers.

And I know y'all gave us some really helpful information about

the fact that we really are better than they think we are and that kind of thing but that group and honestly I agree with them otherwise I wouldn't have agreed with them in the meeting along with Juan they want to see us commit to getting the 67 hired by the end of this year and getting 82 in the budget for

this coming fiscal year, this budget.

Just confirm.

Yeah.

Yes.

OK.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah, so we really we tried to clear it up.

I believe the number is 66.

So it's actually 66 allocated positions, so it's not 67.

66 positions, and by last check-in, we're still too short of that.

So I think the first part of what you're identifying as the commitment of having those filled by the end of this current fiscal year, we are doing everything in our power to make that possible.

But we don't control that.

That's just who makes it through the process.

And then it's 82 less.

82 less?

1.2 million.

16 drivers.

Christy, when you are calculating that, that's full freight.

That's not including the part that the county would pay if we were doing this.

That's correct.

That was my question.

So those drivers that we allocated for last year, in this upcoming budget, the county is contributing to their funding.

That's correct.

I'd be hard to pull off.

Well, when we spoke last time, we were talking about the fact that we are planning for a series of meetings starting with council and then incorporating the county as well to talk about what service outcomes we're seeking so that we're rolling that into our budget planning

for the FY 27 budget.

So the county can be involved from the start.

Since the county is now contributing more this year,

So we're planning a series of meetings with, is that enough one of those joint meetings?

We're trying to determine that, but the thing what Deputy Freeze is saying to you is we're planning this now because we're anticipating the asks are actually getting bigger and they're going to become more consistent.

As we look at all that we have talked about in expansion of transit,

Like I told him the other night, I was like, look folks, we're literally in the middle of finalizing our budget.

You're saying last year or this year?

Yeah, this proposed budget cycle.

There wasn't anything left.

Right, so it got spent elsewhere.

Total cap budget, correct.

Move forward to 26, now that's the base budget and then whatever you would add or not.

Right, but that $600,000 allocated toward those positions is not solely coming from the city.

So then our share of that that was covered in full got spent somewhere else.

So I, and this is maybe coming up in the fall when we meet with the county or your meetings with them, is that I heard that the county is want to expand micro CAT which is essentially Lyft or you know it's kind of a it's not

it's not transit as we traditionally know it and I think that traditional transit is much more efficient you know but I understand you know why they you know doing what they're doing now so anyway I just that is something that we

Yeah, I've got one more question about the buses.

I was told that, you know, one of the other requests we get from IMPACT over the last couple of years is to reduce the headways specifically on five and seven.

I don't think, that's not exactly how it works.

No, it's more that there's an expectation that we are equitably funding and improving the different lines, right?

That we're not, so effectively what they're really looking for is that we're not putting all of our money into lines that serve higher income people.

So what I'll say to you, there's a couple things there.

We know that five and seven are the highest ridership.

I think that's the push.

That's the reason for trying to get them to 30 minutes as quickly as possible.

you're potentially sacrificing the idea that some of your individuals that are on those routes are still optional riders.

You have other routes that are not optional riders that if their routes don't get better, they are struggling to make life happen just because the routes are taking as long as they take.

It is about balancing, so I would say to you that the FTA's consideration on how we are making our system better

They would be looking for us to do that in as fair and balanced a way as we possibly can because those writers who have no choice deserve the priority because that's the only choice that they have and anyone else who may be electing to use it while

It does defeat the purpose that they penalize us for having fewer people riding the bus, that you don't take that ridership as the top priority for fixing service.

You have to do all of it, and you have to spread it out to the best of your ability, which through the reporting that we showed you, our efforts at this point, we've eliminated 75 minute routes, period.

The fact that, and I shared with you in this room, I guess a year and a half ago or whenever, that a 75-minute route occurring more than once in our system should be unacceptable, period.

And for that reason, every dollar should have been, every extra dollar we could find should have been poured into those routes alone.

I don't know that FTA would have necessarily said that was a bad idea because 75 minutes is just unacceptable, but they would have still questioned us on who's the demographic on those routes.

because it still would have been deemed unfair to try to prioritize because you would look as though you're attempting to favor one over the other, but income does come out as a factor.

I don't know if today's federal government is going to continue thinking that way, but it really is about balance because Route 6 serves most of our public housing sites.

Those routes should be as quickly and repetitive as possible, because they don't really have a choice.

So if we were hearing push six, push six, push six, which is what you heard from interim city manager Rogers, which is why he was focused on that, we might have a case to go back to the federal government to talk about

and I'm not saying that five and seven aren't important, I'm just saying that we've got to structure our improvement so that we don't get that attention.

Okay.

I mean, there's a way to do it, like there's the Richmond Circulator Model.

Sure, sure.

And I think what we're suggesting as the team that is CAT that has been doing the work is we're getting better even though if our transit director was sitting in that chair next to Mr. Freeze he would tell you, still isn't where I want it to be.

I didn't go look.

So yeah, you know, one thing is interesting.

I won't digress too much, but I find those meetings hard.

And like they said, they're supposed to be uncomfortable.

And

It is interesting the version of the questions they gave us before we actually got up there was much Yeah but at the same time I don't disagree with them and I think when you see just to sort of be brutally honest when you've got an auditorium of

I don't know the median demographic there, but it was mostly white, mostly upper middle class, you know, people that clearly, clearly, clearly see the value for transit for everyone in this community, particularly the folks you were just referring to.

I think that's, for me, that's activism at its best.

There's a lot of activism we get that feels like we're, well, you know, but

I think that it is speaking to a set of values that we all hold to and I think you know I really feel like now's the time to we know we've done a lot of work you've shown me the charts I believe it I see it one of the things I thought afterwards was well as opposed to 82 drivers what if I gave you a guaranteed 14 minutes or something you know and that may be where we end up in conversations with them but

I think having the focus on the number of drivers keeps everyone clear-minded that this is a this is a fiscal priority this is something we're going to have to make significant investments in to obtain so I will be continuing to bring this up because I made a public commitment it takes it takes three people to get a vote and I know that and the mayor mayor was there as well but you have an identified funding source or cuts to get there

That's, you know, I think we're gonna talk about that next year's Nehemiah Impact.

Just kidding.

No, no, I have some ideas.

I'm being sarcastic and silly, but yeah.

Okay.

for a variety of reasons in terms of what we put in at the beginning of the budget cycle as priorities as well as decisions on the tax rates.

We've put ourselves in a very difficult position for figuring out how we get to that $1.2 million, but we know it should have been one of our top first coming in priorities if we're going to meet our transit goals.

If there's some identified cuts to get there, I'm open to it.

I have no idea what they would be.

Obviously, tax rates aren't an option at this point.

I mean, fundamentally that is having that conversation beginning really this summer.

Right now, effectively, right?

Hey, we could say we've begun it.

We're having it now.

But that's fundamentally what we need to do because there's a lot of decisions that need to be made in the transit space as we're looking at our objectives over what we're trying to accomplish.

with that system.

Not only in improving the service as we've talked about, but we also have talked a lot about the investments we want to make in terms of alternative fuel buses.

There are, both the idea of improving our service and changing the fuels are necessitating a look at our facilities as well.

And we need to start thinking about that as kind of longer term, but not that long term

And as we talked about before, as we expand the service, as buses are on the road more frequently, as more buses are on the road more frequently, our need for other support staff in the maintenance world, in customer service and supervisory roles also goes up.

So none of those are bad things.

Once you add in the increased maintenance workers, you know, it's more than whatever we need and I think that's part of the value of the conversations is then we can we can hone in on what are we going to accomplish next year and what are we going to start planning for in kind of out years kind of building a I think there's room for plan for discussion about you know the goal should not be we just need to have 82 drivers the goal needs to be the service and showing the data which you guys

are doing.

I think that that's going to be essential.

And I mean something that I mentioned on Tuesday night as well is that we want to be able to have to compensate our drivers and part of that you know this year's increase in transit was towards compensation to drivers and and and also the money that we put towards affordable housing and you know 10 million 12 million dollars depending on the year

Can I ask one other question related to this?

I don't know the answer.

I think for the quality of service for many people who rely on it for jobs, part of it is that how late the hours are is still reduced pre-pandemic as well as weekend service significantly going pre-pandemic.

I think we got to the point of having that many drivers.

There probably is a shortage, because if I remember correctly, the drain on the number of buses that we have is just keeping them running.

And we also have a hydrogen.

Because we have those hybrids.

We still have the hybrid within the fleet.

And until those are gone, then we still have somewhat of a strain.

But I think that's part of what, and I understand all of it, and I'm thankful I am not an elected individual, so if I keep you all happy then I'll keep my job.

But I think that's part of why we have proposed to you that we wanted to do the analysis and bring you the data.

This guy's been pushing me forward.

We need to explain it a little bit more.

And that's what we did.

I think it was important for you to be able to see that, that the improvements are happening.

It's not as though we're sacrificing improvements.

We're gaining on what it is that we set out to do and making the system better.

There are challenges with the fact that not only are we trying to improve the system and it's just performance with what we have.

We're also trying to innovate at the same time and not in a small way, in a huge way.

I think we've got to confront, one, we're going to need to expand the facilities no matter what in terms of if we're just expanding route frequency and reliability.

The zero emissions plan was fundamentally based on the fact that federal government money would take an enormous amount of that cost off the city.

We can be almost assured that all of that is going to be cut.

Most of it is already cut.

I think we need to keep those plans if a different administration comes in and restores that funding.

But I think we just have to confront that.

I think it is literally impossible for the city to implement that plan with the cuts to the Inflation Reduction Act and bipartisan infrastructure law.

Because it was based on federal funding.

Absolutely.

And I was going there and saying to you, and that has to be part of this conversation.

Because there are decisions that need to be made now

to support what we have agreed to.

And if we're going to confront it and make the determination that we don't see that actually happening on the original schedule, then there are certain decisions that we get to make.

I've said this before, but our job is to

And we're already hearing adjustments.

Flexibility will have to be aware.

Yeah, we're already hearing adjustments.

So it's a reality and now we've got to continue to bring you the information as it affects this system.

We're going to not worry about everybody else's.

Yeah, and I agree with what they're saying, Natalie and Michael.

I think they're absolutely right.

And the other thing, though, and this should be obvious from a climate perspective, even if we're using diesel buses, newer diesel buses are less greenhouse gas producing.

They're more efficient than they were years ago.

Although not to sidetrack us, but the data is relatively clear that to break

Even on emissions for a diesel bus, we would have to 2.5x our current ridership.

Otherwise, you don't actually break even emissions-wide.

But one more point down that road is I just want to keep in mind also of our city's 100, of the pie chart of our city emissions, the slice that the city actively contributes to is 5%.

So that end user side of things is the other 95% and so the decisions we make can help affect that other 95% beyond just the 5%.

So those are opportunity costs we have to think about as well for spending money on something that affects the 5%.

So you can't anticipate that that is one of the big conversations in addition to how it's being outlined by Mr. Freese and what we're going to be talking through and how we're going to work through analyzing this.

The confronting of the situation that we find ourselves in, the political situation that we have on what the impacts to federal funding may be to the plans that we've set.

Yeah, one last piece I'd add to that is CARTA.

So if we are, CARTA now exists, I'm sitting here with my fellow board member, you know, depending what happens in Richmond this fall, if we're able to get the option for a sales tax or something like that, that's probably a couple years out, but that is one of the long-term strategic moves this community has made, is making.

Do you have an alternate revenue stream for transit?

So maybe that'll help.

Do you feel like there's sufficient clarity in terms of the question of 82 drivers?

I think what I heard was that you are not going to attempt to unpack the budget at this late stage and find a way to make 82 drivers a reality.

but what you are indicating is that you support the desire for added drivers and that you're looking to have us revisit that with you at some point in the future later in 2025 for the possible consideration of a use of one-time funds for the bridge that would be required to get us to the next budget where we will realize the true cost.

I would remind you in that, as I've talked to our budget director earlier today about this, was that in doing so, in making that decision, you are spending the money before you know what you have.

So we would be going into our projections for FY 27 with that being a ticket that is due upon receipt.

It is not up for discussion.

I'll just say, just be personally, um,

I totally understand the impetus to do it.

Particularly in this environment, I'm very, very, very nervous about spending any surplus money for recurring expenses just because a recession is likely potentially something far more significant than a recession.

And I'll just say too, in that light, you know, collective bargaining contracts are fixed costs that are already ticket items that have to be paid for before we, you know, get know what our revenues are, debt services increasing, we've moved up

You know, we're paying for Buford, which was a big bond issue.

We've got Walker, which is coming on.

That's another $30 million.

So your debt service is going to be rising.

And not to derail us if the answer is not known, it's fine.

Maybe this is something for the Finance Committee.

I'm curious kind of if municipal bond yields do go up significantly given that we have very significant bondable projects that are going to be coming out.

Kind of like the difference in the yields, how big an impact on our budget is that?

We're watching it closely.

I can tell you that over the last few years with our debt projections, we've been

basically projecting at about 3%.

Our financial advisors have, we've bumped that to four, so the numbers you've been seeing this year are a whole percent higher than that.

We're also getting a double whammy because the cost of construction is higher, materials are higher, and then debt costs are higher.

So it will, you know, who knows?

what your crystal ball says you know many years when we were at almost zero percent interest rates I mean one percent every year I'd come and say we're never going to get interest rates this low again and then it happened multiple years in a row so it's kind of like when we project the revenues you know one I think it was last the 24 budget when we were looking at revenues national economists were saying there was going to be a huge recession it didn't happen so

During the budget cycle last year, you have thoroughly got it into my head.

Me too.

But I would say knowing that this is something that, you know, Charlottesville's been, you know, in a rebuilding year and now we're like ready to let's be built on buses especially.

So what I'll say to you just to kind of complete

Me acknowledging that I'm hearing you, that we understand what you're asking.

We will do our deliberate work of evaluating what it is that we're hearing you say at this point.

If we're talking like come back to you in the fall, mid-October or something to that effect, we will be in the throes of opening up the budget process with the team.

They'll be identifying all the various things that they need and want us to be considering.

It would be an interesting time for us to take on that consideration for one time use to bridge to the budget and again, if that were to turn out to be the case, we would be spending ahead.

It would cause me some grief and heartburn, I'll be honest, and that would mean that that would influence the budget message to the team.

I would tell them, be extra conservative.

Do not bring all the many things because there really would be no reason to.

If we were to agree to increasing the number of drivers and it becomes a four or five hundred thousand dollar proposition, that does eliminate a lot of the space and choice for any other considerations.

Understanding that's the priority in hearing what you're saying.

We can balance all of that and again my goal is to be as deliberate and intentional in whatever I bring to you and it will come to you whether I recommend it or not.

Yeah, and if we can flesh some of that out, I think that's essential.

So the last thing that I intended to share, because Chrissy has one more slide, there is a little conversation you all need to have about the schedule.

Just kind of acknowledging that FedWatch moment that I had in presenting the budget to you and how I'm continuing to track.

We do continue to hear things at this moment in time just for, of course, for the public's benefit.

The City of Charlottesville organization has not realized a loss yet.

We've been good so far, so good.

But are we alarmed about things?

Absolutely, we're getting, we're hearing more things, so it's becoming, the picture is getting a little clearer in some instances.

I do believe that it is critical for us

to hold on to as much of our surplus as we can for what is likely to be impacted outside of us and or inside.

The considerations that are being had, the conversations that are being had in regards to SNAP and Medicaid are real in that they're big and if those cuts were to occur

We will see a number of our constituency impacted directly by that and there is no gap unless you begin to consider doing some things.

If we have snap interruption, we have a whole team of people that that's what they do all day long.

That's a question.

How does that work?

My goal, of course, would be to mitigate that, that we're not talking about reduction in force because we think there will be an increase in the number of people applying for what is the program that remains.

So we're not worried about losing people.

We're worried about getting help to the people.

So I think it would be incumbent upon us to be very judicious in the use of those funds.

for that and hopefully we won't be having hopefully we don't have big surpluses like that coming we do not see surpluses like that coming in the future although I might take it going forward yeah

So one last thing, Monday we will actually meet to vote on the budget.

We will make the amendments that we've discussed tonight and that will be reflected, we'll be voting to adopt the budget.

April 21st will be a public hearing on the real property tax rates.

That'll be advertised in the paper on Saturday, April 12th.

We'll have that public hearing on the 21st.

According to state law, you cannot hear that and vote on the same night.

There must be three days in between.

So we have

set a special meeting for April 24th.

That's where you all have indicated that there's enough.

We can have the meeting on the 24th.

The mayor's indicated that he's not available, but ask us to push on.

But we need to determine the time, and I think there's conflicts with what works for you.

Is there any reason why we couldn't do it at like 9 a.m.

We had a conversation internally about an alternate time.

I would personally caution you on that just for the concern that people would express that you had a meeting in the middle of the day, the work day, where they would not then be able to participate and we've had all the other meetings in the evening.

I just offer that for consideration.

I think you can do whatever.

All right.

So we'll make sure that gets out.

I've already gotten press requests to kind of explain what has happened, and I'm going to try to continue to point out that we had an error.

We corrected the error on our own.

We weren't forced to correct it.

We acknowledge that a mistake was made, and we worked that out.

But I'm going to make sure that we get this out to everyone.

The only thing you'll get that you have, no, that's Monday night as well, the PPTRA.

That'll be an action item.

One very small thing is I believe I could be wrong with $10,000.

It's gone.

What is that?

So basically it's just a way of allowing the community to get involved in allocating a small amount of money.

Richmond, we were going to start this in 2019, staffing changes fell apart, never developed.

Richmond started at the same time, they just did it with a million dollars.

The benefit is really that the community can understand

There are members in the community who have been involved with Richmond's process who want to help the city if staff capacity is a concern.

to get a really baby program off the ground with like $10,000.

It was there it was there and we weren't using it.

I mean that I'll be honest and say that's the reason why it was taken because we just haven't been using it and I've been as I came to you all about your strategic initiatives fund contributing to the surplus because we weren't spending it.

And

Process-wise, one, I completely agree with being as cautious as possible with the surplus and everything else.

I actually feel way more nervous than COVID in terms of the possibilities of a financial crisis and just how chaotic things could get.

So 100% agree there.

When will we have the discussion or have a process around these kind of big overhanging things around funding permanent year-round shelter, Cherry Avenue, and UVA's request at 10th and Wortland?

Sure.

So the low barrier shelter conversation, the update there is that I have continued conversations with Salvation Army and Pacham and we're working through the process of them producing operation plans so that there's something to be able to communicate with the neighborhood as to this facility, if it were to open, would operate in this manner.

How does that sound to you?

What are you concerned about?

What additional supports might we need to identify to quell any fears and concern?

That we are hoping to get more clarity on.

I have a meeting on Monday hoping to get more clarity on the idea that we might have some information to bring forward by June.

We have a state of homelessness scheduled as a work session for you all in May.

I may alter that date because of this new information that may be coming to us in June.

I'm working on reorganizing the schedule that way.

That would lead to a little more clarity as it relates to where are we with the shelter.

Senator Deeds had another item to support Salvation Army's request for $1.5 million in the budget.

The governor slashed it in half.

In my recent conversation, as I mentioned before with Senator Deeds, he was pushing it back, which means it goes back for reconsideration and it's either to restore it to the 1.5 or it's lost is how it works.

So we risk not getting anything.

but I believe he felt strongly about the item so that's the reason why he wanted to push to get it fully funded.

It turns out through the conversations that that would be all for the low barrier shelter so that would be 1.5 million dollars to help with the retrofit of the space should it work, should it materialize.

I am continuing to remind the public that no decision has been made.

I keep getting messages of people saying that I made a decision and they think it's unfair that I did and I'm reminding them that no decision has been made.

We're still trying to work through getting the clarity that they continue to request and I'm trying to facilitate that.

My intention is to bring back as much of that information as soon as I can.

As it relates to the grocery store, the Fifeville neighborhood has been working to receive operation plans from the two parties that they deem eligible for running a store of this kind.

We internally, separately, myself and Chris Ingle have worked through the idea that the city can contribute

We will bring a recommendation to you to support this initiative.

We haven't fully settled on what that is.

I still continue to hold out on the idea that this grocery store is going to require an operating subsidy in order for it to be successful.

And for it to be successful means that it can provide the opportunities for people to reach it with the lowest incomes.

Therefore we're not turning it into a boutique grocery store at some point because it can't survive if it isn't being shopped on a regular basis.

So therefore you drive the prices up and then you start to change what you offer for sale.

So I wanted to make sure that we are meeting the expectation that we originally set out on for this to be a grocery store for people of low means.

and the goal for me would be to see that we can operate that way and then to be able to bring to you all a recommendation that if you are going to invest in this you're investing in it meeting the original intent.

The only comment I'd make about that is the ongoing operating costs.

I'm certainly open to that discussion, but they have got to just finish the project.

So from a construction perspective, whatever is necessary to get to a cold dark show, warm dark, whatever they need to shell that out so that the rest of that project

We need the homes yesterday.

Yeah, I appreciate that and that conversation has been moving.

So for 10th and Wortland, that item is a part of our process where we, within our NOFA, we ask for submissions.

We will be bringing to you the list of projects that are out there as a part of the budget cycle for FY 27.

That'll be coming to you in the fall.

and that will be part of the, what we will be looking for is for you to indicate are there projects on this list that you gravitate to in the way of wanting to support?

To what degree might you want to support?

They actually have their own moment within the NOFA.

So we issue, I want to say November,

on the schedule.

I think in November of each year we do a request for information on development projects.

So the goal is for us to capture that and then to be able to bring that into the next budget cycles conversation so that we can give you the opportunity to decide if that's a project that you want to support.

And one of the other pieces that you mentioned was permanent supportive housing, which is different than low barrier shelter.

So I know we had crossings to planned eight years ago.

Yeah.

Yeah, it really did.

I mean, I would say that the gap that we identified when the crossings two did not materialize, Premier Circle really replaces that.

I think we also have to acknowledge that we know that our rate of homelessness has increased, or at least has sustained itself over now a longer period of time.

So for that, a gap still exists.

The question is, how much of a gap?

We know that there are specialty gaps that do exist, if I can use that term.

This marshal reminds me that we have no family shelter.

So we have individuals head of household with Children that today there is no facility for them.

So I recognize that that's part of the ongoing conversation of when I finish this, what do we go to next?

So we know that we're gonna have to continue to do that.

But we really need all the things that we kind of have going right now to happen and then reassess and see where we are.

Any other comments from the council?

I don't see any public here.

Can I get a motion to adjourn?

Second.

All in favor please stand up.