Council Work Session   3/25/2021

Okay, looks like everybody's here.

Mr. Bowles, you good to go?

Yes, ma'am, I am.

Oh, sorry.

Thomas, would you do roll call?

Mayor Walker?

Present.

Vice Mayor McGill?

Here.

Mayor McGill?

Here.

Mayor McGill?

Here.

Mayor McGill?

Here.

Mayor McGill?

Here.

Mayor McGill?

Mayor McGill?

Here.

Mayor McGill?

Mayor McGill?

Mayor McGill?

Mayor McGill?

Mayor McGill?

Mayor McGill?

Mayor McGill?

Mayor McGill?

Mayor McGill?

Mayor McGill?

Mayor McGill?

Mayor McGill?

Mayor McGill?

Mayor McGill?

Mayor McGill?

Mayor McGill?

Mayor McGill?

Mayor McGill?

Mayor McGill?

Mayor McGill?

Mayor McGill?

Mayor McGill?

Mayor McGill?

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mayor and Council, tonight we'll be hosting our third budget work session focusing on the five-year capital improvement plan.

If we have time after the CIP discussion, we have updated general fund operating as well as the Vibrant Community Fund estimates and recommendations for you.

Thank you for getting us your priority programs after the last budget workshop.

This made our recommendations much easier to provide to you tonight.

We will hold a public hearing on the budget at the April 5th council meeting, and if needed, an additional work session on April 8th for any specific items that council may request.

A reminder that the budget is scheduled for approval on April 13th, not that far away.

Because there is continuous talk about the Federal American Rescue Plan, I'll remind you that the dollar amounts to come to Charlottesville and the restrictions on the funds are still unknown at this time.

Therefore, we are not proposing any of these funds in the FY22 budget at this moment.

Once we know amounts and the restrictions on these funds, we'll begin to work with the council, with all of the city staff and the community on how best to utilize these funds to meet the economic losses brought on by COVID.

And we will present for council's consideration through a FY22 budget amendment.

Hopefully we'll be able to do this prior to the beginning of the fiscal year 22 start date of July 1st.

Now, Chrissy will get us started going through the CIP and with time permitting, Ron will begin to provide us the Vibrant Community Fund update.

And in the middle of all this, I'll present our recommendations for the general fund.

Thank you, Mr. Boyles.

Next slide, please.

So tonight we're gonna talk about our capital improvement plan.

I actually went back and looked over some dates and we've been talking about this a little bit here and there since July.

So to finally get here, we've come a long way.

With the CIP, we pay for this largely through bonds, the 22 CIP that is being proposed.

to you is roughly financed with 71% of bonds at roughly 19.8 and then there's 7.1 in cash.

The remaining are additional funds that we receive either from Albemarle County through shared projects such as KTEC and others, the schools for their small cap programs and then many VDOT matching funds as well.

So next slide please.

It's always a balancing act when we look at the CIP in terms of figuring out what we can afford.

It often boils down to a discussion about our debt capacity versus our affordability.

We've spent a lot of time looking at this.

Again, just as a quick review, affordability is a way to think of that as basically the alignment of public policy and financial resources.

How much can we pay with our current resources before we have to raise taxes?

That's the consideration there.

Debt capacity, on the other hand, is the maximum amount of debt that could be issued to stay within the financial policies that we have defined.

So our target of 9% max of 10 is the policy that we are often gauging our CIP and our financial resources against when we're planning the CIP.

So next slide, please.

This table we've talked about many times.

When we last talked about the CIP, we broke it down and talked about this in greater detail with the left-hand side of the table being the planning part, which is sort of the part that we have the most control over.

And then the right side is sort of the consequences.

Knowing that these numbers, there are many, many variables and factors that go in here that can change from time to time.

The idea behind this table is sort of the big picture and the takeaway that we get from it.

And those are sort of highlighted on these key points on either side.

So on the planning side, based on what we know right now, again, certainly subject to change with market conditions as revenues and things continue to

Solidify with the effects of COVID, right now we're at an existing debt capacity of about $185 million.

We know that from existing CIPs, there are currently roughly $74 million of projects that have been committed to, but we have not issued bonds.

So those are the ones that we refer to as the authorized but not issued bonds.

And then with the proposed CIP, we are projecting a five-year debt financing of roughly 121 million.

So with the bonds that we've previously committed but not issued and the CIP before you, we are committing to a debt capacity of about 195 million.

So again, that's slightly above where our existing capacity.

We know that, again, there are lots of things that are subject to change here.

These numbers have changed a couple of times, even since we started talking about this table back in early November.

But as an overall standpoint, if we go with this projection that's here, a couple of things to take away.

In 22 through 27, we are basically issuing

the 185 million and our debt service is doubling within that very short period of time.

We are going from an annual debt service of 10.9 million to an annual debt service of over 22 million in 2028.

The other thing to note here on this planning side is that in 28, 29, and 30, you'll see that the number there is zero.

So if we were to issue the entire capacity, which this five-year CIP draft contemplates, then there will be multiple years where we will be even over our 10% policy.

and those would be years in which we would only be looking to add projects that could be cash funded and at that time the cash funding for the CIP would then be conflicting with the doubled debt service.

The right-hand side again was a scenario that we put forth which was to say that with the current proposed CIP again can't stress enough the doubling of the debt service from 10 million to 22 million significant revenue enhancements would be required to afford this the proposed CIP the largest driver here of course is the school reconfiguration project

but basically we just to put forth a scenario and again there are many things ways that we can approach this but the most simplistic one and the most obvious one is a tax increase and so in this scenario we basically put forth a scenario in which beginning with next year's budget we would start a two cent tax increase every year over the next five years for a total of a 10 cent tax increase

to pay for the additional and pending debt.

Again, another thing to keep in mind here is that we, in anticipation of more debt service needs in the future, we have been building up a significant debt service fund balance in the debt service fund of roughly $13 million as it stands right now.

Even under the scenario with the 10 cent tax increase,

The debt service fund balance is essentially exhausted.

Yes, yes, Tommy.

I was just curious.

So what impact would there be if we did find that alternative funding source for the schools in total, like if that 50 million were not part of our debt

like this this part of having to be funded through other other revenues that have nothing to do with us taking out bonds.

So if we remove 50 million from our debt service projection, obviously, as long as you don't commit it to something else, then we will not we would not be looking at such a steep increase in the debt service fund or I'm sorry, in the annual debt service payment.

But as we know, every year, at least for the last few years, we have been looking at CIPs that are well in the upper teens to 20s.

So even if we take out 50 million and we find another source to pay for the schools, we still are limiting ourselves in terms of what we can add.

Great question.

So right now, the last bond issue, we were in, if I recall correctly, roughly 1.4%.

So last.

That's right.

So basically for 22, I have an assumption here of one and a half percent, which is not too far off the mark as of right now.

And then roughly we're moving up to about three and a half percent in 2027.

Okay.

It as of late.

Yes.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Any other questions on this slide?

Okay, next slide, please.

So again, taking a look at the summary of the CIP, this is a sort of a high level at the functional levels, basically.

We looked to make sure that we were satisfying what we've heard council say are your highest priorities, with education being first, affordable housing coming in second, and then transportation and access coming in third.

Again, the total five year plan is roughly 160 million.

120 of that is to be financed by bonds and roughly 36 and a half million to be financed with cash.

Next slide, please.

So again, this is another slide that we've shared in order to, again, meet Council's goals and priorities.

What were the things that we did to sort of make this work?

Again, West Main Street, this proposed CIP includes no additional funding for the West Main Street project beyond the 18 and a quarter million dollars that were previously committed.

The school reconfiguration project is included as a $50 million placeholder for FY23.

I'm sorry, FY25.

With that, we are including a real estate property tax increase that would need to start in FY23 with a two cent every year for a total of 10 cents over the next five years.

and we are making the recommendation that the school funding formula be reconsidered to help meet some of these additional debt service requirements.

Additionally, while the CIP and the operational budgets and tax rates are all reviewed annually, once the school project begins, future councils will be obligated to complete the project, which means if we go forward with this plan, there's not a lot of flexibility.

And as we spoke about, there will be years when

Christy, I have a couple questions.

Okay.

And what

So I think that's the question that we're putting forth to council for some decisions for you.

You know, we did not include any new funding.

We know that the project in totality is more than this 18 and a quarter million would allow.

And then in terms of the placeholder, if we get the scope back

this year and there isn't, you know, to whatever we're gonna start to start something with the reconfiguration.

Yeah, so the beauty with bonds in some sense of the imagination is that because we do a multi-year projection, if things were to shift

forward a year or back a year because we are including it in our projection that timing we can deal with.

Again,

If we were to issue $50 million all at once in FY22, we're going to have an issue with being able to pay the debt service because we wouldn't have built in those tax increases to get us there.

But we certainly can issue the bonds at any time.

The problem with the school reconfiguration project as a placeholder of $50 million is if it comes in at $50 million, we're golden.

If it comes in at $80 million,

then we have a whole nother conversation to have as well.

We would have to find a way to cover the debt service.

So essentially, the way we structure our bond deals is once we sell the bonds, the debt service typically starts the next year.

So let's say right now we have the 50 million built in 2025, that we would actually start picking up the debt service on that 50 million in 2026.

If we were to move it up to 2022,

We'd start picking up the debt service in 2023.

Thank you.

I have one more.

Um,

That those increases in taxes, then we would also maybe consider with the schools, and I think that's what you're getting into, maybe even at this next bullet point, though, is that right now, every time we decide we're going to do any kind of increase in taxes, a certain percentage from property taxes goes to the school.

In this case, we're saying that we're not going to follow that formula specifically because we need all these monies in order to make even this work for the schools, even though it's not operational dollars for them, but capital dollars.

I'm sorry.

I see right now they'd be getting in a normal scenario.

And so the two cent here basically

does not take into account adjusting that formula, right?

The 40% formula is based on the growth in assessments.

So if we were to realign the formula, then certainly that may be a way to decrease the amount of tax increase that would be necessary in order to fund the project.

So to give you some idea, if we were talking about the operational increase that we've been talking about with them for the one-time CARES money that they're using in 22, that was roughly $4.5 million.

The debt service on $10 million is roughly $880,000 a year.

So if we're going to do $4.5 million on the operational side,

Then your tax and your tax increase only covers your debt service.

That was going to be my question, that this is only geared towards the CIP.

Yeah, I mean, basically, in this scenario, the math is oversimplified.

And so basically, it just took the value of two cents on the real estate tax rate, and then, you know, did the math to get you to a point that you're able to pay the debt service on 50 million.

So anything you did on the operational side, or even if there were other dollars that were allocated in the CIP on an annual basis, say the school's priority funding, that's roughly a million and a quarter every year,

If you decided not to do that and instead put that to the school project, that could buy down some of these tax increases as well.

So again, the tax increase is an oversimplified example to make the point that we need to have further conversations and figure out ways to creatively finance the project.

Chrissy I have a question about this slide which says

West Main Street scape, no additional funding being added other than the 18 and a quarter million previously committed.

So I'm going to defer to the expert.

Hello.

Right.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

And by when?

Is that this coming fiscal year?

Is it next fiscal year?

That was identified by fiscal 24.

I had this conversation, and Chip, if you want to weigh in, it seems like right now, even if we don't put any more dollars in, it's not that much of a difference.

And if the future budget cycle, they consider putting it in because Chip had met with VDOT and they talked about timelines.

And I think the ideal would be to try to do all three phases as much in sync as possible, just because of the disruption and just all the efficiencies with that.

And so I just, I mean, I'm in the boat of like, if we think there might be some new revenue that might come, a different source of revenue for the schools to just hold for a year and understand how that picture plays out, because it's not going to hurt the projects.

I understand the only thing it will do is we'll stop the progress of the design work.

Sure.

Yes, in our discussions with VDOT, they were very open to pushing phase one and two to coincide with phase three, which is the fully funded smart scale phase, which would be six year window would begin ticking on July 1.

And the project itself would have to be complete six years from from that date.

So

BDOT was in agreement that it would be best to do all three phases at the same time, even if it meant a short delay for phase one and phase two.

And if I can just weigh in just real briefly on the the additional that new revenue source or outside revenue source that I believe you're speaking of, Councilor Hill, and I believe you're speaking of the additional sales tax option that has been that was approved by the General Assembly for certain localities.

I would caution very heavily against considering that as a potential source because there even

If there is state approval, which could take, you know, could be another year to get, then there would have to also be a referendum after that.

So we're still looking many years down the road before we could even start to begin to collect that.

And by that point, you know, we're going to have, we're going to be much further down the road with where we are with what the school project is going to look like and, you know,

based on the timeline that Mr. Boyles just gave, we might not be able to wait and say, well, we'll just wait until we see if we can get that because a three-year, you know, multi-year delay on the West Main Street project could have significant ramifications with that project.

So I would just caution at this point because there have been other localities that have explored that and have not been given permission to do that.

So I would just, as I said, I would just caution against counting that as a

potential source.

It's something we definitely as a staff want to further explore.

And I just know that Mr. Boyles had already had some preliminary conversations, which was what's guiding some of my leaning in a little bit.

But I also just I'm just in a point where I don't I don't see that I'm in a position to ask for more money for West Main right now or to take that from the schools.

I think we have to kind of hold that steady.

I'm just also not in a position to say that we're going to walk away from that project with so many unknowns in terms of what a the school scope is going to be because I do believe it's going to be way north of 50 million and also understanding what other revenue sources might be possible.

Any other questions or things we want to talk about on this slide?

Okay, next slide, please.

So finally, just some key messages to take away from this CIP.

You know, again, the proposed CIP that is before you, barring some other direction from Council in terms of adds or changes, we really have not made any changes since we last talked about this.

And so again, we feel like the strategic focus here is on Council's key priorities

education, affordable housing, and transportation and access.

Again, affordability, this plan as written is not affordable without significant revenue enhancements.

Reallocations, there's always the opportunity to sort of go back and look at those projects that were authorized with bonds, but we have not spent them yet.

There's always an opportunity to go back and reevaluate and reallocate those.

Future needs, as proposed, this CIP does hamper the ability to add or to come back and talk about new projects, new ideas.

You know, we're in an era where construction costs appear to be rising.

This doesn't give us a lot of flexibility to address those needs unless we're able to come up with things to be able to cash fund them.

and then again in terms of limited reserves with this CIP as proposed again even with the 10 cent tax rate all of our debt service fund reserves would be depleted at this point.

And with that, that sort of concludes the presentation of the CIP.

So my thoughts are just to get them out there again that, you know, supporting definitely the affordable housing and the education.

I'm also interested in how we are evaluating staff proposals and just being a little bit more clear, you know, on that process and

how does this current process push their requests back and what kind of what are the consequences you know of that but and West Main again I'm in the same place I've been I just don't know with all of the things that

are at least more important for me and, you know, people that I talk to the most in the community.

I would have a, I have a really hard time voting for that project.

The affordable housing piece, we also haven't talked about increasing that to the number recommendations that was in the affordable housing plan, so then that's a

discussion to have.

And there was even discussions about if that 10 million a year was significant enough based on what the need was.

So I just hope council remembers that.

And then the education piece.

However, and I've been having this conversation with the administration since I've been in this position, but

It's back to the if we're prioritizing something, then remember, and also that we can't do everything.

And so part of the general fund request for the schools, those things weigh into, for me, what those future projections, you know, look like and just understanding

that we're gonna have to hold steady on something, whether it's the operation side of things or getting the reconfiguration and how do we, I know, my plan is to once we get the documents back from the architects that, or the contracts from the RFP that we need to have that very real conversation about

We can't, you know, it's going to be hard to do this and increase every year at those amounts.

So I hope that, so those are really the four things and just understanding what our process is going to be for evaluating staff requests and making sure that, you know, those needs are considered and that there's space for them is, you know, would be primary.

And I'm really,

just really uncomfortable with the fact of, like you said, the construction costs, those affordable housing projects, they are not going to be able to come up with this money necessarily on their own if there's an increase.

And if we are maxed out, then we can't help.

So what does that mean for those projects?

Several counselors when we responded to just the feedback on the budget overall expressed interest in increasing the CAF fund, but using the stimulus dollars to get that to a much more meaningful place.

And I realized that we have to have two separate conversations on that.

Obviously right now we're focused on this budget versus that, but that's certainly something I know that I and others, I think at least a few of us acknowledged is something that we want to prioritize those dollars to get that to a much more healthy position.

I'm saying that we expressed in the most immediate need like in the next year, year and a half that we want to make sure we are allocating dollars towards the CAF fund to get it to a higher place knowing there's going to be an extreme amount of need outside of even the usual need for those types of things and making sure that we're keeping people in their homes.

Yeah, just to sort of piggyback off of one of your points, Mayor Walker, just to reiterate what our process was this year, we started the CIP process with a request to staff to say one submission.

No more than $250,000.

And so staff really did not have an opportunity in this process unless it was a legal mandate or an emergency to really put forth any additional projects.

We started at a base with basically what was proposed for 22 last year.

So there are a lot of projects and needs that have not really been evaluated or had an opportunity to get in because of the state of where we were with COVID because last year we deferred so many projects.

And what does, I guess, what does that mean for emergencies?

I'm thinking of the emergency that Parks and Rec had with Smith right now.

Is there room for those emergencies if they come up with this budget?

So typically with emergencies like that, we handle through the CIP Contingency Fund.

If you'll recall last year, FY20, year end, we were able to add $3.8 million to the contingency, and I should have this on the top of my head, but I don't at the moment, of the balance in the contingency fund.

I know there's at least $3.8 million.

We had set aside roughly as a reserve for about a million dollars for whatever may need to happen with statue removals.

I know some of that has changed and may not be required that much at this point, still to be determined.

But that is the contingency fund is basically one of the areas that one of the only areas that we have

to address emergencies such as the one you bring up with Smith Aquatic Center.

And so that is a concern.

And again, this isn't going to address the close to $10 million cliff we're going to have in two years when certain grants start running out or when we're going to have to meet the school's level funding at 4.8 or whatever it is now.

And then there's the safety grant will expire.

Those are all operational, though.

Well, they are operational, but they do compete with available cash dollars for debt service and the CIP.

So it is a great concern when you start looking in every direction and you're looking at large multimillion dollar increases.

It still means we have to somehow come up with that money and we've already programmed in a 10 percent

A 10 cent tax increase.

So, I mean, honestly, I think where we are right now is if we move forward with the CIP as proposed, keeping the school project in here, the 10 cent tax increase only covers the debt service for the school project.

You still, you know, barring any other change,

are going to have to find four and a half million dollars just to cover the school's operational request, which we already know exceeds what our natural growth has been on typical trends by a couple million dollars at least.

I have been one of those advocating particularly for the West Main Street project for reasons I won't go into at great length here, but I just want to reemphasize there's probably no single more important project that we have that would advance the interests of the biking and pedestrian communities.

that would address the broader questions of urban design.

And as I've said before, I think it presents a generational opportunity for us to really remake a significant portion of our downtown area.

But I also recognize that at this point, the only way that that is likely to happen seems to me to be if we can work out another method for school funding.

This is a practical matter that the school fund problem gobbles up all kinds of other things we would like to be able to do that would make our city a significantly better place.

So for now, it seems that we ought to simply defer recognizing or defer the West Main project

recognizing, number one, that it appears as though there is not truly an operational cost to us doing so if we are still able to make things work a couple years down the road.

And number two, because I really, although I never want to start counting chickens before they're hatched, I do think that the track record that we've seen so far

of those localities that have put the question of a referendum on that additional 1% sales tax for school construction purposes, every single one is passed.

And Charlottesville is a jurisdiction that cares deeply about education.

And while I wouldn't want to presume anything, I do think it is probably a bet worth taking at this point, recognizing it costs us nothing to take the bet.

right now.

We're not spending any money in anticipation of doing it.

I simply don't want to take away things.

For example, I would not want to say, let's take it out of the capital budget entirely.

Let us assume we will never do it.

Let's leave it there.

Let's see if events unfold in the next year or two that make it doable.

I can think of a whole lot of circumstances

some of which one of which would be the notion of the of the tax of the sales tax increase for school construction.

But there are other considerations, other things that could come up as well.

So I I'm not asking at this point that we put more money aside than the 18 million that's already there is put aside.

I do.

I would like to see in the next year or two.

if there is a way that we can get the other $6.5 million that would be necessary to make the project work, keeping in mind all of the other priorities.

I would finally note that in terms of affordable housing, yes, there are people out there who have said, well, we told you we wanted $10 million a year before, and that would be plenty, but now we want $12 million a year.

and I recognize that there is some difference because part of what the consultants are suggesting is to include in that $10 million figure a number of other things that aren't capital expenditures and we're not building more housing with say the $2 million in tax relief or with the $1 million for sort of office infrastructure but those are

nonetheless points that, I mean, they would make the point for us that Charlottesville is already doing well more than virtually every other jurisdiction, certainly of its size.

And while we may not be hitting all the needs exactly, it's not that we're not trying, we are trying.

We also do have other needs in the city that have to be reconciled and

$10 million is the figure that the consultants have recommended.

And they've got the experience to say that, you know, that's a that's a pretty good commitment.

You're you're trying pretty hard here.

And I respect that.

So

As I said, I've been an advocate for the West Main Street program.

I hope we will leave it in the budget to leave the $18 million that's already allocated to leave it there.

Smaller questions.

Are the small area plans and SIA funding, are those cash funded in the CIP?

They are not.

OK.

because yeah, I just know it was in the materials now, but the planning commission had recommended delaying them until the comprehensive plan update is actually finished.

Would that have any operate?

So because it is bondable, it is in our projection.

If we take if we take the dollars from that project and don't assign it to anything.

Then we sort of hold those, you know, a couple hundred thousand dollars in our capacity.

If we take those couple hundred thousand dollars and reassign it to a different project that would be eligible for bonds as well, it doesn't really change the scenario, but it does give you a few more dollars in another project.

I think so.

Yeah, I guess it's just

So,

You know, barring any other discussion or comments from Council, I think what I'm hearing is, you know, we're fairly satisfied with the CIP as proposed.

Again, West Main,

No new dollars.

It doesn't sound like anyone's pushing to add those to the CIP at this point.

There aren't any more in, and so there are no further decisions regarding this CIP to make for that.

The school project is in the out year, so again,

That was sort of the beauty of the methodology there was to sort of give you time to get more information from the study and then also sort of figure out other options for how best to finance that.

So no decisions or changes that we need there.

One other thought I had had is I know the funding for the parking garage was sort of pushed out, which leaves that space to figure out what, if anything, will change about it.

So maybe it's not something that would change, would even need to change.

But I mean, I think there's a possibility of a way to save a lot of money and

I'm not totally sad.

I wouldn't be totally satisfied with this approach anyway, but I think it may be the best one if instead of building the parking structure, we know that, you know, we're going to need to turn the two areas.

If something is built, no matter what, we're going to need to turn it into a surface slot, get rid of the building.

So if we're doing that, just turning that into a surface parking lot that meets the court's agreement in

sometime down the road.

I guess we could still build a parking garage if data said we needed it.

Yeah.

And so, you know, I think, again, another thing with this current version of the CIP is that the dollars have been pushed out, but they are still there as a placeholder.

So should things materialize that a parking garage is in fact needed, we've held that in as part of your capacity.

But we're also if we're not issuing the bonds now because we're not building the garage today, then it's still just part of your capacity.

We're not paying on it.

and it's still keeping it in your plan.

If you get down the road and you all vote and there is no garage, then that's money that you can apply to something else.

And again, nothing gained, nothing lost there, except you have more flexibility.

And anything further with that would be coming back to council anyway.

Yeah, great question.

Brian, can you bring that slide back up with that table on there?

So in years past, what we have done is we have made a transfer from the general fund that exceeded our annual debt service.

So for example, if you look at, of course, this table is probably going to make me, let's look at 2020.

So the second column on the left-hand side where it says annual debt service, the annual debt service payment was $10.7 million

We actually made a transfer from the general fund of $11 million.

So in that year, we were actually transferring a little more from the general fund than we were actually paying out in debt service to start building up this debt service fund balance.

And we have done that over a period of years, which is how we've been able to accumulate the $13 million.

and part of that was done when we dedicated the one cent of the meals tax to the debt service fund to help pay debt service.

But, you know, as we get down further in this scenario, you know, if you've looked at, let's say, if you look at 2025, the projected debt service payment is 15.5 million, and we're transferring 15.4, or the year above that, the debt service payment is 14 million, and we're only transferring 13.7.

And so,

With each of those payments and as we progress, we are using less and less of the, we're using the debt service fund balance faster than we're putting in extra money to pay the debt service.

So to your point, in the budget for 2022, we are transferring roughly the amount of our debt service payment and that is for existing debt service.

So

If we don't issue the debt, we have the ability to just make a transfer to pay our existing debt service, or we could transfer a little extra to build up.

So like even let's say if something was

in the CIP a year ago, but we hadn't issued a bond or two years ago.

Actually, the affordable housing, the only bond affordable housing project that is bondable is the CRHA project.

Those bonds were issued with the bond issue last year.

Because of the timing, we thought it, you know, it was the time to do it, the rates were really low.

But historically, we've had things that have sometimes been sitting programmed into the general fund.

No, I mean, really, the debt service transfer that we plan and budget for is really more of a comprehensive look at the debt service plan overall.

So in

past years, you know, we only pay debt service on the bonds we've issued, first of all.

And so when we transfer more to the debt service than our annual debt service payment, then yes, to your point, we're sort of pretending that it's higher and we're holding that money in debt service.

But

We're sort of past that because we have really been issuing a lot faster than we're paying off.

Last year, there was a decision to decrease fund balance and pay off more.

So a couple, I don't,

For the 2020 budget, we did change the way that we were budgeting for our debt.

We basically were accelerating our debt transfer based on the idea that we were going to issue that authorized but not issued.

So those $74 million we've been referring to.

We were making the assumption that it was all going to be issued the following year.

And so in that case, the debt service transfer was higher, which also allowed us to build up this debt service fund balance.

Again, weren't paying it out because we hadn't issued it.

And because we had some stresses on the general fund, we went back and took a look at it at that point and said, hey, let's plan our debt service transfer to be a little bit more in line with how we're actually issuing.

And in that one year, I think that, you know, it was called the miracle, right, because we found $850,000.

And so I think that might be what you're thinking about.

Okay.

I remember having a very small party in my head.

Yeah.

Thank you very much.

Anything else you guys want to talk about, ask on the CIP?

Good, good.

Well, we'll talk a little bit about the FY22 operating budget before we get into the Vibrant Community Fund.

If I can get Brian, there we go.

Pulled up what I needed.

As staff continues to hone the financial estimates for revenues and the expenses, we've identified some revenue changes.

roughly $1.023 million from expected business license and taxes, as well as some state reimbursement for our constitutional officer expenditures.

We've also found expenditure savings in some couple of police line items for $310,000 that gives us a total new revenue of $1.33 million that we now have available to us.

And based upon council's input from the last meetings, and Brian, if you might, I'm sorry, Brian.

There we go.

We recommend the use of these funds for the 2% cost of living increase for employees, as well as the salary adjustments that this would bring about for some of our contractual partners, and then to fully fund for the deputy city manager for administration that we had only funded for a partial of FY22.

That leaves a balance of just short of $176,000 to consider for the personnel to support either the Climate Action Plan and or to utilize $147,000, which would bring several of what we're calling the consensus agencies of the Vibrant Community Fund up to level funding with what they received in FY21.

Right now, there's not enough to fund both full and full the climate personnel and to level fund those consensus agencies from the Vibrant Community Fund.

But in some type of combination, you could fund some of both, all of one and part of another.

Can I just interject for a second?

Because I thought there was agreement to look at the solution and measurement position, but not the whole plan for the innovations and programs and innovation office.

That was during the discussion and during the suggestions that were sent back by the council members, that was not one of the priority items that was recommended.

What was recommended from those suggestions was the climate action plan support got a very high rating.

And then, which Ryan will touch on in a minute, several of the vibrant community funds to try to get them back to their level funding.

And what we did was just take a look at each one of the suggested line items

I agree.

I actually had it as a priority.

And as we have said before, as well, before Ryan starts, we're constantly fine-tuning all of our revenue estimates.

at least getting the measurements and solutions person going in this next fiscal year.

I would, and I probably was not very clear in my email.

If I also, whether it's looking at CDBG funding, looking at

All right.

If there's no other discussion on that.

And one thing, and again, as Mr. Boyles has pointed out many times, even if it's not something we can do in 22, this is officially the kickoff of the 23 budget process as well.

As we look at these things and we start figuring out, okay, what are the things that we couldn't do in 22 that we need to

really put more emphasis and focus on as we're putting together that 23 budget along with everything else to make sure that they're definitely in the mix and discussed as we go through.

But just wanted to point that out as well.

So I wanted to start with the Vibrant Community Fund agencies.

And, you know, we're planning to have another work session on the agencies in May on the Vibrant Community Fund process and outside agencies in May where we're really going to focus on the process changes and the improvements.

So really what we want to focus our discussion on for today was the funding side of the

the formula.

And as we begin our discussions on this, I just want to show this slide real quick to start by showing the overall picture of the total unfunded amounts from what was requested by the agencies in 22, which is somewhere around the 1.46 million.

And I highlighted in yellow those areas where we were funding at least a portion of the request.

And so just to give a little perspective as to where the funding was coming from.

Next slide, please, Brian.

And so as we're looking at these agencies, we'd asked council to provide a list of agencies as the agency work session and then also council through email and through discussions that sent a list of agencies that they want to talk about.

These are the ones we're calling the consensus agencies.

Those are the agencies that we had three counselors bring up that said they wanted to look at for further discussion of

funding agencies and programs, maybe not necessarily about increasing funding, but at least having a further discussion about these agencies and programs.

For those agencies, we're not going to ignore those other agencies that were brought up by at least one counselor.

Those are on the next slide, but for purposes of kind of using our time and focusing the discussion, we wanted to start with those agencies that had a consensus.

And so in looking at these agencies, one of the things I wanted to just clarify on this slide is, you know, the first column represents what the agencies requested for FY22.

The second column represents what we're proposing for those agencies.

And then that column that says difference is what it would take to fully fund those agencies.

And then that final column, there had been some question about, well, what would it take to get some of these agencies back up to the same level they were at for FY21?

And so this final column shows the additional funding needs that each agency would have to level fund from what they had received as part of the FY21 budget.

We can come back to this slide, but we'll go to the next slide, please.

And so in looking at this, these were also some other agencies that we're calling them other agencies because these were the ones that were not a consensus.

And one thing I would point out on this is that the first two agencies, OAR Pretrial and Cinderas, both are receiving

levels above what they received in FY21.

So while we didn't fully meet their request, they are still getting a little bit of extra funding from what they received in FY21.

And the other two agencies, Bridge Ministry, Christina Juntos, did not receive funding in FY21.

So it would just be a consideration there.

And then same thing with the capacity building agencies is none of those were funded in FY21.

So if we could go back one more slide, please, Brian.

So this is the list of agencies that we had as consensus and, you know,

I'll let council begin these discussions as they want to on any of these particular agencies.

But one thing I would point out is we've had a long process where we went through and looked at the ratings and the rankings.

And I'm not sure that going in and unpacking ratings and rankings for each of these is quite the appropriate way to handle this.

Because as I said, we have that work session in May where we're really going to look at the

the mechanism by which we break these agencies and really unpack the process as a whole.

However, it is totally within Council's purview to say these agencies are important to us and we recommend additional funding at whatever level that may be, or we recommend staying within the process.

And so that's why, as opposed to really going in and arguing about, well, this should have been ranked here and should have been rated there.

We feel like if this is an agency where you think

It is something that you feel is worth additional funding or worthy of additional funding outside of what may have been recommended through the process.

Kind of focus those discussions in that area.

We can definitely look at where they were close in ratings and rankings if you wanted to be able to figure out what a dollar amount to potentially fund agencies at.

However, as I said, focusing on just the dollar amount as opposed to really trying to unpack all these ratings and rankings for these

agency seems to be from a staff perspective as probably the most productive use of time to be able to really get into what council wants to what the end goal council wants to accomplish of potentially providing additional funding and additional resources for these agencies.

And just because I already covered this off with Chip earlier today, the CRHA dollars, we are looking to possibly look at other sources for those to be

received outside of vibrant communities, just because it isn't quasi-governmental.

And I understand that, but there are other places I think that many of us weighed in, like, are there other places where we could source these funds?

Right.

And that was one of the things that was brought up particularly about that agency.

Thank you for bringing that up.

is, would it be more appropriate to fund through, I mean, I think CDBG, CRH, or CAF dollars, American Recovery Funds, all those were mentioned as potential sources to look at, but since three councils, you know, I think everyone had, or maybe four out of the five had mentioned specifically this agency, I wanted to make sure that it was on there for further discussion, even if it wasn't necessarily, let's use additional five community funds, but have that discussion of

And just a quick comment for me.

I know that, you know, a lot of the organizations and, you know, probably won't be happy either with this, but I do think that getting that staff member's place is even more important so that we don't keep having this conversation than increasing the levels and then

if this is a conversation that we can have after we know what the dollars that we get from the, you know, passed down from federal government through the American Rescue, ARP or whatever, you know, that would be a better use of this discussion.

I just think if we're going to start having

that conversation by May to not delay that position and to try to get someone on board to be a part of those conversations.

I just think that would be helpful.

Is that what you're saying?

So to put that position up forward and then if additional funding comes up, then we will maybe fill in in these areas that are being proposed, but that's a priority.

Okay.

Yeah.

I just think that longer term, it's not going to be a pleasant experience in this moment.

And the comments that I'm going to get are not going to be very pleasant.

But I just think longer term, we keep running into the same type of debate every year.

I just think if we have this staff member helping us to get this process

and understanding that it will have to be a flexible process, that it's not going to be a one-size-fits-all, but figuring out that structure is going to be more important and more helpful to all of the agencies and the priorities longer term.

And just to be clear, really quick, the vibrant community fund right now is whole for what's budgeted.

This $147,000 is coming from the additional revenue that staff is allocating to priorities that they found consensus on.

So we're not going to be taking away from existing allocations to vibrant communities.

This is the money that they're saying we have available to us if we wanted to add any agencies or any dollars to that.

And so what the mayor is proposing wouldn't be taking away from the existing

funding levels for the vibrant community funds.

But it would be taken away from what they've been advocating for.

Right.

As we stand right now, we have roughly $176,000, just shy of $176,000 in

what we're calling budget surplus or budget balance to be to be reallocated.

Sure.

Yes.

And Mayor, if I heard you right too, what we would be looking to do is that should the American Rescue Plan funds be eligible for the Vibrant Community Fund recommendation that we're showing you tonight, then we would pursue those funds to make some of these agencies whole with what they received in FY21.

I agree with that too.

This could be, you could have made things very easy, at least for us on the accounting end.

I was just looking at the performance and management, and though it's not exactly that,

Well, I would I would say my priority is first priority is still just trying to fund the agencies.

That's where I'm at.

And if ARP is available to be used for personnel, then pursuing those personnel positions there.

And just to be clear, the $175,000 that the city manager is referring to would basically mean that if we funded the measurements person, we would not be able to fund support for the climate action plan out of this money.

Wait, what?

Okay.

If you look at a couple of slides down,

and maybe you can skip ahead.

Skip ahead.

There we go.

So we've got $176,000 balance after these other surpluses are factored in minus the 2% COLA for city employees and so on.

So we're $176,000 if we were to fund

the personnel to support climate action plan up to $105,000 that was intended to come out of the 176, am I right, Brian?

That is correct, yes.

And likewise, if we were to fund the Vibrant Community Fund,

to the consensus agencies from that bottom line there, the 147-043 would also be competing with the person to support climate action plan of $105,000.

That's correct.

All three of those proposals would be competing for that same pot of 176.

I totally forgot what the slide.

Oh, 100 and the other.

He said it would be right at 175.

Oh, right at that amount.

Okay.

And I'm most comfortable that the VCF, I do feel confident we're going to be able to use other sources of funding for, and it might even be more than the 147.

That's another discussion down the road.

Whereas the actual personnel decisions, I think, have to fall into these decisions because they're people, they're budgeted for, you know, they're going to come and they're going to be working here and they're not going away.

Whereas we have a lot more flexibility with VCF and we recognize the need right now is really significant for outside agencies.

So I would be in favor of us prioritizing

Just as one point of clarification just based on what I know about

the length of time it takes to bring someone on board, especially with a new position that we haven't had in the city.

If we did the measures and solutions, I just want to caution that this would not be, in my opinion, I don't believe we would be able to have that in place by the May work session because that's probably not even in this budget cycle, yeah.

you know we we don't haven't had yet but I could have missed and I was thinking no I was I was actually absolutely thinking that I was just thinking that if we're starting in May those discussions that that person will come on you know while we are near you know during that time okay we are having to help with that process I understand that it wouldn't necessarily be made but if it could be getting going to so that

Okay, thank you.

Thank you for the clarification.

I just wasn't sure on that.

So one of the other discussions we had had, and I had thought that there might have been support from at least three counselors, maybe I overestimated, but I keep coming back to the question of

why drug court therapeutic docket, OAR probation, OAR pretrial services, all of which are services that the courts rely on, that Commonwealth's attorneys rely on, the jails rely on, everybody relies on, they affect the rest of our, by reducing our prison population, they reduce our costs in the long run, why those are subject to competitive processes at all,

particularly when the drug court, for example, is being proposed for what amounts to a 60% reduction.

The therapeutic docket is being recommended for a 40% reduction and I think those are two of the programs that, all four of those programs for OIR I really think do a great job to reduce our prison population, our jail population

and I just think that we ought to be regarding them as inherent in the process of having the criminal justice system and integral to the administration of the court system and to try to keep people out of jail.

And I don't think they should be subject to this process at all.

I think we ought to just fund the request if they're found to be otherwise reasonable and not reduce them depending on whatever

feelings members of the VCF committee may have about the particular organization.

We've already made the decision at other times that we want to participate in those programs.

I have a question regarding this.

So looking at what was requested this year versus what was level funding at FY21, I recall they were like a 1A for both those programs last year.

That thought for once, I want to backtrack to Mr. Snook's initial thoughts for a second.

And what I would say to that is that is something that staff has noted from our previous discussions and that we will something we wanted to work into the discussion in May because we feel as we get through, we start to

making adjustments and improvements and changes to this process.

And depending on what it looks like, there may be other agencies that we might want to look at in a different way outside of just these ones.

And there may be

changes to the process that may necessitate looking at other agencies in that same light.

So I think that's more while we just acknowledge that we hear you and we agree that there are some that we may need to look at slightly differently as we move forward through these processes.

And that's something that we definitely want to integrate into the discussions in May.

I don't know that we could completely unpack that.

at this point where we're trying to make these funding decisions, but it is definitely something, you know, that will have, as it will be a future impact on these agencies, definitely moving forward, it's definitely something we'll look at as part of that future work session.

As far as the differences, I don't know if Khaki is on here right now, but I think that's one where, as I said before, you know, it's, Khaki mentioned this, you know, the

The review in the world we lived in when the initial lens was done in from one year to the next was totally different.

When we reviewed these in 21, no one had even heard of the coronavirus or COVID-19.

And so there's there's that lens.

And we try to make this process as I always get these backwards as some

I always get objective and subjective.

I'm sorry, Ryan.

I just want to clarify.

I was more asking the ask of the agency.

It's not what was decided because it looks like if I look at what was funded last year, 21, which I know they got, I remember them getting a 1A.

I don't have it with me, but I'm pretty sure.

So they've gotten nearly full funding, but yet the ask this year was

notably larger.

Or am I missing something?

Sorry, I've sent a request to Ross Carew for specifics, but as I recall, both courts had changes in their grant funding from other sources that were multi-year supports.

Both of them, I think, had some startup grant that were multi-year.

that we're changing.

And so I've asked for verification and if I'll get a chance to sort of dig around in some of the applications while we're on, I'll try to find the specific response to that.

That makes a lot of sense.

Okay.

So I think beyond that is we're thinking about, you know, to Mayor Walker's point around like just these positions and like what has to be decided tonight.

It sounds like to me that

for the VCF that we are going to be giving more, and we might even be giving more than 147, and I think that's something that maybe we should discuss further.

What is the amount we want to allocate if we go towards stimulus dollars, if they're approved to do that, but that we do want to prioritize positions ahead of that for this decision tonight.

Is that what I'm kind of hearing?

Because I agree.

I think there are other areas within even these buckets of VCF agencies that we might want to consider

I think what we would need tonight is that if you would prefer to fund either the OMB position or the climate personnel, one of those, the discussions for the Vibrant Community Fund could come a little bit later because if you're intending to use the rescue funds for that,

is it unknown that the stimulus money would be able to be applied to Vibrant Community Fund?

It is an unknown.

And I would also just add that we have to get FY21's deficit or finances in line first for that stimulus money.

Again, as Ryan reports out on those monthly reports, we're still looking at a

a deficit of almost $4 million over and above the $6 million reserve that we set aside.

And I'm just thinking in prior stimulus dollars have come through.

Kaki certainly and her team have proposed dollars to outside agencies.

And so that's why even when it was more restrictive, I felt like

It was certainly one of the top things, especially in the human services side.

And I'm not proposing that, to Christy's point, that we're going gangbusters, but I think that at least to commit to this amount we're talking about, I'm comfortable with, and perhaps more.

But I am fairly confident, but I understand, Michael, where you're coming from.

It's not for sure.

If there were any that I would be a little bit

hesitant on, and I don't know the details of their budget, the computers for kids.

That one, that one may be, I don't know, probably not though.

Yeah, given the need for school.

No, I think that would be a very clear cut one, even underneath the CARES funding restrictions.

I have a quick question.

If we go back to the slide that shows how much is being proposed and how much would be the vibrant community grant slide.

This one.

No, one back.

Yeah, perfect.

So it says that already we've factored in 107,000 here.

This 30,000, 36 and 40.

And then to bring up level funding, okay, so level funding, okay, it would be, nevermind.

For some reason I was thinking it was 147 minus 107.

Well, I think the other question in my mind about like counting on ARP money to fulfill any agency gaps is not just what would qualify, but the timeline of when the money would actually be available to be allocated there and whether that timeline would just get so extended that it would have operational impacts on the agencies who didn't have funding.

Yeah, normal.

Yeah, the normal timeline for vibrant community funds is we would send that that first week of July is when the first quarterly payment would go out to the agencies.

And, you know, as Chrissy brought up, if you know, one of the things we're looking at work with the additional American rescue funds is

the possibility of needing to fill a gap in 21.

And the reality is we're looking November or later before we have a general idea of where the book's being closed enough.

Solid enough at that point.

I think that's about the time we're doing our audit to be able to say, here's what the final 21 gap would be.

So even at that point, even if we do get funds, say we get half of the money 100 days from the time the bill was signed, as has been reported in some places, we may not know how much of that would actually be needed for 21 until that November, December timeframe.

So

I know that both the climate action position and the measurement and solutions position are incredibly important positions.

I just, I, I, I just think our city relies too much on these awardees to at least keep them at what they had last year.

Well, and again, like I would put the

As the top priority for the spending of 175?

Well, I mean, I guess the question I've got is last year, the way we got to the end here was that between basically between to analogize to this year between this meeting and the meeting in May during that same interval, the percentages all got adjusted.

And so whereas they had been at 95% for the for the one a grouping.

They came down to 90% for the final analysis.

And some things changed by another 5% here or there.

And somehow or another, we got to a different bottom line where we didn't have to put more money into the programs or more money into the Vibrant Community Fund.

But we also were able to add some things and to boost some things to a level that we thought was appropriate.

That's an option also.

For example, if we were to say we were going to fund the 1A programs at 90% instead of 95%, I don't remember what that comes out to.

It's probably somewhere in the neighborhood of $50,000.

And there's other similar changes that can be made by tweaking percentages a little bit here, a little bit there.

I'm wondering whether there was any thought that, gee, that was a lousy way to have done it last year, and for goodness sake, let's not do it again this year, or whether we just haven't quite gotten to that point yet, and that was kind of like the last gambit to close the gap, and we haven't gotten there yet.

And I'll be honest, last year was the first year I recall revisiting this after a budget has closed, and I think it was unique to COVID, and we kind of purposely put that

in that category of like let's hold for a bit, see what the needs are because of a pandemic.

But in years past, we've made these decisions and we've moved forward.

I may make a proposal to consider is that if we could, as was presented on the slides of putting the 147 to make those consensus agencies whole and then using whatever balance to go towards one of those two positions, the climate or the performance and management position.

To me, they're both high priorities.

But if we're just having to choose one over the other, I would put the climate action planning position one.

But then like these other priorities, like

The same.

I'm leaning toward the measurements person, but that's in part because I'm not clear in my mind what the climate person would be doing.

I think I have a sense of what the measurements person would be doing on a

you know sort of what what the mission is what they're going to be looking to do over the next 12 months.

I'm less clear on what the climate person would be doing.

I see that Crystal is on.

Can we can we possibly have her come and speak to that?

Oh, sure.

Sorry, Crystal.

Can you hear me?

So I think the anticipation is that when we have a climate action plan adopted, there will be a range of initiatives, be it on the municipal side or on the community support side, that will actually exceed the capacity that our existing staff have to deliver.

And I can't actually tell you specifically on a day to day basis, but it essentially will, I think, function in a form of a project manager or in the form of a research assistant.

You know, there are going to be a lot of things where we're either going to be running contract type issues, implementation scenarios, coordinating with funding opportunities that may be coming from the state or the federal or the feds.

that try to connect those funding or dollar opportunities with local initiatives.

And again, I think it's premature for me to tell you what exact projects that position would work on, but I can tell you that the one and a little bit staff that we have dedicated to the climate program won't be able to effectively deliver

the implementation at the pace that we understand the community expects.

And one of the items that we have in a resolution from 2019 was to expedite or to be swift in action and not delay implementation until 2035 or 2050, but rather what was called front load the efforts for emissions reductions.

It may be that the question can't be answered at this point.

I guess I kind of get it.

I haven't seen what your proposal is, what the plan is going to end up looking like and therefore what it's going to sort of call on city government folks to do.

And if maybe what this person would be doing would be to

almost to be an ambassador into the rest of the community to get the rest of the community working on certain aspects.

I don't know.

Sure.

I mean, I can throw examples out there without saying these are definitely in the plan, but there are ideas to establish a funding mechanism called commercial pace.

Standing that program up is going to take some internal resources to get it together.

That's a funding financing mechanism to support energy efficiency and frankly other improvements in private properties.

There could be interesting or innovative renewable energy projects or arrangements that could be established that will require coordination with legal and purchasing

and consultants and contractors and perhaps construction.

So again, these are just kind of examples of things that we have a backlog of delivering on actually projects and expectations in the community right now.

And it's because we just don't have enough of us to go around.

Okay.

With our commitment to climate initiatives, which have not been in our forefront for many reasons and very valid reasons, I think I would put my vote being the climate specialist first and then the measurement solutions grant

is right after that.

Again, I think they're both incredibly important positions.

And the value of the measurement and solutions person has been demonstrated many times now.

How about if you let us work on this?

Yeah.

But I think we do have something we can work from and come back to you.

It does sound like to me, though, that there are the concerns with pushing the Vibrant Community Fund off into the

I'm worried about that.

Yeah.

And in particular, because I think the agencies and I'm frankly thinking in particular about programs like the drug court people and so on, who've got employees who are on long term, you know, your contracts that are expected to continue for that

and indefinite period of time.

It's a program that's been going on for a while.

These are all programs and these are all agencies that we're not talking about.

They would just defer starting up for three months to see what happens.

These are agencies that are ongoing now and at present funding levels, they would be expected

in some cases to take a 50% cut in the amount that we were spending and that we were giving them and that would require them to make additional decisions that maybe they work out okay in the long run, maybe they don't, but if they're being as conservative as we are trying to be, they might well have some very significant disruptions in the way that they do business.

And perhaps we could look at some because we aren't, I mean, in most of these cases, we're only talking about funding a portion with the APR funds or ARP funds.

So there may be a way to get cut two checks instead of one.

that might could could meet the needs.

Well, do we make progress overall?

You think?

I would say yes.

And again, sometimes not

not making a decision.

You just made a decision.

Yeah.

All right.

The next time we'll meet about this is on the 5th.

And then we still have one whole council meeting cycle.

So if

iron out anything else.

My least favorite work session, because it's right on spring break, because Ryan can relate.

Yes, I can relate too.

Yeah, no, that's... Ryan, I've been battling this for the last three years.

Can we not do that?

It's fine.

I mean, it's easier with Zoom, but not exciting.

We've been able to avoid it two out of my three years, I think, right, maybe, Ryan?

Okay.

Good evening.

If you'd like to address counsel and you're in the audience on the webinar, click the raise hand icon.

If you're on via telephone, you can press star nine.

If you are watching on Facebook or BoxCast, you'll need to join the Zoom webinar at charlottesville.gov slash Zoom.

Right now we have 13 people in the audience, none with their hands raised.

Now we have a hand, two hands.

There we go.

First up is Ivy Zedrick and you'll have up to three minutes to speak to council.

Hi, do you all have any comments on the mayor's recent public comments on social media regarding the town of Charlottesville?

That's really the extent of my question.

Thank you.

Next up is Anna Mendez.

Anna, you're on with counsel.

Good evening.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate the comments around the necessity of continuous funding for the drug court and the therapeutic docket.

on the basis of agency having staff.

But I think that that just kind of totally misses the point that these are programs that are serving the residents of Charlottesville who without the continuity of this program would otherwise be incarcerated.

That is the alternative for them.

The alternative for them is not that they are living lives free of

government oversight in their homes.

The alternative for these people is that they are incarcerated.

And until we as a community are willing to stop arresting, charging, and prosecuting the members of our community for the symptoms of their addiction or their serious mental illness,

then to deprive them of the opportunity to participate in drug court or the therapeutic docket is unconscionable.

Please do not end this meeting without a firm commitment to at least level fund these programs to the extent that they are currently funded.

And I just have a quick comment about that because I think it's part of what we discussed when we were trying to figure out the revamp of the vibrant communities was also how to get participant thoughts about how programs are going.

And, you know, we are getting sometimes just one side and I'm not talking about those two programs, but just in general.

that it's important for us to figure out there's just more to the story.

Two years ago, an organization

Representative came and said they were applying for money just because they were getting it from somewhere else.

And they thought that the city should cover that now that that grant stopped, but they didn't necessarily speak to that they would not be able to function without the city's commitment, where without the city commitment is true for other agencies.

So I just think it's important for us to why I'm advocating the way I am is because each year we

run into this conversation about this process.

Is it a fair process?

There were just more steps that the initial group discussed in revamping this.

And I just think the sooner we get there, the better we'll be able to serve the needs of the community, even though that looks like maybe a more bureaucratic process.

It's just going to be more helpful long term.

We have one more hand raised.

Next up is Molly Conger.

Molly, you're on with counsel.

Just two quick questions.

An invitation for bids posted this morning to buy brand new guns for every member of the police department.

I'm just curious if that out of the police budget or is that like the mobile data units?

Is that coming out of the CIP?

And then as part of that invitation for bids, one of the items they're purchasing is 131 off-duty holsters.

And I'm also curious why we're paying police officers for a piece of equipment to allow them to remain armed while they're not at work.

if they want to carry their gun while they're not at work.

I feel like that's up to them to to get the equipment for that.

So again, where where is this money coming from in the budget?

And why are we paying them for an at home toy?

Okay, is I don't see the chief one here.

And last call, if anyone else would like to address counsel, please click the raise hand icon.

No other hands raised, Mayor Walker.

And just real quick on that comment.

Yes, ma'am.

Next up is Tim Wallace.

Tim, you're on with council.

Hello, all.

I'm Tim Wallace, the director of Durham Legal Aid Justice Center.

I just wanted to say that there seems to be broad consensus on the council that all three of the things that you were putting up against each other were important to fund.

And it's a tiny, tiny percentage of the total budget.

It feels like putting worthwhile investments into the functioning of the city and things like climate and essential nonprofits is something of a devil's choice.

asking, why can't we do all three and find other things to defund?

If you want to do all three, find a way to do it.

That's it.

All right.

Thank you.

Just again, I think the bottom line for me is just having a high priority to figure out how to fund those agencies so there aren't operational impacts on them.

Wherever that money comes from, it doesn't really matter to me.

It's just the bottom line of that, like, FAR, OAR, drug court, mental health docket,

All right.

Thank you, staff.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Maybe this will be easier.