County Board - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon. Uh we are um we have arrived after a long and winding journey at um with lots of work sessions at our um markup work session today uh this afternoon. Um so colleagues what I propose that we do I worked I've tried to share a sort of a process with you. There's a couple of one in particular addition the way this process works is this will be a work session. What we need to deliver to the Department of Management and Finance by the end of the day is a majority um supported way forward that they can then cost and evaluate in detail so that every last piece is assessed for uh the relative budget cost

and the other pieces. So that's me.

Thank you, Mr. Karen Tonus. Thank you, colleagues. What we will do is we will start by trying to get we'll go through and uh the way we're planning on working this is uh I believe Mr. Wine Shank is going to share his screen and DMF is right there with him. Um and it is uh a a revised mark that was there were some tiny tweaks that were very one perhaps substantive other was not that was posted this morning that tracked quite closely to the one that was posted last night. We will then next Wednesday we will have our our final vote on this. But today we will seek to get to an agreed upon scorable um set of line items that we would move forward for our budget. We will not today be taking uh individual separate motions uh but instead we will be working to come to a proposal that we have alignment on um and we will have some issues that will be surfaced. So we'll go through if Mr. Wshank you can bring up the chair's mark. We will go through uh this uh and there's all the monitors have this. We'll go through this line by line. The first set of first pass I suggest we try to go through and see if there are any individual concerns. I don't have a scientific way of figuring this out. But the goal is going to be to get the big picture. After that first set of we'll pull out a number of line items that we will consider later. After that first step, Miss Cunningham has some uh buckets of two or three pieces that she will would like to review of al of sort of alternative proposals or initiatives that she wants to speak to. We will hear those and then we will go back in that second round uh and we'll consider those and go back in that second round to going through items to

be concrete about it. Probably we will turn to the sheriff's compensation first in that second round uh because it is a relatively big ticket item and then we will go through each of those items trying to be as efficient as possible. That's enough of a prelude for me. Um and we will go now to working through the items. So on items um unless there are any burning questions I see see no lights so we'll get started. Um line 14 is the um metro wamada revision um from March 27th and that is something that we've asked Mr. Freeze about a couple of times. I feel like there's broad alignment agreement on that. line 15 to explain it to our our public um is a reduction in buyout costs because we anticipate and DMF please correct me if I'm I'm incorrect on any of this. We anticipate that we will be making fewer uh job vacancy job cuts or you know than we had than in the manager's proposed budget and as a result the buyout costs for those we give severance where we have a parting with an employee the buyout costs will typically uh we will will be less and that's the 300,000 in one time that is in column in row four 15 excuse me the line 20 is the tax rate adjustment. Uh I'll just name that we will come back to that issue. I think it's one of the areas that um we should have ongoing. But currently in the piece you can see line 20 and 21 it assumes a 0.0050 increase which is we advertised 2 cents. the manager's proposal was 1.5 cents and what the chair's mark uh resides at an additional half cent that we would need to to f fund what I and I think others see as important priorities. We'll have

additional conversation on that. So we'll move to line uh 23 which is um revenue before uh for the county board. And then if you go from 23 through line 28, it uh line 26 specifies the amount that we share under the revenue agreement. And so this half cent, the proposal is to share that revenue. I believe it's the revenue share rate is around 46% or or so. And so the proposal is to share that. Um and so we'll continue on to the stabilization reserve which is um the far right describes that we have eight we proposed to not uh not in this budget proposal delve deeply beyond what the county manager has already shared into the stabilization reserve colleagues will recall that was 11.5 million last year and there's a number of in your third quarter memo I think you described a number of steps we would take So, um the next item there is, uh line 31, which is the clerk of court, um mentioned a position that the manager indicated in a perfect world would have been in the proposed budget. It's funded primarily by the state, but as we supplement many positions, this also needs to be supplemented in order to uh pay the way we believe in in Arlington is necessary for cost of living. Line 32 I would propose that we is the first line that I would propose that we pull out and have a subsequent additional detailed discussion because I believe there are several board members who have questions on that. Um the current proposal is if you look at it just for awareness is to do to only start that position halfway through the fiscal year which I believe would be January 1. And

um but I it we do want it the proposal at least I have and we'll discuss more is that the full cost be in next year's proposed budget without changes from the board because we don't want to set ourselves up with an ongoing fiscal cliff or fiscal challenge that we would face. Number line 33 is um the Commonwealth attorneys. We've had a number of organizations as well as the Commonwealth attorney ask for res funding for restorative justice. And so this funding would go to the Commonwealth attorney uh for implementing of um a restorative justice focused initiative. And at this point I'll this is one where I think there could be some discussion but I don't think we need to hold out this one for the for future. Um I don't know if any if colleagues would wish to speak to it. I think Miss Cunningham go ahead. Yeah, I think this is uh we've had a lot of conversation across the work sessions about um investing at the front end to avoid costs at the back end and uh we talked a lot with all of our courts and um and public safety folks about diversion programs. So, I'm fully supportive of the of the concept and kind of moving towards an ongoing program there. I would just like to flag that I think we heard in the work session that the procurement um of the current vendor remains a sole source and I would prefer that we as we move towards ongoing that we also move towards a a plan at least to get that to be recompeted at some regular interval as purchasing recommends whether that's every 5 or 10 years. Um and then separately I know we're working on theus with our constitutionals to make sure that we all understand what we're doing for each other and what the rules are. Um, so I would just highlight that I'd expect that to get done this year. Um, and would not feel comfortable moving to ongoing if if that weren't the case.

Got it. That's helpful. And um, Mr. Spain.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I would say that I I believe the $150,000 uh uh and ongoing here is well below the the ask that has come to us uh for several years and and I believe at the 5-year mark since the restorative justice program in and of itself kind of originated here at the county and what the come attorney has been able to do and accomplish very broadly uh is uh is is this is a smallcale investment but it commits us to this uh potential aspect of restorative justice with in which I believe needs to grow even more so. So I I fully support the the ongoing of 150. I believe what board member Cunningham is saying more closely as we think about how do we, you know, monitor these contracts, these sole source contracts, not just within the Commonwealth attorney's office, but I will say throughout the entire county. It's something we need to look at more closely. Um, we don't, you know, in many ways go to other departments and and really scrutinize their their contracts. They're vetted. They're looked at through purchasing and procurement. But I think this is, you know, the ask was 250,000 to be quite honest at the beginning and I think this is a step in the right direction. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Spain. M Mr. Karanus,

very short to uh what my colleagues have said. Um I I would definitely uh welcome some language and guidance to uh specify how we want to you know baseline and benchmark uh the appropriation here. Uh the reason that's uh well positioned and ongoing is because we want to uh clearly position ourselves that we that it this is a intended to be a sustained effort over the next years. We are we are starting at a relatively low point. I mean well below the ask. So uh in exchange we do that as an ongoing but of course the economist's office will have to show us how the program performs where it's his baseline what's his benchmarks what what what uh the uh outcomes are now the the uh commas attorney was very clear about really wanting to deliver the data so I I I think that we will be well served there. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Garon. Vice Chair Coffee.

Yeah. And I think I'll just align myself mostly with Mr. Karen Tonis. I think as we continue to expand our investment in these types of diversion and restorative programs, um, which I believe is a value of this board and this county. Um, I do also think we need to be thoughtful and intentional about what we expect from those investments. Um, I don't know that we have the time or ability to figure that out during a budget, but I think it is a um important policy area for us to not only speak of during budget as we decide where dollars go. Um, we're doing a lot in a lot of different places and a lot of people doing a lot of different things. And I think having a coherent picture of all the players, all the investments, and all of the outcomes will help us inform better budget decisions in the future. But I think at least for um specifically fiscal 27, this is a reasonable investment and I support it being an ongoing because I don't think we're planning to walk this back. So, um I think this is a a longer term commitment.

Thank you, Vice Chair Coffee. keeping in mind everyone's shared comments um and mindful that I do think the Commonwealth attorney would want to share data. I don't know that um you know we will have we would have work to do to accomplish the goals that Miss Cunningham you articulated. I think it is critical and was very important to me personally that we have ongoing and uh so what I would suggest is that we keep this line in and that we commit to working on guidance that would not would be worked on not just exclusively with the county board but with the commonwealth attorney's input uh and meaningful input as well so we try to succeed in this area. So we will count that as mindful it's not all that was wished for but certainly ongoing is a critical piece and the 150 is important. So, we'll count that as uh resolved to this point. The next Commonwealth's Attorney ask uh was an upgrade that wasn't in the manager's budget already. Was the uh upgrade of the parallegal to parallegal supervisor? Are there any comments on that? I not seeing lights at the moment. That will be that will stay in as something that we have reached relative alignment and agreement on the food security mini grants. Um several others of you came to me and said that should be uh ongoing because we have funded it two or three years in a row. Not seeing any concerns on that. Oh M sorry Mr. Karen Tonus and then Mr.

Ming support of that. I have to say um Mr. Chair that I was myself not uh very clear uh a couple of years ago how impactful the program would be and I've seen how impactful it actually is. uh way way beyond what I thought. Uh we are we are going through a a situation right now with uh with our you know most vulnerable populations of extreme food insecurity and what we find is that our traditional or you know the set the setup means and channels of delivery are needing always supplemental uh ways and this is one of these.

Thank you Mr. Karen. Miss Cunningham. Um, I just want to highlight that that uh it's great that we're moving it to ongoing because I think that is what we intend. Um, however, we haven't moved that number and anyone who's been to a grocery store lately knows that the food costs are going up uh as well as our we know that our need is going up. So, I would suggest that we introduce a cola um or some sort of pattern that enables that to grow consistent with inflation. Sure. Thank you, Miss Cunningham. Let it all members. I'll go to Miss Coffee, Vice Chair Coffee, and then Mr. Spain.

Yeah, I was happy was happy to bring this up during our conversations. Super support it. I think it's it is an ongoing priority and therefore it should be funded with ongoing dollars. Thank you, Vice Coffee, Mr. Spain.

Yep. Fully supportive. Uh I think to what Miss Cunningham stated, the costs, however, the increasing costs of food quite honestly is just out of this world. And but I also believe this is this is a singular but it talks to there's a larger issue as we work in food with food insecurity and using our stakeholders within DHS and other programming because $150 $150,000 even though it's is small here. Uh there's a lot of folks out here that needs to be served through these grants. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Spain. So the question it seems to me from colleagues comments is on the COLA adjustment and as a general matter um indexing programs like this to some appropriate measure of inflation and and food uh price escalation seems wise to me but it's but I'm in a place where I feel like that is a body of work that is that I don't know I would want to apply it just to food food food mini grants and not apply it to others uh other areas and I think that that's an area where I would love are DMF super nerds. I mean, super great people to help us think through in a bigger way, but I don't know. I'm sort of trying to trying to assess, you know, what we should do. I would posit if we could leave this item in and then come back to the overall indexing question, Miss Cunningham, but I am not dogmatic. If we need to take this offline to come back to, we can. It's up to it's it's sort of partially of course your call as all colleagues calls. Is there Mr. Karen that CJ or do you have thoughts on this?

Yes on on this um we have we have thought many times about uh you know the the fact that some of our best delivering uh uh social safety net programs suffer under loss of acquisition power right because of inflation etc. One of the huge challenges here is that cola is not a fixed thing especially for the most vulnerable parts the things like food etc. we have wildly oscillating types of um of uh you know loss of acquisition power. So I think we are at this point without having studied that across the board and without understanding exactly what the financial you know introducing automatisms like that is not thought through at this point. uh I think that the board is nimble enough to react when we see that the program is you know compromised in its delivery if it's not enough money there and we have always supplemented that. Uh that said this is a good this is a good priest for policy thought but we really need to do the work for that. So uh certainly if you have additional thoughts I guess what I'd suggest is I don't think any board member would have objection to naming now for uh ears of God that we do um guidance language on this in this area. Is that does that meet the the concern?

Yep. I think that's fine. I think we have experiences in other parts of our safety net where we didn't uh look regularly at the costs and then it's a really big catch-up later. So I think we should really across all of our programs think about that each year.

Great. We'll do guidance. We'll leave this this line item in. The next line item is Thank you colleagues. Um the next item is restore the wood shop. We got many many people came in to describe how personally important wood shop was to them. was quite moving. Um um and what we have suggested here is to many asked us increase our fees and so we have we will be increasing fees. That's the proposal. I don't believe that there's uh not seeing any lights. There's no objection. We'll leave that item in. The next item there may be discussion. It's the Cheredale Library. Um and uh we have decided not to with due respect to the manager not to take the full cut of of uh and to keep Cherry Library open. There is a position that was in the manager's proposal that was for an outreach librarian. Uh in the interest of cost and mindful of the various challenges that we have, uh I have recommended not including that position, but there may be uh discussion on this one. Our colleagues all aligned. Um okay, Miss Cunningham, go ahead.

Um so I just have a question about that one. Um does this do the hours for Terry Library change as a result of that offset Mr. Schwarzly or miscount miscount. No, not for the office. The outreach librarian is supposed to be out in the community in places where there aren't libraries. So that would not impact Jerry the out because the offset was the outreach librarian at Mhm. but the current operating budget if I remember from the budget response was more like 450. Am I wrong? So, seems like it would be a different level of service if we're removing a No, staff member because we we're taking the offset of the outreach librarian. Yeah,

I don't have the numbers right in front of me. I believe that was correct, but this is reduced by taking away that outreach librarian that was in the proposed budget. So, let me see if I can ask an associated question. I thought at one point someone had said that there was a of the positions at Cherdale, there was a vacant position. under the proposal that that is up there right now, we would fill the vacant position, but we would not do an outreach librarian. Does that meet your concerns? Maybe just the question is for for fiscal year 26 or 25, what's the budget for Cherryale Library? Is it closer to that number 300?

No, no, it's more than that. It's it's basically this line is combining two simultaneous changes because it is the uh restoration of the charity library and the elimination of the proposed outreach librarian. Yeah, cuz that was in my base budget. So, right simultaneously in one line. So, it is the net of those two changes is included in the spreadsheet. Okay. So, just confirming there's no change to ours or to service levels at Chertown. Perfect.

I think it is a fully reasonable. Go ahead, Mr. So the the cost is more or less uh the net plus the outreach librarian which brings it up to $470,000 some something like that. That would be the gross. So uh uh I just want to say one thing and and uh that's a remark on on on everything. Um, I really appreciate staff's and library systems systemic thinking about the system, about the the library system, about how it delivers, who who it serves, how it serves, etc. Uh, I think they gave us, I mean, they gave me a lot to think about and I I'm very honest about that. I'm not done thinking about that. I I support the the status quo here. uh but uh this doesn't end the conversation. Uh this is a system that has to to to uh cover the entire territory in a lot of different needs uh in a lot of different places. So I know that uh when uh when the county manager proposed that uh this was basically to change the model of delivery of libraries not to actually reduce library service. Uh so this this needs to be said and I will um and I think that we should think also in our uh in our guidance how we capture the spirit and we and we reward further thinking on that because this is part of how we keep our system.

Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Karen Tonus. I would just note so that we are humane and notice the the individuals participating. Uh great appreci appreciation to Diane Kresh who I just saw is going to get another award here shortly and then also to Ron Bookbinder who it just seems like his last name it's appropriate that he spoke uh in behalf of the Cherry Library and spoke well. So um next we will leave that one in there. The next is PPT scenario 6 and then sharing with Arlington Public Schools. I'll just speak to that broadly. This is additional car tax relief that the county has been providing beyond what is required by state law. We are a community that has tried to steer people and provide transportation options that are not driving alone. And um so uh we are making a decently significant change that will lead to quite a bit of tax revenue. This is a tax expenditure that we had been providing to cars um worth 3,000 previously I believe and now we would change it to 4,000. Um but you know we are also making a change so that we are capturing more of the the value of cars. Um, and that is something that I think we have tried to all speak through to work through together and we are supportive of reducing this tax expenditure particularly. We're providing some tax relief up to $20,000 as allowed by state code. But we are reducing that relative tax. And we're also acknowledging um that uh cars worth quite a lot even if they are uh environmentally friendly are still um valuable and we want to uh encourage um you know reach reach the revenues that we believe are critical to move forward in a way that is uh equitable as far as we can see. So the history on line 39 is that we have shared revenue in the past with Arlington public schools. So we're doing that again in this case. Line 40

inflationary cost increases in including utilities is um I think the description speaks for itself. Lines 40 and 40 41 and 42 we come to a place where I would also like to highlight and come back to. I think we're going to need some detailed conversations. I would like to note um should DMF be able to scramble and sort of work on this and should colleagues be aware. I think what I sought to do in the draft mark that is there is more or less take the d the direction of the suggestions that Miss Cunningham had and put them into those two lines. Um and she has since I believe come with a up with a slightly different proposal I think focusing on competitive gymnastics. So, it would be helpful if uh somebody wise could prepare us for when we come back to this subject so that we can have the most organized conversation possible. Um and certainly yes, Miss Cunningham.

Yeah, I think there's a amendment line in the file that I sent. So, it's essentially there would be an option. I think ultimately we expect our competitive programs to be closer to 100% cost recovery. So there would be an option to go to 200% in the second year and then you'd have some onetime savings on one time versus ongoing to 100% not 200%. Yes. Okay. I was going to clarify although that would definitely help. I just joking. Yes. Thank you for clarifying.

Sure. No problem. I do think it's important for me to say clearly that um we received so much powerful testimony on this and in that testimony we heard again and again keep this gym open and from many many people we heard ask us to pay more in fees. We are we we're we are going to be asking more in fees. I'm confident that not all of those fees will be easy, but we are trying to manage a lot of different challenges to our revenue and our expenditures this year. We're trying to be good stewards of of public resources. And so, um, on Wednesday, we will have, um, we will move forward with, uh, a resolution on these particular fees with respect to gymnastics. I just want to be transparent. This is not all going to be easy and that's on the fee side and then there is a whole separate side which we will be working with um our our staff to develop guidance for how to approach investing here. I think I can lastly confidently say based on the proposal and what we will consider that we are we're engaged for a minimum of two years, two fiscal years to try and see what can be done and work with the community and our staff to help this continue in a thriving way. And that I hope is some solace for those who are worried about this is a 2-year proposal, two-year plan. We're leaning in. We'll have guidance, but I think it's important to say those things out loud because based on how organized the gymnastics comm community is, I think there are more than a few people for once who may be watching online over the next 24 hours. Mr. Spain.

Yes, Mr. Chair and everyone, thanks for those comments. And you know, we're going to come back and talk about gymnastics. I would just say to a comment you just stated uh not only working with staff but also working with the community and you know over the next two years uh I'm I'm very cognizant of how we arrived here. I would just hope that in the next, you know, 18 to 24 months that we are doing our due diligence because there are some great ideas uh that uh especially on the competitive gymnastics side that folks have brought up and I think we need to be able to really sit at the table today uh and and work out some of these these issues. Okay. Um because if not, I think we'll find ourselves right back here again uh in two years.

Thank you, Mr. Spain. We will come back to to this in addition, but I really do appreciate your comments. We'll come back to this one. Uh ACSO is the county sheriff sheriff's office compensation. I propose that we also highlight that one and come back to that one. The next item um is the is the community oversight board management analyst. I uh we're in a string here. I would suggest that we also come back to this one because I know we'll have wholesome discussion on this particular item. The next one um is a uh proposal to cut 0.025% from the Arlington County Police Department budget. That comes out to 200 250,000. We have had um exchange and the the manager has engaged so as several board members have engaged in a conversation about that. We have clearly accounted I believe some 144,000 and change in savings that we would anticipate that there's some level of agreement on this. adds a small bit of additional. Miss Cunningham, I think you but perhaps others also had a suggestion that as our recruitment uh is succeeding based on our significant investment in the police department, um we also consider our budget and and perhaps small reductions leading to 250,000 in total, which would be another I guess 96 orund6,000 uh from videos. this item. I certainly will take comments if folks have them. Uh I not seeing any lights. I'm not trying to pause too much to encourage lights. Uh but I will uh I see Vice Chair Coffee. Speak your truths colleagues. Go ahead, Vice Chair Coffee.

Yeah, I guess just a question. I think we have one thing that we feel fairly confident about in terms of specific numbers. Do we need to specify exactly where the rest comes from or can we just direct the manager to find a reasonable place to take that from?

I am certainly fine with your approach of find a find the best recommendation of the additional place for that to come from. The manager is is nodding. If if we had a disagreement as to the specifics of guidance language, I'm sure that Ariel could draft language that says um look at the manager's recommendations to include if necessary the the videos, but we will leave it sufficiently vague that we will go on and I will not look for defeat out of the jaws of victory. The next one is uh maintaining the Clarendon Alliance funding. Uh, I really have to appreciate colleagues for pointing out that we should move this to ongoing. Um, you know, I'm thinking back to the three or four things that we agreed that we would try to do. Being fiscally sustainable means not putting things in one time that really are ongoing. And so that's the Clarendon Alliance. The next item is AED catalyst grants. I think this is one where I am uh I I think I have a question actually for the manager on this one. um if you could speak a little bit to the detail of the nature of catalyst grants and our economic development.

Okay. So, you had asked a question during followup and the way I would like to think about it is the $250,000 could be either for catalyst grants or for the innovation fund. And I'm happy to come back to you with more details on that because I don't think we've quite settled on it. They serve different purposes. Um and I think that we've had some success with both approaches. So if if I can I've come back to you with more detail on that before we actually would do any of those expenditures. For both of them they've been effective at attracting startups to the county but in different ways. So I don't want the wording catalyst to limit us in the way we approach that.

Thank you. I think we'll have a couple of comments on this as folks make comments. It's plausible that I could see Mr. Wine Shank asking you to include the phrase or innovation grants in the description. And it's also plausible that we could ask for uh uh language in the notes that provides sufficient flexibility for colleagues. I'm not saying that precludes us from needing to come back to this, but Miss Cunningham, go ahead.

Um I appreciate the the flexibility and the expansion of the of the concept here. I think that we should keep a small amount of money in this for you know, we're hopefully imminent in hiring a permanent director for AED. maybe not imminent but soon almost there. Um, and having some pot of money budgeted so that that person can u provide whatever innovation or investment they would like to. I'd like to not have it be invested until that person's here and has a second. I I'm willing to agree to that. We'll come back to you when the imminent hiring is hired. Sounds good. Sounds good. I like the description, Mr. Chair.

Yes, Mr. Carone. on the catalyst grants. Um they have both in both their iterations they have a positive return investment very positive return investment and they have them on two levels. First of all these uh startups in in average they have produced jobs they have been you know producing more than we we invested in them. That's number one. And number two, they have created uh they created has a reputation of being worthy for extra external investment in the form of uh you know uh um uh venture capital investment etc. We are right now the only sub region in the uh metropolitan region who has a positive increase in uh in uh uh venture capital investment here. Typically this goes to this is the the winner or the the awardees of these grants are typically eligible. Uh they score very well with their investors. So uh uh this is a I I would I'm fine with keeping that one time. There is nothing systemic there that I would be very concerned about. But it's a it's a good program to have. I had my own concerns about that when this started because I didn't know uh and now I know far better and I see how it works.

Thank you, Mr. Karen Tonis. Based on all colleagues comments and oh yes, I didn't see Mr. Spain. Go ahead.

Thank you. Uh and and thank you uh Mr. Manager. Um you know board member Takis Karanton has just stated that uh in the past we have this is has um produced jobs right and I think for me it is it without any clarity it it feels like this you're going to make a determination on whether this goes into the innovation fund or we're going to you know do this in some type of catal catalyst grants. Is that what I'm hearing to be determined? Well, I mean, picking up on what Miss Cunningham said, I think that when the new AED director arrives, we can analyze the uh approach that he or she would like to take and come back to you uh for a blessing on that. So, that's what we're going to do.

Okay. Yeah. And this is u I think we have it. Yeah. 250. I thought there we were I'll pass it right now. I thought we were talking about another number maybe later, but um another number later. I for my part in the mark, we did have different conversations as we're trying to trying to uh uh to pin this, but for my part in the mark, I did I do come down at 250,000. But I guess, you know, I'm happy to if if we feel strongly and we're we can pin this and come to a decision on two 200 to 250 if we need to vice your coffee and then we'll keep working this through.

Yeah, I I support maintaining the flexibility. Um, and I look forward to our new AED director sometime hopefully soon. Thank you. We will, um, let's put that in maybe orange or yellow, whatever you think is appropriate. Um, and Miss Cunningham, go ahead. Did you have Yeah, I was just going to clarify. I think that the number there is somewhat arbitrary. It's kind of a placeholder to make sure that we remember to be kind to the to the new director. Um and then not to quibble but I think uh on the past performance of the catalyst grants correlation and causation are not fully sorted out. Um and uh there were a lot of other venture capital dollars and I hear enough about that at home. We'll leave it there.

Thank you. So we'll give you space to think this through. We'll we'll flag this. We'll give you space to think.

Yeah. I'll just I'll just say for the record, uh Mr. Sure. You know, being here 15 months, you know, last year there was some money and um that we had and it it it came to me that yes, we want our AED director to be able to engage, but um you know, with businesses and and things alike, but it it was not clear to me at the time what uh that money was going to be used for. It was it came to me as a walking around money. um for AED director and that that just for me without it being clear and concise of what it's going to be used for right now uh just gives me a level of concern and pause but we'll get to it. Thanks.

Okay. Thank you Mr. Spain. We'll come back to that one and there may be a lot of grounds for guidance that may be able to address some of the concerns that have been articulated. We'll see. Uh next item line 48 is county board office. Uh that's rank choice voter education funding. Um I think we had good discussion on this that I wasn't always a part of. I hope that's not uh causal, but actually um I think it was just a case where this amount of money is anticipation of the elections next year because that's when this fiscal year will run that where we will have two candidates and that would be different. So 70,000 I don't see any lights. We'll keep going. Uh the next item is is Department of Human Services Humanitarian Assistance and I'd like to speak to this. The number that we have that I've proposed is 350,000 to de to be divided in the following ways about 200,000 through the community foundation to address some of the um policy differences that we hold with this administration with respect to inclusion of uh families and inclusion of our immigrant community but also um in con in conjunction the money that I'm proposing is 125,000 for um LJC which is um legal aid justice center uh and uh to do which would do uh appropriate defense we can um further enumerate that in conversation 75,000 to just neighbors which does um affirmatively efforts to uh keep our families intact that are here then that adds to 200,000 through the community foundation then there would be I propose an additional 50,000 to address one of our timely challenges which is healthcare that would go to um the Arlington Free Clinic, another

50,000 that would go to offender aid and restoration which is particularly challenged with respect to federal funding and then 50,000 that would go through thrive to address uh families that have been particularly um addressed. That is a level of detail that perhaps not in all cases might I go into. I'm doing it in this case because we are in a moment where Arlington's humanitarian values need to be lived and that's why I wanted to share these thoughts. Colleagues, not seeing any lights at this point. I will continue. That item will be fine. Um the next item is the DHS how go ahead to disrupt the apple cart a little bit. Um I think

on the question of uh health, we will talk about this later, but I I would actually prefer that we deal with that alto together outside of the humanitarian. I think that healthcare is is something that we need to um focus on with DHS.

Sure. So the default there will be we will flag that and put it in highlighted to come back to and vice chair coffee go ahead. Yeah, I I think there is something there in terms of work to be done in the next year to 18 months around um you know, I think I think we've had a lot of conversations around mental health and what that looks like and and caring for our neighbors in many different ways and the conversation around physical health and health care and health insurance um given the changes at the federal and state levels um will become imminently important. But it I think creating a plan for what we do to to to rise to that moment um is of interest to me and I also do not have that plan today.

Thank you. That's vice chair coffee. That's fine. Thank you Miss Cunningham for naming it. We will leave it highlighted. What I will say is that it has been my uh grand intention and I think it's all of our intention to include in guidance language towards health health equity and um I am on the hook for trying to come up with with language that may be of assistance as we do so. Um we it's just a reminder we have a lot of work to do on guidance between over the coming days but um suffice to say uh Fairfax has facilities that are big that are healthcare facilities. We have such investments but at scale I believe we can do additional pieces to work on health equity and exactly how that works is something that we need to work with staff and our department of human services to think through. So we will leave it highlighted we'll come back to it. The department of human services next item is housing grants weight list that starts October 1st 2026. In yesterday's item uh we slipped and said October 1st 2027 but it is 2026. our staff, Miss Cowan, and our staff have assured us that the technical work should be finished by 2026. While uh Arlington values and the manager's continued commitment to those most in need would say if there is a unforeseen item, we will the manager's contingency I think would be without speaking for you would be something that we would do. The only other thing that I will name that I also think is Miss Countan suggested is on course but there will be work that will be necessary is we got a letter from Caroline Jones another a number of advocacy organizations talking to the work we need to do need to do to continue to think think through the housing grants program and that would be staff and advocates in a collaborative relationship perhaps not necessary to name it formally but this is deeply important work I think to all of us and we would ask that you the advocates stay

in touch with us regarding that work. Um that is not to say that um in the letter it detailed that there's an understanding that we need cost containment. We also need to make the program work as well as it possibly can. And so with that I think that we're aligned on this item. Miss Cunningham, go ahead.

Um I would just like to add to that that I know that staff with the consulting team are working uh vigorously to try to get that up as quickly as possible. Um, and I appreciate the the commitment to making October one at the latest. I would just like to probably for guidance suggest that if if that timeline does collapse through the great work that they're doing that any overage or savings there go to AHIFF um so that we keep them in the housing bucket. And then secondly to highlight that uh as as liazison of fiscal advisory affairs they have also asked that we look more comprehensively at our housing programs and the return on investment uh over the next couple years. So I think that aligns with what you were just referencing.

Sure. So what I'll ask because in the conversations I think all of us are deeply interested in we have a we we face a challenge with AHIFF and the pipeline but all of us are very interested in this area and so what I suggest is that maybe Miss Cunningham and Miss Coffee be resources for you as you're drafting this guidance. I don't know who should take the first crack at it. We will do um we will work appropriately on this together. Um but um that's what I'd suggest. Spice your coffee. Yeah, I I'm not normally one to seek credit, but I I do think that was my idea. Um

my apologies for not not giving you and um no, I I think it's really important. I think for me um we all talk about affordable housing being a priority for us and I do think that for me it is important as much money as we can put into our affordable housing investment fund and housing grants um combined is is where I would like to to be ultimately. Um, and if we can reduce um if we can reduce uh one side of that and benefit the other side, that's fine by me as long as it doesn't hurt the ability to do the work on the housing grant side.

Thank you, colleagues. We will do guidance. We will leave that as unhighlighted. So, we will not be following up on it the rest of this conversation, but it will be for you two to to work on with uh since you grab the credit, you get to be uh at the center of the writing uh if you're willing. Uh Vice Chair Coffee. Um so, the next item is Northern Virginia Regional Strategic Initiative funding. I have it's a small sum of money. Uh I have engaged with this. Uh Arlington has a long history of regionalism. Um we are going through I am chair of the regional commission. We're going through a strategic planning effort to to determine how to best be of value to Arlington as well as other member localities. There have been work sessions on housing, workforce AI, and energy. And that we will continue this work. It's a relatively small sum of money. I do think it's uh important that we budget out of contingency where we think we know there's a likelihood. There's not a certainty that this money will be used. There are other localities who have important strategic questions here as well. So that's my rationale. uh vice uh excuse me, Miss Cunningham.

Best I'll go. Okay. If there are not if there's not trouble, I know you support regionalism. So, Mr. Karen Tonus, I'll ask if you can give us grace and keep going unless you have a burning comment. We will Sorry, then I thought I thought someone else was going to cover this one. I I think for uh certainly we all do support regionalism and we do that to a large degree in the in the base budget. I would prefer that this one be something that we uh bring up later if it you know once a strategic initiative is described then we evaluate whether it meets our goals or not. So I would probably be for zeroing this one out in the budget.

Sure. Well, let's put this one highlighted. I'm that's not the space I'm in. I do respect the views for sure. Let's come back to it. Um but and and we certainly can regional opportunities grants. I do think we we have to have additional conversation on that one. So we will immediately highlight that one. Um the next one is office of public defender additional parallegal fellow for mitigation and investigation. This is uh came out of a conversation in part between our public defender and vice chair coffee. Uh I have sought to gain clarification. I just do believe that in terms of reducing the number of bed nights in our jail, this is a resource that is wellplaced that will be very beneficial. Not seeing any lights. We will go on. that will be in. Uh the next item also came out of a work session. This is increasing the SE street safety initiative funding for vision zero. This is uh we're now getting perhaps close to the territory of whether there is enough funding based on our big picture decisions in order to do this. But I uh do believe this is useful. Um there's such value in some of our quick build projects and I think in conversation perhaps at least as much value in some of our other programs that are associated. So Miss Cunningham, go ahead.

Um I would just tag this is and I think we had some discussion during the work sessions. Um that this is a high priority for the whole board and for the whole community. It's very well managed, very well measured uh in terms of its quick return on investment. So generally supportive. However, uh as we get to the back half of this conversation, I am going to be uh in favor of more restraint than is shown here. And so I would only be supportive of that as a specific call out if we are able to access a few of the revenue options that are also associated with traffic safety.

Got it. So what I suggest is that we highlight this one and once we have come to those big picture, we may it may be a relatively shorter conversation, but we'll see. So we'll highlight this one. The next item 55 is CPHD changed we freeze we proposed instead of eliminating the comprehensive plan or principal position we freeze that position to indicate that we would like next year for this to be built into the base budget without action. Is there comments on that? I do not see I know there is interest and I Mr. Karen Tonus go ahead. Uh just to say one thing, the uh this is a principal planner that would be uh basically the center of competence for our uh one of our fastest growing corridors and a corridor that we get to uh to engage a lot with uh uh commercial to to residential conversions etc which is route uh one the Richmond highway. So, uh, this is the home of, uh, a lot of Arlingtonians. Almost 55,000 Arlingtonians live there. So, this is a this is a a a position that has a lot of return on it on this investment. I'm fine to uh delay a little bit on this, but that doesn't uh rest or or diminish it doesn't diminish the importance of that. uh CPHD has been losing uh personnel over time and that begins to bite when we need to approach things that are different in policy like for example our conversion and the CMRI and uh you know questions of how to negotiate with the community the the adaptation or reinterpretation of sector plans that right now are not feasible as they have been written 20 years or 15 years ago. So this is not a this is an important position for that.

Thank you Mr. Karen Tonus. What I'd suggest colleagues I said it and just to reflect a little bit better uh Mr. Wine shank if you could add into the notes section that this what I believe is the logical implication of this which is we are the board's intent here and speak if you have objection for sure is that this position would be built in the base budget for the fiscal year that follows the one to come and it will be frozen at this stage that is with that I do not see further objection we will not highlight that the next item is item line 56 transfer IPA budget and FDES from CMO to CBO I think we agree on that. We'll keep going. The next item. Oh yes. Sorry.

Other than to say woo.

Okay. That is that woo. Enth unbridled enthusiasm on any line is fully allowed and in fact encouraged because we are punchy and we're a little budget exhausted. So that is item 56. Um item 57 reduce HRD budget and this is I think an FD count by 710 to move bargaining FTE and budget to the CMO. I think that our uh labor negotiator Miss Naylor described this Mr. Mr. Schwarz. I don't think there's a disagreement. 57 will leave the same line 58 I think is worth naming because I'm not sure that it is widely public. This is uh I'm I might go to the manager for a little description or Miss Cowan, but essentially it is we this is the board's um the board has thought this through and believes it's the right policy. Uh but it would require that um our firefighters have the same health plans as others that include deductibles. So my understanding is that all other employees of the county have deductibles at a certain level and this is making consistent.

So go ahead.

Yeah, just so I I can state sort of what the issue here is that um under the collective bargaining agreement um any changes that I would want to make to health care benefits um for and I'm I'm overstating it a little bit. I had to make 90 days before I proposed my budget. I wasn't so I wasn't able to put any proposals in the budget conversations with the board. You expressed an interest in exploring since the members of the fire union will be the only ones in the county who are not paying deductibles on healthcare whether you wanted to apply the rule which applies across the entire workforce including all of our other collective bargaining units to to those people who are in the fire department. to do so that would require the board to act. And to do that, and I don't it's not reflected here, that actually would um actually net some revenue to the county of about $64,000. And that's not shown on the spreadsheet. So, um that is something you might want to think about.

Thank you, Mr. Schwarz. I think that Miss Hughes may have some additional, but this is one that if there is Oh, there's too many claims. I take back what I said. Thank you. Tupac out.

I I Yeah, I think in the discussion and I appreciate the uh the education about it that um it is overall a a kind of there's some cost savings in there, but it's spread across the whole insurance pool. Um but I think just more broadly for guidance and for uh board input to the bargaining process because the bargaining uh agreements come up at different times and the healthc care um policy changes come up at yet different times. Uh we'd like to have some clause in the bargaining agreements that allows us to keep everyone on the same plan so that we don't drive increases.

Thank you very much. I I I support your supporting that support. Thank you, Miss Cunningham and Miss Hughes and Mr. Schwarz for uh but I do think it's important to name this because it will be there there will be some uh of our those who could save our lives at any moment, our firefighters who will notice this. I would ask for uh respectfully I'd ask for balanced consideration of this change with the investment that we're doing in in the fire department as a whole. while mindful that that may not be um enough in every instance but I leave it there. Um we will work particularly on um so we'll that one we'll we'll accept as well. Um the next position the next item is line 59 which is I do think we should highlight as well. There is some discussion as to whether the IPA uh management analyst position or the IPA um deputy director how we fund that how we move. I would note that this is an effort. This is you could you could argue that this there's this is a fiscal commitment by freezing. It's a statement. It would be a statement about future commitment to invest that would be um a year you know a year and three months from where we are now. and we are not in easy fiscal time. So I acknowledge that item line 60 came up in the course of the um the uh discussion with our our registar and uh the manager said we regularly would would cover um additional elections funding necessary and we don't know that precise amount. There's some hope that Richmond may be constructive and so we don't know the precise amount of that dollars. Line 64. I will

Is there a chair? Yes. Just for the record, uh can we get some level from the county manager uh on line uh number 60 idea ballpark of what you think that number may be. So when Miss Rymeer was here, she talked about the number of elections that were happening. She had an estimate based on some variables that we don't know exactly what they're going to be. I think the number she threw out might have been as high as 300,000 like 300 215.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And so in the past what has happened because even though the board adopts a budget, there will sometimes will be unforeseen circumstances where additional elections occur. What has happened that's either been paid for out of the county manager contingent or the board also has allocated that $8.4 million available for future considerations. So it's my assumption that that number will be somewhere between two and 300,000. But there isn't a precise number at the moment. Yeah. And the state in its essence probably has not been paying their fair share as well to these localities and we've been uh taking out the burden of these costs. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Spain. Appreciate that. And appreciate you're clarifying and that really helps as folks are looking at it. Line 64 is that we would try to do the balance of what is left in one time and ongoing for AHIFF. I think it's been broadly agreed upon in different contexts. I would leave it and keep moving. Um, in line 77, just for clarity, the way I balanced the budget, we did not have enough uh money in one time. So, I propose using some of our ongoing funding for one-time costs. Vice Chair Coffee.

So, I guess is the AHIFF being an ongoing an intentional choice? I think I was thinking of the AHIFF additional unallocated revenue being a one-time commitment though I I agree that we need vastly more ongoing uh for AHIFF. I did not think that was the intention for fiscal 27.

You assume that I have clarity of ongo of of purpose there. I did think of it but I didn't complete the thought. I do believe we need to increase our ongoing for AHIFF and so that would be my position to leave it there but I am not dying on any hill that says it should be one time instead. So go ahead and then we'll come to you. Sure. I I think am I reading this correctly? Which side do we have more in at this moment Graham or anyone? We have more Okay.

You could switch that to be a one time expense and then pay for it using I would recommend that. Got it. So, why don't we do this? Um, let's get clear herb on what is left before we start making decisions on this. Let's highlight this line uh line 64 and then let's highlight line 77. and that will persuade us that we have much much work le left to do this afternoon. We have now gone through the big picture and

Mr. Chair go ahead on the question of the unallocated revenue to AHIFF. I think you know we are all struggling with the need to make a significant investment in AHIF if we decide that's the way we are going to continue to make our housing investments. This is a very very small drop in the bucket. Um, and I think that uh we can have further discussion about it, but I I personally would prefer that we just stick it up in the reserve for the balance of the year and then as we get deeper into knowing whether the um federal government will be sustaining housing choice vouchers, we can begin to move those over into AHIFF if if we don't need that revenue.

So that will be stabilization. it'd be in stabilization for the moment, but knowing that if we have stabilization left at the end, we're likely to move much of it over to Ahif uh once we get through this chapter of our republic.

Yes. So, thank you for surfacing that. We'll have more discussion. I think I'm not dogmatic on the one time. I lean towards AHIFF. I I hear you on the stabilization uh overall and the uncertainty that we face. So, we'll let we will keep that as as highlighted. So now um the next stage that I propose that we go to is to Miss Cunningham for some buckets of big picture uh concerns and areas that you wish to raise and uh we just so that folks don't you know the the 17 people who are watching don't we don't have all of this perfectly scripted we we so we'll we'll we'll work this through together as you as you wish but uh I'll share it with you and you help lead us through the buckets that you're interested in and we have discretion as to the specific amendments that are indicative of those buckets that you recommend that you would like to to work through. Miss Cunningham.

Great. I think we have an alternate set of amendments. Um and there's like a formatted tab. Mr. Wukun

and Mr. Cher's actually 87 people watching right now. Okay. You know your stuff. It's good. And one of them could be a room with house on. You never know. Yeah, that's true. And then you know there's a watch party somewhere. That's right. Is that really true? Please. No, Mr. W. There should be a version in there. That's the formatted tab. No, I think you have the wrong um Let me share it with you. Hold on. You know, that's a sort of a PR strategy that Mr. Karen Tonus has to have his picture that shows up in all contexts.

I'm kind of challenged to have to turn around and look up. Yes, you can do it over there, too. Okay, we have a question. Yeah, I just shared it again. Um,

did it come through? No, I can team sit to you also. It might be faster. Does anybody have any dad jokes while we're waiting? What? There we go. Okay. You might need to make it bigger. I don't think we need all the notes to be able to follow the bouncing ball. Okay. So, uh none of this is new. Um but I do want to kind of before we go through the details of fighting about each dollar, get back to how big is the bread basket. Um, so I think uh I would just uh reenter us on the fact that the manager's proposed budget um begrudgingly included a 1.5 cent real estate tax increase with the intent of um meeting a significant one-time investment in public safety needs. both due to uh uh challenges getting our multiple public public safety divisions fully staffed and the multiple year overtime uh expenditures that that is creating for taxpayers as well as the uh egregious overtime it is uh creating for families and for our our workforce. Um so I am still in support of that. I think as we've gone through all the work sessions uh we have identified places where we have slightly difference of opinions as always um on the on the budget itself. Um and as you

know I've been looking closely all the way through to find um opportunities to not just keep cutting services uh and raising taxes but to um identify areas where we can either have efficiencies or create new revenue streams. And so, um, I was thrilled that we I, you know, we were able to identify the PPT, the, um, personal property tax relief that, you know, moving weaning ourselves off the neck tax support for that. Uh, and that that also benefits schools. That's terrific and that's, uh, embedded, I think, in your mark. Beyond that, I I strongly feel that there are opportunities that are less regressive um than the real estate tax uh and would enable us to make progress against our expenditure items and set us up for future revenue growth while keeping a level playing field for the community. So, I just want to walk through some of those for your benefit and I think perhaps more for the community's benefit because I believe I remain in a minority on the issue of the tax rate. Um, so the first one is the parking fine increase. Um, you know, we have a parking fine of $40 uh right now, which has not changed since a decade ago, nearly a decade ago. Um, and as our parking costs in parts of the county have increased, that has not really kept up as a deterrent. Um, and as I was telling one of you earlier today, you can you can take the IRS out, you know, you you can take the girl out of the IRS, but you can't take the IRS out of the girl. The absolute cheapest way to generate revenue and sanity in this in this uh community is for there to be voluntary compliance on our laws. Right now, our parking um payment compliance remains at 40%. Uh we this is the second year we've had a priority in our budget guidance to focus on enforcement and on revenues. And I feel strongly that that's a revenue source that's sitting there. It's a direct

revenue in this coming year and then it would be an indirect revenue likely to the tune of 5 to 10 to 15 million over the coming years if we get the payment compliant compliance where it should be. In addition, it has the benefit of unlike real estate tax if you don't want to pay it you can just park properly. Um and that uh by parking properly you're also supporting our economic development. you're supporting our pedestrian safety and uh climate goals. So that is the big one. Uh the second one is around a newly identified or a new opportunity given to us by the general assembly who we've lambasted throughout this process for not giving us revenue uh where we would like to have it. And so I would propose that we um continue on our vision zero goals, on our traffic safety goals, on our safe routes to school goals and using the equipment we have already installed, maximize the use of that equipment to ensure that we're continuing to bring speeds down around our school children. Um you know, assuming there's not instantaneous behavior change, though that would be fabulous. Uh I would anticipate that this would have um some ongoing uh revenue and some one-time revenue as behaviors begin to change. We also I built in a um one FTE to ensure that the tickets can be reviewed properly and um to manage the whole program. So that is what that one is. Um I think there'd be some limitations. We need to make sure that that those dollars go towards traffic safety, but we spend a heck of a ton of track traffic safety dollars. So I feel confident that we'll be able to work that out. though there is some uh brain damage to make sure that that happens. So realizing that then the next three um actually the next four categories I I think you know we've we've talked a lot about gymnastics and we're going to talk a little bit more so I won't belabor that but I think that um we have been

cutting staff and cutting services in a number of places in order to get our budget to balance the last couple of years. DPR, our parks and wreck, has experienced that perhaps most profoundly of all of our agencies. And I would uh put forward that it's time to be serious about the goals that we've set of 86% cost recovery for most programs and then 100% cost recovery for those that are competitive. So what you see here is for aquatics which is close but not there yet. Uh the 100% uh closure for 55 plus programs where we deeply deeply subsidize anyone who's just a few years older than four of those folks up here. Um and uh to just soften that a little bit. Um and then for gymnastics which we'll talk about later. So those are my offers for um I don't think we need to raise the tax rate. I think we can um manage the public safety needs as the manager had proposed and meet other obligations through some additional revenue efforts. So I can stop in that category if you want to.

Thank you Miss Cunningham for both speaking to a bucket of of concerns and also going through individual items. I'll start with vice chair coffee unless and then we'll give colleagues all a chance and I will also share thoughts on this as well. Yeah, and I'll I'll start by saying I am not opposed to any individual line on here per se, but I do feel that they are entering the conversation too late in the game for this budget cycle. I don't believe the community has had time to think about or engage with us. And as we experience this budget cycle, um there are a lot of people who have a lot of thoughts and feelings about um particularly our our fee and finebased revenue. Um and more broadly, I think especially on the parking and speed camera, um I do not believe for me that those are sources of revenue that I would consider. They are part of an ongoing policy approach to parking management, to public safety, traffic safety. Um, and I think we probably do need to have an overall conversation around how we manage and enforce those things, but I would like to decouple that from the budget. I think adding them in as a way to balance our budget makes it very apparent that it is more about the revenue we are gaining from these things than it is the behavioral change that we are trying to enforce. And I'm not comfortable with that because to me I think there is a much bigger conversation especially around curbside management um and public parking um about what it is we're trying to accomplish and how we're trying to accomplish it. I don't know that we are I don't think we are doing a good job at

parking enforcement at this time. Um but doing this this way particularly when we see you know our neighbor the city of Alexandria who is raising their uh parking ticket fine from $40 to $50. They've had a long-term conversation. They've had advertisement. They've had public discussion. they've had um community engagement opportunities to make sure that this doesn't come out of nowhere uh for people. And so I I just think that there is a better way to do this. um and then on on the DPR fees and everything. Again, I'm not saying that that's not where we end up um in the future, but I just think that to do this at this stage um without real notification to the individuals who participate in these programs is is a little tough for me. I'm willing. I think gymnastics is the one caveat there where because we've had such extensive conversations around the program, around cost recovery, around what that looks like, I think um I have a willingness to go a little further than what is currently included in um Matt's version that we just went through. Uh which is why it's in part highlighted in the other spreadsheet. But um but I I I think the other ones, you know, I I would be supportive of including some of these items in guidance for us to come back um and think about next year to kind of start including them as structural elements of our budget, but I am not comfortable at this time for this budget including them.

Thanks, Vice Chair Coffee. I want to make sure that you miss Cunningham, you have I think it's best to for everyone to talk and then for you to you know to to give their thoughts. Mr. Mr. Karen Tonus, I think your light was on. It might be off now. I don't I'm not trying to force

I I think Miss Coffee covered uh most of the basics on the fines, especially the uh parking fee and uh and uh the uh speed speed camera. Uh there is an additional wrinkle to that. The governor, if I understand it correctly, she just signed legislation that commits the revenue from speed cameras to be spent in a very specific way. It kicks in in 27 uh but it has to be reinvested in uh vision zero and safety etc. So this is not an unencumbered uh type of revenue. So I would be very careful to include that here. And also I don't want to give anybody the the wrong impression that we would uh uh you know consider this kind of fees like Miss Coffee said as you know uh regular revenue or revenue that I would uh do through the budget process. That said, I think it's absolutely cauter to uh bring it up and have a policy discussion on this. um on the uh 55 plus uh what I'm what I'm missing here. I understand the the idea uh of this and I can uh and I know a lot of people 55 plus is an extremely uh uh successful program very beloved. I know a lot of members who would uh even voluntarily pay more for that uh right now. But I also know a lot of members who would struggle. So we need to have some analysis on this to to understand better how these fees are uh are uh are distributed and what the equity parameters of that is. I wouldn't uh uh precipitate myself in in this on the on the gymnastics discussion. Um I'm uh I

align myself with Miss Coffin and I'm ready to discuss when we go back to the line uh what uh what how this can be modified. Thank you. And on aquatics I think 100% cost recovery uh is of course a desired outcome at some point. At this point, we haven't studied how how do we get there and we need to and this is a a big community and we have to give them the same treatment that we gave to the gymnastics community in discussion. Thank you, Mr. Karen Tonus, Mr. Spain.

Thank you uh Mr. Chair and colleagues and uh thank you board member Cunningham for really taking the time out over the past couple days to kind of walk me through uh aspects of this. I understand wholeheartedly what you're trying to get at, but I want to align a lot of my sentiment thoughts with that of the vice chair for a number of reasons. Um, parking at the 1.6 or ongoing. I believe though you may see some short-term return on investment on that, I don't see it as really something longterm. And we have not really done an analysis in my opinion, nor have we to the point the vice chair made really communicated to the community this potential possibility. And with that, it gives me great pause. Um I think there's a point in time maybe in the next budget cycle that we can do a lot of this gymnastics to what has already been stated in the competitive nature is it something we're going to talk about. But I think what they're also expecting is that there are going to be significant increases there. So look, I I think the spirit and intent behind what you you put forward is great, but I also believe as a board, and I think you also have a lot of frustration, which I can appreciate as well, that we probably need to put forward in our guidance for next year more direct and intentional uh direction on what we should see in our proposed budget. And also at the same time, if we're going to take on the aspects of parking fines and fees, we need to start having these conversations now with the community. So that um those are just my comments. I will be perhaps supportive in a lot of this uh at another time, but special parking fines. It just gives me grave pause right now. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Spain. For my part, I colleagues have said concerns well. I do think uh the work I do appreciate. I would want to think through the details of a number of these items. Uh I think in addition to sort of there's a broad fairness for which includes accountability for parking illegally and uh competitive sports etc. But there's also um the question of um of how that balances with progressive regressive and progressive tax policy is one I would want to think about in greater detail. But that's not to say that uh they're not fair concerns. I guess before giving you additional time to sort of share thoughts and we'll keep moving as we can. I guess from the comments that all board members have made, I would actually be inclined to see if on guidance we can go specific to each of these areas rather than just a generalized approach so that we get a greater chance that we'll we will see the follow through. But that's my two cents add-on. Back to you, Miss Cunningham. Yeah, I think I think I would just add um I appreciate the desire to go to guidance and to kick the can down the road one, two, three more years. Um this is only my not quite third full year of being on the board and each of the budget guidance um the how do you even say that the guidance documents um that we have prepared and presented to the manager in the last budget cycles has included adoption of higher fees to offset uh general fund appropriations in 26 and 27 including fee increases to meet cost recovery and enhanced revenue collection. These items are exactly in line with that. Some of them have been studied. You know, the aquatics fees was in the study before gymnastics was frankly um the speed cameras. Every time we have talked about vision zero, we

have talked about the desire to expand the hours. We just did not have that available to us and now we do. Um, and I think parking fines was a bit of an oversight um that you know before we were perhaps uh bounded by the state, but we haven't been. But, you know, I understand this wasn't in the manager's proposed budget, but it is our job up here to uh on behalf of the community advocate for the most uh reasonable balanced budget. And I this is a time of increased economic challenge uh for all in our community and uh for our government as well. And so you know it is not a free pass to raise real estate taxes. We have housing affordability challenges that are causing all sorts of interesting behaviors across the Commonwealth, across the c country. Um and it is a fallacy that real estate a real estate tax increase goes directly to housing costs whether you own or you rent they go directly through. So I think it is our obligation as a board that uh governs in this community to try to protect the community from additional affordability um challenges. And uh I recognize I guess I would just say if we're if we're only going to be bounded by things that were in the proposed budget from the manager or have been studied previously, we don't need to do all these work sessions. This was a waste of our staff's time and our time because if we're not going to come up with anything additional or ask a question during that process, which we asked these questions in the public safety work session last month, um then I don't quite know what we're doing. And if if we're going to come to the end of these work sessions with ideas that we then put in in guidance and then they sit there for two, three or or more years, I that's not satisfying to me. And I don't think that's meeting the needs of our community. Thank you for sharing those additional thoughts, your truths and um

mindful also that we will have to figure out a process whereby we have there's um there's engaging with DMF to work through ideas to get them to specificity and then there's bringing um additional board members with you as we get to detail on fees versus not fees. fully respect all the concerns. What I propose and uh mindful we will have concluding comments and can have alternate alternate motions next Wednesday as well. Um but what I propose is that we move to the next category keeping your gymnastics out of this and then go go to your next category and continue to work this through if that is

I think that's fine. Although I I can't let that comment pass without noting that that as chair you set the process for the budget including the tools whereby you wanted us to propose alternatives. I met each of those deadlines. Each of these items was in there throughout. Um and so to the extent it does not feel like it's been fully baked or shopped with colleagues, I think uh we need to kind of examine that process and examine how much we leave in the chair's control versus sharing with the others.

Sure. I'm happy to respond that u of these amendments, there's some that I don't believe DMF knew about in detail. Number one. Number two, I do think there's a there is evidence that suggests we have to be good stewards and I can take some take responsibility. I'm just trying to move us forward and I can take some responsibility. But I'm not alone, I believe, in feeling that some of these items needed to be worked in additional detail. But I won't get you in in the in the way of your or trespass on your truth that uh the process was imperfect. Uh I just would maintain that I think it was fair and there is a piece of it that is we had on 55 plus I asked directly the question uh did you bring this forward and the answer was uh we just we recommend not moving it forward this year but we want to look at it next year and there was not I think that there's a responsibility to do email and there's a responsibility to verbally socialize is what I would say but let's keep it keep moving forward and you can certainly have the last word on that and move to the next category but vice chair coffee go ahead and We'll come back to you.

Yeah. And I think that there is a a a natural tension between trying to give people as much warning as possible. To me, it's even less about whether the five of us had fully vetted or understood and it's more was there a public conversation. Was there the ability for awareness? I mean, we're already seeing with the changes to the RPP program, for example, that people felt, um, despite the awareness and and engagement that we put out there, um, that our Cape team, I think, did work hard on to make sure people knew what was coming. Um, a feeling that they are they still feel blindsided. They still didn't know that changes were happening. Um, and so I I think there's that element. I think there's the fact that we're in the middle of a master transportation plan of which curbside management is an intentional part of that. If we make changes now feels a little awkward to to come back and make changes later. I think there for me is a consideration of especially on um parking fines. Um having differential rates are things like parking in uh moving travel lanes or in bike lanes worth a much much higher fine? I I don't think we're ready to have those conversations and I I don't think we've had those conversations with the community. I don't think that um I think we legally can do these things and that's that's one question. And and then I think there's the the trust of community question that um I don't feel I and and I am one member of this board but I don't feel comfortable bringing forward things of this nature without having that public engagement, public conversation. Um and that may be a structural question about how we do that or present that. Um but it also nonetheless does not change that that has not occurred in this moment for these things.

Thank you. And Mr. Kieron, you have a vestigial hand. I want to uh do you want to go forward to the next or do you want to conclude and then go forward?

May I just want to miss coffee? I I definitely uh respect that and I think we do everything we can in our power to give the community full transparency into our uh thought processes and our decision-m in the matter of budget items. Uh that's what we've been doing for the last 10 weeks with a great deal of time and energy from our staff and from our community and from us as well. And I guess I just would offer if we're if we're not willing to make changes that um enable us to not move the tax rate. I don't know why we don't just rubber stamp the county manager's proposed budget um because those are the only things that have been floated. If if if like having conversation about this robustly today and having time for folks to send us uh emails and stuff is not satisfactory, then I guess I need to understand more like why is one budget item fine to come up with and another is not. Um and I think that ties the hands of of the board in a way that does not do the most service to the to the community. So

clearly here I'm in the minority. No, no, no. I want you to be put it forward and we'll I suggest you you shared those points and you can share them and should share them again. Why don't we go to the next buckets and then go forward.

Okay. The next buckets are on um again we're in a financial crisis. Our revenues are basically flat. Um and rather than asking our community members to um increase their real estate tax further, I would recommend that we look at all things that we could wait to do later. Um those that have been shared in in um questions and in the bud budget itself are the consulting dollars on the uh for phase two for the comprehensive plan update. That number is from I believe um the kind of midyear closeout. So we should double check whether it has different pennies associated with it but it should be close. The second is the study of the um battery electric buses. Uh we had budgeted for that this year. This is an additional $200,000. Great to have a perfect analysis, but I think we don't need a perfect analysis to know that our buses did fine during the coldest winter ever and we're probably okay. Um, and then the third is not scored because I asked a question um and I I asked a lot of questions so staff have only had um enough time to respond to all of them, but the response here did did not get us to a score. Um, you know, I think we talked in the work session about heavy equipment. Uh, we have in the past deferred and it was a bad idea. Uh, passenger equipment, certainly in my family, we defer when things are tight. Um, and I think we could do that, but there is no score there and no no dollars taken. Just more of a reminder.

Thank you. I guess I I would say that we certainly can hear from all colleagues. I'll just say for my part that um I do have a question. I'm not actually quite sure if the Mr. Schwarzer might speak to the 500,000 whether that is a Yeah, I'm I'm going to let I'm going to ask Emily Hughes to speak to this because I think there may have been you may not have shared the full set of information. So, I just want to clarify where we are on that. Yeah, it's it's my understanding we have no funding budgeted for the phase two of the comp plan. Right. I wanted to ask I think there was a me a memo when we asked the question at mid at midterm so we can go back and check it but

a work session followup I can look at that I I think it may have included an estimate of what that phase would be but that it was not budgeted gotcha got it so that's an important distinction I think it's also an important distinction for the comprehensive plan update update because in that it suggests that there that we may be moving forward with phase to as early as uh fall of this year. So uh if that has been said that's not correct because we're waiting. You're waiting but but it is definitely anticipated that could happen. Right. There was I think there was some question about consultant dollars that had been set aside for phase one whether all of them had been spent yet. And I think that was I think we provided an answer on that.

Those are all committed. Yes. Yeah. And those we determined that they had been all been committed cuz we're getting to the we're going to have I think we're going to do an update not this month but next month's board meeting where we give the status of all of that. Okay. So then there is nothing for phase 2 comp plan update in your proposed budget. Got it. Okay. Anything else? Uh I think same answer. I go ahead vice chair coffee. Is it the same answer on the battery electric study or

there is funding included in the proposed budget and I think you heard from Pierre Hollowman during the work session but again you know dees would continue strongly to recommend continuation of that consultant support. It's highly specialized support. First of all like they're working on charge modeling and charge management. We just stood up the panagramraph the last two weeks to really see how we optimize those to bring back buses and more buses needs engineering analysis that we do not have we do not have on staff. We need specialized consultants to do that. Um there is additional analysis and while they performed in winter they took longer to charge in winter. And so then how you balance a limited number of charging right you know what I mean with buses coming back it's just it's technical analysis that we cannot perform and then you put it into the route scheduling right and all of that they are looking at additional gap training um for the workforce there you know given the change in fleet so it it I I understand I respect the the question um it is technical operational analysis that just can't be sent on to a management analyst if you will Um, and that that group is small. You know, the transit bureau is really small. It's like six FTEES. It's tiny. It's all contracted out with operators. So, it's not we don't have a plethora of resources. In any event, but I appreciate the I appreciate the question. And yes, there is 200,000 budgeted in the FY27 budget to wrap up that work.

Thank you, Miss Cowan. I certainly want to give concluding but I guess what I'd suggest is a balance between I can yield and

go ahead discuss it with with about the uh BB the the battery electric buses um I I was friendly to the idea of scrutinizing that uh that that expense um and I asked and I got a similar uh response like Miss Cowan gave us right Wow. And I also have to say that uh it is extremely interesting what uh these electric buses are actually accomplishing right now. I have uh I mean for some reason uh I don't know if this is on purpose but I'm I'm getting to ride several of them because they always put on the 77 and 41 and it's it's a very it's a very good experience and I fully understand that the the logistics challenges etc. And uh I think that when the time comes to uh be ready for the final evaluation of this or you know to to close a chapter I would appreciate if uh staff brief us on that and I think that they are almost ready to do that and then we can make a decision on that. I wouldn't deprive them from the ability to to to do this comprehensive study. It also fits very well in how the uh battery electric um uh bus mobility is going to be planned in the in the immediate region here in in Northern Virginia which is an important NVDC project as well.

Thank you Mr. Karen Tonus want to give you the last word. I also suggest that we kind of move forward to the next uh section item four while giving you the last word on on item three. I think the discussion is you know we ongoing and certainly um can happy to move forward but that's what I'd suggest go forward Miss Cunningham.

Great. I think the other broad category here and some of these are covered in in your mark as well but um in terms of maintaining the investments we have made in the community so far. the items and amendments that I think we should make sure that we're asking are um you know on the issue of the rescue company I that is a very deep cut and again even you know the if we were to add back tax revenue beyond the 1.5 that should be back on the list in in my opinion. Um secondly, you know, I think the the sheriff we're going to talk about scenarios later so I'll skip over that. um arts we uh we finally after 10 years or some long period of time did bring them up to um you know kind of a inflation adjusted mark two years ago. I would rather we didn't get farther behind. So that's a small number but we had a little conversation about that already. Langston Boulevard Alliance we are beginning uh the first sets of projects there. They are very thinly funded. when we had the same on Columbia Pike many years ago, we amped up that funding to support implementation and I would recommend that we begin to do so. Um, and then on IPA, uh, there's we're going to talk about that later, too, but we can make sure to come back to that. This one's a really whopping $500. Um, the historic review board requested that we eliminate the proposed hri application fee. I'm not sure I've heard any discourse for that, but I didn't see it in the markup. Um and then once again an ISD reviewer uh so a plan reviewer is being uh proposed for elimination here at multiples are and I would strongly suggest that if we are going to raise the tax rate and I actually have a balanced one where it didn't raise it but we'd have to go back and recalculate with some of the changes um that we restore at least one of those positions because I think we heard very clearly from uh from the team that they are uh

very worried about the future of the workforce there. Um, separately, we facilities utilization. That one is really just we are going to put in guidance that we should study facility utilization. We've said that many times before. Sometimes having a budget item enables us to make sure that we're tracking against it across the year. Um, I had asked the question about uh could we extend the Langston hours while Madison is closed. The question response has the information with which one might cobble together a scenario, but it does it basically says, "No, we're not extending those hours. We will just service them from Lubber Run or TJ um in the extended hours." Other DPR invasives removal, that is a three-year process. We've talked about that each of the last two years. Uh this is cutting it by 2/3 and I think that's pennywise and pound foolish. Park maintenance falls in the same area. Restrooms we talked about separately and we may that may be on your list to talk about still later. Um and then library collections and the library I think this is a misunderstanding. I thought you were proposing reducing hours so you can ignore that.

That's it. Sure. Well um thank you for running through those. A number of them we will take up that are in highlighted spaces. Um and uh I leave the floor open to others if you want to comment in detail. I do think um there's some that certainly it is a list that is quite long of potential additions. We haven't done a um we'd have to the cost pieces as they fit together. I don't know if there's a summation at the bottom and I don't know quite uh the other pieces. opportunity grants is also mentioned and

I think again it's just pointing out that if you're going to raise the tax rate further and you know before you raise the tax rate further you should make sure we're maintaining things and then if you're going to raise it further these are things that should be top priority in my opinion because they're investing in what we already have um and making sure that we're def you know not deferring maintenance and costs to the future. Sure. and fully respect there's competing um priorities that we've tried tried to serve through the budget. One is to serve all residents, one is to serve our most vulnerable and one is to have financially sustainable. Those are sort of three big priorities that I think we identified. Mr. Spain.

Yes. Just of some clarity, Mr. Chair. Uh what areas within Miss uh board member Cunningham's uh proposal are we going to go back and look? Are we which just the Sure. Items 38 39. One second. Go ahead. You said 38. Yep. Okay. 38 and 39 and 40. Okay. We covered items 334. Um you didn't do collections, I don't think. Oh, we didn't do collections. 34 we covered. Um uh collections, is that an addition or or decrease? It's an addition. Addition.

Okay. Um, so we could think about that as we think about u item 32 I'd like you to highlight please because that is something that we that I identified that we have not talked through that we will need to. So we we'll hide we'll highlight item 30 32 line 32. Um and then there are others. Um, you know, I think we're going to go back to uh let's see if we scroll up um the two sheriff's items and item 23 I think we've covered

um through guidance keeping in mind that there's detail there. Those are the ones. Sure. Give me pause right there. Mr. Chair and colleagues, would we be open to uh talking through line 24? um in the next can we come back to that in potentially in the when we get to the next stage? Yeah, sure that's fine with me. Um uh but um what I suggest is if colleagues have other thoughts, Mr. Caronus, then we move back to the

gauge the interest for line item 30 which is uh partial total restoration of invasives removal program. So that's the uh uh there is this is one of the programs that have excellent long-term medium and long-term return on investment. Uh doesn't have to be 200,000 but can be a little bit less but still uh you know uh supplementing the existing. Yeah, it was 300 this year. So that would be continu I think it's 300 this year and the proposed has it going to 100 that would just be continuing it.

Thank you. So I guess I mean broadly there's a lot of different pieces to this category um with respect to um we simultaneously should value what we have

and I think perhaps one of Arlington's greatest strengths over the last 50 years has been evolving and trying to serve um our residents the best possible. We do have multiple priorities that we're working on and 60% of our community are renters. They would feel some burden. I think there's some evidence that if you line up fees directly in comparison to uh real estate tax rates, uh there's some progressivity that often is associated with real estate tax rates. But I take these and I think we should move to, you know, the next stage. And if there pieces of this individually that you want to resurface as we work through the highlighted items on the chair's mark, that's what I suggest we go to next. Mr. Winshank, did you have a addition?

Lines 324. No, I mean in particular lines 32 and 24 were named. Um, Mr. Spain, I think you mean to name 25 as well for the IPA. You mean excuse? Yeah. So we can let's talk through 25 and 26 actually. Hold let me look at 26 and yeah and 26. 25 and 26 but not 24 as I understand. Is that right? 24 as well. 24 25 26. Got it. Vice your coffee. Is that a vestigial hand or did you want to share thoughts?

No I mean I think one thing I would be open to talking about is the the rescue. I note in particular that the delta between um the different scenarios of sheriff's compensation could cover the delta of the rescue at least of what's on screen. And there may be an additional question around um revenue implications of taking or not taking the rescue cut. Um but that is one that if if we were to make some other changes I think to me out of this list rises to the top of the conversation. So with colleagues agreement, we will add a line 20 unless there's objection to those that are highlighted and we will focus on these highlighted items to move forward as we have the conversation on the other highlighted items while providing an opportunity at the end should we be efficient and work through it

to uh also have you raise specific other items if that is acceptable with all. What's our next stage? Is there any other additional points? So I think that covers I think line 30 was also highlighted. Was was line 30 highlighted by colleagues other than Miss Cunningham? Mr. Karanus. Mr. Caronis and let's do line 30 onward. Is there others other items that colleagues you or Miss Cunningham or colleagues would like to further highlight?

It's covered.

Thank you. So So, let's return now to the main spreadsheet. We'll work through some of the biggest issues. I believe the first item that I suggested we talk to is the sheriff's compensation and um we'll wait till Mr. uh Karen Tonus can bring that up. I'll provide context with respect I mean, excuse me, Mr. Mr. Wine Shank can bring that up. Um I'll provide context. I was seeing Mr. Karen Tonus' face. So we these are the various um funding options and I will be concrete and say I do believe that um the standard with respect to these various options and what led me to recommend uh option B2 is that I do believe we are we're investing 5 million in ongoing in our police and our fire and uh our other public safety element is our sheriffs and uh our sheriffs we have been on a road to try and make sure that we have a safe and and rehabilitative uh jail and I believe investing in our uh sheriff's deputies uh sergeants and lieutenants so that they will best be able to also serve those remanded to their care is an important component of uh our efforts to maintain public safety and uh our efforts in addition to retain going forward our sheriff's office employees. And so what B2 is is and I will share the starting salary for a sheriff is in the 63 to $65,000 range. And I will share that I do believe this is an important priority and I understand that there are trade-offs that we make. Um but I think that salary um if folks if our community really thought about the importance of uh rehabilitation and how we value criminal justice, I think that that investment in B2, which is

essentially higher steps and moving towards a step in grade system will be critical to the um morale, motivation, focus, and retention of our sheriff's employees going forward. So I I think there's a question or two there for DMF. Uh one is um just to clarify um this additional option C is another one that we've looked at and option B2 as I understand it um would lead to a step-in grade system and would be significant but would be could lead to a step-in grade system after one year or is it two years that it would misuse? So, option B2 would take sheriff employees to their step equals years of service in one year.

It's a slightly lower rate schedule than option C is. So, it's kind of the in between of these options. And and then the only other question for DMF and I'm colleagues will have thoughts and we'll have extended discussion I'm sure. The only other question I would ask is there's discussion of the two years. Option C when presented had a smaller score in the first year and a larger score in the second year. Option B2, can you speak at all to the score in the second year of option B2 or do we not know it or how does that work?

I can't give you a specific dollar amount. We haven't had a chance to model that out. But it would be a typical increase. It would be each employee moving up one step which would be around a 2 to 3% increase for that year. So let me see if I just understand that means the full cost over two fiscal years of B2 and C is a is we can certainly make educated guesses but you haven't modeled that so it's not certain as to what the cost necessarily over a full two years would be.

Yeah. The only one we've modeled over two years was option C. And that was making a big assumption. That was making the assumption that employees would move to step equals years of service in year two of C, which loads a lot of that cost into C because they get three step increases in the first year. And then they're going to get whatever number of steps they need to get to steps equals years of service in the second year. And for some employees, that's more than another three steps. And option C is also the the schedule of rates is higher. So it's going to just be more costly than the other options overall over the like twoyear implementation cycle. Got it. Mr. Schwarz.

Uh just for a little bonus item and it's not going to affect I think what you do today, but you realize that with the way the governor has amended the collective bargaining legislation, there is no dispute I think about the potential for the deputies to collectively bargain if that becomes something that happens. So that is helpful. I know Miss Miss Coffey's mouth is wide open on that one, but I I don't think you've thought that through. I don't think that should necessarily change what your approach is here, but I'm just saying when we get here for the conversation next year, there may be other factors. Thank you. And Miss Coffee may be able to help.

I think that the amendments may lead to a a a multi-year stage towards that collective bargaining, which if it is 2030, we'd have to see what that means. But there's certainly significant uncertainty and I will be concrete transparent that I do believe I think that we can talk about vacancy rates and I do not believe the vacancy rates for currently preceding this the step of moving our police to 90,000 starting salary and whatever we do in this budget with respect to our sheriffs. Um do not believe the data shows high vacancy rates. I'll certainly be disabused of that, Mr. Schwarz, but go ahead. And and again, I'm bringing this up not necessarily because I think it affects this, but we haven't reached the point where we've reached any sort of memorandum of understanding with the constitutionals, but and I know Miss Coffey's been working with our legislative team very directly on this. If the constitutional employees decide to collectively bargain, the question is who will pay the price of their collectively bargained agreements? And I don't think that the legislation speaks to that. Certainly

I can guess much from past performance much much in flux there. Um so we have I see vice chair coffee your light as well as Miss Cunningham. Let's start if it's okay with vice chair coffee and then go to Miss Cunningham.

Great. And just a question because I know we've had to address compression and and resetting our step and grade scales in our other public safety um departments. Did we do that in one year for our other public safety groups? I I feel like I recall it being like a multi-year process to get them to the right place as well. It did take it did take a few years and I think that even though we we reached an agreement with both the police and fire union to move to a grade and step system, we estimated what the number was and then it turned out that we had to readjust that and it took more than one year essentially to move to years equals uh years of service equallying steps can be a pretty complicated process. I'm going to ask Miss Hughes if she wanted to add anything on that because she was involved in the mechanics of that.

Yeah. And I'm going off memory. I I think we were able to move fire a little faster than we were police, but it was just due to where people were, right? Um, as I recall, but yeah, it did take multiple years for police and I believe most of fire went in the first year or two. I don't remember exactly.

Gotcha. Uh yeah, I think that's helpful to me and and for my thinking around, you know, I think we've all reached a a general consensus agreement that we're not doing nothing here. Um but to me, I think a multi-year movement um aligns us and you know, I will say part of what we've heard is wanting to be treated more similarly to our other public safety departments. And I actually think that that is the most similar with how we've dealt with their um compression and and pay scale issues in the other public safety departments. Okay, Miss Cunningham.

Yeah, I would I would concur with Miss Coffey's comment. Um and I I I've been trying to ask this as gently as possible without creating 10,000 additional scenarios because we've already had a lot. But this seems like a multi-year question just as it was with the police and that we need to know what destination we are aiming for in order to figure out how to get there. Um I think we did a lot of pre-work on this this year to try to get the data in the room and to make sure we were all understanding each other. And I think if I'm understanding the reality is the salary studies and the retention and hiring data today still support the manager's proposed budget. The morale and feelings and and wishes for a different world are kind of nudging us in in different directions. So, I'm certainly open to being nudged in a different direction, but I've not yet seen what the horizon is that we're trying to get to and how this fits in a multi-year strategy. Um, let alone how much it costs in that multi-year strategy. And I I think it's important that we have that and and perhaps if we're a year away from collective bargaining, I I'm not sure. I just haven't been able to digest that particular bill um fully. But it might be that we want to do something more um interim and then work this year to get a three-year plan uh so that we, you know, have have a process and that might, you know, beautifully align with collective bargaining and then we just have to do it once. I I just I don't see the I don't see the the map here. Um and I think you all know that I continue to have some concerns about the the data is not showing us that there is a problem. I I recognize that sometimes you can feel the problem before the data shows

it. Thank you, Miss Cunningham. Mr. Karen Tonus. Um the uh the reason can you explain me again? The reason why we have a B and B2 is just because of the difference in the in the net increase, right? Yeah. So the rates are slightly different. B2 has the rate structure set a little bit higher than B. Otherwise, it has people going to the same steps and at the same point in the fiscal year, right? which which means that in the following year they would have the same treatment basically. It's just the starting point is different. That's correct.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Karantonis. Mr. Spain,

Mr. Chair, thank you um and and my colleagues for their comments. I I think um I'm I'm digesting a lot right now. Um it for me it's it's not about morale and feelings okay it it's about at the end of the day you have to understand uh the roles and functions of leos right and once you come from that point of reference you will see that there's significant pay disparities between law enforcement officials that's what guides me in this conversation why I think it is going to take a multi-year approach to get this some level of pay um that's comparable to what other leos are getting in Arlington. If one believes or subscribes to the idea that they are distinctly different police officers and deputy sheriffs or sheriffs, I think you're missing the mark. So, I think B2 right now is a good start to get us in the direction where we need to go. I've had continuing conversations. I know board member Cunningham and I was with the sheriff yesterday uh and I told him that you know we're you're not going to get $7 million point blank but we need to start this trajectory on what what does right look look like whether it's you know grading and steps but get this pay up to a point that's commensurate with that of their peers and other departments. not doing that at the end of the day is bothersome to me and I understand that you know uh there's concerns but I'm content with B2 at this moment and um thank you chair for the mark. Thank you also for the extended conversations we've had uh regarding the sheriff department.

Thank you Mr. Spain. I proposed v2 because I do believe that, you know, we certainly paid attention and should have to the concerns of the many who testified on gymnastics and I think we should also be mindful of the many who have who serve in our sheriff's office and I do think that I am not in a space this is not a proposal that keeps even keeps alignment with our between our police and our sheriff but it is important if we want a safe jail to have to to be careful to make sure over the coming year and certainly if your salary go if you see salaries going to 90,000 starting and you don't see uh real effort or you see a more of an analytic rather than a as I would say a sort of a focused sort of every effort that's plausible or that's within reason. That's why I'm at B2. I I I I think I hear um and I know from past conversations that uh I believe there may be detail. I think vice chair coffee you may be at C and the same may be true with respect to uh Miss Cunningham and we will then uh need to hear from Mr. Karen Tonus certainly can have additional discussion if we want to in the interim. Um but uh that's where I think we are and I think while we want to be thorough and air all concerns I think that's an important part of things. Uh we also uh are already at our time for this meeting and so I I want to keep moving us towards working towards a conclusion before 6 when uh there are other meetings that to that several of us have I know. So Mr. Karen Tonis the question is more or less to you as to your views with respect to B2 or C in this particular instance.

I I don't support C. I uh support B more than B2, but I I mean at the end they could negotiate.

So there I'm sure there'll be conversation. You will be asked by Vice Chair Coffee, Miss Cunningham who might prefer B over B2. We are working to get towards but want to give you full full leash and space to share your view. My reasoning for seeking B2 was that I I I felt that it was important. B at its root led to increases that I see saw as on par with our nonpublic safety employees and given the big skin in the game that we're putting for police and fire that's why I sought out B2 but I respect the views as you as you come forward to them and want to give you the chance to to add additional thoughts Mr. Karen Tonus,

did you have a That's my two cents on B1 B versus B2. But no, I understand. I mean, that this is why I I I wanted to make sure that we that the difference is just about 1% of difference. I just I'm trying to fit it in the in the budget as we as we have it. I I wouldn't I wouldn't object to get to B2 if the other appropriations fit. So you're asking I think then that we put a pause in the sheriff discussion and and finish it on B or B2 at a later time. Is that right? That's correct. Okay. Miss Coffee, Miss Cunningham, any particular

I just want to clarify something you said which is that you prefer option B2 because it's most closely aligned with the rest of our employees. No, I p prefer option B2 because I see the distance between what we're investing in police and fire on the public safety side versus our sheriff to be too great to make me feel comfortable that we are not addressing the big needs that I see as relevant to maintaining positive uh momentum in terms of programming and safety at the jail. I uh fully wish we had additional resources so that we could value all at the public safety scale level. Um and I I I understand that that's a a relevant policy concern, but I do think the investment is worthwhile as in this case, Vice Chair Coffee, or did you want us just to go forward and then come back? No, I mean I think the only thought that I'll share is I I too wish we had the resources to do many many many different things. And um I think C or be um still remain very reasonable and extensive investments that um many other lines of business that we all value and support are not receiving in this budget. Absolutely fair statement. We will move forward with B and B2 as the primary operators of the conversation unless I have miscaptured that. So yeah,

I would just suggest that um I am at C or B. Mr. Caronus is at B or or B2 or B2. Yes. Oh, okay. I'm my prefer preference is is B. Uh but I can live with B2 if uh if we get to find the space for that. and I am C or B as am I. So I was I was going to hypothesize that we're at B with with three votes, but perhaps one is just what I heard Mr. Caron with due respect. What I heard Mr. Karen Tonus say is he wanted to see the rest of this to take a look at it. Right. Yeah.

Okay. So we'll come back to the sheriff's compensation if that's okay with folks. The next item is gymnastics, I believe. and on gymnastics. Um, I'm hopeful that someone can come to our aid to help us read reach a conclusion. I have no particular philosophic maybe maybe it's appropriate for Miss Cunningham you to describe what your um current um thinking is with respect to your new proposal because in the initial chairs Mark I tried to take your Yep. I think I sent DMF. There you go. they have it included. So, I put it in the same vernacular. Uh,

so let's just see how does that 202 number, it's a 25 to 86% with an increase to 100% cost recovery. How does that compare with number-wise and language-wise what's in the chair's mark? If it's possible to pull that up, I'm inclined to just take this suggestion. Your point about competitive cost recovery, I think is persuasive. And so we may be able to just take this and then move forward unless colleagues are colleagues amendable to that or you good with that. Miss Vice Chair Coffee do you see I think it is in the direction of some of our conversations but I I want to be sure I'm I'm thorough.

Yeah I guess if if I just want to make sure we are understanding what we're doing here. So what had been in is a move to 74% cost recovery in fiscal 27 um with the plan to basically reach 86% cost recovery um as an ongoing commitment in the future which is why we have it split 132,000 in one time because that covers the delta uh between 74% cost recovery and 86% cost recovery for one fiscal year. Um, and then the $22,000 in ongoing uh because that is the 8 the net tax support for 86% cost recovery. And what is being proposed is that we uh reach 86% cost recovery in this fiscal year 27 budget and then as a one-time coverage. uh but with the plan that for next year fees will increase again to have 100% cost recovery leading to zero net tax support for the competitive program

in year two

in fiscal 28 and beyond. I think that's right. And I think what's imp implied in the mark is that you would be getting to 100% over three years most likely since we try to get to 100% for competitive. It just we don't show the third year. So I'm comfortable with either. But but my point was in a time where we're trying to not raise the tax rate. I'd be willing to take the more aggressive two-year step. think that your comments certainly align with Miss Vice Chair Coffey's as I understand it and I uh I would support moving line 28 and fully in and replacing the competitive piece of the chair's mark. I do want to make sure is there any concerns the DMF has? Is this um is this something that you need to analyze further? Has this already been analyzed?

And go ahead. Yes, we've looked at it with DPR. Yes. Sure. Yes. No, I think to be clear then it's a 25% increase in rates this year, right? And then next year it will be substantially more to get us to 86% as a goal. I'm not sure. Doesn't sound like we're talking about going to 100% in year next year. That could be a separate conversation for next year. And the the one time versus ongoing, I will admit we talked a little bit. It's a little confusing. Let's just I think you can include it and we will always if we need to make an adjustment, we will do so later. You know, close out or whatever. Do you guys follow? I think that's the way to handle it.

If I may, I think that the two options are both on the table, and I want to make sure um I think the math is is the math. um whether you go in a 2-year pace or a three-year pace, but I think the question is, do you It's a price elasticity question, right? So, do you think you may lose more people if you move quickly um or not? And so, if you had all the resources in the world, I'd probably choose the three-year model, not the two-year model, because it uh reduces the risks a little bit. Um but again, I had it in my trying to get to one and a half cent um what she said

tax rate. So it's, you know, the the most aggressive in trying to preserve for the community the least affordability hit for everyone and then keep the costs in discretionary items. Well, we've had extended discussion about gymnastics fees. I'm sure that there will be additional discussion over the coming two years, but I guess I would say uh the principle that on competitive we should reach 100% cost recovery is solid for me. And so without I do think it's important to acknowledge that there would be fairly extended discussion as we work forward. Is there anything Miss Cowan or DMF that you would like to add further?

I just want to confirm that in 27 for the budget year that we're talking about it's a 25% increase notwithstanding one time or ongoing to get us to 74%. It is not to get us to 86% in the first year. That's correct. Right. Just wanted to restate that 28. Yeah. That's what's included here. Yeah. And I I I thought the discussion that we were having was whether we wanted to change that to go to the 86% faster. Okay. Wait a minute. Okay. You just moved. So we'll have to confusing. You would want to both go to 86% in year one and then get to 100% in year two. Is that correct? I said I I am open

for the sake of keeping the tax rate from going above one and a half or going far above one and a half. I am open to a more aggressive treatment here, which would be the 86%. I think what I'm sensing across the table is a a concern about the potential price elasticity, which I would honor. Um, so like I said, I think if there's room, I'd do the three-year version. If there's not, I'd consider the two-year version instead of eliminating the program. Got it. So, we do not I do not know that we have a three-year modeled version or amendment

ready for us? No, that's the 2000. Yeah, the one you have here is essentially a three-year one or could be a three-year one. It's getting to 86% in year two. You could always go to 100% in year three, but it doesn't matter for this year's budget. Got it. There are not many many examples 100%. So, we need what you're saying is we can figure out a three-year possibility. And what I had been what I thought was your the the other amendment in line 28 was a two-year approach that would go 74% and 100. I may have been misreading but 86,

but um maybe you could go back, Mr. Wine, to the prior number just to be sure and we we do need to reach conclusion on this. Uh not easy. Um, and uh, so I think the 25% fee fee increase in year 1, DMF, I'm interested in this. Does that lead you to 74% cost recovery or 86%? A 25% would lead you to 74% in year one.

So that is not that the language in that is not currently accurate. And I would ask in the interest of working towards conclusion if we can try to do if that is the amendment and is scored and has 74% cost recovery in year one and 100% cost recovery in year two. That's what I would be supportive of in light of your comments with respect to price elasticity. But colleagues, I'm wondering if we can reach towards consensus on that front. Mr. Spain. No. No. Okay. Vice Chair Coffee, is it vestigial or or or not? Or do you want to speak now? I know. So with this

in order to fix 25% fee increase leads only to 74% cost recovery. So we would need to change the number 86 to 74 in that item and then we would need to see from DMF if the two numbers the one time and and total actually are accurate or if we do or do not know the answer to that question. Yeah, that it's it's from your it's just 86% was wrong. Okay, great. Colleagues, are you good with substituting that? I know it's not the you know, I think the 20 basically you should take out the 25%. Because the the fee increase is higher, right? Because 25% was for 74.

Wait a minute. I understood the reverse that the 25% leads only to a 74% fee, right? cost 86. So we need to change the number 86 to 74 in that. No, what what we need to do is change the 25% to whatever percentage gets us to 86%. And that's the proposal that you want irrespective of the price elasticity. Yeah. Yeah. I think we need to what are your cost that line and then what does it entail? Yes. The cost recovery goals that here has is 86%. It could be okay. So now now I understand the amend the proposed amendment better. Colleagues, Mr. Karen Tonus, your thoughts on the amendment?

I I I support the 86% or there around I mean higher than 74% the first year. So that that would that would lead to a higher increase for for competitive gymnastics. Sure. Mr. Spain, go ahead.

Supportive of I think we just changed the 25 to 44 and that that kind of helped me get my mind right here. uh cuz like how um in all this can be a very long conversation, but I think this does give us time to uh you know and this competitive and very what I would call an an elective as aspect of our um park system. Um it doesn't go away but it keeps it and I'm I'm fully supportive. Sure. Thank you, Vice Chair Coffee. I took you as supportive of this, right? any additional

the only thing I'll say is that um I can be supportive of moving to 86% cost recovery in fiscal 27. I think we simply just don't know how that is going to impact the program for what happens in fiscal 27

and I at least would like to not commit at this moment to 100%. I think maintaining at least 86% cost recovery in future fiscal years is fine by me. I I just I I don't I'm not ready to make that commitment. It is okay if the rest of the board is ready to make that commitment. I just was not prepared to say coffee. I mean, Miss Cunningham, is that amendable to you? Yeah. So, I think you're just suggesting that it would be the 202 as ongoing for now. Is that what you're suggesting? I guess so because I I just think that we just don't know what's going to happen with participation. I think that's fine.

So, that looks like it's slide miss. Go ahead. That looks like it's slide line 14. Correct. Well, it's conveniently staff option one, which might might be sort of helping clarify how awesome our staff are and how right they were from the beginning. Well, it was arrived at in part through agreement from you to Vice Chair Coffey's comments, colleagues, does staff does line 14 work for all colleagues on this item?

It it works for me. uh and I agree with Miss Coffee that with Vesture Coffee that uh we really don't know how I mean this is a significant fee increase. It's of course only for the competitive part. It's still competitive to alternatives. Uh but uh this we expect that

Mr. Wine Shank and Wizards let's replace let's take the highlight off of off of uh recreational. Let's replace this item in for competitive uh please and let's see what those numbers lead to. Got it. Recreational gymnastics colleagues have amendments to line 42 or not. If you recall, I took one look at the 50% amount and it's 3 to $134 and that was the end of worrying about 50%. And for context because we had multiple discussions on this. I think this is consistent but I I'm open to uh if this is not Can I ask a clarifying?

Sure. For staff uh is that the option that brings us to be aligned with the private gyms in the area for our wreck fees. I think it's 86% that Yeah. No, it's 60. So this is the 367 total. Sorry. We need to go to

367 was a first of all I want to say this 3% only increase in all adaptive. Thank you for sharing that. We are preserving only only inflation increase to the adaptive gymnastics programs. Right. So I just I just wanted Thank you. Yes. Yeah. Okay. The 367 is the 50% increase. That is close to as close to private gyms as we right. Okay. As we know to only do 30 is 449. Um that gets you to 64% cost recovery. The 50% but that eases in pending our conversation this summer on additional fees.

Got it. Okay. Then I I am aligned with aligning us to the private gyms. May I clarify? Sure. In the in the question response, it says uh for the 64% cost recovery, the price Oh, I see. The price increase is 3% 250, but it's 50 for everyone, but adaptive pretty much. Yep, I got it. Yeah, I know those big percentages there was just so much to summarize. So, I'm I'm aligned with the line as it is, right? So, uh, can someone can we go back to the other slide to figure out what the the proposed is this? I I'm in support of that now. I misunderstood the

You're supportive. I think everybody's supportive.

We will take the highlight off. Line 42. Thank you very much. Line 43, we have to come back to line 44. I think that this is um is where I suggest we go to next. Um this is discussion of uh two positions um that have been requested by our committee oversight board and IPA and um the proposal is to freeze but to create the presumption that in the fiscal 2028 budget we would have a deputy director and but first to put in the budget a man management analyst in line 44 for this here colleagues discussion thoughts I see

manager well I I have no problem with this I just want to make sure you clarify if you're getting a management analyst for the oversight board who that person is actually working for because sure this could be groundbreaking precedent where you actually have a staff person working for an independent commission I'm not saying that's good or bad but I just want to make sure you've thought that through whether that person is working for the county board or for the commission because I think that's a policy question that I'm not sure has really been surfaced and I and I have no opinion on what you decide with that.

Good. You decidedly do not want to have an opinion on that issue. Uh good question. I think that there's perhaps it's the slide deck and some analysis of what's there. But my envision I had envisioned that they would be simultaneously dotted line reporting to the community oversight board and also dotted line reporting to the IPA with ultimate responsibility to the county board. Is that amendable to colleagues as a concept even if you don't the IPA is staffing the COB. So therefore this is a management analyst that will be working for the I think I think we need to revise the wording. I think this is a member of the IPA's team in the county board office.

So COB SL or IPAC COB management an analyst CBO CBO is your acronym. Well, county board office. Yeah. Yeah. I mean that I think that's the CBO is the ACT is is what he's used on this one. Line 48. So CBO U management analyst for COB and IPA. Is that sufficiently okay or do we want to further edit? I I would just say slash IPA and yeah slipa. Okay. So Mr. Spain.

Yes. Um so we have two areas. name change is is all fine um with me but I think as we get into the details it'll be about the what are we trying to do here so had a conversation of course with the IPA several times and also her presentation the desire of the IPA right now is that the management analyst which we are projecting here that that go to an unfunded position and that we flip up 59 and make the IPA deputy director uh position as the funded position and hold. Um understanding that right now we have I call it single point of failure with just the IPA and no second in charge uh and some of the work that needs to be done within the IPA and COB's office. um right now um the a deputy can do that. What's going on is that the IPA is covering down on a lot of initiatives and unable to really engage herself in that particular role because there is no deputy. We have an individual there Ethan who's working on a number of things um right now relative to CBO. So the preference would be uh the IPA deputy director and then we will CBO management analyst make that the unfunded position that is the request from the IPA and also as a member of the um COB leaison that is my recommendation as well.

Thank you Mr. Spain, vice chair coffee.

I am agnostic between the two positions and I'm happy to listen to the recommendation um from the IPA herself. Uh I however am in a position at least at the moment where I only want to include one position, the one that we can fund in this fiscal year. Um, I think it's totally fine if we want to come back and have this on our, you know, to-do list for next year, but I think I'm I don't want to make promises we can't keep. It's the same reason why I'm not comfortable. Um, and we'll have a different conversation around partial year uh, FTE funding. I just I think we don't know what 2028 is going to bring. And I don't want um to make a promise to both our staff and our community that we don't know that we're going to be able to keep. We've got a lot of frozen positions that we've kept in the budget um year after year after year. And I think it it is really frustrating um to our community and our our teams. um that you know we we add these things and we don't cut them because they're important, but we also don't fund them. So I I just I think if we decide that the most important thing right now that we can fund is the IPA deputy director role. I am in support of that. I'm happy to do that. I just would ask that we not add something that we can't fund.

Sure. So let me just see. There's one other issue that's out there which is you had a proposal for temp there's several discussions of temporary staff funding and is it okay to can we all agree that we would wrap that into this discussion whatever we just conclude or do you have a separate desire to pursue temporary funding for the office as a whole? Uh I'm fine to that that was I think an earlier suggestion that has been um overtaken by our current discussions. Miss Cunningham.

So, as the co-leason to COB, um I would concur with uh the recommendation to do the deputy director. I would add that uh there is a need to sustain the $65,000 in kind of operating expenses which would include some contracting dollars. Um as so there's a $25,000 gap that fell out in this year's budget. There's an amendment in the in the list to add back. So, I just was trying to understand that's an additional amendment that you're interested in. Can I ask? Sure.

A question. Sure. And hopefully I think you all might be the right ones to answer it. Um I know some of that um operating budget support was used to contract for staff to do various work if there is an additional actual in-house staff member. Um, and this kind of goes to the conversation that we had with Julie Evans as well. Yeah. Like this was the number she suggested. A quarter million when you asked when you gave her a blank check, Mr. Chair. Yeah. Um, but I guess I'm just trying to figure out

Yeah. It's it's counterintuitive. Um, they haven't been able to spend on engagement, training, and outreach to the extent that they plan to because they don't have enough hands to get it out the door. So it is true that in this year we used some of that funds that normally would go towards engagement activities to get caught up. Yeah, it was redirected and that might happen again while we're waiting on the management analyst. But but I think 65 should be the baseline and I think we had a robust conversation about that. Um it's it's so let me just see if I understand. Mr. Spain, are you amenable to that 65 and additional administrative support? Yeah, but I want to go back to what the vice chair stated and let her let everyone know that I'm

I hear her the concern about signaling and I'm okay with it honestly in this budget cycle the management analyst not being listed as unfunded but you know it's going to come back whether we can entertain it at that time uh it is what it we'll figure that all out but I appreciate her thoughts on that. So, um, I I just believe that a rule of thumb that we need to perhaps consider is as we look at our entire public safety apparatus, colleagues, that when we grow like decide who's growing and is if it's that actually equitable to meet the demand signal that is coming out from the community. You can't grow one aspect and don't grow the other, right? So, thank you, Madame Vice Chair. I'm open to that. I will support that and I think the uh the 65,000 in the ongoing is much needed.

Wait a minute. Let me just see if I understand. Was the amendment to be 65,000 in ongoing or one time for for administrative support? It's to add $25,000 in ongoing so that it will be a total of $65,000 because they're already getting it's already 45,000 in ongoing. Okay. Thank you. So Mr. Garantonis to you. So I mean we're we're close to consensus. Right. I want to hear your vote, but I could name consensus that all four of us could name. Over to you.

Right. My first of all, I'm for the addition of the 25,000. I don't have any issue with that. Uh the uh IPA made a powerful. So my the the testimony that moved me was uh the the chairwoman of COB here that you know basically showed me a picture of uh management analyst supporting all these functions etc. Now uh I I think that the progression is to strengthen the the office and the function with the management analyst and then have a deputy director which I believe that for for very good reasons succession uh uh you know uh competence etc is uh is just a logical progression here. Um I am open uh to

so in the interest of consensus because we got lots of areas to work out. Let's do this 20 what I propose and colleagues let me know if you disagree is 25,000 in additional ongoing per the the liaison this year my view was that the management analyst due respect I also did a little time as leaison my view was that the management analyst was a was the best way forward but let's you guys are leaison let's move forward so 25,000 in ongoing added to the support and then uh changed the number and the name of the position to deputy director and that requires I think another 30 or so thousand in ongoing roughly it's it is scored at 172 and then um in addition I I hear alignment and agreement that we would remove line um we would we would just not have any additional mention of the management analyst in line with the vice chair's request is that amendable Mr. Spain.

Yeah. Amenable. All colleagues. Miss Miss Cunningham is good. Thank you. We will move forward to the next. So we've gotten a few We took a few out of this with that. Um the IPA no line 44. Please give me yes less yellow when you can Mr. Wine Shank with by de deh highlighting line 44. We're trying to get there by six. Um so the next is the AED catalyst or innovation grants. Let me see if I recall our discussion on that. I think it was Mr. Spain, you may have had the most question or concern. Um, and I'm hoping that we can get towards agreement with guidance language that would require perhaps require the manager to come back.

I'm good. Okay, we'll stick with 250. Colleagues, amendable. Mr. Mr. Karen Tonus, we know I'm strongly supportive. Uh, and we know how this worked before. This is not new. Okay, Miss Cunningham. I can get around the number though. prefer it a little lower. Um, but the description I think should be different. It should be AED director contingency or director discretion or something. It should not have catalyst in it per how about conversation catalyst slashinovation slad director with a note that says guidance that the manager will come back to the board with specifics before the money is available. Great. Is that okay? Yes. Yes.

Is it okay? Yes. Yes. Yeah, it's fine. You still shorter would be discretion, but that's fine. Okay. Um, miss, you know, I'm not trying to, you know, and then we got it. So, 47, the highlighted goes away. Do not, if you got substantive things, speak your truth, of course. Let me see if I can remember on humanitarian assistance. I think that it was Miss Cunningham you had the most concern but I I also think maybe vice chair coffee you mentioned concern about the specifics in this case. Go ahead Miss Cunningham. I would recommend we consider that with opportunities grants because I think think there's some overlap and tangle as you described it.

They they don't com they are two different things. Okay. I mean, I I believe that the purposes I think that there's fair and that there's the purposes of the humanitarian grants um is is to meet identified sort of short-term pieces, but I I don't know. I'm looking for a way forward. Vice Chair Coffee,

I had no concerns on the humanitarian assistance. I think to me they are distinct because that is serving targeted responses to external uh non-local factors. Um I think there's a as I shared earlier I think there's a conversation to pin on um physical healthcare and health insurance for us to have over the next year. But in terms of what is currently proposed for this moment, I have no issue. Mr. Karanus,

um, this this humanitarian assistance is actually a continuation of something that we've done before and the reasons why we've done before continue to exist. Uh, and actually they are worse. Uh so uh legal aid uh the um uh the uh the X75K the OE program support etc. All this clicks for me is is supported. So I I have no issues with that. Thank you. There are items that are

there's some overlap, right? So I think I think 250 of it is a continuation of either exactly or the spirit of the previous efforts. Uh there's the OAR and the healthcare item which are then duplicated in the opportunities grant or the piece, but I I can live with it as 350 and we can make it up in there.

I think plausibly um we just have Mr. Spain coming back. I think that there's probably a majority for the 350, but I'm not discounting the argument that you're making, Miss Cunningham. The question is on humanitarian assistance. Are you good with the 350? Any concerns? Colleagues, I will pause it and we can come fully to the opportunities grant. Uh we will. So I would say line 49, no more no more yellow. Um at this stage, seeing seeing that as sort of a an approximation of some level of agreement, we may need more food than that at some some point. Mr. Deputy Clerk, the NVRC strategic initiative funding. I see this ultimately in as we balance the concerns that you have raised. I see this ultimately as um me in a rare moment of sanity trying to avoid even misdemeanors uh related to budget uh pieces and that is not it's it's certainly the case that we can come back later and move this to the general fund. But that is the approach. That's my argument in addition to what I've articulated. Uh, and I do think that the leadership of NVRC has got the exact right idea. And this is in response to desires of accountability from many localities, but in particular Fairfax County that that wants a clearer strategic plan. But I open the floor, Vice Chair Coffee.

Yeah, go ahead. I guess one of my questions is around like if we're going to set aside money, are our neighboring localities setting aside money and what happens if they don't? Like I don't I don't want to be stuck paying for things for the rest of the region. No chance are we giving it time if the rest of the region doesn't come with us. Due respect to the rest of the region, but I will personally make sure that there is no check that or no wire transfer that ever occurs if Fairfax and the others don't get their get themselves contribute.

That's fine. That answers my question. it's always reciprocal and actually uh very often for things like for example the workforce work that NVRC is doing right now the AI uh work that VC is doing right now uh the fact that we say okay we will support that uh is also motivating others to do that so we are kind of shaming them to to do that sometimes right Miss Cunningham I I'll just reiterate that this would amongst other things would require a larger tax rate than I'm willing to accept. So, I would zero it out and have us figure it out when the initiative is articulated.

I'll speculate that the 32,000 might not be the single largest item that leads to that dispositive choice, but I'll respect your truth and you are certainly you certainly know your jam. So, that's fine. Next, we'll remove the yellow from this because I think there's a majority uh that is okay copacetic with this. um unless there unless you feel that there's not such a majority. Um but next um couple of items we have uh we had Mr. Spain, Miss Mr. Karanus and I heard Vice Coffee amendable with the if you need to put some language that Matt will personally assure that no money goes if no other locality please. Could we add something to the effect of how we manage the contingency fund above that?

No, that's different concept from what I just articulated and the majority is in a different place. Okay, then it's true. Spend away. Go ahead. Okay, next one. Um is uh so I guess um I'd be interested the opportunities grants is a big discussion. I guess I would say line 54 is what I recall of that part of the discussion was that was that that was dependent upon um whether we had enough money more or less. And so I think what I propose is that we go to line 54 and we have a check a quick check to assess whether one-time funding we are remotely within within the realm of us

again this is assuming that's of course of course can you clarify the tax rate because we didn't start there I'm happy to the proposed tax rate is 2 cents okay so the next issue is moving down to the bottom are we at a one-time problem seeking all colleagues comments and thoughts about whether this is an a good approach to go forward with respect to the 150. If we're not there then maybe we go back to the opportunities grant. I'm just trying to find consensus or the will of the board as as easily as possible. Don't see. Yes, Miss Cunningham. I I don't I think we should discuss the opportunities grant. I think it's

okay. That's fine. Colleagues, is that amenable to everybody or do you have a preference? I mean Okay, let's go to the opportunities grant. The process is fine. The opportunities grant I'll describe what led to the 437,000 in in in proposal staff worked through a process. They had some recommendations and they also at the end of their presentation they also described if there is additional uh funding and that is for discussion onetime funding that there's a number of additional priorities that they see as strategically important and uh those include I believe responding to um food, immigration and a couple of others in an effort to stay in alignment with where staff was on process going forward. I took those recommendations and I looked at them and I felt that they were appropriate. I felt that they were near enough in line with staff's work and also priorities that I shared and I thought the board shared and that led to the to the recommendations. I think that if we want to it is it's there the other any other approach I would there are I am not personally opposed in in the whole world to earmarks but any other approach would be more earmark like which colleagues have expressed concerns on so that is what led to the set of recommendations I'm open the floor to everyone should they have additional thoughts vice chair coffee

I don't want to start okay Miss Cunningham or Mr. Karanus Mr. Karen, go ahead. So, uh this is the uh uh this is the the additional funding that would allow to uh to include

in our NOA in our opportunities NOA uh funding for for certain programs and nonprofits uh that are right now responding on very fundamental needs. I uh just as a reminder uh we started at a I mean three years ago we started at a very completely different level of funding for this NOA. We reduced that last year and we reduced it again this year. It was we took a risk uh there understanding that we will be able to fund less. Uh at the same time a lot has happened last year and the the needs are still there. So, for example, uh the Sherlington Education Employment Center would be funded here uh from this 437,000. Uh our stomping ground uh would be funded with $50,000. The Arlington neighborhood village uh the uh refugee work uh and as work uh that with families that live in Arlington, there's 108 families that ECDC does. There is a contingent for Arlington free clinic that's limited to 50,000 here because this is the cap on the uh there is a Nova Salute um uh contingent uh uh also capped to 50,000. So uh all in all I think that we are in a point where we are doing two things here. we are uh responding to very basic needs in in the community. Uh and at the same time uh we uh you know finalize this NOA uh that we have a little bit underfunded given the the uh the demand that was out there.

Thank you Mr. Karen Tonis. Miss Cunningham. Uh I would maybe offer to chair coffee if she'd prefer to go because I think you have heard a lot from me. Madam vice chair.

Um yeah I mean I think there's just a bigger conversation to be had here. Um the purpose of introducing the opportunity grant process was to introduce a competitiveness I think really focused around um additional initiatives that served a community identified need. Um I think we have a lot of our nonprofit organizations who are relying upon that pool of money. Um, I think, you know, I've heard from our community development citizens advisory commission on somewhat a lack of clarity sometimes between what they're doing with our CDBG dollars and what, you know, we're doing with the opportunities grant dollars. And um, there's some cross-pollination there. There's some groups who get contract dollars from us. There's some groups that get nothing from us. There's some groups that use this to pay for um new kind of like pilot interesting idea programs. There's some people who are using it more or less for general operating support. And I think there's just a larger conversation to be had. We've we've needed to top this number up multiple times since the introduction of this process because um of the demonstrated need and and good purposes within our community. I don't think I think the hard part about this process is every single organization um that applies and every program that gets put into that pool is worthy of being funded. Uh but there are limited dollars and it just there's just a bigger conversation to be had here. I don't have a specific proposal or approach that solves any of that for this fiscal year, but it is an immense amount of work of our community nonprofits and our staff to get us through this process

every year and give us recommendations. And um I think I think we need to evaluate what it is we're trying to accomplish through this grant process um and decide where we want to go in the future. Sure. I think there's been um much discussion of diverse perspectives on this and trying to reach on the longer term question. So all fair concerns. Mr. Spain,

I'll just make it quick. Going back uh to the opportunities grant, um this is in no way, shape, or form is enough money to support uh the nonprofits that we have. But if I if I'm correct in saying this, Mr. Manager, maybe you can get me right. and our whole this this county's 2019 equity resolution, the roll out of race, you know, the opportunities grant came around in large part to reduce inequities and create opportunities in our community, specifically for nonprofits in a lot of ways.

Yeah, there was we received guidance and Michelle, you can help me here a little bit. We we spent some time determining which organizations would go through the contract approach for example path forward and the approach there and then other opp other other opportunities. It wasn't called an opportunities grant originally. It was called a race grant to try to address the diversity and equity needs of the community and then it has morphed uh its name and the funding levels. I think Mr. Karen Tonis accurately reflected how those funding levels have come down over the last few years.

Yeah. Thank you very much. That's just some background and um I'm I'm supportive of where we are with this understanding that we you know no system process at this point uh whether it's through NOA whether it's through opportunities grants. I'll be the first to tell you that many view it as skewed or it's not fair. Um and I don't think we're ever going to get beyond all that. colleagues, just to be quite frank with you, it's about, you know, the nonprofits out there that need uh at the end of the day some kind of assistance along the way to do to involve themselves in the areas that we believe quite honestly are critically important to our community. So, I'm supportive of it, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Spain. Miss Cunningham. Um, I just want to clarify. Uh, I think what the staff recommended when we had our 2 by twos was a scenario that did not include these additional items and that these additional items were identified as if the board were to find additional funds and wanted to fund additional things through the opportunities grant. This is the list they would propose. I think the process we laid out, the budget we laid out was reasonable and that the entire intent of the opportunities grant is to get the board's hands out of some of this. So, it would be my preference that we honor the um preliminary the the main staff recommendation and that to the extent there are needs that are identified outside of that that we budget for those needs. And so the the one I have heard compellingly is healthcare. I believe you put $50,000 towards it in the humanitarian bucket. Um healthcare is very tightly aligned with our DHS team. Um, so I would say rather than sort of messily messing with the process that's already been completed, um, we'd stick with the initial staff recommendation and then we put some number of dollars to DHS to figure out where is the best place in this time of difficulty to place uh, primary care or or health care uh, supports. And so I'd be happy to support that. Um, but I I'm not sure

loving the like lump together. I think we're spending money we don't mean to and we're not being clear about what we want to go.

Sure. Thank you. I'm not in support of that that approach because I and I don't think that staff particularly wishes to be one way or the other pulled into this conversation. The language in that slide said if there is additional here are some additional recommendations if there is additional funding. to the question. I I don't think and I think we are putting five million in ongoing towards two public safety agencies and 437,000 that will help with one time. Um that is through a competitive process I'm still in support of. I don't know if that changes certainly want to give time and space to all colleagues should that change the conclusion. I think there's a majority for the 437 but 40 37500 that's what I believe. Is there any concerns Mr. Mr. Karanus or Miss Vice Chair Coffee or Miss Mr. Spain. I'm not trying to have conflict. I just am where I am.

Yeah. And if it's helpful, there were two amendments that were proposed that would reflect what I would recommend, but only if it's helpful. It was, I believe it was 150 for health care and 75 for workforce, which would mean consequences for entities that have received a number of uh number of outreach in the last few days. But to Mr. Karen Tonus and Mr. Spain and vice chair coffee to see if you have additional thoughts as we seek to resolve this.

My my only additional thought is that I agree with uh vice chair coffee that the uh we went through three iterations of a process that is not really working as intended and so this is why we have uh a messier than we have ever anticipated or you know wanted uh process here. uh at this point we are responding I mean every single appropriation here is responding to primary needs and it tried to do its best to help those who are responding right so it's and it's not too much money it's less than than uh in in several years before less less than 1.8 8 million less than 2.5 million. So it's it's still we are on a on a declining scale here and we will have to reassess and talk policy about that. I I fully agree and we including the the balance of of uh uh those functions or those uh responsive uh those responsive appropriations that should be in the contractor area. in the procurement space versus something that is no failed.

Thank you, Mr. Konus. Mr. Speaker, I I'll keep it quick. Um, all of us as members of county boards have received a myriad of requests in the past several weeks, even up to today about, you know, from nonprofits who are potentially seeking opportunities uh through, you know, lanes perhaps like opportunities grants without naming any in particular. We know there's a significant demand signal and I feel that if we go back on this 437 right now then we some folks of course are going to are going to miss out and I think we do need to have a larger conversation but I'm good for where we at this budget cycle with 43 vice.

Yeah. I mean I think I'm closer to where Miss Cunningham is than others. Um I think I had resigned myself to not having this conversation because of where I perceived um most others to be. I I just I do maintain that I'm not sure this is working for us um or for our community members frankly. And I think I I I think the fact that there are organizations that are so reliant on this discretionary grant funding um that is it it is borderline existential um is inherently a problem. Like I I don't think that was the purpose of this program. And so it concerns me. Um, it's not something I'm willing to blow up at this stage of the game, but I I do echo Miss Cunningham's concerns around the approach and what we're doing.

Sure. I think it will be Thank you. respectfully. I think we have the majority will in this particular case. I do think that the 50k cap minus an additional application uh might help with some of the levels of reliance. We would have to do a further analysis. I acknowledge it will be an extensive and not easy process uh to reach uh some uh form of alignment going forward on this but the opportunities grant uh seeing as there's majority with 437k we will de uh highlight that is there anything else colleagues we will go to our next item which is um you know uh PIGO increase street safety initiative funding vision zero uh open the floor to colleagues uh we could look down at the balance to see if there is one time or ongoing funding that will reach there. It's currently we have plenty of one ongoing funding that could help cover it. We do not have

perhaps because you're sorry. Yeah, we don't do not have sufficient one-time funding, but um that's where we are based on trying to work through all of the different pieces. Does would anyone like to start the discussion on vision zero or have suggestions on how else we could move forward?

I I personally, this is not a hill I want to die on. I do think the vision zero is a solid program. I do think we have uh funding um and uh we still have to resolve the environmental management specialist position and um we have the sheriff and there's a but that's a sort of a last piece. Uh colleagues, is there any um I I guess what I would say and I'd be interested in folks I think that this 150,000 is going to be reachable for us financially whether or not we choose option B2 or option C and because the ongoing funding is currently sufficiently funded. So I'd suggest that we support this but uh we will need a majority of the board in order to move forward one way or the other at this stage on this item. So, leave the leave the floor open to folks uh as they wish. Keeping in mind we got about 20 minutes before we got to finish up.

Uh this is on the PO still. Uh yeah. Yes. On the PO and the 150. Yeah, this this is one of my additions. Um I think 150 is going to fund between probably two to fourish additional um tactical investments in our community. I think that's worth doing. um and we'll we'll hopefully be able to continue investments in the future. So, sure, we've got two. Is there Mr. Karen Tonus or Mr. Spain? And we'll we'll we'll of course hear Miss Cunningham's thoughts with respect to this one. You Okay, Mr. Tarantonis.

Mr. Chair, I'm I'm friendly to that because Vision Zero is a great program. I I understand a little bit that we are a little bit over budget here. Are you how do you propose to uh to to to cover the gap? I propose essentially to use ongoing funding is right use some ongoing funding to cover this remaining gap that exists. I think uh we can I mean I'm I'm supportive of this. Uh we we want to see the the the the bigger item of the AXO compensation and the position. Miss Cunningham on this we have we do have I believe a majority that is supportive of this.

Yep. I'll just reiterate, I'd be supportive of it, but I would pair it with revenue that would be restricted to doing that. So,

Got it. Thank you for sharing. Appreciate that. In addition, not seeing Mr. Spain's light, we will remove the yellow from this and this will be part of the mark. We are we are at two different items. Um the uh I would propose we go to line 32 and the the environmental management position. um and a discussion there and we will then turn to options B versus B2 I believe on the sheriff's compensation. So uh colleagues on this item do folks have thoughts Mr. Karanus.

So this the line 32 the the environmental management specialist this is a halfyear position. That's correct. Right. Which means that it will be full next year. That's correct.

Uh as I said before for me uh we want to be very very very transparent also with our uh advocacy community and and everybody who cares a lot about this is the year that we will be launching a uh climate action plan. I think this is a critical component of of policy delivery that we'll be doing this year. So I have no doubt that we need to to to add capacity there etc. If you ask me if my my my priority was the planner because I think that right now this is this is extremely important down in 220. uh uh if uh if I if we we froze that position which is a liability for next budget

we did uh so I'm I'm okay with going ahead with with this here as it as it is proposed. Sure. Mr. Spain

being mindful of time. I, you know, we've talked at Nauseium uh chair about this position and I just for the public, I'm fully supportive. I understand uh you know, the recommendation from the county manager. However, I just I just think from from where we're going um with some of our initiatives and and our climate resiliency from the advocates that have come to us, I think moving away from this position is just the timing of it and the expectations are just I'm not aligned there. So, the half year coming on the backside, I'm fine with it. Uh so, Mr. Chair, oh, thank you. I'm fine. Okay,

great. Thank you, Mr. Spain. I'm supportive as well. It just occurred to me in an effort to because I know that it's a a shared priority of all five of us and yet um if there we live in constrained worlds. So what I'd suggest if it's possible we leave the item in there. We include guidance that requires the manager to come back to the board and if there is not a majority of the board in support of uh posting the position at the time of that then we would then say no to the position. Is that copathetic? Is there a reason why we can't have guidance that requires, you know, because we haven't had the federal funds hit that we thought, but we have had a bad economy the last 3 months locally. So, it could be preparatory guidance, but it is what I proposed in an effort to try to find uh the greatest majority. I first I don't who do I look to to see if that is okay language to put in guidance? I'm not seeing grand objections and so I'm going to try to ask Mr. Mr. Wine Shank to include in guidance in the notes that says

Sure. Yeah. Yes. I just want to you know this will be new to me uh maybe to the board the board is now from what I'm hearing is uh at a point where we are going to kind of lean in and and state and tell staff basically the county manager when to fill and open a billet. That's fair. Is this is this new is this a new precedence? This a new president in my effort to find agreement. I've just been clarified.

I want to I want to guard myself against you know there is a kind of two distinct roles here. Right. And I get it. Uh as it is right now that's what I would like to see happen. Um I'll leave it at that. Great. Vice Chair Coffee.

Yeah. Yeah, I mean I I think the manager will be cognizant enough that if we find ourselves in another year like this year and there's a position that's a half year and has not been filled that he would come to us not to fill it. I'm not sure that it really necessitates um direction or or establishing some form of direct board approval. Um, I think we can we can name and make him aware now that this is one that we would be willing to hold open uh if we find ourselves in that position, but I don't um Sure. Yeah.

Thank you. Miss Cunningham, did you want to comment or is covered? So, we'll remove the yellow from this. This position will be in for a half year. We will not put any guidance in my effort to be accommodating. I think Mr. Spain, you have persuasive as well as vice chair coffee, you have persuasive arguments. We will now proceed to the compensation uh question on the sheriffs which is a question of whether uh B or B2 is is operable and I believe the the decision is to you Mr. Karanus.

Oh, I'm I'm sorry. This was vestigial. I was thinking about this. I as I said I I support option B but I want to see the numbers first. I mean if Mr. Wine so what is the what is the uh uh bottom line right now? So, I think that this this doesn't change the one-time funding, but it would change by 150 or some amount the amount in ongoing funding that we would have available. That's my guess. And I should be reminded that uh I think it's worth being reminded colleagues who supported support option C. If there is a majority on option C, we do option C. It's just that my perception was that we had two of us on B B2 and two of us on C, but two of us who would be B before B2. So that's why I was sort of articulating that choice. Um but um you know we what is in this with the 59,000 in ongoing leftover is option B2. that number would go up to um the difference the delta between 175 52 and one and four55 that delta would be an increase in the in the

$300,000 that that yes it would be an increase in our ongoing that was available by that delta unless you adjusted the tax rate. I've never heard that before. Thank you, Miss Sunn Miss Cunningham for sharing that. Um, unless you decided not to fund certain services as well. It's just math chair. I just like having leftovers is not a problem because you only have leftovers because you've assumed that you're maxing out the tax increase. Absolutely. We're sharing the mathematics. We're coming back.

Question for a question for DMF on tax rate. Um are we able is is it only quarter cent adjustments that can we that we can do? Look I could have proposed 1.4 cents 1.6 1.7 1.8 or 1.9 or 1.75 it adjusts Danielle is working right now. If you wanted to know what a tenth of a cent because I think that's I'm not I'm saying that seems to be the question. Absolutely. It seems to me irrespective of perspective that this is a question of interest to the board as a whole. and we'll just all watch Danielle work, which will add no pressure.

No pressure whatsoever.

She's smart enough to remove herself. Um I mean I I think I think where I you know to me there's kind of three things that hang a little bit um in the balance at this point in the discussion. um which is you know how high on additional compensation for the sheriff what if anything goes to AHIF um and where uh does that leave us on the tax rate? I think depending I I would be amendable to looking at smaller changes depending on I think if we were if we went lower on the share of compensation. I think we could probably look at potentially a slightly lower um tax rate and still have something to put into AHIF and I would be amendable to that.

That's great. So I think is there no colleague disagrees with that. Correct. We're all aligned with that. No one disagree. I just have a question for the county man or actually for DMF. What is the good rule of thumb from a budgetary aspect? What should our cushion be? Should it be $130,000? Should it be $750,000? Should it be a certain percentage? Can you tell us? I I I'm just going to say this is an when you do this, my strong recommendation is you end up with zero on your bottom line. We have built-in contingencies uh in other places in the budget. So take it to zero you say

so we have flexibility. I assume we all would like to pull down the tax rate if we can do it by a tenth or two10. We'd like to do that. I I have put forward the mark. I don't know that I'm in the majority with respect to what is what I believe is appropriate to invest or is worth investing beyond the investment we're already making towards the sheriff and we we'll resolve that. We also have the tax rate. We also have AHIFF, Miss Cunningham. We also had some of the items that were prior highlighted. And so I would propose while we're going while Miss Bush is finishing that we pull up Mr. wine shank unless that we pull those up and we will be able to knock out some of them but I I also wonder leave it to your will as to whether if there's one or two things and we h we we're short a little short on time want to go through all of them to be fair on process but Mr. Wshank if you could bring up Miss Cunningham's piece um as to the highlighted items that were in her spreadsheet we can use the time before Miss Bush returns and Mr. Mr. Karen Tonus, if you get to I think what you said I think you're having a choice that is honestly leading to B as opposed to B2, but I

my preference for B I see that it fits right now. I mean B2 is feasible here. Yeah. Uh but uh we had some items from Miss Cunningham's list. So you want B. Okay, that's still Yeah,

sure. Got it. Clarity. We're going to be at B. That ain't what I was preferring, but that's okay. And there's still significant investment whether it was B2, B1, or C, there's significant investment. And we'll now turn while we wait on what is possible to Miss Cunningham's uh list of of the highlighted items in Miss Cunningham's piece. I would say let's take item first. Let's take item the sheriff's item and go to B as opposed to B2. close these numbers up. Yeah.

So, what was the residual right now? All right. So, um, maybe we can use this time. Let's let's slow down a little bit, please, Mr. Wine Shank. I I'm we're super tight on time, but I suppose we can miss I was chairing this, but that's all of the

All right. So, question is for DMF. Is there a score on item on line 20 that you have worked through? So, the expense reduction was 479032, but there was also onetime money um onetime revenue of 300,000 from selling the apparatus. So, if you were to restore that cut, you would need to fund the 479032, but you would also lose 300,000 in onetime funding. Colleagues, is there the delta is 100? That's 700,000 delta total. Is there perspectives that folks have? I'll open the floor, Mr. Karen Tonus, or is that vestigial? No, it's it's vestigial. At this point, I'm not in support.

Miss, you're not at this point not supported. Miss Cunningham, can we just clarify? Um, Miss Hughes, you would put a negative 300 and something in column B to correct to indicate that you'd have an, you know, a negative income. Is that right? So the total cost would be table almost 800 total cost yes would be about 800,000. Yep. Okay. Miss Vice Coffee. Yeah. I don't I from a just pure numbers perspective that is very hard for me to see how that will fit. I'm a second. I think Mr. Karen is the third but I'm not Mr. Smith.

No you're not. It's just not feasible. All right. 20. We're removing the highlight. The next one, Len Boulevard Alliance. This is one that I've seen in writing um but I have not I I haven't had conversation on and I' be grateful for illumination as to where this came where the context for this is and I'm open to it. You did mention that uh that the Columbia Pike had some additional funding. I don't recall was this this was one of the LBA's asks, correct? They didn't ask this year because they've asked previous years and they found it unlikely to be granted.

Sure. Got it. Okay.

So, Mr. Chair, I can as a designated liaison, it is not it was not an official ask by way of LBA. However, to Miss Cunningham's point, um there's a number of factors. This is this is more being proactive uh than reactive given what's going on along Langston Boulevard. And if we had additional funding knowing that uh the demand signal itself from LBA is great and significantly increasing this one time increase would be um of would help them along the way um for what they're doing. Yeah. So there was no official ask just so you know. So we've had conversations. My concern is that we just we have have had a policy of trying to have alignment between Clarendon Alliance and uh at least I have interpreted a policy of having an alliance between the Clarendon Alliance and the Langston Boulevard alliance. Uh the Clarendon um and so I struggled to I I worked very hard to get LEA up to the 200 um or 205, I forget which of the two um and ongoing. And I think that's appropriate, but I I'm not in a at least for me. Uh I'm open to next year. I just um don't know how this is this doesn't reach the must-have in this year for me. But

okay, I'm not trying to be a pain. I just What do we say to the Clarendon Partnership Visa V? This point well made, Mr. Chair. We're got We're on a time colleagues. Uh yes, Vice Chair Coffee or did you have thoughts on this or was that vest did you uh I it seems like we've maybe passed that. I

Well, I didn't hear from everybody and I don't know that we have a majority. I think that Mr. Spain and I are are amenable and uh I don't know where you miss Cunningham and and Mr. Karantonis are on this in light of the Clarendon point. So, uh, I have some insight on the work that the the Lancome Boulevard Alliance is doing. I hear you, Mr. Chair, on this. I am friendly to this. I'm You're inclined to also pass on this. No, I'm inclined to actually approve that.

Okay. You want to do it even if there's significant work and and look at projects that we've been getting from Langston Boulevard as of recently. There's a lot of work there. And I mean, we we are struggling with that. And I I I just want to uh the signal to the to to LBA is uh I I really want to tie that to some real policy and implementation work because we we need some uh some feedback from them there.

Persuasive to me. Colleagues, are we okay with 50,000 for the Lang Boulevard alliance for implementation? Vice Chair Coffee? I I think there's some interaction for me in terms of the potential like tenth of a tax rate where that leaves us. Okay. So, we we're ready with the numbers. Thought you might be hiding from us. Yeah. Graham, if you can go to the other spreadsheet with the bottom line, Miss Cunningham, are you good with what the chair? Lenon Boulevard. Well, she may be I'm sorry. I'm not sure. Followed on Langston Boulevard. Yeah. 50k and I were sort of persuaded and Moren mentioned that it depends on the bottom line for her on the 50,000. Sure.

I don't think the 50,000 is going to make or break us, but we'll see from Miss Bush. So, why don't we go to Miss Bush and then come back. You put it in your list, so I would imagine you'd be supportive. So, we have absolutely one, two, three, three and a half or four. Langston Boulevard Alliance 50k goes in one time, correct?

Yeah. Thank you to you for bringing it forward. Maybe it's 50, not five. There we go. And then now we're down to the bottom line. Uh, sorry, Miss Bush. You have magically 1 cents 0.01 01et one10enth of 1%. Sure. So onetenth of 1% for the county is about um 247,92 uh one time and then ongoing is 498,674.

So let's put those two numbers into the spreadsheet because I think it adds up and we will have So what number do you want 01? We can't afford 0.02 to my I don't think just go back what happens is you get close to balance if you switch out one time with ongoing that's right and then we need 68 but then there's no a at that point

yeah I think I think my um have it all mindset only worked if we went to sheriff compensation option C which is even um would would yield more ongoing than what we have in here currently. So, um, we would be 68,000 net down. There's a policy choice as to whether we want to look for any savings on the any of the other pieces. Is that correct? So, 38,000 we would of ongoing we would use to cover one time and then we we would be $68,000 short. I'm not sure that any budget has been this precise in the in but I'm I'm open. Mr. shorts.

Yeah. So, what you're short of is onetime money. And so, when we do this, when we prepare budgets, we always go to the we have an $8.4 million number. We take out 68,000 from it and we call it a day. So, I'm just saying I don't want you to worry about that if shouldn't be a policy debate. Col colleagues, I would ask, is this amenable to folks? I hear the desire for option C again. Um and I uh I don't know Mr. Karenus it would be option B. So this is Go ahead Vice Coffee.

So I think to me we now find ourselves in a in a question between having funds for AHIFF um and having a tenth of a cent lower tax rate. And so I think that's the policy question that I would ask to this board. Um we know that it is only getting more expensive to build affordable housing. We know that this is a community and a broader priority. I talked to one of our housing advocates yesterday who said um they didn't ask because they had given up. Uh and I don't want that to be the signal we give to our community on affordable housing. I think it is important that we have something that goes into this. Uh and you know I I think there are a range of um necessary and nice additions to this budget at this point that we have added back in or added al together. Um and to me it is my value to fund and actively invest in affordable housing. And I think if I am choosing between the 10th and having money for AHIF, I would like to make sure we are putting something into AHIF.

So you would choose the AHF over the 0.01. And you mean something additional to what's in the ongoing

because we know that what is in the ongoing is barely maintaining the pipeline that we do have. And especially with the increases in construction costs and what we've seen with um you know like I think the Crystal House project is a good example where we funded them at one level by the time they reached construction we had to go back and find um additional money from you know other Crystal House pro you know it's moving moving things around but we just know that all of our future projects in that pipeline um I think those numbers are probably under what the reality of them is going to be and so I think any topping up that we can do is valuable um even if it's not a a wild uh beautiful investment of 40 million a year that our advocates would like to see.

Thank you vice chair coffee to Mr. Kantonis. So what vice chair coffee proposes which I support uh is also in the tradition of how AF has been built on ongoing very slowly uh and uh that's that's fine. Uh the uh I mean I would I would definitely wish a lot more here. Uh but u uh this is a good place to put this money. Thank you Mr. There are now two for that proposal. Colleagues, further comments? Mr. Spain,

got a question. Um, just so I can be clear, this this 308, um, are we talking about this amount going into a what? So, where is our AHAB funding, our AH contribution coming from? It would come from if we Mr. Winshank moved the tax rate down one of a cent. And so if he moves it back up one/10enth of a cent and goes back to the other page, it will yield. Here we go. That's what I want to see and I think everyone else wants to see because we're talking. Um, okay. And this puts our tax rate at again for the record.

Two cents. Two cents. You're full. Okay. You're aligned. You're supportive. Yes, I am.

Got it. Thank you, Miss Cunningham. Um, can I see what we of the other list all we added back is the Langston Boulevard, no invasives. So, there were six items there. Did we get the bathrooms? I think I would at this point add the historic uh fee. I think we can spare $500 the $500.

It's going to be tight. And the restrooms it would I'm good with the historic fee for my part and the restrooms. I'm not there on invasives. Um but because we go have seiz on invasives so we're only cutting at a third instead of two/3. So no I'm I'm focused on IF that's where I am but I'm trying and if colleagues are there that's fine Mr. Chair. Yeah. So sorry after you. No you'll staff you have something you need to Okay. Go ahead.

Um so on the restrooms the number should actually be $27,022 instead of 21. And then on the invasives, I'm not sure I was following exactly what what you guys were talking about before with with the level of funding, but just wanted to point out that the level of funding in the 27 proposed budget is the same as it was in the 26 adopted. There was a 100,000 of one time in 26. There's a that was replaced with 100,000 of one time in 27. You may have completely understood that, but I got a little lost in the conversation, so wanted to make sure that was clear.

Can you clarify at that again? cuz I thought we had topped it up to 300 both years to ensure that we were keeping the and I think we've received multiple letters to that effect. So maybe there's a miscommunication. I think there was 325 but not in 26 and then in 27 we retained the same amount 109 give or take in ongoing and 100k in one time just the the sorry but 326 it was in 20 so can we fair of course important so let's bathrooms $27,000 yes yes yes

and it was in your mark that's in in there it is ongoing as I understand it. Okay. Um next is um any other discussion the the application fee in the interest of time fine with it. Not a lot of money. Everybody good? Yep.

Great. Great. Um lastly is this AHIF and this we had this different discussion. So, uh, on AHIFF and then invasive, those seem the last two issues that I can tell that are on the table. And, um, we have, uh, the amount of AHIFF that would be involved is 677. Not yet. Not yet. Slightly less. We able to have a conversation. Are folks there is the invasives point

600,000. But there is the invasives point and want to give fullsome piece to that. There's also a is there are there thoughts by shir coffee or Mr. Spain or m Miss Cunningham or Miss Karantis for me I'll I believe that invasives is an ongoing pri priority. I think the fact that it was 100,000 in the past years I'm mindful this is very difficult and important issue. Ah is a priority and so that's where I would invest the remaining money and I would pass with due and full respect to colleagues and everyone on the uh question of of the onetenth of 1%. I guess I guess I just have a slight uh

sure slight confusion still. Um the proposed budget if we did nothing on invasives maintains the same funding as the prior fiscal year current fiscal year. Yes. Yeah. As as the previously adopted budget. Okay. Okay. So there's there and to say that a different way, there has been no cut to the previously budgeted correct invasives funding. That's correct. There was a temporary cut this year. Right. 25 there was a higher level. 26 the board reduced that level

and and the and if I remember correctly in 25 the justification was to give it a thorough push and then to be more in expanded maintenance mode which I find it's it's sufficient. I I was I I didn't remember that we m maintained the funding this year. If I can make one recommendation because I know we need to get to zero, but I'm not allowed to. But if you use move the vision zero money from one time to ongoing and actually designate it as payo, but direct it to vision zero this year, that's going to make it easier for you at the end of the day, right, to get to zero. I'm just just a thought. You think we want this to be easier. It's almost like you've done this.

Everybody agree with Mr. Schwarz on that. Any concerns? Well, well, let's see the numbers roll out, right? Yeah. 150,000. Mr. Wank, if you can move it from one time to ongoing for vision zero.

So, the question now is remains on the AHIFF, the 0.01% and the invasives. And uh I think we have a consensus on AHIFF, but I am not trying to per I'm not trying to preclude uh uh compromise. Mr. No, I would just think we've heard uh to the extent uh not only from our colleagues here on the board, but we've heard from the community about how uh you know continue to contribute to AHF even in this moment is not only expectation but given the current state affairs we're in that is is important. So, I think then this small step, you know, even given the significant cost increases that we're seeing, this is I'm fine with that and and I don't think our community will look at us any differently with this uh this uh this amount of money. So, I'm fine with it. Could should it be more? Yes. But I think there's also to Mr. Karen Tony's point,

we really need to figure out a way to increase money and um not just ongoing but AHIFF has been dwindling down over the years the contributions to that fund and we know that this is not sustainable and we got to figure out something else to do. So I'm supportive. Um excuse me if I'm running my mouth a little bit. No, all good. I think that we have consensus. Yeah,

but I'm not saying unonymity. I think that there is the the the support is for AHA funding for the remaining funds that are on this on the page there. Is that correct? Is there anyone else who would like to add anything with that? Colleagues, we have a markup. We have a budget working. We will have process over the weekend. Are there any other items to come before the board or any DMF, you know, pull the brakes or what do we need to do to be ready to wrap up? Well, actually, traditionally, you vote on the mark today so that we can prepare the board reports

and say that this is what the board wants to act on. That doesn't foreclose you from having further thoughts, but we discourage it. Colleagues, keeping in mind I did not have all process. I did not know I had the effective process that we would finish the mark today. I said earlier that I did not know that there would be a specific motion. Is there objection to holding a specific motion so that we can say move forward on this markup? No objection. No objection on my part. I move that that the markup as reflected from our conversations and the ultimate results that are here is our markup that we asked DML DMF to finalize bless with holy water or whatever and score. Is there a second? Second.

Oh, I think that was staff trying to second. That's a good try, Mr. Mr. Wine Shanken is trying to second. Seconded by Mr. Spain. All those in favor say I. I. I. All those opposed. No. The B motion passes 41. We now move to to finalizing over the coming days. Uh DMF everybody and I want to make sure I think I can adjourn us today. Are there any concerns? Colleagues with that we are journed. With gratitude to everybody who has been working and huge gratitude. Yes. Thank you all.