City Council Zoning Meeting - workshop

Thank you.

There we are. There we are online. So thank you all for being here. I have had the opportunity to watch every one of the videos that were done today. And I just think that the council did a lot of great work and so really appreciate that. I'm hoping that we have other people. that will have that same level of effort. But today is the day that we're going to start talking about the Charlotte City Council having the meeting specifically for the adjustments that were proposed on the meeting that you had on the 18th. I think that what we really want to try to make sure that we do is that we provide the adjustments and we then, I know that many of them were saying like, how do we explore something? What do we do? What is the information? So to take the time to have that done, but at the end of it, to make sure that we have a budget that we can be proud of and that we want to do. And so we'll start off I believe you want to start off with the budget team, and we'll go ahead. All right. Thank you.

Introductions. Introductions. Oh, that's right.

We should have introductions for all of the council members as well. Can we start with our city clerk?

Ariel Smith leads the clerk.

Okay.

Andrea Leslie-Bike, city attorney. Victoria Watlington, council member at large. Joy Mayo, representing District 3.

Good afternoon and happy Pride Month. Dante Anderson, District 1.

Eyewows, Activist Mayor.

Marks Jones, City Manager.

Kimberly Owens, representing District 6.

Ed Driggs, District 7. J.D. Masueta-Arias, proudly representing the Eastside, District 5.

Happy Pride Month. LaWanna Mayfield, Council Member-at-Large. Good evening.

Renee Johnson, District 4, where I'm honored to serve.

Marie Harris, Budget Director.

All right, Marie, this is your day.

Well, thank you. And as Mayor mentioned, good evening, Mayor and Council. As she mentioned, you have a packet in front of you, and these are all the items that move forward with at least five votes from your May 18th meeting of items you said you want explored. And the front page is more so the sources, and that'll mean more to you as we go through them. But if you turn to page two, and Cherry's got it up for us, a listing of them as well on the board. Page two, this is each of the items that you asked to be explored and the page reference for those. So I'm not sure if there's any particular one that you would prefer to start with or you would like to just start from the top with public safety. All right. Is there?

Yes, please. Thank you, Mayor, members of council. And thanks, Marie. One of the things that we tried to do with addressing many of the questions that came up in the previous meeting was to really try to lock in the two things. One, to see if we could, within the existing budget, provide you sources for some of the requests that you wanted us to explore without increasing the proposed tax rate. And we also try to look within the public safety budget for some of the public safety related requests that you had. Still trying to stay within that 1.89 property tax increase. And lastly, with some of the one-time sources, ongoing sources, It seems like there's some flexibility with all of the requests that you've had to be able to attempt to fund them within the parameters of public safety being within public safety and some of the one-time and ongoing sources that we identified as well as one additional revenue opportunity as related to animal care control. So I just wanted to set the stage, Mayor, that there are sources that are available to address many of the items that we were asked to explore.

And is that a part of our? Yes, ma'am. So Marie would go ahead and take that.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. And as the manager mentioned, a lot of us get tangled up sometimes, one-time sources. They think, oh, we have some money here. But one-time sources can only fund one-time expenses. So if it's something ongoing like salaries, it would need to be from the ongoing expense category.

Any questions for her before we start out? Ms. Mayfield?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. This is more of a clarifying question because you're getting ready to go through the recommendations in the PowerPoint here, but I want to make sure that we're level set because the team did share with council regarding our proposal around fire and the proposal that I believe the proposal that I initially made regarding the decrease from 10% to 7% which will have saved us around 6 a little more than 6 million from the buyers pay that there were not enough council members to support that moving forward. So now we're having a different conversation, but I want to make sure that we level set with the PowerPoint that was sent out with it. Looking at Arlington, Austin, Columbus and other areas, what was not noted is that their starting pay is $5,000 more than what our starting pay is. So when we're going to have the conversation, I want us to make sure that to the best of our ability, we're having a transparent conversation when we're saying, Other areas are, there's a 14% gap. We're not at that. That's true. But also our starting pay is not what the starting pay is in these other areas. So I'm still, even though more for the people didn't join me with looking at that, exploring the 10%, increase to fire with the reduction from police to offset those funds. I want to make sure that we're being transparent about the dollars and that it's a considerable difference with starting pay of $5,000. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Thank you. All right. Yes, Mr. Jones.

Marie, do you mind if I call an audible? Okay, so I think the biggest item that we will discuss will be the 10% increase for fire. And I think the easiest way to approach it is to actually go backwards, okay? There was a question about what would happen if we just reinstated steps and put a 2% on that. And the reality with that, if you slide over to page... three i believe um it's actually a savings to the city of about 5.2 million dollars and it's really because if you start to look at the steps in that table um you would have a number of folks that would have a five percent step with the 2% market adjustment, which is about 51% of, I'll say, fire sworn. So we're talking about captains, firefighters, engineers, okay? And then if you just did the 2%, I'm sorry, the 2% increase, and I'm sorry, there would be 18 folks that would get about a 4.5% increase, but the key is that this concept of people being topped out. You no longer get a step. So whether the step was 5%, 2.5%, 10%, 20%, you wouldn't get it. And what you would just get is the market adjustment, if I got that right. And so in that example, the big savings comes in because 47% of the firefighters, the engineers, the captains would only get that 2%. So I don't think that's anything that anybody would recommend, but we actually did it. And then there are a couple of options that are in between this, which would provide an opportunity to have maybe a 5% market adjustment with the staff, as well as a 5% market adjustment with even a bonus so that we could get people up to 10%. Those are two options, but I think instead of spending a lot of time on those options, let's go to the request, which was going right to parity, 10% and 10%, okay? So that would be going to page five. And as you knew the last time we talked about this, the cost of that is about 4.4 million. And what we put in front of you, instead of increasing the property tax to pay for this 4.4 million, we gave you a series of options on the cover page that could get you to some level close to that 4.4 million. So I think if we use it as a starting point for fire, as opposed to going through the other options, because you may just land right here, and if you land right here, there are opportunities within the public safety budget to try to fund that. Marie, is that?

Yes, sir.

Okay, so Mayor, if Mayor and Council are fine with starting there, I think starting with the 10% increase on page five, instead of the seven, is where I believe the council would like to start.

All right. I saw that we had Ms. Mayfield bring it forward, and Mr. Jones has made it possible for what he just explained. And so let's start around Ms. Mayfield. I'm sorry. What do we need? Who needs to start?

Oh, I'm sorry, Madam Mayor. I thought what Mr. Jones did was open the door for Marie to now explain it to us starting from the 10%. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Thank you. Thank you, and thank you, Council. And one important thing I've heard, there's a little bit of confusion where if either the 7% or the 10%, while we're freezing the steps, but there's still the opportunity. If you're a firefighter, one, moving to a two, or a two that's getting a promotion to an engineer, they'd still go through that promotion process. So that's still available. So the steps are still in play, even though they're frozen. And then council, as the manager said, it would be around $4.4 million. And as he said at the beginning, the 1.89% proposed property tax increase. The whole of that is towards public safety. So we went through and said, based on your feedback, you know, can you cut it? And please don't raise it more. We we reallocated some and these in this list on this table here are enhancements that were proposed as part of the 1.89 cent sales. I mean, that's so sorry. Property tax that we would now draw those back and use that funding towards the extra 3% in salaries.

All right, we continue this tennis ball back and forth.

Marie, could you explain a little bit about the impact of these three items?

Yes. So reduce public safety technology investments. So within the proposed budget for 2027, there is now an ongoing $2.95 million that's for police and fire public safety technology specific to those service areas. And then for this one, it would be reduced from $2.95, and it would be reduced by $1.9 million, basically. And then for the second one.

And Marie, just to make sure of the level setting, that's a new item.

Correct. Well, yes, because before they've gotten technology funding, but not an ongoing designated part for them. Correct. Thank you. And then fire reduced proposed increase to overtime budget. And for the overtime budget, that's a place that really working with fire as far as getting the funding correct and their staffing levels correct. Currently, the budget's projected to be well over budget for overtime. So we were putting money towards that at $4.1 million. And if we did this, they'd probably be short, but we'd also still commit to reviewing and seeing, getting that number right and what it really needs to be and doing a study around overtime with fire and internal audit. But right now it would be reducing that by $2.2 million. Right. And that's reducing the increase by $2.2 million. So they have roughly 2.6 in the budget now, and then this would be reducing their increase by that much.

We've got a couple of people. Ms. Watlington and Ms. Anderson will go in that order, okay?

Just so I'm clear, is this just specific to this first item? Yes, ma'am. Okay, well then I'll pass for now. Okay, so Ms. Anderson.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Okay, thank you, Marie, for this perspective on page six. For the line item about reducing public safety technology, can you just do a double click on what you mean, like a different level of specificity? I get that you said. There's not been an ongoing investment in this particular?

So they use like a system. When the fire alarm comes through, you know, or when a fire call comes through, they have a system that routes. That's an example. Like they were doing enhancements to that routing system. They have a lot of records management systems, not like the clerk's office type records management systems. But anything technology that specific not for their Microsoft licenses and their you know regular cell phones and things that are you know not unique that are across the city this is unique needs for police and fire technology.

Right. So was this placed in the budget because it was driven by an ask from the firefighters or they routinely have more ask and need, you know, it's technology advances than we're able to fund.

So this was trying to remedy part of that.

Okay. And then for the second line item about, um, the reduction in overtime budget, I just want to make sure you're saying that, um, In the previous budget, we've had a line item for overtime that hasn't been fully absorbed. Does that?

It's been more than fully expended.

So it's been running in the red. So it's been below what the actual overtime has been. So reducing this line item out of the budget, I'm not sure how effective that is because the overtime is the overtime. I think that's based upon need. So if there's a need and we have a history of over-indexing the allocated budget for overtime, removing this line item would seemingly put us in a bit of a hole for the budget. That's a question. I'm not sure. I'm just putting that forward to you and the city manager to answer the question.

Yes, ma'am.

I'll take the first shot at it. Okay, so thank you, Council Member Anderson. Summary, we have how much in the budget prior to this year for overtime for fire?

Right, this current year, 2.6 million.

Sorry, 2.6 million this current year. So 2.6 million. And so this 4-4 would have gotten us closer to the, if you go to the little asterisk, closer to the 5 million that we had as a overrun for overtime in FY24. FY25, 7.3 million. And so the concept was to get overtime up, because in all fairness to Chief Johnson, that 2.6 is too low. What I will say, and this is a part of this discussion, is going forward, we'd like to have our internal auditor of budget and fire start to talk about different models when it comes to overtime. We've heard as high as this could be $9 million. What happens as a city is that, remember FY25, we ended the year 10,000 up. It's all of the departments. So police and fire, let's say, may blow their budget, but there's savings throughout the other departments, which we try to land in the black. So what I would say is, those 2.2 million, I'm not so sure it'll solve our problem for FY27. But what we need to do is really look at how we deploy our fire apparatus to see if we can get the right number for overtime. And we were trying to get closer to it in the proposal. So that's where we are.

Yep, thank you for that. And that's kind of where I was going with the question. I just wanted to make sure we were in the same place, which is I can appreciate if there was a line item of 2.6 in the budget, but then the actuals were approximately $5 million spend on overtime. That's approximately 90% of overrun of our estimate for the budget. It doesn't feel like this is the right answer, pulling this out in order to get to that 10% increase. Mind you, I want to get to the 10% increase, but I would be a proponent of this if we had some other space in the budget that could absorb the overrun of overtime. But I just want to be good stewards around how we really move around these line items in the budget. That's it for this particular topic, Madam Mayor. Thank you.

All right. I have Ms. Mayor. I'm sorry. I had Mayo first, and then we'll come to you, Temple.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Ms. Manager, I'm just wondering, with our proposal of a 10% increase for fire, do you think that will aid with recruitment so we will maybe not need this amount of money for overtime if we have more staff? I mean, do you think there's any kind of level setting with that?

So that is a great question, and Chief Johnson and I have had this conversation. What is the right way to do this? Do you have to actually have more staff? Let's say it a different way. So fire is different than any other department that we have because there's a minimum staffing level every day, okay? And so what some other cities have done is they've changed their minimum staffing level, which we have not. We have four people on the truck, okay? And they have brownouts. They have all these different ways of trying to reduce overtime costs or the cost of operations. And we haven't done any of those, and I don't even think we want to explore any of those. What we do have to do is figure out What's the right way to deploy with this minimum staffing level? Do you need to have more people than what you would need to just operate because there's sick leave, there's parental leave, there's a bunch of things that go on. So it's really trying to figure out, this is a problem, and Can we be very collaborative in how we do it? And I guess what I'm saying is even if you left the 2.2 million in, we're still going to have a problem in FY27. Now, there's a bunch of things that we could do that we don't have in here. But one thing Marie didn't say is that we have a structurally balanced budget, not only in FY27, but also in FY28. And so that means ongoing revenue matching, ongoing expenditures. The only difference with FY28 is there's no policy decision around salaries. Okay? If we started to play with the dates in which the compensation increase begins, it may have a negative impact on FY28, and we start in the hole in FY28. So the easiest thing to do is just move dates around for when the increase would start, but it creates a problem.

And that's one time funding.

That's one time, and it creates a problem the next year.

All right, I had Mrs. Mira first, please. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

First, I just want to recognize the budget staff for putting this together. I certainly enjoyed reading this over the weekend. I agree with, no, I seriously did. I agree with Council Member Anderson's point. I don't know if it's a good idea to reduce the budget in terms of the overtime budget when we already know that in fiscal year 2025, this was $5 million and $7.3 million in fiscal year 2025. So to Manager Jones' point, I think we do not want to kick the can down the road and start out with a negative balance in the next fiscal year. I think the other option, which is to have an increase deferred by a few months, might be a better alternative. But at the same time, you know, you did provide us some data on various cities. And we should consider setting a policy, I think, so that we can have more holistic conversation on pay parity and establishing some sort of baseline. Because right now, I don't think we have had that conversation. This comes up almost, I think this has come up in the previous budget cycle and now. So we need to have a more broader conversation in terms of the policy. And as I was reading this modified duty position, I did not know that we currently have a policy for up to five years for sworn staff who are not eligible to retire. And I know that you suggested us modifying that existing policy so that we can expand eligibility from, I think, current is five-year maximum to 10-year maximum length of assignment. And I think that would address what firefighters had reached out to us about. So I think it's more of a policy issue than a budget issue because So I would like us to explore both of those policy items so that we don't have to keep having these conversations every budget cycle.

That's all I have. Thank you. So I have a few folks that want to talk about this a little bit more. And so, Ms. Mayfield?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you, Maria and team, for this presentation. Manager Ashley, my question is going to... one of the questions is going to be directed to you for clarification. So if the way that this was explained, you're saying that, and maybe Maria, maybe you can answer, the current pay structure, if we would look at the hourly pay, The hourly hourly pay would actually could potentially benefit longer term than I step, but they still have the ability to achieve step as they move into different levels of it, whether it's like Captain Lieutenant.

OK, I believe. Tell me if this is what you mean. The manager's proposal, and regardless of the amount at this point, was to freeze the steps and do across the board. Is that what you're talking about? It would benefit people so, and we could pull it up, but if I was like a, an engineer one step away from topping out. Now I'm frozen and I get whatever percent, seven or 10 this year, but I'm not topping out. So next year I get another 5% plus any market rate potentially. So in that benefit, it's helping people because I'm not topping out as quick. Is that what you're saying?

So since we're just asking all the questions right now, I am going back to page three. So not where my colleagues just left off at. So I'm going back to have to make sure that I understand what we discussed last week. And that is the example right now with the step plan. You can top out. But under this proposal, you have the ability to not top out?

Well, so it depends. You're frozen wherever you are. So if I'm already topped out, I'm still topped out. But instead of just getting a market adjustment like I would typically, I get this across-the-board pay. Is that what you mean?

Explain that for non-budget people. Okay, so when we look at these numbers and we have the breakdown of how many full-time employees we have, we're looking at a 2%, 4.5%, 5%, 7%, as well as pay adjustments. When our firefighters in between, the little bit of downtime we give them, and they're looking at this, what should they walk away with understanding that, okay, I've heard they're considering removing the step plan. How would this benefit me? if the step is removed.

Okay. And the big point, though, a big, big clarification, because like you always say, words matter. Exactly.

We're not removing the step. That's it. So this is a great page. For one year.

So you're frozen in place in whatever step you're in. Mm-hmm. So the big takeaway is the manager was trying real hard to do right by you. I mean, really, because if you go back to the – chart percent-wise, because everybody would get whatever this percent y'all determined would be, versus if I'm topped out, I would only get market adjustment, or I might, if I'm not topped out, I get a step in market adjustment, but next year I might be topped out.

Marie? Yes, sir. So, Marie, let me make sure I'm saying this the right way. So, at the top of this chart is the current

Yes, the very top one.

Okay, steps. So these are the steps, and what occurred in the proposed, and I'm not defending the proposed, I'm just saying a level set. Everybody, no matter what step you're at, would get 7%.

Okay, your proposal, correct.

Right, so that's the FY27 proposed budget. If you shift back up to what's current, Everybody at the end of a step, whether it's step five for firefighter one or step eight for firefighter two, would only get, in a typical year, they're topped out 1.5% or 2%. Okay. Okay.

And that's where I wanted us to have clarification on that now when we go back to where we were having conversations which is page 6 and looking at the reallocation. Just for clarification this reallocation that's being proposed. The total reduce public safety technology investments are we say we're reducing that from both police and fires budget because if we got first responders we need to be very clear about first responders right now we're having a very specific conversation regarding fire. So is that 1.859 million just from fire or is that in totality from police and fire and if it is for the fire conversation, what is that true number for fire? Because just if I'm just tuning in and I'm looking at this and hearing this conversation, I would get the impression that we're saying Because we're talking about fire right now, reduce public safety technology investments of this 1.9 million. It sounds like it's just coming from fire, but I believe it's coming from police and fire.

That's correct.

Yes. And each year, you know, and it, cause things, their needs change and new technology comes up. So each year, both police and fire, you know, they give a prioritized list. So the chiefs, both the chiefs work with their staff and come with the list, you know, usually we can do this, but we're hoping to be able to do more so that we still work really hard to get their top priorities within what's left.

So I want us to be clear in that Mr. Manager.

One thing that I think is important, if we go back to how the budget was built, we talked about public safety, but we also talked about core services, and what was happening was we would throw all of the departments into this one technology bucket. And then you prioritize it in something that may be number one for police, may end up being number eight overall. So what we tried to do to shore up core services is pull police and fire out to their own bucket, 2.9 million ongoing, right? Mm-hm. And so this is, There are many options. One option is to raise the property tax to cover this. We didn't start with that. We tried to go within the public safety budget to make some reductions. And then budget did a great job of trying to make sure what's ongoing is connected to this increase, because the increase is ongoing. Okay. I do want to think, doesn't hit cars, police cars, it doesn't touch dash cams. Those are, am I right with that, Marie?

Yes, stash cams are special and new, but that kind of technology potentially could be real good.

But what about the fact that we approved funding for drones to be used? Because drones are technology. So I just, again, want to have transparency in this conversation because if we're having a real if we're attempting to have a real conversation regarding reducing the proposed increase to the overtime budget, I agree with my colleagues that spoke earlier. We already were working within a deficit in the overtime budget. That's the overtime budget for both police and fire. So, unless we're having this same detailed conversation when it gets to police, I still think there's a disparity in this conversation that we're having. If we already know that we have been functioning in the red in our overtime budget, I am trying to understand how there was a comfortable proposal of reducing that particular line item where we already know that there's a challenge there and we have been running in a deficit, especially when we have approved and in the process of building multiple new firehouses.

So thank you, council member Mayfield. Instead of doing something incremental like 2.2 million and FY 27 and maybe another one point, and FY28, we tried to get as much of correcting this in year one. And that's why we added 4.4.

And just to clarify, none of this necessarily was comfortable. This all hurt. Because he built a really tight budget that he was standing by. So kind of to pick it apart, it's not comfortable.

So manager Well, really, for our budget team. Y'all do amazing work. We put a lot of requests and expectations on you all. Manager Jones, you leading us through this. And it's not difficult. I do not want to be in your position. I just want to make sure that I'm understanding that as we move forward what our actual proposal is. Because, again, we're trying to figure out how to provide... access to the resources and the needs with also challenging you to reduce the tax increase in a very difficult financial year. So I want to make sure that we have as much parity in the conversation and truth in the conversation as possible. So when we have the language of reducing the proposed to the overtime budget, I want us to be very clear that this is the overall budget for first responders. This is the budget for both police and fire, not just the budget of fire. Cause if it's just the budget for fire, then we're looking at the fact that we have been running in the red with fire. Is this the best option? Cause if we front load, I fear that what we ran into two years ago when we front loaded some CRP and some other things, that we're setting future councils and future staff and those staff coming up for retirement up for a challenging conversation as well. Also thinking about how do we get to the place where we actually can get into committee the discussion because ultimately we do not have an adopted policy regarding pay parity. We need to get that into the appropriate committees so that we can finally have that real conversation and either make a decision to support or some motion where we can have some specific language around what pay parity looks like and where it is so that we don't, every budget cycle, keep coming back to discussion and trying to figure out how to start from scratch. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Let me see. Okay, so I think my questions were along a couple of lines. I did want to follow up to just directly ask, and I don't know, is the chief sitting behind me by chance? I just want to know, what is in this safety technology investments? Just tell us what they are, right? Because to your point, if you're telling me that these are dash cams or body cams or firearms or something, that's a very different conversation. And it is that type of, it's critical information. Oh, I thought you said that it wasn't.

No, it's not dash cams, but it's that type. Dash cams is a new thing, so it's a separate pot. But it is like to enhance and maintain critical technology, but it's not already like they give wish lists as far beyond the 2.95. Is there a list? And that changes every year. So based on what the funding level ends up being, they work and they work collaboratively with each other police and fire and some other things and some of them are specific to police and some are specific to fire and then they have a prioritized list but we don't have that yet is the chief sitting behind me a revised one okay well can can sir do you mind joining us at this podium

Mayor.

Should be burned into his- Before the chief comes, Mr. Jones.

So, Maria, I think you may, and I don't know what the answer to this is, but this may be helpful. So when everything was in one pot together, would CMPD and FIRE get 2.9 million of that big pot? Or would they get like 1.5 million of that big pot? Because that would help level set whether or not even with this reduction, it would potentially be more, less, or the same.

So it varies by year to year, and the chief, sometimes he gets grants, both chiefs sometimes get grants or have different funding sources, or they have such a critical need, they might try to carve out from their own operating budget, but it varies year to year. But no, they did not necessarily have this ongoing, but they had more than this ongoing as their need list.

But need list is different than what was actually funded.

Correct, and it varies by year to year, yes, sir. Okay, Chief, comments?

What's on your list?

So good evening, Mayor and City Council, and I think Marie hit the nail on the head. So it does change from year to year. This year's focus is going to be on CAD upgrades and technology upgrades at our communication center, as well as some of our units getting upgraded with MCTs, mobile computer terminals, et cetera, so that our units can continue to respond. But that's...

Is this an obsolescence issue? Is this just an upgrade? Because for it to be sitting right here, I think I'm understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, that this is a separate list from core operations because you may or may not get this funding?

This is an upgrade for our current CAD system, and so we try to maintain at least one or two levels or versions behind so that they can fix repairs, and this was an opportunity for us to start looking at CAD and a few other opportunities in the communications center.

But this is not base operations. Like, this is not an obsolescence issue. You've got to replace the version today because you don't have... No, it's not an obsolescence.

Yeah, it's not that.

Thank you. The other question while I've got you is I want to make sure I understand this overtime piece. Did I understand correctly that you all, well, let me just ask, can you tell me very specifically, is it cheaper to run the current org model that you're running with overtime or to make adjustments to hire additional FTEs?

So the city manager is right when we've had those discussions in the past. It's about a staffing factor. And that staffing factor, you have to find a balance between hiring a certain number of folks to address a lot of your vacancies, you know, vacation, sick leave, paid parental, injury leave, et cetera, and then using overtime. So we really need to do a study to actually figure out what that number is.

You haven't done it. You can't tell me the difference.

I can tell you an older number, but we're in the process of redoing that number now.

Okay. So, yeah, that would be very helpful because I would, yeah, I would. I definitely don't want to go into a whole nother fiscal year, not knowing whether we're costing ourselves more money or not. Yikes. Okay, so let's add that to the list that Council Member Ashimera started earlier in terms of what we'd like to see on the front end of next year, because definitely, I mean, overtime has costs financially, but obviously, as you well know, I mean, it costs y'all in terms of your quality of life and your health. So if that's not the most feasible model, what do you need to execute that org model more, well, sooner rather than later?

You're referring to meeting minimum staffing? Is that what you're referring to?

I'm referring to the study to design your organization such that you're running streamlined.

So we're in the current process of working on that staffing factor number right now so that we'll be prepared for the next fiscal year as to where we need to be and also hire those people to address that staffing factor number depending on where it comes in.

So, Mr. Manager, I would love to see that sooner so that if there's an opportunity or a need to pivot in the middle of this next fiscal, that we can do that rather than wait until the end of this fiscal year. That leads me to another question, and maybe it's the same question again, so forgive me if it is. I was under the impression that the reason we didn't have parity between fire and police, though I can see that that is not unusual looking at other cities, I thought it was because we didn't have a problem hiring firefighters. So right now, we're running overtime not to cover vacancies, but to cover, like you said, vacation sort and these particular things.

So our vacancies are very different. It takes six to seven months. It's seven months now for a recruit to graduate from recruit class. And so although we may look at you know, director Simpson is here now and she may pull our vacancies and it'll show no vacancies, but I may have 40 people in recruit class. And so that's 40 vacancies on fire trucks that we continue to have to fund while they're going through class. And so again, the staffing factors try to get us to a point where we're having enough staff to be able to make sure that we can reduce that over time while they're going through class. Um, although we don't have the turnover that CMPD does, We have had to run our process two times a year, which is something unheard of that we've had to do in recent years to make sure that we're hiring enough folks.

And is that because of natural attrition, like retirement and things of that nature?

Yes, and also the hundred new firefighters and stations that you all were giving us as the city continues to grow. So it's not just attrition, it's also adding your new infill stations and new companies.

Thank you for that. And the cost of growth, you'd think that... I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to do it, Mr. Manager. So then the only other last thing I would say is as part of this comparison, I see here that we're looking at pay parity across benchmark cities. These are salaries, but when it comes to like fully loaded benefits and salary and full compensation together, do we have that comparison? Because I understand the retirement systems are different.

So, Marie, let's make sure I did this right. So we have the public safety pay plan group, and I believe the way we ran it this year is exactly the way that they wanted us to run it in terms of, Just don't fully load anything. Correct.

And that data is really hard to get, but we can flesh into more. And we do. I mean, we do. I say we because it's Team Charlotte, but really Sheila and her team do. So they listen to the concerns, and then they figure out anything, too, that comes up.

So just as it goes to committee, and certainly I will support the policy work to figure out where we need to land on these items, I just want to put that into the scope as well that we're looking fully loaded. Thank you.

All right, Ms. Sajmira, then followed by Ms. Anderson. I'm sorry. I have Ed. You're after that. Okay. It's a lot of people talking. Right. Okay. Ms. Johnson. Okay. Okay. So, Ms. Ashmira, I thought you had. Oh, yeah.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

No, she asked, she raised her hand and I'm assuming that this is a discussion that's not so practical for everyone. I'm trying to get this side and then come around that side. So.

Okay. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So. I was going to ask about the public safety technology investments. So that includes both fire and police, right? So Chief Johnson talked about the fire technology needs. Do we have someone from the police, or do we know what the technology needs Would be addressed under that 1.8 million for in broad categories.

It's listed on page 305 of your budget book, but this is just broad categories like chief said it varies based on need and priority and what's you know what new technology or aging technology, but it's things like modems routers and be in the vehicles cameras license plate readers 911 systems like he mentioned his CAD system. So it could be any in that area, but again, it's something that's specific to the public safety services.

I mean, that's pretty broad.

And we don't have that yet, that detailed list. So what happens is each year they work together and they come up with their team, sorry, with their command staff and their other teams to assess all the priority needs. across their different areas. Cause even within police and fire, they have so many different service areas and then each chief has works with, um, technology to see, okay, how it helped cost it out with procurement and technology. And then we work through based on their top priorities.

So because it is a broadly a list and, What I'm concerned about, is there anything that is like a high priority within the broad list that we got to get addressed in this year's budget, right? That's what I'm trying to understand.

There's nothing that's been specifically called out. Certainly the CAD system the Chief mentioned and things like that.

What is CAD system?

I know you did talk about that. That's the call system that routes the cars, right, Chief? Dispatch. The dispatch system. Okay. Automated dispatch, yeah.

So I know, Chief, you talked about the emergency response time at Councilmember Johnson in my town hall. Would that system assist with reducing the response time? I know that that is something that is important. in terms of reducing the response time.

So that system is in place now, so it's already doing that. And of course, we need to maintain it. As the chief said, it's not mission critical for this second, but it will definitely need to be an investment in the future.

Okay, so would that reduce the response rate?

It's responsible now, so it's computer-aided dispatch. So it's the one that says which vehicle is closest and sends it to the location. So it's already in place. This will be to refresh that system.

Yes, so what I'm trying to understand, with the refreshing or updating the existing system, would that ultimately result in... in reducing reduction of the response times. Because we do know for priority two calls within CMPD, we are not meeting the benchmark. So I'm trying to understand if the system upgrade or maintenance does address reduction in response time, it is something that is critical.

So this one was specific to fire. I'm not sure if police also has something equivalent on their list, but we can definitely follow up with you and get you more detail levels on their priorities. Yes.

Marie, I mean, Council Member Ashmer, so I just checked. For the entire city technology, in FY25, there was $1.6 million in pay go for the entire city, including police and fire. Wow. In the current budget for the entire city, $2 million, including police and fire. So this is significantly more. Absolutely.

Say that again.

So in PAYGO for technology for the entire city, last year was $1.6 million, including police and fire, the entire city. This year it's $2 million. for the entire city, including police and fire. Again, we tried to pull police and fire out because we wanted to make sure we shore up core services. So I feel comfortable that this is more than typically we would have for police and fire.

So when you said $2 million, it says fiscal year 2027 proposed for $2.95, so almost $3 million.

Yes, for police and fire.

Okay, so you are comfortable and with this suggestion of reduction in the technology investments?

Well, I don't love it.

Yeah, I mean, obviously.

But I couldn't raise the tax, and we had to go somewhere. And so I don't feel that this is going to be a cut to police and fire. I just don't believe it's going to be adequate to get us to a place that we wanted to get to sooner.

So let me ask you in another way. this would not result in reduction in core services. This would not result in increase or, or I guess we were trying to address response times, right? We wanted to meet the benchmark, which currently fire department does. But when it comes to CMPD, When it comes to priority two calls, based on the report that was presented to us, we are not meeting priority two calls benchmark. And I just want to make sure none of this technology improvements would take away from that goal or the outcome where we want to be.

I am not able to answer that.

Yeah, I think that's the level of information that I need to be able to say, yes, I'm okay with this, right? Because it helps us. with further reducing or meeting the priority to benchmark, then I think that is something very important because that is the core service.

I don't think they know because the business just- I get it.

They don't know. So I think we need more information. But I think Council Member Mayo said, you said we wanted to refer this to the committee, the pay parity and the policy around the modified- Modified positions and, yeah, I mean, I did suggest referring it to the committee. I think, yeah, we can make a motion later, but I guess I'm trying to understand with the whole technology, if we can just get more detail on that, what those technology improvements are like, specifically when it relates to the response time.

All right, Ms. Anderson.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. So if City Manager 2 million was the budget for technology investment this year for all of the city, my assumption is that the number that's in the budget for technology specifically to public safety is there for a reason. And when I'm hearing things like modems in the cars, updated CAT systems, things of that nature, all of those are derivative effects that ensure that fire and CMPD can meet response times. Response times for CMPD has been a challenge from a variety of different angles and certainly we've talked about technology and leaning into technology in a different way uniquely than we historically have could help us get to that desired threshold for result time. So I believe that this is here for a reason and it's driven by specific needs or potential upgrades. That's just my just reading the budget and reading this document here. But if there is some potential slack there, okay, but I'm not sure if it's $1.8 and a half million worth of slack. So I just want to make sure we're being very careful. clear on this because I don't want to get to this point and the it's next year we say our results are our response times have been improved or they've they've actually decrease and well we had the investment in the budget but then somehow it was moved around that's the first point my final point is You know, most, we're talking about attrition and, you know, rather investing in existing roles versus, you know, investing in backfilling roles. Most industries have some type of threshold of attrition that's built into their business model. You know, I'm not sure, city manager or Marie, if it's built into attrition. If the attrition rate for Charlotte Fire and CMPD is built into the city's attrition rate overall, or if they have a breakout of their own attrition rate, but once they get past that threshold, then you're like burning money for real. because it costs more to fill these roles. So if this is referred to a committee, I think understanding attrition rates and whether we're over-indexing on that attrition rate or under-indexing, I think that would be interesting information to inform our decisions around this.

So Council Member Anderson, I believe we have a zero. Attrition rate built into fire so no attrition rate at all Wow, that's that's excellent, right?

Yes, thank you mayor so I Think a critical element here is we do not have a policy about parity now in my mind These are two different labor markets. You don't just take a police officer and put him on a fire truck and vice versa. They have in common that heroically, they are both willing to risk their lives in the service of the public. But otherwise, the jobs are different. The hours are different. And in particular, especially since Keith Lamont Scott, public perception is different. And therefore, I think the right fair amount of compensation in each of those markets is not necessarily the same. And it would depend on many things like retention and recruitment and so on. We need to pay enough in order to establish the manpower levels that we want and to take care of our employees. But you don't switch our bus drivers with train drivers even or whatever. And so, That doesn't, in my mind, create a presumption about what we should do for firefighters. It just means that I don't see exactly why they should be equal. I think it's a goal that they would like, because it's a bigger number. But we really, we have been avoiding this policy conversation for a long time. So if you accept that, then maybe there is a way to do more for firefighters and not necessarily reach parity with the police. But in other words, we're talking almost binary here as if we give them what we originally proposed or we try to achieve this parity and is that the only answer? So because my other concern is, when I look at this diversion of funds from our original intentions, I don't see an excess that we are able to tap into. So in other words, I think we're reducing numbers that weren't too big before. And what concerns me in turn about that is if you look at past years, we always were conservative in our budgeting and then we had something left over that could go into pay go or that we could roll towards. It feels to me like in a way, We're gambling here a bit against that. I mean, you mentioned before that, who knows, maybe we can achieve better results in other places. So I'm uneasy about spending ahead towards that expectation of a surplus, because in prior years it has also been the case that we needed that money. So we used it for PAYGO, but then when we did our math, we were looking at a prospective deficit for the coming year each time. So I missed the discussion last year, last week, and therefore for the last time. I don't know whether there are dimensions to this that I might have picked up had I been here, but I guess I will just say I'm not really comfortable with this proposal.

Thank you. Council Member Johnson.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. So for me, it's obvious that we would address the pay parity. And I didn't understand why this has been such a discussion for so many years. Since I've been on council in 2019, the firefighters union or association, they've been advocating for firefighters. And it's interesting, Council Member Driggs, when you talked about the public perception being different than CMPD. Because I don't think that it is. And maybe I'm oblivious to that. But I don't think that it is, nor do I think that it should be. I mean, we could probably ask our firefighters, and I bet it's close to 100% who have fought a fire, who risk their lives every time they go out.

Where, I mean, and not that police officers' jobs are not, they're dangerous also.

But are they in the line of fire every day or every time they go out? So I don't know why we would ever think that there would be a difference. I mean, the firefighters, they're running into burning buildings. So I think that we need to be passionate in advocating for them. Also, we talk about public safety and the tax increase, 1.89%. Mr. Jones, did you say all of that was for public safety? So the tax increase for our residents, 100% of that is for public safety, correct? And we're looking at, if we can go back to the previous slide, we're looking at cutting overtime. Councilmember Anderson, you're absolutely right. I don't think these numbers were presented by the management staff just because there's some expenditures that would justify this number. So we're looking at cutting overtime and reallocating funds in the tune of $4 million. $4.4 million, along with a tax increase for residents for public safety, right? The great news is the North Carolina Supreme Court just allowed cities to use the HTA funds for public safety. which could mean that we don't have to increase the tax rate for our citizens or reduce overtime, and that we're allowed to provide parity for our firefighters and police officers. Have we looked at that? I know that's a recent ruling. Where are we with that?

Sure. I can start and then city attorney can certainly jump in. So I would say that the, I think the decision by the state Supreme court was just last week. So it is something that the city attorney's office finance budget are aware of and are evaluating that case was specifically about the Curry tuck hospitality taxes. Cause they're all typically local taxes on what they're enabled for. For example, we have taxes that can be used for just the NASCAR hall of fame or just the convention center, um, Amherst or sports and bank of America stadium. So one of the things that I think is still under review right now by the city attorney's office is to really sort of see exactly how that applies to our local bills. And I believe that there's some time needed to really make sure that one, that there are some opportunities to see exactly what is applicable. And I'd also say that that also brings in some policy level decisions for this council that may be a little bit tight to try to make on, on this year's budget as well, because it starts to look at. management practices. I've had conversations with rating agencies and investors that have indicated that they prefer or like the fact that we don't use hospitality taxes to underpin general fund expenses, because as we talked about at committee today, those revenues can wane at times. And right now, some of the hotel-motel taxes are down compared to last year, but the need is exactly the same. So if those needs go down, that puts at risk the general fund having to find a way to pay for those services. So it's It's something that needs I think some time to sort of evaluate and jump in and sort of evaluate before sort of a decision is made city attorney uh... was the fight i don't know if there's anything you want to add sure actually and thank you matt are mister has been before you and i wanted to know which if you can answer which tax would be comparable to that the tax uh... the north carolina supreme court i believe it i believe there's was around hotel motel tax of the oxy tax so right now we have three different oxy taxes We have one that's within our tourism fund that is what helps support the Spectrum Center and the cultural arts area. We have one that is dedicated towards the Convention Center, Amateur Sports, and Bank of America Stadium, and one that is dedicated toward the NASCAR Hall of Fame.

So occupancy tax, do we know the amount, the total amount for those three taxes?

I can find it. It's in the book for projection purposes. Okay. But I'll-

Is it page 241? I mean, I have the book open to page 241. If you could just tell the public where that would be, what pages, when you find it. Thank you. City Attorney, did you have something that you wanted to say? Yes.

Yes, Council Member Johnson, thank you so much. The case that we're referring to is Consonzo v. Curituck County, and we are analyzing the ruling in light of our occupancy tax. our occupancy taxes, plural, excuse me, but of note with that specific case, there was a tight nexus between their occupancy tax and their plan, that Board of Commissioners plan to use those occupancy tax dollars to help support the increase in visitors to that community, that community was about 20,000 in population or is about 20,000 in population. During those tourist seasons, they ballooned to about 60,000. And so the Board of Commissioners in that case was able to highlight that their public safety really needed to increase to support that increase in population. just visitation from communities around surrounding communities. And so that was a huge, um, emphasis by the North Carolina Supreme Court. And so what we're looking to do right now is analyze if there is such a nexus that would apply. And again, um, the special legislation that was adopted for Currituck County specifically highlighted that that nexus. Okay.

Okay, I think, thank you. I know that there are rooms where we're celebrated that we're the number one growing city in the country. So I think that that is a nexus, or could be considered a nexus, where we're the fastest growing city in the country, so certainly in North Carolina. And we had, Council Member Ashmer and I, we did have a town hall meeting talking about response times. We know that there's been hold times calling 911 for years. So if there's a pot of money, and the North Carolina Supreme Court has spoken to it, it's no longer, I don't know if it was silent before, but there's a case, I think that's something that we should consider before we cut overtime, before we raise taxes, and before we take a look at cutting public safety. SPENDING. THANK YOU.

thank you madam mayor uh so just very briefly on that topic um i i think for me i could more readily see tapping into hospitality dollars uh for something like the pilot program that we're exploring for noise cameras something that's directly related to hospitality raising for our attention the problems that they're having with their residents and the folks who come in and stay and are having these problems. So that for me is enough of a nexus where I think you could do that. To do it more broadly than that, I think really does put at risk some of the partnerships that we've been able to establish. with the business community, particularly with the hospitality industry and some of the projects that we've got coming to the area that are dependent on those relationships. So I just, I would hesitate to do that. That said, I appreciate the energy around it. And I think that there are maybe some targeted areas that are more specific, that are more aligned with the Currituck County's need for their tourist season to be aligned with their goals. On technology, I just, I will say, you know, I look at the description here of the things that would be affected. And I note that license plate readers are in here as well. And some of the things that in my ride along, I came to appreciate that there were variability in the vehicles that I rode in during my ride along with respect to the condition of the vehicle and the access to technology. someone would have to go use somebody else's computer in their car or whatever. I don't think that we want to be in a situation where our officers are needing to not feel as though they're fully supported out in the field. And so I do have some real hesitation about that cut. And then I will just parrot the comments of other council members with respect to the overtime budget. Really, I fail to appreciate how cutting the overtime budget when we already know that we are struggling to meet that. makes sense. Now, one of the things that had been thrown out, and this is going to make me exceptionally unpopular, but did we also explore, did this not rise to the level of exploration a 7% across the board instead of 10% across the board? Did that get mapped out? Because I thought that that was a discussion point that we had. I know Ms. Mayfield had recommended that we flip them and that police and fire get 10 and the police officers get seven, but I thought we had some appetites around a universal 7%. Did I miss that? It didn't get five. Okay, thank you. Got it. The math is not mathing for me. That's why I wanted to put that out there. Thank you.

We'll be here three days. That was it for me right now. Thank you. I have Ms. Mayfield and then followed by Mr. Graham.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. So one part on the alignment regarding hospitality and tourism.

I can see you guys.

On the line of conversation regarding hospitality and tourism, something that was mentioned to me earlier, but we didn't get a chance to talk about it in committee, was are we even tracking Airbnbs so we have a number of airbnbs in our city. We look at hospitality and tourism mainly as the hotels, but those are businesses that are generating a considerable revenue stream. Are we receiving the taxes that we should be receiving from those small independent airbnb businesses that because there that is contributing to our infrastructure as well as should be identified under hospitality and tourism. Are we even looking at those?

Sure. Appreciate the question. And it's been a little bit, so I can certainly talk again with the tax collector. But a year or two ago, we have had those conversations. There was no reason to believe that we were not receiving the full amount of oxygen tax from the Airbnbs. because that is actually collected by the rental, the companies, and they are required to send it to us. So it's not up to the individual homeowner. Because it goes through the app or sort of the website, it registers where the collection is supposed to go and they are remitting it. But I certainly happen to follow up again with the tax collector to make sure.

Are those funds going into PAYGO or into general funds?

If it's a part, they'd be collecting the occupancy tax. It would be going into the dedicated funds that they are meant for.

I think Kimberly and I probably own one of the where we talk about these bids and these people that have the property. I don't think that they ever actually give money to the city for anything. Because they, you know, you get an Airbnb, you just walk in like a hotel and you walk out. Exactly. I if there is money, I'd like to have it so that we would have something that's doing first. They'd have to do something instead of after because the after stuff is just not.

So what staff just says is that we are getting it yet. I'm not seeing that line item. So I think that will be helpful for us to know exactly how that is being tracked because it should be checked under hospitality and tourism because that is really what how it's. If you're able to earn $4,000 to $10,000 a month off of your Airbnb, I'm going to need you paying taxes to contribute to our city. It would be helpful to know where we're at. It was mentioned earlier to go to page 305 and look at our PAYGO numbers when my colleagues were, when we were going through to say where this money at. manager Jones, yes, it was a ask for us to have these take home vehicles. What we have identified in here is purchase and replace the police take home vehicles at 2.5 million a year over the next five years, which is going to total over 12 million three, almost 300. Is that not something that could be deferred for right now? So we have some take-home vehicles out there, but this is 2.5 million a year to not only purchase, but also to purchase and replace. Is that a priority right now while we're having this conversation? Because I think what I'm hearing from my colleagues and where I share concern is to even have a conversation regarding the reduction when we already have the numbers and know that we've been running in a deficit for this overtime budget, when we already know that we have approved the development for additional firehouses, that we are going to have to figure out how to staff, which means currently we're going to have some of our current fighters that are going to have to go over to these other locations. That doesn't fall into technology, but in the PAYGO, is this $2,450,000, is that something that can be deferred, just like we had to defer other Request and do we have other opportunities because I also want us to be clear what we're talking about technology is not necessarily new technology is just like our phones how we have to do upgrades except when you're talking about governmental upgrades if we don't keep those upgrades going with these systems that could be detrimental to our entire system. Remember last time we had a bug it was the city of Charlotte staff that caught the bug that managed to make its way through the county. So I don't want us getting lost in the public safety technology and talking about reducing that when a lot of that is our licensing and keeping our technology up to date, not necessarily switching over to brand new. technology so these are 2 very important line items and I know that that that we don't get to this budget says we have spent that hour on just number one. But I think that also speaks to how important this conversation is when we talk about public safety, I have no problem supporting the idea that councilman Owens said just may as far as what would it look like if it was 7. across the board or if it was cut me halfway in the middle, if it was eight across the board, because yes, my recommendation did a switch to try to fill this $4.4 million gap. There was a very specific reason yet we didn't receive the five or more. I don't think we, anyone mentioned the seven across the board, seven across the board. Yeah. Okay. So when we, so with looking at options that we may have in a very tough season, and I'm not going to say, I want us to get a zero tax, but we need a tax increase. We need to keep up with the infrastructure investments that are needed. We have too many sinkholes popping up uptown because we're still dealing with areas that have 150 old pipes. But at the same time, some things that we are attempting, are they a necessity? right now. It's a good to have, and it's a convenient piece for you. And it's good for the community to have that take home vehicle. If you live in a neighborhood and you see that, that your neighbor is an officer, but it's also only as good as me knowing you. Cause if you don't come to any other neighborhood events and I don't actually see you, that's not really helping me right now. I'm trying to figure out how to make sure we don't cut this budget around technology and around overtime that amount. is a good to have. I would like to know what the number is for the replacement. Since this is purchased and replaced, how many vehicles we already have out there now, which you don't have to have that now, but that's something that would be helpful as far as what that cost could be if we're not talking about purchasing and replacing.

Sure.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

All right. So thank you, Council Member Mayfield. So the two things I think are really, really important. So let me answer your question directly. I do believe that the vehicle replacement is ongoing. So a cut to the vehicle replacement would be ongoing if you wanted to... reduce that and increase compensation for fire. I will say two things are really, really important with police and fire. Well, three things. One, it would be great to have a policy on parity. The other thing which is really important is when the police chief came on board, she asked for three things that would help her with recruitment because we are whether it's 300 down with 80 people in a recruit class or however you want to count it, we're down. And while we're making progress, and she said three things, 10% increase, take home vehicles, and dash cams. So the other thing that's really, really important, I think if she were here, she'd also tell you she probably needs another 400 officers in addition to what she has now. So as we start to think about this over the years, and we start to think about recruitment for police, those were the three things that she had asked for. The other thing with a fire, which is extremely important, is that we're going to build a bunch of stations. We're going to replace a bunch of stations. And with that, we're going to have a number of additional firefighters, which I think is extremely important. So as we have this conversation around public safety, one of the things we try to do was to shore up core services around technology, things of that nature. I do believe it's a great conversation for the council to have about parity and a policy around that, because I think it would help us as we, so I guess going back to what I said at the beginning, you could reduce the take-home vehicle bucket It would be counter to something that the police chief said that would help with recruitment.

So thank you for that, Manager Jones. And I appreciate that the chief came in with three asks. How many years did we work on getting the burn center?

I'm with you.

Okay, so we had that conversation for over three years to get that burn center, which was detrimental for the training based on today's environment with how we build the type of materials we build, the level of heat, and how quickly that heat escalates. So I appreciate the fact that she came in with her top three. you don't get the sun, moon, and stars your first time out. So this is our first budget. It's a very strong and a very tight period for us. If you get one or two out of that three, we'll consider that as a win.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Mr. Graham.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. And thank you to the staff for what I thought was a very good presentation that you sent over the weekend. I, too, enjoy reading it, right? But after I read the first page, it was just fool's gold, right? In terms of the overtime pay, right? It's just not realistic that we can do that, right? Also, the investment in technology, I agree with Ms. Mayfield and others, certainly Council Member Anderson, about 30 minutes ago, where she outlined specifically what I was thinking when I read it over the weekend, that this is not going to work this way, right? But I do want to find a way to help and be responsive. To the need, and certainly I circle again on my paper, we need a policy right there to help drive our decision making. I think that's over and over again for sure. And so I'm not sure how we get there with this budget, knowing that we have to pass it by. by the end of the month, right? With all the other stuff that's on our table to consider by the end of the month, there's a lot going on here. But I think that's the direction I hope that we can find our way to, to creating a policy and I'm open to any other suggestions that would demonstrate that I believe public safety is a team sport and the firefighters are a part of the team and they should feel that way as well. Lastly, and more importantly, Council Member Johnson, I really appreciate the spirit of what you offered about the tourism tax. And the county probably is probably half of my district that we're talking about, right? And so there's a significant difference between Charlotte and Currituck County in terms of our needs, our wants, our aspirations. And our financial standing with the bond agencies, right? That we have to take into consideration before we and allow the attorneys to interpret the decisions. Before we start looking at it for how we can use the funds. Differently now, I'm very flexible at the court, so we can do we should do it very narrowly. As relates to tourism, not very broadly to pay for overtime. So I think we really need to understand the decision. And then, as I said before, prior to the decision being made, just because we can, don't mean that we should. And we have a lot at stake, a lot to do that benefits frontline workers who work in the travel and tourism industry. And we talk about workers all the time. And there are a lot of workers that make a living Of our investment in travel and tourism for a wide variety of reason, and certainly making sure our travelers are safe, whether in town. It's consistent with the general reading of the statute, but I just think we had to be really, really. conservative in our approach. Um, because again, I represent a district of 125,000 and that's not even my district is bigger than the whole county, right? And our preference and think how we work and how we utilize our resources and certainly maintaining our bond rating is extremely, extremely important. Thank you.

All right, JD.

Thank you, Mayor. Thanks, staff, and thanks, colleagues, for your recommendations. I do want to kind of double-click on the hospitality tax. I am in favor of moving that towards public safety. And as we talk about where to allocate these funds, I do want to raise that one. I think all residents of Charlotte pay across the board for increased security and oftentimes more increased security and uptown for their events and no residual kind of. what's it called, benefit or return of investment, residual quality of life improvements. So I'm wondering, Manager Jones, and staff, really the possibility of increasing the MSD funds can be used for public safety budget.

What?

So I want to make sure the city attorney makes sure I'm saying what's right. So you have in your MSD, in all of your MSDs, there are certain criteria of how they use the money. And I believe within the criteria of how they use the money that there's a possibility, whether it's for the built environment or whether it's for safety, I think that it would be open to what's in the certain requirements of the MSDs. But they would be only related to the MSD and not citywide.

Okay, got it. And I only ask that because I am a new member of council, right? And so I want to make sure what's on the table and what's not on the table. So I want to make sure we are looking at all available options, right? Not because I want to penalize one district over another or MSD over another, but I'm also very aware of the fact that during the weekends, we have a lot of resources allocated to Center City because events are taking place, right? Because people are staying in that area, they're staying in hotels, they're going to our soccer events, our music events, et cetera. And so oftentimes though, I do hear from constituents that they feel left out where those events are happening. because all of our resources, all of our public safety efforts are geared towards that, as they should be, but is there a way that the bill is in foot with everybody else there? So you know what I mean? Just making sure that it's equitable. Thank you.

All right. Let's see. I don't think that Ms. Owens, Ms. Ajmera. Okay. I think that we have you there. It's we're keeping on going. Now we're, would you like to have massage mirror follow you, follow you or okay. Either way, the two of you. Yeah, just decide.

Mayor, can I just ask a point of information? Are we meant to, and this is a wonderful presentation, Marie, thank you for your team's work here, but are we meant to go through this entire packet this evening, mayor, or are we, Can I just stick with this one topic as it's 6.30? We've only addressed one topic.

My understanding was that it was to be about the first item that we had on the agenda.

So, yes, if I may, Madam Mayor, sorry. Go ahead. Ms. Anderson, that is the goal tonight, to go through whatever you want or whatever you don't want. So it's for this council to decide. You have the manager's proposed budget, so anything on here that you want to make a motion to make adjustment to the proposed budget, and then the end of this evening, before we leave, to make a motion to direct the city manager to make the budget ordinance based on any of these changes. And I do believe this is probably the most one with the most variables. So hopefully after you get through this, it'll be more straightforward. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you, Marie.

Okay, so a couple of things. I do want to just point out Airbnb does pay the taxes. It's automatic. If you have stayed in an Airbnb recently, you would notice on your receipt that you pay the taxes. So just to put that topic to bed, they are paying their share. As it relates to overall policy, right, I know that, and I hope that we'll see a motion here in short order on this particular topic, but also for some policy referrals. I do think, though, that what we're seeing in this whole conversation and this budget process is a need to now really assess our holistic structure. How are we modeling and analyzing for growth? How are we looking at our economic development incentives? How are we looking at how our tourism-related public safety expenditures are captured, and does it pencil out? How are MSDs funding particular items? I think that we've got to look at all of those things, and we've got to look at them holistically. So I would like to see a suite of referrals go out to the committees. after this budget season closes, but as soon as possible so that there's time to really take a look so that we're not in a year from now asking these same holistic questions about org models and about use of dollars in particular budgets because we have a better understanding of what we're building for and where we actually are. That is the theme for me in this conversation is we simply don't have the data to really assess what we need versus what we have. The other things that I would just mention is that as it relates to revenue opportunities, that's one that has come up in my mind as we're thinking about different places to cut. I do think there's opportunity to still talk about where we can generate revenue, even if that's conversations that need to be taken to the general assembly around like land value tax or ways that we can partner with private partners or academic partners to test new technologies there we we have a whole city that has needs and there are Certainly innovators in the private sector that are looking for partners to run those kind of models or looking for partners with our kind of data. So I definitely want us to continue to investigate that path of how we can generate revenue from our assets. I did want to just double click on this technology budget. What I heard you say, Mr. Manager, or what I took from it was that this budget is basically $2 million higher than it was last year. And based on my questions to the chief, and certainly correct me if I'm wrong, What I'm distinguishing between are technologies that are required for operations and maintenance and technology investments that may be innovation improvements going forward. There's a very real difference between the two. It doesn't sound like this list has been vetted in the sense that it's gone through any kind of advanced engineering. There are no project justifications. We don't even know what the scope specifically would be to determine how much it would actually cost and what the net benefit would be to our operations or to our to our budget. So I just want to make a distinction and make sure that I heard you clearly that we're not deciding between keeping the lights on as it relates to this technology budget. Absolutely. Okay, that's what I thought. Thank you for that. So all of that being said, certainly it sounds like there's some energy around here for, was it the 7%? Mm-hmm. So in order to push this conversation along, I would go ahead and make that motion for a 7% increase for fire and police. Across the board.

Across the board. 7% across the board. Second. Second.

Okay, so would you repeat it again, Ms. Watlington?

Across the board, 7% increase for fire and police.

For fire and police. Instead of a 10 and 7, I think, is what I'm hearing. Okay.

So you have a motion on the table. There's a lot of conversations. We'll just start around. I think we can go this way. Ms. Anderson. Okay.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. And I appreciate us landing to a place of this conversation. Just given my understanding of the ask from the chief and our need states with our vacated roles, Even the wonderful work that they did last week with the hotel raid on Reagan Drive took supplemental help from the FBI and other divisions along the department. I want to move forward with the chief's plan that she put forward to attract Most importantly, attract and retain the officers that she has with her ass. So I can't support a position where we are going to reduce the CMPD officers down to 7%. I am absolutely leaning into the opportunity to get our CFD officers to that 10% level. So I'm more about getting them there versus reducing CMPD. So I won't be able to support that, but I understand the motion that's on the floor. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I have Ms. Mayo. Ms. Mayo?

I don't, Madam Mayor. I support the 7%. pay increase across the board. So excited for us to take that vote in a couple seconds, hopefully.

All right. I do. Ms. Watlington, I think you made the motion. No, her hand is on her. So you made the motion, so we assume that you support it.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I was going around.

I just wanted to make sure that we had a motion on the floor, and I was trying to make sure that we had someone that approves the motion, and then we would go around the room.

She was going around the room.

Yeah, well, there was a motion and a second, so it's on the floor, but I was going around the room. Yeah, so to answer your direct question.

Okay.

I'm okay to support the 10 and the 7 or the 7 and the 7. The motion on the floor is just basically because it sounds like we've got more of a consensus, so I'm open to either one.

All right. Okay, I wanted to comment on the motion. I agree with Councilmember Anderson. So at the budget adjustment meeting, we had increased all employees to 7%, and that would lead to minus 3% for CMPD, and it only had 3. So that's why it wasn't... Uh, it wasn't on our agenda for today, but I understand anyone can make a motion. I will not be able to support it because of the high vacancy rate that we have. And we know at the town hall when CMPD presented, they clearly mentioned the need for more officers and some of the response times that we were lagging, especially for priority two calls, was because of the higher vacancy with CMPD. So I would certainly be in support of increasing firefighters to 10%, but I would not want to reduce the CMPD down to 7%. We clearly need, we have a, urgency here with the staffing at CMPD. And also we have to ensure that the take-home vehicles stays within the budget because that is the number one recruiting tool as well as retention tool as per the chief. So I would not be able to support this motion.

All right.

No, we already have it.

We're going around here. So is this, I think Ms. Ashmira.

All right.

So now Ms. Johnson. We'll just go with the options.

Ma'am, I'm a little bit confused as to what we're doing because there was a motion and there was a second. This isn't really discussion if people are just saying, I can't support, I can't support.

Can we call it? So call the question. We have a call on the question. Is that?

Now we've got to vote to call the question.

Yeah, right. We have to vote to call the question. So all in favor of the motion?

My apologies because Council Member Graham makes a valid point. We were going around, but we were just going around the room versus just raising your hand. So if it was speaking to the actual issue, the motion, then may I support that?

Ms. Johnson, will you go ahead and start?

I'll pass.

All right, Ms. Mayfield? J.D.? Did the motion dean pass?

She's just letting everybody talk.

Everybody has a chance to talk about this because it's a lot. All right, Mr. Graham?

No, and I think it's a legitimate thing that we're discussing, but I hate that we're kind of pinning one against the other, right? Fire versus police. We don't want to be here because they're both valuable and they both, in their own way, provide the type of safety net that our community needs. Listen, we've had a long year going back to last fall with issues related to public safety. And we're addressing those issues both in terms of the steps that we made along the way to demonstrate both here at home and away that we're investing and doing the things necessary to keep our citizens safe. Part of that is investing in our police department and getting folks employed. We need more officers desperately. We got to support our police chief and giving her the resources that she needs to get those officers in the door and to stay there when they get here. And I went to two public safety committee meetings last week, one for Uptown Charlotte with Center City Partners, the other, well today actually, with Council Member Anderson. The police officers are engaged, they are motivated. When you have to fraternal order police and the council and the community, all on the same page in terms of moving in a forward direction. I don't think we should undercut that by reducing the salary for the police officers and the equipment that we have, at least I have pledged, that I would be willing to provide them to move us forward. So I'll be voting no.

Mayor, I call to question Ms. Owens.

So I put this out into the room in large part because I wanted to have an appreciation for whether we had any real feel for how this would affect the numbers. And we don't really have that. So I think it's been... that was maybe seven or eight. I am aligned with Council Member Mayfield that you don't always get what you want. And those three things, the take home vehicles, I heard a lot about. And I think that I would very much like to see that stay. Dash cams for me are essential not only for our police officers but also for our residents. I think that's absolutely essential that we are able to capture in real time what is going on with our police stops. So I wouldn't want to change either of those. And so that really leaves me that third lever, which is if you want to align the fire department and CMPD, then perhaps we align them at something less than this 10%. Is it seven? Is it eight? I don't know. So I don't know where we go on the motion that's on the floor right now without being able to see how that maths out and whether you can accomplish some of the other goals by just taking a little bit off of that percentage. Does anybody can noodle that fairly quickly and put that into the room or?

Exactly, there you go. Go for it, girl.

Get your calculator out. I don't know. I just put that into the room because I knew that it had been a discussion point. But do we need to have first the parity conversation?

I mean, is that another motion?

No, we've got a motion on the floor. I'd like to see what that looks like. And so I'm curious about that. I don't know that I'm prepared to vote for that. I want to understand what looking at those numbers does to the rest of the asks that we've got.

All right.

So call to question. Wait. No.

I have been. Mr. Mitchell. Can you just call to question? Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Mayor and Council, thank you. I think some of the comments around the diets are very important if we try to address the budget. Council Member Mayfield brought up a good point. Someone come in and do we give them all three the first year? Yes. But I think we heard loud and clear about CMPD and our staffing levels. And so if I had to prioritize which one was more important to me, the 10%, the cars, or the, I can't remember her third one.

Dash cams.

Dash cam. To me, we need to have bodies out in the community so this community can feel safe. And so I'm more of a fan of the 10% for CMPD and trying to get our fire department the 10%. So I will not be supporting the motion on the floor, but I'm interested, maybe the chair of public safety, if there's another motion about 10% for CMPD. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you.

All right, so I know how difficult it is for us to have this, but I want to make sure that if you had something to say that would you want to have the opportunity to say it, that now it is the time. And I think that Ms. Johnson, did you know? Ms. Mayfield? Okay. All right, Ms. Anderson?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just had a very quick follow-up. Charlotte is a very unique city where our fire and police train on the same grounds. They co-share their training grounds. Their classes quite often train together. They have a kinship amongst the two that carries on after folks graduate from the academy. and get into the line of duty. And so I want us to just be cognizant of that, that they have this unique kinship that we don't see in other cities. And I want to make sure that as we're talking about this conversation that we're sensitive to not potentially putting one, as Mr. Graham said, against the other because that's not what we want to do at all. We want to make sure that this is Team Charlotte and one team together as it relates to public safety. So I just want to make that disclaimer around this conversation because that relationship is critically important. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I wasn't going to say anything, but I'm confused how we think that paying one 10% and one 7% doesn't pit one against the other. 7% equal, to me, does the opposite. It shows that we value equity. Team Charlotte. So I just, you know, and we're not reducing CMPD salary, so words matter. Council Member Graham, like you always say, we're not, there is no reduction to CMPD salary. This was a proposed increase. We are proposing an equal increase for our public safety workers at 7%. If 7% was good enough for our firefighters, I think that the message should be that it's the amount that we are, suggesting, it saves money for our citizens, and it's an equal pay raise for our public safety officers. That's all I have. Thank you.

All right. I'm sorry, because one, I see we have someone that actually has the ability to help us do what we're trying to do, and so the manager has asked about this. All right.

Okay, thank you, Mayor, members of council. All right, so and I want to run this summer twice because it's just. All right, so seven and seven is about a $6.3 million savings. Okay, eight and eight is about a $2.8 million savings. Is that right? 9 and 9 is a cost of about $765,000. With all the things that we've discussed, today would still be in play if you're at the 9 and 9. Whether or not you wanted to reduce any of these things, but Listen, I'm looking one more time because this math doesn't work in my head right now. Are you sure about this?

Who's doing the math?

The whole team.

Can I do a friendly amendment to change the percentage?

To nine across the board? No, ma'am.

No?

I can't do a friendly amendment?

If you accept it.

Like one motion at a time and then we move on.

I'm not opposed to a friendly amendment, but it sounds like we're trying to get the data together to know if that's even really feasible. Yes.

Can we just call the question? We have a motion on the floor. We have the second. I think we need to call the question.

Well, as the motion maker, I'll withdraw my motion before I rush this decision when they're trying to do data.

I think we have to go through with the staff to give us the time and be able to provide the information to the manager. Mr.

Manager, can we ask them to do 8.5? Can they run that while they're at it? No.

I think if you did nine, once again, instead of trying to reduce these things by 4.4 million, it's three quarters of a million. And whether you take a little piece from technology, a little piece from overtime, it's very different than 4.4 million, right? So I think within everything that we've said to you today, we could sort through a way to get to 765,000 within public safety.

Okay, so at this point right here, You're confident in that number? I might. You don't look like it.

Yes, I think it's like more 820, but it's right around there.

We're good with the number. All right, well, Council Member Owens, you had a friendly amendment.

What was it? I was proposing to change the percentage from a 7% across the board to a 9% across the board.

I'm okay with that. I don't know if the second. As the second, I know I'm not going to support it, so y'all have to start over. Someone else seconded it. All right, so that's the motion on the floor.

Wait a minute, we had a motion on the floor. The second was withdrawn, but there was a new second.

I accepted her friendly amendment, but we lost the second for that motion, so Council Member Mayo just seconded it. So there's still a motion on the floor for 9% across the board.

All right. Yeah, call to question. I don't know. I think that we've had a lot of conversation, and it's probably just time for us to say let's go as a council. Let's go ahead and see where we stand on the motion. All right? Ms. Mayfield.

Thank you. I have a question, Manager. So you we just went back and forth on a whole bunch of numbers was that no total at 9 because where we started out was trying to find savings. So how do we go from trying to find savings to the end being over. Because you called out, if we did seven across the board, that would have saved us $6 million and some change. Then they calculated at eight, they calculated at nine, we started going over the amount. So what is now the dollar amount that we're looking at?

So about $765,000 in the whole. Over. Over. Okay. So we're at $765,000 deficit. But instead of trying to solve for $4.4 million, you're only trying to solve for $765,000. And what I would suggest, if this is what the council would want to do, is to go back into those various pots.

That we identified.

Instead of trying to take $4.4 million out of it, just take roughly three-quarters of a million out of it.

So all of that, with these latest numbers that the team just ran, still is under your original proposed tax rate that we're still going to have a conversation about because my colleagues have asked you to figure out how to reduce the taxes. So with this new number that we've come up with, this is still in your current proposed budget at the current tax rate that we have asked you to figure out how to reduce. Correct. Okay, just making sure.

Thank you. All right. So, um, I believe that everyone has had an opportunity. So, um, the motion was Ms. Mayo's.

Oh, wait a minute.

Ms. Watlington. All right. Ms. Watlington. Thank you. You had the second. All right. We have the second all in favor of the motion. Please raise your hands. All right. Can we see one, two, Three, four, five, six. Anybody?

No, just five. Just five. Okay. All right. All opposed?

I'll make a motion.

Okay, so I want to. One, two, three, four, five. So I'll make a motion to do a deferral. there.

I'm sorry. Okay. Can I have a count? It was five, six, five, six, five.

So it did not pass. So I'm going to make a motion to start to defer the increase by a few months. That gives us three point. Sorry.

And Madam Ashmere, if I may, that's one time savings you're looking at.

Right, I get it. But then I will make a second motion after that to do a study. I mean, not study, the policy. So my motion is do a 7.5% increase to fire ongoing and 2.5% one time increase to fire to get it at 10% and refer this item to the committee to set a policy on pay parity and establishing the appropriate baseline.

We have a motion on the floor, do we have a second?

I'll second.

All right, we have a second.

Ms. Mayfield?

Marie, budget team, break down the financial impact of what Council Member Edgemere just motioned.

Page four. Okay, thanks. And just to make sure I captured it correctly, you said 7.5% ongoing across the board and then 2.5%?

Yeah, so on page four you got this table and then you got this 7.5% ongoing and then 2.5% one time. And that results in one time cost of 3.9 ongoing savings of a million, about nine, nine or seven. And my motion is to then refer it to the committee for a policy. Okay.

Sorry. All right. So then our, and I apologize. I should be, it's just, I'm getting confused with all the options. Are you proposing this table? So that would give fire 10%.

That's right. But seven and a half percent is ongoing and two and a half percent is one time. So that gives us a time to do the study, work on the policy.

And so that's a little bit different than this because this is with the steps. So you're just saying across the board, seven and a half, and then so everybody gets seven and a half, and then two and a half lump for everybody? That's a little bit different than this table.

No, I'm talking about the fire.

Yes, ma'am.

So this table right here, fire, on page four, you've got the second table.

Yes, ma'am.

You see the last column? I'm sorry. Last row, 10% increase, 7.5% ongoing, 2.5% one-time. And that results in the last box right there where it says one-time cost of $3.9 million and ongoing savings. And then my motion is to refer this to the committee to set a policy on pay parity.

And just so I, I'm sorry, just so I explain that table better, it's a little confusing. So that is a 10% increase. So the option two is what equals the numbers at the bottom. So option two is a 5% market, then get the step, and then anybody that didn't get up to 10 with those two would get a lump to make it up to 10.

So then what's the difference between that and, I mean, isn't that the same 10% increase?

So it's just telling you who would get what. So if you did option two, then there would be 18 employees that get that.

And percentage. Got it. Okay, yeah. That's it. That's all. Okay. Yeah, so this is the way we get to 10%, and it's a one-time increase.

No, I think Mr. Jones is still trying to figure out the math, and so I don't know. Is this not correct? It is not right.

Okay.

Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Ms. Harris, can you give us the numbers again? You gave us the numbers with the 7% raise would have saved $6.6 million. Yes.

You're saying 7% across the board? Yes.

That would have saved $6.3 million. $6.3 million. And there was another number that saved $2 million. Roughly 2.8 is if they both got 8%. Eight across the board. And then 9% put us over by 700,000, right? Yeah, closer to eight, yes. Closer to 800,000. So why didn't anyone propose the 8% across the board?

Because that's not what I'm interested in.

Okay, well, I'd like to make a substitute motion, please.

Well, did her motion get a second? Yes, she did.

I'd like to make a substitute motion.

All right, so Mr. Jones now has numbers that he'd like to share with us. All right.

Let's go with that. Oh, 9%, yes.

Thank you, Mayor, members of council. So unlike option two on the board, which is spread out really a 5% ongoing with the 5% one time, would council member... Ashmir has asked for 7.5% ongoing. That's right, the last roll. And a 2.5%. One time.

One time.

Okay, and so the ongoing is $750,000? Just for fire.

That's because it's only half a percent.

Okay, and then 3.8 is one time.

That's right.

Okay, so what's important about that is one time, if you were to go into any of these options, it just applies to FY27.

That's right.

But then it would be, the technology would be back to where it was in 28, 29, and 30. The overtime would be back to so. So it does work in the sense that 750,000 is ongoing, but 3.8 million is the one time.

Yes, and I'm going to come back to how to solve the math problem, but I just want to make sure there is consensus before we get to that.

Are you asking for a motion?

Yes, there is already a motion on the motion. And a second.

And a second. And a substitute. I think we have a substitute motion as well. And so we'll go with the substitute motion, if I understand.

The substitute motion was for 8% for fire and police and to save our taxpayers $2.8 million. Okay.

Okay.

And then you talk about equal pay for public safety workers.

Okay.

Just take some time and make sure.

There's no second. Do we have a second? No.

I don't even remember what the first motion was.

The motion is 8% across the board.

8% across the board, I believe Ms. Johnson has said.

Vote on the substitute motion. Vote on the substitute motion. Okay, on the substitute motion. We don't have a second? No.

Oh.

So we go back to the original.

Call to question. Is there a second on the substitute motion? No second. No second. Okay, just clarifying. I thought I heard something.

Yeah, no second. So we call to question.

No second. Okay. All right. Ms. Johnson.

So call to question because I do have a second.

Well, but you can't call a question unless everybody wants to speak.

Yeah, of course. I know. I get it, but I don't see any hands raised.

No, I'm ready to vote on this motion.

Okay, so we have the motion. All in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. That one.

Oh, my gosh. Just...

And then he refers it to the committee to discuss a policy on pay parity.

And I think now we have a motion on the floor, your substitute motion. Instead of fixing pay parity today, we're going to talk about it.

That's right. Is that how we're operating? We've already had, we had a vote on it, right? All right, so we have them.

We didn't finish voting.

Did we finish? I had Ms., okay. I thought that you actually started with the voting. Okay, we have not voted. Okay, thank you. On the seven? All right. Seven and a half.

Okay.

Okay, so let's have that on the motion.

All in favor of the motion? I'm sorry, I think there's some discussion still.

There is a lot of discussion going on, as usual.

Council Member Mayfield, are you clear with understanding what the motion is? Not even a little bit. Okay, can you please restate the motion?

Yeah, I would just like, Marie, if you could just walk us through my motion one more time. Is it your motion? Cost associated with it.

Okay, thank you. So it would be instead of the manager's proposed 7% now in the proposed budget, it'd be an additional half percent up to 7.5%, not up to, it would be 7.5% across the board with an addition of a 2.5% one time. So for this current year across the board, everybody in the fire system public, safety pay plan would get 10. And again, with seven and a half percent being ongoing and the manager, I believe got from my team, that would be around, um, still around the 800,000 ongoing. And then the 3.8 for it would, we could achieve that from delaying the payment until August.

I was going to make that separately because I just want to make sure there's consensus before I get to that part. Let me ask a question.

She said across the board. So that's police and fire across the board for fire.

And so police are still getting 10 according to the motion. Yes.

Yeah. This will get us to 10% while we discuss the policy.

Okay. We have a motion on the floor. All in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. One, two, three, four.

Okay, it fails.

Madam Mayor, if I may, I'd like to make a motion that we proceed with the proposed 10% for CMPD as well as the 10% for CFD.

Second.

We have a motion on the floor for 10% for CMPD. And is that 10% for fire?

Yes, I'm sorry, Madam Mayor. Yes, so keeping the pay parity increase for 10% for CMPD as proposed as well as 10% for CFD. And that's a hard percentage, not just a one-time 2.5, one-time bump. It's 10% for CMPD and 10% for CFD.

Walt Linton. Thank you.

Chief, can you please come back? Because now we're back to the original discussion, it sounds like. So I just want to make one thing very clear in my mind about where you stand.

Okay, so on page this okay what we're looking at right here where it says funding option just so I'm clear this 4.4 is the cost When it's not question necessarily for you, mr.

Manager or Marie this cost reflects 10% for a fire And we're already assuming 10% for CMPD. Correct. Okay. Chief, are you okay with these adjustments here? And if so, why?

Our number one priority is making sure we have pay parity with CMPD. And so we can continue to work on the overtime, as the manager has stated, and the technology components, we have some other opportunities that we can use. utilized to make sure that we're getting done what we need to get done. I think there are some questions as to how it will impact us. We'll work through those.

So you can sleep at night as long as your folks get temperature.

I will sleep tonight, yes.

Thank you, sir. That's helpful for me.

So I have a question. I have a question. So this $4.4 million is ongoing cost. Is that correct? Okay.

Correct. Sorry. And these are ongoing sources. Okay. Just wanted to make sure. Yes, ma'am.

I know we have a motion and a second.

Yeah.

Okay. So we have a motion and a second. All in favor, please raise your hand. All right. I think you have it. I do believe that we have all opposed. Anyone opposed?

Joy is opposed.

So thank you, Ms. Maynard. All right. Got it. All right. So we're here.

We've actually accomplished one thing that works.

Just one thing. Give yourself a hand.

that's a big one. That's a big one.

Let's go to page three or four. And just to clarify, I believe I heard earlier consensus about for the item on the modified duty positions. Since they're already in place right now, I think I heard consensus around a policy change versus additional positions, but I just wanted to make sure before we move on.

Yeah, I'll just make a motion for that to refer this to the committee to modify the current policy and program to explore eligibility from the current five-year maximum to...

ten-year maximum landfills committee that would not believe that's what they need to see her being that he can't i believe it's a within the chiefs purvey report second second and so the committee would go to the bc i am i'll go to the budget committee acidity to take on all in favor and favor please raise your hands one two three five we have enough on ourselves anyone opposed all right so let's move to the next item Is that on page five? And I do have another motion.

Yeah, just fire.

No, this is for conversation that Council Member Johnson and others had raised about hospitality, MSD. So I would like us to explore, to Council Member Owen's point about targeted services. targeted items to see if there is anything that the general fund is subsidizing that should come out of hospitality.

For this budget or the next one?

Is this a policy referral? No, this is a policy referral. Okay, I'll second that.

Okay, we have a motion and a second for a policy referral over the hospitality.

And amnesty. So it includes everything that Council Member Johnson and Council Member Massararias mentioned.

And so I don't know that I have a, do you have a copy of that? All of your. Okay. We're okay. Ms. Johnson.

Yes. I wanted to ask our budget team, um, what was the total available in that occupancy tax?

The total budgeted revenue of occupancy tax across the three funds is approximately $82 million for FY27. But as we talked about in committee today, it's always important to remember what commitments have already been made to that. So it says, you know, Spectrum Center, Bank of America Stadium, and all those commitments that we have out there and some of the ones that we know are coming ahead to us. So I think a positive or a forward will give us the opportunity to sort of see the impacts of those.

And just so I'm clear, that's comparing apples to apples, right? With the other, well, the specific tax, the tax that the other county used, right?

That's what we're vetting to see what those rules are. Thank you.

Okay, Mr. Grant, I'm sorry, Mr. Driggs.

So as we approach that topic, I just hope we are mindful of the fact that the hospitality taxes are basically kind of a business transaction. So a tax is levied on the customers of the hospitality industry and and the proceeds are reinvested toward the goal of achieving greater proceeds to the hospitality industry. So it's a cash on cash type of transaction. If we start diverting to our general fund, that is a use that is different in character, and therefore, as I say, I think we need to be very mindful of, for one, the General Assembly's intent when they gave us the authority to levy these taxes, and two, the important role that the hospitality industry must play in determining any reallocation of those monies, thanks.

All right, thank you. Anyone else over on the side? With that, we'll go to Ms. Mayo.

Thank you. Marie, when we kind of start looking at that policy, I would be interested. I know we talked about the military games costing like having a $23 million ask, some of that being in-kind, and I would suspect some of that will be like police time. I wonder if those would be opportunities for us to use that tourism dollar. for some of that in-kind support for that type of event and similar events that we're having that are dealing with hospitality. So I think that may be something we can think outside of the box with when we know that, you know, Those events do need police officers, firefighters, public safety dollars. Can we potentially divest some of those housing trust fund dollars? Or not, excuse me, pardon me. Sorry, brain freeze. Hospitality dollars to that. Sorry, thank you.

All right, thank you.

I just want to make sure as part of my motion, I would like to see a list of all the items that could be subsidize that is currently being subsidized from the general fund that we could use the hospitality fund source for so that is part of the overall policy and to consumable master arias if we can also get a list of all of the if there is any obviously any general fund resources that are being used that if the MSD source could have been used for. So, yeah.

All right, OK, all right. Let's go miss and call no Marie. What's the next item on the we didn't vote on this?

No, we haven't voted on. Let's go. We're on the referral.

Mayor, if you want to make that referral, you can just go ahead.

I always a motion in a second.

You just do it.

OK, there's a motion on the floor. We're voting on it. Let's vote. Yep, all in favor.

All right.

Thank you very much. Anyone opposed? Right. Okay. Two, three, four, five.

Okay. Four opposed. Okay. Thank you. And now to move forward with the items. The next one is for hourly employees. We had to explore 4% increases. They're currently proposed in the proposed budget. It's 4% increase. Sorry, salary increases, but it's two components. There is a part that's a market adjustment and then another part that's a merit component. And then there was a motion to explore making it all across the board versus any merit component. And that would not have a dollar impact as we're already budgeted for four. It's just important to note like when we worked with HR to look so far at this year, What's proposed for 27 is similar to what was proposed, I mean, what's current in the current year budget, which was a market and a merit component. And on average right now, it's running around 4.3, I believe, is what it was. So just to let you know, there's a little bit of wiggle room. They're usually able to give a little bit more than the... and that would be taken away because it would be across the board only 4%. And we do hear from directors about how they would really like that merit component to be able to reward and retain. Like if you have a five-person team and you have a superstar and they get the same as the person that's not a super of a star, that might be deflating to them. So they like it as a retention aspect as well.

All right.

Ms. Mayo and Ms. Mayo. Thank you. I'd like to make a motion that we remove the merit component and provide a 4% increase for all general hourly city workers not tied to performance.

All right. We have a motion on the floor, Ms. Anderson. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. So, Marie, I just had a question about what you said just now. If there is a removal of a merit-based portion of the increase, what does that mean does that mean that any all employees that are receive a you know on standard rating or high standard will receive the same merit or will all employees even those that are not at at standard, or if they're potentially below standard, will they receive this across the board?

Below standard, no. OK. But it's more a pass-fail. So if you're meets basics, then you would get four. If you're super exceeds, you get four. But to your point, if you're not meeting the standards, you would be on a performance improvement plan and not get it.

Right. And so when we think of our levels at the annual review,

Sorry, I'm double checking my facts with HR. No, that's fine.

Okay. Sorry. Sorry.

So HR just corrected me. So even if you don't meet across the board, you'd still get it. And that's no matter your performance, even if you're not meeting.

Thank you. And that's the road that I have with this particular motion is because that's what I thought. Just wanted to verify that with the, with the pros here. Okay. Effectively, someone who's doing an exceptional job and they get an exceptional rating versus someone who is not doing their job and they get a below standard rating. We're saying those folks are doing the same level of work and will receive. the same increase. I think that's troublesome for a variety of different ways, just being regular workforce environment, organizational development, creating career ladders for folks to advance, to be encouraged to move forward. I have trouble with that in particular. But the second piece of what I want to say is for those, so when you have someone who has an exceptional rating in the work that they do, typically, you know, there's an opportunity maybe for a one-time bonus or an additional percentage increase with this particular. Motion that we have there's no real opportunity to reward someone whose spent three hundred sixty five days of exceptional performance versus someone who spent three hundred sixty five days of below standard performance so i won't be able to support this motion given that type of interaction with our employees performance but certainly want to land at a place where employees are able to receive their increase if they're doing a great job. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

And just real quick point of clarification. So if you're exceeds, you would get typically you get more than four and you could get up to six and a half, a combination with the with the one time. With the market, thank you, not one time. With the market and the merit, you could get up to six and a half.

All right, Ms. Hashmi. I just want to make sure because there was some back and forth there. So under the motion that Council Member Mayo made, even those who are on performance improvement plan would get 4%?

Everyone across the board, yes, ma'am.

Okay. Okay.

That's all right. All right. Let's see. Ms. Owen and Mr. Driggs.

So if I could, and forgive, this is my first rodeo, did we not just agree that we were going to give, without performance being an aspect, the police and the fire? So you could be a subpar police officer and you could be a subpar firefighter and you still get the 10%? I'm not sure.

Do they always get their step?

regardless of performance? Yes. So it is not pass-fail, it's across the board, yeah.

I'm just trying to understand. Can you say that louder to Council Member Owens?

So council member Owens just wanted to clarify while we're talking about this, what we're talking about now is relates to what we just passed with public safety, public safeties across the board regardless, just like Ms. Mayo had proposed.

So has public safety ever had a performance component?

Two there.

Yes.

I'm phoning a friend in HR, Amanda Dillard, in the back row. Kelly may be able to speak to more than what police does, correct? You're the next contestant.

Come on down. Absolutely nothing.

Thank you.

Do you want me to repeat the question?

Yes, ma'am. Please.

Can you clarify for me? We've just voted on an increase for police and fire that does not seem to be dependent on performance. And so I'd ask the question, has that ever been the case? And so we've always had a distinction between performance for city employees but not for police and fire?

So if it's across the board pay raise, you have to have a meets PRD. If you don't have a meets PRD, if you have a marginal PRD, you're gonna go on a performance plan. While you're on a performance plan, Sheila, correct me if I'm wrong, you do not get that pay raise. Now, if it's across the board, everybody goes up. If you go from step one to step two, I'm a police officer, but on a year I go to step two, I have to get a PRD of meets to go to step two. That's your performance. If it's across the board, Sheila, everybody gets that pay raise.

Okay, so Marie, can you help me out then? You just described the system with city employees differing from that, and that was Council Member Anderson's point that that felt unfair. If you're a high performer, you get the same percentage as a low performer for city employees.

Yes, if there's a merit component. Okay. Here's the master.

Sheila Simpson, Director of Human Resources.

There are different pay plans designed for different reasons. And police and fire, they are on what's called a step plan. And traditionally, if you talk to, I'll use an example of a firefighter, a firefighter's paid to do a lot of things, and they do it in a big group, and they get paid to do that. And they can be in a busy station or a not-as-busy station, and so the philosophy there is you need the unit. That's why they're on a step plan. Police officers are paid very similarly. You need the unit, okay? Now, if they're not performing well, That is a management issue. And we expect the managers to address that issue and those officers will either stop being officers at some point or they're going to continue to be officers. But when you're on a step plan, they move with the plan. because as a unit when that unit's performing they are achieving expectations when the unit's performing if you have an under achieving person then the fire chief and the police chief will deal with that but i will guarantee you that if you have a police officer that's on step two and they move to step three that police officer is rated achieved overall Now, the other plan that you're comparing that to is called a pay-for-performance plan is what people tend to call it, or a merit-based performance plan. They are not designed the same way, nor were they intended to be designed the same way. So in our hourly pay group, what happens in the merit-based system is they have two components of pay. The first component is called a general wage increase. Everyone in the hourly workforce, general employees, will receive a general wage increase. General wage increase is not performance-based. It's a general wage increase. When you get to the merit component of how they are paid, which I think is in the book for 2.5%, then they... will have a merit-based system of which is correct. Some of those employees can earn up to 5% for that part of their merit. So what you're having is a complexity of trying to compare a Gala apple to a Honeycrisp apple. They're apples, but they're not the same apple. I would urge you not to compare it in that way, but to the point that I think was asked, if the managers and directors have to evaluate performance for any of our general employees, our hourly paid employees or our salary paid employees. When you have a general step, it does make it more difficult for the managers to, quote, reward your higher performers because when you take away the merit-based component of it, that's what happens when you take that component away. So our hourly pay plan, by practice, has been designed to look at both sides of that. That's why there's a general wage increase in that sector. There's a general wage increase that everyone would get. And then there is another component based on performance.

Thank you. All right. Everybody come. Mr. Driggs.

So I think it's really important that we preserve the performance component, because what happens is employees get a performance rating, say one to five, and then they have a compensation level that they're at relative to their peer group. So when you get high performing employees that are under earning relative, the manager needs to have an opportunity to rectify that and to recognize it. If you give the same increase to everybody, imagine what it's like. You're there at your job and you think, it doesn't matter what I do. I get the same increase as that guy. So personally, I feel strongly that we need to give our managers this tool. We need to have a dynamic pay structure that allows us to compensate for these disparities between performance and comparative pay. And for that reason, I would not support just 4% across the board.

All right. Let's see. Did I have?

No. OK. Ms. Mayo? I'd like to withdraw my motion.

Okay. I don't think we didn't vote on it, so I don't think we have to withdraw of it. All right. Let's go to the next item. The next item would be around. You withdraw. Never mind. Sorry. Okay. I am flabbergasted. Okay. Tell me. No, no.

We're good. She's good.

You ready to move to financial partners? Okay, thank you. So the next items are around financial partners. We had two partners that did submit and got rated, and they both got five votes to move forward with your consideration this evening.

All right, Mr. Hold on. Which page? Page 8. Page 8. Okay. All right, so... You are ready.

And the proposed funding source for this one. If you look, there's a couple options, but one of the proposed funding sources is the community investment contingency. And there's also important to note that Housing and Neighborhood Services is going to be holding a competitive process for community development block grants, CDBG funding in the coming months and for the struggle as well as other partners are also eligible to apply for money through there.

Mr. Mitchell has the floor.

Mayor and council, I'd like to make a motion to approve vote five and six. Second. Second.

We have a motion from Mr. Is there a discussion? All right. Who wants to start? Ms. Anderson.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just wanted to. Just a point of clarification. So these two organizations, did they go through the submission of the financial partners?

Yes, ma'am. But why are we voting on them now? They were not recommended for funding just based on the ranking.

They did not receive... And the other one scored.

So Marie, can you just, if you could, could you tell us what their rankings were and how far below of the threshold they were?

Yes, ma'am. I'm on it. So Prospera, and I'm sorry, I'm probably saying that wrong, scored a 94.0, and there was three others scoring above that were not funded, and for the struggle got an 89.2, and there was 15 others that were ranked above them that are not funded.

Okay, and then so within our financial partners that the committee went through, and approved, how many partners were actually approved for financing? I believe seven. Seven. Okay. Okay. I think both of these organizations do really great work, both for the struggle. But we're, I don't know, Ms. Mayfield, maybe in our third year now of having a process that I've sat through as a part of just being pro tem for the last two years where this committee has been working diligently to stand up a process. When we get to this time of the year, effectively the process is not honored. I really like the work that these organizations do, but I want to respect the work. This is the third year, so after the third time, let's try to respect this process that has been tweaked and modified by the committee. I thank them for their hard work. So though I appreciate the work that these organizations do, I don't think I can support this motion because of the honor of respecting the process. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

All right. Any other comments? Ms. Kimberly? Ms. Owen?

I appreciate the opportunity to weigh in and I will parrot the comments made by my colleague from District 1. I'm new to the process, but I do think that the process matters. Where I have deviated from that was my strong support for Safe Alliance because I put them in a different category in terms of when you dial 311, that is who you get. They are so integral to our address of public safety. And I think we need to focus very hard on the things that we do well. And I do not view either of these organizations as being as intrinsically wedded to our purpose as safe alliances. So I will not be supporting these. All right.

Ms. Mayfield.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Anderson. The other piece regarding your comments, this is the third time, and we council voted, council mandated staff to have a mandatory meeting, an info session. That was online. Staff goes above and beyond with these applications, reviewing all of them, scoring them. We have the opportunity if we don't, support the scoring to have a different conversation. But I think we need to take into consideration that when we add organizations based off of personal interests versus the actual application process, when we're talking about pay parity and we're talking about how we treat and respect our employees, These are also our employees. They're the ones that's directly working with us on a daily basis. So we charge budget team. We charge a team to go through the applications, answer questions, review them, come back with a proposal. And then when they propose, because we Marie shared it, we had over $6 million in requests that came in. We had 800,000 of some change, less than 1 million that we can actually allocate. So out of the SOC seven that were recommended every time we go against our own policy that we voted for, we're telling staff indirectly or directly, that we're going to let you run through this process, but understand we're going to do what we want to do regardless. So that's not a good use of their time. That's not a good use of the investment that we're making in their pay of tax dollars by having them running in circles and then not respect. We're not going to agree with everything. I get that. Something might be one or two points off, even half a point. But when we skip that, five to eight other organizations to pick an organization because of the personal relationship we have with them versus you write your check, your donation check to that organization and get your friends and partners to also support that organization. It sends a different message to our team, but it also sends a different message to the community because why would I go above and beyond to submit an application that can receive 100 or 99 or 98 when another organization cannot put the same effort and work and score better than me, but they are going to be awarded. Yes, these organizations do great work, If that's what we want to go by that we need to limit that we need to have a whole nother conversation we need to vote on and we need to eliminate the application process all together and just say we don't pick the organizations that we like because to go 3 years into this and direct the staff to create a process that we voted on. It's challenging to watch and it's disheartening and why we're having these conversations about how we discuss pay and respect of our employees. I just want us to keep in mind that some of those same employees are sitting in this room with us, and then when we get to their segment, after listening to us be so passionate about fighting for their autonomy in their work and we get to their part and if you and if I was a mega sweet anybody else about was in that employee, I like the so and so is just that he has spent all the time and that we get ready to come to my party completely did the exact opposite and that was 12 hours 15 hours. 38 hours in a week that I put into this and the this is what they do. So I just want, I said initially, and I'm consistent with it, I cannot support us adding when we just had so many conversations about an hour and a half about how do we reduce and how do we save funds. It is not respectful to the process that we as a council voted on, that we approved, and the direction that we gave to staff. But I do want to tell staff, thank you. We do appreciate all that you do. But in our humanness, we ain't going to act right. Thank you, Madam Mayor. J.D. ?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I agree with the process, but as a council, we need to also be conscious about when we decide to make the argument for the process, and then when we do votes, which this council has done before, where we then say the process doesn't matter. We can't pick and choose. We have to be consistent. So while I appreciate and understand where my colleagues are coming from when it comes to respecting the process, it's not always that way, right? This council, we voted on approving certain amount of dollars for housing trust fund when our category didn't have that allocation. And when we wanted to go through the process and send it back to committee, the council did not vote to do that they just voted to approve the dollars immediately so you know i don't think we can make the argument about the process when there are times where you choose and pick the process and to city staff i appreciate all the work that you guys do right and i think that is essential um and i have not BEEN PART OF THIS COUNCIL WHEN WE CREATED THE PROCESS FOR FINANCIAL PARTNERS AND WHATNOT. SO THIS IS MY FIRST RODEO. AND WHEN I DO LOOK AT THE LIST AND I SEE THE HIGH SCORES AND THEN I SEE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS THAT GET VERY LOW SCORES AND I DON'T HAVE A full picture of what criteria goes into that, I would like to also question that process and see if we can make it even better, right? And go in through another iteration. I mean, that's what we are here as a public body is to make things better and improve them along the way. I also think, you know, I can personally speak, you know, while I don't have a personal relationship for the struggle, and I know Prospera works in District 5 as well, but, you know, I don't have personal relationships with those folks, but I think the work is essential. And we did do a straw vote to look at exploring these options. And so, Marie, I do want to ask, What is the community investment contingency and has that contingency been part of previous budget or is it a new part of the budget for this year?

Thank you for that. So the community investment contingency is a new component. We've had very tight budgets lately and we do not have flexibility to address community needs or maybe initiatives that come along at council's discretion throughout the year. And this was just a little cush to be able to, not a cush, but it was just a little leeway to be responsive to things that come out. throughout the year. So it's new money. It's not already committed.

So would you agree, and this is also to the city manager, let's say if along the process there comes a community investment to be made that did not go through any type of process, it just, you know, a new opportunity showed up, right? We can use... That was a close session. We could use... We can use this contingency to fund whatever project comes along our way, right? I mean, if the council so chooses. Okay. No further questions. Thank you.

Ms. DeGeneres.

Oh, sorry.

No, I'm sorry. This is for Ms. Watkins.

Thank you. I think Council Member Masueta already is. Thank you. Yeah, that's okay. I think council members must, but I already is, um, ask the question I was going to ask, but I don't think I really heard the answer community investment contingency. What is community investment as a program or is, is the name when I hear contingency, that sounds like room for value at scope on top of base scope. This is something that's a standalone.

Yep, so to Mr. Driggs' point earlier tonight, we used to have routinely surpluses, 15 million, 18 million, and we would just roll it into PAYGO. We had no surplus last year. We'll have no surplus this year. So what we try to do is have something in PAYGO that if we start to struggle with some of the line items, that we would have something.

Gotcha. Okay. Um, 250, 250. Okay. So thank you for that. Um, I agree with really much of what each of my colleagues have said, even from differing perspectives. Um, for me, I do think, um, that we do have to give ourselves, give pause to the idea that this very same process, um, almost eliminated safe Alliance. Um, and so, um, Certainly, while there's been great work done, we always have opportunity to make improvements or to adjust based on new council, new values that pop up. It's not that the program or the process itself was lacking, it's just that it may need to be updated to reflect our new approach in particular. So with this one, I certainly respect everybody's position. I do think that for the struggle serves the senior population in a way that I didn't necessarily see covered in other areas. And so for that reason, I'm open to an exception here, but I'm also very much supportive of taking a look at the process itself and just how we do financial partnerships versus RFP, because I see here that even in this note, this particular organization could be eligible for a competitive process through a CDBG grant. And so as long as we are in a position where we trust and have confidence in the criteria and the scoring methodology, then I would be apt to move much more of this work to an RFP process throughout the year myself.

All right. So our next person is don't pull that mirror massage mirror.

Thank you. Madam mayor. Um, I agree with what council member Watlington said. Our process almost eliminated safe Alliance that operates 24 seven hotline for domestic violence survivors. So though I worked on the process, I, It is not perfect. What I would like to see is that we take out the qualitative component, and we only focus on the quantitative component, which is, did they submit the application? Did they attend the mandatory orientation? Did they submit the financial package? Do they have all the financial documents, balance sheet, and cash flow, and so on? So that way, that council can make a decision on the organizations. Also, I've heard from organizations that scoring them actually, though scoring doesn't mean, doesn't translate into whether they are doing great work or not, but certainly the perception is that. Shuri and the entire team did an excellent job trying to really tighten the process from where we were. But I think you're right, Council Member Watlington, it is time that we devise the policy. where we just focus on the quantitative and not the qualitative measures. And that's where the council comes in, where we make decisions based on what we see at the grassroots level. Because we know in each one of the, each district council member knows the organization that does the work and the organizations that are involved in day to day. I would make a motion to refer the policy to the BGIR committee to revisit some of this criteria. But I know there is already a motion on the floor, so I would like us to continue with that, and then I'll make a motion on the policy referral.

Okay, Mr. Graham.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. One of the things that the manager says at every budget meeting when he gives us his presentation at the end he says it's now your budget and so there is no disrespect for any staff member or staff that worked on it uh it's now in the hands of the city council to make an appropriate decision and we just went through an hour and a half um tearing up his line island related to willies and fire right but no disrespect for the workers who worked on that right council made a a decision I don't have a relationship with For the Struggle. I know the young lady, she's very sharp. I clearly understand the impact that she's making on the ground. I understand the impact of several other nonprofit organizations that are making right, do it hard for the invisible. just do it movement for the struggle and others. I know their impact on the ground and certainly I did not support the process three years ago for this very same reason. It's just scoring folks and it just didn't really take impact into consideration and knowledge of council members who see the work. And so that's why I support for the struggle and others. And I hope and I talked to the manager about this before, just like we have now embedded the organization dealing with domestic violence into the budget. There has to be a way for us to embed some of these nonprofit organizations that are doing good work making good impact as a part of that they should not have to come back year after year after year that somehow they can be embedded into the budget as as whether it's a code enforcement or seniors those type of things mr manager that we kind of do on a day-to-day basis Certainly, Hardship for the Invisible, as an example, working on our homeless and our house population, when we are sleeping, they are working, literally. And so I just think we got to look at it differently. And I do accept that recommendation when it comes to kind of really look at it differently. And I think it goes beyond just the scoring, where do they fit? Are there a strategic partner with the city? And how does that kind of tie into the overall budget? Because in the big scheme of things, $4.4 billion budget, $100,000 is really not a whole lot of money. And they probably should need more to have greater impact. But I'll rest there.

All right. So our next speaker is Ms. Johnson.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I wish as we were having this in-depth conversation about this line item, we had the image on the screen. I've asked Ms. Harris if she could share that so that people can see or that we could even see the ranking because it's not in the book. It would be very, very, very helpful. But I did look at it and see that the total number requested for all of the organizations was like $6.1 million. This would have been at the bottom. I thought it said six on the paper I just looked at.

Yes, it's $6.2 million.

That would have been a great place to spend $6 million if we had saved it a few minutes ago. But anyway, I digress. I'd like to be able to see it, and I think both of my colleagues are right. Council Member Rashmere, I wanted to ask you, if we looked at only qualitative ranking, how would we choose the organizations? Quantitative. If we only looked at the net or the process, check, check, check, how would we measure the organizations to select?

That's to district council members. Council Member Graham said it. We know, the district council members know which organizations.

So let me add that. We do know organizations that are doing the work, but there could be organizations that are doing the work that we don't know about. We do know the ones that are doing the work, but we can't say, I can't say. that I know all of them. Some of them may not know how to market or reach us or be at the level, and they could be doing, you know, impactful work. There are other organizations in the community that serve domestic violence survivors that don't have the relationships or the know-how to reach out to council members. So I think that we need to be careful in just looking at the ones that have checked the boxes and then we need to figure out how to know who to select. I think we need the ranking system. My question's for the city attorney. If we advertise the process and all of these organizations have complied with the process, followed the rules, Did we advertise how they would be selected? Could we open ourselves up for any liability by deviating from our process and skipping over the organizations to select the organization? I'm looking for, if you scroll up or down.

And before, while Andrea's, while I count, I'm sorry. Attorney Leslie Fights getting acclimated. Just to be clear, we didn't say in advance on, we let them know they would be scoring in the scoring criteria, I believe, Cherry, yes? But we did not tell them that we were going to definitely go highest to lowest. Okay. Did we tell them the criteria, yes or no?

No, we do not tell them how we're going to select the organizations.

We didn't tell them the criteria in advance, just that they need to link to a strategic priority.

As a part of the information session that the financial partners needed to attend that was mandatory, we explained the importance of connecting their work to council strategic priorities. So we provided links to the strategic priorities, the type of data that the city of Charlotte is tracking to show that we're advancing strategic priorities to ensure that their work is in alignment with that. We then ask that they provide performance measures, and those performance measures, again, had to directly link to council strategic priorities, and that is what we use as a part of the scoring criteria.

May I respond? Okay. So can you show me where the two organizations are that we're looking at? We don't have them numbered, right? Okay. I was just thinking the ranking. Okay. So we awarded the top seven and then, so there's for the struggle and where's the other one?

They scored a 94.

So these aren't in any type of numerical order?

Okay.

These are in order based on the council priority and then alphabetical order. Alphabetical order, right.

It would be really helpful if we could see how they were ranked. Okay.

Yeah, I'm just sorry by the rankings.

I mean, we're in the meeting now. That's okay. And I can look at the piece of paper. It just would be very helpful to justify. I understand what Council Member Mayfield and Anderson are saying. How do we justify to the organizations that scored higher than the other organizations without opening ourselves up for...

scrutiny or you know all right thank you if i may respond briefly to your question councilmember johnson the process is outlined as as guidance but Ultimately, it's always council's budget, and you retain the ability to add, take away, subtract from any of these budget items. What I will say is that these groups, they can expect an objective process, particularly at the staff level, but once the budget is turned over to council, You can look at a totality of circumstances, not the least of which are conversations that happen here in this space that would lend to the legislative process. I will say, ultimately, any organization that participates in this process, they benefit from council's appropriation, but they're not entitled to a certain appropriation.

All right. Ms. Anderson? Ms. Johnson, are you? Okay. Ms. Anderson?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Marie, just one question for you. On page 8, section 5, The second bullet point here, we've talked about for the struggle and the great work they do in the community. I have always wholeheartedly agree. But there is this bullet point that they might have an opportunity to apply for the competitive process of the community development block grant. Can you tell me or maybe lean on staff if you don't know, when does that block grant open up? When does that process grant open up? Is it ahead of us or is it behind us?