City Council - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon, everyone. It is 2.35 p.m. on June the 2nd. And welcome to our budget committee wrap-up. First, we are going to start, we'll get first through the roll call, Ms. Mauricio.

Councilwoman Dr. Easter-Thomas.

Present.

Councilwoman Green. Present. Councilwoman Logan. Present. Councilman Canale. Chair White.

Thank you very much. So we're going to go through the resolutions first. So we have resolution number one. We've already done resolution two. I think we already did two.

We have a revised resolution.

So resolution number two is a resolution from Councilwoman Dr. Easter Thomas, Councilwoman Jerry Green, and Chairwoman Swearengin Washington, which is a resolution to amend the fiscal year 2027 operating budget. Who wants to speak on resolution number two?

I will, Chair. Thank you. So thank you for calling that. Resolution number two is to amend the operating budget specifically aligned to the pre-K fund. So, and this is just trying to be in line and step with last year or this current year, FY26. So as you all remember, colleagues, last year, 2025, the city and the county committed to educating expanding pre-K to being pre-K for all, which opened up more seats for more families and their three to four-year-olds around the county. Whatever, regardless of what's going on on the county side, as far as with pre-K, I'm sure that they'll get there together. But I'm asking that we return the funding level to 8.5. So currently FY26, right now we have 8.5 allocated for pre-K. In the proposed operating budget for FY27, it has $7 million, and this resolution is asking that it be returned to $8.5 million. So that would be in the whereas, amending the operating budget. Increasing the pre-K fund and fund 260 by $1.5 million. That is coming from the sales tax referendum fund, fund 245, and going to the pre-K fund, fund 260. I do have two co-sponsors on here, also folks who care about the livelihood of our pre-K age folks. I would love to have other co-sponsors as well. And I would also like to have our colleagues, my colleagues vote on this as we need to return the levels to what they once were.

Thank you. Chief person, I see you here. Could you give us a little bit of understanding about what the health of the 245 fund and what impact a $1.5 million move from fund 245 to fund 260 would be? And just to refresh everyone's memory, if you could just kind of just one, two, three, what fund, what comes out of fund 245, where we are with it. From my understanding, in years past, we've ended up with a surplus. I think we're not in a surplus this year in that fund. So just kind of tell us what's going on there.

Yes, ma'am. So Fund 245 is a sales tax referendum fund. It was originally envisioned to restore pension and retirement benefits for our public safety officers, as well as restore health benefits to a prior commitment that we made to our public safety authorities. And if anything was left over, the way it reads, street paving and pre-K were to be funded. At the current time, we are spending roughly $20 million more than we're bringing in. So we are in a position where we're having to curtail expenditures coming out of 245.

I'm sorry. You said we're how much?

We've been spending lately about $20 million more than we're bringing in.

Question.

Out of the fund?

Point of clarity. Chief Parsons, is that expenditure related to paving or is it not?

Well, some of it was related to paving, but we don't have any plan for paving for 27.

And that's why we moved the paving from taking out of fund 245 to our CIP budget.

Right, because we have run into a deficit position.

Right, so not to re-explain what you said, but I did see some of my colleagues' reactions. So we were spending that much more because we were including paving in it. Now we're not including paving in it, and we're taking paving from CIP, which means we shouldn't still be spending $20 million more because we're not reducing Fund 245 for $13 million in paving.

Well we are still spending a great deal to restore some of the benefits.

Do you have the number?

Give me just a second. We'll have the number for you shortly. Okay.

Either way, Chair and colleagues, I do not want to really, you know, argue about the future of children over paving if we can kind of understand that. And so I feel like if there's a way that we can work towards getting there, I think we should definitely try to figure out a way towards getting there.

Okay, so what I think what we need is, because I don't think the commentary is really paving or children, I think it's a 20 million deficit. We need to understand what the $20 million deficit is. I think we all agree that pre-K is super important. I absolutely do. I support pre-K efforts in whatever way we can find them. I want us to be able to do that, but I also want to make sure that we have healthy funds around here because there are a lot of things that we all can bring up that we think are important and that that are worthy of money. But right now we understand that we are running a really tight budget. We've understood that throughout these budget hearings. I've expressed to Chief Person that I also believe that the budget is under budgeted. It is very optimistic in terms of restraints, especially if you look at the material and supplies lines for many of the years going back, what's been budgeted for this year is significantly less than what's been budgeted for for the last probably four or five years in many of these areas. So not only what's been budgeted for, but under what they've been coming in in terms of actuals. So I think optimistic is an understatement as to some of these numbers that I've seen, which is a big concern for us being under budgeted, especially also in this climate where so much is so unpredictable. So I think it's really important that we get the actual numbers to understand how much from the fund, 245 fund, was paving, how much will you not be using this year for paving, and what's there now, so that we can know if the 1.5 million can actually come out of that fund and not have some type of impact, or if there's potentially some other place where this $1.5 million can be found.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you. Chair. Was there anything else?

Yes. Are we, upon a clarification, are we voting on each resolution, or are we just introducing each resolution? We're just introducing them. We're not voting today. When are we voting on the resolution? June 8th?

June 9th. June 9th. At Tuesday Council? Mm-hmm. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. All right. Going to resolution number three. Resolution to amend the fiscal year 2027 Capital Improvement Program budget sponsored by Councilwoman Cooper-Sutton. You're recognized. Thank you, Chair.

This resolution, oh, three, we're going to three. I'm looking at one, two. Okay, this resolution is to give what this whole city has been talking about. We've been enduring for quite some time and I wanted to add $200,000 to street paving. It's so important and we know what the presentation has been like with Public Works and the issue. But we are going to have to make some hard decisions and do what needs to be made. And sometimes it's unfavorable, but this is what needs to happen. And the reason why, do you have what? Okay. We're waiting for the pictures. That's one pothole, and this is what our street looks like because of infrastructure. We have not paid, we have just have not given the attention what needs to happen. Oh, that's an Amber Alert. Okay. Everybody's phones. Okay. And I was literally, when I sent this over to Public Works, I was literally in tears because I just got one of my vehicles back running again. And as soon as I got it back running, this is what happened. I went into a pothole. Now my car sounds like, and I'm driving it now because it's the Toyota. And now I got to try to figure out, now my husband and I got to try to figure out how I'm going to get it fixed. It's rattling again. And I mean, I literally was literally crying when I was writing this email. And I just said, help, because I can't even imagine what it's like for anyone else. And if it hasn't been reported, guess what? They treat me the same way. I get nothing. It comes straight out of my pocket. And so this $200,000 is going to start. We have to do it. It's a sacrifice. We got to learn how to move some money around to do what needs to be done. I know they talk about MLGNW and the tree service, but there has been a huge benefit from it. Yes, it was a lot. But we're going to have to do what needs to be done to get our streets and to save the people from such hardship and burden when it comes to riding down our streets. There's another picture, I don't know if you have it, where the street is caving in. I mean, just literally caving in. And once again, I'm just trying to get home. I'm looking like a drunk driver trying to do this. And if the police was probably somewhere around, probably would have pulled me over because I'm trying to eliminate more problems than my husband looking at me like I'm crazy. Yolanda, you don't see the potholes? Nope, because I'm trying to get home. And so this is why I am asking my colleagues to support this $200,000 that I want to give to Public Works for paving our streets to save some burdens. And I'm sure it's plenty more, but we have to start somewhere.

Thank you. Thank you so much, Councilwoman Cooper-Sutton. I, as well as our other council members, share your concerns regarding street paving. We have had discussions about potential bond issuances. The number that we've gotten from our director, Scott Morgan, for street paving to get it to where we need, I think it's an estimate of about 80 to 100 billion. Is that correct, Director Morgan? about 80 to $100 million. So what I would say is, is that what I've looked into is right now, chief person has advised me that a one penny tax increase will get us about $1.85 million. So about five pennies will get us about $10 million, which means we'll be able to get an issuance of bonds of about $100 million. So I think that would put a dent in it. To be honest, I appreciate the effort. I don't know if $200,000 is going to do much in that fund. But I think we do at least, Chief Person, to be able to fully vet what the request of Councilwoman Cooper-Sutton. It would be good to know what these different funds or line items are so that we can fully evaluate those potential changes. But the truth of the matter is, Councilwoman Cooper said we need a whole lot more than $200,000 for you to be able to feel the difference on that street pavement. But I do understand and believe that we have to start somewhere. I just don't know if $200,000 is that start. But we are looking into some potential ways to be able to get the funding that is necessary to really put a dent in our street pavement, as all of our council members have expressed that to be a priority of our term.

Well, I think that anything helps anywhere. Even as a business person, you have to start somewhere to build off of something. And I understand that the $200,000 may not be a lot, but guess what? It's something. And we always say, we don't have money for this, or we don't have money for that, or we're looking for money for this. And then when myself and my analysts and this team here and these young ladies and this team of analysts go and they search and they look, that's an effort. That's hard work to even find a penny to do so. So to me, as a businesswoman, as a constituent in this city, and decades and decades of saying, no, we cannot fund, $200,000 may not be nothing to somebody, but it will sure see put forth an effort that the constituents in this city sees that we're trying to do something and we're not just moving the needle just a little bit, but we are putting forth an effort and we hear them and we see them, but we just cannot continue to do what we're doing. As I said before, and I don't want to sound redundant, it may be unfavorable and it's hard. And it's hard and it's painful, but they are expecting us to do what we need to do to make it happen. And we can't tax our way out of this. Every time something happens, it gets on the poor backs of the poor people that in this city and the numbers that look like poverty. Where is the return of investment on the property taxes and the taxes that we pay? Not only do I pay one tax, but I pay two taxes. I pay with county and we pay with city if you own any type of ownership, home ownership in this city. But however, I appreciate you, Chairwoman. I thank you. But this $200,000 is going to start somewhere, even if it's on the street, that I got a letter that I'm going to present later, that someone was told that their street would be paved, and she's still waiting, still waiting to this day. And so this body has to do something different and make the hard sacrifices.

Thank you so much, Councilwoman Cooperson. we're going to move on to resolution number four. Resolution number four is a resolution to amend the fiscal year 2027 Capital Improvement Program budget for Mud Island Amphitheater Repairs, sponsored by Councilman J.B. Smiley, Chairwoman Swearingen Washington, and Councilwoman Cooper Sutton. Who wants to present on this one?

I'll do it. It's going to be brief. Brevity is the key word for the day. 2025, the council, I think six council members sent a letter in support of activating the amphitheater. I think someone from the administration walked through the amphitheater to figure out what repairs need to be made. And later that year, he gave us and we received an estimate to what it would take to get the amphitheater up to ADA compliant. Subsequent to that, you know, we bring in his resolution to do just that. I spoke to the administration director, you know, Chief Zena and all his other titles he has. I think the administration adamantly disagreed with where the money would come from, and they came up with a place that was more appropriate. It will now be taken out of the Harbor Dock line item, PW04123, if that is right. Shout out to Meredith. If it's wrong, I'll take the blame. But that's it. I mean, we want to see the amphitheater activated until such a time we can replace it. So $150,000 coming out of the Harvard Dark Line.

The administration is comfortable with that.

Okay. Any council members in the queue? Oh, all right. Thank you so much. Resolution. I'm sorry. Councilwoman Dr. Issa Thomas, you're recognized.

Thank you. Just a few questions. I think that, you know, when we look at the amphitheater, we definitely need to be activating it in some way. What was the, I think, Councilman Smiley, you said that the projected cost to make it ADA compliant is $150,000. That'll do it? No, it don't look.

So the, I think the actual cost is $96,875 on what we wanted to do since the SME was done in 2025 make sure there was some additional revenue over there. Additional monies over there so that when the work is get done. We don't have to come back and say, hey, we need more money to get it done.

Well, then make it like

performance ready though like if we if we put this for the ada repairs would it make it like okay next week we can have a show turn the lights on everybody come through the turnstile let's go so the there was a i'm gonna let chief adam speak to what happened when they did the walkthrough but the requested amount was 96 875 to just get it to go so they can start activating it on a temporary basis

Because I hate for us to spend it and then, okay, now we got to spend this much more to get it actually usable for what we're trying to do.

The goal is just temporary activation.

So just like a one-time activation.

Temporary activation. That was the goal. In 2025, you know, myself, Councilwoman Green, JSW, Councilwoman Walker, Councilman Ford, and Councilwoman Cooper-Sundin signed a letter in support of the temporary activation of As a result of that letter, I think Chief Adams, along with another individual, walked through the amphitheater to figure out what needs to take place so that they can begin temporary activation of this space.

So this is just for temporary activation. This isn't for...

This is not a new amphitheater. A new amphitheater is something new.

So who's the temporary activation? Who's going to do it? We're spending $150,000 for one performance.

Temporary activation, I'm assuming, is going to be much more than just one performance.

It's going to be a heck of a performance for $150,000. Go ahead, Chief. I'm sorry.

No problem. So Councilman Smiley is correct. This does not make the Mud Island Amphitheater ADA compliant. What it does is it makes the one time or the temporary activation. So it's all based on the nature of the event itself. So that's, you know, I don't want to mislead anyone as to this is the extent of the repairs that are there, but this is all based on that specific event. And so I think you all are both right. This is the money that would allow that activation for that specific event.

I'm supportive of it, but can we change it so that it's not misleading in the document? Because it makes it seem as though this amount will make it just ready to do anything when in actuality it's just for the activation, which is fine. But like Chief said, we don't want to be misleading. And then somebody come back and say, well, you said you made it compliant with our taxpayer money. We want to have something, too, three months after temporary activation.

And so I have a question. Is this something that has been an issue in being able to use it?

So yes, ma'am, there are outstanding structural issues there, electrical issues, but then most importantly, paving issues at the amphitheater. So there are operational issues, but then there are accessibility issues as well that need to be addressed at the amphitheater that has rendered it not usable at this point.

Now we're talking. So question, once this is fixed, will it then be usable or do we still have the checklist of issues that deem it not usable?

Only for this temporary activation because the temporary activation has been designed and it has been walked through to the extent where you have points of ingress and egress. You have your parking taken care of. You have the whatever vending that is associated with this event along with the entertainment such that it is accessible, but it does not make the entire amphitheater accessible.

I get that part. So my question, not even accessible. My question is, does it make it usable? And so when you say temporary activation, does that mean that this is one event that's in mind or a series of events that's in mind? What's the temporary activation anticipating? And when we say temporary activation, whose term is this? Like, is this some kind of term of standard of use or what is it?

No, it's not an industry term. It is literally, we were approached, the administration and council, with regard to one event. And one of the things that the administration asked for, look, this is... a lot of money to just have one event. So let's kind of talk about what that series of events. So I think there may be a series of events, but not to the extent, never to the extent that this is going to fully activate the amphitheater. It is going to be solely contained to that one specific type of event. So every event will have to look like this one in order for this to be compliant.

You know what I mean? So I don't think the resolution is misleading at all. I think it's one, two, three, four, five, six, the six whereas calls, whereas the repairs to the facility would begin the work of reactivating the venue's safety for potential events. It doesn't say anything about repairing the entire facility. It's saying this work will begin. When the work begins and this money is allocated to start the repairs, This type of event will be able to go on at this particular facility. But look forward to further conversation, particularly at the council meeting on Tuesday.

Okay, thank you. Any other members in the queue? All right, we're going on to resolution number five. Resolution number five is a resolution to amend the fiscal year 2027 operating budget sponsored by Councilwoman Cooper Sutton. Councilwoman Cooper Sutton, you're recognized.

Thank you. This resolution came about because it's very dear to my heart. This is for the Asian Commission. They were here last Tuesday, and we asked, and I asked, one of the questions was, there were many gaps that were missing, but if there was one gap we could really close and could really help, because she gave... Five years from now, if we don't start doing something that people that are senior citizens that are disabled will be in a hungry, hungry state. They will be hungry. We're looking at five years down the road, which is just around the corner. And so Councilwoman Logan and I have been really talking, but I found some funds to help feed our senior citizens, and those that are disabled. And so this is what this resolution represents. And if you go look at your global... data and you look at your stats and you see what's happening around the world. And of course, we know what is happening right here in our city. Our seniors and those that are disabled, we are responsible for taking care of them and making sure their needs, they have paid their dues, and they should not have to figure out if they're going to eat cat food, dog food, or whether they're going to make a sacrifice to pay a bill and not eat and go hungry. And so this is why this resolution is very important to me.

Thank you, Chair, Chairwoman.

Thank you so much. Sorry, I asked my colleagues to sponsor with me and vote on this resolution with me. Thank you.

Okay, so you said it's going to, is it going to the Aging Commission of the Mid-South?

Yes.

Is that right?

Yes.

Okay. All right. Any council members in the queue? Councilwoman Green, you're recognized.

Thank you. This is a very worthy cause. And, you know, I love my senior center, the McWhorter Senior Center that is in my district. I'm wondering, though, this resolution and your previous one are removing funds from MATA. I'm wondering if there are other line items that maybe the administration could help us locate that doesn't affect our public transportation. I know in particular one that I noticed during the budget hearings was in parks, there was like a 4x increase in overtime. And there was no real explanation given on the 4x overtime from one year to the next in parks budget. Again, I'm not trying to not have our parks people paid, but I'm just trying to find a place in the budget where I can support this that doesn't take money from public transportation.

Well, Adams, I see that you're coming to save again, and I appreciate that. And this will not affect MATA's budget at all. And I think that Chief Adams has an explanation where this money is coming from. Thank you.

So, I'm sorry, council members. Antonio Adams, Chief Operating Officer, 125 North Main. What I would ask is, in this, I understand that Council Member Cooper-Sudden has identified a funding source. What I would ask is that you provide us the same courtesy as the last resolution in the Be it further resolved that gives us an option, the administration, if it's so approved to find the appropriate funding source. One of the things that we don't want to do is take from an important personnel line in parts. So if we could just be allowed that courtesy just in the be it further resolved portion that allows us that opportunity.

I appreciate that, but that's kind of vague. I'm wondering if we can pre-identify the source of funding for this that is not MATA. If you don't want the parks over time, I understand. I just don't wanna take from public transportation cuz I know right now we're still being able to keep it free. And I think that's also very important for many of our citizens. So if there's a way that we can help her find, this is just $100,000. I feel like we've got to be able to find that in our budget somewhere.

Well, this is a program that did not come to fruition. Am I correct? Where I'm taking these funds from? From BRT. It says MATA. It's a program that was in MATA that didn't come from fruition.

So...

But MATA only has one line. That's what I'm saying. Like...

I get it. And so if you allow us the opportunity to work to identify that. Yeah, I mean, we have until two weeks from now.

I just hope that when we come back on the 9th, I can sign on as a co-sponsor. Yeah.

You know? Thank you. Yeah, well, I'm not taking anything from Parks. Because we've already discussed this. This was discussed. And we talked about this. And I wouldn't have never brought it if it had not been discussed and there was some type of agreement around it. But I understand it because I want everyone to be a sponsor on this, especially when it comes to our citizens. And they have paid their dues. They have given their time, their life. They have made the sacrifice. And when you have to send well checks and you hear your constituents and you hear people and you hear the Aging Commission come there and say that in five years, if we don't do something, if we don't do something, that we're going to see an epidemic that is going to be out of control. And this money was coming from a program that did not come to fruition. I talked with whomever I needed to talk to to make sure, because I don't want to take anything from MATA, because MATA is in such a need, and they have a loan from us. And I'm very conscious and very aware of that before I even did this, Councilwoman.

I agree. Maybe it's just a parenthesis or something that we can add in that's around BRT. It's just not evident from the resolution. So that's fine. If we're doing it out of something that, and I know about the BRT too. Yes. If it is something that we're not taking away from funding for, you know, our actual routes, our drivers, whatever, that's fine. I just would, I would like for it to be in the resolution a little bit more clearly. That's all. Thank you. Thank you.

Council, Chairwoman Swearingen-Washington, you're recognized.

I was going to say the same thing. I think all of these are wonderful programs, but when you add it up from Resolution 3, 5, and 6, that is $400,000 from that. So we can just make sure that we are being diligent and see if we can pull it from somewhere else or that there is a program that we're not utilizing anymore.

Thank you.

We will look and, of course, consult with the mayor to then work with Councilwoman Cooper Sutton as well.

Yes, because these funds are not being used. How long this program was in existence?

Well, we'll do that. I would say, yeah, that's something. If you could send Chief Person any questions you have regarding that and then get it back. Yeah, we've already done all that. So maybe the wording, and I don't have a problem doing that.

But when there's a need, we cannot erase it. It's unfavorable, and I understand that. And these are hard decisions. We're in a hard place. But I will not leave this earth knowing that I had an opportunity to make a change and to help somebody and especially to feed our seniors. I will not... That will not be on my record.

Thank you, Councilwoman Cooper-Sutton.

We appreciate your passion.

And we share that passion for our seniors as well. We'll try to make sure that the administration locates that $100,000 for Councilwoman Cooper-Sutton. Thank you kindly. Resolution number six, a resolution to amend the fiscal year 2027 capital improvement program budget sponsored by Councilwoman Cooper-Sutton. Councilwoman Cooper-Sutton, you recognize.

Need to go talk about it. I guess, how much is this? This is for Robert Church Park. Is this the one for Robert Church? Let's see. I think this is the one for Robert R. Church Park, who needs some TOC and some improvement. And so that was that money was going towards that. It's in the downtown area. It's part of the downtown area. And so I guess we have to talk to Chief again, but that's out of the $400,000 that... We found and located that those funds were once again not being used or utilized and what the program once again is a redundant, as I may sound, did not manifest itself.

Thank you so much, Councilwoman Cooper. Parks is here. Is there anything that you all wanted to say about improvements in terms of Robert R. Church Park and the need for the $100,000 there? I don't know. That's what I want to know. And if you're not prepared, I understand, because you may not have seen this resolution yet. It's a new resolution that came about. I just don't know if you're already familiar with some issues potentially with Robert R. Church Park, because I don't know what brought about the $100,000 specifically to that park.

Yes. So Justice Bolden, 2599 Avery, we have had some internal discussions just long term about the future of Robert R. Church Park. And I'll just indicate this is the first time I'm seeing the resolution.

So that's fine. If you could maybe get with Councilwoman Cooper Sutton, try to figure out her concerns and see if perhaps they're already addressed somewhere potentially in the CIP budget or somewhere else. in you all's plans. So we don't want to reallocate some money to where you all may already have some plans to already address her concerns.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you so much. Appreciate you all. Resolution number seven. is a resolution to amend the fiscal year 2027 operating budget sponsored by Councilwoman Logan. Councilwoman Logan, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you all for this opportunity. I wanted to bring to your attention, we allocated, we approved $1.5 million to support the Hospitality Hub North. And it was moved out of the budget this year for FY27 and moved to FY28. And their plans are already out to bid, and the bids are due June 24th. Contracting will take no longer than 30 days. We'll be installing CIP-backed infrastructure. in August of this year. So moving this is really going to adversely affect this project. And we started on this project in 2021. And this same 1.5 million that we approved in 2021, we've been approving all along. Now they're ready for the funds, and now they're being told they have to wait. And as you know, Housing is a major issue in our community. We are extremely understocked with housing. Also, you know, people are losing their jobs, and housing instability is really a major issue. Homelessness is really a major issue and is growing. I don't know if you all know, Louisiana just passed the homelessness bill, which criminalizes homelessness states. for our $500, or you go to jail. And so this is a serious issue for me. It has been ever since I was elected, and I want to make certain that this project happens. And without this funding, it's in jeopardy. So I would like to see us find, I know administration finance wants to find, see if we can find it from somewhere else, but we definitely need to find it.

Yes, ma'am. And it's understood. And I think what we'll have to do is go back and look at our CIP budget and how we've allocated across the years to see if there is an opportunity to adjust some of our planned expenses for the upcoming 27 year versus the other years to reallocate some resources.

Question, is there anywhere else, and this could be for you, Councilwoman Logan, or any member that's able to answer, even chief person, is there any other funds allocated to this particular project or hospitality hub in the budget for the FY27 year?

There are some operating expenses that we typically allocate to the Hospitality Hub. I don't know exactly if they're in HCD, but I believe they are. But these specifically for Hospitality Hub North would be CIP expenses. And that's why we want to take a hard look at that and reallocate the funds that we have now to look at opportunities to address that. This is more imminent than I think we probably envisioned when we did the CIP budget.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Anything else, Councilwoman Logan? Any other members in the queue?

All right, thank you.

Resolution number eight is a resolution to amend the fiscal year 2027 operating budget to establish the council family youth stabilization package sponsored by Councilwoman Dr. Easter Thomas and Councilwoman Jerry Green. If I can be recognized here?

You're recognized. Thank you. So this piggybacks well on what Councilwoman Logan said about homelessness and a lot of the need that is out there right now. We've broken this down into a couple of buckets of groups that are in desperate need. This would not be recurring. This is emergency stabilization. And we have talked with people who work in this space about how this would work and if it could work. And the agreement is it is. And we've talked to the administration about it as well, and they're supportive. But I'll say this to you. So we have a temporary housing assistance and family stabilization for our school-age children that are experiencing homelessness. If you don't know, there's about 6,000 kids in MSCS that are either living on shelters, living in cars, living in couches every year. And that's about 1 in 20 students. And they can't all go to the shelters because, like, you know, I think about I'm a mom with a 16-year-old son. We couldn't go to a shelter together. So this would help provide assistance, much like we did during ARPA times, temporary assistance to be able to get them into apartment buildings or other places where the family can stay together. So that's one piece of it. The second piece is foster children who are aging out. We have about 900 to 1,000 foster kids in Shelby County, and about 100 of them age out every year. And the problem is, even when they're given what little they're given with DCS when they leave, if their car breaks down, if they lose their job, etc., they can spiral into homelessness very quickly. And there's a great need for these children to also have stable places to go. So that's two of the programs. The third is, you've probably heard that around food assistance, there's many people who are hungry, as Councilwoman Cooper-Sutton spoke about seniors. But youth also in our city are living below poverty and experiencing hunger. And it's particularly problematic in our refugee and immigrant population right now, because while we fund places like MIFA and Meals on Wheels, because of the presence of ICE in our community, they're afraid to go wait in these lines and go pick up their food baskets. So this is specifically to target and work with organizations that are well known in those communities to get food directly to them. And then we've put in money for administration of these programs. So we're hoping to get your support. This is some of the most vulnerable people. This would be across our city, across all of our districts, to be able to help them in their time of need in these emergent situations we're finding people in.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you. And this is coming from the Capital Pago Fund. Is that right? Yes, Chair. Okay. And where did she person go? I'm sorry. I just wanted to know if you had any input on this particular resolution.

Sorry, Walter Peirce again, 125 North Main. Councilwoman, I'm all in favor of this project. I guess I would be a little bit concerned about looking at capital pay go funds right now, and that'd be just my only caveat to this, just simply because we want to make sure that we have money available to cover.

I understand, and I had multiple conversations with Mayor Young on that very specific point, and as I said, the administration is in support of this resolution.

Okay, but I do want to hear, what were you saying about the capital pay go? I know you said it's a concern, like what is the concern?

Well, you know, of course, we talked about it. This is not something I want to dive too deeply in today because we have something scheduled for June 9th, but we do have that sewer fund issue and capital pay go can be used to support that as well as just the issues that we face in a normal course of business. So that capital pay go is typically money. It's revenue in excess of expenses. It goes up and down. Some years we have deficits. Some years we have A positive amount. As Deputy Chief Walker pointed out yesterday, we have a positive amount projected for a 27. But if we start to allocate debt, that reduces our opportunity to service debt in the future. And so that's the only concern.

And that's why when I spoke with Mayor Young, we talked about the fact that this is well below what your projection was. and it is one-time funding. So it is not continual funding because we understand what is coming in the next years, and it is well below the $16 million that you projected and presented to us.

You know, I'm not going to debate you on that. I'm just simply saying I just ask for a little bit of latitude on looking at the funding of this. I think the merits of the project are phenomenal. I just want to make sure that our funding does not put us at adverse risk later.

Thank you. So, Chief Person, you'll have that for the next, I guess, the next meeting to be able to tell us what potential impact you believe that it would have if taken from this particular fund?

Yes, ma'am.

I think that's the test for everything. And it seems like... I want every council member, of course, takes time to go through these things and determine funds and places for these projects to come from. But it's also important for us to have a true understanding of where it's coming from, in addition to the potential impact that it can have. So we just need to have the information. So yeah, thank you. Councilwoman Logan, you're recognized.

I just had a quick question about, I definitely agree with the need. Are these areas anywhere under the county government offering?

No. Unfortunately, we had a lot of rental assistance that did go through CSA in the community in the county government during ARPA times. And so ARPA funding was being used to help stop evictions when they would pop up in court to help pay down rent and work with landlords and things like that. But when those ARPA funds ran out, those administrator positions ran out, and they're no longer in place. And so the hub is doing some of this work. They said, in fact, last night they had 52 children, women with children, in their beds last night. that were MSCS school age students that were being homeless. But the need is much greater. As far as like our foster youth, they have 1,018 to 24 year olds that need placement every year and they only have 20 beds in their shelters. So this is a way for us to get to that other place so that they can get stabilized, get jobs, get mental health services and get back on their feet. So it's just emergency funding.

Okay, thank you for that. I thought that the county had areas for these and were responsible for that area. You're saying their funding has run out for the areas that they have? Yes. Thank you.

Thank you. Going to our next resolution. It is... Resolution number, I thought it was resolution number nine. Okay, resolution number nine, which is, Madam Chair.

Uh-huh. I am withdrawing resolution number nine. Okay. And number 11 reflects my intended allocation.

Well, I have resolution number nine is Dr. Easter Thomas and Councilwoman Green. Okay. Let me see. Well, let me say this.

I am not number nine. Okay.

Thank you, Councilwoman Walker. Okay. We got a resolution number nine. It's a resolution to amend the fiscal year 2027 operating budget to appropriate funds for security cameras, in parks, and it is for $500,000 from Capital Pago sponsored by Councilwoman Dr. Easter Thomas and Councilwoman Jerry Green.

Thank you, Chair. So after a robust, this is something that we've brought up a couple of times this quarter in different committee meetings, that we do have security and ways to look at our community centers. We do so in our traffic cameras. We do not in our parks. And I wish Cooper Sutton was sitting here, but as Councilwoman Cooper Sutton brought in a few weeks ago, just photos from one of our district parks that we share, Dave Wells. and just thinking, what could we manage or mitigate if we had the same tools as we do in other places across our city? And so Councilwoman Green has brought up about video cameras before, camera system before, and I have as well. And so we've talked with the parks director, Director Bolden, and seeing, okay, what would this actually look like? How are you aligning to possible crime data that the City Now program looks at? Is this doable? Can we align it with a speaking system that says, hey, you in the park, it's 8 o'clock, park closed. Have a good night. Go somewhere. You don't have to go home, but definitely get out of the park. So thinking about ways where we can just add another level of safety. to areas where we're actually spending a lot of money. And so we want to be able to add that level of safety. So this is so it would. So what do we do? And then first, now the four be resolved and amend the budget. It'll reduce 500,000 from the capital pay go. We already had a discussion from two persons, and I guess we'll talk more about that on Tuesday. But it's adding to their line item To their line item in CIP and so whatever funds that they don't use for security cameras can still remain in their line item for any repairs maintenance that they do it all of our parks and community centers across I do want to offer in a will amend this on the floor in the 12345th whereas where it says. Memphis City Council hereby amends fiscal year 2027 capital improvement program budget by making a reduction of $500,000 from capital pay go funds. I would like to add in there or suitable funding sources as identified by city administration.

Without objection.

Without objection. And I can say that again. So in the fifth, whereas we're adding after it identifies the source, $500,000 from capital pay go, adding in or suitable funding sources as identified by city administration. So that gives us the flexibility and the leeway, but still keeping it a priority. And then I also like to add that we have, in addition to myself and Councilwoman Green as co-sponsors, we also have Councilwoman Cooper-Sutton, Councilwoman Rhonda Logan, and Councilman Phillip Spinoza as co-sponsors as well.

I want to be added to that.

And chairwoman. Oh, you are on number nine now, Pearl. Chairwoman Janice Warren in Washington and Councilwoman Pearl Walker.

Thank you. Any other council members in the queue? All righty. Thank you. Resolution number 10 is a resolution to amend the fiscal year 2027 operating budget to reallocate funding to Africa in April. Councilwoman Walker, this one is you. You're recognized.

So my resolution was amended. I'm not going to say the number, but it was amended. So it's including other organizations. Are you looking at that item? Whatever the number is, that's the one I want to remove.

This is number 10. This is the one that's just at the end of it.

Well, that would be number 10. Thank you. Okay. May I be next, please, still? May I go ahead? Thank you, ladies. And what number do you all have for this one? 12. All righty. Thank you all. Resolution number 12 amends the FY 2027 operating budget by reallocating $185,000 from miscellaneous professional services 0111-810101-0525. May I have some water? to support several Memphis organizations that are making a meaningful impact in our community through cultural preservation, education, wellness initiatives, youth development, and neighborhood investment. The proposed funding would be distributed among African April, Slave Haven, Underground Railroad Museum, Memphis Black Healers Collaborative, Heal the Hood Foundation, Freedman's Bureau, and Bee Institute. These organizations have demonstrated a strong commitment to serving Memphis and strengthening our communities, I respectfully ask my colleagues for support of this resolution. And I would also like to additionally add, so these are six different organizations Africa in April, they didn't receive any state funding starting this year. They didn't qualify for the City of Memphis grant, so they didn't receive the City of Memphis grant this year. Moving on to slave haven museum they had a fire, a couple of years ago, they did have insurance, but there are a lot of things that have yet to be restored. artifacts heirlooms many of the nuances that brought life to this wonderful institution that's north of just downtown here. They do bring revenue to the city. It is a tourist destination. And I think that as we are continuing to engage with the growth of downtown, we want to remember some of our lesser known fixtures in the downtown area. Number three, Black Healers Collaborative. This is about mental health and physical wellness as a collaboration of mental health professionals from different backgrounds, wellness, yoga, different things pertaining to that, and also healthy eating and healthy lifestyles. Number four, Heal the Hood. They were in my district in Hickory Ridge Mall. That is unfortunately one of the declining properties in the city. And one of the things they are dealing with is mold. And Heal the Hood, they did an interview with the media about the mold. And after that, they were evicted. But they found a new spot up the street across from Earl World Overcomers. They recently added former Grizzlies coach Lionel Hollins to their team, and they are just doing some amazing work. And I don't know if you all remember or not, but that shopping center strip right across from Earl Overcomers, it had a movie theater. and they want to restore that. They know how to go and get funds, but they need all the support that they can get with the young people, creative and performing arts, sports, wellness, conflict resolution, and I could just go on and on. Number five, Freedmen's Bureau. There's an organization called Inward Journey, and there's a documentary that shows the work. It's for... all demographics, but the documentary is about their work in Folsom State Prison. This is their third year having a contract with Shelby County government. And Madam Chair, along with Councilwoman Dr. Easter Thomas saw the video, I mean the documentary out at the precinct in Raleigh. Others include Mayor Young, Chief Davis, Judge Sugarman, Commissioner Sugarman, and there they have also a new contract with juvenile court. Deputy Buckner, DA Mulroy, and others have seen this documentary that gives just one of the many facets of the work that they do and what they're currently doing at 201 Popular. They have a group of inmates that they work with They meet with them every month and they help them identify and mitigate trauma. And finally, Be Institute. Be as in all you can be. It's a small private school on Mendenhall. It's in your district just across the line. It's the old-fashioned one-room school concept, schoolroom concept, kind of like Montessori, but it is not Montessori. They're actually an office suite with about four or five rooms. We were able to recognize one of the instructors, Mr. Lewis Brown, here for Teachers Day here at the council and his wife, who's principal at the school, Joanne Brown, we recognized her as one of our amazing principals in the city in 2024. All of these organizations, like so many others, are worthy. And once again, I would appreciate your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions, comments regarding this one?

Excuse me.

Well, before we hear from Chief Person, this is what I want to do. And actually, we'll wait to the end. So yeah, Chief Person, any comments on this one?

Walter Person again, 125 North Main. I don't really have a fundamental problem with this. I mean, now one thing I will say this is the budget's tight, as you all remember. So we didn't really have any contribution to fund balance projected in Amir's budget. He's got it like nailed down. But I think we will probably have to just go back and take a hard look at it. So as long as all of these areas are non-profits, and forgive me, I don't know if they are, but they're all non-profits, we can look at funding them with a transfer to accountable grants and subsidies line. We'll just have to dig deep and find out if there are any contracts or other things in this lane as professional services that we can move around.

Sounds good.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. What I was going to say is, before we move on to the, I was going to say this to all of them, but just for the sake of us level setting in total in terms of budget wrap up, I do want to make this point. As we review the resolutions and as council members, and I hope all council members kind of think about this when presenting resolutions today and even going forward, is that When the budget was presented this year, and if you all have been attending the budget hearings, one thing that I've consistently brought up is that I believe that many spaces are under budgeted by way of the reduction. So if we go back and look at the previous year's budget, It's about $36 million cut or $36 million in reductions from actual departments total. So the administration met with departments to try to determine places where cuts could be made. It's my understanding that about $36 million in reductions were made for departments. Is that right?

That is correct, Vice Chair. Yes, ma'am.

Now, whether that's a realistic... thing that can happen or whether it's not, we have decided that we are going to put a strain on departments to the tune of $36 million. I want us to be careful in replacing that with items that are not necessarily the responsibility of the city. Our responsibility is police, fire, streets, public works, planning and zoning, municipal administration. That is what we're required to do with taxpayers' money. And so when we're saying that we've made $36 million that may end up impacting actually services to constituents, I want us to be careful when we're replacing that with a lot of great opportunities, great programs, but the city's not a nonprofit organization and it's not our responsibility to to necessarily do that. I think a lot of these causes are important causes, but that's not what we are responsible for. And so when balancing our priorities, we need to also balance the services that we have made a conscious effort to cut by way of trying to meet the demand of today of the reduced revenues. I think there was a $17 million cut from the elimination of vacancies. Is that right?

Yes, ma'am, it's probably closer to 19, but you are correct directionally. It was high, it was deep. Everything that we could cut, we cut.

And then by way of the presentation we had on yesterday, we learned that it's potentially 16 million, which really translates to some of these capital paygo requests. And so basically, that is the fund that we use to be able to service debt. And that's the $16 million that's potentially there. But again, in light of us saying that we're taking a $36 million cut in personnel, $36 million cut that includes materials and supplies, and understanding that historically we have not been at those numbers, $16 million is not a lot for us to have in a space of reserve at the end of the year to try to figure out what it is that we need to do. And again, and I feel like I'm kind of taking the hit because I don't want to at all discourage great programs or projects. But at this point in time, we don't necessarily, from what I see, have money to fund a lot of extra things, being that we're cutting $36 million in what I believe to be our operations and management.

That is correct, ma'am. As I said, and as you pointed out, Apley, this is a tight budget. This is the tightest budget that I've experienced. We have no planned contribution of fund balance. So anything, and I think you've heard me say this several times, anything that we fund, we got to move something around. That's why I've been fairly noncommittal, because that's going to involve us going back, looking at these budgets, seeing if there's something to move, because there is no flex, if you will, in this year's budget. No planned flex.

Thank you, Chief Person. Resolution number, I'm sorry.

I don't know if you want to do it at the heel of the discussion on resolutions, but I do have some information about sales tax referendum now.

Yes, and that's another thing that I think we need to address. Yeah, we need to address that. So the sales tax referendum, and I'll let you explain it, Chief Person. I'm not the expert in it.

Oh, no, you had asked earlier when we were on, I think it was Resolution 2, to comment on the sales tax referendum. I did not have the information at that time, but I have it now, so I could comment more thoroughly on where that fund stands.

Yes, so the question that I had for Chief Person was, with the understanding that there is going to be a change in the share that we receive from sales tax, what that impact is and how that impact has been accounted for in this budget. And that's basically the question.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you. So we did go back and look and as I stated, we're forecasting for the end of FY26, $20 million hit. So we're spending $21 million over our plan revenue income for the sales tax referendum. That would put our beginning fund balance at the beginning of FY27 right at roughly $2.4 million. So if we were to take an additional 1.5 from that, that would give us roughly $900,000 as kind of a starting position. And we're projecting with the removal, I think we discussed, of the monies that we use now for engineering and public works that would put us at a negative income amount of 6 million for 27. So we would have a starting fund balance of 900,000 for 27. We would be using an additional 6 million above our revenue income. So that would put us in a deeper hole for our FY27 projections. And that's even with engineering and public works being removed. So that's kind of what I wanted to talk about relative. I think that Dr. Easter Thomas has a question.

Yeah, and then I don't know, were you about to come and do, I feel like Chief Person kind of gave us the high level. Are you going to come translate?

I need to say the 125 domain. I was just going to say the projected beginning fund balance FY27 is going to be roughly $8.4 million. If all holds constant for FY27, the shortfall will be $6 million, and the projected ending balance for FY27 will be 2.3, and then we take away the 1.5, so it'll be 2.3 less than 1.5, as if all holds constant with the revenue we anticipate coming in.

Thank you. Chair, I have a question. Mm-hmm, careful. I mean, Dr. Issa Thomas, you're recognized.

Thank you for adding that, too. Chief Parsons, for the... $21 million overspend, what was it exactly spent on for FY26?

We have the ADC for MPD and MFD, basically the Actuarially Determined Contribution, which comes out of this fund as the restoration of benefits.

What was that number?

Altogether, that was... 15, let me see, 15 million, about 15.4 million.

Okay. And then the rest of the 21 was?

And then there was the 8.5 for pre-K, 1.2 for healthcare, another 1.8 for pension, 9 million for OPEB. There was about roughly 800,000 for project costs. And a general fund transfer out that covers All the other mandated expenses of about $59,148,000. What was the general fund transfer out? $59,148,000.

So we were $21 million overspent, including the $59 million general fund transfer out.

Yes, ma'am, because we're projecting roughly $75 million revenue income.

What was the $59 million transfer out putting in line items for general fund?

It's a number of line items. Do you have those, Anita? Okay, go ahead.

The total operating transfer out to General Fund roughly was $74,581,446. And the breakdown on that was pension ADC recovery was 6.2 for NFD and MPD was 9.1. And then the salary coverage for MPD was 18.1. And then the salary coverage for NFD was 14.1. And then we have the health care recovery for the people who came back on the plan. Both pieces for Memphis Police and Fire were $6.7 million. And then we had for street payment, they went into public works, $7.9 million. And we had engineering was $5.5 million. So you add all those up, that's $74 million. That comes to the $781,446.

So it was $74,959 for a transfer out.

Yes. Combined. Combined. Yes, ma'am. That is correct. And then with the additional expenses he named earlier, like the project cost, the pre-K, health care, pension, and OPEP.

That has us at a total of $74,000.

The total projected expense is going to be $96,000. So you add up all those, it comes to the $96,000,000. And then we got revenue participating at $75,000. So the difference between the $96,000 and the $75,000. It's the $21,000. Yes, ma'am. You got it.

Okay, so question. For the proposed FY27 budget, we reduced our general fund transfer out, correct? I think it was, what, 23? I might be making up numbers. But I know it was reduced substantially. Yes, ma'am. But that transfer out for FY27 is going to which of these line items that we named? Salary, ACD, healthcare, paving, engineering.

No, the breakdown for FY27 that we're going to transfer out is $62,250,000. And what makes that up is the MFD pension ADC recovery is 5.7. And then MPD ADC recovery is 7.8. And then we have the salaries recovery for MPD is 19.7. And then we have MFD recovery is 15.4. And then we have the health care recovery of 6.7 for MPD. Now, what we're not going to be able to do for FY27 is to pave and engineer. That's correct.

Okay, so you said including... Hoping or assessing that we're going to come out the same as last year, you said we should end up at a net 2.3.

Yes, ma'am. That's projected any balance by FY27 with all hope constant. That is correct.

Which is a positive 2.3, not a negative 2.3.

That is correct. But then that's, if the pre-K stays 7 million, if we raise the pre-K to the 8.5, then that 2.3 would be reduced by that amount.

Okay, so if we're, and I know what Budgetary Councilwoman White In all the instances of what you just said about how we're looking at this budget, what our numbers were coming in, and how you said earlier how it's not even a, you know, this, that, or this or that. If we're projected positive 2.3, and I know that that's because we reduced our general fund transfer out. we still have the possibility of if we need to spend up to that 1.5 as we did last year for pre-K to be able to do that without being in the red.

Right? If the revenue comes in as issued.

Okay. I'm glad y'all came back with those numbers. That actually makes me more comfortable in this ask. And I'm glad that you asked for that. Councilwoman White. So, basically, they said we should have, if everything comes back as it should, 2.3. And 2.3 is still not as much as 1.5.

Okay. Councilwoman Logan, you're recognized.

So do we need to look and find the funds for what we are proposing, or did you say they were going to do that and bring that back?

I think each person needs to get with the chief person about their respective resolutions to see where those funds are coming from. My general ask was not specific to Dr. Easter Thomas or any particular resolution. I just wanted to, because sometimes like we have some people here, sometimes people aren't. I just wanted to make sure that we start at the baseline of we've asked directors to reduce their budgets. to the tune of a total of $36 million. I wanted to point out as budget vice chair that throughout the hearings, and a lot of times you get to notice patterns. One pattern that I have noticed is that looking back for the past four or five years, what we've budgeted for in different departments and what their actual numbers have come back as are significantly less than what was budgeted for this year, which tells me one of two things. One, we have under budgeted. Well, three things. One, we've under budgeted. Let's start one. The one is the positive. The directors are gonna do an amazingly great job and stay within this budget. That's one, that's the best of outcomes. Two, we've under budgeted and we're gonna need a lot of money at the end of the year. Or three, and it could be two and three, we're going to see a reduction in services based on these reductions in departments. And I don't want us to miss sight of that $36 million intentional reduction to balance the budget and then think that we now have extra money to put in other places. That's the overall point that I was making. I wanted to make sure that we remembered how we even got to a balanced budget, which was by reducing line items to the tune of $36 million. Whether that was a realistic reduction or whether it's not a realistic reduction, I don't know. I'm not clairvoyant. I don't have a crystal ball. I guess we'll wait till this time next year and see. But I'm just saying with all of our acts, let's put it in context as to where we started with the reduction of the 36 million and the reduction of the 17 million from vacancies.

That was my question to you. You know, are we leaving it up to them to decide and let us know? Or do we need to...

I say that if there's money that you want and it's from a fund, I think it would be prudent to get with the administration to find out if there's another fund or if the fund that you found is appropriate. At the end of the day, seven votes will move it from wherever we want to move it to and from. I think it's just good that we get with the administration to try to figure out the best possible place for it to come from.

Absolutely, okay. Also, with that being said, your comment about starting at 36 million under budget.

Not under budget, $36 million in reductions from line items. And also looking at the history of those line items and realizing that these departments have not come in at those numbers in the past four years. Also realizing that everything costs more in 2026.

And so with that being said, our responsibility is to help pass the budget. And if we don't have accurate numbers based on historical data and based on current data, that's going to be impossible to do unless we pass a budget that doesn't reflect true data.

Well, we have the data, and that's what I'm saying. Historical data. That's what I'm saying. In every presentation, and that's how I came to what I'm saying right now. In every presentation, and if you all go back and look at the budget hearings for several departments, I said, hey, I'm looking at your M&S line. going from 2022, 23, 24, 25. You budgeted for, I'm just throwing out numbers. You budgeted for 2.5 million. You came in actuals at 2.8 million. And now you're telling me in 2026, you're going to be able to spend 1.2? And if you look through our budget, if you look through each presentation, and you have your budget with it. If you go down there and look, look at those, go to, and it's primarily in M&S, and it's also in the, it's not as much in the personnel line as it is in the M&S line. And I think it's great that directors are taking, you know, a really aggressive approach to try to reduce those numbers. I just want us to be very honest and realistic about what that looks like in 2026 with increasing costs and also looking at the historical data that these are not the numbers that have been able to sustain these departments in the four years prior to 2026 when we have increasing costs. I agree.

That's what I meant by that. If you look at paving, just take paving. and potholes at this point we're going to increase paving of potholes however we haven't necessarily increased the budget in that area and we're going to be calling all year saying hey it's a big pot over here can you pothole over here can you come and fill this up and then you got you know you're going to be filling you're going to be using the you know the um supplies and doing the work. You're not going to just not do the work. So that in itself tells me that we're going to be doing the work and we're going to come back later and have to have more money because we did that this year. But there's, and my point is, like you said, we don't have a crystal ball. We can just go on the numbers that we have now. and or look at the behavior historically and surmise that that's where we're going to be. And if we are elected to pass the budget and make certain that we're being fiscally sound, that's going to be problematic for us, knowing that.

It is. I mean, we have some challenges. And I think everybody needs to get together and figure out what other information between now and Tuesday that we may need to request from the administration. I'll recognize that we may be working through the week and over the weekend to try to get to that point, to all be prepared on Tuesday. I just wanted to make sure that I threw that out there because as time goes by, sometimes we forget where we started. And that was the starting point. And I know I was listening in after I left yesterday. I know Councilman Smiley said the same thing I said today. One penny is $1.85 million. A lot of times, I know we don't have an appetite for a tax increase. I'm not a fan of it myself. We really are a city that is in need. However, the truth of the matter is, in order to really feel impact in the places that we want to feel impact, it's going to require the investment. But what we have to do is to make sure that if we request that of taxpayers, that we say that this money is solely dedicated to paving. This money is solely dedicated to housing. and that we are holding the administration accountable to actually execute timely and plan appropriately so that we're not putting additional burden on the taxpayers' backs without seeing the benefit on return. It's a lot of hard decisions, and it's a balance. And you have to also balance that with we are the most taxed county in the state. What does that look like? But you have to put that number in context as well. We throw that out there, but what does that look like? We also have... We also don't have the, we have lesser property, our values are lower. So in total, what does that look like? But then you also don't have the wages. So all of these things, what I'm saying is, it's just like the budget. One thing, you move one thing and it moves the other. And it's no different when we start talking about the decisions that we have to make, one priority over another priority. I just wanted us to make sure that we're thinking about all of these things from that big picture standpoint as we approach Tuesday and have to make these really important decisions. And to make sure that we ask the right questions to have the information that we need to be able to make those decisions. That's it.

I'm sorry, Chairwoman Swearengin-Washington, you're recognized. I wanted to ask Chief Person, the money that we spent for fire and for police and for pension, will we have those expenses for this year as well?

In terms of the restoration?

For those pension, that $20 million.

Yes, ma'am. In terms of the expenses?

Right.

Yes, ma'am.

So that's going to put us in a hole somewhere too, isn't it?

Yes, ma'am. You know, I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but this is a tight budget. This is a very challenging budget. It's a balanced budget, and we can make it happen. We've sat with divisions since January. We've brought in outside parties that have expertise in this space. We've had one-on-ones. We've had discussions with you all, but at the end of the day, Vice Chair is right. I mean, we cut and we cut deep. We can make it work, but we're on a tightrope. We don't have a lot of flex. We don't have a lot of room to move. So pretty much everything has to fall in the right place this year. But we can do it.

And I feel like I might sound like a broken record, but I promise I'm done. Let me just say this one other thing. I've been on this body. This is my third budget season. But if y'all remember back, the first budget season, the mayor proposed a tax increase. Y'all remember? And we had a lot of people saying, let's cut. We need to cut. We need to find the cuts to balance the budget. We ended up doing a tax increase. Last year, we didn't do one. We didn't do one. We came up balanced. Well, this year, they did exactly what we asked. They cut. They cut 36 million. Then they cut 17 million from vacancies. Then they cut 2 million somewhere from the health fund to one of them funds. if the presentation is correct. So we did the cuts. I'm just saying let's not mistake the cuts to create a balanced budget as us saying that we have the opportunity to create new programs or do great things with money, because that's not the reality. The reality is that we had to cut to try to make ends meet. And so now that doesn't mean we cut to tuna fish from steak. So now that doesn't mean that we go and buy some catfish. So that's all I'm saying. Right. That's it. Anybody else? I think we've gone through. Have we gone through all the resolutions? Okay. And it's my understanding that Dr. Warren has another resolution that he may be proposing on Tuesday. He's out. He has surgery today. We pray that all is well and that he has a speedy recovery. Councilwoman Dr. Issa Thomas. Thank you, Chair. Did we do resolution number 11 before I... Which one is it?

This is Logan's resolution. I'm just making sure we did them before I asked for something else.

Oh, did we not do that one? No, we didn't. Councilwoman Logan, resolution 11, resolution to amend the fiscal 27 operating budget.

That one is withdrawn. Yeah.

Okay.

So, Chair, I would like to add a resolution.

Okay.

And Mrs. Edgar Bernard is passing it out. Budget neutral for the current year. This is an act to add resolution to amend the fiscal year 2027 capital improvement program budget. I'LL SAY WHAT IT SAYS AND THEN I'LL SAY WHAT IT SAYS ON THE PAPER. MIFF CITY COUNCIL HEREBY AMENDS FISCAL YEAR 2027 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROPOSED BUDGET BY ADVANCING THE PROJECT ENTITLED COMMUNITY CENTER REPLACEMENT DOUGLAS LINE ITEM NUMBER PARKS TBD FROM FISCAL YEAR 2029 TO FISCAL YEAR 2028 AND CORRESPONDENTLY ADVANCING EACH SUBSEQUENT YEAR OF PROJECT FUNDING BY ONE FISCAL YEAR. So in last budget of this current fiscal year 26, last budget, there was a line item on CIP that had community center replacement. We allocated that, designated that to be Douglas Community Center in last fiscal year's budget process last year. With the proposed budget this year from CIP line items, it has that starting in FY29. What this resolution is asking is to bump everything up a year. So to have it starting in for design in FY28 instead of FY29. So essentially, this is amending the CIP budget, even though it's for fiscal year 28 instead of fiscal year 27.

Thank you. Any comment from the administration? I see you peeked around the corner. Any addition? Okay. Were you about to say something, Chief Adams?

Yeah, so we've talked to Councilwoman Dr. Issa Thomas in concert with Director Bolden, and we're comfortable with just adjusting the five-year trend. That's all it does is adjust the five-year trend that is in the budget itself and reflects what was presented last year. Okay. So it makes it just continue to be in line with the subsequent fiscal years.

Thank you. Is it? Thank you. I think that concludes our budget wrap-up. We won't have one tomorrow, so the next time we'll see everybody will be on June 9th. Next Tuesday, hope you all have a great rest of your week and weekend. Yeah, it's only Tuesday, so week. We appreciate you all for being here.