Remarks by Brian Risley
52 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 2 of 3
Is there a reason why that wasn't written into the agreement or into the resolution that we're going to be voting on? no at the time i i believed it was discussion i didn't know that that was something the requirement if that is something that you would desire and council uh proves that it could be something that we could add i don't know yeah i don't know how my colleagues are feeling about it but i asked the question and you gave an answer on the record and so it seems to me that whether we modify the resolution or not it's on the record that that's the intent of the city correct
And so I don't know if that's a question for the attorney or not, but again, I think it's a point of discussion.
And again, I haven't had a conversation with my colleagues. I don't know how anyone else is feeling on this topic, but I don't necessarily want to make things messier than they need to be. But again, I asked the question at work session, and Kim gave us the answer that she just gave us. Maybe I'll test the waters and I'll make a motion that we amend the resolution to indicate the rent abatement ends on April 1st, 2027 and will not be extended again going forward. Is anybody willing to second that?
I appreciate that, Councilmember. My point is that I just don't want this to continue in perpetuity, right? We could get to April 1st and decide again that there's gonna be another extension and then another extension and another extension. And this is a rent rate abatement, meaning that taxpayers are helping to subsidize, which I understand the importance and the value of this facility and trying to breathe new life into it. I'm certainly not opposed to that or trying to get in the way of that. But when I look at the use of taxpayer dollars, is it appropriate to essentially set up a…
Thank you, Madam President. I think this conversation has underscored my concern and has gotten the issue out on the table, so I'll withdraw my amendment.
Thanks, Madam President. My question, Trey, I don't mean to put you on the spot, but I think it's a question for you. This goes back to a conversation I think that you and I had maybe last week. The appropriating amounts for each of the departments is relatively small. And I'll give you an example. City Auditor, $4,300. City Council, $3,700. There are some that are bigger, for sure. Police, $58,000. But in the police budget of $100 million, right, 58,000 is a very small amount. And I think the conversation that you and I had was, what if, regardless of this amendment, what if the budget…
there would be had been statistically speaking there's the likelihood of more turnover in those departments so i think it would depend on the department and so just thinking of the two smallest departments that you mentioned the city auditor and legislative services both have had staff turnover in 2026 and both have had unfilled positions for a period of time so I would assume that there is room within those budgets. I haven't asked those directors, but I would assume there are dollars within those budgets that could absorb this. And I guess, regardless of whether we go with Council Member…
So what happens if a budget, if a department exceeds their allocated budget for a fiscal year?
So it's really not a major issue as long as the total amount of the general fund is not exceeded?
Yeah, that's the crux of the situation for me, Councilmember, is that I think the administration could do what they wish on that day regardless of Council's actions because I think the dollars will exist within the budget to accomplish that as it stands now. The risk is... As Sharae pointed out, the risk is some of the departments will be able to absorb that without any problem. Some of them may struggle to absorb that, but as long as the general fund balance is not exceeded, it's all good. And so the, The intent, I believe, and I can't speak for the administration, but the intent here, I…
That's what I'm suggesting. And the easy answer is just simply to vote no on this budget amendment.
So I think the administration could choose to do that regardless of the action of council. I think that the mayor's office, the chief of staff could simply make the decision that we've heard the discussion that council has had. We think that it is appropriate to give a paid day off to the employees to thank them for their dedication and service. And we think we can do that within the current budget as it stands right now.
So I would defer to the attorney, but this is a budget amendment ordinance. And so I think all we would legally be doing through this process is amending the budget. I don't believe that this is the appropriate platform to convey council's desire or intent relative to supporting the city staff. That would likely be a resolution or be some other action. And I see the attorney nodding her head, so I may not be an attorney, but apparently I have some grasp of this. You can read like facial expressions. I can see her nodding and smiling, so yes. So maybe that answers your question.
thank you madam president i just want to make it clear i appreciate you coming and i appreciate your comments thank you very much but i want to make it clear for all of the citizens that are listening that the choice of closing this community center was not a decision made by city council and any rumors about other community centers being on the block for closure which i haven't heard that rumor but let's say it's true. That's not a city council decision either. Those are all administrative choices and things that are done by the mayor's office and by the city administration, not by city…
Yeah, and if there are rumors of other centers being proposed for closure, we recently received the 2027 budget books, and I haven't seen anything in the budget book about that. But if you have more information, please feel free.
Yeah, I'd encourage you to get with the chief of staff and talk about your concerns.
Thanks, Madam President. Just to chime in, Roger, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think part of the other driver with valuation is just simply the cost of construction today, significantly more than last year and the year before that and the year before that, right? So as we see increases in escalation in materials and labor, those impact the numbers that contractors are reporting to you, is that right?
Sure, and I'll point out too that the two prior presenters gave us stickers, so I'm expecting.
Sorry, thanks Madam President. I didn't, I saw Brandy's name up there and I thought she was gonna go, but I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank the YMCA and thank our partners here. the work that you do is tremendous for the community and it really underscores the importance of these types of partnerships without the ymca running alongside the city we wouldn't be able to provide a lot of the programs and services that the parks department just simply can't do, can't get to, right? Limited budgets, limited sort of government oversight. And this truly is where the, I'll call it the…
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Do you know, have there been conversations with Harrison School District?
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
And if you don't mind keeping your remarks a little bit short, only because Madam President will be mad at me if we don't.
Is there anyone else who would like to make a comment?