City Council - Regular Meeting

on the Monday, February 9th, 2026 for city council meeting order. Mr. Yes, sir. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, Mr. Slope. If you wish to speak, uh citizens comment for the public hearing. There are signup sheets in the back of the chamber that you can uh put your name on. Item two on the agenda is the adoption of the meeting agenda. Is there a motion to adopt the agenda? And I'll make that motion. Thank you, Mr. W. Is there a second? I second. Thank you, Mr. Comi. Any discussion? All in favor say I.

Any opposed? Eyes have it. 40 zero. Mr. short is ill today and will not be present. Item three matters from the mayor. I don't have anything. Uh and item four is matters from council. I don't have anything.

I'm just want to say I'm glad everybody survived the ice. We have it's been a day or two since we've been together and um I'm kind of glad you know Trafford and Todd both are here because um I just wanted to say how much we appreciate how much the public works did in controlling and managing the ice and the snow. Um if you went to any of the surrounding municipalities, I'm going to brag on Wings a little bit because uh nobody held a candle to us when it came to to managing that catastrophe of of weather out there. So, uh, thank you for everything and please, I sent it an email, but please again pass it along to I think all all of us how much we appreciate everything they did. Absolutely. For sure.

Item five is consideration of the consent agenda. Is there a motion to adopt the consent agenda? I'll make a motion. Thank you, Mr. Wiz. Is there a second? I'll second. Thank you, Mr. Any discussion? All in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? Eyes have it 40. I I didn't vote I I sorry I didn't say I I need to I I just thought you had and I'm not opposed now. Sorry. Busy finding my check mark over here. Sorry.

Item six is consider presenting a proclamation recognizing February as Black History Month in the city of Wayneboro. And I'll ask u Miss Vice Mayor Tommy to read the proclamation.

Great. All right. So, the office of the city council of Wesboro, Commonwealth of Virginia, proclamation, whereas 2026 marks a milestone for both progress and persistence in the United States, the 100th anniversary of federal recognition for black Americans. Dr. Carter Godwin Woodson, distinguished African-American author, editor, scholar, and historian who is known as the father of black history, founded the Association for the Study of African-American Life and History in September 1915 and launched Negro History Month in 1926. And whereas since 1976, every American president has proclaimed February as Black History Month. And whereas the theme of this year's celebration is a century of black history commemorations, acknowledging the 100year anniversary that prompts reflection not only on what has been accomplished, but also on why this work continues to matter. And whereas this year's theme invites communities to reflect not only on the history itself, but on how the rituals of remembering have helped shape culture, identity, and national understanding of black life. Therefore, be it resolved, the mayor of Wesboro, Virginia, on behalf of the city council takes great pleasure in recognizing February 2026 as Black History Month and urges all citizens to join in celebrating the accomplishments of African-Americans during Black History Month and encourages the people of Wsboro to recognize the many talents, achievements, and contributions that African-Americans make to their communities. And be it further resolved

that the clerk of the council transmit a copy of this proclamation to the curator of the African-American History Museum, Wesboro, Virginia, for appropriate distribution in witness whereof I have here unto set my hand and caused the seal of the city of Wesboro to be affixed this the ninth day of February, 2026. Signed, Kenneth B. Lee Senior, Mayor, City of Wsboro, Virginia. And I shall present this to Mrs. George Coleman on behalf of Estello Barnett. Thank you. Y'all comment.

Yes. cell phone. I can take turn.

Wow. What a surprise. Good evening. It is with great pleasure and honor that I stand in the gap for my dear sweet lady Estella Barnett for this beautiful proclamation and um for me February is great because this is my birthday too. So on behalf of uh Estella Barnett and uh African-Americans in the community as well as myself, we certainly take this opportunity to thank the city council for reaching out and presenting this proclamation. Thank you.

Thank you. Item seven is to consider adopting a resolution supporting the city's application for a build grant to support a bridge maintenance program. Mr. Johan.

Yes, sir. Good evening. Um, public works is working to update a bridge improvement program application that was previously presented in September 2025. Um at that time um the city anticipated making application under the bipartisan infrastructure act. Since then um we've learned that that act is not currently funded. It's unknown as to when funds might be applied under that legislation. However, we have identified with the help of our consulting engineer an alternative funding mechanism and that is the build excuse me better utilizing investments to leverage development or build grant program. City continues to develop a an application for $12 million that will stand up a bridge maintenance program. U there is a match required for that. So, the total program budget would be $15 million, $12 million in grant funds, $3 million in local match, and we would imagine that we would uh plan to accumulate those match funds if we're successful in receiving the grant over the next two or three fiscal years. You may know that a number of our bridges are um are designated in lower rankings in terms of condition and it's important for the city to work to upgrade those facilities, bring them into full compliance and perhaps more importantly extend their life by some 20 or 25 years um alleviating the need to fully replace those facilities. So this evening, the council is asked to adopt a resolution supporting our build grant application and um we'll let you know going forward how successful we are in terms of

realizing those funds. Happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Right. Is there a motion to adopt a resolution supporting the city's application for a bill grant? I'll make the motion. Thank you, Mr. SW. Is there a second? I second. Thank you, Mr. Comy. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I. I. Any oppose? Eyes have it. Item eight is consider adopting the Stanton, Augusta, Wesboro emergency operations plan. Mr. H.

Yes, sir. Uh, the Commonwealth requires localities to develop regional emergency operation plans. Those plans have a five-year life and uh the Stanton Augusta Wanesboro plan recently exceeded its useful life or um was in need of update. That update is complete and um council is asked to adopt that plan by resolution this evening. Any questions? Is there a motion to adopt the plan? I'll make that motion. Thank you, M. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Sto. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I.

Any opposed? I have it. Item nine is to consider adopting a resolution confirming a state of emergency related to winter storm burn. Mr. H. Yes, sir. If the council could uh the council's asked to adopt this resolution, it simply affirms that on January 24th at 0958 hours, a state of emergency was declared and then on January 30th um at 1555 hours um that state of emergency was terminated. And this is important to close the books officially with um the Commonwealth.

Is there a motion to adopt the resolution? Thank you, Mr. Wood. Is there a second? I'll second. Thank you, Mr. SL. Any discussion? All in favor say I.

Any opposed? Eyes have item 10 is to hold a public hearing on proposed substantial amendments to the community development block grant annual action plans for FY22, 23, and 24 and amendments to the citizen participation plan. Call on Miss Leslie, director of Um, good evening, mayor and members of city council. Uh, so the purpose of the public hearing this evening is to obtain comments on the proposed substantial amendments for the FY 2022, 2023, and 2024 annual action plans and also amendments to the citizen participation plan. Um so just to give you a little bit of uh the schedule related to these amendments, the availability of the substantial amendments and the citizen participation plan uh revisions were advertised on January 24th. Copies are required to be available for a 30-day public comment period that will end on March 5th, 2026. So any comments received by that date would be submitted to HUD and then it will be um requested that council adopt the amendments at your meeting on uh March 9th. So the city receives community development block grant entitlement funds on an annual basis. Um projects using these funds follow the CDBG program regulations and the citizen participation requirements. And so we are required to hold amendments if they're considered substantial when we move funds or reallocate funds from previous um annual action plans um to different um projects. And so in summary um it's a total of about $67,000 um that's across these various program years. So for 2022, um there was $2,616 left over that had been set aside for

administration of the grant. Um and so that we're requesting to reallocate um in program year 2023. Um we had set aside funds for Rosenwald Community Center ADA accessibility project. And at the time we didn't know exactly what all that project would entail or what the costs final cost would be. And so, um, we have $60,571 left over after that project, um, has has gone to completion. And then for program year 2023, there's also, um, $4,000 of funds um, for the Fairfax Hall renovation expansion. Um, and those funds um, have to do with some Babel requirements and being compliant with the grant, we were not able to give those last $4,000. Um, and then you'll notice, uh, LifeWorks in 2025, um, did not submit a reimbursement for the last $8.36 cent of their grant. So, that also needs to be rolled over. So, in total, it's about $67,000. Um, and the substantial amendments are proposing to take those funds and put them towards what is called the Wesboro pedestrian mobility improvements. And that's what you um, put our funding for for the last fiscal year. So, we have about $800,000 that we'll get from VOTE through their highway safety improvement pro program to upgrade, I believe it's about 15 intersections within the city. Um, so pedestrian accommodations, ADA accommodations. Um, so the $800,000 we're hopeful will cover construction but not the engineering work. And so this allocating the $67,000 in addition to what has already been allocated will help cover the engineering design work for that project. And then the VOTE funds are available to us in um this summer to begin construction. And then related to the citizen participation plan that just governs the process of public outreach and how we run the community development block grant program. Um the proposed amendment

is just to reduce the number of locations where a physical copy of the plan has to be placed. Um it will it's always posted on our website. We have it available at our offices. Um but it allows a little more flexibility so we don't have to place it in I think five or six locations throughout the city. Um so the citizen participation plan um there would be no action needed just a public hearing on that and then the substantial amendments um will be voted on at your March 9th meeting and I'm happy to answer any questions

um oh I have a question and I know the answer to this question already. However, I anticipate that constituents may have this this question and so therefore I would like for you or either Mr. Hamp to give an answer to it. Sure. And so in particular uh the 60,000 for the Rosenwall, how come we just can't reallocate that money uh to uh Rosen Wall to for have them uh use it right now? Can you uh further explain that?

Sure. So, um, with the community development block cramp program, you're required to maintain a specific spendown ratio, um, or else you run the risk of losing funds. And so, really, this is kind of cleaning up and moving things quickly to a project that is ready now because if we were just to, you know, not have something specifically ready to bid now, we would just be sitting on those funds. Um, we get new funds every fiscal year, so we can always reallocate to a project, but it's really important when we allocate to a project to know specifically um how much that project is going to cost and really at a certain point be ready to bid the project um so that you don't run into those timeliness issues. So, the funding that was allocated to the Rosenwall Community Center, um the original allocation of $39,000, um we talked about an elevator project potentially and outside ADA accessibility improvements. When we bid the elevator, it came in substantially higher than what was estimated. And so, we pivoted to do the outside ADA pedestrian improvements. Um, so it doesn't mean we could not in the future allocate money back to Rosenwald um for a specific project that we knew about to keep us moving in a timely manner.

Yes. Thank you. Yeah, sure. Question. Okay. I hereby open the public hearing.

So, no one has signed up to speak. I hereby close the public hearing. Council will be asked to consider adopting the resolution at the March 9th meeting. Items 11 and 12 are to consider introducing ordinances ordinances granting franchises to Chantel and Segra respectively for use of city-owned public rights away to install fiber optic optic cable. Miss Michaelelsson will provide a single briefing explaining uh the ordinance and then will be introduced separately. Miss Michael. Thank you, mayor. Members of council, as Mayor Lee indicated, we'll be discussing the um both items 11 and 12 together as the agreements that fall under each of those items are responses to a bid that the city had put out for a franchise agreement. And as we, you may recall, we discussed um Shannondoa Cable Television, referred to as Chantel. we entered into a one-year memorandum of agreement in order for them to immediately um start installing facilities within the city's right of way. So, this is a followup to that memorandum of agreement since that's just a shortterm kind of stop gap until we could um prepare all the requirements of the Virginia code relating to a franchise agreement. As Chantel wanted uh to be able to install and maintain and operate its facilities within the city's right ofway for a period longer than five years, we have to go through what's called the franchise act which requires um notification to the public, an opening of bids, you know, an offer for other this is a non-exclusive sort of agreement so others can join in. Um, we also got information from Lumos Networks

2 LLC, which is commonly known as SegRA, who also wants to install um, telecommunication facilities um, within the city's right of way. Both of them are currently working um, on the north of Grenham, you know, property. So, that's why a lot of the immediiacy was relating to the memorandum agreement and that this action. So, we we did do the publication. Um these two were Chantel and Zegra were the only two bids that we received and there's no other bids um for uh the council to consider. We're doing a little bit of a a reverse since the franchise act requires uh this to be adopted by ordinance. Tonight will just be the first read, no action with the second um meeting in February be the adoption or um consideration of both franchise agreements with Chantel and Segra. But we'll also um confirm the public hearing and public bid at the second meeting in accordance with the franchise act. And I'd be happy to answer any questions that council may have.

Question. Yeah. in installing uh the fiber optic. Will this be in some of the roadways? Is this overhead or underground? I think it's all underground for a combination the combination of both getting getting from a an overhead line down

because uh when I was made aware of this uh earlier this week that this was going to be on the agenda, one of the questions I asked was repairs. Uh, one of the biggest complaints I hear from citizens in Wsboro is when um, you know, we go through the the trouble of paving streets and then a week or two later, one of the utility companies come through and dig it up to do a repair or an install and the way that it is repaired may not necessarily be as up to standard as the way it was originally paved. So, is there any special language in there that gives us um a little bit more specific detail on how that they repair these streets or they they repair what they dig up to make sure that it is put back correctly?

The the agreement language is that it's to be repaired to the standard and condition existing at the time of the installation. But I can let Trafford speak more to on so that we also require a bond and insurance coverage and some other to give us a little bit of a leverage to go back and have things fixed correctly. And we also there's also language about reviewing plans notifying us ahead of time in particular. We reviewed both of those to make sure there wasn't conflict with those drive water upgrades that we're working on.

Yeah, I just trying to look at because that is one of the biggest One of one things I get more emails and phone calls about especially in spring when we start the you know start that type of work uh our I know our former mayor her street was uh paved and two weeks later here come Columbia Gas dug it up and when it when they put it back together it didn't settle right. So I'm still hearing about that today.

Yeah. I I was concerned similarly, but I I feel like that uh you know unlike the common utilities, you know, the fiber lines and stuff like that wouldn't necessarily require the road to be pulled up where they could pull line from either side. Imagine they're going to bury pipe through the paved intersection. So, um they don't have to physically access the spot like gas or waters. So, at least that's the way I interpreted some of the stuff that I read online. So, well, we this also requires have permits and in these particular cases I I sign the permit and have to follow this utility regulation and everything else

and I have a question just out of curiosity I could ask you on the sidebar but um Lumos LLC segre so this isn't T-Mobile they still own this part of the company Lumos I don't know anything about their corporate structure. I just know this is the party that submitted the bid for the franchise agreement. When was it submitted? Within the last two weeks. Oh, okay. Okay. So, I would imagine if it was under different ownership or name change or whatever, within two weeks it would have, you know, because that T-Mobile has been there more than two weeks.

Yeah. When we sent the franchise agreement to ZGRAS, they made the changes to Lumos Network 2 LLC. So that's the specific name that that the franchise request is in. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Is there a motion to introduce the ordinance granting a franchise to Chintel? I'll make a motion. Thank you, Mr. Slo. Is there a second? I second. Thank you, Mr. Com. Any discussion? This item will receive final consideration at the March 9th meeting. Is there a motion to introduce the ordinance granting a franchise to SER? I'll make that motion. Thank you, Mr. Wood. Is there a second?

I'll second. Thank you, M. So, any discussion? Likewise, this item will also receive final consideration at the March 9th meeting. Just a point of order, your honor. It will be um considered at the February 23rd meeting. There's just a little typo, I think, on your information. Thank you. February 23rd for both of those. Thank you. Item 13 is to consider adopting a resolution authorizing participation in the class action lawsuit related to PAS chemicals. Miss Michaelson.

Thank you, uh, Mayor Lee and members of council. I'm not sure how much um council has heard about this. Uh it's a nationwide class action uh relating to and I'm not going to be able to say it right. A aquous aquous film forming foams litigation and it has been um ongoing since 2022 2023 range. We um city of Wsboro received information at that time um relating to the class action. At that time there only certain localities in Virginia were eligible to participate and it was heavily contaminated localities. Luckily Waysboro was not one of those localities. So the um next two years um had been focusing on the heavily contaminated localities. Now phase two is opening and the rest of Virginia localities are available to participate and it does not u mean that there's PAS in you know the ways raw um you know drinking water or it's raw water source. It just means that we can opt into the settlement, have our water tested, and if there is any levels of contamination, we can um get, you know, participate in and get portions of the settlement from various defendants. There's numerous defendants um involved. This PAS um aquous film foaming foam uh is in a variety of uh products. One of them being firefighter foam. Um that's the most uh I guess highlighted one that easily gets saturated into you know the the ground

and into the drinking water but it's also a part of Scotch Guard and you know other uh products that you know the technology is great but one of the problems with this is known as a forever chemical. It cannot break down. It cannot you know doesn't go away in time. So it really needs when it gets into water or drinking water or saturated into the land, it needs to be remediated in order to not contaminate um drinking wells and and things of that nature. So my recommendation would be to retain um the law firm of Stag and Louisa. They're um preeminent lawyers in the field of this AFF litigation and um like the opioid litigation, it's they are paid out of portions of the settlement. Currently, two um large manufacturers have settled 3M and DuPont um for billions of dollars. You know, again, it's a national um class action suit. So this firm really would handle all of the settlement and you know other litigation involving the other defendants and l and what's nice about this firm is not only are they paid the settlement so there really is no cost for the attorneys from the city of Wayneboro they have their own labs that they have contracted with that specialize in precisely measuring ing this type of PAS. You know, I don't um the city may already test for PAS, but it's a lot of the testing on normal labs aren't as particular specialized. And so that's good that one we have a

a lab that we can that they'll send the kits to the city of Wsboro. our employees would, you know, collect the water from the raw water source, send it out to these labs, and then the labs would send it directly, not only the results, not only back to the city, but also to the attorneys and to the to the settlement administrators to see if and um how much Wingsboro would qualify. The levels um of qualification are actually below the EPA um requirements for PAS. So we could be within the a, you know, well within the APA standards, meaning we don't have to clean it. We don't have to do anything and we could still recover some amounts just because there is detectable PAS, you know, in our raw water. But I think the the best aspect of, you know, passing and adopting this resolution this evening is that there is a five-year look ahead. In 2030 they are going to do another round of testing and for localities who may not have any or you know minor contamination at this point we don't know what 5 years is going to bring and then the the lawsuit's going to be closed. So if we find out five years from now that oh yeah we do have detectable levels in our water. What about that lawsuit? You know hey you know we want to share in these you know billion dollar settlements. It's too late at that point. So we really need to get on the train now even though we have negligible and small detections which is is great for Wesboro and it even if you know five years from now we still have small or negligible it's again a win for Waysboro at that time and we've incurred no cost in doing the testing or any of those aspects. So again, I think this is just a win-win um situation and I my recommendation is to adopt the resolution, retain the law firm and you know become a part of the the class action lawsuit and I'm happy

to answer any questions. Any questions for Miss Matson? You said well there's no cost before or after if unless we get a part of the settlement. What is the uh the cost? what is the percentage that they will take if there is a settlement?

Um there the court awards what the c what settlement proportion is to the attorneys and um the participation of the localities what they will get from that settlement is based on the testing. So if you know if you within this range you get this much money and it just you know goes down the hill you know you get a larger amount obviously for um the larger percentage of contamination but the court will for each settlement they award the attorney's fees and costs outside of the settlement and then they to be up the pot for the locality

and um I think one other aspect um of it that that I think is um positive in this situation is that unlike the opioid settlements as you may recall those are specifically earmarked to abate opioid not only to abate opioid you know injuries from the city but a certain list of them that the opioid authority has authorized you know we may think like oh opioid abatement we can use the money for this but if it's not on that authorized list then we can't do it here. Even though um the money is for the contamination of the raw water source, it's not you don't once we get that, say we get $50,000. If it only cost us $40,000 to remediate the contamination, that $10,000 can go into the general fund. It's not earmarked for any specific amount. So that's why a little bit different than the opioid litigation. Okay.

It's a no-brainer. It's a no-brainer. Okay. Is there a motion to adopt the resolution? I make that motion. Thank you, Mr. Wood. Is there uh second? A second. Thank you, Mr. Ki. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Uh eyes have it 40. Item 14 is consider adopting resolution for blanket project funding and signature authority for VOTE projects. Mr. Ham.

Yes, sir. Um, until recent history, VOTE um documented its uh financial and working partnerships with localities on specific projects with individual project agreements. Um at some point B do DOT determined that among those various um project agreements on various projects with the numerous localities in the Commonwealth, there was a lack of consistent consistency and many of the agreements did not contain the essential fundamental language um expressing a funding commitment and um signature authority for the locality. Recently, um, VOTE began the corrective action for this was, uh, to have localities adopt what VOTE calls a blanket authorization. And that authorization provides both a commitment for funding and um, evidences the legitimacy of the city manager's ability to sign a contract on behalf of locality. um that might uh engender some anxiety or apprehension among elected bodies. It's our practice, however, um that whenever we are applying or thinking about applying for funding through VOTE, we always um without fail bring those potential applications and then certainly any final awards to the council so that there's a clear understanding, clear communication and a clear understanding on the part of the elected body what projects are being undertaken and what the financial commitment is. But the the blanket authorization is a tool that VOTE now requires of localities. So the resolution satisfies that requirement. Questions.

Is there a motion uh for the resolution for the blanket project funding and signature authority for VO projects? I make the motion. Thank you, Mr. C. Is there a second? I'll second. Thank you, Mr. Wood. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I. Any oppose? Eyes have it 40 Z. Item 15, communication correspondence calendar. Mr. Hamp. Yes, sir. I don't have anything this evening. Item 16, citizen comment. Mr. Hamp. Yes. Laura Rian.

So, while Mrs. rings coming to the podium. I would remind those uh speaking that you have uh four minutes. Green light will come on at 30 seconds. Your yellow light will come on so you can wrap up uh your comments. Welcome.

Thank you. Good evening. My name is Laura Rian. I live at 3009 Village Drive in Wesboro. I'm a teacher at Wesboro High School and I serve as the treasurer of the Wesboro Education Association. I want to tell you tonight that I'm opposed to the changes you have proposed for the funding formula for Wesro's public schools and talk to you about why you are proposing what you call a cap on the funding formula agreement that city council has honored for the last 20 years. However, this cap will in all but bad years be a cut to the percentage that city council has pledged to our local schools. If discretionary revenue increases more than 3%, your proposal will provide not 42.5% of discretionary revenue to the schools, but a lower percentage of the actual discretionary revenue. A percentage of discretionary revenue provides equitable increase to both the city and WPs. The idea that the city's revenue increases in some years provide too much increase for the school system doesn't make sense. Those increases provide the same percentage of increase to both the Waysboro public schools and the city. The success of our local schools impacts the success of our city. Our school system is the largest employer in Wesboro and a significant consideration for both businesses and families who choose to locate here. As such, Wesboro Public Schools doesn't just benefit from discretionary revenue, but it actually helps to generate it. Ways growth in recent years is obvious and reflects good work from city council. Part of that involved offering incentives in the form of tax reduction and or rebates to commercial investors in the city. Those deals may have been effective in attracting that investment, but the reality is that they affected the city and school budgets in multiple ways. Obviously, there was less tax revenue

from those investments, but also the commercial enterprises and the people that came with them required more services from both the city and the school system. The school system had to forego the exempted tax revenues just as the city did. As the exemptions expire, WPS should be able to start benefiting from this investment at the same rate as the city does. I also want to mention the harm that can come from the limits that you suggest. If Wayneboro public schools can't match regional districts for salary for all personnel, potential employees easily go to neighboring districts. From administrators to teachers to aids to bus drivers, food service workers, nurses, substitutes, and custodians, all of our employees are integral to the support and success of our students. Underfunded schools spiral downward in quality. The task of meeting student needs gets only more difficult without the most qualified professionals in each of those roles or without up-to-date classrooms and technology or without quality programs that address kids where they are. And where are our kids? As we heard from Dr. Castle's presentation at the joint meeting last month, more and more of them are coming to us with high needs. IEPs, 504 plans, mental health challenges, or the experience of homelessness. Meeting the more expensive needs of these highne students is not just a matter of morality, but also of state and federal law. I recognize that your job is difficult. You must adequately fund important services for our city, and as a resident and taxpayer, I want my local police and fire department and city workers to be paid fair wages. But I urge you not to do this at the expense of the school system. The funding formula is fair as it is, and the schools can't make the sacrifices you're seeking without significant harm that

ultimately will land on the students and families we serve. Thank you,

Will Blackburn. Uh Will Blackburn, West 12th Street. Um I am also a teacher at Wsboro High School. I teach ESL and I am the vice president of WEA. At the joint meeting, I heard a few reasons why this budget cap is necessary, and I don't think any of them justify it. I heard that Wesboro has grown, but enrollment has trended downward. I think we demonstrated that that's not really true and the real monetary demands have increased dramatically. If we came the to this decision based on u the numbers that I saw at the um at the joint meeting, I urge you to reconsider. Wes's recent growth reflects smart investment and those investments come with tax exemptions and reductions as said already. Um and basically we should not be uh you know capped out of that. Um I heard that our policy is too old. A policy doesn't become flawed because it's old. It becomes flawed if it no longer works. And no evidence has uh been shown that uh shows that this formula is broken. If it is to be changed at all, it should be changed to remove the cap completely. I heard the phrase, "We were elected a few times." Being elected does establish legal authority. Yes, you can do this, but there isn't much of a of a voter mandate in a town like Waysboro. A mandate comes from broad explicit public support for a specific policy. Where and when were voters asked to weigh in on changing the school funding formula? this measure could prove to be

the most high impact thing that this particular council does. And as far as I could tell, the candidates ran uh in 2024 at least on very general issues. I heard that capping this budget will help protect our residents from becoming homeless. I would like to see some evidence of that. How exactly does that work? From where I'm standing, capping our budget would protect their landlords while creating more homelessness in the long run. With the economy the way that it is, and with it being a landlord's choice whether or not to pass their savings along to their tenants, I think we'll see that those residents will continue to be evicted. Decisions about school funding reach far beyond the voters who typically participate in city elections. Does the city council plan to engage with uh the Waysboro residents who are directly affected by school funding decisions, but who historically have not participated in elections? School funding decisions don't stay inside budget documents. They shape how people feel about their city. They shape who stays here and who who leaves. Um who gets jobs here and who goes somewhere else. those effects last far longer than any single budget cycle. Uh what you guys are planning on doing. Um you know, I I think it's going to hurt us uh you know, 5 10 years from now. Um and that that's all I have to say. Thank you.

Andrea Jackson. My name is Andrea Jackson. I live in Ward A. And unlike the two other um speakers, I don't have a prepared speech. That was very eloquent. I'm just going to speak from the heart and from the stuff that I know. Um I'm just going to get up and say that I was also at the meeting and I also like each year and I do I I say my opinion. Y'all going to do what y'all want to do anyway. That's how Wingsboro's always been. But there always has to be someone that says, "Hey, this isn't right or this isn't what's good for the community." And so when y'all did not increase the taxes so that y'all could take care of the city's business, that was wrong. Um, y'all wasn't managing or doing the due diligence of what y'all should be doing. And I was very adamant about that then. And I was very adamant about when the city cut the taxes in 2023, I think, from 90 cents all the way to 77 cents. Y'all should have never cut the taxes that low. Then I said it was a mistake and that whoever had to raise it to uh compensate for that. It would look like they are raising the taxes, which that was the situation that happened last year. the schools shouldn't suffer because y'all not um generating enough revenue. It's y'all's job to generate enough revenue. And if that means putting the um property tax at an adequate rate, then that's what y'all should be doing. And just like they say, the city of Wesboro is not um industrial like it used to be in the '9s. The city

of Wesboro is the biggest employer in Wesboro and that y'all do not pay a living wage all the way down from y'all's like physical plant on and not the city has we are Alice city. Most of the people is a working uh class town is have and have nots and y'all set the tone of what goes on in the city. And it should be that we pay in our teachers, we pay in the um the the safety, the police, the fire people, all of those people, the um the physical plant cuz they was the people who in the emergencies are out there 12 and what so hours with the uh snow and they they need more people doing these jobs. And so I just want to let y'all know is that keep y'all on notice that people did tell y'all people did say that y'all should not have done this. And I did say when y'all did pass this um last year that I would continue every once in a while and remind y'all that it was a mistake and the kids and the school should not be uh punished for that mistake. Also, I want to thank my city council person and represented war a cuz she did vote against it. Thank you very much.

Sam Hosted,

Mayor Lee, members of council, other uh employees. Um I come also to talk about city uh the funding for the schools. Um I was at that meeting. I have the uh the privilege of having sat in your seat and I understand the difficulty in saying that every time you raise a dollar you know that 42.5% is going to go to the schools and not to the other projects that need to be funded by the city. And that's a difficult conundrum, but I think the proposal doesn't really answer it. Um, it's some 20 years ago that uh the agreement was done and I hear the stories. I was not participating. is not living in the city by that point. But I hear the stories of, you know, there were big dragout arguments about every year how to do the funding and uh and the two themes that I think came out of this were adequate um and predictable and the adequate is the difficult conversation and that's something that again I encourage you to keep working with school board to figure out what is adequate. Um the predictable the proposal of a 3% cap throws predictable out the window because no longer can we have any sense of where that's going other than there's a 3% every year. You know we talked about how inflation has been running 2.7% recently. What happens if it goes to 4%. You know you're you're essentially not giving them enough of an increase to cover the costs. Um, one thought I had, and I don't know if it's come up in your discussions, is it time to have a new conversation about the the actual percentage? I'm sure that Cameron, he's not here tonight, he could do the math in a hurry. You know, what would it mean if it was 41.5%.

To uh to consider what that adequate number would be, but still keep it at a set number so the predictability would be there. Um, again, I I don't have the numbers in my head to be able to think that through, but I'm sure that could be done. Um, the question about how to fund the things is real. And again, I I acknowledge that that was always a conversation that we had to have when we're talking about where the money was going to come from to pay the police officers more or or hire new police officers, you know, fill in gaps at uh the fire department. um because every time you did that, you knew that you had to raise it even more to accomplish those goals. So, I encourage you to keep thinking creatively, hopefully keep working with the city council or the uh school board, excuse me, um to come up with the adequate and the predictable plan. Thank you.

That's it. Okay. Item 17. Is there a motion to

second? All in favor? All right. Yep.