Um, I call the Charlottesville City Council um, special work meeting special meeting to order. It's on the FY27 um, budget. And Madame Clerk, will you please call the role? >> Councelor Flasher >> here. Vice Mayor Asher
>> here. Councelor Payne >> here. >> Councelor Smith >> here. >> Here. Okay. Um, so I'll turn it over to you Sam and Thank you. I'm sorry. I was not
connected here, but there stuff. >> No, I'm good. I mean, you can if you like. >> All right. >> So, counselors and members of the public, tonight is your your final planned work session. So, we're going to
talk about CIP. Um, we also have um an anticipation that you might choose to use some of the time to continue your discussions about uh decisions that you might make about your strategic initiatives fund or not. Uh,
and then we're also looking for you to be able to help us understand if we need to have next week's work session on the 2nd and if so, what topics might you be interested in us being able to work to prepare for? Because that is the catchup
session. So that's the one that we don't have anything planned for. It's usually where we try to make sure that we're pulling the final things together because your vote is on the I'll turn it over to Miss Hamill, walk you through the CIP. >> Thank you. So, um, we're going to talk about the
five-year summary, look at the CIP revenues, talk a little bit about the debt projection, um, the 1% sales tax for school construction, and then, um, just to fully close the loop on all of the sort of city grant processes, um,
CDBG is one that, uh, pulls up the rear in terms of timing. And so we're just going to provide you with an application summary of who has submitted, how much they've requested, and what's available to be awarded. Um, so we'll talk about that at the end.
So, uh, jumping right into the CIP. We talked, it feels like we talked about this a long time ago. Was back in the fall. Um, we met with the planning commission, uh, to discuss this. Um, nothing has really changed since that was presented. Um at the time we talked
about the uh CIP plan for 27 is just over 47 million. Um with 196 million um over the five years. If we were to look in terms of um dollars spent uh
education is um the highest in this plan followed by uh transportation and access and then affordable housing coming in third. Um, as you know, that kind of varies from year to year depending on where projects are. The one thing that's
uh driving the education in this five-year plan is of course the additional funds for the prek center. Um but the graphs on the uh right hand side of the screen sort of um sort of
give you a a visual of the categories in which we're spending the money both in 27 and over the five-year plan and mostly it's pretty consistent over the five years. No real change um there in
terms of category spending. And so, um, I'm going to run through the next few slides pretty quickly. This is just to as a refresher of what's actually in each category. Um, anything that's highlighted in green denotes um, a change um, in the funding amount from
the 26 plan to the 27 plan. Um, there's not a lot of new things that have been added. So most of the things that are in this year's CIP are basically just adjustments to funding based on either additional um project information or things that we know about inflation and
those types of things. Um, one thing you'll note on this school slide is that um, we did receive a request from staff that our funding for HVAC um, repairs and replacements both in the
city schools but also city buildings as well. Um, that funding was sort of lagging behind the cost. Um, and so we did make an adjustment there to increase the funding in both of those pots of money. So this is the one for schools. >> What had it been? uh 750
a year. >> Sorry about that, Siri. Um, moving on to facilities, um, projects, again, the HBAC that we just spoke about, that had been 500,000 a month, excuse me, a year. Um, and we
increase that by a half a million as well. And each year, moving that up to a million dollars. McGuffy roof replacement, that is something that was new that was added um, in this year's plan. um that had not been in the plan previously, but is uh for what I
understand long overdue. Um and so that's been programmed here. Um for the HVAC replacement, is that um I mean that's a nice round number. Have we done an analysis about what we need
and that's reflected here or is this kind of socketing it away knowing projects are going to come up? I I don't Do you ever want to speak to that? You >> want me to go to the corner or just shoot from here? >> Good. >> Go ahead. >> Okay. Uh a lot of analysis been done. Uh
there's always a running lumps on the plan and it's more than a million dollars a year. So we rounded it to make it easy for you all to to sort of swallow, but uh we could use even more than that. But I think that's a number that'll get us closer to what we
actually need to keep things running. And that's not schools. That's just other >> city buildings. Yeah. >> Thanks. >> But on the previous slide was the school building. >> Yes. >> Uh moving on to public safety. Not a lot of changes here. As we've spoken about
before, many of these accounts um are uh set up as recurring accounts other than the fire truck replacement and the ambulances. um the rest of the radios and the um apparatus. Uh we're funding those in an annual rate um to both build
up a reserve of funds so that we're not uh trying to fund the big numbers all at once, but also so that um regular replacements can happen so we don't end up with a big cliff every five or six years as they need to be replaced. They
can do a cyclical replacement um cycle on those things. transportation and access. Um, again, nothing um new here other than the Dominion Powerpole remediation account. Uh, there were some changes in
the amounts. Um but uh and most notably the additional investment in the new sidewalks which was based on the uh priority list that was prevent presented to council with the tier I think it was one two three projects. Um the funds
that are here represent um correspond with that that listing. Parks and recreation. Um all of this uh all of these accounts were also in last year's plan. Um, most
notably though in the 26 plan, we only had one year of uh half a million dollars put in the CIP because we weren't sure what was going to come out of the plan or how those dollars were going to be spent. Um we spent a lot of
time talking about those plans and um right now we're putting in the half a million a year to try to address um some of the the more immediate things as there's further discussions that need to happen with council in terms of next
steps on that. I'll add on that um that we fully expect that going forward budget cycles that line item for the parks master plan will dramatically increase. U we were not able to get to a place of being comfortable putting in
any numbers at this time beyond these $500,000 amounts just to be able to say that parks has something available, some amount available to do some projects. Um there's still work to be done. Their master plan came in, if I'm remembering
correctly, 70 million $78 million for full implementation as visioned. >> Um so we know that those numbers need to be dramatically different if we're going to come anywhere close to that. But we now have an assistant city manager here who's going to be working with the team
to try to figure out how do we allocate better over the next uh fiveyear cycle. So those numbers will change. This is just to indicate what we're going to attempt to do right now. >> So, what is the parks and wreck lump sum account? What does that mean?
>> Those are dollars that they have had for years for um it's a lot of maintenance um or like um replacing sort of small uh >> ongoing ongoing things, benches, signs.
um they've used it for various things over the years, but it's basically just a a small amount of money to allow them to do um small projects as they come up during the year. >> And they would budget each year. Their project list would be associated with how much those funds being available in
any carryover from the year before. So, >> do they spend it all every year? >> Uh pretty close. Yes. they too probably would say that they could spend more if we gave them more because the maintenance the maintenance issue came out as a very high priority
in the parks master plan that a lot of what the um the study produced was we should invest a lot more in what we have and then begin to invest in taking it somewhere else. I don't know that it makes any any real different. You you may be able to tell me that it does make
a difference, but I I get a little bit of puzzlement when I think of ordinary recurring maintenance expenses being regarded as capital. >> And I probably describe that in the wrong way. It's I it's not more it's not
really maintenance as much as it is small um not multi-million dollar projects but obviously small projects that need to happen within the parks or the parks facilities. So it's not painting and that kind of thing. It's more like replacement of benches or
signs or um you know they've used it for some trail work or just a couple things that come up to to the top of mind. Do we have any sort of definition as to when something is enough that it is a capital expenditure as opposed to a
maintenance expenditure? If you're replacing I mean it seemed to me replacing a bench can't be more than $10,000. >> That strikes me as being a regular maintenance matter rather than a capital matter. And my I guess my first question
is a does it matter really which category we put it in? Uh it matter for any accounting reason uh or b um did it matter for and I don't know sort of definitional purposes. I remember again
going back to when I was on the planning commission, we had a definition of a capital expense that basically I don't remember what it was at the minimum of $100,000 or or something like that, but there was a notion that there was a threshold that it had to be more expensive than
that to qualify as a capital expense. No, it's a fair I'll just answer it from the budget and then uh accounting piece and then I'll defer to Evan, but um essentially we try to look for something that's 50,000 or more. Um is is what we
consider capital. Um and and again um I'm not doing this account justice, but and maybe Evan Kim, but it's not like we're replacing one bench. We sort of look at that as a pro. So they might replace all the benches in a park or um whatever they're they're doing in a
particular area. Um it's not really it is more infrastructure related than maintenance related. >> I really don't have anything more to add other than uh it we also look at it as a like a capital refresh for a park. So it
might be replacing a bench, but it's also doing five or six other things. So in that that whole capital refresh um that's where it also gets to a capital eligibility. >> Is that something that that is a bondable expense?
>> Um yeah I mean >> okay so there's a definitional reason to call it one versus the other. >> Yeah. Um you know we don't we wouldn't bond a $10,000 bench but if we were able to uh go and refresh the park that would be a bondable sort of thing that we
could look at in in total. But we can provide you with some more specifics to give you some better comfort of actually what they're using this money for. >> I I don't want to suggest that I am uncomfortable. >> No, no, no. I'm sorry. Yeah. >> Puzzled. >> No, it's a fair question and we'll get
you some better details. >> It's definitely not small expenditures. I can assure you of that because we have too many things that need. Um, I know one example would be that we have found ourselves having to go in and do work on
restrooms outside of the normal schedule. And that's because individuals have gone in and they've done damage to the restroom. So, it takes it off its cycle. >> So, we have to go in and we have to replace all the accessory pieces in the
bathroom because they were destroyed. Like, that happens way more often than any of us appreciate. We'll get you some info >> and I'm I'm looking up some details and actually getting some other information in as as we speak. Uh so it's things
like benches. Yes. Bike racks, grills, uh dog waste stations, picnic tables, trash receptacles, water fountain, and then uh some more significant repairs would be like tennis courts. Um
they also have uh garden plots and cool work. So that's the kind of thing that ends up in that uh that line. >> Can they ask about the um trees active life cycle management? Is that from the
4 something million that we've seen for the downtown mall trees? Those are two different >> Yep. And I see one thing on my color coding here. There actually is a new account that I missed. Um the city county park maintenance joint parks. Um
that is for the uh joint parks between the city and the county. Um and the county asked if the city could create an account by which we could um use that for um projects or things that come up during the year. U we didn't previously
had that have that. we had just been budgeting for, you know, paving or uh tree replacement. And so this amount of funds is there to help with those projects as they come along. >> Joint account, >> Darren, Abby Creek. Um
>> Oh, right. >> Um are the are the two I think. >> So is it a joint account like we've contributed X? They've contributed that for sure. >> Yeah. >> That's that's our account for our share of expense. And who spends that money? >> The county. And then they bill us. Okay.
>> Um, can we check back in about there are the two line items on here for the downtown mall management plan, tree management plan and the active life cycle management. How are what's different about those? >> I can. >> So the active life cycle is that uh
every year um sometimes multiple times a year we have to go through and like trim branches, hazard branches and stuff like that. So, it's going through and doing that ongoing tree maintenance work so that we don't have limbs falling and damaging property or people, right? >> The other one is actually the the larger
project that we did that whole tree management plan for that is about really over time renewing and replacing the trees up and down the whole mall. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. And I I know that we we had a
presentation on the fact that it was going to be a a systematized management plan. Um I was curious since we're going to be spending in FY28 at this point projected to triple the amount in any other year. Is there something in
particular planned for FY28? >> Yeah. Um what I believe that is is so that the plan actually calls for replacement of we call the the groupings of trees bosses >> right >> replacing those bosses um uh
>> all at once >> all at once and um and I I I don't recall in this instance but I think that in in this instance I think that involves taking taking out the trees um taking out the bricks and the soil replacing that soil because remember one of the things we learned is the trees
are planted >> in the old roaded, which is part of the reason they aren't doing as well as they as they ought to be. >> So, taking out the soil, putting in >> better soil, replanting the trees, and then relaying the bricks. So, it's it's a big it's a big project for each one of
those. >> I is it thought that, you know, we'll do one of those in FY27 and three of them in FY28 or something? >> Yeah, well, they're they are spaced out because the idea is that we don't want to do all the trees at once. Sure. >> So we don't
>> take out the entire canopy. Um I don't >> Was that the one that's central? >> I think that's the one central. Yeah, we do. >> Biggest problem. >> Line Rion's online. We could have >> Oh, I forgot about her. >> Great. He's in better position.
>> Good evening. Yeah. So um how we designed it is was since it's for central place uh central place uh that where we're going to do the vast of trees but how we designed it was that the first year is going to be a work. So
we're going to have to get a architect a landscape architect to come in to design that and that's why you see the second year it's a higher price that means it's for construction. Um so if you look at that uh 500 and something in the first
year um that's a work and the second year is construction just for phase one. Um so this project if you can recall um the report calls for a 20-year uh plan to replace trees on the downtown
mall. Um so that is we are just talking about phase one. >> Thanks Ron. Sorry, I forgot you were online. >> With the park's master plan, obviously that is something that lots of
people in the community care about and are watching and it can be transformative in terms of our parks and services. Uh, as you referenced, the cost is 70 plus million. $500,000 a year and again you kind of acknowledge this is essentially not currently
implementing it. What is our approach going to be towards working to that point? >> Yeah, I can answer that question. So uh what parks and recreation staff did is uh we looked at uh the entire master
plan and uh we worked uh collectively is coming up with a 10-year plan of how are we going to accomplish all the projects and we prioritized it. What staff recommended was let's try to look at
high impact for the first year or two with low cost. And that's where you get the $500,000 where we are looking at new park signs. Those are small impacts but high impacts uh for the community because we did not
want to look at a big project. For example, we have four parks that is called out in the master plan. We just did not want to put all our money into one bucket of let's say $2 million and it takes us four years to get accomplished where the community is
looking for some improvement. So that is what we are looking at is looking at high impact for the community uh with low cost and that's where we have the first year of 500,000 as uh everybody
mentioned signage uh uh um redo of uh of benches adding uh um uh um adding shelters um or or canopies at areas like our uh splash pads at certain parks that people have been asking asking for so
small impacts before we get to the big ticket items >> in in the future years for the big ticket items. Um again 70 plus million dollars is is part of that conversation going to be whether or not city council
approves an additional revenue source that's just for parks. I'm just trying to think through what 70 plus million like how what would it look like to actually do that? you're muted. >> Good question. Um, so as we do
understand and in the back of our master plan, it calls for, we know that $78 million is a lot of money, but it calls also for staff to look at other opportunities in terms of grants. Um so
so number one what the department looked at is how let's prioritize what is important u for the community which we did uh a 10ear plan then what we are going to look at is how do we achieve
that in in terms of we know that um we will not be able to get $78 million directly from um capital improvement but what other grant opportunities we do have. But in order for us to get there,
we have to rightsize our department and the city. Again, we are working in partnership with public works. Um reaching out to their department is to say, hey, do you have any resources? We are looking at the grants department is
to say how can we get there? So um to close up is that we are looking at all these facets before just jumping in and just requesting a lot of funding uh at one given time. uh but we are looking at
different stages of how do we meet the goals of the community >> and and I'll add just um for further explanation that um direction that I've given as well has been that I did not want to see us placing numbers into the
CIP that are not real. We we've had a history of that >> um and I don't want that to I don't want us to slip back to that. So a lot of the effort has been around the idea that if we put the money in CIP in this recurring fashion, then the intent is
that it gets spent. So whatever numbers go in there are hard pressed because we have so many priorities that we're trying to to balance that if we put it there, we need to spend it. We also have um the four plans that still also need
to be done for Market Street, Court Square, Washington Park, and Tonsler. They're big ticket items just in the plan and the construction documents before we make a movement of change at any one of those parks. We need to
spread those out as well because we're going to spend a lot of money on designing and nobody's going to see anything. So that's going to take away from actual physical improvements that get to be made at parks as well. So we need to have a little more conversation
about where to place them, spreading them out so that we can see change as well as plan for change at the same time. That's the reason why we took another year um in spending more time to try to figure out how to put a true five-year plan together that will look
different. It'll have a eb and flow to it where you'll see the numbers changing from 500,000 to well over a million or two possibly. And in the presentation that I made to you, it's why the decisions made decisions pending page exists. Remember, parks was one of those
bags of money that is a decision pending that we need to be able to figure out how do we get it fitting to fit in with that bigger price tag. >> Thank you. Any more questions on parks and rec projects?
Okay, so moving along to the affordable housing um projects. Um this is again these were all projects that were in the plan last year. Um the only uh real change at this point um is
uh 501 cherry. Uh there is $700,000 that was added to 28 based on um an action that you took just several weeks ago. Um and the Carlton mobile home um park uh the the loan has been u finalized which
allowed us to reduce uh the amount that we had in the budget last year for those annual payments. But noting that there is a balloon payment in 2030 for that. >> And you'll notice that the Salvation Army line item is still there. It is
meant to just be there until we know that the that conversation is dead at the Cherry Avenue location. I thought it was important enough for us to leave it there until we really started to see how this driver conversation materializes schedule-wise as well as there's still
an opportunity uh for discussion with the Salvation Army about doing something there. So, I just decided to give ourselves another year before we have to make a decision on taking it out. At least it might end up being low family shelter or something else. >> Right. >> I've asked this before and I always
forget. Park Street Macka is underway. We funded it. Where does that live in our budget? Was that like a surplus that's already allocated or like >> it's it's in the CIP in a last year? I
think last two years it was funded. But so it's basically funded the money sitting there waiting to be drawn down. >> It just it just fell off because of when it was budgeted for, >> right? But it's not yet dispersed. Still there. Yes. >> Correct. >> Yeah.
um and CESAP that is program with a lot of discussions to be had around it and I know kind of where where is that at and what's when what's kind of the next
steps for determining things around Crap >> end of end of fiscal year. Yeah, I think we're looking at the next update before the end of this fiscal year. Um, still more work to do. Um, and
I think as you know, we've also uh have staff shortage there that we need to we need to refill positions so that we can get back um get back on schedule with that. But the funding remains the same at the
900,000 as a projection for the next five years. That could change of course once we get that work done. That's part of what the original conversation was about uh either going up or down honestly just depending on if we set parameters that would mean that the
contributions would change or if we add more people. So this now just keeps it as a placeholder at the current um budget so that we would say that for the next fiscal year the program doesn't change potentially but it could just
depends on what that update is but it's possible that some some basic things around how it operates could change. >> Absolutely. Yeah. Then the final category is the technology infrastructure.
Um the communications technology account. That's funded account through PEG fees that has to be used on our um public access TV. Um citywide IT infrastructure. Um, this is an account that we use um to help with things that
come up during the year um or or uh things that are not previously budgeted but we have to adjust for and then the voting equipment. This is I think year two or three um of funding. Uh that gets us to a total for the replacement that
will be taking place in 27. And so all of that brings us to a total of the just over $47 million for 27 and $196 million over the five years.
Any questions on expenditures? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, backing up to the transportation access projects page just because of something that um was mentioned when we were talking about parks um
where in the the small small capital projects um bike racks were mentioned uh I'm assuming that is just bike racks that are in parks not the bike rack program in general. So, in the
transportation line item, and I probably have asked this before, but just to clarify, what counts as bicycle infrastructure in that line item? >> Yeah. Um, I think it incl that that that includes bike racks. Um,
and that's that's the primary thing I'm I can think of that that we've used or have used that funds for. We've used it also for like some of the sweeping and things for bike lanes. Um
and then um I know as of late some of the uh the VO revenues that we get um have been used for like the website and and the um subsidy program. >> Thank you. Yes. Um and so I think it's
been used for various things. So, if we were to have a project that was like adding a curb to a street to make a protected bike lane, where would that money come from? Likely, >> it could potentially come from that. Yeah. >> Okay. And it's not a it's not a huge number, which leads we don't have plans
to do that just yet. >> No. Um, but the other thing though when I think about what you're describing, that's that's a that's a project that I suspect could get expensive really quickly and it would probably end up being a standalone project in and of
itself that we would do it in concert with a a larger streetscape project because if if we're if we're adding a curb, we're we're changing on a street. We're potentially changing how the water flows and and so now you've got a bunch of downstream
impacts. >> Yeah. Um very true. So for the um you know we've did the quick builds projects with the idea that we would study their effect and see which ones we wanted to harden and that sort of thing.
Where does that live? that. So, that's uh something that we've been discussing um is actually setting up just like we did with the the sidewalk program where we created a tiered pro tiered sidewalk replacement program. We're talking about doing the same thing with quick builds, whether it would be where we would take
the uh the quick build programs and tier out what could be um uh what can be easily done, what's what's kind of in the mid tier, what's a more difficult tier, and then building out a line that would that where we would pay for pay for those improvements.
>> Okay. And what's the what's the timeline on putting something like that together? >> Evan, I know this something you've been looking into, right? Yeah, it's it's it's something that uh we're we're in process right now. Um I would expect that in the next few months we'll we'll
have something. Uh but it's important to note that as part of the the tiers that that uh James was talking about, the uh public engagement portion really needs to be fleshed out because we put these temporary measures out. We've gotten
some good feedback, but we haven't gone back to uh consult with the neighborhood to really get a full sense of whether these are features that we do want as a community. >> So, that's also going to play into the the timeline for implementation and
hardening of those features. >> That's yeah, that is true. um is if there's a if somehow this process the tiering system the community engagement activities happen um and we have that
list that's ready to go before next budget cycle would it come as a CIP request and like >> it depends on how much it depends on what it it really depends on how much um it adds up as typically when it's
something that's not budgeted and it's of a certain certain size then it's a surplus request. >> Yes. >> So that's usually how it would come and it would just be a matter of what else is being considered for whatever balance of surplus we have available. Um if it were a small amount then usually
sometimes what happens is departments try to determine I'm thinking of Mike because he's sitting here. Mike knows that Sam is sometimes undisiplined and will say hey Mike I need you to do this. And Mike wants to make me happy. So, he'll figure out how to make his lumpsum account work for me and then he'll
figure out the impact of it later. We can do that from time to time, but we're trying to discourage more of that, which is why he hasn't had me do that to him lately. Um, but I have done it in the past. So, sometimes >> big enough comprees, we'd allocate.
>> And just going back to your excuse me, question on the bike infrastructure. Um, as of December, there's about $991,000 sitting there unspent in addition to what we have um in the five-year plan. So, part of that, I think when Mr.
Chambers last came before you, it was that um he has what he needs for right now, but he would be working on a different plan like the sidewalks. And so this is why we're not >> putting anything in >> putting much in because we want to maintain but we don't want to want to
make sure we can spend it on real projects. >> Okay. >> And more likely he had that that knowing Ben that is already spent in his head. >> Sure. >> Yeah. >> I'm not saying more than in his head. I'm sure he even has written down spreadsheet somewhere. And
>> I know there's you know everyone's got a work plan. Um, but it I'm what what can we do to fast track? >> You're doing it, but I'm bringing it up. >> Great. Consider it.
>> Consider it brought. >> You got counselor snug to react. So, don't do that again. >> Um, but >> what I what I'll say is an old English. I thought you had a reaction. Yeah. >> Don't bring it on to, you know, years old, but we can watch it later.
>> But, but you're in you're in the same that I am as it relates to the CIP. I want us to move away from any notion that the CIP is a slush fund, is a savings account, is a place to hold unless approved by the budget team. And
that savings account component is we save over a period of time to avoid the cliff that Chrissy mentioned. Those are appropriate moments, not tuck it away so that I'll have it available to me to pull out and do something. That's not discipline behavior. And this is really
supposed to be about discipline management so that we can use as much of the available resources to do as many things as we possibly can on any for any given year. >> Okay, great. Thanks. >> I have one other transportation related
question. Uh are we spending anything out of this budget or does it come out of some other budget for uh bus shelters which we've talked about from time to
time but >> certainly isn't appearing here. >> It's in the CAT budget. >> Does it come out of CAT budget? >> It's in their budget specifically. I know that we did >> we did a remember that we gave extra money in the surplus. We did
>> instead of projects, but it is baked into their budget because they get money from the state and feds to help cover those part of that those expenses >> and the county is paying >> and the county is paying for some as well. >> And we're in the midst of a study we just saw a presentation on at Carta,
right? >> Um uh >> a beautiful presentation. >> Yeah, very well done presentation. >> Uh looking at at uh what the what are the deficiencies across our bus shelter network. Um, I need to see that. >> It was a proper bus stop audit.
>> Yep. >> What each of them has, what each of them needs. >> Oh, yeah. >> You know, there's lighting maybe on the sign, but not for the people using the bus stop. There's, you know, a trash can and earbud, but it's not really the bus stop. >> You know, we need this square footage of
pad to improve or like what is the pad made of? Or is there any kind of rightway access? >> Yep. >> Want to make sure somebody's doing something about it. >> Yeah. Bus stops is a thing for me. Miss Carrie made that a thing.
>> Anything else on expenditures before we move on in any of the categories? >> What is the historic entrance historic district entrance corridor design guideline going on?
>> Sure. So, uh, we have design guidelines which the BAR is meant to be using does use for for their review of projects within those different districts and those guidelines are quite dated at this point in time and particularly dated relative to the more recently adopted
comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance and so they are they are due for an update relative to the >> and what we did there was it was 75,000 I think in 27 and 29 and we just moved it all up so that that work could begin
on that. >> And is that basically that like fun consultant? >> Yeah. >> Um and then the government initiatives uh ended zeroed out in the out years. Is there a
reason for that? It was just because we identified it as a five-year commitment initially and the goal is to monitor the use of the funds and determine by uh making further allocations based
on using those funds. So that's that's still a question. We've had um some efforts have been to try to go after big grants and in going after big grants we take big chunks of that money and set it aside as the local match in case we get
the grant. We haven't landed the grant yet. So therefore we have money that has been able to build up and again my desire is to have us not have any money sitting for long periods of time unspent. Uh so the part of the reason for not putting anything into those
later years is to see what happens over the next few years because climate is a challenging topic for the federal administration today. So not knowing what the chances are going to be for being able to do bigger ticket items, we may have to do more things that are smaller over time and then that would
help us determine is it a million dollars or is it half a million dollars in those out years plus it becomes a part of that reconciliation conversation as well. Well, I appreciate that. I definitely would say I think in the hot years the need will still remain nothing else for
climate resilience. Um, climate change will still be >> real. Yes. Um um the small area plans is that a similar situation with some of these other items where the amount for implementation is
basically 200,000 a year because we don't yet know >> it's it's been that it's been something like that number a long time. It's recurring. Um and what what we've done is you will recall I think two years ago
now we run that while it still has the moniker small area plans it is it's really geared towards producing smaller plans and other uh implementation type plans that support um uh you know land use planning on a on a finer scale uh
and support implementation of the comprehensive plan. Um, but it's it's a it's a lump sum that is meant to be used to fund those studies. >> Yeah, I guess it just maybe I'm wrong.
It seems like except for the one bridge project, we just haven't really spent money implementing small area plans to this point. >> Yeah. Oh, talking about small area plan implementation, >> correct? >> Yeah. So the the focus one of the
focuses as we move into our next era of small area plans is really to make sure that those plans what'll differentiate those plans from from previous ones is that they will um be a lot more focused on identifying implementable plans uh
I'm sorry implementable projects that this funding source will be used to to to achieve. So, um, uh, each of these new plans, we're looking at whether there is a kind of a short,
uh, time frame that we're looking towards. What are the things we can concretely do within that time frame and have a funding source to in which to immediately move on them. >> So, we're doing a little bit of socking it away without knowing what it's going to be for. >> We are doing a little bit of socking away without knowing. Yeah. Well, but I
will I'll I'm not trying to talk out of both sides of my mouth, but that is because we have every intention of doing more small area plans and we had a real request from the public to make sure that there was money available for
implementation after the completion of the plans because we weren't doing that part of it before. We would do the plans and then we would have to figure out how do we find a bucket of money to do something and this the plan implementation fund is the is the reset
because that was the strategic >> yes >> strategic something >> strategic investment area strategic investment area that was the only plan that we actually created a funding source for and it went unspent.
Councelor Snook used to tell us about it every year. So we wanted to make sure that we did something different about that. And that's when James requested the combining of small area plans and that fund. So it wasn't just for that area specifically. It was for all plans
that we have on the books. >> I guess it could be a whole another topic of discussion and I understand there's been changes, but it just still feels like unclear to me how it's being spent. And I know there's new small airplanes
underway, but even our existing ones, I mean, there's, you know, lowhanging fruit items about traffic calming measures and art intersections that we just haven't >> I think to the question of how we harden some of the u improvement plans, some of
the quick bills and things of that nature. If they're in small areas, small area plan areas, then that would be one of the funding sources that we could consider if we haven't already started to maximize it. I put pressure on anyone who uses those accounts that they have
to spend them because the SI SIA account at one point was over a million dollars with no idea on what it was going to get spent on. So, we've been trying to pivot those conversations to let's identify projects so that we can plan and get this work
done and let's spend it because the threat that I made was and I'll take away the annual allocation if we're going to let it sit and go >> because there are other things that we can use that money for. >> Thank you. >> So, there really is an intention that as we complete smaller plants, we're able
to move quickly into implementation while there's the momentum in the plan. Yeah, >> we've even talked about the fact that there are things that could be implemented while you're still in the if there if there's general consensus on something, let's do it while we're still technically, you know, drafting the plan.
>> Make makes sense. And just sorry, one more question. So, >> for existing small area plans, the 10th and page one is underway. That'll be the next one. Do we only have Cherry Avenue as something to implement at this point or do we consider the Star Hill to be a
small area plan or do we consider that to be this separate vision plan? >> I mean I I I think we we >> Yes. And >> yeah, >> I mean I'll be from my perspective Star Hill if there's a if there's a project
that we can implement in there then we should look at it and and move on it. Um it's there's there's no reason to to not do that, but there's some there's some history with that one, I guess. Um that one's before my time. Um Cherry has
specific implementable things. You've got the North 29 one, which is really geared towards big large scale, you know, uh B VOT kind of interventions. Um, and then you have the strategic
investment area. So that's that's >> to the extent that I can remember, that's the whole list. I would not to get too in the weeds, but I would say with the Star Hill one, I think maybe this already exists and it could be dug up, maybe it needs to be
determined is a final determination of what the environmental situation is at Cityard and the scale and cost of environmental remediation because to me that's basically the question that the city was about to make a final decision
on years ago and then there was turnover and all kind of things. But basically the answer to that question will determine I think is this actionable or not. >> There may be more than that necessary to determine if it's actionable. But yes, I
think that's the that's the challenge with with that plan is is I think there's a number of things that need to happen to figure out what I mean the central element of it being the redevelopment of of that site. There's a number of things that need to happen to determine if that's
actionable. Right. >> I'll say that one of my um desires has been and I talked to James about it when he was a planning director. We as we get the team in place and settled and
performing consistently. Then one of the desires that I had was to revisit the starhill plan and bring it up to small area plan designation because it's missing some components and we need to complete those components and then we
can conclude that it is equal with the others because there's no reason to have one vision plan and all the others be small area plans. Um, and I think that the question about Cityard is a big feature of that plan, of course, but there were other things and still things probably that could be identified that
could be done because I wouldn't want that neighborhood to feel left out because the plan didn't meet the box to be checked as a small area plan. That's not fair to them. They didn't call that, right? >> So, I think there's a fixing of that. We just haven't had the capacity to get to
it yet. But for the future, there will remain a giant city-owned parcel primarily used for parking vehicles that are in use >> and planning all the great work that happens in the city
>> and purchasing this procurement. >> Procurement is there. Yes. >> I think most of the vehicles there are in use. We get your point. >> Including snowblower. >> On that same page for traffic signal
infrastructure replacement. >> I talked about that. >> Is that a list we see? Is there what reviewed is there to make sure that each of those is something a place where we still want a traffic signal? What is the
what goes into that? I can speak to that. >> So, so there is a list. Um, we are adjusting the the process right now. The the list that you have there, it's it's primarily based upon the structural
integrity of the the traffic signals. Um, but we want to make sure that when we're doing the replacement of those signals that it is the long-term, I guess desire to keep a traffic signal at that location. So, as part of the
scoping, we have the engineering team looking at the traffic doing a quick cursory look to see are the traffic warrants justifying the need to keep a traffic signal there. And if there's
any, I guess any doubt whether it is, we would then kick that up to a a more detailed uh study. With that being said, a more detailed study and any change moving away from a track traffic signal,
whether it would be a four-way stop or a potential roundabout, um that would be a much more significant project and would take some time. Um but right now we are just focusing on FY2728 intersections to make sure that those
traffic signals are without a doubt they need to be replaced and they would remain a signalized intersection in the future. >> Great. I do yeah do want to make sure that we are reviewing that make sure that they're all needed. Thank you. >> Can I stay in the weeds on that for just a hot second? So what if it is a signal
that needs to be changed? So if it's three of the four are a green arrow and the fourth one is an open green and there's a need to to change that L to an arrow from a green. Would that
happen at that audit or review or? >> So I believe that we are looking at the the the mast arms primarily the the structural elements and then looking at just the the traffic volumes through the
intersection. Um where there are questions about >> function >> function it's something that I'll have to bring up with the engineering team. Thanks. >> I know they've been looking at
right turn only and things of that nature. So that would qualify as more of an engineering >> and the buttons to switch to no red. I know that's a thing that's been talked about, too. >> Only one week. >> We can come back. I'm going to go ahead
and um skip ahead a little bit. So, you know, we've talked about expenditure How do we pay for this? Um, if we just look at 27, um, you know, just under 78% of this
plan will be funded by bonds. Um, the general fund transfer, if you recall, we have a policy um that we call our PIGO policy that ensures that at least 3% of the general fund budget is going to the CIP um to pay for uh cash funded
projects. Uh a lot of that we have been exceeding that policy uh largely because of our affordable housing um items that we have keyed into the plan that require us to do that are not eligible for bonding and so they are cash
contributions. Um in 27 uh this is not new. I think this was back in 23. Uh we did program um some contingency dollars into the CIP to help offset that eb and flow of the cash contribution from the
general fund. Um and so in 27 we are using um just under $2 million of contingency um that was programmed in several years ago. That's not a change. It's been there for a while. Um but the and if you looked at this over the five
years, the pi basically looks exactly the same. Um the contingency is a little smaller because it's um it the this year was the biggest um year that was programmed um for contingency, but it's essentially it looks the same.
And so as we look to debt, um part of the balancing act with the CIP is uh you know looking at our debt capacity versus what we can afford. Um for those of you that have been around for a while, you'll recall that um many years ago uh
when we started talking about the um Buford renovation, we threw out $50 million. And at that time um we were talking about the fact that we that amount of money was going to exceed both our um debt capacity and our
affordability. Um since then, and we'll look at this in just a minute, you know, our general fund has grown um at such a rate that our debt capacity is really no longer an issue. it really does become the affordability um piece of it of how much debt can we
afford to pay because while issuing debt is easy in the short term it is something that is a you know 20 plus year commitment that we do have to pay every year. Um and so if we kind of look at that overall,
um right now our debt service, the green, uh graph on the left, if you look at our projected annual debt service, um for 26, it's about $19.1 million moving
up to um just over $26 million by 2031. Conversely, if you look at the blue chart on the right, this is um what we are projecting um the general fund transfers to be. And you'll see that um
this year we're at 15 million. We're not really moving the the needle that much in 27. That was actually one of the budget balancing levers that we pulled before we um presented this budget to you. Um, but it takes us all the way up
to a a potential general fund transfer of just under $26 million in five very short years. And so, >> is there a inflation adjustment built into that or is it just today's dollars? >> Um, this is based on what our actual
debt um we I'm going to show you what's behind these in just a second, but it's based on what our actual what we anticipate our debt actual debt service will be. >> Got it. That's sorry I was thinking about the 3% >> oh transfer >> the 3% just based on whatever our budget
is. >> Yes. Um I was >> not reading the graph correctly. >> No no worries. >> So I mean how are we managing this and and this if you were to look at these two graphs they've you know if you went back to this same work session over the
last you know five years this graph both of these graphs have looked very similar. Um the way that we're mitigating this is um which I'm going to show you the details behind this in one second is that we have been um funding our debt service fund to build up a fund
balance for years in anticipation of greater debt service needs that we're drawing down on that. We've been using one-time funds um to put extra dollars in the debt service fund. And then we also have been working to annually increase the general fund transfer to
get that base up to where it needs to be. So kind of a peak behind the curtain at what makes this up. Um this is a chart and one thing I want to I you know always say before we look at this is don't get so hung up on the exact
numbers. Um the idea of this is to kind of give you an idea of what are the pieces of the puzzle that we're working through each year as we look at our debt picture. So if we were to look at the the planning side on the left um and
again anything in black is something that has already happened. So those are real numbers. That's the real amount of the bond issue. That's our real annual debt service and our real general fund budget. Um anything in blue is what we're projecting. and it is subject to
change for lots of reasons. Um, one is we issue our bond rate uh, excuse me, we issue bonds based on a cash need basis. So, um, just because our CIP may say that we're spending 47 million in FY27.
If we're not actually spending all of that 47 million, we're going to only sell bonds for what we know we are going to uh spend within two years as our cap for IRS reasons. Um and so they also um
every year the interest rate um depends on the market and when we sell bonds and how much we're selling. So that our annual debt service can always change. Right now, the assumption that this chart is using because interest rates have gone up considerably. For a long
time, we were basically selling bonds almost for free because it was at 1% which um now we're projecting about a 4% uh four to four and a half in the out years. Um and then our general fund basically right now this projection just
assumes um a 3% growth um which is conservative when you look at the debt capacity. Obviously as the general fund grows our debt capacity also increases. Um so this is a conservative view of that. But one thing to note is that from
2016 to 2031, our budget will have essentially doubled um in in about 15 years. Um and so that is that right there is one of the very big reasons why when we were looking at
$50 million at one time and we thought we would exceed our capacity was because our general fund was much smaller at that point. Um and so as we plan out um basically we do sell bonds on an annual basis. So
that bond issue number is um sort of a a um a guess if you will. We've been selling around 20 $25 million. The 40 million in FY28 basically is a consideration of where we may be with the prek center which is why that number
is a little higher. Um but following over to the consequences of all that on the right hand side is that if you were to take 27 for example um you'll see that our debt service payment in that column under the the third column under
the planning our actual debt service payment is planned at $20.4 million. However, we're only transferring 15.8 million from the general fund. So, we are basically drawing down on the debt service fund balance. And then in
addition, you'll note that in 26 that $1.4 million that's in the additional funds, that was basically the gain sharing, the city's share of the gain sharing that was returned from the schools um for their year ending 25. So,
uh because a lot of this debt service is being driven by, um school projects, uh we made the decision to put that money in the debt service fund and that was a lever we were able to pull to not have to budget for as much um of a transfer
in 27. However, you'll note that um quickly if we don't have that sort of lever going forward um in 28 it looks like that at a minimum in order to keep if you because
kind of the plan is that debt service fund balance is what can we contribute to keep that debt service fund balance either positive or at zero. you're looking at $2 million increases a year on your transfer to make sure that
you're maintaining your um your debt service payment. So, by the time we get to 2031, our debt payment is about 26.4 million if everything worked out perfectly here. Um, and we're still
transferring, you know, not quite that much, but when you get to 32, our general fund transfer is pretty much taking on the full freight of the debt service. And so, this just contemplates what's currently in the CIP um, with a
little bit extra on those backends because obviously we don't have a CIP for 32, 33, 34. So, it gives you about 60 million in play here. And again this chart changes every year. It the story is basically the same but the takeaway
is that you know the debt service is something that we have to manage but it is also something we have to budget and pay for um as we continue to issue the debt. >> So does that mean we can't do
other projects until the debt service comes down? what what does it mean for us as >> we look at new projects or not looking? >> So, a couple things is I think um this is something that we actively manage
every year as part of the budget process. Um you know, we might not issue $25 million of bonds this year or even 20. So, it keeps moving the chart down. Um, I think we also take every time we sell bonds, we look for refunding
opportunities to refinance that debt at a cheaper rate, which helps some of this. Um, I wouldn't want to say, are you limited to 60 million? No, that's not really the answer here. But it does sort of put in
perspective that it's not an unlimited supply to continue to balance, you know, to balance out $200 million CIP's um plans for the longevity. At some point, as Sam has been referring to, the
runway is getting shorter and shorter. Um, and it also depends on your appetite in terms of what you're willing to dedicate in new revenue or for bond payments essentially. Um, but the other thing
>> is your cash, >> correct? >> Just remembering that part of it. That's your cash and that's your flexible money to do other things. >> So, to give you some perspective, like before we added the tax increase to the 27 budget, we were talking about you had $11 million of new money. If you were to
follow this chart, roughly two million of that right off the top would come out for for debt service, barring everything here working out perfectly. Um, but we continue like you know, we continue to look for additional sources
um and different things to do here. Um, so we are actively managing it and we share this exact conversation and table with the bond rating agencies. um and they're comfortable that we are our pro, you know, our process is sound and that
um they don't it doesn't raise a lot of red flags um by the fact that we are looking at this and managing it. Um but I guess some good news um is that as
you know that the state level there is some conversation about the possibility of being able to um uh use a 1% sales tax increase for school construction. Um right now uh the sales tax that the city
collects um is roughly the equivalent of 1% of sales. So sales tax rate is 5.3%. The city gets about 1% of that back from the state, which is in this budget for 27 we were estimating is about $16 million. If we were to use all of that
for debt service, um that would equate to about $178 million of of debt that could be issued. Um the one cent sales tax has to be used only for school construction projects. there are terms
and restrictions about how and what it can be used for I think that are still being discussed. Um and the other thing to note is that sales tax is dependent on the economy as we know. So for the
first several months of this year we were seeing pretty um concerning declines in our sales tax revenue. So issuing debt is a fixed steady payment whereas you know we are estimating what we think the sales tax will bring in
every year. So, one of the things we have are working with our financial advisor on is a potential um policy to come and talk to you about what best practices may be that if we were to get this 16 million or to get the um uh authority to
uh issue the or to increase the sales taxes, what does that look like? Does it look like all of it towards debt service? Does it look like some of it for cash and some of it for debt service? um what are sort of the best practices? What have other localities
that already have permission to use that 1%? What are they doing? So, we'll be having more conversations about that um as time comes and also as the legislation firms up so we know what it's what we can or cannot do um with
the funds. So that's um will be another consideration for council to discuss um going forward and will impact that ugly table that we just talked about as well for sure. So I'll stop there
and what questions do you have? I I um yesterday I talked to a group of students at the comm school and kind of I knew enough about this because this type of thing question came up so I
sounded like I remember that chart so I know was talking about impressed with the management so thank you >> one of the things I think about with the chart is one um
essentially kind of taking out 2022 to 2025 not not taking it out but because nation wide assessments doubled on average. We kind of followed that trend. That was because of the pandemic. That's just not going to happen again. So, kind of in my mind, I just take that out as
like expecting going forward that that kind of increase can happen again >> for growth. >> Yeah. Yeah. For for the level of general fund budget growth. Um but I take away just watching you know what what is again taking out the
weirdness of the pandemic years every year watching what is our general fund expenditure budget growth and is it beating projections or is it lower than our projections because um that's just obviously going to have a
huge influence on sure >> the the level of debt we can can issue. So um >> and we use 3% here to be the most conservative so that you know what would be what is the worst case scenario in which you would reach your debt limit
and obviously we're not we're not there and to your point our general fund growth has been more than 3%. But that only makes that percentage less. So it's it's you know to your benefit to look at this more conservatively for when we're planning but also there's a balance to
not be too conservative. >> Yeah. Especially because it just you know obviously compounds over time but I know even when we take out the weirdness of the pandemic years you know we have beat 3%. >> Absolutely. Um, you just don't want to overshoot that
thing. Can I ask an unrelated question? Um obviously none of this embraces uh money that we expect to get from uh affordable housing payments in Lu.
Should that be reflected in some way in this budget? >> I I I'll speak and then they can speak. In my opinion, um I think that is a policy issue. um or a policy decision. We do know that money is coming. We
don't know exactly when or how much. Um and I think by not programming it here, it gives council an opportunity to look at that um sort of as a singular issue and gives you an opportunity to decide
if you want to use that for something new and great in addition to what you've already contemplated. um or you know as opposed to putting it here and then kind of putting stuff in and then you know what happens two years from now when someone's like hey I got a
great idea for this $11 million but now you've already programmed it in the CIP. So I think it's a policy issue. Um but I'll back up and let anyone else speak. I'll say I'm you probably know what I'm gonna say, but I
am I'm reluctant to plan it as though we know it's going to always happen. >> Sure. So for that reason, I would be more inclined to say that we should adopt a policy that would speak to more
of a percentage um that we felt comfortable because our development activity had hit a certain stride. Therefore, it was producing a series of of these chunks of money that we could predict, we could anticipate and
therefore we could safely budget some of it in a manner that it would work for this particular exercise. My preference would be that we hold it to what we consider the surplus is capable of doing that when you receive
it and you can plan in advance of receiving it, but when you receive it, you can do something transformative with it or you can do a certain number of things that haven't been able to be fitted to to fit into our five-year plan in the CIP specifically. Um, it just
provides that flexibility to again not overshoot. That's what my concern would be is that we would base something on we we would base our plan on something that we might not get in a certain year because we're relying in this case on
developers bringing forward their projects and something could go wrong with them that's not the economy base. It's just something with them. And we've tied it to the idea that based on when we approved it through our planning process, we anticipated that two years of construction we would have it. But if
they incurred some, you know, some moment, we don't have any control over that or any ability to do anything but make the adjustments. So why go too far too fast in planning what comes with that money with that possibility? That's
where I that's where I sit. Um if if our zoning code had just kind of been going like gang busters now like you want it to be with this blitz concept and it's just turnurning out project after project and we could start truly anticipating what each year might feel
like. I'd be all for let's start plugging more of that in because it's more anticipated what we could rely on. Well, I mean, let's assume for the moment that the only thing we factored in was the money that we expect to receive on,
you know, say by January 1 or be sometime in the fiscal year for a project already underway. >> Yeah. Um this gets back to the question that we so far have not yet discussed which is if we get let's say $6 million
in of affordable housing payment in lu kind of money does that mean that we would go in this fiscal year to $17 million on affordable housing or can we for example use part of that money to or
you know to serve a replacement for other funds. funds. I gather that the money itself has to go to housing, but it doesn't mean we can't kind of reprogram things. And one of the things that I've suggested before is that if we look at at affordable housing and uh
transit as effectively two sides of the same coin, which is the way housing advocates look at it. uh that we might find ourselves able to afford more in the way of transit if we as opposed to saying we're going to allocate all of
that money specifically to affordable housing and there'll be $17 million in one year and maybe three more years go by before it's another big chunk but that that's the discussion we've never had. >> Sure. And that does speak to the policy that that Chrissy is mentioning like
that conversation needs to happen so that we can clearly hear from you what it is that you desire and then we build around that. >> Y I can take that as a if that's a request for us to plan a work session around that then we can we can do that.
>> I think we ought to have some organized discussion of the matter. >> Okay. >> You okay? Yeah, I mean I think landing at clarity on the question. >> So that's all we really have on the CIP.
I mean the last thing I had to show you was the CDG application. So anything else on the CIP before we move to that? >> So you probably know where I'm going with what I use that. So, is there anything
what we're doing or where we heading that keeps you up at night? >> No. I mean, >> I'm always That's why that's you or James. >> I mean, I do, you know, I feel like every year our CIP gets bigger and
bigger and bigger and bigger and um a lot of the projects that, you know, we're there's no longer the million-dollar projects. They're multi-million dollar projects. Um but I think you know we have continued to manage those well. Um you know
>> so you have um guard rails in place to keep us you know in in in place you know so that you know >> we have guard rails to ring the bell for you when it's time. >> Yeah. >> Yes definitely. It's that money bag
slide. It's one of the guards >> meant to be. That's right. The constant reminders, you know, that's what >> um are there any questions on the CIP? Any additional questions? >> Two, sorry, two fun questions. um the
affordable housing CIP the um whatever the the 10th and Nortland project did that developer submit any request for CIP funding where they areas they they submitted any requested funding.
>> Yeah, that remember that was back when I did the budget brief for you all on housing. We had the three projects. Um, Brick Lane Community, yeah, I can't remember what it was the
>> $900,000. Brick Lane was the is the version of the Holiday Inn and then POA for the 10th in Wartland. So, all three of those were the three projects that came in through our RFI process where we request requests for information about a
development project. Uh we went back to all three parties. The um the $900,000 project was the one that you all sended to seem as though you would be willing to fund. We did not make it fit into
this um CIP. We ran out of space because we have to um balance the cash component. I think I asked Chrissy a couple of times, are we there yet? Are we there yet? And she said pretty close. So it wasn't going to fit. So we weren't able to make it fit. uh within FY27.
The conversation with Brick Lane was one that they weren't really interested in making the potential adjustments to their unit mix. Um which then in our mind left that project out of scope for consideration. It was bigger than the
other one anyway. and PO we had a couple of conversations with uh and ultimately the conversation ended with more of a you should go back to the university and have a conversation with them about they need to have a conversation with us um
because they were more or less in a position that they were carrying the university's burden for the conversation that needed to be had with this organization. >> So it ended there >> and that conversation with UVA has not happened yet. No one has reached out. So
I assume he delivered the I don't know uh how they took that message but no one has reached out indicating that they would like to have any conversation. Um so um any other questions on this
before we move on the the 1% um Sam you when you were talking about that not are we working with the schools or you know once
and no mentioned We just need to be prepared to get the message out, you know. And um >> that's his job and that's So >> are you talking about for the referendum? >> Yes. >> Oh. Oh, I thought you were talking about
what to use the money for. Sorry. >> Yeah. I'm like, man, you you're really expanding. >> You're meaning on how to how to do. Well, that is part of his job. So, we we we've done preliminary work as >> No, I'm sorry. not what we do to get the
message out to the public to support this. Is that >> Yeah, we No, we have not done work on that yet. Of course, we're waiting to see what comes out of it because we need the the details on the bill being passed as to what the message gets to be. I
think what what I feel like I was hearing is yes, we need to make sure that we have a clear uh presentation of what will come of those funds if we were to allow this tax to be passed. So that is tying back to Mike's prior work and
ongoing work. Yeah. Of identifying what we anticipate a series of projects to look like over a period of time. Um that would be what would amount to a facilities program. It's what I've been talking about since I got here that we should have a facilities program
identified for school buildings across the system identifying what we deem the needs to be, what the project scope could look like, what the potential budget may be, and a schedule. And now if we were to have a sales tax pass, we
will have a projected dollar amount that we can rely on every year, which is why I asked Chrissy to identify what is the debt service capacity that we would be able to rely on for how far we go. That number exceeds what we preliminarily
identified, but when he finishes his work, that number ain't going to cut it. It won't cover all the projects that we know are in that list. Um, and it definitely does not touch a high school in a forming of a new one. So, I can
assure everyone that >> this won't do that. Um, but what I would anticipate being able to clearly do is identify what would be the makings of a facilities program that the public could appreciate receiving something to look
at and have some indication of what would happen amongst the middle schools. We know that the I mean elementary schools. We know that the middle school wouldn't need anything probably in that window of time. Uh it would be the elementary schools and the high school that would be identified as what that
scope of projects could be over what period of time and is there a replacement of one of the elementary schools or a new one uh would be a part of that factor too. >> But I appreciate the fact that you will
want to have that. So yes, we would we know that we would need to be able to produce that. >> I had said that I the last time I mentioned it that we should have such a plan in mind by May 1st, but given that the general assembly won't even have a decision on anything until at least April 23rd at the earliest, maybe June
1st is a realistic time frame. Yeah, I think the preliminary work that's been done, we we all I think we all would not that we feel good about what we saw in that work, that assessment work, that we could frame here are a series of initial
projects that we would like to see getting done and we would put that in front of school board and superintendent and I'm sure they would concur very easily on a number of them and that probably would be the initial package that we would put out there.
But that work group does include school school staff as well, right? So it's not just city staff. >> I mean the ongoing CIP work that we're already doing is going to help us identify things that could be done as well. >> We have the school facilities working group. >> Yeah. >> Right. That's
>> true. They would be the ones to finalize what >> that has representatives from Mike Mike and his team and the schools department um looking at what the needs are and developing a developing a I forget what 20-year plan.
>> I was thinking 10, but you know, it can be 20 because there's plenty >> there's plenty to do. So, >> yeah. >> Well, the the the 1% is only for a certain number of years. >> So, the last version did not have a
sunset. >> Really? And and I know that that at least Michael and I started talking about this issue before we really knew that this had a shot of going forward because there's just real need in the fact that we have 50-year-old schools
that are in great shape thanks to our team, but they are they are not meeting the needs of a modern school building in many cases. So the the idea was let's think about what the need is and try and think about what a realistic time frame is for getting that done.
What the 1% does is potentially accelerate that time frame. It it would have been the conversation. We would be still having this conversation about schools construction whether the 1% sales tax was on the table or not because in all of the conversations
we're finding that we're getting things done on an annual basis, but the things cost more. So, we're running out of the smaller things to do and therefore the money isn't going to go far enough. Hence why my question was about a facilities program in the first place. M
>> so we were going to need to be dealing with that no matter what. This is a great relief that we will have a source provided the public agrees to make it available for that use. Um but we should be able to address a lot of need. Um and
and in the initial work we anticipated capacity. So unless something dramatically changes I think we have a good course ahead for what to do now is how we pay for it. Okay. The CDP is that
>> just real quickly um this is again no this is still in committee so no decisions have been made or recommendations. This is just a snapshot of um what has been um applied for. Uh I believe there are 11 applicants. You can
see the programs here. Um we have two pots of money. One is the CDBG pot and one is the home pot of money. Um the total uh request for CDBG was 597,000
185,000 for home. Um there's an admin portion that comes uh out of the CDBG pot of money. Um we are don't know what HUD is the exact awards are from HUD at this point. Um but we've uh anticipated
what those are. Um and so you know like with BCF and other um processes there's always more asked than we have funding. Um right now as this looks um about uh $241 million short from being able to f
fully fund um all of >> Oh, sorry. 241 mill,000. I'm I'm in CIP world. All right. And then uh $99,000 short um from being able to fully fund the home request. But this
gives you some idea of who's applied and what they're applying for. And um I believe that goes to the planning commission um within the next week or so. And then I think formal recommendations will be coming to council in May.
>> That's it. That's all we have. >> Okay. So any other questions? Um >> we'll talk about next week. Kina, anyone signed up to speak? >> I know some people came in. Anyone like
to speak in the back? U any other questions or comments at this time? We need to decide on next week or if y'all aren't interested in talking about anything else. Yes. >> Because we only have one work session left.
Do we want to talk about um I don't know if we're all ready to talk about VCF, but do we want to talk about the 1 cent increase option and what we were presented last week or
um there's been some chatter about um for future self well we can talk for yourself later anyway um or anything that can help create them guidance. for more information we need to help make that decision.
>> So you mean like if we if we pass an increase or support that and it may be more difficult to get the one sent for the school. >> No. No. What do you >> There's um I think we we had all said we wanted to
do everything we possibly could to make sure that a tax increase was necessary. So, one of the options they gave us last week was the >> take from the strategic initiatives fund, take from the other fund, right? And then we because we had to make up 1.4 million.
>> Um, one um I wondered if we could get like a longer runway to see if the state would make its decision by the 23rd. And that might not that's not really that deadline is not really possible in this
short period of time but maybe something we want to look at for future self. Um so if there were other like magic tricks we wanted to look at or um if there were other suggestions on
that one cent thing. I think the one that the we mapped out the math for the ones thing and it it made sense. >> We're p Chris is pulling it up as well so you can just be reminded. >> It was the the revising of the revenue is the bulk of it. So that's why it's
not two cents on the real estate tax anymore. It's now one. >> Uh and then the difference would be >> um it's like 341,000. >> Yes. Yeah. So we wouldn't need in that if we do the
one cent we would need to contribute the citywide reserve and >> to pull from the citywide reserve and the council strategic initiatives. >> Yeah. >> Or pull more from the strategic from the citywide reserve and not touch the strategic initiatives if you all are
planning to use more of it for known things. >> There's there's room now to do this plan. Okay. So, that's that's really So, we're looking for whether it's tonight or next Thursday, we're looking for you to
finalize what scenario we are actually going with for offsetting for addressing the fact that you're stepping back from a two cent increase on the real estate tax to a one cent
increase on the real estate tax. So it's only again you're only short the $231,000 >> um because the revenue adjustment is a million5 and that gives you the bulk >> to
just second and agree with the point Jen had raised to me one of the questions is because of our city code which we have the power to change. There's a provision from 1974 that we have to adopt our
budget by April 15th. Many other localities in Virginia adopt it May, June have the flexibility to not do that. We won't know that state's budget until at least April 23rd. So, we're adopting it before their special session even begins. Our school's budget right
now that we're basing this off is based off the budget introduced by Glenn Yncan and Rowan Oak's a good counter example where they're going to adopt their budget in either May or June. They based their school's budget on they modeled the
House of Delegates budget and the state senate budget. The state senate budget increases their funding by almost $7 million. Their school's budget is about twice ours. All of which is to say the general assembly could very well
impact between one to3 million in our budget which would determine whether we raise the real estate tax rate or not. And one, do we have the space to extend our
deadline by any amount this year to as best we can try to know the outcome and and certainly for next year to to not have us be in the situation where we're making a decision without full information that is at the scale of a
tax increase or not. So since it's we're already this deep into this year's budget cycle and and this is something that comes up during the budget cycle every year and not that far in advance.
Is this something that you're asking the rest of us if there is a uh desire to ask our staff to look into it for next year? Is that a question that you have? >> Yes. says it's you know yes both for
next year and also is there any ability to do it this year but as a practical matter tax um tax have to go out to people by May 1st or so
>> so I don't know that we have the ability to hold off making a decision until after April 23rd I unless we decide we're not going to to raise real estate or unless we decide on
a fixed real estate tax uh number which is I mean they're trying to avoid that is is kind of the purpose of your of your inquiry I I think >> so I mean we've looked at it from a staff perspective
um in terms of could we do it The answer is yes. It buys you about two weeks though. Um the reason for that is and I'm I would defer to John whether it's even possible for this year or not, but
um part of what has to happen is the as um councelor Snook referred to is we have the we'd have to change the due date on the tax bills first of all um from I think you know like June 5th is the current date. um it would probably
have to be moved to like June 20thish. Um and then we have to back that up and allow time for one your approval and then two for that information to actually get to the printer and get I think there's a 30-day requirement on the bill for the taxpayer. Um which is
why we'd have to move the due date. Um so I think all in all by the time we finish it it buys you about two weeks um time on the um on waiting on the state if you >> so that is if we were to do that this
year it could buy about two weeks next year making the adjustments it could be longer than that. Yeah, but I think the question is our charter says April 15th. I don't know if we have time to change that for this year, but we could for next year.
>> It's not merely a question of an ordinance charter. >> I I don't think it's a charter. Okay. >> If it is an ordinance piece, I will double check that. Okay. Sure. I'm right now I'm looking at our our code section that says that the council shall approve the annual budget and shall make uh such
city levy prior to April 15th of each year. It was 1976. close when that was went into effect. Um that can be that's that y'all know me I love nothing more than amending an ordinance. So uh that's completely possible but as you said there are practical implications that go
along with this that's more in the uh treasurer's uh >> for revenue collection >> it there would be a revenue collection impact the whenever we make the change the first year of the change um as basically identified is that it's going
to cross over the 45day acrruel period. So we would close out what we close the fiscal year. So the first um if if bills are due on June 5th, you have from an accounting standpoint 45 anything that's
collected from 45 days from June uh after June 30th um can be acred back to the fiscal year. So um that would be uh August 15ish. Um, and if we move the tax due date, you
lose two weeks off of that. So, we the 45 days would short you time. Um, but you can change the acrruel. It's an accounting change, but it can be done and it would have to go from a 45day acral to a 60-day acral >> and finance confirmed that they didn't
see a problem with that. So, I think everything was good. >> So, it doesn't affect the like right now if things are due June 5th and we have three three-ish weeks before the new fiscal year. If we get everything June 20th, is that enough turnaround time to
get the new fiscal year ready or >> Well, that's part of the thing of that even if we um there does need to be some I think we have to provide 30 days notice for how much is due. So, we have
to get the bills out 30 days before the due date. So, back 30 days up. Let's say we make it June 20th. got to back that up 30 days and then we've got to allow time to actually get that information to the printer for them to be processed and then mailed. So, um it does, you know,
all in all it buys you it's a I think we came down to advise you about two weeks of extra time. >> Okay. But that being this budget year, it could be more time beyond that next year. Um, from a staff perspective, I don't
think we're comfortable that we could actually get I I think we're not comfortable that all the pieces and parts that need to happen. Um, that there's much more time beyond that because there's a lot of pieces that have to fall into place. I mean, I guess
you could make the bill due June 30th. Um, but you know there's we can't say here here's the budget and then have it ready to go July 1. So there's a lot of administrative stuff that happens, but
it's mostly about processing the bills and getting them mailed and then giving people time to pay them. So I don't and I I think whatever we land on would be whatever it is going forward.
That's but again often two to three weeks is difference between know and the state budget. >> Fair. >> In this case it's a difference from six weeks on the budget minimum. >> Yeah.
>> Um any other questions? So Sam do you want to know tonight like whatever >> you can tell me. What I'm saying is ultimately what we're what I'm what I'm really just advising you is that you have one work session left next
Thursday. In that session, we would need to hear from you. The scenario resolution here. We know that you've taken schools off the list. We know that you've taken CAT off the list. At least that's what I read from the last conversation. So, are we going
to tap into the citywide reserve and to what degree? Are we going to tap into council strategic initiatives fund to what degree to make up the difference that is needed to offset one penny of the real estate tax to go with your revenue adjustment, which is the updated
number that Miss Hamill gave you last week. So, we need a resolution for this because this is a hole in the budget until we resolve it. and your decisions in regards to any um allocations from the council strategic initiatives fund
for VCF candidates or anything else that you want to >> since that's that's a list of things that would be weird to like communicate by reading it aloud. I don't know.
Should we do you want it in advance >> to review? What what is the >> best way to deliver that information to make it easy for you to process and build? >> We need line item because what you're that's that's a part of the budget. So the line item usage is what we're
looking for. Do we have to? >> So what we've done in the past with that is, you know, um because of FOYA things, you can't deliberate behind the scenes. Um so your list does need to be
discussed openly and publicly. But one thing we have done in the past is we have had counselors send their list directly to the city manager or to the budget team. Um, and then we come prepared with a spreadsheet where we
actually do the math live and in person. You know, these were the suggestions and then you all can say yes, no, whatever and and make the sausage that way. That's kind of how we've gotten around that. >> So, you can do that between now and next Wednesday
>> so we can have a slide ready for you on Thursday. But I would say as much time as you can give us in advance because there are sometimes that you have suggestions that don't work because of other reasons and we would want to be able to have that back and forth with you. Um >> yeah,
we should avenge your deadline to Monday. >> Yeah. >> Well, I mean in all defense >> and what is the process for we call it the strategic initiatives fund. Could we change it the title to council reserve fund? I didn't know if that was a code thing
or >> you called it something else before we started calling it that. >> Yeah, it's been called I mean Pina and I were just talking about that today somewhere else. It's called council strategic investment fund. It's been a it it gets
>> Yeah. >> Yeah, we can change that. And then I guess the final question is and was there anything else about the budget that you I'm looking at you be is there anything else that you were
curious about wanted to talk about? Was there some consideration that you might be thinking you wanted to bring up to other council members because that would be your last shot. That's that's kind of why we leave it unplanned in case there's something. But we aren't looking for real surprises either because we
only have a week after that. >> I had a request for next year's budget. Love it. >> So wait for >> We always do an after action. So we will have to take that and plan. I think we can
I think everyone's been working on BCF and I think we can probably get you the spreadsheets um with um probably by end of day tomorrow by by
Monday. >> Okay. >> For sure. >> Okay. Um, >> that's good because we can then do we can do our work in our budget team meeting in preparation for Thursday. >> Okay. And that's good. And then that will also answer the lumpsum
contribution to that. Um I think um one of the add-ons to that is um again we won't have the dis we won't have numbers for you until Monday's
spreadsheet but a consideration to set aside some of the strategic and if should fund again not a yes or no yet but has been thrown around for um s standing up an arts council to handle
um arts and culture organizations outside of um the Mr. Freeze's recommendation for a public arts commission. So, um >> that's an example of what I'm looking for. If there's anything else like that
>> that we might need to prepare some, you know, discussion points or something like that, we need to know. >> Yeah. Um I think something we've had in conversations kind of less formally, but we recognize that there's a need for additional
bandwidth in the housing department. >> And so, keeping in mind if we can't fit it in this year, what can we do to make sure that we have staffing for next year? you did by saying that again you did >> and we are looking at um different ways
to to just kind of mitigate the impact of not having individuals in that seat. We're working with our financial advisor to backfill some analysis perspectives as well and helping us kind of assess where we are.
>> But it it's it's a priority. So, it looks like we are going to be meeting next Thursday. >> Yep, does sound like you're going to be meeting next Thursday. >> We will discuss give you a final um decision on the breakdown of the
the making up the difference in that one sense and um as usual spend quality time with VC. So, >> that's what you call it. Yes. Um, just a few more things. I mean,
whether we do or do not adopt our budget before we know what the state's budget is, we do know what the House and Senate proposals are. Is there an interest from other counselors to direct staff to model what our budget would look like under the House and State Senate budget
as opposed to the Yncan budget which is over $500 million less in education funding? >> I'd like to see that modeling. I think it's not I think it is school staff that would have to do that for us. But
whichever staff it is, >> at least we consult them out. I'll I can get to work on >> Yeah. There's somebody on the school board who might be able to put in a word on that. Um and
>> here's where I now just >> I would uh definitely agree with the um point about housing staff. Um I I can send an email with just the PowerPoint presentation that the housing advisory committee received and that is available
online in their agenda. But um I think it would be a fair summary that their presentation was that our current housing staffing levels are unsustainable and very out of line with how many programs we do. So we just second that and I
think it was at five positions total. Um, two of the things that we can reach a decision point on, you know, um, at our last work session, very small amount of budget things, but if other counselors are interested in funding the
participatory budgeting pilot program, that's like a 10 to $30,000 total allocation. Um, and then second, next year is going to be the 10th anniversary of the summer of 2017. whether we just want from I don't know
where in the budget it comes from again some amount of money to be preparing for memorializing that anniversary and having the community involved in a process figuring out what is a permanent memorialization of Fourth Street look like um that doesn't need to be a huge
amount of money but just something to prepare for it. Um again not asking for decision tonight or anything like that but um those were potentially things others were interested in. So, um, Michael, you had explained to us what the participatory is, what that
would look like. Can you explain it again? Um, can also give a lot of >> Oh, is that Oh, >> I'm I think it's super cool, but I probably can't give you the like down home logistics about it, but it's a
facilitated process of I've seen it done in neighbor neighborhood by neighborhood of engaging the public in determining what they truly want to spend the budget, parts of the budget on and how that's reflected to their in their desires. And Michael,
I might be too oversimplifying, so jump in. So, it's like the Monopoly nights on steroids. It's like a lot of conversation. It's a lot of engagement. Um, hence the fee that comes with it to kind of facilitate those conversations.
Um, but it tends to engage folks in all levels of government and how we operate because they get so increased and involved with the decision- making. Um, >> but I mean how do you how does this you
know because I've done countless like transportation meetings when I was doing that type of thing even when I was in school where you get the same people out. How do you get the you have to be in the room or is it you get gather people that we know really don't come to
meetings because we could get skewed if a group or whatever sends you know get everyone to come to the meeting but I don't know if this approach has a way of preventing that. So, I would say um Richmond's done a lot with it and
Charlesville almost did a pilot and then August 2017 happened and all the staff left within uh a period before it was implemented. But their strategy was going to be you pick a neighborhood um you have 10 to $30,000 total that could be allocated and they would go
doortodoor knocking doors in the neighborhood explicitly to try to get people who don't normally show up. And part of that process would be just engaging with what the city budget looks like for people who, you know, haven't historically don't engage and made it a
small pilot. Um, and just a lot of good conversations came from it. And I think a lot of people who were never involved in local government were thinking about, >> oh, the city can't plant flowers here because of right away. Like I never thought about like that kind of thing. Mhm. >> We had a um we still have the framework
from when we did it before and we did get as far as having some projects, but you're right, it didn't go further than that. >> Yeah. So I I you know I I definitely before we say to to move forward with that I just want to have a little bit
more conversations about what it would look like you know um but um >> we have a local community member who's like an expert in participatory budgeting facilitation so she's I can ask her what some of that look
>> my concern I I I just know this community and that if we don't get the people that's not that won't come to meetings we um we just won't get the full picture. I know we can get the input from the people that come because they're going to come and we'll extract
some great information, but it's the people that don't come that I think is have some valuable input in as well. But yeah, >> so can I just take it from the top for what our homework is for Monday? So, we're going to do um
the what part of the one of the one cent um we want to take from uh city reserves andor strategic initiative. We're going to have our um input on um CYF
sorted your direction the spreadsheet for everyone's spreadsheet for what they >> VCU >> C Yeah, VCU. Um and then um what other what's our last piece of homework that we need to give to you? >> You have anything else? >> Anything else?
>> Okay, got it. >> Thank you. >> Right. Um if there's no other information, is there a motion to I want to make sure you have anything you want to say? >> Um I mean I think do I need to come up?
Okay. >> Um, so there's no mic here, so I'll project. >> Um, my comments are pretty consistent with what they've always been. Fun the schools. Um, I sat in a classroom today at Summit doing like a special reading
group that's been convening twice a week the past year um with Miss Howard, our youth opportunities coordinator and some community volunteers. And I mean, there's a lot of improvement that's happening and important work that's happening with tying communities to our
schools, but funding is needed. and I have watched your conversations about collective bargaining and I have to say that I think there's still a lack of clarity. Um, and I think that if there are questions for the school board, I would encourage you to ask those
questions. But ultimately, like our support staff needs that increase. So, collective bargaining is something that we must prioritize. And everything that we gave you was a needs-based budget. It's not like a dream budget. It's a
needsbased budget. Sorry, I should have started with I'm speaking as a community member and as an individual, but as someone who is interested in seeing money poured into the schools. Um, and so the budget that was presented from the schools was a need-based budget. And
I need us to remember that like there are a lot of needs. There are a lot of unique needs with the diverse student population that we have in Charlottesville. And truthfully, the schools could use way more money than the budget that was presented. But I do
think that any reductions of that is it's not doing it justice. And I'm speaking to you as again a community member who went through our schools is still in our community and is still working with students and doing that like mentoring work and volunteering
work and I know that there's a real need there. Um, and so this is kind of my final appeal to you. I'll probably be back next week. Um, but to please fund the schools and to give the full amount that was requested is really, really
needed. And we're talking about, you know, bigger city ideas and things that we need to memorialize and all of these things and I think they're all important. And I want to add that the best way that we invest in our community is through our schools and of course through affordable housing. So, I think
it's important to make space for all of those things, but to remember that education is shaping our future leaders. So, thank you all for your work and like I said, I'll see you next week. >> Thank you. Any other comments? If not, can I get a motion to adjurnn?
>> So, moved. >> Second. >> All in favor, please say yes. >> Yes. Please say no. Thank you all so much.