Was there anywhere that I dis but I was missing >> what my options were? >> You're like, you're just being weird. >> No, you're not. No, no, no. I mean, we'd love that feedback. I'll take
>> What's up, everybody? to find a way to be able to help us with that. >> Spectrum, she has more points like us. >> Somebody else know weird
>> and Lauren client they didn't name it. Stop talking. >> I'm just just letting you know. >> Yes. >> Oh my god. >> Yeah, I got it. I stopped saying
>> right the letter is way different. >> That's like cover. Yes. >> And >> just because just because
>> speak Jason answer his question. >> Sorry on a little early. >> Remember that question. >> The only part of the day >> huh >> that we're under that we're being recorded. This when Todd decides to come ask me button.
>> This is being recorded. us. >> You'd like to do it automatically button >> presence watching >> maybe this is
strategy city where I was at or the city >> where make up those two really unnecessary secret and they wanted to hear.
et >> um bike money. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Money. >> They got it. >> It just came from there. >> Thank you for Good evening. I call the Charlottesville
City Council um special meeting um of April the 2nd, 2026 to order. Madame Clerk, would you please call the role? >> Councelor Flesher here. Vice Mayor Ashan >> here. Councelor Payne >> here. Councelor Smith
>> here. Mayor >> W >> here. Um I think this is mainly our I mean I call them miles but I don't know if you had a few things you want to >> I'll just I'll Yes. I'm going to push it right back on you and say yes this is
your meeting but just for the benefit for the public benefit this is the last board session that is scheduled. We label this the wrapup. Uh it is the intent in this session just to make sure that any questions that remain have been
answered. The items that are open for discussion that we're looking for answers on is closing out the review of the vibrant community fund process and how council is looking to utilize your strategic initiatives fund which you've all contributed information that Miss
Hamill has ready to pop up on the screen when you're ready to go there. And then of course are asking is there anything else because next Thursday you're slated to vote on adopting the budget unless there's something that prevents that
from happening. That is the plan. And then tonight we would just want to make sure that we have addressed anything that is still um out there before we get to that point. >> Okay. So, I think that with that being
said, I'd like to kind of address make sure we're all on the same page of of the tax increase. We had initially looked at a two cent tax increase, but we saw um options where we could do one
and um I just want to make sure if you if we have that information, we can bring them make sure everyone's on the same page with that. And if I can get um a head nod or yes from everyone as we go down the line to make sure we all okay
with that. That should I think that that was um >> so this is just a spreadsheet to help us with the math. Um this was the base budget. The two cent tax increase was 2.4 million which got us to the total
budget of 279 million. Um the last work session where we spoke about this if we backed out a penny that's a little over 1.2 million and as you know um the revenue team had revised revenue projections on these revenues um that
equated to just a little over a million dollar uh leaving you short about 228,000 from making up the one penny. And so the math will work here as you know for whatever other adjustments you want to make as we put them in. The math
will work um to help us stay balanced. And then the other column is your strategic initiative funds. And down below here, which we'll get into later, are the agency adjustments and what we've heard from everybody. Um and we can work on that whenever you're ready.
>> So are you saying we need to come up with the 228? >> Yes. Okay. But you had given us suggestions for how to do that. >> Do you want me to bring that up already? Okay. I don't remember which workst that was. I think it was the I should have had
today. I'm sorry. >> The 19th. >> Thank you. >> I wasn't there, but I watched the video. >> You know where you were. >> That's right. So the one mill the little over the one million is what is currently in the
spreadsheet. Um cat scenario C that was a scenario whereby um we would hire five budget for five drivers to be hired in July. um five drivers to be hired in January and then
was it a mechanic and um >> two supervisory positions and two mechanics. >> Okay. Um that would provide savings of just over just under 370,000. The other option would be to just take
the difference from citywide reserve. Um the schools number that was uh the amount that was over the 2 million that we had originally um spoken about before the budget was released. And then the council strategic initiatives um that
was uh how did we get to the 109? I >> was just identif. >> Yeah. So, I think that we had agreed upon the revenue um adjustments and getting the 228 from the citywide reserves. Is that what was that everyone's understanding?
>> I don't remember having heard that on the video. It was well it was that the makeup could come from the citywide reserve or the council strategic initiatives fund because you clearly indicated that you didn't want to activate scenario C with CAT or send a
less than funded budget back to the schools. >> So let me ask one question because I again I wasn't here on the 19th did watch the video. It seems acknowledged that if we uh if we do the the funding as as
proposed for CAT, that's not going to get spent. We know they're not going to hire 10 people straight out of the gate on July 1. >> Well, I I think what what we're expressing is that we don't know that as fact. We know how we know that it's hard.
>> Well, we know realistically as realistically as we know anything up on that page. Yeah. We know there's going to be some amount of money unspent. >> Yes. >> And the estimate of five and five uh
five being hired July 1, even that is probably overly optimistic. Uh, but I'm I guess what I'm getting at is if we're sitting there saying we know realistically that there is probably going to be at least 100 it may not be $369,000
worth of of uh leftover money because of the inability to hire everybody right away. It's probably going to be a couple hundred,000 >> possibly. >> Yes. Okay. So we we need to resolve this for
um tonight. So Lord, are you what's your suggestion or you just making a comment? I >> I'm just just making a comment. I if you want to take uh the balance out of the citywide reserve, I think I had actually sent an email at some point suggesting that as being uh a good option. Um if
that gets us to a 1-cent reduction, that's that's fine. Uh but I I just think we need to understand that we're also going to see uh some significant savings over what we're proposing to send to CAT. >> Okay. So you're fine with the
revenue adjustment and >> 228,000 and change coming out of the reserve. >> Okay. Jen, >> um I suggested a proportional amount to get to 228 from citywide reserve and strategic initiatives fund. So that's
like 48,000 from strategic initiative and 181 from citywide reserve. So get some from both to get the gap and yes do the revenue adjustment with that. >> Okay. So we have um Jen is proposing
about 40 42,000 from um the strategic council strategic um funds. Where are you? Um, yeah. I don't I'm not I don't want to with the cat name for that. Um,
Jen, can you talk a little more about how you came up with your plan? >> Yeah. Instead of just splitting 228 down the middle and taking half from citywide and half from strategic initiatives, I made the machine do the math that does
the proportional having of it. So, >> is there any reason why we don't want it just to all come from the reserve fund? >> I was just thinking that if we are asking the city to give to it, then the council should give to
>> because we're not part of the city. >> No, because if we're going to walk the walk, we should give up some of our PL to Yeah. Um, is there any particular actual like Chrissy's office reason why
um it it matters? Now, I mean, um, you know, part of honestly, I appreciate the the team spirit, but, um, >> if I think taking it from city than that, if it were going to be really
helpful, so I would just say, >> she's not going to say that. >> So, the thought I appreciate the thought that counts, but we can actually just do it all from citywide. >> Yes. >> Okay, let's do that. I'm good with that >> without knowing what you all have even come up with on your list. Anyway, it
probably the >> there's room but >> I just we didn't know that yet. >> Michael, so you're fine with the city. >> Okay, Michael. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, I mean I still don't love balancing it with one time money, but I
can live with the citywide reserve and and revenue adjustments. >> Yeah. And I'm I'm fine with that as well. So, we have an agreement that council supports a 1 cent pay. Um,
>> can I ask a quick question first? Um, for the the >> I know we Thank you for bringing up one time money. Um, we top off the citywide reserve every year, right? >> We do. So, this 415 is actually in the
base budget. It's not It wouldn't be one time. >> So, this portion of it is >> correct. I was still safe with our creditors. I mean, what would happen is if we got to a point where we spent all the citywide reserve in one year, then,
you know, we would be looking to add something back to the base, but this is in this case, I don't think we're going to spend everything we have in 26. And so, it's an easy carryover. >> Okay. Thanks. So, we're
>> okay. So, um Sam, are you on this? >> That's it. plan is we'll um move forward with one cent increase. >> And where where do you hear we're going to get the other makeup from
>> the citywide reserve? The 228 will come from the city. >> Make sure got testing me. Glad I'm paying attention. >> Um okay. So I think the other issue was the vibrant community fund. Were those the kind of two main things?
>> Yeah. vibrant and then how you plan. I guess ultimately we need to look at vibrant because you're using your strategic initiatives fund to do the things I I think you're using your vibrant community your uh strategic initiatives fund which is why Hunter is here in case there are adjustments that
you're proposing as well. We don't know that. So that's the question. >> Yeah. >> What's an adjustment? What's an adjustment considered >> if you were to change the allocation that was recommended through the process through his presenting that to you. >> Okay. >> Because what we were asking you to do is
if you were going to add to you're using your strategic initiatives fund to add to leaving the recommendation. But if that is not the case then that's what we need to reconcile. So, if we if the recommendation came, I'll just go with birth sisters, was
$30,000. If you all decided that you wanted to give them 28,000 instead, that's a change. >> Okay. >> And he's going to have to reconcile that. >> Okay. I think I had one change on my list, but I don't know. So, just to explain how this works,
there's um just a few dollars under 370,000 that's currently sitting in the council strategic initiatives fund. Um and so we topped that off as part of the proposed budget with an additional 130,000
um to give you an even half a million as of July 1 um to use um as you see fit. And so um based on what we heard from um the from everybody, these are the totals
um that are being uh requested in the three scenarios. Um I know councelor Snook and councelor Payne um you had other thoughts. So um I don't know how you want to go through this. if you want
to see where there's consensus, if you want to speak or however you want to do that. >> Yeah. Um I'll go Michael, I know you were still reviewing that. I don't know if you want to chime in and give us your
thoughts on if you had any changes um or you know just in general on vibrant community from excuse me from reviewing what everyone else put I didn't have anything that I wanted to add in addition to what anyone
had put um there were some that I was more skeptical of in terms of if they needed additional funding just to weigh on the side of being able to have more of our strategic initiatives fund. Um, but that's where I was at. I think there were
>> You didn't have anything specific. It sounds like there's some >> No, there was um six six specific ones. >> That was in disagreement. Um and then an additional question is was
there anything that along with the increases is there anything anyone was open to reducing within the VCF in terms of their allocation? Um and I was specifically thinking of CE and Seville tomorrow just in the context
of both organizations having very strong fundraising and Seville tomorrow having recently gotten a very significant grant. Um um so um yeah, I um I mean I I'll just chime in
first. Um um I'm fine with the allocations for, you know, with those two organizations. Um but you make you make excellent excellent points. So,
>> can I just ask those all there are three of you who have advocated cutting the Virginia Discovery Museum by $6,400. Why? >> Um, I can speak to that. The um they were a 91% funded
um organization. Their request for funding was for operational support and their um in reviewing kind of deep dive into their documents. their part of their operations is their executive director
who was um had a really huge um bonus this season and so was disproportionately if that was operations it didn't seem like they needed that extra 6,400 which I reallocated elsewhere um
>> a bonus paid this past year or that's coming this coming year >> that was paid this past year so the salary was was higher than uh the highest executive director in this list that I could find um by
10 tens of thousands. >> But yeah, you you said it was a bonus, not a salary bump. >> The salary base was also quite high comparatively, but the bump was significant and I it look I don't know what that will be for this year.
I think that gets us into some real micromanaging of of these kinds of outfits that I don't think we're necessarily competent to do and that I think the Virginia that the vibrant community fund uh committee would be in a better position to do than than we
are. But that's that's a general criticism that I have of the whole process here. And it's the reason why I'm not recommending any changes to what they've got because I don't think we have the competence or the information necessary in most of these cases to make
any more intelligent decision than the decision that they made. >> Um Michael, did you have any other comments at this time? >> Yeah, I guess so. It sounds like with CNA and Seal tomorrow, there wasn't agreement for reductions offsetting um
increases in other areas. >> Oh, and others can chime in. >> Yeah, I didn't have any reductions for CE and Feny and Seville tomorrow did not get the 91%. They were in the lower category.
>> Yeah, Cene was requested 50 and got 135. >> Which was it? reduction from land >> they got 14.4K so it would be 27.9K in um offsets for the reductions for other
other nonprofits. >> Yeah, like last year they got 23 24 or something. >> I'm not big on comparing to previous years just because the pool of applicants changes every year. So when we hear requests for restoration of
funds, it's this I I think about it as onetime money, not not programming money. So relative to last year is not the metric that I I look at with the most I don't give that the most
weight. So, um um so Lord, I know how you feel in um Earth from Jan. Um >> and really I I was just looking for if were there any areas where with
increases we decrease something else. But >> um the other one um the Beacon Kitchen 40.5,000 just in the context of they recently received $960,000 in a state grant and in the state budget
there's 2.7 million to be allocated for them. If we wanted to think about how much they're allocated just in that context again like similarly looking for offsets. What did we Let's see where is that >> 62 63
sheep. >> So, um yeah, I could um >> So, we could we could not give the extra 95 and the extra two. >> Yeah.
>> Do we know if what that grant was for? So, I pulled up the um the $960,000 state one was for the Beacon Kitchen um uh and it goes to New Hill Development Corporation for the resilient food
system infrastructure grants in the Commonwealth is the grant program. The 2.7 million in the state budget, I believe, is also for the Beacon Kitchen. Both are going to New Hill, but they're for that program. >> Yeah. >> How confident we are? Are we in that
belief or >> the the state one? Um, that's my memory. I know I have the the 960,000 state one, but >> so is memory note. >> Yeah. Okay,
>> that's stronger. >> Thanks. >> Regardless, New Hill again got cut >> 3.5 million. >> Yeah. Um, so I would I would be open to I mean it sounds like they were did well this
year. Um, >> yeah. So, which is good. It's a great program. >> Um, >> okay. So, I'm okay taking those two additions off then. >> Yeah, me too. >> And the state one is 2.75 for Beacon Kitchen.
>> Great. Great. Thanks for checking. Um, >> so you so both line items you're zeroing out what's there? Is that what you're saying? >> Yeah. We're not giving >> just those the increases. >> The still get what they were awarded.
>> Um, do um do you want to go line by line to see because there are places you don't agree? >> Yeah, let's just go to the ones we don't agree. >> Okay. So if there's three, are we assuming everybody's in agreement that's what you're doing? >> Yeah.
>> But not on the same amounts. >> So look at boys and girls. >> So if there's three that that equal, then we're not going to talk about it, >> right? >> If there's two, if there's three notes, but they're not equal, those are the ones we're talking about, >> right? So Boys and Girls Club is first because it's not the same amount. I
>> mean, the easiest thing to do is just take the lowest amount that everybody agrees on. Well, yeah. So, um we can certainly consider that, but um I, you know, I'm a
big proponent of um mentoring and that's why I wanted to give the Boys and Girls Club um a little bit more. save. >> So, well, we're going to fill in where there's three so that at least you have a concept of how much you've spent
>> and then we can pull anything out if there's a reconsideration because what you're doing is you're eliminating things and that's helpful. So, only in the places where there's three of the same amount. Yeah. So, Pedmont Regional. Yeah.
Suddenly feel so under pressure come to TCF. >> Well, now do we have to since we did that logic for >> Thank you. >> zeros matter. >> Sorry question. Um, wait. Now that we've used that logic
on CE and um No, we on Beacon on Beacon, do we have to revisit Discovery Museum? >> No. >> Okay. >> Well, you agreed. >> Okay, great. Oh, yeah. You're like, "Stop it. Stop it. Stop it. Don't under." >> Just so you know where you agree, you've
allocated almost 85,000 leaving you 415. >> But that 415 Oh, because we're not taking it out of there anymore. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. um back to Boys and Girls Club. >> Our average, just if you're wondering, would be to give them 19,000
>> at the moment. You don't have three votes for that, >> right? >> So, >> so a nice round 20 sounds good. >> Yeah. >> You don't have three votes for that either. >> We're asking right now to see if we're going to get that.
>> Would you be open to 20? Um Jen Uh well, >> what was your how did you come to your 1250? >> Um the
I wanted to to support them at a certain percentage to increase their they were at the 48% level I think. Um, but I wanted to spend more elsewhere and so I tried to get them to that proportion. Um, yeah. To
75,000 of they asked for 125. I try to get them to 75. >> It's a percent based. Okay. >> Yeah. So, they were awarded 48% which is 60,000. >> So, would you be open to 20?
>> All right. It's back to me. Yes. Um, okay. Yeah, >> I would. >> One, two, three. >> Charlott, >> I would I mean I would stick with the 1250 just because there's some like
percentage basis to it. >> Um, the next one is um Charlottesville valet. Oh, yeah. I that's my my proposal to add to the 27% or underfunded um arts and culture
in depth to support them to make it to an arts council. So, we can there's nobody else there on that. >> So, that doesn't mean >> Yeah. I think we're still worth a vote. Um that concept is going to apply to
a few of those that you'll see 7,000 using part of the >> the 100,000 we allocated for >> the commission. >> Yeah. Yeah. I Yeah. I would >> I like I like that idea of using it for the arts um for some of those. So I I
supported 7,000 for that. So is all of the 100,000 that you're talking about would be coming out of the council strategic initiative fund. >> Yes. >> Yes. Because we had allocated 100 for the art study and we think we can do it for >> 50
>> about 50 and so we're using parties. >> All right. >> Okay. I don't know. I don't know if any neither one of you that you have to really agree to like spend more out of the strategic initiative fund and to give 50k to those 27% or
>> so effectively you're going to be talking about 200,000 out of the strategic investment fund initiative fund >> study and one for the funding. Yes. >> Right. Public art. >> The hope that we get some of the study money back. Right.
We're just we're capturing the other thoughts here as well just so that you don't lose sight of it when you're looking at numbers. So that's another 50k that you're spending out of that. >> And just to remind us again, we had 360 left. >> Um just under 370.
>> Just under 370. >> That's what's in there today. >> Yeah. So, um, Natalie, where were you on the Charlottesville Valley for because I I for those um
projects I I wanted to do the $7,000 for the art one, so I didn't put it in my >> There's se There's seven of them >> to do the 50,000. Yeah. So, um Chris,
you can put me down for 74 for that one. >> And then the other ones are lighthouse. >> Um >> lighthouse. >> Lighthouse. Um music resource center. >> Um >> were there three? I'm sorry. For ballet, were there three? >> Not not yet.
>> Think Lighthouse. You got um >> seven and seven was a suggestion. >> And then music resource center was another one. Resource Center and Second Street Gallery. Oh, and New City Arts Initiative. >> And so it's like the commission before the commission.
>> Priming them. >> Priming the coun trying to get them to stay in the game long enough to join the council. >> Yeah. >> I mean, not knowing that what the state of all of them are. >> Um, >> but yes, Lloyd makes a good point.
That's additional money taken out. >> Can on in Jen's column, can you just temporarily delete the two that we zeroed out and that'll give us her total at the bottom. >> Oh, I guess it's never mind because you
have other line items that are different. I'm thinking like >> Okay. >> Sorry. Why you messing with my column? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. >> All right. You put you can put it back.
Thanks for >> So you're not You're not sure right now. Charlottville badly. We This is the time. I mean, we you just need to go plow through it. >> Yeah. I can We save the I know arts are important. Let's save the arts ones to see where we are before we do that if
that's all right. Perfect. >> Anyone? >> City of Promise next. >> Um, so I think we got the general gist from Michael and Lloyd. But if you feel like
you want to chime in on any specific ones, please do. or I know it's going to be kind of addressing >> just because there are specific ones I questions about just to go back to building goodness. Um
>> what and there were a couple like this where it was a larger request and then 4,000 was increased. What was the rationale for like the value out of the 4,000? That was again the kind of uh percentage thing that got them over their half they
were um they were awarded 48,000 of 100 and that got them to 52s I feel like it might not it was a 9% increase I can't remember my math um so it got them over the halfway point of
their original ask okay >> that also occurred with cultivate uh hos there's a few others that that it's like a tiny number but it um had an impact on
their >> yeah I think I had building goodness cultivate and legal a justice center specifically is like I was unsure of like the the value ad of the >> of the small amount. >> Yeah. So, back to City of Promise. Was that
one of your six? >> No. I mean, I'm >> So, theoretically, there's three to There's three votes on that line. >> There's three zeros. >> Oh, I see what you mean. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, that's right. >> And, you know, I I suppose I should say
publicly what I've said in in writing to council that If we're looking at a strategic initiative fund, City of Promise has a proposal that actually constitutes a strategic initiative,
but $10,000 doesn't fund that strategic initiative. And so 10,000 here, 7,000 there, and so on, we end up not having enough as I suspect at the end. In fact, we will end up having a net reduction in
our strategic initiatives fund. uh because we're committing other of our strategic initiative fund. We're committing more of it than we are putting into it. And so we're shrinking the size of the strategic initiative
fund if you go through with this plan. Uh thereby eliminating or minimizing the ability to actually embark on a strategic initiative. I've said a number of times that if if I wanted to make a list of the the top few issues where I
think we ought to be taking a strategic initiative, the kind of thing that City of Promise is doing is actually one of those instances, but not to the tune of $10,000. Perhaps to the tune of, you know, they had requested $200,000
getting 96. >> We're getting 96. Uh, as best I can tell, that might fund one of the two positions that they are being asked to put into the Charlottesville City Schools without getting any money to do so. So, we're they're being asked to do
two things and we're only going to fund one of them. >> So, would you like us to fund one? >> If we're going to get serious about something, let's get serious about that rather than 5,000 here, 3,000 there. >> So, would you like to add any to City of
Promise? within this rubric. No, but I would like to have there be a a full discussion of the proposal so that if we end up at the end of things saying a after we have discussed it and by the way, we have not
seen any of the paperwork on this on any of these proposals. So, I'm not proposing anything here on any of them because we haven't seen the backup. Just just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly, are you saying you'd prefer to have more money in the strategic
initiatives fund so later on we allocate a large amount of money to a couple things rather than like 5,000, >> right? To actually make a strategic initiative. 5,000 bucks here or there is neither strategic nor an initiative.
And if we're simply saying we're not going to make the strategic initiative fund a strategic initiative fund, so be it. Call go back to what we used to call it, which is a council discretionary fund. We're going to go back 10 years or so. >> Uh but it's not a strategic initiative
fund if we take it all away by bits and pieces. I would note that some of the requests we got are like 2500 12 five like little bits like that to certain organizations are important and valuable even though
in our grand scale of here's 2 million that we get to break up into those little pieces for these groups that can be useful >> but it's council's strategic initiative not the agencies I think we need to be focusing and the intent originally of this fund when it was created some years
ago was that it would be something where the council could spend enough money on a particular project at a particular time to make a difference and not not a couple thousand bucks here or there. So anyway, I've >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> That's my basic feeling about why we shouldn't be nickeling and dimming our way out of a meaningful strategic initiative fund. Um, so we're at City of Promise. Where where
are you now? Like is this one? >> Um, yeah, I didn't add anything because of the size of the existing award. >> Okay. All right. >> And I'm in the same place. I agree with the the point N made earlier about I'm most interested if there's like an award
of 4 12 ask 12,000 and 4,000 covers that but 96,000 I don't see what the addition adds so I'm fine with it. >> Okay. Okay. Um Charlottesville by >> So sorry to clarify. Is that a no? >> Yes. >> Yeah.
>> So are we coming back to Charlottesville? >> Yeah. So Chrissy, could you put the zero in for City of Promise? So when we visually look for the blanks, please. Thank you so much. >> Okay. And heart and heart and soul. Um
>> cultivate. >> Oh, cultivate. There we go. Okay. >> Oh, right. Cultivate is next. Um >> Yeah. Well, yeah. And you have, as Natalie points out, you have a three there already, >> right? Right. Okay. Um
>> Yeah. But we're open to, you know, being convinced. >> Yeah. So the next one would be um is that legal aid? >> Uh yes. >> Okay. Um okay. Um,
>> this program was about preventing eviction essentially, I'm oversimplifying it, eviction services. And uh, the 6,000 gets them over the halfway
point of their ask. Um, but that's the the ask is 100,000. That's why mine says 6,000. I think Natalie says 5,000. fine. >> Yeah, >> that
need a third from someone >> um >> to tiebreak. >> And as I recall, it it was >> this was for the um >> uh the legal services for low-income residents is how it's titled, but the um
the um >> eviction >> eviction. Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I I I'll do the six. I I could support the six. We'll see what the numbers >> and I'll bump to six. >> Um, and >> coming back to those.
>> Coming back to those. Those are parts of Sure. >> Um, the next one is >> Oh, no. >> Partner for mental health. Partner for mental health. Oh, yeah. with Lowe's and fishes and
uh meals on wheels. I had this question where the max that can be awarded is the the >> 91% >> 91%. Both of those were in 91% and we're taking them above the max that can be
awarded. But what's the the rationale for bring them above the maximum percentage that can be awarded? Uh yeah, getting them closer to the full knowing one getting them closer to the full ask like what they what they said they needed for
healthy food access. >> And it's just at least for me it's it's the um the the extreme need and I'm a substitute driver for or deliver for meals on wheels. So, but um
that's why you know I supported it. So, uh let's see the next one is >> partner for mental health.
Um that may be one that uh Michael's point could be taken the thousand or500. Uh hold on. They're a 27% bunded. So it bumps them
up from 54 if you do 15 to 69. But they asked for 20. So it may not my my reason for giving was related to the map to health priorities of mental health as a priority for the health
system. So um but it is not getting them over the halfway point >> the downside. So, are you proposing to change your 1500 or >> I can go to
>> love it if you went up to mine, but I think we're going to be over what we >> Well, yeah, >> sure. >> Sure. I'd love it if you change $500 to that. >> Yeah. >> 1500. >> 1500.
Um the next one is >> now we're down to the yards. So what's our total? >> So 112. >> We have 337 left and we've spend 11212
>> which means we've spent more than we're putting in. or oh yeah with the 50 correct we spent 943 last year just >> comparing apples to oranges
>> comparing apples to oranges >> um okay so do we have to make decisions about the >> So I I guess an argument could be that there was $370,000 left last year. So we spent 98 what was it? >> 94,350
>> BCF adjustment and then we spent >> 45 on the YMCA >> doors >> egress >> and then the rest of it just sat there. >> Is it is that about the best? >> Yes. So I would be interested in
activating that. We I mean we never know the future so we don't know what's going to come up in that but I don't believe we've spent much out of the strategic initiatives fund the last couple of years right >> last few years is a reason for pivoting its purpose.
>> Yeah. So, but I would just say to be fair, you had other pots, >> art, >> uh, you know, >> that's true. >> Surplus, a lot of other things that required you not to have to lean on
this account. >> And I feel like a lot of those were bigger ticket items that we could have we couldn't have paid them out of the strategic initiatives fund anyway, right? some of the smaller ones every now and again, but they wouldn't have been
strategic or initiative or the reference made by C. I agree with them wholeheartedly on the approach there. Yes. >> So, I'm okay spending a little more now because money now is more useful than money
later for these folks the way it is for everybody, which yeah, it takes a little more out of our flexibility later, but that's kind of what we're here for. An >> additional 49. Yeah, I'm supportive of that. >> The only other the the only other one
>> one sec. So, what is it that you're considering doing? >> Putting all the sevens as it govens in. So, >> that was a 17. >> Yeah, that was >> that was a different one. That was live arts. That wasn't one of those seven, >> but that's not been considered, >> right? We have to go back to that one, too.
>> So, the 17 for me was 10,000 aligned with um what I see for >> plus the seven. >> Plus the seven. Yeah. Um, is that >> Yeah,
>> they doing it or is that good? >> That um that brings them up to the 17,000 brings them up to 25,000. Their ask is 30. Their original
allocation was $8,100. Um, >> so you can There we go. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And what is the reason for giving them 10,000 plus 7,000? >> Uh, the 7,000 was that 50,000 divided
evenly amongst the arts and cultures that were only awarded 27 or less percent or less. >> Okay. The 10,000 baseline was um >> something we had talked about before that seven came into play.
>> Just yeah a number for live arts to get them up to n uh 18,000. >> Yeah. >> Of their 30. >> So I don't understand why they're additive at this point >> because it's uh >> because >> we can Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> And that is absolutely the worst answer possible. Well, >> because we can is the worst answer possible. >> The um well, >> but isn't the whole thing because we can?
>> That's the problem with the system, >> right? Oh, no. I'm not saying we shouldn't have a work session on the system, right? I'm >> talked about that separately. >> Yeah. I the given the bounds of the system as it currently exists. >> Um
>> so um for live arts um are you >> I yeah I kind of wasn't thinking that one was going to be additive >> since we were already giving them 10. Um, >> yeah. I mean, I try and I know that they particularly this year is a tough year.
I could support um giving them more than 10. >> Anything? I mean, I'm open to it. I mean, it's difficult not knowing anything about their like
specific financials or >> I think that the thing about Live Arts is that it is an organization that brings people downtown. It does stuff for kids. It adds culture. So, it's not
just like business house. It's like that's the which is, you know, the argument for the arts. But yeah, but >> one of the pieces of the argument about the arts is that in virtually every case, they have the ability to put on performances that they sell tickets to.
That is not true for many of these other organizations. It's not true for the Women's Initiative. It's not true for the Sexual Assault Resource Agency and so on. It is true for for most of these uh arts agencies. I just I I think that it
>> Yeah. I mean, >> it's hard to compare them. >> Yeah. >> Which is why we've been talking about separating >> that out. >> It's not a um perfect perfect system. I mean, some >> I mean, at the end, it's $10,000 and
what like a >> $260 million shouldn't need. >> Yeah, that's the second worst argument. But um you know >> be laugh I'm sorry. >> I I love
>> I mean yeah I mean I mean I love a live bar similar with Lowe's and fishes. It's just I don't understand what $10,000 will do for them similar to like what is $4,000 offer and fishes. But >> yeah I kind of want to keep I mean if you're bringing up sexual research agency we can they're not being made
whole in their request either. We could give 10 to live arts and those seven to Sarah and they get 10 instead of seven >> if you're determined to spend the strategic initiatives fund on bits and pieces. >> Yeah, sure.
>> Well, to to Lloyd's granted, we haven't done this, which is also a very fair point. I mean, I think it was like 2018 or 2019, the strategic initiatives fund, I think, was used to seed the food justice network, which ultimately resulted in the creation of Cultivate Charlottesville, which I think had a
bigger value ad for the community than like $2,000, $3,000 here. We haven't done that, but I do think there's a big I agree with your point, Lloyd, that there's an opportunity for us to get back to doing that. >> No, we allocated $500,000 and paid over three years, $55,000 to $500 basically
for three years. And that was the one of the times. Another strategic in initiative fund expenditure as I recall was the initial $500,000 to New Hill Development Corp. Uh those are both things that were large enough to be
strategic, large enough to be initiatives. U and $500,000 worked pretty well for them. Okay, this is a question three just to give you some idea of what you've used this money for or this goes back I don't know how far >> and I guess
>> further than you want to >> question that we should think about maybe not for this conversation but when we talk about this whole process later is how do people bring strategic initiatives to us? How do we find a way to allocate this money so it doesn't sit
around for a year? How do we find a good match for it? legitimate question. Of course, one thing we could do is to say, you know, let's let's us think a little creatively about how we might solve a particular problem. And uh in some cases, people
have come to us with specific suggestions like the, you know, CL C3 program for example or the um new hill development uh was one. Maybe we say, you know, we've got some proposals that
might give us a chance to address the the achievement gap. Let's think about how we had a number of requests a couple of months ago when the when this discussion began for the budget saying we should adopt something like the Harlem Children's Zone. Uh that's obviously something that we have would
be an initiative. We haven't done that, but City of Promise has the opportunity to become something along those lines. Um but align item budget though >> because if if they're using the money for
staff or then they're going to be dependent on that money for you know >> sometimes you have an initiative that says we're giving you basically seed money. you've got this money, go, you know, spend it on, among other things,
working on fundraising choices, program, all kinds of other things. Justify your existence. >> Got it. So what what I I didn't want to you know um you know get too bogged down in you know how we can improve this um
process because it's um and and you know I like the ideas that that we're talking about but I would suggest that maybe we have like maybe a four o'clock session on this or >> it's already planned. >> Okay. I just want to make sure you're
thinking about this the right way. So now you have 500,000 but only 130 is in the base budget. So you have 500,000 because you've had carryover. So if you spend all this to get you back to 500, you're going to be have to add the
difference between 130 to 500. >> Just so you're everybody's clear on that. >> Okay. So So if we could go back to the to so we can just kind of wrap that up. We were at the other one where it was 10
10 and 17 and >> we can do the 10 and >> I don't want a cigarette 10. >> Okay. So um which one was that >> there? >> Um what what else do we need? >> New city. >> New city.
>> Um is this the one that >> that was I had had just like live arts. had a um >> they will pull the process I mean the >> the 7,000 is they're one of the seven and I had originally already allocated
um eight so um 255. So if you want to do the same model with live art senates it would be a seven. >> Keep them at seven. >> Yeah. And
>> I think that's it. Unless we want to just Yeah. Okay. Let's call it a >> What's the total? >> So you spent 164, you'd have 285 left. >> Okay.
Um, everyone can everyone sleep tonight? >> Well, I know you go a little bit later, but um >> I'll sleep either way, but I've said my piece. >> Yes. And >> and good conversations to come about.
>> Yes. Yes. >> Yeah. I think I think you make a good point, but we this today is not Yeah. >> It's worth having a bigger discussion in a different venue for for fixing it on a bigger scale so we don't
have to go through that every year. >> Though Hunter and your team do a great job with the protocol that currently exists. >> Yeah. Um so Sam, what I have agenda
>> we're balanced. >> Okay. >> I don't see anyone here from >> We have any school related questions? Uh the answer to the question of what does the schools have um forecast as
potential increase from the state from the Senate or House budget proposals ranges from $500,000 to $900,000. Um that's the numbers that they're um considering at this point. We won't know
unless until the budget was approved. But that's the range of potential increase that the school system could receive. So of course the question for you all would be what does that do to you in the way of a pursuit of those
funds, a portion of those funds, a share of those funds? Well, I >> I just I just think that we can have that discussion. We just want to see what it is. the issue deter
>> you don't you don't have a mechanism for you as the city to receive those funds as it stands today. You would have to add language to the budget appropriation if it was to mandate a return of some portion of funds. Today we operate with
a gain sharing agreement that if schools ends their budget year with a surplus we split 5050 but that's an agreement that we have executed with them. If you were to pursue an increase in allocation from
the state you would need to put some action instrument in place and the budget occ the budget appropriation is the moment that's available to you. I can say on that I did a lot of research on this those couple days. Um
once you appropriate the funds and just absolutely make the appropriation to the school the only way that you get any portion money back from that is if the school board consents. Now we can build language into the appropriation to make that possible. There's also what you can
also not appropriate all the funds at once. It gets appropriate on a periodic basis, quarterly basis, week, how monthly basis, however you want to do that. That's one way to make sure the funds have not been fully appropriated. Um or you can even appropriate the base amount and then put an amount in a contingency that's not yet been
appropriate. So, we have a couple different options. Um, if this is something that y'all want to pursue, >> one thought that I had and I just sort of thinking out loud and I'm not committed to the idea particularly, but if we're talking about another 500,000
to 900,000, that's at most one and a half% of the amount we're going to give them. I don't think that that's worth getting hung up over. If they're going to get $2 million or $3
million from the state, that might be a different matter. But we know that the schools have, you know, they had a number of things that they would have liked to be able to do that would have added another $500,000 to their ask. Um,
I'm inclined if it's if it's less than a million dollars to basically not require anything. But if they if the gain sharing agreement still is in place, then we'll implement that. >> And
900,000 at the upper end and then 1 cent on the real estate tax rate is a little more than a million >> two >> 1.2. Um, so, um, do you have a recommendation that we, um, I I'm not sure if we what we've done in
in the past. >> We haven't done anything in the past. Um, so the the the request for the information was my response to the question posed in your work session. Um, the answer is there's $500,000 to
$900,000 that they could receive above the budget. Yes, they could use that money to do other things, but so could we. >> So the question you're asking us today, what you would like us to decide is, should we make plans to expect that
money to be returned either in part or in all or should we make plans to not see that money again? >> Yep. >> So um is there >> no action would mean they keep whatever they get in above the budget. The question is are you interested or
>> right? What's the board's council's desire to try to, you know, come up with a resolution or statement or something to get, you know, to say if you get, you know, $900,000 back, then we get all of it, half of it, or we being
local government. >> I would say treating as gain share >> is that in his half. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Which is what I was thinking >> applies in other contexts. The question I guess is >> is that an email? Sorry. >> If they get that money, are they then
free to spend it if they want to or are we saying if they get that money, they have to share it with us? I It would seem to me that if we're just appropriating it to them and they spend it for whatever reason they decide they want to spend it, I don't think we have
the ability to to squawk unless we put something into the >> That's correct. Once you've appropriated funds to them, you have no mechanism to claw claw that money back. Using kind of a vulgar term, but but claw it back unless the school board consents. We can
include language in the appropriation that would uh there's a couple different ways to do it. Um language in the appropriation ordinance that gives you the ability to pull back half or whatever portion you want is maybe the cleanest. I would say
legally I don't care for that as much. It's not something that's been necessarily tested using that kind of contingency much. >> Um I like the other methods that I talked about a little bit better which is placing a portion of it into a contingency or um moment just went straight out of my
>> quarterly allocation. >> Yes. Or allocating on a quarterly basis >> or semianually >> however Yes. just so that you're not appropriating the entire amount because there's attorney general's opinions and case law seems to back up that once you um allocate the funds or appropriate
funds there's no it's not coming back from the school appropriation >> is this big enough of a policy change that we should have it be um like an agenda item for
public comment or is It not I'm not sure the scale of this decision is that does that make sense like is this going to be a whole thing or is it not is it something that other people do that we just haven't yet that we could just
decide here and it's gonna >> I don't think we have a sense of that at this moment >> do kind of when you say a thing that mean >> um >> and for public comment is that associated with the thing.
>> Yeah. Like is this is this going to be a shock to someone's system in a way that is >> it's a change to >> bigger than it might sound with just us chatting about it now or is it something that's like >> it's a change to the system. Today the school board office is preparing to
potentially receive $500,000 to $900,000 >> in addition to what they have already. And in years past, they have been provided the opportunity to always receive that and no expectation of anything coming back. >> Yeah,
>> I'm in a different situation today. I am not anti-schools, anti-investment in schools. I am responsible for this budget and I've cut and could do things just the same. So, I'm now speaking up for my team as well. So being that it's
a conversation that we haven't had with school board jointly or with the public and all of that, I think if we decided in today to expect to take it all back if the state gives them a healthy chunk
of change, um that would be a sharper shock to the system. Um but if we decide to do the game sharing style or um with plans for changing the
protocol for next year that gives time for the processing to happen where it's like okay next year they've got the expectation that >> they get this well we get all of that back but I think if we did all of it this year that would be um that would be
alarming. So either we should let them keep it or we should do the 50% for this year >> and and and so that's what I'm supporting that they not quite but are you saying you want to gain share 50 >> I say if we do want to take anything
back which I think is a valid position to take since it's kind of feeling >> like we're close to passing everything instead of giving a long runway for this we should do no more than 50% this year >> with the longer runway being next year.
They expect if we decide to >> that we could know what the history looks like, but excuse me. I would say to be fair, I think we're this year is more of a situation in terms of the budget amounts because there has been a change in the administration. So, I
don't think every year you're going to be looking at this big change in the state budget. >> I think this is sort of an anomaly. >> Yeah. that they're trying to put. >> Do you agree, Michael, or disagree? >> I just think this has happened once years in a row at this scale.
>> Okay. >> So, uh, >> meaning they've gotten more than they originally put forward. >> Yeah. We based our budget, including basing tax increases off budget that didn't match state budget
reality. Um, so Michael, it sounds like you support the 50 the the gang chair. >> Yes. I mean, if there's even a mechanis once you all decide that this something you want to do, I'll figure out the right way to make it happen. No, I'm serious. It's I think pro I'm leaning
kind of towards the contingency idea and how that looks in practice. I'm going to sit down and put pen to paper. >> Yeah. Um, but I one of those methods we'll we'll figure out the cleanest one and use the equivalent of gain sharing but in the contingency. >> Essentially you you would budget the
base amount that we required to budget to and you place another amount into a contingency and then to um depending on how much that comes from state half of that however we want to do it we we pull that back into the city budget and the other part goes to the and then release
the rest of school board. But just from a practical matter. So we'll have the first reading Monday night and then you'll be voting on this on the 9th. So it I mean there's no time really to give unless somebody's going to call school board.
>> Yeah. And have people come in Monday. I think it would be interesting for us to see I think this would be interesting. People can tell me if it's not. um to see a chart of the past couple of years of
the allocations and the requests. So, >> we have to ask the school board for that. We don't have it. >> Oh, it's not publicly available. >> Um >> I guess we could figure it out, but yeah, we don't we haven't tracked it because it hasn't been a thing. >> Okay.
Uh, Jen, what are your thoughts on the gain equivalent of a a gain share? Like whatever they get it's >> which means 50%. Um, I think that makes the whole point of this was to see if we could avoid if we get a longer runway to see how much
they were getting so we could avoid tax a tax increase. And so if we can if there is overage and we can save half of it and that can contribute to their numbers next year, our contribution to, you know, if we saved
it in in a way if we used it in a way that could help us pay for it the following year, then that is helping do the job. So, I think 50% is the right number. >> Well, I think it would help pay for stuff we want to do this year because we're going to find out in like the next month, right, what that number is.
>> But in the like trickle down of it, then we didn't have to, you know, if schools are going to ask for 2.5 million next year, we didn't have to spend it somewhere else. Then we, you know, in the big shell game of it all. So, yeah, the bottom line is I'm the share gain
sharing. So, so I think we've got support, if I can recap real quick, we got support this year to to plan on using methods to expect a 50% refund.
But for next year, we want to kind of build in a longer runway with language and meetings in advance to talk about a full return based on whatever the state. So if we're never like it's not going to get any better next year. I >> I would just not muddy it up by talking
about next year. Do we have to mention here? >> No, next year is just if it is something we're building into the budget cycle next year, the earlier staff knows about building that language the better. >> Well, >> does that make sense? >> I think we're solving for something that won't matter at that point. If you make
the change now, which I'm not recommending anything. I'm answering the question that was posed to me. Um, the change this year is in essence the change next year because you're adding
it to the appropriation and unless you have a reason to pull it out, it becomes a part of the boilerplate packaging of that budget adoption and it's just the numbers and details that change. >> That's true. Unless you want to adjust it from the 5050 gain sharing concept
that we have enacted with them today. >> And you could also be in a situation where next year, you know, they might ask for six million >> way more than and so the state revenue, you know, may not be so relevant.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. So, it's the it's the introduction of the concept of a 50-50 split of anything extra is what we're talking about. And that's just you you put it in and it's in and you consider taking it out when you're reviewing the budget
policy, I guess. >> So, then really the the question for today is if we want to do 50% or 100%. And I mean I would ask if I have a recommendation. My recommendation is that if you are concerned about where we
are and schools receiving additional funds that were not a part of our budget process that led to them getting what they've gotten and you want to then this is an avenue for doing it. It's a choice. So
um for this budget um the equivalent of gain share 50% I think that we have staff I mean council support of that do >> no I'm thinking hundreds >> I'll go back to your >> I can I can go there I can
>> I'll go back to your concern of a thing >> yeah no that's not really gonna make it a That's a thing. >> No, that is a thing. But >> so if we say that today, that gives till Monday to hear a response, >> which is not a lot of time.
>> Not a lot of time. That's not fair. >> It being a thing potentially >> because they're already acclimated to the gang chairs, right? >> No, because they're not expecting any of this. >> They've only been advised of this by me asking the question. Oh,
>> so just to be clear, the way the gain share works is they get their state revenue, the city match, they go through the year, they end up with a surplus just like we do. And so when they end up with their surplus, that agreement is they keep 50% and we get 50% back.
That's really the gain share. >> Um, no guarantee that there'll be anything correct >> at the end of the year. >> Correct. So this is just for the extra 500,000 that you built in the budget. Do you want to if they get 500,000 do
you want that 5050? So they're getting now 700 or if they get 900 is it 500 plus all you know what part of the additional funds as Sam said that you haven't considered do you want them to keep?
So I just, you know, just to kind of throw >> Matthew R in there, the school board member said that there's been a bonus proposed by the governor that will that we're having that
having that we are having to cover the non um SOQ um positions that will require them to use that fund balance of over a million dollars. So, if I understand it, that the governor,
you know, has a proposal to pay bonuses >> without funding them. >> It's a it's a man unfunded mandate. >> Yeah. >> So, we're
>> Sorry, Chrissy. Can you run through that math you just said again for me, please? >> So, they're um Let me see if I can bring it up. Well, so their budget is federal funds, state funds, city match. Those are their three source and then a few grants. But let's just say those are
their three sources. Then they have an expenditure budget which they present to you. At the end of the year, if their expenditures are less than their total revenue, that's their surplus. We get 50% and they get to keep 50%. So this uh
for 25 yeah we're in 20 25 um for example they ended the year with a 2.8ish surplus. We got 1.4 they get kept 1.4 and we put that in our debt service fund to help
offset the increase we needed for debt service. Um so that's how that works. Does that answer your question? >> Yes. >> So where are we now? So, I just want to make sure um 50% or all of it.
>> Yeah. >> Which one? >> So, I'll go down the the >> 50%. >> 50. >> I'm fine. 50% gain sharing. >> Yeah, I'm at 50. Sure. >> 50 sounds like
>> Okay, John, do you blowing that? >> So, just so I'm hearing you clearly. So to the extent that they they receive excess funds in the state budget, our appropriation needs to be captured in such a way that we can recapture 50% of the excess funds above the past budget.
That is that correct? >> Yeah, >> we'll figure out the precise mechanism. It's going to be one of those three ways. >> Yeah. >> I mean, it's late on a like said on Monday. That's got me going, well, maybe just adding in the contingency language ain't so bad. Yeah. >> So, um we'll uh but we'll have it worked
out. Well, Monday's just the first reading. We could edit from Thursday. >> Good. >> But as I understand, the way the gain sharing works, it's not only a question of how much money they received, if they didn't spend it all. >> I mean, it's literally whatever their net quote profit, retained earnings,
whatever you want to call it in a in this nonprofit world, >> that's what we get half of. >> Correct. So if we if they get an extra $900,000, but they have costs where they spend another $400,000, the amount subject to
gain sharing would only be 500. >> Correct. >> So do we want to say it's not gain sharing, it's just we get 50% back of whatever the state awards. I >> I think gain sharing was just a useful way of describing how we typically study
understand how we're doing it today. It wasn't exactly. So the actual real world would be if they do get 900 and then we get 450 back. >> Yeah. >> Unless they also get hit with an unfunded mandate that they hadn't budgeted on. I mean how do we how do we deal with that?
>> It will I mean retain the flexibility to respond to that though. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> You can always appropriate more. You can't I was saying once you appropriate unappropriate that >> so I think that you um you understand more.
>> Okay. Any other speak. I speak one person. >> Yeah. Okay. You speak council. Good. Um any other action Sam? Any other comments um by council? So Monday is Monday a public hearing for and are we dealing with the budget at
all on Monday? I can't >> um the tax the real tax rate hearing is Monday and then it's the first reading of the budget ordinance. >> Okay. And then Thursday um is adoption is the adoption. It should be >> a few minutes.
>> Six minutes. It's all you got. No, I'm just kidding. >> Be there. >> Yeah, at that point we really there's no, you know, we can't, you know, have we can have discussion, but it would be really too late to like, you know, have staff look into anything. So,
all right, everyone. Crystal >> yeah, that's right. Is there motion to adjurnn? >> Move. All in favor, please say yes. >> I second. >> Sorry. >> I just want to be a part of you. I
really want to be there. >> She part of the team. >> Need you doing exactly what you're doing.