for a total of for a total of a half a million. Um, and we that's obviously stayed and we're carrying that through to this plan as well. >> So, if we have a big plan coming that's
up in the air, including very big questions about what entire buildings and campuses are used for. Does it make sense to be putting 40 million into Walker right now in the near term? >> That's not considered for Walker. That's
an earmark for the prek center wherever >> whether whether it happens at Walker, which is where it's scheduled to be today, or it'll get moved to Oaklan. That's why Oaklan was there just as a reference point because we knew people would ask about Oklahoma. The clarity is that the preschool it's a new building
whether it's at the Walker campus or at Oaklan it is a new separate building that is specifically designed for preschool use >> and is there any is any part of that investigation whether the prek should remain distributed in neighborhoods
>> that's how we already got to that that assessment was already done and concluded that we were building a new prek center >> okay to the decision to build the new middle school too >> and the only reason that Oaklan is a part of the consideration is it just landed in our lap the way that it did um
this fall. Otherwise, it would be full steam ahead at the Walker site. >> Okay. >> Is there any um consideration to doing two on either? I know then we're in the Walker Buford same situation just but
you know driving little kids around. >> I would say that that that too would have been a part of the assessment work that was done previously. Um I kind of inherited it was done. I asked questions like that myself, but yeah, it it was already determined that it would be at the Walker site until we really until
the FBI site came into the conversation. It was done Walker period. FBI shifted that conversation and then Oakan became the secondary location. >> Next, please. So, facilities, capital projects, um
there is one new addition here. The McGuffy roof um does need to be replaced. Um we've currently put that in as a placeholder in FY30. Um in addition, as I mentioned, um there is a commitment from the city manager.
Uh additional funds have been added for the HVAC replacement. Uh so that puts us at about $4 million in facilities projects for 27 and uh just over 26 million for the five years.
>> Um solar funding goes to zero. Is that because we wait that's not here? >> Oh well because it's zero I guess. >> Yeah. So that is um currently zero.
those funds have been deployed to other projects such as bypass and I think it helped with KEK I think. Um and then there's a bigger discussion about solar in general. >> Does that mean we're doing PPAs in the future or that we're not rolling out
solar in the future? >> We're investigating PPAs. >> So that that too could be would be something you would see more of or we may go back to allocating specific project by project but that's to be determined. Okay, >> everyone. When Prisy referred to the
bypass, we meant the solar panels on the bypass fire. >> Correct. Thank you. Sorry. Thank you. >> Want to be clear of what the means. >> Yes, fair point. Thank you. >> So, we've been investigating PPAs for a while now.
Is there uh there a process to follow on that or is there a estimated time we'll be done investigating PPAs or do a PPA? >> So I would say that um we have done our
due diligence from a financial standpoint. Um it's it uh in terms of you know can we do one, how would we do one, that kind of thing. are, you know, when we use tax exempt bonds, that adds a whole additional wrinkle to what we
can or cannot do with a private business. Um, and so we've done that piece. Um, it has now been handed off to sustainability who is working through the details of um, a potential contract.
>> Okay. So, should we expect that process to wrap up before this budget is adopted and a decision will be made to either >> We can get you more clarification. I don't know the answer to that. I do know there's things that have to be worked out with Dominion and other partners and
so she's they're working on that. >> Okay. >> Muppy roof replacement at the risk of angering the artists who I love. Um I don't see a connection to uh comprehensive plan on this item and I have to dive into it much. Where does
this sit in the comprehensive plan? >> Um >> I was looking at my two planners. >> I mean broadly it's a city facility right? So it's it's lives in the world of maintaining city facilities. uh the roof needs to be replaced one way or the
other and whoever we put within the building, it's our building to to maintain. >> So, I think what Ly is maybe driving at is, you know, we're renting this building for $30,000 a year,
um if we have to replace the roof for $1.2 million, uh it'll take 40 years to recoup just the roof cost in our rent. Um, we have a 5-year lease that was signed in 2023. Uh, can we maybe
expect revenue coming into the CIP from our tenants there to defay this cost after that lease? That would be a policy decision for council. >> We're in a policy conversation now and you would need the council to make that
determination because as it relates to the arrangements that we have, those leases are set in regards to one, yes, they're city facilities, but also the partnership and the opportunity for whatever is happening in that building for community enrichment or what have you. So that will be part of their
assessment as to do they feel comfortable replacing a roof on a building that's owned by the city being used in that manner for the least amount that we target policies. >> I hear you. But also suggest that if we're looking for
schools to temporarily put people in, we do own a whole other school building very close to downtown and connected to bus routes and such. I'm aware. >> Any other questions on that?
>> Public safety. Again, not a lot of changes here um except for the mobile data data terminals. Um and that's just basically a cost escalator, not an additional not additional computers. Um
most of the accounts here um many of most of this equipment is very expensive. Um and so rather than trying to do just the lump sums all at once, we do try to spread those out um so that they're able to make small replacements during the year in in a more cyclical
manner than all at once. So that's why you basically see these recurring amounts >> except for fire trucks. >> Uh I just had a question on firet trucks uh yesterday. Um, our fire trucks, what ones we purchase are custom, expensive, and my
understanding it's a two-year lead time to get them. It's it's a challenging market. Um, physically, a lot of what we do in the city is limited by the very large firet trucks that we have difficulty purchasing >> um and then fitting into our very old and small city.
>> Is it possible to fix this? So I do think that may you might know more than this what little I know we might have to get you some more information but I do know that they are exploring other options there. Um I believe there's different ways that
everything doesn't necessarily have to be custom now. Um and so I think there are some offthe-line trucks that you can buy at this point and I think they're they're working through those details to see what may or may not work. Yeah, I would say that's the focus has been on
how do we cut down on the lead time, but the lead time is market driven. That's just a matter of the various parts being available, getting to the suppliers to then do what needs to be done. Um, we're not looking at shrinking fire trucks. >> That's not that's not something that
we've considered. I would say >> I think the the reality is that we have been able to confirm that we have not found it impossible or impassible for any truck to get where we need to go. Uh including my ride along this year. Um I found our team doing things that was
amazing for what they can do with a truck that big. Um so we have not approached that conversation specifically, but I would imagine if it got harder to uh procure the equipment, we probably would have to do something else. >> Yeah. So, what I'm hearing is we're going to revise our standards and design
manual to reflect uh that new streets can be similar in design to our older streets if it's not a problem for buyer. >> So, I mean that's the that's the constant issue of uh with all these site
plans is that buyer shows up and says actually >> sure >> we can't do X in here. Um, and I think it's a combination, but one of the issues that is, I mean, there's this sort of philosophy like, you know, roads
where we're going, we don't need roads. They're so big. I mean, you know, you draw, you know, sorry, your fence is gone, buddy, but the house was burning down. >> Part of the process. >> Yeah, that's part of the process. But it's it it has been I I get the sense that it's limiting in some of these places to that particularly with the
sublotta and the moving around of access to where we are that the size of the truck and the design and its relationship to the design manual is going to become more and more of a thing not to be in the weeds from somewhere else. >> Yeah, I wouldn't disagree that it won't get harder based on decisions that we're
making and when we see our our landscape change. I'm just saying at this moment for this particular three-year window where you see the purchase of an apparatus. >> That's that's my answer. >> So, uh it's a little concerning to hear that fire is not at all looking at strength and trucks since I mean going
back to when I was on the place design task force and Emily Felicia was deputy chief. Uh the fire said that they were looking at trying to >> When I say looking at I mean not making a change to the order. I mean are they
considering it? I'm sure they are at this moment because I've complained about how much trucks cost and how long it takes to get them. >> So I wouldn't say that it hasn't occurred to them that they may need to come up with something at some point. But I'm just saying what's what's in the on the list to be acquired at this time is a normal size.
>> Yes. >> Do we know specifically like which type of trucks some there's FY27 and FY29 >> whatever there's no change so whatever we've been ordering I'm not I could have I'd have to find that out for you but I'm not aware of any change in model or
brand >> okay well I mean more you know is it a ladder or an >> engine we can cover anything um Anything else on this section? Okay, everybody's favorite slide.
Transportation and access. >> Uh 11 just over 11 million for 27 just under 51 million over the five years. Um, again, there's uh a substantially no change except for to add the fifth year
in this section. Um, except for the ones that are highlighted, you will notice a pretty sizable increase in the new sidewalks. Um, and in your packet, we did provide you with a list of the plan um for the sidewalks and those p the
tiers of those to be replaced using those funds. Um the CAT transit bus replacement plan. This is just their normal replacement plan. Um these are revised costs of just the regular to replace their regular fleet. Now no um
changes in terms of um EV or otherwise at this point. Um the uh its I believe was just a slight increase. Um and then um their rightway
a pertinance was an increase. I think that was previously funded at 100,000 and that got bumped to 150. Um and then the historic um the the historic dollars um in total I think went up slightly but
the timing basically changed to move that up to 27. And then we added the Dominion pole uh remediation. That was an ad this year and that is to help purchase right away to get the polls um out of the way for
more accessibility. >> So that's right away. That's not actually moving the polls. >> Did I misspe? >> I'm sorry. Who is speaking? >> Carl. Carl. Uh, no. It's it's um it's mostly
to purchase right away because Dominion's actually they were the ones who move the poles themselves. >> Good. Because my next question was going to be how many poles can you move for 100,000? I guess that doesn't apply. So, >> okay. Thank you. >> So, they do it at no cost, but they won't buy the rightway.
>> Then these are for their ADA violations or are these nonviolating? You are you are going into an area that we could spend hours talking about and not get to a finish point. >> Fair enough. >> And I would add that we would need to own it's a co-owned 881.
>> I mean some of these holes date to 1927 >> as does our franchise agreement that allows them exist which does not expire. >> Well and some of that some of that agreement isn't ours. It was Almoro counties and we bought South Belmont. We pulled in South Belmont from that too.
>> It's made for interesting title work. >> So sidewalk repair. I assume that we this is about capacity at the moment. >> Uh that yes >> not not it just literally getting pe enough bodies and contractors to be able
to do this work >> or being able to do that particular work because that that team is also working on the sidewalks the new sidewalks as well and in addition to contractors or whatever. >> Right. This is our new in-house concrete team. >> They've already been working.
>> Some of them some of this is is tied to them. Not I wouldn't say all of it. >> Yeah. It's not not I wouldn't say that's all of it. And that team is still largely forming. We just had another member join the city on Monday. >> So I had not noticed that sidewalk
repair was zeroed out this fiscal year between when we saw it and approval. It's not on this slide, but it's or the current fiscal year. Was that because there was so much >> I think there was a big balance balance. >> Yeah. Of 1.5 million, right? We managed
to spend 1.2 of >> that problem that allowed us to accumulate 1.5 million. We couldn't spend it fast enough. Correct. We just couldn't get it done. >> We structured the house for that addition to actually.
>> Yeah. >> More plan questions. uh citywide transportation plan and three notched trail plan. Uh where do those live? >> Citywide transportation plan was funded via surplus dollars. That was voted on in
I don't know like a month ago. >> Um and three notch trail. I'm not sure that I've seen any cost estimate or anything. I haven't seen anything about where three notch trail where the county is on three notch trail. They have a raise grant, but that only goes to the
city line, >> right? We don't have a a plan scope for three notch trail in the city yet. >> So, uh I guess to bicycle infrastructure, we got an email
this afternoon saying what's with 100 grand? I recall a conversation recently that actually addressed exactly this point that we are going to cons uh conspire with the reworking on the work that's slated for
Cherry and West Maine and this really is about it's not necessarily new bicycle it's accommodating putting proper bicycle infrastructure in those areas amongst other things. Do I have that right that we're planning on that? >> What after the rebuild of West Main and Sherry? Yeah, that as long as we're in
there milling and paving things, we're going to be striping. >> Ben, can I ask you to speak to that? >> Yeah, sure. We're coordinating with utilities and with public service on their repaving plans for Cherry and Elliot and for West Main going forward over this winter >> because there was there was some concern that we were really I mean essentially
being kind of cheap about it, but really most of this this is improvements that in the junction with much larger dollar projects we're just tailing. >> Yeah. So those the improvements in those corridors we would want to add on to the existing work that's already going to happen there.
>> The funding that you're looking at in the bicycle infrastructure fund. Uh part of the reason that that's not going up is we have a current balance that we're spending down on projects like uh Fifth Street and we're also looking at uh Rose Hill Drive as part of that repaving. We might need to have some additional funds
from our bike infrastructure to make sure that some of those uh improvements get done as well. >> So there's a million dollars in the balance. How much will be spent on Fish Street and Rosale? >> Fifth Street right now, we have a cost estimate of about $600,000. Um, we're hoping to work that down with
using in-house crews and and identifying some cheaper materials than what the VOT consultants originally gave to us. Uh, Rose Hill, we aren't quite sure yet because we're currently scoping that uh or at least the planning phase of that right now. Um, we should have a better
idea probably uh in March. So I mean it seems to me that we are potentially funding constrained in the next fiscal year given what will be used on those two plans if we also want to do
studies including apparently significant community engagement for West Main and Cherry uh which both depending on the exact timelines of those may have to begin within the next fiscal year. We're looking at West Main being it's starting
in FY26 for the utilities project, but we don't don't actually know when the end point of that is going to be. They're currently working through what the designs would be for that. um they've had to rework some of their designs and we'll have a better idea of what the endpoint will be. But we're expecting that at the end of that
project util uh public service will come back and do a repaving through that corridor that will allow us to put in the final striking design for that puts us at a a time frame of having a few years for us to go in and do that work. And right now we're trying to focus on
the work that we have already started doing the planning for, get that done, and then we can come through with a a scope for what we do with West Main, what we do for Cherry and Elliot, which seems to be on a similar time frame uh in terms of when they're coming through that corridor and when we'll do
repaving. >> Well, I mean, you say a few years, but this budget goes through two years from now, right? May 2027 that we're reviewing. >> Yes. But we're looking at like three to four years from when that needs to be done. So we have a we have a little bit of buffer
>> and that includes for the central water line project. >> Yeah. Central waterline project I believe is like five years for both phases that are going all the way across the city. So >> but they're repaving as they go, right? >> Yeah. So they're going to be doing patch repaving. Most of their work is going to
be along the parking lane. So they'll be doing patch repaving as they go. We're working with public service to see if there's going to need to be more thorough repaving once they're done in there because once you disturb one part of the pavement, it sort of impacts what's happening on the rest of the
street. Um, so we're going to try to make sure that that is lined up correctly over this winter. >> Okay. So yeah, I guess get get there other priorities and and there were a few years out from the first phases of these being done. Um but you're saying there's
there's no chance of any planning work starting prior to July 2027. >> Uh I yeah I don't have that in my work plan right now to complete by then. No. >> Okay. Um, so on the bicycle infrastructure
line item, um, we were funding this at $200,000 from at least fiscal year 16, maybe earlier. That's as far back as I go. Uh, to fiscal year 2020. Um, if you adjust for inflation, that's $275,000 a
year. Um, you know, that was acrewing a balance because historically we were unable to spend any money. Um, now it sounds like we're going to be able to spend more than $700,000 this year. Um, you know, these are bondable funds that we don't
issue until we need them. Um, it seems to me that it would be appropriate to resume funding that at at least $200,000, if not an inflation adjusted $275,000, so that we can begin to build up a balance in that fund for more of these
larger, you know, corridor reconfiguration projects like we're doing on Fish Street and hopefully one day in the not too distant future, um, on Cherry and on West Main. Um, you know, we've got East High eventually coming. We've got IV. Uh we've got a
number of other other corridors that need work, right? Um it seems to me that, you know, based on what council says our priorities are and what our comprehensive plan priorities are, uh funding this at a third of the level we were 10 years ago, um seems not to be in
line with those priorities. Is is there a is there a concern that we end up in the same situation we were that uh that >> well I mean there's a difference between going years without spending any money at all or having any plans to spend any
money at all or ability to spend any money at all and now we've built up a bit of a balance. We're finally spending six figures a year even higher six figures in some years and building up a balance in order to spend again money in larger chunks. Right.
>> Yeah. we have a pipeline of projects even if it's a little longer. Um and like we do in you know many other items in our CIP we have a policy or practice of building up money so year by year with steady funding so that we can spend
it in larger >> point out I just want to point out the this the new sidewalk line. >> Yes I think new sidewalks is great that we're finally funding it. >> What's difference about what's different about that line and the bike line? Well, that we're finally funding it.
We're making up for all those years >> remember every year because we're building towards a specific plan. >> Yes. >> And what we used to do, which as I recall, there was this there was oftentimes this very similar conversation about sidewalks at this table that we had a flatline and we said we're going to come back and we're going
to put together a specific plan of how much we're going to spend every year and we're going to tie that and that's what you're going to see in the CIP. And that's the approach we're taking now. We're trying to move away from kind of squirreling away dollars in accounts and move towards specific plans of investment that we're tying specific
dollar figures to. >> So we're getting away so moving away from the layaway plan. >> Correct. >> I mean I think that's great for when we have more than two or three years of a project pipeline. Right. when we have a six-year planning process that we got
funds to do sidewalkation that works. Otherwise, we, you know, are going to have three years of projects that are using old funds and then we're going to have some new projects pop up that we haven't thought of yet and there's no there's no placeholder for it in the CIP. And I
think that's how you end up with your tail years near CIP having much lower funding amounts and then oops all of a sudden, you know, we're tossing a hundred million dollar school reconfiguration process that was never on that fiveyear uh that fifth year of the CIP, right?
>> So that so that was prior practice that you're referencing. >> Well, yeah. I mean, hopefully that doesn't happen again, but that fall when we say, well, all of a sudden, oh, it's time. that was prior practice, right? So, part of what you're speaking to is
it is about philosophy. I'll give you that. It's about philosophy. And a lot of the conversation that I've had with this team was about this what I deemed to be rather inappropriate of how we would tuck away in the CIP categories.
One, because we never believed that we could come back and get a yes from the budget team to get the money we needed to do a project. I have worked very hard to eliminate that from the practice of what drives the conversation of believing that we can't come back with a
solid plan and get it funded. What we're what you're seeing here and as James alluded to with the new sidewalks plan, it was me standing before you a couple years back saying, "Please don't try to give me more money because I can't do anything with it." I remember saying that and that was meant to really get
your attention on there's the planning aspect of what needs to come before you with the ask for increase funds. I think what we're saying to you in this bicycle infrastructure lane is we're working on it. We're not there because we've been working on sidewalks and schools and
other things. ADA transition plan as well. Trying to get those numbers right so that what appears in the five-year plan is more accurate as to what we need money for and what we're going to actually get done. >> That has not been really what has driven
it. I'm not saying that we didn't do it right before. I'm just saying that I'm choosing to push for it to be done differently. And that really is what this now reflects is that the money is there. I could simply take your request and go back and me and Chrissy could figure out what's a good number to plug
in there and we say we'll put in $300,000 for 28 29 and 30 and make you happy. >> Well, but I think what we're hearing is that there is a pipeline of projects that will be coming in 29 and 30. We don't know what >> he has given me that list yet. He's not there yet. But what he knows is that he
can give me a list now and get the funding that he needs because the new sidewalk line and a lot of other things came at his hands. I think if we were just to start putting numbers in the boxes again, we're just putting numbers there that we don't know tied to a project list or even are possible for us
to get done that we would have an inability to spend that money that particular year because we need to take that line in proximity to everything else that we're trying to get done as well. if there's a capacity issue that can interfere with our ability to spend. That's the reason why the thing to
remember about this is this is a five-year plan and we revisit it every single year. So, we will be right back here next year probably. Ben, >> I'll be asking >> putting a number in one of these boxes for one of these years at least. So, I
think that's really what what I'm projecting and pushing forward is is a different approach to I'll say rush into putting a number in the box for a number to be in the box. I want to make sure it's as close to the right number in the box associated with
projects, which is why we shared with you the list that you got this year for the sidewalks because I wanted you to be able to see what sidewalks are actually going to get done because I've been waiting on that list, too. Yeah, I think does that help? I'm just Does that help? >> I mean, it's philosophy.
>> I agree. I think it's great to have the funding numbers be tied to specific projects and our best estimate of them that we can get now. >> Um, I guess I'd say I hope that we can get at least placeholders for the projects that we know are in the pipeline by the time this is adopted in
April. >> We can put that on your list. Yeah, I was just going to add I think so what I'm hearing is that the reason why the bicycle line is what it is is because there's not like a list of projects with with cost estimates
associated and you know I think the new sidewalk I'm it's really great to see specific projects in the plan because it's like tangible and I hope that we can get there with with bike bike facilities as well, you know, and I have no doubt that we will. >> Yeah. Hopefully next year we we're looking at a list of like here's here's
what we're going to do with this bike money. Yeah. >> Yeah. Mentioned with Commissioner Yoder just added, you know, we've received a number of emails just from people in the community who are like $100,000 for bikes, what like you know, there's a lot of sort of headscratching like it doesn't seem like the budget lines up
with sort of value systems. And so I think a lot of this is the optics and I feel like the budget is what the community it's a way to sort of uh it's tangible reflection of where our priorities are and I don't know if there's a way a new color shading to sort of highlight these are these their
future plans these may change like I wonder if you can color out cells saying this is pending you know comprehensive studies for bike p just something to sort of people that that you this isn't the best you think we should do. Well, I think what I also want to just point out and I think what I'm hearing is that we
we probably need to spend a little time just identifying where else is there bicycle infrastructure recurring that's not related to that particular line >> because we are doing other projects that do have abilities to touch the fact that we're working on bicycle. >> Maybe it's an asterisk with a footnote
and maybe there's saying that there's already a surplus that's being tapped into just again so that general public feels that bicycles are a priority. I I can see that we we need to help visualize what progress we're making while trying to get to a place of having a bigger number in these boxes that are tied to projects. I can see that.
>> So, yeah, on that note, we have now $150,000 a year in citywide traffic engineering improvements. We're continuing to have $100,000 in neighborhood transportation improvements. I think those are the funding sources we've historically used for things like our quick build program. Um, I think the goal of the quick build
program would be that we validate that some things work, maybe some things don't work, and we change up and do a new thing, and then we eventually lay some concrete and harden them. >> Um, is there money to harden them, or is this funding them at the level where we can still only keep putting down paint
and plastic? >> When you get to hardening them, they have to move into one of these other lines, >> right? >> Okay. But none of the other lines have any money for that yet. >> Not being saved for that. No. Okay, because we'll take those projects when they've matured to that point.
>> Okay. Um, and then I guess on the flip side, uh, we have small area plan implementation still being funded at $200,000 a year. This is the fund formerly known as SIA implementation, immediate implementation. Uh, there's
now $1.8 million in authorized but authorized but not issued funding in that pot. We did manage to spend $200,000 a year or this year on that. $200,000. I don't know what we spent it on. Um but I think maybe the bridge uh
over by Jordan Park or something. >> No. >> Um or maybe the new bridge by South First Street >> hasn't been done. >> That's what's about to come out of that. >> Okay. >> To get to get that bridge, the Pollock branch bridge done. >> That's coming out of the 1.8.
>> Uhhuh. >> Is that going to be most of the 1.8? It'll be a big chunk of it. >> Okay. >> Unfortunately. >> All right. >> Um, so we're going to keep funding that at $200,000 a year with no specific plans.
>> Well, that's different. That that particular plan, this the strategic investment area was a policy action. That's different. It had its own individual course of it receiving $200,000 a year. The fact that it built
up money over time is why we decided that we no longer wanted to make it just exclusively tied to the strategic investment area, but then available to implement small area plans. So now the the reality is for us to figure out how to spend it, which is why the
implementation fund has at least two sizable earmarks to it right now. So what you see is just what's sitting, but it's going to be spent. And then the 200,000 a year is now just to make sure that we get moving into identifying projects. We have not been doing that.
Yes. >> Okay. But we will be identifying projects. >> And that is why I can tell you this because I it's on my target list. I don't like squirreling money away for no specific reason. >> It's not infinite.
>> I mean that's also bondable. So, but um >> that project, but not everything we might do. >> Uh and then street milling and paving. Um we're starting to see this get >> my other favorite subject >> really significantly untethered from the
historical amount we've dedicated to it and the amount that we get from VOTE each year, which we do, I think everyone forgets this, that's not our budget for street million paving. We get $5.6 6 million from VOTE every year for street milling and paving. So why are we going
from 1.2 maint for maintenance >> which is a whole another budget in the general fund >> 25 million this year which is already up 25% over a few years ago and we're getting to $2 million in year four here >> because we project that we're going to
get more milling and paving done. >> Is that because we're targeting a higher quality index? check that to be sure, >> which last I checked and the documents haven't been posted in a few years, but our pavement quality index was above our
target. >> I don't think it's that. I think this is about getting more done because that's been the pressure point that I've made. >> Getting more done because there's a backlog. >> Okay. I mean, isn't the backlog, you know, a
list of streets that are below our target pavement quality or, >> you know, towards the bottom of the quality, right? And then moving up our aggregate pavement quality. >> Are we I guess the question is, are we making a policy choice implicitly to
increase our target pavement quality? >> No, I don't believe that's the case. I believe we're just catching up. And I think some of the backup is related to sidewalk work that needed to be done in advance, is it not? >> I don't know off the top of my head, but >> I think our index will probably increase
just as a matter of getting more done, but I think it's also because we need more done and we have not been consistently doing that. And that is part of the the question that came when public works came before us to meet and one of the conversation points that I did request followup on is that subject
specifically. I also say that probably should be highlighted yellow. >> Yeah. >> Question about ADA and equity. ADA is our is our equity project. Uh that you know eats up the the pie. >> Um how how long is that pie going? It's
>> that's not even close. >> Okay. >> I see. Mhm. That may be a nice slice that five-year plan. Our our the result of the ADA transition plan was I want to
say 150 million across the entire city for issues collectively. Um that $2 million a year was a request that I made uh in putting the budget together to council to indicate that as best effort. has been part of the conversation I've
had with them. Uh for the concern that other communities have had the Department of Justice come in and you don't want that, I assure you. Um because what they do when they come in is simply tell you now you must do what you already knew that you needed to do
and you do it on our schedule. And when you do it on our schedule, it doesn't matter how much it costs. So, a lot of the things that we're talking about moving around, I would have to shift to a bigger number in that five-year plan to meet their uh settlement agreement because we will be signing one if they
come. Um because our issues are that significant and a community that's been around since 1762. We got a long list of issues. Uh and it doesn't matter that you've been around that long. It doesn't matter that the agreements that we signed were in the n
early 1900s. None of that matters. When the law was changed, we were supposed to start working on it and we have not chosen to. This is the beginning of doing that in a real substantive way. And again, that's just a a crack at that's not where we
need to be. I will say to you that that number, keep your head intact, but that number could double, triple even depending on amount of work we might choose to do as we get into some of the more complicated projects for the volume of of of what we
know is the problem, the scope of the problem. Did the larger study sort of have a prioritization list associated with? >> Yeah, I mean what we have here, part of what I was looking for was an ability to indicate that if we were to allocate $2 million, I know you're thinking I just that's contradictory to what I said, but
I knew that was going to have $150 million situation. So $2 million a year, I got the plan covered. But I I think what we knew coming out of that scenario was we were going to have to figure out what our capacity needs were going to have to be to do more. Part of the the
first year was to shift funds to parks and recreation and have them prioritize their projects that are barrier removal and access focused and they then check the ADA box as well as the park master plan box. It's to give us time so that we can then figure out more of what we
can do and what more what additional resources we need. the size of the ADA bucket in in terms of our overall equity spend makes me worry that there's other buckets that we're not spending on. Is that true?
>> Well, I would say that that's not equity alone. um our our globally the local government's work is supposed to be just conscious of equity improvements and because we have such a wide variety of things that appears in our CIP and in
our budget for where we're spending money, I would argue that we are checking that equity box in significant ways. Can we be a little bit more um intentional and and really get to some of the more harder to serve areas of our
population of our neighborhoods? Absolutely. I think that's part of where we get to prioritize more work in the transition plan to make sure that we go into areas that are, you know, the last ones that we might visit under normal circumstances. It's part of the test for the paving and milling scenario. Part of
my question to the team will be how do we know that we need to go there? I know it's on the list, but why do we have to go in that order? Why can't we go in this order instead? Um, and they don't really like when I do that, but that's okay. That's part of my job, too. So, I think from an equity standpoint, it is
about the intentional work of making sure that we're not leaving anyone or any part of the community behind. So, I think a global look at this, I would say that we're checking most of our boxes. We could probably be checking some a little bit better. The Dominion pole remediation identifying that and
acknowledging that with money being earmarked for pole removal is actually being a little more conscious of the problem that we knew existed and we know it because we walk on sidewalks ourselves and if two or three of us are walking together we have to move and we're not in a wheelchair so we know
there's a problem. >> Did this include school related >> for ADA? Yeah. >> Yes, it was. It did include um part of school assessments. >> I got a question on the CAT transit bus
replacement. Um is that I know there's a couple different types of buses that are currently operating. There's the kind of regular transit bus and then the smaller vehicles. I'm curious, are we purchasing more transit buses or are we kind of
going in the direction of the smaller vehicles? We're buying buses. >> We buy the the smaller vehicles are usually for field trips and special activities. Um our our transit department has a responsibility to do special needs transport as well. So we wouldn't use a big bus for that.
>> Okay, got it. And I saw in the the kind of right up here that some of the buses may be alternatively fueled vehicles. And I know I've read that there's been some pretty major disruption in kind of the bus manufacturing world and battery
electric buses have had a lot of significant issues. So are we kind of sticking with the kind of triedand-true uh you know buses or are we doing anything new and potentially you know expensive? So we have a commitment to convert our fleet. That's council
action. It's already been taken. Uh we have a period of time before we start actually acquiring uh procuring those buses. Um we have u had an internal conversation about discussing that more with with council after um councelor Fleer joins and then begin to take a
look at what is the um concerns that we may have the constraints that may be there maybe a reason to adjust the schedule not to stop a plan to convert but just adjust the timing of it. Okay, >> so to recap on where we are, the cat
just submitted a a no- low grant uh to the feds to uh improve their facilities on Avon to accommodate electric and hydrogen fueling. >> Um if they get that, that will pay for the fixed
>> costs of that. Okay. >> Not the bus themselves, >> which we've been informed that we did not get. >> Okay, >> there you go. and they council committed to both battery electric and hydrogen. >> Okay. >> So now that's the basis of why the
conversation had to come back to the >> I mean just to clarify the council commitment was to pilot to try both of those and then make a decision. >> Right. That's that's correct. Right. >> Yes. Right. >> It's not a commitment to do both. It's a commitment to try both. >> But we do have to have facilities to
repair both in order to do that. But >> and fuel both >> all of that. just so that would mean a purchase of vehicles or we'd have some sort of lease arrangement for those. >> I think I think it's everything is purchased but >> presumably we're going to ditch either
electric or hydrogen or maybe we'll do both but >> and at some point we'll make a decision and we'll say this is the this is the technology that we're going to move forward with and that'll be the that'll be what'll be the purchases going forward >> and that was the reason buy one hydrogen or one electric bus and just run it
until it dies. Well, they they have a lifespan, >> right? >> And is CAT now submitting for smart scale for the same grant or with the same improvements no loan? >> There's a plan B and a plan C. So, we're we're not done. It was just one was one
decline happening now in this fiscal year. >> Got to keep looking. >> At best money is other people's money. >> Wanted to make sure everyone was aware since we never like all that stuff didn't go down. So, we keep going. >> Um, you have I have a I was going to
switch topics to a different line. >> I have one more on this one then. >> Yeah, go for it. >> Uh, I I I I love copper. I think copper works. Uh, copper. You You connect the thing, it works. It's It's great technology. It's cheap. It works. >> If we were to step back and rethink,
could we consider copper wire as an option >> or motion charging? Is that what you're going for? >> Motion charging. Yeah. >> Trolley buses. >> Trolley buses. >> That wasn't really part of our study. >> It was it was described based on aesthetic concerns. I love aesthetics. I'm Mr. Aesthetics clearly.
>> All right. >> But it works. >> Harsh. >> I don't know. I I'll we'll have to dig into that. Not since I've been here. So, for the past four years, no. Was not part of the conversation, but I don't know where it was prior.
>> Remember all those old photos of they're ripping up the trolley tracks? Oops. Um, and then, uh, the historic district and entrance corridor, I think that was design that got cut off. Is that like a Are we getting an updated
design guidelines for for $150,000 uh, next fiscal year, >> the historic district and entrance corridor design line, we're getting like a new guide book or an updated guide book for historic districts and entrance entrance corridors. So we are working to scope that study right now. Yeah. Um but
the goal is to evaluate the the guidelines and see where updates would be appropriate. >> Okay. >> Any other questions before we leave this slide? >> It's the big one. We know that. Okay.
>> Parks and wreck. Um so there's a lot of yellow here. Um largely because we are still um waiting on specific plans that that is what we are we've termed this year callbacks um to look at details and plans before we
nail down numbers um on both the master park plan, the downtown mall management plan tree plan and also just downtown mall infrastructure repairs in general. um the city county um park maintenance.
So that is a new request this year. Um typically what happens is for any of the jointly owned parks such as Dardentown, Avy Creek, um if there is work that is planned, uh that both the city and the county put 50% of that in their budget.
Um the county has uh approached staff and asked for an opportunity to just have a pot of money for general maintenance so that it's not you know uh specific. So we're getting more details figuring out how that might work. So that's why that is yellow as well. And
let me just add the first two lines being yellow and they appear as placeholders is because we are expecting that we will have actual numbers by year before this budget cycle closes because that was the request that I made.
>> So is the tree management plan line item here? I guess the question is you know council sort of approved or at least saw that plan. Are we moving forward with phase one at some point in the course of this? >> That's what that requires.
>> And then phase two would be five years later or I guess I don't understand the staggering of all this. >> I think what we can make sure you get is um parks can share their information um for you to be able to take a look at that. But that reflects the actual tree work getting done.
>> It's like removing a boss and replanting it. And that was the schedule that they came back to us with. So they made adjustments based on I would not put placeholders in for them to force them to go and give me real numbers. And that's what they came back with.
>> And so we separately have an active life cycle management. >> I ask that question. We're we're going to get an answer on that one because my question is do we need that to continue while we're replacing them or do we then get to move that somewhere else
temporarily? >> The notion on that is it's supposed to be responsive to large dead limbs and dead trees and stuff like that which present a hazard. So it's kind of an op kind of an operational almost in a sense.
And then parks master plan implementation. We adopted a parksmaster plan of the comp plan now. Yes. >> Cost a lot of money. >> Yes. >> A lot more than two and a half million. >> Um a lot of the results of the plan came
back as maintenance driven. So there are a number of things that I would imagine that the first couple of years are going to be probably lower than what you see in the out years. um so that we can focus on the maintenance activities first because there's probably a bigger bang that the public can actually appreciate if we focus there and then
get to bigger projects which is why they're going to come back to make more. >> Okay. But there'll be bigger numbers I would imagine across all five years. >> Okay. And then the master plan is sort of split into stuff with parks and then this at least budget-wise the stuff happening with
parks and then this like huge new paved trail network uh which sort of complements our other sort of on street I guess uh bike pad facilities. Is this reflective? I mean I'm noting
that the parks and parkland and trails acquisition and development is unchanged. Is this basically putting the shared use path network on hold? No, >> I think that's a good question. I think part of what the master plan is, it also includes trails. So, I would imagine
that they would either include those numbers in the parks master plan implementation line or they may ask us to change the trails line if they can identify what acquisition work could be done and or what improvement work could be done. That's a question for part of that followup that we have with them.
>> Okay. Yeah, I know there's external grants to you know tap others that they can leverage so they might need money allocated so they can say they help those. >> One of the changes that is occurring
with with the trails management is um we're shifting some responsibilities to the capital division within park within public works as well. So there's some coordination that needs to happen between the two before I would imagine those numbers going dramatically different. But there could be some
adjustments >> you asking. Yes. Stupid question. >> You have to say how much what do we get from the urban tree planting? Is that five trees? Is that 10 trees? 120. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It's a significant number.
>> Is it? Okay. >> Yeah. Um, and this is probably way out there, but I mean, is there any fun for the trees back in West Main that we lost? I think we lost over 10. Is that something that is going to come
when we redo the repaved West Main Street or is that just I wouldn't imagine it'd be part of repaving. I think part of the scenario has been the um the tenor of the conversation about the West Main redevelopment project
itself. Um that's where the trees was anticipated being addressed and since that was taken off the table, it's a matter of it getting back on the table. >> But planting in the interim, I think might be something to look at. I'm not
>> I think those the trees on West Mane are not going to come back until after the utility project >> to make sure that that gets done first. >> Are you saying that like the West Main Streetscape could come back on the table? >> I didn't say that.
>> Silva Cell plan. >> I have that's a political decision. >> Okay. >> You have your conversations with who you need to have those conversations. >> I mean, I'm not saying that's bad. I'm just don't know where we're getting another $30 million for that. I did say that >> smart scale because that's not going to happen.
>> Um, so maybe we should just put some trees in the wells. >> I think there's an order to that particular process and I would imagine that staff would come and ask me, do you want trees in all those holes or would you want to confirm that we're not going to be doing more to the street first? So
I leave room for that question that I get it. >> Looks like you zeroed up the ash tree. Is there reason >> I think that was that their request >> it was I think um uh that was done last
year as part of the plan and if I we can follow up but I think most of that work had been done the immediate emergency work um and we shifted the the funding and increased it a little bit in one of the other lines I think it went to the
urban tree planning >> so all the dead ones are dead but we're going to keep inoculating the ones we saved probably as a strategy >> cuz like a lot of that money was just taking down the follow >> very much.
>> Yep. >> And affordable housing. Um, no uh changes to this section except last year um during the CIP planning process, the Carlton Mobile Home Park uh was fairly new. All the final terms weren't um
known at that time and so the numbers here have been adjusted to reflect the final financing um that was received for that project. All right, I got so presumably and from the book and the CIP
and I've got sideline three years ago navigating that and getting the data on that was really awkward. Last year it got way better and this year I think it's just a whole another level of smoothness on the budget book and the
CIP and and accessing things and and figuring out what's where. I I think it you know it it was pretty good last year but it got this is this upgraded platform is better.
>> Uh which brings me to Carlton Mobile Homes. We're paying principal and interest there at $19,000 a month presumably. >> Is that 4 million going to be bonded to pay that ballooning loan off or what's
the four million in the four years out? >> It's a balloon. So the financing is set with a balloon payment. So we're basically paying um interest in the four years that are here interest payment um and one principal payment in this current fiscal year and the rest is just
basically um interest. It's not bondable. It's not our loan. >> That's what I was going >> um it's PHA's loan and uh so it's not bondable for us. I guess my follow on was that if we're doing something like that, presumably we're creating an entity in which the city has piece of
the action to even get close to that. But we're not. We're just going to pay it. >> And so presumably that could also some sort of refinancing arrangement too. We're not having to pay off this >> potentially. That would be up to them.
>> Yeah. Do we have a performance agreement on that? >> There's a funding agreement. >> Sorry. And then >> with specifics on unit count and AMI. Yes. >> Yeah.
>> Uh and then on the SIP CISRAP I I noticed that we are taking a dive into the program itself >> which I think is overdue. Well, okay. I think it's overdue
uh for a couple of reasons. Some of them are way in the weeds because uh the present structure um was of how this is funded and works was worked out in the basement conference
room uh when when Mike was the acting city manager between him and me and Brenda Kelly yelling at us to stop talking so fast because she was trying to take notes on it all. Uh so you know that that arrangement there has been
needed a re-examination for a while just because it's it's the original thing was clunky. Our fix to it wasn't quite right but it was the best we could do with what we had. So I'm glad to see that that's done. Uh I guess it's a policy decision if we start upping that number. >> That also means how much
>> can change in the mechanics of >> Yeah. and and and can John have to through manage the throughput with the current housing stock that we've got. >> We're deep in that item and actually had a big conversation about it earlier today. >> Yeah. And then I guess my other would be
on the affordable housing fund. Um I'm just going to be a broken record on this on the capacity piece. you know, we went from a department. Now we're down to, you know, Matteline being focused on that and, you know, I mean, unless you
want, you know, putting anything else on her desk, it's just going to result in, as I said in the hackne scanners like explosion. >> So, we didn't lose the second position. So, we will begin recruiting at some point for the second position and have
had conversations about expanding >> the staff to do it because I mean as we put I mean one of my concerns about the staffing of it is is that >> the less staff we have the fewer projects the bigger they get perhaps but
it doesn't really you know produce a a ticking you know a ticking through process if we can be doing a lot of these things that are much longer or scale >> and it's not just the projects that we're doing ourselves but also the things that we're investing in and then the responsibilities that come with tracking those. We've always understood
that we would be adding to that team. It was just a matter of that catching up >> and the zoning ordinance being stuck for the moment that it was stuck. Now we'll see what comes as a result of it being unstuck. >> Yeah. At one point we were we had a conversation about dedicating in
addition to the 10 million a certain amount dedicated to staffing >> on that um% is what the housing plan says. >> Yeah, that's what it says. So essentially another million dollars and then does this 1.5 million is that
inclusive of the designated recipients that you have generated the designated ne necessary services? Oh, fundamental. >> Yeah, fundamental. Yeah, >> fundamental will be in addition to this. >> Okay.
>> Uh, low barrier shelter. Um, is the Salvation Army item correct? Is there a new item related to this topic? So that item is that's a construct related to Cherry Avenue, that location exclusively. And it's a matter of whether or not we would be able to have
a facility in partnership with Salvation Army. Uh our purchasing holiday drive technically technically eliminates that. But because I don't give up on things and try to continue to work on things, it's still there. um because we have other conversations going and there
might be an opportunity to do something else that would still be in the service of u the needs of the unhouse. >> Is is there a holiday drive item that will appear? >> It will eventually, but we're not sure that we're going to need to do it out of CIP because the intention was that we would not pay into the improvements of
the building because our philanthropic friends in the community had offered to step in if we were going to spend that much to acquire some. >> Excited. Cool. So that's being negotiated with >> uh land bank. We took all the money from the land bank. Did we put the money back
in? Will we put the money back in? I don't remember. >> So we I guess the land bank conversation is has been moving. Um I think we're now looking at the revolving loan fund through the economic development authority as a more viable option. Uh
what would happen is any funds that we had earmarked for the land bank could go to that to support that being bigger. Um, but I think there's still, as far as I can appreciate, there's still a couple more questions and conversations to have to make that more viable as the option. And then that would be a question for
the city to take a look at. I would I consider that more of a one-time cash injection versus planning that out in the CFP until we started doing some things. >> Did I hear that's a $500,000 total revolving number? >> At present, it is. I just hear things
that happen at secret meetings that aren't broadcast. >> I didn't see a number >> at present. >> I think the conversation being had is most important and the mechanics of the revolving loan fund and then the determination of what goes into it as a
cash contribution will be uh happily entertained taking that to council. >> Okay. >> Uh we may recall that the University of Virginia uh bought some property and is leasing it for affordable housing. Um, and we talked about possibly us doing a model similar to that where we use
bondable funds to purchase land and then lease it out for affordable housing so that we can use the credit card. Uh, where are we on that idea? >> Buying property and leasing it out >> long-term lease for affordable housing. >> And UVA did this, you're saying?
>> Yes. >> That's the structure of the 10th Street and Fontaine projects, their affordable housing projects, is that they own the land. They're going to lease it to these nonprofits >> essentially being their own while saying if we purchase land we can bond it
>> which would be great for a land bank to act as a land trust in that in that environment but we can wasn't >> I can think of some land we bought with >> we do own a piece of land that is vacant and could be used in that manner but
we're not there yet >> for other acquisitions not in the cards at this moment but I I think is because we are carrying quite a load already. So we're not seeing that yet as the next step. >> Thank you. Uh last one, the calf. Uh in
theory, my understanding generally we wanted to have the calf big and run projects through the calf. >> We generally don't do that. But hey, FY31, look at all that look at all that space. Could we increase the calf in FY31? >> It's not likely that it'll stay that small. I agree.
>> I think is what we know. Um I would say that is it possible to do it now would be to do it blindly. >> Yeah. I mean at this point I think you know >> I think >> we got a capacity. You know there's a lot to administer there.
>> What we've discussed in the past is that projects specific projects tend to end up on this table uh sort of >> out of the blue to us in a sense. um without a
costbenefit analysis or a competitive process comparing projects. Uh we have a table with two providers when we know there are more providers out there. Uh
perhaps beyond the projects we've already committed to, we could and should have some sort of rigorous defined process to decide what gets these large allocations. I think the RFIs we've started to do are a start. Uh
the results, the responses to those uh I mean I could foyer them, but they're not public to my knowledge. >> We can give you that. >> Great. And then they're not discussed in any sort of for yet they will be scheduled it hasn't happened yet.
>> Okay. Um >> yeah who who has that discussion initial discussion is kind of important >> right and so the part of the affordable housing plan was this idea that we should have oversight structures uh that became the calf committee uh
that wasn't hack because hack was populated by people requesting funds um but that became the calf committee but then only a tiny subset of money actually goes to calf and goes through the calf committee um and maybe we need to expand the purview of the calf
committee or maybe create a new structure if necessary to think about these larger projects as well as that $1.5 million so that these conversations can happen in a public forum and happen
at all where we can pay tradeoffs and different projects against each other. >> Yeah. And I think I I think you and I both said last year and the year before that we need some sort of implementation system for this. I looked at Mr. Sanders and said we have no idea what that looks
like. So >> that's why we're working on it is that we're working on >> let me just the the RF process the request for investment process was what was established to make it not blind um that individuals would have to meet a
deadline. It was listed as a part of our notice of funding availability that goes out in the fall and then each subsequent month there's a deadline for a pot of funds that are um available and then the RFI round is the open period that any
developer can submit where they're asking us to consider investment. We have now followed that process for I think two years. Um, we will be bringing those to council in the budget brief on the 15th. Yeah, >> am I right?
>> On the 15th of August. So, that will be brought to them. They will be in the public light, but we can share with you the three summary proposals that were received. Make sure that that happens. Um that is the plan process for going forward so that they are considered by
council as a giving a reaction to what was requested and therefore giving me the indication that they want it to fit into the CIP. That's what I'm looking for. That's the purpose of those briefs as they're being held. >> Okay. If you're asking for the planning
commission to be the standin for reviewing them since the calf committee scenario didn't work out and I agree with you it didn't work out. um we can take that to them and let them tell us that's what they want to do. I don't think there's a problem there. >> Um I mean I think maybe if the calf
committee isn't working we should fix the calf committee. >> That is their perview too. >> Sure. I hear you but that's too I've already tried. >> I guess question is are CRA projects included in this? Like were they intended to respond to the RFI or did they because I know they have future
projects. So, their projects um really um up until now the the 28 which is the last year for West Haven redevelopment was all um I wasn't a part of the initial conversation but that was all coordinated through council commitments
and action for that to appear up to FY28. Um they did recently request through the fundamental process since they're now on that list. Um as a can't remember what did Taylor tell us today 200 some odd thousand um as a part of a
development project that is being shifted to the RFI process. >> Okay. >> So that would mean four >> street phase two. >> I don't I don't I don't think so. I think it was SCA I think it was scattered site because there's been no money allocated specifically to scattered site long term.
>> Yeah. So of CRA projects that I have on my list that I haven't seen any funding anywhere for Six Street phase 2 scattered sites and then there's the whole Dogwood portfolio including the random duplexes they've recently
purchased from excess Cisrap money uh where I believe the intent was to develop those properties further. Um >> I mean I don't know if they have any concrete plans for any of those yet but >> not that we are aware of. That is not >> I guess the question was mainly just
where where does that eventual request go? Does that go through this RFI process? All of them. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions here? >> Well, actually, yeah. What about your >> Yeah, I have three questions. Uh, two
are on specific projects and then I'll get to that. >> Um, friendship court phase 4. >> Yeah. >> Uh, we still have committed funding for. Uh, have we seen a plan for friendship court phase 4? Because last I checked it was phase 4 TVD. >> I would say we're working on that
because of even today having conversation about that specific phase. >> Uh, 501 Cherry did not get 9% LITEX. Now I see has applied for 4% LITEX. Um, our funding commitment hasn't changed. Do we know how that project has changed to accommodate the much lower funding
amount they're apparently getting? >> It is being considered at this time as well. >> I think it would be a matter of change of project or request for funds or a combination of the two >> but not reapply for 9% next year. >> I'm not sure.
>> Okay. Um, I think these are the sorts of things that I feel should be public, particularly when we're committing millions of dollars to these projects. >> Um, I would also argue that we should
request and require that we see project proformas as a part of these funding commitments. >> Um, >> so anyway, uh, that brings me to my last question that everyone's waiting for. Uh $11 million uh in cash. What are we
going to do with it? >> Got to get it first. >> We can plan to get it, right? >> We are planning to get it. >> Okay. I hope so. Uh >> wanted to be a little bit closer to our hands. >> Have we gotten an indication from the bloom of whether they're going to choose
on-site units or inloop payments? >> Yes. I think that's part of why we went away to 11 million. That's why it's not on the sheet yet. >> Okay. >> Or and >> and it could be anywhere in between that based on any changes or mixed changes.
>> Exactly. When is still fuzzy, >> too? Gotcha. >> But in the next year or so. >> So, we're excited knowing that it's coming, but we would love to know when we're going to see it. >> Okay. And how much >> to substantial completion or first lease signing >> uh certificate of certain
>> and then the exact amount because it's set as a multiple of the old inclusionary zoning l requirement under 3412 which is per square foot in excess of 1.0 you know, F uh at a certain dollar
amount that then gets adjusted for inflation, which I'm sure we've been keeping up those spreadsheets, right? >> Also, why we'd want to wait. >> I think they're both going to be well in access to the caps. >> True. >> Um >> I agree. >> Or all three actually, >> which is why we remain excited that the
money is coming. We know it's coming. So that will be a pot of money that our future RFI process will have available to allocate through that and not when our council makes that determination. >> Okay.
>> Because I think there's still questions around that. >> Okay. Um just want to make sure we spend it within the statutoily required period before we have to give it back. >> It's my job. We will do that. Um, and then are there other cash profers that
we're aware of on the horizon? I can think of one that we haven't gotten yet, but um, that we may have received or could receive in the future that needs to be in our CIP. >> I'm getting a no. >> No. >> Okay. So, uh, Valley Road, uh, or
Grocery Extended is the other one that I know we've accepted in my time. Obviously, haven't received yet. Um, just make sure we keep track of all of them >> and spend the money before we have >> my horizon now. I got it. Okay,
>> that's not a big one. Sorry. Not $1 million. >> I never there. >> Um, anything else here? So last category it's kind of small um
the uh technology infrastructure um the communication the first one the 40,000 that's basically funded through PEG fees that are collected and have to be spent on public access. the citywide IT infrastructure. Um, this is an
account that uh we use to help with infrastructure uh technology infrastructure that has happened during the year. Most recently um we've used the funds in that account to um help uh implement uh or to help get uh
implementation underway for asset management. We also used it for an upgrade to our procurement system at one point. Um and then our voting equipment is due for replacement and this is the last this was funded over two years and that will be done taken care of in 27.
So what's next is uh we've had the work session tonight. You all will have a public a joint uh public hearing with council on the 9th. Again, that's when you will frame sort of your formal recommendation to the city manager for consideration
um with his proposed budget uh that will be released to council on March 2nd. And then um finally, just um you've already mentioned this, but just to let you know, we have the budget explorer tool. Um part of that um if you scroll
down, there is also a new CIP quarterly report. Do you want to talk about that at all or >> um Yeah, >> sure. Have you all seen >> What's up with that $74? >> What's up with that $74? >> Yeah, there's a there's a completion and
we've got $74 left. >> Oh, >> the general fund pizza party for the the crew me sweeping accounts is the thing. Uh I don't for those who haven't seen it uh we have a we as was referenced there's a
CIP quarterly report. You'll see in there projects that are um uh underway uh with updates as to where there's what the statuses of them. There's information about each project uh with pictures and so on. It's one of the reasons we're also moving away from lump
sums to uh specific projects because that is more we can more readily report on specific projects, right? Um and so I mean this is intended to be a public uh uh asset really for folks to understand the work that's happening and the time
frame under which this is happening. Uh the document is highly sortable, navigable. So uh if you haven't seen it, please check it out. >> And we're I should note we're building it out over time. It's it's this, you know, the same staff that are actually managing these projects are responsible
for providing those updates and getting more and more of them into the system. So, we're trying with each quarter to get more projects into that system. >> Um, and then just this just a reminder of important dates that are coming up. Again, uh you can join us every Thursday
in March for our budget work sessions with council. Um, I should have looked this up, but I don't recall. I think the CIP work session is the 26th, if I'm not mistaken. Um, we will have two public hearings, uh, March 16th, April 7th. Uh,
we're going to have a community budget forum on March 19th. Um, and then council will formally adopt the budget on April 9th. There also will be a few city manager budget forums. There'll be more information coming out for that as
well. And with that, that's it. >> Good job. Good job. >> Thanks. >> I planned additional comments, but I think they've all come out based on the questions that you all posed. So, I will
just simply say that um you'll see that um there you've seen that there's significant cash that's being used in this CIP. There's CF contingency that's being used and there's a FBM dev dev service that is supporting all of this. Balancing all of
that is really the task at hand. There's no uh desire to push back and hold off. It's really about just trying to make sure that our numbers are accurate, that this CIP is tight in a sense of what's in there should be in there for getting
something done, not just to be c Schwarz, may I may I make even quick? Oh, you and I work together anybody in the room. >> Yes. Very long time back to Jim to Jim
to hand me to be the the person staff commission. Um I've been a two time new commissioner and I've benefited my mentorship. Thank you. I've been a four-time chair and I benefitedly from your guidance and your gentle way of
correcting me. So, let's see. Thank you for what you've done for me. No. >> Well, I was going to try to craft something about this being Carnegie Melton's uh sorry Carnegy's birthday and
libraries and we didn't even mention the library. It's been there though. >> I saw it and we didn't discuss it at all. But then I had a blinding flash the obvious. Today is the 125th birthday of Ricardo Montablon. And uh I am both heads.
Uh, I noted as we as I thought about that, and by the way, it's also Jeffrey Hunter's birthday, which is a really super deep Star Trek cut. But going back to M uh uh Ricardo Montablon, and I do not propose that we go back into this right now, but I noticed that there was no
line to reapholster the city council seating with rich Corinthian leather. >> To which I just going to state my objection and then ask that we second. I'm rich.
>> So, who is this person that you referenced? >> No, the first one. >> Oh, >> he had to be there. >> His name though. I just knew the ball. >> That's his real name.