♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ And we know what works and doesn't work. So just know that we are thinking about all the details that you all have mentioned. Okay. Great. Great. Let's see. So on one of the final slides, you said the remaining $1.8 million is reserved for further discussions and needs. And my question is, I would like to know what that is. I would like for council to be a part of that discussion. So when will you all come back to us with what's going to happen to that remaining $1.8 million? When? Mm-hmm. Well, my priority right now, I'm going to be quite honest, is to get that community grant program out. Okay. So after that's out. Okay. I mean, that's really because we want to go ahead and start, like, once this is done, get those VAs done. We want to get on the ball of actually doing what we need to do to make these priority areas a realization. So yeah, I'm going to be honest. That is my priority, is to get that community grant program out and running. Okay. And in my last 30 seconds, I'll just say I was disappointed that money wasn't allotted for a position in the SUTI office. We have a strong but mighty team, but they need help. And with the addition of these potential proposals to their workload, there needs to be another staff person. So like, who is going to logistically handle the grant program? So again, we've had discussions about that as well, and we have a realignment of job responsibilities from not only a person in finance, but a person in my department as well. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Morton. Thank you, Mayor. Well, thank you for all your work on this, and everyone that is involved with it. I guess just to start, I do like the idea of having remaining funds available for use in the near future. Specifically for myself, I believe that we should look at city, look at LFUCG services and what we're currently offering, whether that be our SUTI office, whether that be correctional's office, whether it be paramedicine, crisis response. I think that while 100% of our nonprofits are doing great work, and they are carrying a lot of our load with resources and responding to this challenge, I think that that burden is still on the city to respond as well. And these dollars just can help with that response and expansion of current services that we have that we know directly are addressing this challenge of recovery and substance use. So I would just say, as we're looking at those remaining dollars, that we probably should look at the services we're offering here at the city level, specifically the ones I've named. But then there's also more. Regarding those remaining dollars and future expenditures, I guess I'm kind of curious on kind of what that process would look like for allocation. Would it be the same within the budget amendments, or would essentially Council be able, in our fund balance conversation, be able to put forward proposals and be able to highlight the specific fund where we believe those dollars or what that dollar should be used for? Based on the criteria, I should say. Oh, I'm sorry. My bad. My apologies. I didn't catch that. I should have said based on the OPA criteria. Right. So we have our prioritized recommendations. So you know already that that's what that remaining funds are going to go for are those prioritized recommendations. And those are basically looking at our internal programs. I mean, really. I mean, you know, number six is like a few thousand dollars, so I'm not even really counting that. But specifically our Community Corrections and our SUTI program of funding and expanding those programs. Correct. Correct. And let's say, I don't know, based on these, but let's say the Council had a priority. And this is just an example. I'm not saying this Council has a priority. But say crisis response expansion or paramedicine expansion was a topic, and that's something that this Council wanted to do. We know that the dollars fit the criteria, the OPA dollars fit that criteria. What does that look like? Would that just be a Council allocation? How would that, what does that look like through process? I mean, I think it's the same process that you all have used whenever you want to use a certain fund for a certain purpose. Okay. So we essentially, in fund balance discussions, we could bring forward ideas that we see fit. And if this Council adopted it, it could take place. If I think I'm understanding you correctly, thank you. It wouldn't necessarily have to be a fund balance conversation. It could be just a budget amendment or, you know, whatever that needs to look like once the fund is established, which, as Commissioner said, you know, we're wanting to be ready to go as soon as she's ready to go and you all are ready to go as well. So we've had those kind of waiting in the wings to be ready to move forward. So it will live in a normal fund, kind of like a grant fund, and they'll be available for BAs whenever you want. Okay. Thank you. I think that answers it. And then regarding the grant opportunities, and just based on your presentation, it seems like it would be a pretty, like a broad criteria that's going to allow for many different folks different opportunities to take access within that, which I think is extremely important. But then also the opportunity for, you know, some of our larger nonprofits, but then also some of our community organizations that are boots on the ground, that provide resources, I hope they're able to benefit from that opportunity, as well as the idea of having innovative solutions, knowing that, you know, recovery and substance use is very broad, multifaceted, and that over throughout many different municipalities, they're using those funds broadly and innovatively. And I hope that that grant process will allow for that innovation and that the criteria is very broad enough where a lot of folks can take advantage of that. When it comes to the interest-bearing account, I'm kind of, kind of the sentence that's already been put forward on the council, I'm kind of, I see it from both angles. I think there's a need to have sustainability moving forward. There's also, but then also that balance of knowing that we are in a crisis right now tied to substance use and opiates, and that we need to have resources on the ground that are working, that, you know, we can see impact. So I'm kind of, I'll wait to hear the rest from the council when it comes to that. So, thank you. Thank you. Council Member Beasley. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Commissioner. Thanks for stopping by the office yesterday and answering some questions I had then, but these came from your presentation today, so thanks for that as well. So one thing I want to know is the interest that comes off that interest-bearing account, do we have to spend that on opioid abatement programming, or that interest we can spend on anything? It should be spent on our same criteria that we're spending the principal. Okay. Should be or has to be. I'm sorry? Should be or has to be. Has to be. Okay. And then my next question is, while we wait on the task force to make a decision about housing and stuff, like even if we're going to, let's say all the stars align and we build something permanent, and it's still going to be many years down the road before that happens, right? Could this $2.2 million also be put into that interest-bearing account so that it would draw interest since it's almost as much as the $3 million we're putting in there now? And that's an idea. She says yes in the back. Yeah. Perfect. That's an idea. Yeah. And then my last question is, if we don't know when we're going to or if we're going to get any more money, that $1.8 million that's left, are we going to airmark that for the community corrections program if that truly is our third priority? So we have other priorities on there. So it's our internal substance use disorder program as well as our community corrections. So though we don't know how much they're, whatever they're looking for is going to need, that $1.8 will be divided somehow between priority three and five. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. Remember though, these programs are existing and that $1.8, I don't know when we're going to get more money. So that's got to last, right? Correct. Which is why I was wondering why we weren't already having a conversation around number three if that indeed is our top three priorities, is the community corrections part of that. We will. This is just, again, the initial. We will have that conversation and we will decide on that. But I want to also go back to, people are like, well, it's $1.8 million left. That's got to last us until we get our next allotment and who knows when that'll be and how much it'll be. Those are things we have to think about. I was. I was just making sure that we weren't going to leave community corrections out and if this $1.8 has to last us 20 years, it doesn't look like. I mean, it could though, right? If we don't know when we're getting more or if we're getting more. I don't think 20 years, but maybe a year. Okay. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Council Member Brown. I haven't spoken yet. Oh, I'm sorry. Hang on one second. I'll get to Council Member Ellinger. He hasn't spoken yet. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor, for setting up this task force and all that served on it, brought back the recommendations and I agree with most of them of what we are doing. One of my issues and one that I hear a lot and it's been raised here is we are in a crisis mode and putting a third of the money in, I'm a little concerned that we're putting more in that than getting out the money to actually attack this. I think about what we did with the ARPA money and we had a time frame on that. We had to get that money out. I understand when the Commissioner, and Commissioner, you had said that we needed X amount of money so we can make sure it grows because if it's not big enough, then it's not really going to have an impact. The money that's in there right now, I assume that we're getting interest on that with the $9 million presently, are we not or is that? I can feel you behind me. We do have it in an interest-bearing account currently. It is not in an account that is quasi-endowment as this is contemplating where the principle is more restricted. There's a number of different ways that that can be done. I think that there can be a little bit more conversation about how restrictive we want that to be. Do we want that to be housed here? Do we want that to be off-site? What we really want that to look like. There are a number of different, I keep saying quasi-endowment because there's a number of different ways to do that. But it is currently invested in methods that we can do that so that we are earning currently. We will try and invest as much as possible to earn as much as possible and be good stewards of those resources while we have them. Whether or not that's the... And I appreciate that. My concern is just not putting too much into that account because we want to get the money out to the non-profits and others because the crisis is now. It's going to be here for 20 years but I would rather attack it sooner than later and I understand the understanding. The 10% and now the 33%, I'm just trying to figure out the numbers on that. One of the things that we were trying to back into, if all of the other funds are gone and we were just trying to have a continual or perpetual grant program that was created from these funds, how much would we want to be able to put into the community annually for those purposes? And that's how we got to that number. And simultaneously having the conversation about our own dollars, how much do we want to put into the general fund because as you all will recall from ARPA, we were very intentional about our use of funds and then our declining use of funds so that we weren't reliant on those dollars and then fell off a cliff when we didn't have them anymore. And so similarly, these dollars are the same. They're very much those one time and we don't know when they're coming and we don't know how much they're going to be. And so if we weave them into our general fund and then they don't come anymore, we will have to replace those with recurring revenue in the future. So we want to make sure that when we make these investments, we know that we're committing to do that in perpetuity. Similarly to the commitments that we're making to our community. Often those are made in perpetuity as well. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Mayor. I'm thinking a lot about this particular plan. This commission has been working for over three years and we've had this money for almost as long. I appreciate the idea of deliberation. But at this point with this $9 million, if we still have question marks around some of this money, like we're not sure what we do with it, I'm disappointed in that. Right now opioids for our community is a crisis and we need to act like it. I think we have needs right now, this minute, and we have providers who are ready to work already doing this work right now, both nonprofits and our own city's programs. The state has also told a lot of our nonprofit partners that they're not going to get their state money, yet at least, because hey, you all have local money to spend. Go spend that first. So not only are they not getting our money, they're also not getting state's money. I appreciate the idea of the uncertainty with the money coming in, but this $9 million is not the entirety of what we're working with. We have another $21 million coming to us in the next 12 years. Can we predict when that happens? We cannot. Can we predict how much we're going to get per year? We cannot. Right? That's okay. I think everybody here is working with that premise. But to say that we're not going to put out a lot of this money when there's a fire and we're saving our money for a longer hose or a fire hydrant or some other preventative things, I think the balance of this conversation is tilted in kind of a wrong direction. So I don't know if this is appropriate or if we as council are just making recommendations to you all in terms of potentially how to tweak this plan or if you would require or prefer a motion. This is my sort of back of the napkin adjustments to this plan and I would be happy to hear from my colleagues on it. I like the idea of the 10% saved to the interest bearing account to kind of create that potential endowment. So that's $900,000. I would give $1.1 million to the homelessness task force because A, we have 2.8 million already set aside for that task force from fund balance. I think someone had noted that this homelessness task force does not have an opioid committee. So I understand very much that all of this work is intertwined and interwoven and I respect that. I think corrections, we already have programming going there. I would put $1 million towards corrections. And this is I very much respect the idea of not creating more recurring costs for us. But I'm to some degree like I think if we put this million towards corrections, towards their programming, it's a short term save to our general fund for this year. And the expectation is we're saving it when we can. There's no guarantee about next year. There's no guarantee about the year after. That's okay. Another million dollars to any other LFUCG programs like SUTI. And these figures, I want to talk to the folks actually running these programs and say what's a realistic number, what do you actually need. So I'm just throwing numbers out, but what I want to do is kind of shift this ratio. And then the remaining $5 million I want to put towards the grants. And I agree with you 100% on let's get these grants out now. I very much agree with that. Another piece of this, and again, I will let smarter minds kind of figure out what folks think the ratio would be. I would like to see maybe a 25% minimum guaranteed to the micro grants versus the macro. So this is just ideas that I'm throwing out. But what I really would like to see us shift from is thinking about this as an emergency and thinking about how acute the need is right now and how the work is out there, the people are ready to do this work, and we should be putting that out there. We should not have been sitting on this money for three years. Thank you. Council Member Sheehan. Thank you, Mayor. And thank you, Commissioner Allen-Albright, for all of the work that has gone into this and to the Opioid Abatement Commission and all the folks that have come here to hear about this issue and to talk with us and help us think about how to spend this money for our community. I'm okay with adjusting these numbers, but I do want to speak on the task force. Homelessness is an emergency in our community, and it's a thing that we do need to deal with now. So I am not okay with reducing the funding that goes to the task force from the $2.2 million. We adjust other things. I do agree with getting more money into the grant allocations, but if you recall from our homelessness study, the estimate that started the discussions around the solutions was $27 million. We have $2.8 million set aside. Our task force has been working very hard to gather information about really effective programming and development that can address the issues, and those recommendations are going to be coming out in months from now, so it's not even that far from today to get those recommendations. It's not like we're waiting years, but we will need money set aside. We didn't get any funding in our state budget. So there was a $0 allocation to addressing homelessness here from the state, and that has been continual, historic, historical I guess is the word I would use there. We never get money from the state. Our funding from the federal government is no longer something we can rely on, and again, we have a lot of people working together to come up with these solutions, and these are co-occurring problems. We know a significant portion of our population that is experiencing homelessness also has a co-occurring substance use disorder. So my sticking point is that 2.2. It needs to be at least that for the task force allocation. The other funding I'm willing to have the discussion about moving around, but not that one. Thank you. Council Member Morton. Thank you. I just had a question for Commissioner Hensley, and it's just related. You mentioned that it's currently sitting in an interest-bearing account. I guess, what is the difference between the current interest-bearing account and the dollars we shall receive in the future based on the quasi-endowment? I think as it's kind of been discussed and imagined, the quasi-endowment would have a protection of the principal. So right now, as it stands, any dollar amount, if you all wanted to allocate any dollar amount up into the last penny, that could be allocated. If you all made the decision to have a quasi-endowment, it would restrict the principal amount against allocation. Similar to the Economic Contingency Fund, where that one's quasi-endowment. With enough votes, you all can make the decision to do that with also caveats of emergency and so on and so forth. And so it would have more guardrails, if you will, around it than what we have right now. It may have the same earning potential, but it would have different restrictions. And that's exactly what I was going to say. Is that earning potential the same? Because ultimately, if the earning potential is the same, we're still making dollars on it. So it's still doing that same purpose of gaining dollars. But on the other end, I guess the only other piece is what it sounded like, is that we're just locking ourselves out of the money, keeping ourselves from spending the money by putting in that quasi-fund. Yeah. There are places that can make more money than we can make, absolutely. They will charge you fees to do that. So there is a cost benefit to that. And we have certain constraints about what we as a government can invest in because we are not able to lose money, which is a good thing for the taxpayer. And so there are different mechanisms by which we can invest that money. So there are places that can make more than what we can make. But they also come with fees. So depending on how we want this to look, it may be more, it may be less, just depending on how we proceed from here. That makes sense. But as it stands, we're currently making interest on the money. I'm sorry? As it stands, we're currently making interest on the dollars. That has not always happened in government, just so you know. The current interest rate environment has not always been the case. I mean, sometimes, just like your own savings account at home, where you might be earning .025%, that's sometimes been the case with government as well. So we're just in a really good interest rate environment right now. I'd be curious to know, I guess, if there would be a big difference in numbers, like 1%, 2%, 5%, based on that quasi-account, based on just the other account. Because if it's not a huge percentage when it comes to actually building that account up, then I would almost be in a space where I could see it, just leaving it where it's at and just having control of not spending it. What's going to make your big difference is the amount of principal you have. Right, right. Okay. Thank you for that. But then also, just through these conversations, I would love to have conversations with the council of how we can establish a formal process to allocate the remaining funds. But then also, when future funds come in, knowing that they are going to come in, hopefully, that there is a formal process that we can look at, so we're just not relying on budget amendments. Now, if that is just fund balance requests, maybe that's a thing. Or if it's kind of similar to our budget process where we sit down and we have a meeting and we highlight priorities and just put that little dot on the paper, I mean, I think we should come up with some form of process and come in agreement with this council of how those dollars should be spent. That's just my thoughts. And that's all I've got. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Brown. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, colleagues, for sharing, everyone sharing their insights and thoughts about this going forward. Commissioner, I did have a couple of questions about the endowment, but I think a lot of them are answered. I think the conversation about it being an interest-bearing account, which could give us flexibility on using the principal if it's a drastic need, but also creating reoccurring revenue that we could put out towards a grant program as we move forward. My concern, and I do, and I think the Vice Mayor made a good point about shifting the priority of this conversation, not as, you know, my numbers aren't as drastic as his, but I think he's right. I think we need to do something to get this money moving, and it sounds like there are some consensus on creating the interest-bearing account in the grant program. I don't think, and I'll ask law this, I don't think we necessarily have to make a motion today to move this. If we asked you to come back next week with new business items and budget amendments, you can blue-sheet that, and we could amend those at that time. But that's the next thing I would like to see at the next work session, either new business items and budget amendments, allocating funding to the interest-bearing account in the grant program. And we can have conversations about the other things, I think, as we progress, but I'd like to see those two things moving. So Commissioner, do you need a motion to do that, or is that something the administration could do through the blue-sheet process? I think if the administration is taking this as a clear direction from you all, that you would need to do a motion. Okay. And I think, and I just want that to be clear to the community at the next work session, we will have some action items in regards to allocating opioid funding. Just because if we start making motions today, this could be another two hours justifying who's moving what. So that's what I'll support going forward. So go ahead. You got a question? And I'm happy to do all the budget amendments that you'd like, but I do need to know how much they're for. I think my number was going to be three and three, but like I said, that's something that we would have to discuss. So maybe the safest thing to do is to bring them to us as you presented them, and we'll just amend them and go from there. That works. That works. Okay. The other thing I'll say in closing is, and I think I've heard other Councilmembers say or kind of make the same point, there are opportunities for us to use this funding internally for programs that we have. Think about what that looks like, and I think it's better to do that on the front end as opposed to the back end, because I think that sets expectations for the community. So thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Councilmember Lynch. Thank you, Mayor. Councilmember Brown, I respectfully disagree with you. I think we need to make a motion, and one of the items that I feel like everyone is in support of is the tiered community grant program. So I move to allot $3 million of the opiate abatement money that we currently have towards a community grant program that is tiered with microgrants and macrogrants for the community. Okay. Vice Mayor Wu seconds that. Now let's have discussion. Is there any? Any discussion? All those in favor, say up. Councilmember Morton. And the motion on the floor is to allocate $3 million of this money to tiered community grant program, the tiers as presented, two separate. Which I'm in full support of this grant program, expanding it, adding dollars to it. What I would, I guess my questions would be tied to when we're making this decision right now that then, which we could fund it for grants, and maybe this discussion will help me, but then that leads us with, I guess, different numbers based on what the administration has brought forward. And then that gets back into the same topic that I've been emphasizing, that I feel that this council needs to set priorities, this council needs to establish a consensus between this group on numbers tied to grants, tied to future needs that are needed, tied to what's going to go to our unhoused task force. And in doing this right now, which maybe I'll support, maybe I don't, that could almost, that's just pulling from something else, essentially. And that's kind of my thoughts tied to it. In that same case, yeah, that's what I'll leave it at, actually. So I'm not, I don't know how much, I won't vote on this just yet, but I could see where, I just really believe that there's future conversations at the council level that needs to be had tied to priorities, and we need to set priorities and look at this total amount and divvy it out, kind of how, what Vice Mayor said, based on, maybe not the same exact numbers, but based on that angle. So supporting this right now, I guess, one, would that come forward as a new business item or a budget amendment in the work session? So basically, the same conversation we're having right now, we may have this conversation in two weeks. And or, even if we directed the administration to bring it to us, something, whether it be had proposed or something, we directed this today, either way, we're going to have this conversation next week, correct? Yeah, so I guess that kind of answers my question. I guess I can support it, and we'll just have this conversation next week again, so. Thank you. To the motion, Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Mayor. I feel like some of our intent, I think, behind that motion in particular is echoing Commissioner Allen Bryant's idea of, like, let's get these grants out. So I think the rest of the allocation feels a little dicier and feels like it needs more conversation. So I'm in full support of getting some amount of money out, and for me personally, hopefully more. The question that I have, then, is kind of what happens next, because this obviously tweaks the original plan, right? So I'm not sure how you're going to bring us just an amended plan without the three. So the three is kind of on its own, and then we have to figure out what to do with the six. Is that going to be coming to us as budget adjustments? Because I feel like we have to talk about all of this money kind of at one time, because as soon as we change one number, other numbers will get changed as well. I don't think we can kind of tackle them one at a time. So I'm for moving this $3 million forward, but I want a little bit of clarity on how we deal with the rest of it. I think you guys need to tell us what you want, because what's going to end up happening is, you know, I can come back in two weeks with a plan, and what if you don't like that plan? Then another two weeks. Sorry. Sorry. Somebody reminded me a minute ago that when you all did ARPA, you did a CAL, so maybe you all want to consider doing a CAL meeting on this, and just having the full council be able to actually give them the input that they probably need, rather than her fear of coming back to you all and not having it be what you want. So that's just the thought. You don't have to do that. In my mind, like, again, to Commissioner Allen Bryant's point of, A, getting this money out there because people need it and people are working with it, and kind of back to my own sort of notion of how long this commission has taken and how long we've sat on this money, I think we have an opportunity in this very moment to potentially make some decisions. I think I would certainly entertain another motion on how we spend this money, and let's hash it out, because I'm not entirely sure what pushing it to the next meeting and putting it on budget adjustments does for us, except give us a week to sleep on it. That's kind of just my inclination. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, Mayor. I support giving money to these grants as soon as possible, and I like the idea of giving more money towards them, but I agree with my colleague, Council Member Morton, that it seems like there's a lot of different opinions of how to divvy out the rest of this money, and I don't want to give money to something without having a plan for the rest of it right now. Also, I did like Mr. Barbary's idea of maybe a cow, if it is going to be that we're going to go back and forth a lot, we might as well set aside time to do that so that we can make some decisions and move forward with this money as quickly as possible and get it into the community. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Curtis. Thank you so much, and thank you, Council Member Lynch, for bringing this forward. I do appreciate it. I just have a quick question, and I want to give you the opportunity to directly address the move from $2 million to $3 million and maybe speak to some of the concerns about how that impacts the rest of the funds in the conversation going forward. I agreed with what Vice Mayor Wu said before, with his back of the napkin recommendations. Number one, and I think number two, we're in the meeting. Let's have the discussion now. Let's make the decision now. This is what we're all here, what we're supposed to be doing, making decisions like this, instead of putting it off. Our next cow is in May. It's like in mid-May, like May 14th or something like that. So let's just have the discussion now and figure out what's going where. And so the community knows, we all know, and so that our employees, our staff can go full steam ahead. Okay. And then my follow-up to that is that I think we are all in agreement of our support for the community grant program. Would you be amenable to amending your motion to just allocate the $2 million now and then get that going and we could allocate an additional million after we've had further discussion? Is that something you'd be open to? If that further discussion is today, then yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Brown. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. And, you know, my thought, the reason I didn't make a motion is because I think it's a little more complicated than that, and it could be a long discussion. And I'm fine with having that, but at the same time, I'd like to talk to councilmembers and kind of see where folks are at on the issue. So that's the reason I was fine with coming back next week and let the administration just kind of present to us what they presented to us today that we can amend and kind of work on. I'll support the motion. I think $3 million is the appropriate amount for the grant program, and I think it sets the stage for us to talk about the other allocations. So I'm fine with supporting the motion. And I think it also sends out to the community that we are moving forward. We've asked the task force to do what they do. They've done their thing. The mayor has weighed in, and we have some framework of a plan moving forward. So I'll support the motion. But I think the other allocations are a longer conversation that I'd like to get some more input on. So thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Sheehan, have you spoken to the motion? Why don't you go now? Thank you, Mayor. I do think more money should go into the grant program, so I will support this motion. But I am interested in where that $1 million is going to come from. So I'll support this motion at this time, but I will not support that money then being offset by reducing the money that goes to the Homelessness Task Force. So I'll support this motion, but then I want to see in our later conversations that the additional $1 million comes from either the $1.8 or the $3 million set-asides that we already have. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Morton. Thank you. Just, I guess, for Commissioner Casey Allen Bryant. With the current motion as it stands, we passed this today. Timeline-wise, I know that there's this conversation, basically, we need to get the grants out, and I agree, we do need to get the grants out right now and as soon as possible. But timeline-wise, I know that y'all mentioned that y'all were bringing a budget amendment possibly next week, maybe with a different number on it. But timeline, this motion, this is not changing the timeline, correct? This is just changing the amount, basically. So tied to that timeline, if we decided right now that we wanted to go with what the administration proposed, as of right now today, let's say two weeks later, after having a conversation, we wanted to add $1 million onto it, or $2 million, or $2.5 million. Does that change the timeline tied to you getting the grant process set up? I mean, I would like to know the amount from the get-go of starting planning. That would be helpful to know and not be changed at some point. So basically, the addition of dollars could lead to a difficult process. Like say you got $2 million right now and the council decided a month later to give you $1 million to the grant process. I mean, you know, it depends on when you guys decide to add it on there. If it's just two weeks from now, it would probably be fine. If it's something you're waiting to May, is that when your CAO meeting is? That makes sense. I'll support the motion based on what you just said. If it's better to have a set number, if that's the number this sounds like this council is in agreement for right now, then that's cool. But knowing we're going to get, later, in a couple weeks, a conversation, and it's going to have to come out of something. That extra million is going to come from something. If it's not coming from our homelessness task force, then it's only coming from two different things. It's either coming from that interest bearing account or it's coming from what's left over. And I will continue to emphasize that we as a city should, and we have the burden and the responsibility to provide services and respond. So if we're knocking off that money that could go towards expanding city services, city offices, I would caution that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Mayor. To Council Member Sheehan's point, would we need to make an amendment to Council Member Lynch's motion if we were to say, for example, that extra million for grants comes out of the 1.8 undecided, unassigned? Would we need to make an amendment towards that or will you commit to, when you bring us the new numbers for budget adjustment, to do that? Yeah. We'll do that. Sorry. Will you ask your question again? Sure. So to Council Member Sheehan's point, she didn't want the extra million that's going to the grants to come from the Homelessness Task Force tranche, so would I need to make a motion to say that extra million is going to come out of the 1.8 that we have not decided on what to do with, that way kind of guaranteeing that it's not taken out of this other pot? We'll do that. Do you need me to make a motion to that effect or will the administration, when they bring us the full sort of reconfigured budget adjustment, do it per our recommendation? I would think just go ahead and do it now. Okay. Please. Yeah. I'd call. Sure. You haven't. May I? Yeah. I mean. Vice Mayor still has three minutes. You have not approved anything. So you can do what you want to do, which would mean we would bring you something that didn't take the money out of the homeless money. I mean, we understand what you're saying, and if that's what you want to do, we will do that. But none of this is approved yet. So it all, except for Councilmember Lynch's motion, if it passes, it will all have to come back to you anyway, if that helps. Yeah. That makes sense. I'm going to go ahead and just make the motion, since we've moved once to kind of assign. Yeah. Amend the motion. Excuse me. I move to amend Councilmember Lynch's motion for that additional million change from the original administration's plan to come out of the 1.8 unassigned. So moved. Is there? Councilmember Lynch, did you second? Okay. Councilmember Lynch seconded. Is there any discussion? Yes. We don't have to do that, because that money is not already assigned. There's no need to do that, because these are not motions that have already happened, and we're not making amendments to them. They're just suggestions on a piece of paper. So we can have a motion for 3 million, that's fine, but we don't have to say it's coming from here or there. But we can continue and say that we want the money to be divided a certain way. But there's not a need to say it's coming from a place where it's just a suggestion, if that makes sense. Any other comments about the motion to amend? Are all of you on for a comment to the motion to amend? Okay. Councilmember Reynolds, you spoke. Councilmember Morton to the amendment? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. I 100% understand the amendment, and I think that what needs to be done, if we're looking to protect the dollars for our unhoused task force, then there needs to be a subsequent motion that comes forward that states that we're going to do the same thing we did with this grant, that we're going to assign that amount to the unhoused task force. That's just what needs to take place. But that then gets into the same sentiment that I was saying earlier. We need to have a formal conversation. I mean, if we're going to make motions, if that's what we're going to do right now, we might as well just assign these dollars. That's exactly what we should do today, if that's what we're going to do. If that's not what we're going to do, then we should have a formal conversation. So I'm up to do whatever this council wants to do, and I can pull some things out of my back pocket and I'll start coming up with motions and assigning dollars, if that's what we want to do. But, you know, I would love to have a formal conversation with this group to get a consensus of what are the priorities, where do we lie, and where should these dollars go. If not, then I'm almost inclined to start making motions and basically signing these dollars is how I see it. So I think that's the discretion of this council. But if we're going to protect those unhoused dollars, at the least one more motion needs to come forward and assign those dollars to the unhoused task force, is what I would say. Thank you. Council Member Sheehan. I will support the motion so that there's clarity about where the $1 million is coming from and should it be the intent of the council to make the next motion on the task force funding, I will do that as well after we have finished with this motion. Council Member Curtis. Thank you, Mayor. I have to admit a personal frustration with legislating on the fly, though I do appreciate the urgency with which we are all moving to get these funds out. I will be supporting this motion and others going forward that would allow us to assign these funds and get moving. Thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Mayor. I mean, to Council Member Morton's point, I feel like that's what we are doing right now is having that deliberation and having that discussion. If there was a good reason to kind of put this discussion off for however long, I'm happy to hear it and I'm happy to take more time deliberating. I think the intent of Council Member Lynch's original motion, again, is can we get something going today? Can we get something moving? And then if the other pieces of it are dicey, we can kind of take more time with it. But again, I'm also perfectly fine to make the entire decision on this $9 million tonight if we are so willing. What I didn't want to happen was we've batted back and forth different priorities or different ways of kind of changing the balance on this money, but what does the administration bring us in terms of, if we hadn't made any of these motions, the administration would bring us, I assume, the original plan, right, as a budget amendment. So we're just kind of ahead of that particular moment, having this discussion now and maybe allowing administration to make those tweaks so when it comes to us, it's already adjusted based on the consensus that's happening right now with this council, right? So again, it feels awkward, right, because we're making like half the decisions today and I understand that and my preference would be that we make all the decisions tonight. But if that is not where the majority of council wants to go, I think it's still important for us to move this motion and this amendment forward so that we can get some movement on the grants getting started and then we can take a little more time and deliberation on the others. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak to the motion to amend the amendment? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion was to allocate $3 million to the tiered community grant that did not come from homelessness money. No, no, no, he had the amendment. The amendment, yeah. The amendment did not mention the homelessness program. Oh, I'm sorry. It basically said essentially when you all bring us the numbers, it will say $3 million for grants and .8 unassigned. Okay, yes. Does that make sense? Yes. Okay, so now we have the motion that was amended, which says that we will bring the $3 million for the tiered grant program and the .8 unassigned. Okay. Anybody want to speak to that? Councilmember Curtis. Yes, so given that we're doing this and allocating this funding and trying to ensure it, I would like to move to amend the motion to also allocate the $2.2 million for the Homelessness Task Force recommendations pertaining to abatement criteria. So moved. Is there a motion to amend the motion? You seconded 2.2 to homeless related to opioid issues. All right. Councilmember Morton seconded that. Is there any discussion? I mean, in essence, that's what you did. Right. Okay. All those in favor of the amendment to allocate $2.2 million of this money to the homeless opioid related issues, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. So if I understand the motion on the floor is to approve $3 million for the tiered nonprofit grants, .8 unassigned, and 2.2 to homeless. Is there any discussion about this motion? All those in favor say oh, I'm sorry, Councilmember Brown. Mayor, just clarity. Are these separate motions or are we amending the original motion? It was an amendment. An amendment? Mm-hmm. All right. Well, I'll make a motion. It's very clean right now. And you all can vote on any amendments or motions you want. But we have a very clean motion right now. Just saying. All right. So I'm going to look around. So I'm inclined to make a motion to allocate the remaining funding towards the interest bearing account, which is? So we have the $3 million. Okay. You're inclined. I'm inclined to increase it. So it's $3 million. Do you want to do that separately? Yeah. I'll come back and do that separately. Thank you. That would make it cleaner, I think. Any other comments to the motion? $3 million, tiered grants, .8, unassigned, 2.2, homeless. He's going to make a separate motion, yeah. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? That motion passes. Now, Councilmember Brown. Well, maybe I'll ask a question first. So I might have lost count. How much money did we assign, and it's $3 million left? We've got three left. We have three left. Okay. I'll make a motion to assign $3 million towards the interest bearing account for future use to fund the grant program going forward. Is there a second? Second. Councilmember Curtis seconds. Now let's have discussion. Councilmember Morton. Did you want to speak again? No. No. Councilmember Morton. I do have some concerns tied to this, because then that's where we get into the space where all the funds have been assigned. There's no future discretion for Council to assign funding tied towards whether it be expansion of the city office, whether it be expansion of city services, basically moving this dollars into that account locks us out of the money. So we've assigned—basically, open funding has been assigned. It'll be grants. It'll be our own house task force. No other innovative solutions being able to be brought forward until more money comes into place. While also knowing that the money is still getting interest, so it's making money, basically this account locks us out. So I don't know if I can support going ahead and moving all the dollars into this interest paid account right now. Just for clarity, did we lose time? We have all five minutes? Yeah, there's two minutes. We must have lost a little bit of— Please go ahead. So I guess my question would be, currently as it lies, we have $3 million left due to the motions that we've just done. If we allocate all those monies, there's basically no conversation to be had until we receive more money. Is that true? Right. So we have to start this process all over again when we receive future allocations. Right. Right. Yeah, I would have concerns with moving all these money right now. I'm sorry, and the $800,000 unassigned. Right. That's what I was about to say. That's what I was about to mention. So it's basically, if this $3 million is moved, we have $800,000 left that's unassigned. What I'll do is, I'll make an amendment to the motion. What do you say? There's only—sorry, there's only $3 million left. There's no .8. .8 is unallocated. .8 is left. There's .8. No. We've assigned $6 million, so there's $3 million left. That includes .8. Excuse me. Ms. Hensley, can you help us? I believe from the original $1.8 that was unassigned, $.8 is still remaining unassigned. So it is assigned to unassigned, but it doesn't have a specific purpose. Okay, so my bad. So the initial recommendation—let's say I've got three minutes. I've got time. We started off with $2 million going to grants, correct? All we've done to increase that million, we've pulled from our $1.8 million, just $1 million. So that means that there should be essentially $800,000 left over there. That's correct. Cool. have right now. I think we were just at over $700,000 last check. Okay. With that, I'll have a hard time—I will support moving these dollars to an interest-bearing account with the caveat of adding all that interest money, which I'll make a motion very soon, to the unallocated dollars. So I will amend Councilman James Brown's motion to allocate the interest dollars to go towards the remaining unallocated dollars. So just for all public transparency, for everyone up here to understand, we have the $3 million that has been motioned to go to the grants. We have the $2.2 million that has been motioned to go towards the unhoused task force. We have left basically remaining with the motion that Councilman James Brown brought forward was that—he mentioned $3 million to go to the interest-bearing account. There's still $800,000 and there's still—$750, whatever you just said— Balance of funds. Correct. Of interest dollars. The motion I'm looking to make—and you can say the language and I'll just say so moved— I understand. $900,000 plus whatever is in that account to go to unassigned for future discussion of this Council to be allocated. What is that? Go ahead and say it and I'll say something. So I think—and we've all been talking about $9 million. It's actually short of $9 million. So if I could, I understand the intent of Council and I understand the intent of whatever's left over, including the interest, leave unassigned. After the 3, after the 3, after the 2.2, after the .8 and interest, and we can bring that all back to you in the budget amendments for next week. I don't know exactly how we would— that because I would say that but I don't know exactly how we would word that. Indeed. I'll make one. I'll come up with it. So I'll make a motion to add the interest dollars on top of the leftover money to be allocated for future unassigned for future use at the discretion of the Council. So moved. Second. All right. So the amendment to Councilmember Brown's motion is to assign the interest money plus the .8 that was unassigned and to leave all of that unassigned. Is that your intent? Okay. And Councilmember Reynolds seconded it. Does anyone wish to speak to that amendment not to Councilmember Brown's motion but to the amendment? Councilmember Ellinger or hang on, are all of you on for the amendment? I think they need clarity. I think Kelly needs clarity on what the motion is. So Councilmember, okay. See if I get this right. Councilmember Brown made a motion to put $3 million into an interest bearing account. Councilmember Morton amended that and his amendment is to take that .8 million unassigned plus the interest that's in the account now and make all of that unassigned. Is that what everybody understood? Okay. Now those of you who are signed up, are you signed up to speak to the amendment? Oh, you're on the original motion. Let's have hands. This is not to Councilmember Brown's motion, it's to the amendment. Councilmember Ellinger, then Councilmember Beasley. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You made a statement that we actually don't have $9 million. So we're actually spending more than $9 million but we actually don't have $9 million. What do we have then? It's just short of 9. We keep calling it 9 but it's 8.9 and change. But if we're doing the $3 million, the 2.2, the .8 and the 3, that adds up to 9 so we don't even have the .8 that you're referring to so we don't have .8 plus we won't have any interest that goes above that then. I think that the motions for the 3 and the 3 and the 2.2, sorry I'm trying to connect, and then the remainder will get you all where you need to be and we will bring that back. So we basically, it won't be .8 but it will be whatever the remainder is goes to the... And it will actually be more than the 9 because it will include the additional interest. But they'll be like you all are used to seeing in fund balance, they'll be an unassigned amount. Right. Thank you. Yep. Okay. Council Member Beasley. Okay, who would like to speak to the amendment? Anybody else? Alright. Let's vote on the amendment to put the interest and the .8 into an unassigned category. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? Alright, that motion passes. So now the motion on the floor is to put $3 million to the interest bearing and it's amended to include the interest and the .8 to unassigned. That's the motion on the floor. Do you wish to speak? Vice Mayor, did you want to speak? Yes, please. Thank you, Mayor. I will not be supporting this motion as amended because to reiterate my points from before, I think this is a crisis. I think we have people ready to act, ready to use this money right now and to put a third of this entirety into an interest bearing account to talk about the future. We will be getting $21 million more in the next 12 years. We didn't get one check of $9 million and then it's over and we have to figure out how to make it last. If that were the case, I would be very much for putting money away to grow for a longer sustained program. But right now we have a very acute crisis and we have a big chunk of money that can be used and will be used and we have more money coming in. So I'm okay with putting a little bit of money aside into the interest bearing account but not $3 million. I'm going to make an amendment to knock that figure down to $1 million into the interest bearing account. So moved. Second. Council Member Beasley, second. Is there any discussion? Council Member Sheehan. Thank you, Mayor. So does that mean the rest of the $2 million sits with the unassigned? Okay, thank you. Anyone else wish to speak to the amendment? Council Member Morton. Just like I say, for Commissioner Hensley, related to, I know that the conversation is tied to, I guess, the administration looked at a certain amount for future dollars. What does $1 million do? And then it goes back to the other conversation I had tied to, if it's not beneficial or if it doesn't grow, like it's currently growing where it's at, should we just leave it in place? Will the $1 million do anything? At 4% you'd be earning $40,000 a year. And currently, okay, so in doing this, we move $1 million to this quasi-endowment, I guess we're getting two investments, one over here and one over here? Yeah, so I think if we're doing a quasi-endowment fund, I think what will also need to happen is we'll need to have a subsequent conversation of how strictly we want to hold that funding. Do we want it to look more like economic contingency? Do we want it to be more like a pure endowment where it's off-site, they hold the principal forever? What does that need to look like? And that will really inform the answer to that question. Just based on your expertise, and you can give whatever answer you like, what's more beneficial to the city, a $3 million endowment or $1 million? Well, considering it's all restricted for these purposes, it doesn't enter the general fund obligation, and so it doesn't have multiple uses. So it would be going either back out to the community, or it would be going to the purposes that we've suggested for corrections or some of the items that we've got in the general fund. But you don't think, like, basically making $40,000 on the $1 million a year, is that a good return on investment? Or does the—basically my question is, does that number need to be a higher number? Can it be $1 million, or does it need to be a higher number? So I'm going to be quite honest. I'm not quite sure what impact we could have with $40,000. $120,000 for that first bang would be a lot more. We spend, what, $200,000 on Narcan every year? $40,000 would only buy us a quarter of that. $120,000 would get us a lot closer. I also think about the projections going out. $3 million will give us more per year than the $1 million. And being able to just do what we do now, not including how we want to expand the program. That makes sense. All right, thank you. Thank you. Council Member Beasley. This is an amendment. I am supporting this amendment because I want to make sure that the other programs that we have inside city government, as well as the community corrections, get a piece of this pie. And if we allocate it all to go into the bank, they will not. Okay, Council Member Curtis. Thank you, Mayor. And I am just seeking a point of clarification here. And I'm so sorry, Commissioner Hensley. If we allocate, let's say we allocated the $3 million, could we then, is there a process for us to take those funds and reallocate them elsewhere? Depending on the level of restriction that you all want to provide that. If it's a true endowment, no. The principal would be secured. If it's quasi, like it's an economic contingency where you want to create a structure where it allowed additional votes to utilize principal, you could create something like that. If it just lived in a normal account, then it would be subject to a normal vote. So I think there's different levels depending on how we proceed from here. Okay. The follow-up question on that is, if we make this motion, it succeeds, and we put this $1 million in, do we then have the ability to later add the additional $2 million into the principal in all of these settings? Yes. Yeah. So in any of those scenarios, the ability to add additional funds to the principal at a later date is a possibility. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Mayor. To Council Member Morton's question, I think it depends on what your priority is. If your priority is to tackle this problem today, we spend the money. If your priority is to grow the money for future use and a longer-term use, we put all of it aside. If the fact that we have $700,000 in interest is because we've been sitting on $9 million, the more money we sit on, the more it grows, I completely understand that. Those are two opposing interests, and we're trying to kind of walk the line between how much to go to each, right? I'll be completely honest right now, and only speaking for myself, because I heard the question earlier of like we don't want to spend down to our last dollar. I am 100% okay to spend down to our last dollar because we have $21 million coming in in the next 12 years. So if the question is do we put aside a million and we're only getting $40,000 a year and how impactful is that, I'm okay with getting rid of it entirely. I'm okay with spending it down, and then when this pool grows up to, you know, let's say we spend down this entire $9 million next year, we get $500,000 in a settlement, and that's all we get. You know, my opinion would be we sit on that until that grows enough for us to launch another robust program, right? All of our partners out there realize how this is working. They know it's not a guarantee that they're going to get either the same money next year or even any money next year. Everybody is well aware of that, and we're operating under that same assumption as well. So for me, it's a question of which one is more of a priority, spending it today to tackle the problem today or putting the money aside to grow and to have the long-term but much smaller impact, so longer, smaller impact, shorter, immediate impact. So I am for the shorter, immediate impact. Thank you. Council Member Baxter. Thank you, Mayor. I just need some clarification on kind of where we started the conversation. Commissioner, your email to us, the clarification on the actual, I guess, the opinion that we got, and Brittany, you might have to speak up too, but I mean, so we got the settlement. Is there a chance now that we might not get the money or we may not get all the money that we thought? I mean, I just need to understand the terms of the settlement and what our future may or may not look like. So maybe some, maybe back up a little bit. So the $30 million that's being discussed right now is a figure that came with assistance from National Council in the opioid litigation, and that was calculating multiple defendants that are in the consolidated litigation, defendants that are in bankruptcy and their plan payments being discussed, and some that actually have not had the disbursement schedule approved yet by the settling states. So all of that is subject to some flux. So the $30 million was an estimate provided, so we had some framework to work with, but there really is no guarantee that that's going to be the amount that we receive. So does that help? So we've gotten nine. We know that. We have nine for sure. We know that. Like there is a chance that that could be all that we get. I don't know if I would go so far as to say we won't ever get any more, but what I cannot guarantee is that we are going to get all 30, all that we thought we might get to be So in that case, and Vice Mayor, to your point of one or the other, at this point, I feel like we can do both. I feel like we can spend, and we have done that. We increased the allotment for the grant program, and that is now money. And because of the uncertainty of what our future looks like, I feel like we can do both. We can save for the future, and we can spend some now. So I feel like I won't support the motion of amending it to $1 million. I think it's really imperative that we do plan so that we can have an impact in the future, not knowing what it looks like. That's all. Thank you. Council Member Brown. Thank you, Mayor. And I share the same sentiments. I'm not going to support the motion. Part of my concern is, and I think we have done that, that I think we've created parity in addressing the situation now with the $3 million for the grant, to establish the grant program. But then I also think a $3 million investment in the future and how we can sustain some of the programs or the opportunities that may come going forward, I think is what we need to be looking to do. This opioid crisis doesn't look like it's going to end any time soon. And I think if we can put our community in a position to be sustainable and have opportunities to address the epidemic, I think that's what's best. And then this is also just guidance for us moving forward. If we come back in a week and decide that we want to do something different with the funding, I think that we can. But I think in regards to moving funding with how we're prioritizing this money and this funding, I feel comfortable with putting an equal amount towards the endowment. So thank you. Council Member Morton. All right. So, you know, we got $3 million allocated to our grants. That's 100% important. I think we all emphasize the priority. That can be spent right now. Folks can access those resources right now. And that will be spent as soon as that process is set up. Regarding the 2.2 that we've assigned to our unhoused task force, that's not going to be spent today. That's not going to be spent tomorrow. It's going to have to wait until after those recommendations. And even after those recommendations, that will still take time to be spent. But it's assigned. So great. And it needs to be a priority. Regarding the 1.5, which we just talked about, interest money, roughly $800,000 left over, and the $3 million that we're discussing right now, there is not a decision to be made about that funding tomorrow. There's not a decision to be made about that funding, from my understanding, just based on the presentation, right now within the near future. So then we're basically having a conversation of should we make a rush and make decisions on the fly, like we just did this last past hour, without having conversations, without setting priorities, without getting consensus, without talking as a group, and assign these dollars to go to either an interest-bearing account or not. I think it's been highlighted that if it's not an interest-bearing account, it's still receiving interest. If it is an interest-bearing account, we're locking ourselves out. So that's probably still a discussion to have to talk about. But ultimately, these dollars are not getting spent within the next couple of weeks. There's no budget amendments coming forward within the next couple of weeks for either of those dollars. Is that correct? Thank you. So that then means that, from my perspective, with both of the motions tied to the $3 million going to the interest-bearing account, to the endowment account, or $1 million going to the endowment, that there is time to have discussion. There's time for this council to get together to talk and decide what should that number be. But then there's also time to discuss what should we do, what are our priorities for assigning the unassigned dollars. So I'm almost at the space where why are we even making this decision right now tied to the interest-bearing account that's currently in or tied to the quasi-endowment account when we literally could sit down, we have time to do it, we can schedule a meeting and discuss the best pathway forward rather than locking it to a decision. And we're going to get in this conversation, I'm guaranteeing it, next week at the work session meeting. We're going to be in the same conversation of, well, is that the right number, should we amend it, all the different things, when we can literally just sit and have a conversation to figure out what's the best pathway forward. We've locked in our grants, great. We've locked in dollars going to our own house community, great. Now we're at a space where I agree 100% these dollars should go to the people, they should go boots on the ground, they should go to addressing the challenge of opiate and recovery. But ultimately these dollars aren't getting spent tomorrow and they're not getting spent in the near future. So for us to make this decision today and lock in these dollars, we are legislating on the fly. There's questions when it comes to fiscal responsibility, there's questions when it comes to actually being intentional with the dollars and actually trying to reach as many people as possible and serve. I think we're doing a disservice to the city making all these decisions on the fly. And that's where I'm at. So whether it be $1 million or $3 million, we're making an interest on the money, that's not a question. We're still making money. We're making an interest on the money. Whether it be protected or unprotected, that's a conversation for us to have. And is it to have at this meeting? Well, I guess maybe so. Or maybe not. Maybe we schedule a CAL, maybe we set it for the agenda in our May CAL and decide it then. But when it comes to priorities, I think we've already highlighted our priorities. We highlighted our priorities for the grant program. We highlighted our priorities for our unhoused task force. These remain in dollars. This narrative that it has to be that we need to go to the people right now, it's not going to the people right now. That's just the fact of the matter. Not right now. Now in the future, will it? Can it soon? Based on our decision? Yeah. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about right now. The money that's going right now will be the grants, the $3 million grants. The money, the 2.2 is not going anywhere right now until the task force is wrapped up and came up with its recommendations. And then it has to be spent. And then this other money, we have to set priorities for it. We have to decide how it's spent. So yeah, I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Council Member Sheehan. Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to support the motion for $1 million to go to the interest-bearing account over instead of $3 million. The recommendation for the interest-bearing account came from our Opioid Abatement Commission, which they spent a lot of time going through the potential options and set that as one of their recommendations, and it also has gone through the mayor's office and her administration. So I feel like the $1 million is a compromise point for us, so I'm going to support that. But I am supporting the $1 million because I know we can add to it if we're getting money later. And so should this additional money come in later, we can always add to that. I do not support the full $3 million going because I do feel like we need to be nimble right now, and putting all $3 million into a restricted account means we can't be nimble. When we hear that a federal grant is being cut overnight, we need to be able to respond immediately, which means having flexible dollars. So at this point, I'll support the $1 million, but I will not support the three. I'm also going to respectfully disagree about saying that this is making decisions on the fly. We've had a commission look at this funding and give recommendations. We've had the mayor's administration and the mayor herself make recommendations to us. We've had another presentation on this, and we're having this discussion today. And we've had this packet since last week. So I don't feel like it is something where we're making quick, quick, quick, last-minute decisions. We've had this information to be able to think about and talk about. So I am ready to make decisions today because I do want this money to get out and be moving and be working in the way that it is intended. So I will support the motion for the $1 million, but not the three. Thank you. Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Mayor. To Council Member Morton's point, I feel like, and I agree with you by and large, Council Member Sheehan, I feel like we have made decisions on two of the bigger pieces on this, at least for the moment. The $3 million to grants with the potential of putting more in there, and then the $2.2 to the Homeless Task Force. I am willing to withdraw my amendment motion if Council Member Brown is also willing to withdraw his original motion, and then we can give it a little more time and discuss the remainder of the money at a separate future date. So are you, you are... I'm withdrawing my amendment motion if... Is the seconder withdrawing? Who seconded the amendment? I'm withdrawing my amendment. Are you willing to remove your second? Yes. Withdraw it? Okay. I think that's the question on the floor. Is to withdraw. I'm withdrawing my amendment. You withdrew your amendment and you withdrew your second. So now we have a motion on the floor to allocate $3 million to the interest bearing account, put the interest in the current account plus the .8 into unassigned. That's the motion on the floor. And I'm going to make a motion to withdraw my motion. All right. Who was the seconder? I feel like Council Member Curtis was. Were you the seconder? Are you withdrawing? Okay. That motion is withdrawn and the second is withdrawn and we've accomplished quite a bit today. Are there any other motions? Are there any other motions? Okay. With that, I know I also need to leave because and I thank Commissioner Alan Bryant very much. Our own Sally Hamilton tonight is getting inducted into the Martin School Hall of Fame and so I would like to ask Vice Mayor if he would take over the meeting. Thank you, Council Member Bryant. Normally Mayor, I would. I'm going to. We still have time. We've got time now. Yeah, you do. Two, four, six, eight. We've got nine. We've got eight. Can you chair if he doesn't chair? Yeah, that's what I was going to ask Council Member Ellinger. I also had to go. So if Council Member Ellinger can chair, I think we still have quorum. Thank you, Commissioner Alan Bryant. Oh, my gosh. I'm not doing this again. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten. I'm already late, too. Ten. All right. The next item on the agenda is the presentation from the Lexington and Fayette County Parking Authority. We appreciate your patience here. No, it was great. I learned. It was great to watch. No. This was, yeah, from my perspective, it was helpful and educational, so thank you. Good to go? Are you all ready? Do you all need? Yes, you're ready. Go ahead. I appreciate it. Annually, I come before you. I appreciate the times before to make our presentation, to update you on who we are, what we are, why we are, and then to make you aware of our upcoming budget. On the next page, I just wanted to put in context, and I'm going to go quickly because I want to make sure I'm respectful of your time. Are we okay to go? We're good? Okay. All right. Just to put in context our challenges. Many of you know some of the challenges we face, the dynamics of the community, the business model with which we sit. It's the next page. Oh, it's me, I'm sorry. So we are, like many other businesses downtown, having to change kind of the model that we work within to assure security in our properties on some of the evening and weekend hours, which adjusts our personnel needs and other pricing decisions, which we are doing and that's in our budget. Many of you, I hope you're aware, that our garages, we own three garages and manage the courthouse. You own the courthouse garage. We have a 41-year-old average for the garages, with the Helix being the oldest, going on 60 now, almost 61 years. The average age of a garage is 30 years. So this moves down to the cost to operate. We just spent, we will spend by June $1.3 million of approximately a $15 million project to keep our garages competent, I'll use the word competent, and structurally appropriate. It doesn't add any space, it just keeps them able to be used. We also spend, and it was mentioned about our technology, we can spend up to half a million dollars annually outside of this $15 million project just on technology, broken elevators at the courthouse, issues at the transit. We uncovered, not to bore you, but post-tension cables that are actually cables within the concrete, they are failing, that caught us a little bit off guard, we're having to manage that. We're having failing spandrels at the transit, those are the facades on the front, salt gets into the concrete and starts to reduce the structure, failing elevators, etc. It's very expensive to manage these. So we've spent $1.3 million this year. We also have to modernize our technology. Most people don't recognize how much technology is in parking. Parking isn't really an interesting subject until you get into it, and you might challenge that it's interesting, but we are now at seven years on our meters. We have to look, they're at the end of their useful life. That can be up to a half a million dollar investment to replace the meters in Lexington, the on-street meters. Our flash equipment is at its seventh year. Those are the kiosks when you come into the garages. Those need to be replaced. They are coming up on seven years. Our fire suppression systems, just at the transit alone, is a million dollars. It is beyond, almost beyond its ability to be effective. We're having a lot of trouble with that fire suppression system. Just things like that. Our LPR system is no longer supported by our vendor. It is so outdated that it cannot be supported anymore, so we're having to look at our license plate recognition. We are looking to do that on the cars and looking to do it at the transit center. So there's an enormous amount, as you know, we spent $300,000 on transit to secure it so it's a better experience for our client. We spent $50,000 to integrate with your system, Fuchsias, and we put in about $50,000 this past year just in the lighting alone so it's not as cavernous when you go into the garages. So we also have the same thing you're experiencing, rising operating expenses, health insurance, payroll, our technology platform, snow removal. We spent in the last hours of the, I call it the tundra of 2026, $5,000 just to clear off one section of the transit, just the top section. That was $5,000 alone. So our goal is always to assure a value to our client base. We want to represent the brand of our community. We also have to be responsible, just as your discussion was, on the long-term financial sustainability of our organization. And to align, we're responsible to you. You've asked us to enforce your city ordinances and so we have to be mission-centric to enforce those ordinances. I just want to, again, make sure you're aware of who we are. We consider ourselves to have a public mission and when you compare us to other operators, we provide free parking, I hope you know that, free parking on street, in all garages or gates up on the national holidays that LFUCG acknowledges. We also provide, as you know, free parking in all garages when you declare a snow emergency. No other garage in town does that and that might be something in the conversation on snow emergencies to expand that. We do abate all meter enforcement during snow emergencies. We do have a hospitality program. No other garage does that. We forfeit about $75,000 a year in revenues. For the hospitality workers to have a $25 a month garage parking, I hope you're aware of our Connect4Community. We forgive citations starting in November. You can make a donation to one of five organizations. Those change every year. We've been doing that for 11 years. And with that donation, we match that donation, so if you donate 10, we match 10 to help you eliminate the citation. We administer your residential parking permit program. We have to have an additional FTE to do that. No other organization in town has that program to manage. It's a very expensive program to manage. We do have, we are the only parking organization in your community that has a full staff working, so when your clients, your constituents call and have a question, we can help them. We take on average, you probably don't know this, 1,200 calls to our desk down on Broadway. That's what we take. Then we have an additional call center that takes calls. So when we close at night, the call center picks up, it's $5.40 per call. So if somebody calls, and we're glad to do it, but it's expensive to service, full service. And then we also have online requests all the time and walk-in clients. So we try to give a maximum service engagement for our community and for our tourists, etc. We invest in downtown. As you know, we are involved in the stand behind the fifth, third building. Two years ago, we did soundscapes. We committed money to the soundscapes to work with the I Am Here, I Was Here program. We, as you know, many people, it was a large investment for the Helix to put those lights up. Those have been up for a number of years. And we are working with the Public Arts Center, helping them assume a lease that we have at a discount. So if that funding does go through, that they can secure the land without an enormous cost. No other, I don't think any other organization, parking organization is as involved. As you know, we did support. When I say support, we financially put money in for the downtown circulator, which I think is a tremendous idea. And we tend to be mission driven. So I want you to know that the dollars that we raise go to keep the property up, go to provide adequate security. And we're also trying to work comprehensively with the community to do our part. All right, so what I'd like to talk about is a discussion to adjust our garage rates. It's kind of an interesting mathematical discussion. Our current pricing right now is $1 for 18 minutes. So there are 18 sections to an hour. So we are currently $4 per hour. It goes up every 18 minutes. Most people don't recognize that. It's kind of an interesting pricing scenario. So in 2019, we were $1 for every 30 minutes, so that was $2 per hour. Then we changed that in 2019 to $1 for every 20 minutes, so we became $2 per hour. Then in 2023, when the Commonwealth levied the tax on parking garages, we went to $1 for every 18 minutes, which took it to $4 per hour. So we are currently at $4 per hour on 18-minute increments at $1 each. Does that make sense? Okay, so we are at $4. So we're not technically raising our hourly rate, we're adjusting up to the $4. On the next page, and this I'm going to spend a few minutes on. So these are, and I wanted to be forthright with how I brought to you the market competition because the market is extremely wide on what it prices. These are garages that I put up here. I did not put the library garage up here because I believe that that is a different business model. The library has a dedicated ad valorem tax, $0.05 for every $100. In fiscal 2024, I think their revenue was $20 million. So I see them as they have a dedicated tax, so they have a different business model. I do not receive any tax money. I receive no government funding, no grants, anything. It's all user fees. So that's why that property is not in here. I didn't want to drop out some of the ones that are lower, and I didn't put in the ones that were higher. There's some that are much higher, 339 Short Street is for three hours. So whether you're there a minute or three hours, it's a flat $14.97, which the math works out to within three cents of $5 per hour. But you have to pay whether they're an hour, two, or three, the flat $14.97. 201 West Short, which is right behind, if you go out the back, Courthouse, the old Courthouse, that is also $5 an hour, it's $5 per hour. So there are many more surface lots that are much more expensive than we are. I try to do, you know, in statistics you can drop off the outliers or try to focus on different ways to make numbers. So I try to be respectful and say there are some below us, there are some above us. But when you put the average in of all the downtown parking, of which I'm not the majority, there are seven other garages, I manage four, and there are, 38% of your downtown is on surface lots. And I have, I manage one of them. I own three, I manage one. Those surface lots are owned by mostly out of state, publicly traded companies. And they are very expensive, as I mentioned, for zero to three hours, it's a flat fee of $14.97. So on average, it's a market average, depending on your statistical base, how big you throw it out. It's somewhere between $4.25 to $4.50, depending on if I put the surface lots in, if I were to put in the Hilton, I did not put the Hilton in here, that's $4.00 for the first hour. So the market rate, we are at $4.00 per hour incrementally by 18 minutes. Our maximum is $12.00, the market maximum for these garages is $22.00, so we're well below the maximum. So what we're looking to do is move it to a flat, and this is on the next page, again, I'm not moving the per hour, it's $4.00 per hour. What I'm asking to do is that it's a flat $3.00 for the first 30 minutes, take away the 18 minute increments. It's a flat $3.00 for the first 30 minutes, and $4.00 the same rate afterwards. If somebody parks there for 18 minutes, $1.00, that's a very, very, no one else is charging that rate, the market's not charging that rate, and my cost structure doesn't allow me to charge that rate. I cannot keep the buildings up, I cannot keep the security that is presenting a need for in these garages at that rate. I'm also looking to move the maximum to $19.00, which again, is below market rate. Now on the timeline, this would be September 1st, that we would ask that this, again, the $4.00 is not a change, it's the increments of 18, I'm taking away the 18 minutes, $3.00 first 30 minutes, and then we stay at the $4.00 from there. All of them would go into effect September 1st, 2026, except transit, which I'm suggesting January 1st of 2027, and the reason for that is I have so many signs there, it's going to take me a while to change the signage and that to make them aware, so I just need some extra time. There's nothing magical about that other than the effort to change that one. Alright, so again, it simplifies it for the client. If you go online and look up information, the client wants a simple model that they can understand, so it's $3.00 for the first 30, and then the $4.00 remains, and that aligns with all our competitor first pricing and still provides a market value, we'll still be a value-priced organization. It's simple and it's predictable. I do want to mention a few other things quickly, because I know I'm down on time. I want to make you aware, just because I know you all have questions and constituents, etc. We are, all of our vendors are now requiring that we pay a credit card fee, much like your Fayette County clerk. If you use a credit card, I can stop. Well no, can you finish up in a minute or so? You have, yes. Okay, go ahead and finish up. Yes, because I am so appreciative of you all staying. So we are going to start passing that, so if somebody calls, they want to bag a meter because they're doing a construction project, that goes to the construction company. That doesn't go to any individual. That charge will be $3.00 if they pay by card, and a $2.00 swipe if you're paying by card for a citation. Reimbursement for damages. One of the big issues we're having right now is damage to our equipment. People are driving through our equipment so they don't have to pay. They're literally hitting our kiosk. They're hitting our multi-space meters. They just drive into them and take them out, so we have not charged in the past for that. We are going to start charging up to $1,000 if you create damage. We'll charge you up to the cost to repair it, and if you destroy the entire thing, we are going to start charging for that. Most people claim it to their insurance. Our valet permits, valet parking in this community right now is for four spots, it's $250, and for eight spots, it's $500. So you are giving up eight spots, eight spots on your streets, valuable spots, downtown, Tony's, Apiary, Tony's and Apiary, I'll have to get to my notes, and there's another one, for essentially $250 to $500 a year. You're taking out four to eight spots that people can't use because that's taken for valet from 5 p.m. to 3 a.m. So it takes away, to the gentleman who spoke earlier, valuable parking spots downtown. I'm asking that we look to move that. For those that have four spots, that's $250, it will go to $500, and for those who have eight spots, it's $500, it would go to $1,500. We would grandfather those existing valets over the next two years, we wouldn't take them immediately up, but it's, that valet lane is paid for, not by the, well everything is ultimately paid by the consumer, but it's paid for by the valet company who is making a profit from that valet service, and so that's why I'm doing it. You can read the rest. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Do we have questions from council members? If you would please sign up. Council Member Baxter. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Ms. Boieson, for being with us today and for your patience as we got through all the rest of it. I'm curious what your, I don't know how else to put it, your vacancy rate is, like are all of the garages typically full, or nearly full, or? Okay, so what I'm talking about for the raise is simply for the transient. You come in and you go out, you come in and go out, you're going to run an errand, and that fluctuates. On monthly parkers, we are full, but when I say full, I can't, I cannot load a garage 100% with monthly parkers because then I don't have space for someone who wants to come down and pay for their car registration or something. So we have to pull back and reserve space. So it takes a helix, for example. Some days I have 40 available spots, other days I have 100 because I have to reserve, I don't. But monthly is pretty robust, transient, ebbs and flows, and a lot of that has to do with events. So if we have a big concert, I can't think of a big name, is downtown, or a UK, I'm beyond packed. So it's event driven, transient, etc. And I appreciate that you have focused the increases on the garages and not on any other aspect of your parking program. I do have a little bit of a concern, and I've already been getting emails today from constituents about it, just in general, that it's another increase. You know, the government, we're in our budget process currently, and we've had to really tighten the belt a little bit, and so I'm just curious, if there was any other conversations with you all around tightening versus raising rates. Sure. I think it's a great, because that's the first question. There's two ways to manage this. I think you have to look at the dynamics of the business, and we were remarkably below market and remarkably below the capacity to sustain this business three years ago. So we have had to do almost a consistent three year path to get things up to where they should be to sustain the business. So we've done it systematically, two garages, two garages, now transient. We're not touching on street, because we think that's a different topic. So we have, we cut back where we can. I've changed staffing, however, I've had to shift staffing because of the security issues. I could manage one garage with one person at night, I can no longer do that. The dynamics of the downtown property, especially on a Friday or Saturday early evening, you all are familiar with the recent events, right, downtown, on Broadway at West Short, okay. So we are, by extension, a part of that project. I don't know that, so I've had to increase staffing there. I've had to increase staffing at transit because of the number of people that were in there. We had a population that I had to increase staffing to manage that population. I have to increase staffing to manage cleanliness. The biggest thing I'm managing that I can't cut are our vendors. Remarkable, the increases from our vendors, I'm getting increases across the board on all my vendors. When you go up to an IPS meter, a single where you put money, there's about five different vendors in that machine. Somebody is transmitting the information, I have a merchant of account, I have a gateway, I have a processing company, just to run that machine. It's phenomenal, the amount of technology in this. So a lot of this is... Yeah, I can appreciate, I only have 20 seconds left, so I can appreciate all of those expenses and I know that even our utility costs have gone up too. So I, in general, have concerns about raising rates again, but I don't know what's happening. There's a lot of movement going on right now. So I see lots of lawyers and stuff, so I'll wait and see what everybody else has to say. There has to be a motion that we accept this or not. So at some point, and Council Member Ebeling was going to make that motion, so now somebody else has to make the motion. We have a quorum. We have a quorum as eight, but if we lose one more Council Member, then we'll have to close the meeting. Okay, can I, please, so this, I am not raising the hourly, I am asking that we go to a flat $3, not the 18 minute increment. How many clients does that affect? We know the numbers. It does not affect every client. Not everyone is coming in for 18 minutes. It's not the whole population. This is a small adjustment. If I am not able, and this is my third time, and then we've kind of hit that plateau, then I will have to adjust something that will have an unintended consequence over here. Because then I'll have to pull, I put $50,000 more in my budget for personnel to manage the 350, the Victorian Square property. We had to up our, just like you all, we had to up our snow removal budget because we can no longer, I mean, we have to do it. We have a public responsibility. So this is a smaller population. It is only to transient. It does not affect your monthly. It doesn't affect your hospitality rates. It only affects, and it really doesn't even affect 350 because very few people use that for transient. That's more of an events property. It really doesn't affect courthouse that much. I have, one of the questions I thought you would have, I've met three times with Susan Lamb's office, the clerk's office, because that's her client. That's mainly her parking structure. Three times I've met with her and have not had any issues. So the population that is going to be most affected is Helix. It's for those that are coming in for that quick in and out. And the other thing I'll mention is we give you a grace period. We give you a grace, did you know that? Okay, so if we give you time to get in and get out. So when we say 30 minutes, it's longer than 30 minutes. And if we can't get this, then maybe we'll have to look at adjusting that grace period. Because if you pay at the kiosk on the second floor, and then when you try to go out, somebody is stuck and can't get out, then you're clicking time. So we give you a very generous grace period. So I want you to know we're trying every lever possible to be sustainable, community minded, et cetera. Thank you. We've got some more council members have questions. Okay, all right. I'm trying. Council Member Curtis. Okay. Council Member Morton. Thank you. I just had a question, I guess, for law. And it's just, I guess, more for public transparency purposes, basically. Like what are our duties, what's the council's duties, tied to increase of rates, that's at the council discretion, how does that work? So state law requires you to approve their budget every year, and I think that was one of the attachments in the packet, was their budget. And also to approve any proposed fee or rate increases before they can take an effect. And you have, now that it's been presented, you have 30 days to approve it. You can either approve it in total, you can set a lower rate, or you could just not approve the, you could deny the rate increases. And so typically what you've done historically, with I think one exception, whatever rate increases are built into their budget. So if you actually vote to adopt their budget, then you've adopted the rates. So you are legally allowed to have a separate hearing or whatever you want on the rates as well, if you want to do that. But in the past, I don't think you've ever bothered to do that extra step. So but I think she's saying they've counted on this in their budget, so if it doesn't go forward in its current form, they'll have to rethink their budget, so. Indeed. But, and I guess, but that ultimate discretion comes from approval from this council, the increase. Yes. Okay. Yes. Thank you. Law, if there's no motion that's been made in this meeting, then what will be the, because I have a motion here, and I haven't had anybody who wanted to. Well, if the question right now is what to do about it, you have 30 days to approve, so theoretically you could walk it on next work session to the council meeting on the 30th, and you'll be able to get it done within that 30 days. Council Member Baxter. Well, that was kind of my question, was if we've got 30 days. I mean, I think it's, this is a worthwhile conversation for more of us to have, so I didn't know if we could potentially just move it to Tuesday. If you all did, so if you all hypothetically put this on the docket, you can postpone the second, you know, you have other measures to delay it out if you want more public comment on it, if that's your point. I think we were just looking for a mechanism to get this adopted in advance of July 1st, so that they kind of know what they're working with on their budget. We can. I don't mean to. Come to the microphone if you would, please. Just come to the microphone so we can hear you. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, okay. If you all want to pause, I'm fine with that. Our budget year is June 30th, because if we don't get this, then we're going to have to change something in terms of the safety of these structures, et cetera, because I'm, you can look at our budget, we're bleeding down cash to keep these going, so I want to, this is not, I want you all to be very comfortable, because there's always, if it's, I just want, yeah. This motion, if we don't bring up the motion today, you're saying we can bring it up next Tuesday? I can, do you want me to come back? Well, since there's only eight of us, I think it probably would be, and I don't see, I don't see. Yeah, I'm more than happy to come back. Council Member Curtis? Is that required? No, I don't think so. So we're, okay, so I'll be back Tuesday. Paul, do you have any? If you want, you can move to postpone this item until, I guess, what is, the 28th-ish? Is that right? April 28th. Yeah, I move to postpone and place this item on the docket for the work session on Tuesday, April 28th. So moved. Second. We have a second by Council Member Lynch. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed? That passes. So we'll put that on for the 28th. The next item on the agenda is Council Reports and Council Member Beasley. Okay. Anybody know? Okay. The next item is Public Comment Issues. Not on the agenda. I don't see any. The next one will be a motion to adjourn. Second. Motion, second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those no? That passes. We are adjourned.