Let us call this meeting to order. I'm the Special Fiscal Committee of Wilmington Common Council for Wednesday, April 30th, 2025. Committee members, if you could just say your name. We'll go around the table. Dave. Roll. I'm Isabelle Piedmont-Smith. Hope Estasberg. Esac Vasari. All right. Thank you. Then we have staff here. Lisa. Lisa Layner, council attorney. Jessica. Jessica McClellan, city controller. Thank you. Sophia. Sophia McDowell. Sure. [inaudible] Of course. Nicole Wolney. Thank you. Two from the clerk's office. We are well-served by our city clerk. Are there any issues with the agenda? Does this look good to committee members? Okay. So let's go to a report from council member Asari about what the budget task force has been working on. Oh, it's back on there. So we didn't meet this last week because everybody was away. So the main thing that we're still working on, I think maybe I'll just pick up where I had left off last time, that the main thing we're working on and very close to finishing on is guidance to departments around the general process with some recommendations for how we suggest that the budget packet be shaped. And hopefully we'll have that by the end of this week so that we can start circulating. That's maybe you don't report anything new then. And then you have a meeting with a cool person. So yeah, so that's it. Did you want to talk a little bit about-- I don't know if it's a good time at this point, but some of the initial explorations around new tech? Would you like me to talk about that now? I think we can get into it when we talk more about this meeting. I have a lot of information to share. OK, we'll wait then. Thank you. OK, so as you saw last week, Council President Stossberg sent a survey around to council members after our first discussion about budget priorities on April 9. And if you can show that-- Yep, I'm working on actually bringing the right thing, like opening the right document. And-- So she and I worked on compiling the survey information to inform our discussion tonight. And then if I could be-- and I already covered this. I said, I'm working on sharing my screen. I'm hoping that I share the right thing. OK. So this is kind of a preview of tonight. And if committee members have input as to how we might-- So-- Discussion tonight, that's welcome. Just to realize that I have to make sure that I'm not on the Zoom screen right now, which I have. OK. So let me zoom in. And maybe I should actually back up for the sake of the public and say that based on the discussion that we had in April-- oh, that was just two weeks ago at our April deliberation meeting, council members shared several ideas at that meeting and then also shared afterwards via email specific budget priorities and specific ideas for things that they wanted to fund. And so then what I did was I put every single one of those things on a slideshow, which then got distributed and then put that into a Google form questionnaire essentially and asked council members to rate these ideas on a 1 to 5 star rating. And then these are the results. So I just want to give the instructions that council members received in terms of this. So please do not rate items in comparison to each other. Instead, rate the items according to how much you value the project or concept listed specifically for budget year 2026. For example, if you think something is very important and is an urgent need, consider rating it 5 stars. If you think something is important, but it doesn't need to be prioritized in 2026, consider rating it lower. If you think it should never be prioritized, then only give it 1 star. And I did tell council members that this was not going to be anonymous and that these results were going to be fully discussed. So that's what you see here on this sheet are those 5 stars. So for example, Isabel-- and zoom in on this a little bit more. So Isabel rated a bond to fund the Southwest Fire Station a 1, never a priority. Maybe I didn't follow the instructions correctly. Oh, maybe we didn't follow the instructions correctly. I also did not even notice those instructions for whatever it's worth. Eventually, I think we probably do need to do it, but I don't see that any time soon. OK. This is the problem with instruction. What is this, people that don't read instructions? I remember when I was trained to be a teacher, they said that if you get the wrong response, it's actually the teacher's fault, not the student's fault. So you know-- I think that it is an expectation that you can't read the instructions. I'm the same, I'm the same. You know, I have a master's in Beijing as well. I know, I'm just saying. Anyway, so either way, these are the actual survey results on a one through five, and then the average at the bottom. Could we, tonight, ask people if they understood the instructions? Because I'm hearing that Isabel did. So do you have others? And therefore, we'll have to read about it. Either way, I think the thing is that five was best. One is the least probably. I think as long as nobody got that backward. Right, exactly. As long as nobody got that backward. But I don't think you want to prioritize this underlying that you said this should never be funded. Well, I said four isn't quite right. Yeah, the idea that most of us think that we should never fund additional incentives to recruit or attain police officers, I don't think is something you'd like to say. Nor do I think that that's what was said. Well, we should make assumptions. Maybe the intent isn't-- Precisely, but we should be clear about-- People could state it tonight. Exactly. I wanted to-- that's why I specifically read the instructions that I had put on the sheet, though. I'm sorry that not everybody read instructions. We'll move on from that. I'll move on from that. That's all I can do. That's all I can do. Anyway, so the first section-- and this is something that is we're working on, making sure that this is formatted in such a way that it meets all of the guidelines for accessibility in terms of being released in a packed agenda. So that is something that is being worked on today. So I have all of this. And I think the other piece of information that is interesting, potentially, is that there is another sheet Isabel and I compiled that just takes the over fours and just takes the over threes and categorizes them. [INTERPOSING VOICES] No, it's over threes. And then we wrote a letter that includes all of the 3.5s and above. Basically, we just drew a line somewhere in the sand and said, we're going to put these in, and then we'll see what happens in terms of discussion later. Because if people didn't read the instructions and they really wanted things to be a slightly different priority, because this is not supposed to be a result, this is supposed to be a guide in producing a result. So we can-- let me see if I can stop this screen shot. Well, OK, do we want to look at any of these individually further down? Does anyone have a specific one they want to look at? Write this second. I think it's very reasonable to say the threes are what's in there across the board, and that's what goes in the left, things like that. And then-- hold on, let me see if I can get back to Zoom. All right, I'm going to stop the screen share. And then I'm going to find the screen share of the-- there it is. I have a great number of tabs open. There we go. So this is the thing. These are the things that got over four and over five. So incorporating government transparency throughout all operations, maintaining our government infrastructure, increasing food security, which Isabella and I discussed was really vague. So in the overall letter, that has a little asterisk next to it. Are there specific initiatives that can get attached to this in terms of budgeting? Investing in a non-polluting community response team, successful hand support programs, partnering with the county on strategic use of opioid settlement funds, expanding the centerstone partnership. I'll keep that a little bit. But there we go. Incorporating equity as a value through all operations. Also got a four. And then the threes, continue and expand direct grants and assistance that support residents. Specifically $200,000 for co-location of mental health services, $200,000 council office investment, $6 to $10 million on priorities and safe streets for all, funding a land bank, doubling Jack Hopkins, housing summit, $8 million for sidewalks. And I want to point that one out too, because we have a pretty relatively high priority on that, $8 million for sidewalks, multi-use paths, et cetera. And then also $6 to $10 million on priorities and safe streets for all. And those have tremendous overlap in them. And so tonight, that's going to be one of those things too, that we can talk about how we can. So what was the line between medium and high cost? When does something go from a high cost? Isabella, do you want to talk about that? It was really a big ballpark. So it's just like, I was eyeballing it and saying, OK, we want to expand direct grants, assist and support residents. We currently do that maybe with $50,000. So maybe $100,000, that's going to be-- that's medium. And my $100,000 report is medium in my view. Low is like government transparency. Well, I don't know, we might get a consultant for $50,000, but it's not going to cost us that much. A high is like a million long term, all time year. I think it's super useful to have that cost sort of estimate of what we think. But some of them, I think maybe we want to tease out a little bit because we have a mid at $200,000 and then a high at $6 to $10 million, which feels like there's a category in between the $10,000 and the $6 to $10 million, right? Yeah, it was just a starting point. Yeah, but I think a super useful is saying this is high priority. Seeing things that are high priority, low cost is easy wins. It's essential that we've identified it. And then the others are here are the things, high priority, high cost things are the things that need to form the base. We need to spend a lot of time talking about those things so that we don't spend all of our time talking about high priority, low cost things, like incorporating transparency. We don't need to spend three hours in our negotiations with the mayor about it in the same way that we might really want to make sure that we get close to our $6 to $10 million on Safe Streets for All as an example. Now, with the transparency, if we're going to look at the graph, the very rough draft memo to the mayor, I don't think there are any specific points under that. Right. What do we mean? Right. Why is that? Right. What does it really need to be for the government to be transparent? And the other thing about the costs that I want to say is, I mean, Isabel estimated those. That was Isabel's contribution to the chart. Actually, Isabel made this whole thing based on what Isabel knows, which is a lot of things. Yeah. But maybe incorporating government transparency throughout all operations would cost more than Isabel thinks that it would cost. Right. And so that is part of-- it's a guess. Well, some of these-- Some of these-- It's a guess. I don't know how much is already being spent. Yeah. Like when we say double the road repaying budget, I don't know what it is now. I know it's going to-- I mean, I know that's going to be high. And is that the same as maintain-- that's part of government infrastructure. So again, there's overlap. Right. And there's space to tease it out. And so just for the sake of the public, I knew going into this that there was overlap between these. And unless two people, two council members said the exact same thing, I left the overlap. I just-- I was not going to try to synthesize two people's thoughts together. I was just going to have two separate similar items. So I think that we left off at the $8 million per sidewalk. So additional council staff, which got a little bit lower than that specific-- sorry, that was a specific thing as opposed to the more broad $200,000 for council office investment, which could be used for additional staff or could be used in other ways in the office. So that's sort of an interesting difference as well. Investments related to transportation safety and efficiency, that also overlaps some with that safe streets for all. Incentives for small developers, small multi-unit buildings, burning process changes. And see, that's where-- so in the letter, we didn't put anything on that was underneath this 3.5. But, Isaac, you're right, if there's some low-cost things that are close to the border-- I mean, like, limiting Airbnb is like, Dave, that was your idea, and in a big way, that's like a legislative thing. We've got to figure out enforcement of it afterwards, but it starts with legislative action. And so that's fine. It's a team approach, because we have no enforcement power. So the mayor would have to take that on and have to have an agreement with the department of the board. But if we can get legislation as a guide of what this is, this is what we want in terms of how to do it, I mean, I think that that's probably the beginning of that lift as opposed to the end. I think you all can read. I don't know if you want me to read all of these for you. Well, and I think just with the Airbnbs, we definitely need buy-in from the administration. I mean, remember the scooters. We have very clear guidelines for years enforced. So anyway, sorry. So I have a question that goes back to what Isabel said before your discussion a moment ago. Tris, Isabel misunderstood the ranking. And Isabel, you said, it's not that I don't want this to ever happen. I want to-- it's just the temporal nature. How soon do I want it? How soon is soon? And I mean, what kind of outlook are we looking at? Is this just for this year, or is it-- My instruction said the five should be the things that you really want to prioritize as soon as possible, which is funding in fiscal year 2026. I mean, that's what the instruction said. But I mean-- So soon is this year. So your outlook was this year, or this. OK, just one more time. How do we feel-- and this is not a rhetorical question, just genuinely about the way that we're then-- so we're prioritizing the collective list, assuming that most people were looking at them not in relation to each other. So assuming most people didn't read the instructions, and they're not bad students like me, right? If everybody ranked those things independent of the other things, and then we're now ranking them in relationship to each other, we didn't first rank them that way. Do you see what I mean? So how do we-- because there's a different question, which is-- there's sort of like an assumption that it's-- assuming we could do all of the things, how do you rank this if we didn't rank them relative to each other? Do you see what I'm trying to think through here? Well, I think that that is what the conversation and the discussion processes are for, is to rank them in compared to each other. So that's why I felt like this was useful to go like, OK, if-- because I mean, in our minds and what we want to be able to do, we're not constrained in the same way that in practical terms, we're constrained by how much money we have, we're constrained by how much staff we have, we're constrained by how plausible it is to enforce things. Even if we had staff, we're constrained by Indiana state law. We have all these constraints that have to play into it in real life. But if given-- yeah. But also thinking about the-- so one thing we haven't done here, I don't know if we need to, but is then thinking about how these-- where each of these fits. And there's overlap, like we already talked about, but where each of these fit within the broader, what do we call them, goal areas, priority areas. And so in how we've ranked-- in our first conversation, we ranked those goal areas, roughly. Though I don't know if we arrived at an answer, but we at least started to have that conversation. Because what I'm trying to say is there may be-- how do you deal with multiple similarly ranked things, like here, so we say, continue to expand direct grants and assistance to support residents. And then maybe those are actually quite similar. So maybe actually, I mean, now thinking about this out loud, maybe the process has yielded quite similar things. Because things like Double Jack Hopkins, all those are ranked quite similarly, and they are all very similar proposals, right? It would fall under the same-- but it's interesting to me, and I'll stop after saying this, maybe this informs our conversation for this evening. I think that $8 million for sidewalks is one. The number $8 million might have affected the score of our priority. Whereas some of these are general. If it had said fund sidewalks, I wonder if we would have ranked it higher, question one. But then do we, even though it's ranked lower in score as continue to expand direct grant and assistance to support residents, is funding sidewalks more important to us as a council than direct grants and assistance to support residents, as one example? Just one random example. Well, I'll tell you, my personal answer to number one is that, yeah, sometimes with certain dollar amounts, I rated them differently, because I was responding to the dollar amount. Because I was kind of looking at that and going, oh, where's a good one? A good one is not on this list, maybe. Or even maybe the UDO one, the $200,000 to $400,000 overhaul the UDO. It's like, I don't know, within 2026, I want to prioritize that money. Instead, I want to do the take steps now toward form-based code than before an eventual UDO overhaul. So it is kind of interesting, actually, that those two things averaged out identical to each other. Because for me, I was going, OK, I don't want to put that dollar number on something. But yes, I do want this overhaul to happen. And we need to take steps toward that right now. Right. Yeah. These are all good questions. I don't know if there's-- I don't know that all council members would agree on the [INAUDIBLE] especially how we filled this out. Right, right, right. We do need to keep that in mind for the discussion tonight so we all understand exactly, OK, what our memo to the mayor, if that's what we want to do, what is it saying, like, in what context, and is it relative to each other, the priorities? Or can we even put in the memo, put some above and say the ones that appear first or have the most support? But it's very difficult, the specificity versus the very broad things like improved food security. Like, how much is that? What is it? What is that? So we had quite a range in the proposals of specificity. So I stopped that share so then I could share the letter next. OK. And while she's doing that, I will say-- and I pointed this out in brackets in different points of the letter. Some of these are the same as last year. They have the same things last year. So that's interesting to note. Yeah, so we used the basic format of the same letters last year in terms of having a little bit of language in here that just talks about the budgeting process, mentions SD1 as this kind of piece of uncertainty because it's going to change our revenue outlook, potentially substantially. And so we're going to have to figure out a way to respond to that. And yeah, and so then it's very helpfully blue and red depending on the average rating. So blue is 4 and above, and then red is the 3 and 1/2 to 4. And then it's sort of by outcome area objective investments. And so the government transparency, very broad objective, what are the specific investments? And so that's where, as part of the conversation tonight, what are specific investments that we want to put under there? And so for example, it's like I own a better website under there. I think that if Eric is somewhere online, which he is, he would say something about the open finance portal. But making sure that that is optimized for user interactions and accuracy as part of that investment. And I think that investments can be time and investments can be money. Meantime is money in some ways. But what do we want investments to be? And these are in no particular order, Isabel. Is that correct? Correct. And the notes on the side, I put those in line in the packet that you all are getting via email because I was trying to make it more accessible. I delved into PDF accessibility last night, and it was a nightmare. It helps us all appreciate our staff more. Hi. Welcome to my-- I have a question. Yeah. So we're proceeding on our agenda, and I should have mentioned earlier. Jessica, are you going to come tonight? I am open to that. I just realized during this meeting that it might be useful for me to be there. Well, the reason I-- I just realized now I might be there. So you're on the floor on today's agenda now. But I'm sure you have a lot to say about the latest state, the implications of that state. And I'm thinking that's probably going to have some sort of impact on our discussion tonight. In other words, the budget that we assumed was happening may not be happening. And we have some tough decisions to make about whether we're going to-- I mean, I assume we're probably going to have to raise the ED lid. But do we raise it a little bit and then cut the budget concurrently? Because I would like a discussion about that. Is there something we can cut? We could raise the ED lid corresponding to the gap. Or we could raise the ED lid to fill the gap plus more. So this is, of course, a lot of it is great stuff. But it assumes a budget that we formerly were anticipating that we no longer have. So does that make sense that we would-- because I'm going on the assumption that everybody's agreeing that the income tax as it's structured is without tiers, without brackets, and it's regressive. And I don't want to-- I'm going to be very hesitant about raising taxes at all. So anyway, what do you think about it? About coming tonight? Well, about coming and discussing the implications of the state budget cuts and maybe just tentatively wages in which we could proceed. I'm prepared to talk to you all about it now a little bit. And that might be a good kind of just like a good practice session before we present it to everyone tonight. We could kind of go over some-- go over what I have. And I could hear what your questions are. And then I'd be better prepared to present to the whole room tonight. And I'd be happy to-- absolutely happy to do that. I've also-- I could also be available tonight to just try to like quickly answer general financial questions. Like how much did we spend on streets and sidewalks and alleys in total in the budget? And how much do we spend? And just in general terms on these various things in the budget, so you have an idea when you want something. If I have any sense of like, are we already doing that? Are we budgeting for that? How much do we normally spend on that? I'd be happy to be there to help. Well, and here's the question. So that wasn't really built into this agenda. But it is built in on May 14 when we have a joint session between council and administration about budget. Was the SB1-- sorry, was SB1 built in tonight? No. Discussion on that? OK. No. OK. Because this was done before. I mean, this was all planned in terms of the structure before SB1 passed, before we knew what SB1 was going to look like in the end because it had so many changes on it. So I think that's a good question. I wonder if-- because if tonight the goal is to figure out councils, like our consensus, essentially, what we agree as priorities, what we want to-- I mean, I think ultimately our original goal of this was to try to prioritize our priorities, right? Which might mean changing the order of this letter, for example, and putting the highest priority things first and then dribbling down, right? Or something like that. And I think that-- I don't know. In my opinion, I think it's still worth to do it kind of the same way that we had been doing it. And then in May, when we're trying to, I'll say, find consensus in the administration in terms of reality. Because I mean, I still think that this list of ours is still more high level, high in the sky. This is what we dream of, as opposed to what are the realities on the ground? What are the practical ends of what we can really accomplish in terms of how much money we have and practical things about enforcement and all of that kind of stuff? But I don't know. Here's a thought, maybe, about how to approach this. And I'm building off of something that Gretchen said at our last fiscal task force meeting, which is that we could think of this document as helping us in the first stages of negotiation. So rather than it being here are the things we want in the budget. It's more of us saying, here are certain things that we can sort of-- if you agree with Mayor and team, it's a lot easier. We don't need to spend a lot of time talking about it. If you already agree that you like these categories and you already agree that you want funding for sidewalks, there is general consensus amongst us that we want those things. And then so it's sort of this is more-- maybe this first letter is more in the terms of sort of setting. It's like the first letter of a negotiation. It's just saying, here's the sort of boundaries in which we're hoping to discuss. And because you asked a good question, I think, on the survey, which is like, OK, there weren't any proposals around economic development. What does this mean? And it's like, well, maybe it means that we didn't have enough time. Maybe it means that lots of things, we just-- We're not experts in all the things. Yeah, that, right? And so it's like-- so it's not-- I think what I wouldn't want this letter to be is, as it was last year, in our method, it led to this. And I think that was OK, because we had the right method to lead to this output, which is, here are all the things that council members would like to see, or 20 demands, if you will, or 20 requests or something like that, and so meet them. This is more, we're trying to work together and be collaborative on coming up with what outcomes are and the proper ways of achieving those type of outcomes. And here's some of our initial thinking on that. Can I offer, as an observer, going back to council member Rallo's point, it seems like having some presentation from Jessica tonight about some of these broader issues on the landscape would be helpful to council members and sifting through some of those issues. And then it might give more time for that information to percolate down a separation for the joint meeting. But what I'm also saying, perhaps, is that maybe we just need to put a little bit of uncertainty, if you will, openness to negotiation in the framing, which is to say, and I think you've already done this at the beginning. We get there, these are times. But I think then framing the purpose of this is to start our discussions rather than, this is the last email you will receive from us of these type 20-- you know what I'm saying? Yeah, and we recognize that there may be multiple ways to meet an objective. We encourage collaborative deliberation. Recognize that several recommendations will take more than one year to implement. We look forward to our discussion on May 14th. Right. I think this is then, in which case, I think framed super well. And again, to today's point, as these things are evolving better, I think then us having this ranking already, we're a half step towards us putting them in some type of order. But this wasn't something that all of us were really, really wanted. And the things that need to be perhaps removed from it are-- give some indication there. I guess I would tend to agree with Lisa that even though we didn't put it on the agenda, I mean, it's an elephant in the room that's going to show up invited or not, that's being won. And I don't want this meeting to feel like we're so out of touch that we're talking about grandiose projects without recognizing the realities of our shrinking finances. But I mean, it's up to you then. And the more times you hear about it, the more it'll sink in. Because it is a huge bill. And there are many complicated things in it. So it's not-- I don't want you to just hear it one time and then have to remember it until 2030, when all the things actually get implemented. Yeah. So it's very confusing. So I talked to Gretchen already about the representative from Reedy, who was at the panel last week, coming on May 14. And-- We've been communicating. We've been communicating. OK, great. And then maybe there's one other-- Gretchen recommended a whole 'nother meeting, too, just about SB1 stuff, as well, somewhere, which would have to probably happen at a-- not Wednesday night, not at a time that is not currently known. Just a quick question. So-- Actually, hold on. The first item is presentation of compiled information and summary of special fiscal committee discussion, which means that that actually could be built in with Jessica, a component of SB1, because we literally just talked about it right now. And we're having a presentation next. So that doesn't actually change the agenda. It just might change the timing of how long the meeting lasts. But I also think that the last thing was to final comment/vote on priorities list. I've not felt like this would be ready for a vote for a week. I just don't think that it's reasonable to think that tonight we're going to consensus around a letter that we want to vote on. I think that maybe we can consensus around ideas that will need to be modified into a final version of a letter to be presented at next week, probably, as part of a council member comment. And you would like unanimity on that, I suppose. I mean, there might be council members say, I don't agree with my priorities. Amazingly, last year we were able to do it. Yeah, I'm not saying we shouldn't. I'm definitely wanting to-- You think that we should try for unanimity? And I think that this is like a whole council conversation to go, how much do we care about unanimity versus-- I mean, I think sometimes to get unanimity, you have to water things down so much that then they're not helpful anymore. So depending on-- so it's like, OK, in order to get unanimity, are we going to have to water things down enough for everybody to agree? Or are we going to say, oh, we'll be OK with five or six votes in a document that's super robust? And as a body, what do we want to do? I don't-- And do you think that's where the space of us discussing, what is the purpose of this document? That came into play last year during budget, where it was like, OK, we all voted for this, but then clearly, a lot of us were like, well, I mean, yeah, there are things on there that were make or break for me. I was happy for them to be included. I didn't want them to not be included, but that not being included in the budget didn't change. So whereas others said, no, the things that were in this thing was what we all expected, so maybe some conversation on what it is that we're adopting or sending, I think, is important, too. Yeah, yeah. But I'm certainly happy. I think personally, and I would advocate for an approach that sort of starts on, whatever is included, does anybody have an objection to the thing being included? And if there's an objection, let that be noted, right? But it's sort of like-- That's a good approach. Thank you. I was just going to ask Jessica, what's the hit? What are we going to-- and when does it happen for the city? So 37 million-- I don't know anything about this, Bill, I'm red. So 37 million over three years, what does that mean? Should that wait until we get through this, and then just-- Oh, yeah. You're going to address that. OK, yeah. All right, thank you. I mean, this is like the last stage here. OK, yeah, definitely. So high-performing government, maintain government infrastructure, which doesn't have any specific investments under it, and maybe as council members, we have some ideas about that. But maybe we don't, in terms of, say, how much money it costs to maintain different pieces, because that's a very practical on-the-ground thing that the department has now, but we don't necessarily know in terms of dollar amounts. And then improve functionality and work capacity of city council. And then those two specific things was the $200,000 in council office operations, and higher additional council staff. And those were the things that got over the 3.5. But then I think that there was another one that was just under 3.5. Got more money for consultants, I think. Something like that. But that could all maybe be rolled into the $200,000, and it's $200,000 the best number. I can't remember who said the $200,000 originally. It might have been Flaherty. Yes, it was. And I also don't know how that coincides with the budget that you presented. The department budget that I presented to the fiscal committee was less than that. Yeah, and so-- It didn't utilize consultants and some strategic contractual components, potentially. Right, and so is that the number-- does that number need to be adjusted? That's the kind of conversation I want to have later. Neighborhood livability and social health, increased food security for our residents. Isabel carried that investment over directly from last year about incentives to develop grocery stores and food deserts, and then aiding the low-income residents by doubling Jack Hopkins, expanding, and continuing direct grants. So I think mostly-- Isabel, I think mostly you did this work. Thank you to kind of take some of those specific investments and backtrack them into common objectives. And that's very helpful. Public safety, investing in a non-police community response team, and then a slight rephrase from last year's objective about a similar thing, housing and homelessness, maintaining safe housing by continuing hand support programs, and then the housing summit, the bonding or otherwise funding a land bank and trust. And this is, of course, another interesting-- this is maybe the first example of something that I'm going, how much is the city already helping the summit land trust? Are they helping the summit land trust? How is that relationship working right now? Is that a new investment, or do we just need to be more explicitly shown how we're currently investing in that space? And is it making a difference? Do we need to-- So this stuff tells with what I was reporting on the last time that we met, is that we primarily have talked about what most people think about as investments or enhancements. What we haven't touched on is continuing and stopping this stuff, which would be the other two categories of things. And so to that point-- and that might be useful in framing to say that most of this is about enhancements, if you will, and investments we'd like to see happen. And this shouldn't be taken to mean that there's lots of good that happens that we're in support of, but that's been outside of our conversation so far. Yeah, I mean, that's how I saw the government transparency thing. I think the administration is working on that, and I just write them to keep working on it. Well, and I think that we're in-- I mean, legal compliance is usually the lowest bar to jump, but I do think that that is a piece of transparency. We're noticing things. Doors are open. It's public. We're not doing things behind closed doors. Which is even more important with a restricted budget. Yes. And that also gets to the framing you've given here, which is as we're having these conversations, I think that one of the ways you might see the transparency is that maybe what we are saying is that we want to do more on the transparency front. Maybe that's what we're saying. And then if so, well, maybe we come up with ideas of how we could accelerate this work on transparency. And so it still is useful to say, look, there's a lot of support around transparency. So if that's the priority, let's push for it. But to your point about the summit, that to me also sounds more of a sort of continue in so far as. Yeah, I mean, I don't know how much we're supporting the current land drafts now at all. I mean, I think that they're doing really good work. They disappoint with what they've got. We gave them a chunk of our funds to get started with themselves. Health and Human Services, a couple of things about collaboration, both with Centerstone and the county, and then supporting mental health services for co-location. And that's another one of those. I have a lot of questions about how much that is currently being worked on in other spaces. I mean, I know that Beacon is working on some co-location in their new building when that gets up and running. And I think that there are some other pieces of that. Could we do more of that? Well, hopefully, Courtney will be there tonight because that was her. She wasn't there at our first discussion. Right. And then equity also scored highly to incorporate it as a value without specific investments. There was a specific $200,000 to $400,000. I can't remember how it was framed right now, but that scored below the three, I think. So how do we do that? Are we doing that correctly? Do we need to just continue doing it? Do we need to enhance what we're doing, et cetera, et cetera? And then transportation and mobility was all-- all of this was between the three and 3 and 1/2. Improve current safety. I'm sorry to go back to that. I wonder if, as we phrased it, if it isn't actually more of a transparency question than it is an equity question per se. Because the ways that we've talked about equity a lot is more about having some way of measuring how we're doing equity. So in all of our decision making, you think about equity and then we can score ourselves on equity and those type of things that would have downstream effects, we would hope, of us actually then putting investments into equity. But that's a good thought there. I don't agree with that. Well, I think that some department has incorporated more just because they understand it or they've had more training. And maybe what they do is more obviously related to equity, like CFMD, but I think others really see it as a separate thing. And if that would be separate, it should not be seen. So I think there's more than transparency there. Exactly, and actually, as you say that too, again, thinking through how useful this is as a document was sent to the office of the mayor, that's a great point of worth saying, look, this is something we want to see. We'd like to talk about how we made that happen. Why-- where are we-- I think it's the Otter there. Wait, what is that? Where is the OK button? It's on the [INAUDIBLE] screen for the other module. It's OK. If someone hit the OK on their Otter, it's [INAUDIBLE] Is it-- it's not this physical device? No, I moved the mouse. It's not on mine, either. Well, we'll work around it. Is Eric in the meeting? Yes. And there's another person with an Otter. I could remove that. Eric, would you be able to click OK? We're showing a pop-up screen that seems to be related to your Otter. There's also the possibility that he's not in the meeting, that his Otter joined. No, I'm in the meeting. What are you saying? It's auto. Oh, no, it was us. Yeah. Oh, my god. Did we just lose Zoom? No, because it's-- No, you're still there. And my-- so what are you seeing on the screen? I don't mind, Eric. It wasn't you. It was our technical difficulties in the meeting. OK, thank you. Thank you for all your work. He can't see the screen anymore. Just as an FYI to everybody out there online, we can no longer see the big TV. But you can still see us. I heard it. It made a noise. I'm still-- I'm at-- yeah, it's still going. I'm still in the meeting. OK. Yeah, I understand, too. Oh, there we go. Wonderful. I think we do need to move on. I think that transportation mobility is the last one on the letter. So any other-- So we will talk about this tonight. Are there any-- Dave and Asok, do you have any major concerns or advice for tackling this tonight? No concerns. Advice, as I already shared. No, I'm curious to hear what people say. I think I'm of the mind that the council really has the most effect in how the budget is structured in our requests. If we try to remain a unanimous vote, it's a stronger impact, if we're all willing. And frankly, given that this is-- soon means a year. Maybe we don't get to the Ferris station for another year, or what have you. I think all these priorities were good ones. And they're due. I would be appreciative, though, to hear Jessica's breakdown on things at the beginning, just to keep us sober when we're talking about these things. Jessica, I don't know if you're going to talk about this tonight or today, but I'm curious about the ED lid and where it's been going frequently this year. Because we had an objective of putting it in different buckets when we initiated that. And so that's part of the discussions. Maybe not tonight, but sometime? It was trapped in the budget proposal. Yeah, we have tried to keep it in the budgets and then buckets that you all-- So quality of life, public safety, essential services, and flying it. OK, and then the other thing is that some of this is discretionary. So when we're talking about maybe cutting funds or shifting funds in order to make budget cuts, be good to know what you consider, what my colleagues consider to be discretionary or to be essential. Yeah, and that's another thing that everybody will have a different opinion about that. I do want to share that information with you so that you have it. It's so hard to share so much information at one time. But I've got some things to show you today so that you can start to see some general numbers and some ways to slice information. It isn't pretty. It's Excel 2013, so there's not a lot you can do. Well, I'm also keeping in mind that we're probably going to be hit by federal budget cuts too. And I'm really concerned about BT, Bloomington Tram. So I don't mean to get there. But just to say that I'm getting very antsy about how we're going to be able to fund things in the next few years. Transit will be very affected by federal cuts. And then most of all of our other federal money goes to the hand department for the CDBG. Let's move-- try to get through our agenda. So let's open it up to public comment on what we've just talked about, the gauging council budget priorities and the structuring our discussion with the mayor's administration. Are there any people in the public who want to comment on that at this point? Yes, Mr. M.G. You want to come to the table so you get captured on the-- Sure. Just a couple-- Christopher M.G. from the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce, thank the committee on this. Just one thing to note, I like the cost on the chart with the input from the council members. But put a little X on if it's ongoing or not one time. I think the one thing I've learned from the SB 1 is that down the line, the cuts get more severe. So looking at the budget to limiting your ongoing expenses and your ongoing commitments I think is going to be a big, big deal. And I just want to reiterate Council Member Rallo's statement about the ED-LIT and budget cuts. And we sort of have to have a separate meeting sometime on sort of looking at some hard facts on where we sort of go on that and a strategy moving forward. I know the chamber is looking into where we might kind of come across on that. But I just want to thank you for your time. And I'll see all of you tonight. Thanks for sharing. Thank you. Anybody online care to give a public comment at this time? Don't see any hands raised. So let's turn it over to Comptroller McClellan for some reports, maybe some context on SB1. We only have about half an hour left. So I know you have more data than that. But whatever we can get to you. I think talking about SB1 will be the best use of our time. But before I start, I want to let you know that I have an Excel list of all of our fund numbers, and the revenue source, and the authorizing code, and the fund number, and what it can be used for, and the departments that are in it. It was first created by an intern. And then I've checked it. So it says draft on it. So don't take it as gospel yet. I still haven't checked it off. I haven't double checked all the code citations, for one thing. But it's pretty good. It's a pretty good start. I'll just send that to you. And I also have a debt special, again. It was in the 2024 budget packet. But I've updated it to include the 2024 GO bonds and the Convention Center bonds. So I can just send that to you. And on bonds, a lot of them are paid by property taxes. So that's a separate tax rate. And so that's taken care of. We'll always get a tax rate to cover those. And a lot of them are paid by TIF. So those are always paid out of TIF. Those will be fine. There's the 2022 ED lit bond, the public safety bond. That's one that's in the budget that we have to budget for. And then the Convention Center bonds are kind of their own thing, too. So just bear that in mind when you look at what the debt that is due each year is. I think it's close to $20 million. But that is sort of taken care of by other mechanisms. So it's not affected by SB1 changes? And it won't be affected by SB1 changes. Is that just civil city, or is that utilities as well? Not just civil city. Civil city, right. Yeah. Utilities debt has to be funded by-- it is huge. And it has to be funded by their rate. So every time they have a rate study, yes. So that should be also taken care of with that, too. All right. Those are the documents I prepared for you. I'm going to go into kind of another SB1 overview. I'm not Eric Reedy, but I'll do my best. I'm going to share my screen. Let's see here. It's very slow. Four different times. Anything. Share, share, share, share, share. You made it out of me. Thank you. [LAUGHS] And then just pick the right screen. I know they're off screen. Yeah. [LAUGHS] I think that's big enough. All right. I'm going to bring my laptop up here, but you didn't change. So I'm going to-- I'm going to talk about Lit with you, but the beginning of my shivu is an overview of what is happening for taxpayers. What's happening, they're getting different homestead credit deductions. They're getting more deductions. '65 and over is getting more of a deduction. All of these are increasing. So people who are in the 1% cap to homestead properties, they live in their home, they'll start seeing property tax savings. More about that. I didn't create these charts. I screenshotted these from one of the presentations that I attended just for my own notes and just for myself. And I think that those are on the ones that got sent out related to the panel last week. Oh, they were? I just think so. They shouldn't have been because I didn't use it. This is my own private Word document that I have. Oh, I think the first two. Because you said you screenshotted those. From a different presentation that was not real. Yeah, and they still haven't looked that interesting. Yeah, this is from a different municipal advisor. 2% personal, 2% there's different standard deductions. You don't really need to worry about this, OK? You have savings for taxpayers. This is great for taxpayers. And here's my notes to myself. Legislative service agencies didn't have an update yet as of April 14. Business, personal, and property. All of these things Reedy has looked at and said it's not going to affect us that much, except we will start losing more tax revenue to our cap. Reedy is doing a parcel by parcel analysis of how all of those deductions is going to affect our property tax and affect our cap. We're going to find out how much tax revenue we're going to lose. When? Yes. All right. Same question, I think. When? When? Assuming now, we will know. I don't know exactly when, but as soon as possible. What does that mean? May, you think? Yeah. Within May. Okay. Definitely between May. Okay. Good. Yeah. So there are changes coming to local income tax, and the first thing I think you should know is that this is going to be beginning in 2028. So all of our memo buckets for income tax are going to stay the same. We have public safety lit, ED lit, and certified shares. But in 2027, the city council, in 2027, the city council is going to have to vote on the city municipal lit rate. Your max city rate is 1.2%, and all the buckets go away. You just get 1.2% of the taxable income in the municipal boundaries of Bloomington. So in with the adjusted gross income of people who live in Bloomington, that's the base for that 1.2%. And the trend, the trend in Indiana is that people with more money live out on land and the county and unincorporated areas, and people that make a little bit less tend to live on the smaller parcels and the slightly smaller older houses in the city. And so we're assuming that we're going to see a drop in our lit because our base is going to be much smaller. So the maximum lit will be 1.2%? Yes. What is our, so currently, currently PS lit is? Can I switch my screen to another really cool spreadsheet that I made that I think will answer all of your questions? I love your excistions. Alright, stop, share. I'm going to share, share this. Share. Alright, don't, yeah, don't worry about this, can we make the part that we have to worry about bigger? Yeah. Bigger. Bigger. Alright, good. So the current is 2.14%. And we're in capped at 1.2%? Oh, but some of that isn't ours, right, correction, rehab, so. Okay, so we're counting what I've missed. Okay. Currently, currently on, wait, let's talk about on the 8, on the adjusted gross income of the whole county, and the adjusted gross income of the whole county is 4.4 billion. And so, 0.948% of 4.4 billion, that's the total collections for certified shares. So for all these different buckets and all these different rates, it's taking from that number. And then these are divided, this is divided by property, like your share, property tax levy, others are, a couple others are population, most of them are property tax levy. So then these total amounts are distributed out to the other units based on property tax levy or population, yes. So the 0.25% public safety lit is on the whole county, not just on the city of Bloomington. And so then that money that gets collected, some of it, well, actually, most of it goes to dispatch. So dispatch is county-wide. Yeah. Some of it's dispatch, it goes to dispatch, some goes to the county, city, I can't remember if Alexville gets any, yes. Okay. All these are, I don't know, broken out to the different units. So what is the 1.2% that we're allowed is for the city? Yes. And so what's going to, so this is current, what's going to happen down here is that these are all the different rates that are allowed county-wide, but we just did municipal rate 1.2%. And so what I did here is I asked, I said, what if our AGI is only three billion? That's how much we're going to raise. This is how much we're getting now. That's how much three billion we'll raise if our AGI goes down to, we need, we need at least 3.3 billion AGI to get the same amount of width. And this is a formula, these are all connected so we can play around with these numbers and change the numbers and see how much we're going to get. But right now that, that 3 billion for wages within the city limits is just an estimate? Total estimate. How do we actually find that out or is that something that we can really only find out after the fact? Because people like change jobs in the middle of the year. Exactly. The DLGF, the DLGF has until 2027 to figure that out. They do not know, they've tested, they're testing it in Hamilton County first. But property tax, like what we are going to actually get, say in 2026 of property tax money is already going to change, right? So I read we're going to be down as a county 10 million, approximately, how much of that is you? We're going to be down as a county 37, oh, just next to the other point. I don't know. And then it gets incrementally worse. I don't know how much of that. Yeah. So Jessica, currently we have 1.888%. So we add the certified shares, public safety and PS and economic development rates to get what our current rate is. Is that correct? Because we, even though we share that with the county, we only get the portion now that's on the county residence, county residence. Our current rate, do I have that somewhere here, right? I'm sharing my screen with them. So wouldn't it make sense that it's those three added together? Our city rate, right. It's something like that. It's quite a bit less. It's a higher rate, but it's going to be on a smaller base. It's going to be on a smaller gross income, adjusted gross income. No, but currently we get 0.948 plus 0.25 plus 0.69, which is 1.888, and we're going to have to cut back to 1.2. Oh, I see what you're saying. Is that correct? No, well, our actual distributions is what we need to look at. That needs to be like a separate calculation, so it's like, we don't get that this creates that full amount. Yeah, so we're actually getting a different rate in the city, and I have that somewhere. It's all going to be a moot point in a couple of years. We've got to figure out how much money we need and what our AGI is, and then what kind of rate we need to pass in 2027. But for the year 2026, we're just really screwed because our lit's going to stay the same, but we're going to have less property tax revenue. Our lit's going to stay the same, which is good because we're not going to lose any lit. We shouldn't lose any lit next year. So we're losing property taxes. We're going to lose a little bit of property tax. We're going to lose a little bit of property tax. Yes? I have a question. Not really my place, but I hear someone in the audience. When you said they need to pass the rate in 2027, is that something that they do at the beginning of the year, or did they do it as part of the budget process? When does that have to happen, or do you know yet? I don't know yet. It hasn't been told, they haven't been talking about it like it's part of the budget process. I think it's definitely going to be a separate process, but I don't know yet. Okay. But yeah, we should plan for them to have some meetings to do that before the budget process. We should plan for them to do that before the budget process so that we know how much revenue we're going to get, and that's all, you know, for budgeting. Yeah. Yeah. So, that's going to be the last year, if that's not saying, yeah. Okay, this, all this fun stuff over here, it says taxpayer impact based on a taxpayer household. And this is like, if you, if your household makes $150,000, come all the way down here and see how much, oh my gosh, income tax that household will be paying compared to this is current 3, 3,200 and this would be just at the full, full maximum rate, 43.50. But like the full maximum rate, then there's like nowhere to go after that. Right. Right. Then you're really capped. Yeah. So, if you have some additional services that you need, like something else comes online that you want to find revenue for, you know, like the county is doing the jail, they were able to use the special jail rates, the city, there's something the city really needs to do, or you just shift around what you're already using your revenues for. We can bond with property tax rates, but then of course we need to budget for those payments and the interest on bond. Yeah. I'll go, I'm going to stop share this and go back to that other document to see if there's anything else that we should talk about share this document, share, all right, all right. You are the, you have the power over that lit rate. There's no local income tax council, just the city council will vote on your municipal rate. It's the max is 1.2%. That's starting next year. But no, that's what's started, but you have to vote on in 2027 effective 2028. So as far as PS lit, we'll still have it next year. Yes, we'll still have it. And we'll still have it in 2027, we'll still have it in 2027 too, but both of those years, 26 and 27, we're going to have reduced property tax revenue without increased revenue from any other place. Correct. That is correct. You've got it. All right, maximum levy growth quotient was capped again at 4%, even though it was estimated to be a 5% or 6% growth about the cap. So in real numbers, our 2024 property tax levy was $37.2 million and 4% growth will give us $38.6 million, not very much. And then- So that's capped for next year. Yes. So this has been, yeah, this is the cap for next year. This has been status quo for the last three years. The legislature has capped property tax growth, even though they have this formula that they all agreed on that we're just supposed to take the natural growth of your county and apply it to your growth and property taxes. We don't get that anymore. And then another thing that is going to be a big deal for cities and counties is there is another step added to our budget hearings. If you want the property tax rate in the levy, well, if you want the property tax rate to increase, you have to hold a special hearing that's going to increase over next year. You have to hold a special hearing separate from your budget hearing 15 days before your budget hearing to approve raising that rate. So the thing that's currently capped at 4% will be capped at 0% unless you do this extra step. No. We're going to have our property taxes capped at $38 million, and your property tax rate is based on your property taxes, the $38 million, your AV, which is like $5 billion for us, assessed value. Thank you. And that gives you your rate. So when your AV changes, your rate also changes. So to raise the $38 million that you need, you have to apply a rate to your assessed value. If you ever want to raise that rate to get the property taxes that you need to get anyway that you are approved to get, you have to have a preliminary public hearing before the budget hearing to do that. Whereas before we could just do that at the budget hearing? Yeah. That was not a separate step. It just happened as a result of your budget hearing. Your budget hearing was like, that was a chance for taxpayers to come and say, we don't like this budget because it raises our tax rate, now they're giving an additional sort of transparency around that rate. And that's the thing where last year, the mayor was like, I don't want to raise the rate. We're going to make our budget meet the same rate that we're at right now based on what our assessed value was. Am I remembering that right? Yeah, you are. Yeah, definitely. Last year, our rate was going to drop because our assessed value improved, and so we got the GO bond and that adds to our rate and that kept our rate at the same level. So if your assessed value doesn't grow and it drops, your rate is going to go up. So our assessed value tends to keep on rising. So just to cut to the chase, it looks like in 2026, we're going to be short millions of dollars. Are you... flush that out for me, because of property taxes, I just want to make sure that you are... The implications of SB1 on property taxes, about corresponding ability to raise funds through LID. Right. At least we were to... Right. Act quickly or something. Right. But are there any other means to raise revenue? Working meters? Well, that... I don't want to do that either. No, nobody wants... It's only for people. You know, there is a... Some of you may know that Parks is doing a capital or a master plan study, and part of that is to find true cost of all of their programs and services, and really trying to decide what things do we want to offer at a low cost, like teaching kids to swim. That's just great for our population. We want kids to know how to swim. Giving adult semi-professional swimmers swim classes is something they should pay fully for. We shouldn't subsidize that. There's that balance between what are we providing that's a public good, and what are we providing that's like... It's great. People should just... So, you would do it at the charge of fee, or would you just do... No. Yeah. But also, outside of parking, there's also, to your example, we could increase the cost of renting out the pool, and there's lots of levers like that that we have as well. Exactly. It costs like $30 right now to rent a pool with it. You're absolutely right. Right. So, that's a huge... That's not a controller-level task, but that is something that we can pass on to departments. If we want to do that, I think the administration is going to say, "Okay, departments, look at your costs, and let's really do a cost analysis of what these programs really cost." The consultant that the parks department is working with for their master planning is really awesome with that. Yeah. So, yeah, there are other ways to raise revenue are using your services and partnering with other organizations that do the same work, and so kind of like sharing the load and trying not duplicating efforts, kind of taking a hard look at your budget and trying to decide which, you know, you guys talk about that all the time. I know you're well-nourished and trying to figure out where we are doing things in the budget, doing things other people are already doing. Okay. But in theory, hold on, in theory for 2026 though, like assuming our assessed value increases, then we could also increase our percentage, and then that, would that, like couldn't we do that? Because like last year, we can't, because we're probably not allowed to. We can't, this is, we can't raise more than this. Okay. This is how much property childs we can get, and that's why we do things like we got a bond. Okay. Problem number 117 in this bill is that bonds. Right. Right. This doesn't have any pretty pictures, so let me try, this is from the Reedy, this is from the Reedy outline. Before you go on, I'm sorry, I wanted to make sure I understood from the previous page. So it's the maximum levy for 2026, $38,693, that's the levy. Yes. They haven't given that to me yet. That's not their official number, but that's basically what the number will be. All right. So last year, we, the only way to raise your rate and get a little bit more property taxes is to get a GO bond, because that's a property tax bond. You can have your maximum levy and get some bonds and stabilize your rate. Now all new GO bonds issued after May 1st, after tomorrow of this year, for a short term, five years or less, are subject to a one-year cool-off period. That applies to us. So we, because we got a bond in 2024, so it is subject to a one-year cool-off period before we get another GO, short-term GO bond. So we couldn't get one in 2025. Correct. We have to wake up 2026 to get another. Correct. The, and this applies to only, bonds aren't subject to referendum. So bonds that aren't subject to referendum are your small bonds, your big bonds, they're already subject to referendum, so they have all kinds of other controls at home. They're the big project bonds. Okay. So let's say cool-off, let's see, control projects, threshold, something about the thresholds. I just copied this for my son. Wait, so schools cannot place project referenda on ballot the same year? Oh yeah. Projects expire, does that mean that schools are going to have a gap year? Oh my god. All right, so expect people to run their government and their schools. Well, I mean, they seriously can't, I mean, that means that you have to like fire and hire teachers every two years. Like that's... I think I'm basically done with this. I can clean this up for tonight, um, is there anything that... So for the GEO bonds, that's a way to exceed the maximum property tax rate, trying to get my terms correct. What are you trying to say, that's a way to get like... You said that's a way for us to get more money, we can exceed a certain maximum, what is that maximum that we would be exceeding? Our maximum levy. We can get a little bit more property taxes than our maximum levy. But we're not going to be able to do that this year. Correct. And then our rate will go down, and the next year we will want our rate to go up, and we'll have to do... But we won't be able to because we're going to be... The special public hearing, we have to do the special public hearing. But that happens every year? Every year. Yeah, in October, by that October 7th date. Yes, you're right. Yes. If we want to increase. Yes. Which we'll end up having to do. Yes. Because... I think that you should just put it on the calendar as a housekeeping item, and yeah, just always be prepared to raise the rate. Will you help us all remember that when we're setting up the calendar in November and December for next year? My people in this room will have a very large amount into that calendar, so this is my distributing that memory item to everybody in this room. You're welcome. All right. We only have five minutes left, so I'm going to stop here. Yes, we need to have time for public comment as well. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you for that crash course. Thank you for the crummy news. It just helps to hear it a lot, and yeah, there's a lot more information, very complicated. Is there any public comment on the SB1 crash course that we just had? I do not see anybody. So back to the committee. Before we adjourn, are there other questions for Jessica at this point? So you'll do a similar presentation tonight, maybe. I can do that. I feel like... Maybe it was less data on the website. That's very doable. So we're going to talk about LIT, we're going to talk about maximum levy growth compulsion. I think it's most important to talk about 2026, because that's what we're specifically talking about right now, is going like, okay, we don't know the exact numbers for what's going to happen in 2026, but that concept that we're going to lose property tax revenue and we're not going to have a way to get that back next year. Is there any ballpark of how much of a hit we would take with property tax? I'm trying to remember that. Yeah, I have a ballpark from before it was passed, and I don't think that those numbers are changed too much, so I can give a ballpark. I don't have enough. Yeah. I mean, if you're comfortable, it's giving it something close to what you said. Yeah. Yeah. I'm comfortable giving it as a ballpark. The county, I forwarded something that the county sent us that they have some documentation about the big number. That's where you got the 10 million, I don't know if they have them. And I know that there's other sites that have documented what the schools are going to lose. So those two things can get put together to at least narrow down what city, county, library combined or not and then we're a subset of that. Yeah. I can't help but think we're going through a time of austerity when you think about triage in some ways. Well, I'm really concerned about our wait times, our salaries because we increased salaries last year, assuming that we were going to continue that and be able to continue that because of our projected property taxes. I have a meeting at 3.30 and I'll stay until 3.30, but I'm going to have to run out here right at 3.30. Yeah. I agree. Yes, Lisa? Can you point me to maybe a site that explains how the AGI would be estimated? Okay. Do you have any information or no information? Okay. I don't. I don't have any, like, googling, you know, some state agencies and seeing if they have anything out there about, like, state budget agency or DLGF. I think those would be the two that have to do it because those are the two that deal with it now. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I don't know. I haven't heard anything. All right. Thank you, Jessica. Thank you. Thank you all. Our next meeting is when? 14th? Sounds right. Two weeks. It's odd timing that we're having a meeting on the 14th and that same evening we have a discussion with the mayor. It seems it would be more helpful to have a meeting the week before, or just next week. I have that held on my calendar for the 7th. Is that feasible for the Office of Committee Members? I can do it. I mean, that's fine. I think that makes more sense even though we'll have a meeting that evening too, but it won't be. At least this way we can make some plans for the meeting with the mayor. Some strategies. So you anticipate 2 to 3.30 again on the 7th? What's the availability with the 7th? We can move that to the 8th. Yeah, we have a meeting on the 7th. Thank you for your flexibility. 2 to 3.30? And they're welcoming it right now. Thank you. Lisa doesn't want to be available on that. And so then we're canceling the meeting on the 14th? Yeah. But we're still keeping the meeting on the 28th? I think so. I'm just trying to clear up on my studio. So Sophia, I assume that you'll get that invitation sent out pretty soon, so I don't need to... I think there should maybe be a vote to cancel? No? I always err on the side of caution. I don't know. What, Lisa? As a committee, do we need to decide? I would cancel it. Great. I move to cancel the meeting on... I move to reschedule the meeting from May 14th from 2 to 3.30 to May 7th from 2 to 3.30. Okay. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. We will do that. Thank you. I appreciate you willing to meet with us November. Sure. And it should be a good discussion tonight that we have like, you know, a hundred different things to consider. It'll be interesting, at least. It's depressing, actually, and it's a thing that's happening. All right. We are adjourned.