City Council
City Council
Thu, April 2, 2026
Agenda items
Vote records
Discussion summary
Transcript
Meeting summaryAI-generated
Charlottesville City Council — April 2, 2026
This was a special budget work session — the final scheduled wrap-up before the Council's planned vote to adopt the FY2026 budget on Thursday, April 10. No formal votes were taken; the session was a working discussion to resolve remaining open questions before adoption. All five council members were present.
Real Estate Tax Rate: Settling on a One-Cent Increase
Council had previously considered a two-cent increase in the real estate tax rate (worth approximately $2.4 million), but at a prior work session began exploring whether a one-cent increase was achievable. Staff confirmed the one-cent reduction creates a gap of approximately $228,000 that needs to be filled. Revised revenue projections cover just over $1 million of the offset, leaving the $228,000 shortfall.
Council discussed three options to fill the gap: activating a CAT (transit) staffing scenario that would generate ~$369,000 in savings by phasing driver hiring (five in July, five in January, plus mechanics and supervisors); drawing from the Citywide Reserve; or drawing from the Council Strategic Initiatives Fund. Councilor Snook noted that even under the full CAT funding scenario, realistic hiring timelines mean significant funds would go unspent anyway.
Councilor Fleisher proposed splitting the $228,000 proportionally between the Citywide Reserve (~$181,000) and the Strategic Initiatives Fund (~$48,000), arguing that if the city is asked to contribute, council should contribute too. Other members, including Snook and Payne, preferred drawing the full amount from the Citywide Reserve. Staff confirmed the Citywide Reserve is replenished annually, so this would not constitute truly one-time money. Council reached consensus to cover the full $228,000 gap from the Citywide Reserve, combined with the revenue adjustments, to achieve a one-cent tax rate increase.
Outcome: Consensus (no formal vote at this session) to proceed with a one-cent real estate tax increase, with the $228,000 gap filled from the Citywide Reserve.
Vibrant Community Fund (VCF) Allocations and Strategic Initiatives Fund
The bulk of the session was spent reconciling council members' individual proposed additions to the VCF committee's recommended awards. The Strategic Initiatives Fund currently holds just under $370,000, with an additional $130,000 proposed in the base budget, for a total of approximately $500,000 available as of July 1.
Key decisions reached:
Beacon Kitchen / New Hill Development Corp: Council zeroed out proposed supplemental increases (roughly $9,500 and $2,000) after Councilor Payne noted that New Hill recently received a $960,000 state grant and approximately $2.75 million more in the state budget for Beacon Kitchen. Members agreed the organization is well-resourced this cycle.
Boys & Girls Club: After discussion of percentage-based methodologies, council agreed on a $20,000 supplemental award (three votes in favor; Fleisher preferred $12,500 based on a proportional formula).
Legal Aid Justice Center: Council agreed on a $6,000 supplemental award to bring the organization closer to half its request for eviction prevention/legal services work.
Partner for Mental Health: Council settled on a $1,500 supplemental award, up from a proposed $1,000, citing the Map to Health priorities around mental health.
Arts organizations (Charlottesville Ballet, Lighthouse, Music Resource Center, Second Street Gallery, New City Arts Initiative, Live Arts, SARA): A significant portion of the discussion involved Fleisher's proposal to distribute $50,000 evenly among arts and culture organizations that received 27% or less of their requests — essentially seeding them ahead of a planned arts commission study. Council also noted approximately $50,000 was budgeted for the arts study itself, and that study might cost less, freeing up money. After extended debate, council agreed on $7,000 each for the arts organizations in that category, plus $10,000 for Live Arts (for a total of $17,000 to Live Arts). The $50,000 arts study allocation from Strategic Initiatives remained.
Broader debate over the Strategic Initiatives Fund: Councilor Snook raised a pointed concern that distributing the Strategic Initiatives Fund in small increments ($2,000–$10,000) defeats its purpose. He argued the fund was created to enable meaningful, large-scale initiatives — citing the successful $500,000 seed investment in New Hill Development Corp and a multi-year investment that helped create Cultivate Charlottesville — and that scattering it in small amounts makes it neither strategic nor an initiative. He suggested City of Promise, which has a proposal to embed positions in city schools to address the achievement gap, would be a worthy candidate for a substantial strategic investment, but that $10,000 (the amount in the VCF recommendation) is insufficient to actually fund the initiative. Council agreed a dedicated work session on reforming the VCF process and the use of the Strategic Initiatives Fund is already planned.
At the end of deliberations, Council had allocated approximately $164,000 from the Strategic Initiatives Fund, leaving roughly $285,000 unallocated.
Schools Budget: Potential State Revenue Windfall and Gain-Sharing
Staff flagged that the state budget (still pending final adoption) could deliver the Charlottesville City Schools between $500,000 and $900,000 above what was budgeted. Historically, the city has had no mechanism to recapture any of that money once it is appropriated to the schools, though a gain-sharing agreement already exists for end-of-year surpluses (50/50 split).
Council discussed whether to build language into the budget appropriation to recapture a portion of any excess state funds. City Attorney advised that once funds are fully appropriated to the schools, the city cannot claw them back without school board consent; options include appropriating only the base amount and placing excess funds in a city contingency, or releasing funds on a quarterly basis rather than all at once.
Councilor Payne noted this situation has recurred for multiple years — the city has been budgeting based on state revenue projections that don't match reality, which has contributed to pressure for local tax increases. Mayor Wade cautioned that demanding a full 100% return this year, with no advance notice to the school board, would be "a thing" — an abrupt and potentially destabilizing change. Council reached consensus on a 50% gain-share model for any excess state funds received above the schools' budgeted amount, with staff directed to incorporate appropriate contingency language into the appropriation ordinance.
Outcome: Consensus to recapture 50% of any excess state school funding above budgeted amounts, using contingency appropriation language to be drafted before Monday's first reading.
Next Steps
The real estate tax rate public hearing and first reading of the budget ordinance are scheduled for Monday, April 7. Final adoption is scheduled for Thursday, April 10.
Key Takeaways
One-cent tax increase confirmed: Council settled on a $0.01 real estate tax increase (half of what was initially proposed), with a $228,000 gap filled from the Citywide Reserve rather than cutting transit or school funding.
VCF supplemental awards finalized: After line-by-line review, Council agreed to add roughly $164,000 from the Strategic Initiatives Fund to supplement VCF awards, with notable cuts to Beacon Kitchen additions given its large state grant, and modest increases to arts organizations, legal aid, and mental health services.
Schools windfall: 50/50 split: If the state delivers $500,000–$900,000 more than budgeted to city schools, Council intends to recapture 50% through contingency appropriation language — a new policy the school board has not yet been formally notified of.
Strategic Initiatives Fund debate: Councilor Snook raised a substantive concern that distributing the fund in small increments undermines its purpose; a planned future work session will address structural reform of the VCF process and how the city uses its strategic initiative dollars.
Budget adoption on track for April 10, pending first reading Monday and no new issues arising from the school board or public.
AI-generated summary from voice-to-text transcript. Not the official record. Verify important details with the source documents linked above.
Additional votes recorded in minutes
Adjourn the meeting
aye 5
Jen Fleisheraye
Juandiego Wadeaye
Lloyd Snookaye
Michael Payneaye
Natalie Oschrinaye
Verbatim transcript available
242 transcript segments indexed
It's different. Was there anywhere that I disagreed? Okay. But I was missing what my options were. You're like, "Jen, you're just being weird." No, you're not. No. We'd love that feedback. We'll take the feedback.
We'll talk to everybody. To find a way to be able to help us with that. But like- Yeah ... Jen's spectrum, she is more pointing to this constant like- We know, like- Somebody has to sit there. Dewayne knows.
I'm not that very- Oh, I know. Hi. Me. That's it. That's the program. Kind of weird. And Lauren- Or are they saying that she- ... but she's, that's her- Waterhead. Oh, something's not that you said. She's having- I was really tired and nervous about this ...
a client they didn't name. Every time. Like the same time. Said it. Stop talking anymore. I'm just letting you know. I don't remember your middle. Yes. It's not that. Of course not. Is that about the trains that I went through that time?
Mm-hmm. No. So we've got- Yeah. I got it. I stopped saying what I was- Then it won't be called- CDR course. Right. And I won't discuss the letter anymore. No, the trail is way different from the movie.
I mean, I-- No, yeah, it's like a limited series. Yeah. Are we crossed? I can cover. I can take it down. Yes. The sandwiches and the cookies. Just because. From this, I speak of Jason. He wanted to answer his question.
Hi, Gerald. I'm not Mike. Oh, hi. He turned it on a little early tonight. You remember that question- The only part of the day- Huh? ... that we're under, that we're being recorded, this is when Todd decides to come ask me a question.
Yeah. And then all the rest of the day. Finishing clicking the button. This is being recorded. I'm boxing. They will announce us? They might do it automatically. But just when I walk in. Sensory presence.
Yes. Senses you by presence. Little plant. Is anybody watching? I support you. Yeah. Is anybody watching you? I'm just here. This is a new revenue. Like maybe one. Submarining. So we got to have peace.
Then this is their strategic initiative. Right here, you add her. Off. And then we'll work more once there's the final decision. So those are the results. Is that a committee? Underneath the runway side.
Yeah. It's under. So there's a small tunnel underneath the tracks, but then there's this tunnel to the left that's an extension. City ramps are, or? With the city ramps. Where ramps are. That's not going to make up this two cars like the underground.
Really unnecessary secrecy and transparency in the streets. And they don't have that. And they want to know what time do I see and that would not be a problem. Thank you. And then just restrain voting.
Ask me for all the stuff. The problem with that- Oh, yeah. Yeah. Wow. We'll see grenade. Oh, interesting. Thank you. Check. Keep it a second. The Atlantis will rise. What is the house for you? I'm out the hole.
Like money. Okay. Yep. Good. Like money. We won't visit. They got it. It just came from there. It was. Thank you for the announcement. As well. Good evening. I call the Charlottesville City Council special meeting of April the 2nd, 2026 to order.
Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll? Councilor Fletcher? Here. Vice Mayor Oshrim? Here. Councilor Payne? Here. Councilor snuff? Here. Mayor Wade? Here. I think this is mainly out. I mean, I'd thank all of Miles, but I don't know if you had a few things you wanted to say.
Yes, I'm going to push it right back on you and say yes, this is your meeting, but just for the public benefit, this is the last board session that is scheduled. We labeled this the wrap-up. It is the intent in this session just to make sure that any questions that remain have been answered.
The items that are open for discussion that we're looking for answers on is closing out the review of the Vibrant Community Fund process and how council is looking to utilize your strategic initiatives fund, which you've all contributed information that Ms.
Hamill has ready to pop up on the screen when you're ready to go there. And then, of course, are asking, is there anything else? Because next Thursday, you're slated to vote on adopting the budget, unless there's something that prevents that from happening.
That is the plan. And then tonight, we would just want to make sure that we have addressed anything that is still out there before we get to that point. Okay. So I think that with that being said, I'd like to kind of address, make sure we're all on the same page of the tax increase.
We had initially looked at a 2 cent tax increase, but we saw options where we could do one, and I just want to make sure if we have that information, we can bring them, make sure everyone's on the same page with that.
And if I can getA head nod or yes from everyone as we go down the line to make sure we all okay with that. I think that was- So this is just a spreadsheet to help us with the math. This was the base budget.
The two cent tax increase was $2.4 million, which got us to the total budget of $279 million. The last work session where we spoke about this, if we backed out a penny, that's a little over $1.2 million.
And as you know, the revenue team had revised revenue projections on these revenues, that equated to just a little over a million dollars, leaving you short about $228,000 from making up the one penny.
And so the math will work here, for whatever other adjustments you want to make, as we put them in, the math will work, to help us stay balanced. And then the other column is your strategic initiative funds.
And down below here, which we'll get into later, are the agency adjustments and what we've heard from everybody. And we can work on that whenever you're ready. So are you saying we need to come up with the $228,000?
Mm-hmm. Yes. Okay. But you had given us suggestions for how to do that. Do you want me to bring that up already? Yeah. Okay. Trying to remember which works session that was. I think it was the... I should've had it.
I am sorry. The 19th. Thank you. I wasn't there, but I watched the video. You know where you were. That's right. Coming. So the little over the one million is what is currently in the spreadsheet. CAT Scenario C, that was a scenario whereby, we would budget for five drivers to be hired in July.
Five drivers to be hired in January and then was it a mechanic and- Two supervisory positions and two mechanics. Okay. That would provide savings of just under 370,000. The other option would be to just take the difference from citywide reserve.
The schools number, that was the amount that was over the two million that we had originally spoken about before the budget was released, and then the council strategic initiatives. How did we get to the $100,000?
I just did $100,000. Okay. I think that was the plug. Yeah. So I think that we had agreed upon the revenue adjustments and getting to 228 from the citywide reserves. Was that everyone's understanding?
I don't remember having heard that on the video. Well, it was that the makeup could come from the citywide reserve or the Council Strategic Initiatives Fund because you clearly indicated that you didn't want to activate Scenario C with CAT or send a less than funded budget back to the schools.
So let me ask one question, because again, I wasn't here on the 19th, did watch the video. It seems acknowledged that if we do the funding as proposed for CAT, that's not going to get spent. We know they're not going to hire 10 people straight out of the gate on July 1.
Well, I think what we're expressing is that we don't know that as fact, but we know that it's hard. Well, we know realistically. Yes. And realistically, as we know anything up on that page- Yeah ... we know there's going to be some amount of money unspent.
Yes. And the estimate of five and five, five being hired July 1, even that is probably overly optimistic. I guess what I'm getting at is, if we're sitting there saying we know realistically that there is probably going to be at least 100...
It may not be $369,000 worth of leftover money because of the inability to hire everybody right away, but it's probably going to be a couple of $100,000. Possibly. Yes. Okay. So we need to resolve this for tonight.
So Lloyd, what's your suggestion? Well- Or are you just making a comment? I'm just making a comment. If you want to take the balance out of the citywide reserve, I think I had actually sent an email at some point suggesting that as being a good option.
If that gets us to a one cent reduction That's fine. But I just think we need to understand that we're also going to see some significant savings over what we're- Yeah ... proposing to send to CAT. Okay.
So you're fine with the revenue adjustment and- 228,000 and change coming out of the reserve. It's the reserve. Okay. Jen? I suggested a proportional amount to get to 228 from city-wide reserve and strategic initiatives fund, so that's like 48,000 from strategic initiative and 181 from city-wide reserve.
So get some from both to get the gap, and yes, do the revenue adjustment with that. Okay. So we have Jen is proposing about 40, 42,000 from the strategic council strategic funds. Where are you, Natalie?
Yeah, I don't want to with the CAT funding over that. Jen, can you talk a little more about how you came up with your plan? Yeah. Instead of just splitting 228 down the middle and taking half from city-wide and half from strategic initiatives, I made the machine do the math that does the proportional halving of it.
So- Is there any reason why we don't want it just to all come from the reserve fund? I was just thinking that if we are asking the city to give to it, then the council should give, too. Because we're not part of the city?
No, because if we're going to walk the walk, we should give up some of our plan to- For the allowance. Yeah. Is there any particular actual, like Christy's office reason why it matters? No. Honestly, I appreciate the team spirit.
But- If, I think taking it from city-wide reserve- It needs to be less than that if it were going to be really helpful. Yeah. Okay. So I would just say that much. Just take it from city-wide. She's not going to say that.
Okay. So I appreciate the thought, that counts. Yes. But we can actually just do it all from city-wide? Yes. Okay. Great. Let's do that. I'm good with that. Without knowing what you all have even come up with on your list anyway, it probably the- There's room, but- Yeah.
We didn't know that, yes. Michael, so you're fine with city- City-wide. Okay. Michael? Thank you. Mm-hmm. Hi. Yeah. I still don't love balancing it with one-time money, but I can live with the city-wide reserve and revenue adjustments.
Mm-hmm. Yeah, and I'm fine with that as well. So we have an agreement that council supports a $0.01 pay. Can I ask a quick question first? For the- Mm-hmm. I know we thank you for bringing up one-time money.
We top off the city-wide reserve every year, right? We do. So this 415 is actually in the base budget. It wouldn't be one-time. So this portion of it is- Correct ... we're still safe with our creditors.
What would happen is if we got to a point where we spent all the city-wide reserve in one year, then we would be looking to add something back to the base. But just in this case, I don't think we're going to spend everything we have in '26, and so it's an easy carryover.
Okay. Thanks. So we're- Okay. So, Sam, are you- Yes. Okay. The plan is we'll move forward with $0.01 increase. And where do you hear we're going to get the other makeup from? From the city-wide reserve.
The 228 will come from the city-wide. Just want to make sure. You gotcha. Testing me. Glad I'm paying attention. Okay, so I think the other issue was the Vibrant Community Fund. Yes. Were those the kind of two main things?
Yeah. Well, the Vibrant and then how you plan... I guess, ultimately, we need to look at Vibrant because you're using your strategic initiatives fund to do the things. I think you're using your strategic initiatives fund, which is why Hunter is here in case there are adjustments that you're proposing as well.
We don't know that. So that's the question. Yeah. What's an adjustment considered? If you were to change the allocation that was recommended through his presenting that to you. Okay. Because what we were asking you to do is if you were going to add to, you're using your strategic initiatives fund to add to leaving the recommendation whole.
But if that is not the case, then that's what we need to reconcile. So if the recommendation came, I'll just go with Bird Sisters, was $30,000. Mm-hmm. If you all decided that you wanted to give them 28,000 instead, that's a change.
Okay. And he's going to have to reconcile that. Oh, okay. I think I had one change on my list, but I don't know. I think. So just to explain how this works, there's- Thank you ... just a few dollars under 370,000 that's currently sitting in the council strategic initiatives fund.
And so we top that off as part of the proposed budget with an additional 130,000 to give you an even half a million as of July 1 to use as you see fit. And so based on what we heard from everybody, these are the totals that are being requested in the three scenarios.
I know Counselor Snook and Counselor Payne, you had other thoughts. So I don't know how you want to go through this, if you want to see where there's consensus, if you want to speak, or however you want to do that.
Yeah. I'll go. Michael, I know you were still reviewing it. I don't know if you want to chime in and give us your thoughts on if you had any changes, or just in general on Vibrant Community. From reviewing what everyone else put, I didn't have anything that I wanted to add in addition to what anyone had put.
Mm-hmm. There were some that I was more skeptical of in terms of if they needed additional funding, just to weigh on the side of being able to have more of our strategic initiatives fund. But that's where I was at.
I think there were... You didn't have anything specific, it sounds like just some- No, there were six specific ones that I was in disagreement with. And then an additional question was, along with the increases, is there anything anyone was open to reducing within the VCF in terms of their allocation?
And I was specifically thinking of CNE and Cville Tomorrow, just in the context of both organizations having very strong fundraising and Cville Tomorrow having recently gotten a very significant grant.
So, yeah. I'll just chime in first. I'm fine with allocations with those two organizations. But you make excellent points. So... Can I just ask, there are three of you who have advocated cutting the Virginia Discovery Museum by $6,400.
Why? I can speak to that. They were a 91% funded organization. Their request for funding was for operational support, and in reviewing, deep dive into their documents, part of their operations is their executive director, who had a really huge bonus this season and so was disproportionately, if that was operations, it didn't seem like they needed that extra 6,400, which I reallocated elsewhere.
A bonus paid this past year? Or- This past ... that's coming this coming year? That was paid this past year. So the salary was higher than the highest executive director in this list that I could find- Hmm ...
by tens of thousands. But you said it was a bonus, not a salary bump. The salary base was also quite high comparatively, but the bump was significant. Okay. And I don't know what that will be for this year.
I think that gets us into some real micromanaging of these kinds of outfits that I don't think we're necessarily competent to do, and that I think that the Vibrant Community Fund committee would be in a better position to do than we are.
But that's a general criticism that I have of the whole process here, and it's the reason why I'm not recommending any changes to what they've got, because I don't think we have the competence or the information necessary in most of these cases to make any more intelligent decision than the decision that they made.
Michael, did you have any other comments at this time? Yeah, I guess, so it sounds like with CNE and Cville Tomorrow, there was an agreement for reductions offsetting increases in other areas. And others can chime in.
Yeah, I didn't have any reductions for CNE, and CNE and Cville Tomorrow did not get the 91%. They were in the lower category. Yeah. CNE was requested 50 and got 13.5. Which was it? Reduction from last year?
Reduction for Cville Tomorrow. They got 14.4K, so it would be 27.9K in offsets for the reductions for other nonprofits. Yeah, last year they got 23, 24 or something. I'm not big on comparing to previous years just because the pool of applicants changes every year.
So when we hear requests for restoration of funds, I think about it as one-time money, not programming money. So relative to last year is not the metric that I look at. I don't give that the most weight.
So, Lord, I know how you feel, and heard from Jan. And really, I was just looking for were there any areas where with increases, we decrease something else, but- Mm-hmm ... the other one, the Beacon Kitchen, 40.5K, just in the context of they recently received $960,000 in a state grant, and in the state budget, there's 2.7 million to be allocated for them.
If we wanted to think about how much they're allocated just in that-Context. Again, similarly looking for offsets. What did we... Let's see, where is that? 62, 63. 63. Sheet. So, yeah, I could- So we could not give the extra 9,500 and the extra 2,000?
Yeah. Do we know what that grant was for? So I pulled up the $960,000 state one was for the Beacon Kitchen, and it goes to New Hill Development Corporation for the Resilient Food System Infrastructure grants, and the Commonwealth is the grant program.
The 2.7 million in the state budget, I believe, is also for the Beacon Kitchen. Both are going to New Hill, but they're for that program. Yeah. Okay. How confident we are, are we in that belief? The state one?
That's my memory. I have the 960,000 state one, but... So is memory not essential? Yeah. Okay. I- That's stronger. We'll go with that. Okay. Thanks. Regardless, New Hill, again, got 3.5 million. Yeah.
So I would be open to... It sounds like they did well this year. Yeah. Which is good. It's great. It's a great program. Okay. So I'm okay taking those two additions off then. Yeah. Me too. And the state one is 2.75 for Beacon Kitchen.
Great. Thanks for checking. So both line items you're zeroing out what's there, is that what you're saying? Yeah, we're not giving- Just those, the increases. The increases. Yeah. Yeah. They still get what they were awarded.
Do- Do you want to go line by line to see, because there are places you don't agree. Yeah, let's just go to the ones we don't agree. Okay, so if there's three, are we assuming everybody's in agreement, that's what you're doing?
Yeah. But not on the same amounts. So look at Boys & Girls Club. If there's three that equal, then we're not going to talk about it. Right. If there's three nodes but they're not equal, those are the ones we're talking about.
All right, so Boys & Girls Club is first, because it's not the same amount. The easiest thing to do is just take the lowest amount that everybody agrees on. Well, yeah. So, we can certainly consider that.
But, I'm a big proponent of mentoring and that's why I wanted to give the Boys & Girls Club a little bit more. So- So what we're going to fill in where there's three, so that at least you have a concept of how much you've spent.
And then we can pull anything out if there's a reconsideration, because what you're doing is you're eliminating things, and that's helpful. So only in the places where there's three of the same amount.
Yeah. We agree. Piedmont Regional. Yeah. Suddenly feel so under pressure. Welcome to TCF. Well, now do we have to, since we did that logic for- Off by a digit. We're super slow. Thank you. Zeros matter.
Sorry, Joyce. Wait, now that we've used that logic on CNE and... No, on Beacon. Yeah, on CNE. On Beacon. Do we have to revisit Discovery Museum? No. Okay. When you're agreed. Okay, great. Oh, you're like, "Stop it." You stop it.
Stop under agreement. Stop it. Not under agreement. Just so you know, where you agree, you've allocated almost 85,000, leaving you 415,000. But that 415,000... Oh, because we're not taking it out of there anymore.
Yeah. Okay. All right. So we're back to Boys and Girls Club. Our average, just if you're wondering, would be to give them 19,000 tops. At the moment, you don't have three votes for that. Right. So a nice round 20 sounds good.
Yeah. You don't have three votes for that either. I know. We're asking right now to see if we're going to get there. Would you be open to 20, Jen? Uh. What was your, how did you come to your 1250? I wanted to support them at a certain percentage to increase their, they were at the 48% level, I think.
But I wanted to spend more elsewhere. And so I tried to get them to that proportion. Yeah, to 75,000 of, they asked for 125, I tried to get them to 75. So percent-based, okay. Yeah. So they were awarded 48%, which is 60,000.
So would you be open to 20? Oh, right. It's back to me. Yes. Yeah Okay. Yeah. I would agree. One, two, three? Yeah. Charles? I would stick with the 1250 just because there's some percentage basis to it.
The next one is Charlottesville Ballet. Oh, yeah. That's my proposal to add to the 27% underfunded arts and culture in debt to support them to make it to an arts council, so we can... There's nobody else there on that.
So that doesn't mean- Yeah ... we're still worth about? That concept's going to apply to a few of those that you'll see $7,000. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Using part of the- Use of the- The 100,000 we allocated for- The commission?
Yeah. I like that idea of using it for the arts for some of those. So I support it, 7,000 for that. So is all of the 100,000 that you're talking about to be coming out of this council Strategic Initiative Fund?
Yes. Yes, because we had allocated 100 for the art study, and we think we can do it for- ... about 50, and so we're using part of what was- All right. Okay. So- I don't know if neither one of you... You have to really agree to spend more out of the Strategic Initiative Fund and to give 50K to those 27% arts now.
So effectively, you're going to be talking about 200,000 out of the Strategic Investment Fund. Yeah. Strategic Initiative Fund. Study and one for the funding. Yes. Thanks to Britt Wright public art fund.
To hope that we get some of the study money back. Right. We're capturing the other thoughts here as well, just so that you don't lose sight of it when you're looking at numbers. Okay. So that's another 50K that you're spending out of that.
And just to remind us again, we had 360 left? Just under 370. That's what's in there today. Yeah. So, Natalie, where were you on the Charlottesville Ballet for- Charlottesville Ballet ... because for those projects, I wanted to do the $7,000 for the art one, so I didn't put it in that.
There's seven of them to do the 50,000. Yeah. So, Chris, you can put me down for seven for that one. And then the other ones are Lighthouse. Mm. Lighthouse. Lighthouse, Music Resource Center. Were there three, though?
I'm sorry. For ballet, were there three? Not yet. Okay. I'm thinking out loud. Lighthouse. We've got seven and seven was the suggestion. And then Music Resource Center was another one. Music Resource Center and Second Street Gallery.
Oh, and New City Arts Initiative. And so it's like the commission before the commission, in a sense. Yes. It's like priming them. Priming the council, trying to get them to stay afloat long enough to join the council.
The council. Yeah. Not knowing what the state of all of them are. But yes, Lloyd makes a good point. That's additional money taking- In Jen's column, can you just temporarily delete the two that we zeroed out, and that'll give us her total at the bottom?
Oh, never mind, because you have other line items that are different. Yeah. I'm thinking like... Okay. All right. Why are you messing with my column? Controls again. Yes. Yeah. Okay. All right. You can put it back.
Thanks, Chrissy. So you're not sure right now, Charlottesville Ballet. This is the time, we just need to plow through it. Yeah. I know arts are important. Yeah. Let's save the arts ones to see where we are- Yeah ...
before we do that, if that's all right. Perfect. Anyone- City of Promise is next. So I think we got the general gist from Michael and Lloyd, but if you feel like you want to chime in on any specific ones, please do, but right now I'm just going to be kind of addressing.
Just because there are specific ones I had questions about. And just to go back, to Building Goodness- Mm-hmm ... and there were a couple like this where it was a larger request, and then 4,000 was increased.
What was the rationale for the value add of the 4,000? That was, again, the kind of percentage thing that got them over their half. They were awarded 48,000 of 100, and that got them to 52. I feel like it was a 9% increase.
I can't remember my math. So it got them over the halfway point of their original ask. Okay. That also occurred with Cultivate, Hospice, there's a few others. It's like a tiny number, but it had an impact on their- Yeah, I think Building Goodness, Cultivate, and Legal Aid Justice Center specifically is like I was Unsure of the value add of the- Of the small amount.
Yeah. So back to City of Promise. Was that one of your six? No. So theoretically, there's three votes on that line. What we- There's three zeros. Oh, I see what you mean. Yeah. Oh, that's right. And I suppose I should say publicly what I've said in writing to council, that if we're looking at a strategic initiative fund, City of Promise has a proposal that actually constitutes a strategic initiative.
But $10,000 doesn't fund that strategic initiative. And so $10,000 here, $7,000 there, and so on, we end up not having enough, as I suspect, at the end. In fact, we will end up having a net reduction in our strategic initiatives fund, because of our strategic initiative fund, we're committing more of it than we are putting into it.
And so we're shrinking the size of the strategic initiative fund if you go through with this plan, thereby eliminating or minimizing the ability to actually embark on a strategic initiative. I've said a number of times that if I wanted to make a list of the top few issues where I think we ought to be taking a strategic initiative, the kind of thing that City of Promise is doing is actually one of those instances, but not to the tune of $10,000.
Perhaps to the tune of, they had requested $200,000. They're getting 96. As best I can tell, that might fund one of the two positions that they are being asked to put into the Charlottesville City Schools without getting any money to do so.
So they're being asked to do two things, and we're only going to fund one of them. So would you like us to fund the other one? If we're going to get serious about something, let's get serious about that, rather than $5,000 here or $3,000 there.
So would you like to add any to City of Promise? Within this rubric, no. But I would like to have there be a full discussion of the proposal so that if we end up at the end of things, after we have discussed it...
And by the way, we have not seen any of the paperwork on any of these proposals. So I'm not proposing anything here on any of them because we haven't seen the backup. Just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly, are you saying you'd prefer to have more money in the strategic initiatives fund, so later on we allocate a large amount of money to a couple things rather than $5,000?
Right. To actually make a strategic initiative. $5,000 here or there is neither strategic nor an initiative. And if we're simply saying we're not going to make the strategic initiative fund a strategic initiative fund, so be it.
Go back to what we used to call it, which is a council discretionary fund, if you want to go back 10 years or so. But it's not a strategic initiative fund if we take it all away by bits and pieces. I would note that some of the requests we got are $2,500, $12...
Little bits like that to certain organizations are important and valuable. Even though in our grand scale of here's $2 million, that we get to break up into those little pieces, for these groups, that can be useful.
But it's council's strategic initiative, not the agency's. I think we need to be focusing, and the intent originally of this fund when it was created some years ago, was that it would be something where the council could spend enough money on a particular project at a particular time to make a difference, and not a couple thousand bucks here or there.
So anyway, I've- Yeah. That's my basic feeling about why we shouldn't be nickeling and diming our way out of a meaningful strategic initiative fund. So, City of Promise, where are you, Natalie? Is this one ...
Yeah, I didn't add anything because of the size of the existing award. Okay. All right. And I'm in the same place. I agree with the point Natalie made earlier about, I'm most interested if there's an award of, ask is $12,000 and $4,000 covers that.
But $96,000, I don't see what the addition adds, so I'm fine with it. Okay. Charlottesville Bot. So sorry, to clarify, is that a no? Yeah. So are we coming back to Charlottesville Bot next? Yeah. So Chrissy, could you put the zero in for City of Promise so when we visually look for the blanks, please?
Thank you so much. Okay. And Heart & Soul. Cultivate. Oh, Cultivate. There we go. Okay. All right. Cultivate is next. Yeah. Well, yeah, and you have, as Natalie points out, you have a three there already.
Right. Okay. Yeah, but we're open to being convinced. Yeah. So the next one would be, is that Legal Aid? Yes. Okay. Okay. This program was about preventing eviction, essentially. I'm oversimplifying it.
Eviction services and The 6,000 gets them over the halfway point of their ask. But their ask is 100,000. That's why mine says 6,000. I think Natalie says 5,000. Yeah. Actually it's fine. Yeah. We would need a third from someone- To tie break ...
If we want to. The Legal Services for Low-Income Residents is how it's titled, but the- The ... eviction, yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I'll do the six. I could support the six. We'll see the numbers. Then I'll bump to six.
And Coming back to those? Coming back to those. Those are- Right. Okay ... parts of culture. The next one is Fishes. Low . Oh, no. About Partner for Mental Health. Partner for Mental Health. Oh, yeah.
With Lowe's and Fishes and, Meals on Wheels, I had this question where the max that can be awarded is the 91%. Yep. Both of those were 91%, and we're taking them above the max that can be awarded. But what's the rationale for bringing them above the maximum percentage that can be awarded?
Yeah, getting them closer to the full ask. What they said they needed for healthy food access. It is just, at least for me, it's the extreme need, and I'm a substitute driver or deliverer for Meals on Wheels.
But, that's why I supported it. So, let's see. The next one is Partner for Mental Health. That may be one that Michael's point could be taken. The 1,000 or 1,500. Hold on. They are 27% funded, so it bumps them up from 54, if you do 15, to 69.
But they asked for 20, so it may not... My reason for giving was related to the Map to Health priorities of mental health as a priority for the health system. But it is not getting them over the halfway point, is the downside.
So are you proposing to change your 1,500 or- I can go to 1,000. Do you want me to change ours? Love it if you went up to mine, but I think- Yeah ... we're going to be over what we... Well, yeah. Sure.
Sure. I'd love it if you changed it to $1,500. Let's do that. Yeah. 1,500. The next one is- I think now we're down to the arts. Yeah. So what's our total? So... 112? Yeah. 337 left, and we've spent- Spent 112 ...
112. Which means we've spent more than we're putting in. Oh, yeah, with the 50. Correct. We spent 94,300 last year. Just one minute. Comparing apples to oranges. Yeah, comparing apples to oranges. Okay.
Yeah. Okay, so do we have to make a decision about the- So I guess an argument could be that there was $370,000 left last year. So we spent 98? What was it? 94,350. VCF adjustment, and then we spent 45 on the YMCA- Doors ...
egress. Mm-hmm. And then the rest of it just sat there. Is that about the mess? Yes. So I would be interested in activating that. We never know the future, so we don't know what's going to come up in that, but I don't believe we've spent much out of the strategic initiatives fund the last couple of years, right?
Last few years is the reason for pivoting its purpose. Yeah. So- But I would just say to be fair, you had other pots. Yes. Art. That's true. Surplus. A lot of other things that required you not to have to lean on this account.
Mm-hmm. And I feel like a lot of those were bigger-ticket items that we couldn't have paid them out of the strategic initiatives fund anyway, right? Some of the smaller ones every now and again, but they wouldn't have been strategic or initiative, per the reference made by council.
Sure. But I agree with them wholeheartedly on the approach there. But, yeah. Yes. So I'm okay spending a little more now becauseMoney now is more useful than money later for these folks, the way it is for everybody.
Which, yeah, it takes a little more out of our flexibility later, but that's kind of what we're here for. An additional 49? Yeah. Yeah. I'm supportive of that as well. The only other one- Hold on one sec.
So what is it that you're considering doing? Putting all the sevens as it goes. Putting the sevens in, so sh- That was a 17. Yeah. That was- Oh, no. That was a different one. That was Live Arts. That wasn't one of those seven.
Right, but that's not been considered yet. Right. We have to go back to that one, too. So the 17 for me was 10,000 aligned with what I see for- Plus the seven ... plus the seven. Yeah. Sure. Hmm. Is that- Yeah.
They- We're doing it, or is that good? That brings them up to... The 17,000 brings them up to 25,000. Their ask is 30. Their original allocation was $8,100. So you can- Yes. There we go. That's somebody's cost.
Yeah. Yeah, they- And what is the reason for giving them 10,000 plus 7,000? The 7,000 was the 50,000 divided evenly amongst the arts and cultures that were only awarded 27 or less percent or less. Okay.
The 10,000 baseline was- Something we had talked about before that seven came into play ... just, yeah, a number, the number for Live Arts to get them up to 18,000- Yeah ... of their 30. So I don't understand why they're added at this point.
Because it's- Because. We can, yeah. Yeah. And that is absolutely the worst answer possible. Well... Because we can is the worst answer possible. Well... But isn't the whole thing because we can? That's the problem with this system.
Right. Oh, no, I'm not saying we shouldn't have a work session on the system. Right. I'm just- We've talked about that separately. Yeah. I... The- Given the bounds of the system as it currently exists.
So, for Live Arts, are you- I, yeah, I kind of wasn't thinking that one was going to be additive since we were already giving them 10. I think I, um... Yeah, I mean, out of charming, I know that they particularly, this year is a tough year.
I could support giving them more than 10. Mm-hmm. Anything? I mean, I'm open to it. I mean, it's difficult not knowing anything about their specific financials or... I think that the thing about Live Arts is that it is an organization that brings people downtown.
It does stuff for kids. It adds culture. So it's not just like business house, it's like that's the... Which is the argument for the arts. Yeah. Round it all up. Yeah. But one of the pieces of the argument about the arts is that in virtually every case, they have the ability to put on performances that they sell tickets to.
That is not true for many of these other organizations. It's not true for the Women's Initiative. It's not true for the Sexual Assault Resource Agency, and so on. It is true for most of these arts agencies.
I think that it- Yeah. I mean- It's hard to compare them. Yeah. Which is why we've been talking about separating that out. It's not a perfect system. I mean- Yeah. I mean, at the end, it's $10,000 in one like a $260 million...
Shouldn't have even- Yeah. Mentioned it. Yeah. That's the second worst argument. But, um- I hear a laugh. I'm sorry. I love- I mean, yeah. I mean, anyway. I love Live Arts, similar with Loaves & Fishes, it's just I don't understand what $10,000 would do for them similar to what does $4,000 offer Loaves & Fishes, but- Yeah.
I kind of want to keep... I mean, if you're bringing up Sexual Assault Resource Agency, they're not being made whole in their request either. We could give 10 to Live Arts and those 7 to SARA, and they'd get 10 instead of 7.
If you're determined to spend the Strategic Initiatives Fund on bits and pieces. Yeah. Sure. But I will, to Lloyd's point, granted we haven't done this, which is also a very fair point. I mean, I think it was like 2018 or 2019, the Strategic Initiatives Fund, I think, was used to seed the Food Justice Network, which ultimately resulted in the creation of Cultivate Charlottesville, which I think had a bigger value add for the community than like $2,000, $3,000 here.
We haven't done that, but I do think there's a big, I agree with your point, Lloyd, that there's an opportunity for us to get back to doing that. We allocated $500,000. We paid over three years, $55,500 basically for three years, and that was one of the times.
Another strategic initiative fund expenditure, as I recall, was the initial $500,000 to New Hill Development Corp.Those are both things that were large enough to be strategic, large enough to be initiatives, and $500,000 worked pretty well for them.
Okay, this is a question- Here's the history, just to give you some idea of what you've used this money for. This goes back, I don't know how far. And I guess here's- Further than you'd want to ... a question that we should think about, maybe not for this conversation, but when we talk about this whole process later is, how do people bring strategic initiatives to us?
How do we find a way to allocate this money so it doesn't sit around for a year? How do we find a good match for it? Legitimate question. Of course, one thing we could do is to say, "Let us think a little creatively about how we might solve a particular problem." And, in some cases, people have come to us with specific suggestions like the C3 program, for example, or the New Hill Development was one.
Maybe we say, "We've got some proposals that might give us a chance to address the achievement gap." We had a number of requests a couple of months ago, and when this discussion began for the budget, saying we should adopt something like the Harlem Children's Zone.
That's obviously something that would be an initiative. We haven't done that, but City of Promise has the opportunity to become something along those lines. But there are ways we can- When it would be a line item budget, though?
Because if they're using the money for staff, then they're going to be dependent on that money. Sometimes you have an initiative that says, "We're giving you basically seed money. You've got this money.
Go spend it on, among other things, working on fundraising choices, program, all kinds of other things, justify your existence." Got it. So what I didn't want to get too bogged down in how we can improve this process because it's-- And I like the ideas that we're talking about, but I would suggest that maybe we have maybe a 4:00 session on this or- It's already planned.
Okay. I just want to make sure you're thinking about this the right way. So now you have 500,000, but only 130 is in the base budget. So you have 500,000 because you've had carryover. So if you spend all this, to get you back to 500, you're going to have to add the difference between 130 to 500.
Mm-hmm. Just so everybody's clear on that. Yeah. Okay. So if we could go back so we can just wrap that up. We were at Dublin, where it was 10, 10, and 17. Yeah. Yeah. We can do the 10, and- I kind of want to stick around 10.
Yeah. Okay. So, which one was that? Live Arts. There. Live Arts is 10. What else do we need? New City. Is this the one that- That was-- I had had, just like Live Arts, I had a- That they will pull the process?
I mean the- The 7,000, they're one of the seven, and I had originally already allocated eight. So, yeah, 25 five. So if you want to do the same model with Live Arts, then it would be a seven. Give them that seven.
Yeah. And let's see. I think that's it. Unless we want to just... Yeah. Okay. Let's call it a day. So what's available? So you spent 164. You have 285 left. Okay. Can everyone sleep tonight? But I know you go a little bit later than us, but- I'll sleep either way, but I've said my piece.
Yes. And- And good conversations to come about. Yes. Yeah. I think you make a good point. But this today is not... It's worth having a bigger discussion in a different venue for fixing it on a bigger scale, so we don't have to go through that every year.
Though Hunter and your team do a great job with the protocol that currently exists. Yeah. So Sam, what's-- I have the agenda here, so let's- We're balanced. I don't see anyone here from the-- Do we have any school-related questions?
The answer to the question of what does the schools have forecast as potential increase from the state, from the Senate or House budget proposals ranges from $500,000 to $900,000. That's the numbers that they're considering at this point.
We won't know until the budget is approved, but that's the range of potential increase that the school system could receive. So of course, the question for you all would be, what does that do to you in the way of a pursuit of those funds, a portion of those funds, a share of those funds?
Well, I just think that we can have that discussion. We just wanted to see what it is. The issue- But determine You don't have a mechanism for you as the city to receive those funds as it stands today.
You would have to add language to the budget appropriation if it was to mandate a return of some portion of funds. Today, we operate with a gain-sharing agreement that if schools end their budget year with a surplus, we split 50/50, but that's an agreement that we have executed with them.
If you were to pursue an increase in allocation from the state, you would need to put some action instrument in place, and the budget appropriation is the moment that's available to you. Like I said, look, I did a lot of research on those couple things.
Once you appropriate the funds and just absolutely make the appropriation to the school, the only way that you get any portion of money back from that is that the school board consents. Now, we can build language into the appropriation to make that possible.
There's also what you can also not appropriate all the funds at once. It gets appropriated on a periodic basis, quarterly basis, weekly, monthly basis, however you want to do that. That's one way to make sure the funds have not been fully appropriated.
Or you can even appropriate the base amount and then put an amount in a contingency that has not yet been appropriate. So we have a couple of different options if this is something that you all want to pursue.
One thought that I had, and I'm just sort of thinking out loud, I'm not committed to the idea particularly, but if we're talking about another 500,000 to 900,000, that's at most 1.5% of the amount we're going to give them.
I don't think that that's worth getting hung up over. If they're going to get $2 million or $3 million from the state, that might be a different matter, but we know that the schools, they had a number of things that they would have liked to be able to do that would have added another $500,000 to their ask.
I'm inclined, if it's less than a million dollars, to basically not require anything, but if the gain-sharing agreement still is in place, then we'll implement that. And 900,000 at the upper end, and then one cent on the real estate tax rate is a little more than a million.
1.2. So, do you have a recommendation that we-- I'm not sure what we've done in the past. We haven't done anything in the past. So the request for the information was my response to the question posed in your work session.
The answer is there's $500,000 to $900,000 that they could receive above the budget. Yes, they could use that money to do other things, but so could we. So the question you're asking us today, what you would like us to decide is, should we make plans to expect that money to be returned either in part or in all, or should we make plans to not see that money again?
Yep. So, is there- No action would mean they keep whatever they get above the budget. The question is, are you interested or not? What's the board's council's desire to try to come up with a resolution or a statement or something to say, "If you get $900,000 back, then we get all of it, or half of it," or we being local government.
I would say treat it as gain share. Is that in this half? Yeah. Which is- That's what I was thinking, yeah ... applies in other contexts. The question, I guess is- Is that at the amount, I'm sorry ...
if they get that money, are they then free to spend it if they want to, or are we saying if they get that money, they have to share it with us? It would seem to me that if we're just appropriating it to them, and they spend it for whatever reason they decide they want to spend it, I don't think we have the ability to squawk unless we put something into the- That's correct.
Once you've appropriated funds to them, you have no mechanism to claw that money back, using kind of a vulgar term, but claw it back unless the school board consents. We can include language in the appropriation.
There's a couple different ways to do it. Language in the appropriation ordinance that gives you the ability to pull back half or whatever portion you want is maybe the cleanest. I would say, legally, I don't care for that as much.
It's not something that's been necessarily tested using that kind of contingency much. I like the other methods that I talked about a little bit better, which is placing a portion of it into a contingency or-- My moment just went straight out on me.
The quarterly allocation. Yes. Or allocating on a quarterly basis. Or semi-annually. However, yes. Just so that you're not appropriating the entire amount because there's attorney general's opinions and case law that seems to back up that once you allocate the funds or appropriate funds, it's not coming back from the school appropriation.
Right. Is this big enough of a policy change that we should have it be an agenda item for public comment, or is it not? I'm not sure of the scale of this decision. Does that make sense? Is this going to be a whole thing, or is it not?
Is it something that other people do that we just haven't yet, that we could just decide here and it's going to- I don't think we have a sense ofThat at this moment- Does my question make sense? What others do.
Kind of when you say a thing, what does that mean? Um, if- And for public comment, is that associated with the thing? Yeah. Is this going to be a shock to someone's system in a way that is- It's a change to the system ...
bigger than it might sound with just us chatting about it now? Or is it- Yeah ... something that's like- It's a change to the system ... potential. Today, the school board office is preparing to potentially receive $500,000 to $900,000- In addition to what they have already Correct.
And in years past, they have been provided the opportunity to always receive that, and no expectation of anything coming back. Yeah. I'm in a different situation today. I am not anti-schools, anti-investment in schools.
I am responsible for this budget. And I've cut and could do things- With that money ... just the same. So I'm now speaking up for my team as well. Yeah. So being that it's a conversation that we haven't had with school board jointly or with the public and all of that, I think if we decided in today to expect to take it all back if the state gives them a healthy chunk of change, that would be a sharper shock to the system.
But if we decide to do the gain sharing style, or with plans for changing the protocol for next year, that gives time for the processing to happen where it's like, okay, next year they've got the expectation that- Yeah ...
they get this, well, we get all of that back. But I think if we did all of it this year, that would be alarming. So either we should let them keep it, or we should do the 50% for this year. And so that's what I'm supporting.
Did that make sense? Yeah. Not quite, but are you saying you want the gain share 50? I say if we do want to take anything back- Yeah ... which I think is a valid position to take, since it's kind of feeling- Yeah ...
like we're close to passing everything, instead of giving a long runway for this, we should do no more than 50% this year. Right. With the longer runway being next year, they expect if we decide to- Stop.
So we could know what the history looks like, but, excuse me, I would say to be fair, I think this year is more of a situation in terms of the budget amounts because there has been a change in the administration.
So I don't think every year you're going to be looking at this big change in the state budget. Mm-hmm. I think this is sort of an anomaly. Yeah. They're trying to put- Do you agree, Michael, or disagree?
I just think this has happened for multiple years in a row at this scale. Okay. So, uh- Meaning they've gotten more than they originally put forward? Yeah. We based our budget, including based on tax increases, off a budget that didn't match state budget reality.
So Michael, it sounds like you support the gain share. Yes, if there's even a mechanism to do that. If once y'all decide that this is something you want to do, I'll figure out the right way to make it happen.
Yeah. No, I'm serious. Yeah. I think I'm leaning towards the contingency idea- Mm ... and how that looks in practice. I'm going to sit down, put pen to paper. Yeah. But one of those methods, we'll figure out the cleanest one and use it.
Right. So- It would be the equivalent of gain share- Right ... but in the contingency fund. Yeah. Essentially, you would budget the base amount that we are required to budget to them, and you place another amount into a contingency, and then depending on how much, that comes from state, half of that, however we want to do it, we pull that back into the city budget and the other part goes to the...
and then release the rest to the school board. But just from a practical matter, so we'll have the first reading Monday night, and then you'll be voting on this on the 9th. So, there's no time really to give unless somebody's going to call up school board.
Yeah. And have people come in Monday. I think it would be interesting for us to see. I think this would be interesting, people can tell me if it's not, to see a chart of the past couple of years of the allocations and the requests.
So- You have to ask the school board for that. We don't have it. Oh, it's not publicly available. I guess we could figure it out, but yeah, we haven't tracked it because it hasn't been a thing. Okay. Jen, what are your thoughts on the equivalent of a gain share, like whatever they get?
Which means 50%. I think the whole point of this was to see if we could avoid, if we could get a longer runway to see how much they were getting so we could avoid a tax increase. And so if there is overage and we can save half of it and that can contribute to their numbers next year, our contribution to...
If we used it in a way that could help us pay for it the following year, then that is helping do the job. So I think 50% is the right- Well, I think it would help pay for stuff we want to do this year, because we're going to find out in the next month, right?
Mm-hmm. What that number is. But in the trickle-down of it, then we didn't have to... If schools are going to ask for 2.5 million next year, we didn't have to spend it somewhere else, then we, in the big shell game of it all.
So yeah. The bottom line is I'm the chair, gain sharing. So I think we've got support, if I can recap real quick. We've got support this year to plan on using Methods to expect a 50% refund. But for next year, we want to build in a longer runway with language and meetings in advance to talk about a full return based on whatever the state- So- If we're never going to like it, it's not going to get any better next year.
I would just not muddy it up by talking about next year. Do we have to mention it here? No, next year is just, if it is something we're building into the budget cycle next year, the earlier staff knows about building that language, the better.
Well- Does that make sense? I think we're solving for something that won't matter at that point. If you make the change now, which I'm not recommending anything, I'm answering the question that was posed to me.
The change this year is, in essence, the change next year, because you're adding it to the appropriation. And unless you have a reason to pull it out, it becomes a part of the boilerplate- ftp. Packaging of that- Base ...
budget adoption, and it's just the numbers and details that change. That's true. Unless you want to adjust it from the 50/50 gain-sharing concept that we have enacted with them today. And you could also be in a situation where next year, they might ask for $6 million.
Way more than, and so the state revenue may not be- They won't even know. So relevant. Yeah. Okay. So it's the introduction of the concept of a 50/50 split of anything extra is what we're talking about.
And that's just- That part ... you put it in, and it's in, and you consider taking it out when you're reviewing the budget policy, I guess. So then really the question for today is if we want to do 50% or 100%.
Mm-hmm. And I would ask, if I have a recommendation, my recommendation is that if you are concerned about where we are and schools receiving additional funds that were not a part of our budget process that led to them getting what they've gotten, and you want to, then this is an avenue for doing it.
It's a choice. So, for this budget, the equivalent of gainshare 50%, I think that we have council support of that. Do- Now I'm thinking 100. I'll go back to your- I can go there. I can get- I'll go back to your concern of a thing.
Yeah. No, that's definitely going to make it a thing. That's a thing. No, that is a thing. But- So- If we say that today, that gives till Monday to hear a response. Which is not a lot of time. Not a lot of time.
That's not fair. It being a thing, potentially. Because they're already acclimated to the gainshare, is that what you're saying? No. Oh. Because they're- They're acclimated to all of it ... not expecting any of this.
Oh, got you. So just- They've only been advised of this by me asking the question. Oh, okay. So just to be clear, the way the gainshare works is they get their state revenue, the city match, they go through the year, they end up with a surplus, just like we do.
And so when they end up with their surplus, the agreement is they keep 50% and we get 50% back. That's really the gainshare. Right. So- But there's no guarantee that there'll be anything- Correct ... at the end of the year.
Correct. So this is just for the extra 500,000 that you built in the budget. If they get 500,000, do you want that 50/50? So they're getting now 700, or if they get 900, is it 500 plus all? What part of the additional funds, as Sam said, that you haven't considered, do you want them to keep?
So just to kind of throw- More time. ... Matthew in there. A school board member said that there's been a bonus proposed by the governor that we are having to cover the non-SOQ positions that will require them to use their fund balance of over a million dollars.
So if I understand it, that the governor has a proposal to pay bonuses- Without funding them. It's an unfunded mandate. Yeah. So we're- Sorry. Christy, can you run through that math you just said again for me, please?
So their, let me see if I can bring it up. Well, so their budget is federal funds, state funds, city match. Those are their three source, and then a few grants, but let's just say those are their three sources.
Then they have an expenditure budget, which they present to you. At the end of the year, if their expenditures are less than their total revenue, that's their surplus. We get 50%, and they get to keep 50%.
So this, for '25, for example, they ended the year with a 2.8-ish surplus. We got 1.4. They kept 1.4, and we put that in our debt service fund to help offset the increase we needed for debt service. So that's how that works.
Does that answer your question? Yes. So where are we now? So I just want to make sure, 50% or all of it? Yeah. Which one? Hmm. So, I'll go down the- 20,000. 50%. 50? I'm fine with 50% gain sharing. Yeah.
I'm at 50. Sure. 50. It sounds like- Okay. John, do you- We're blowing that out. So just so I'm hearing you clearly. So to the extent that they receive excess funds in the state budget, our appropriation needs to be cashed in such a way that we can recapture 50% the excess funds above they passed budget.
Is that correct? Somewhere? Yeah. We'll figure out the precise mechanism. It's going to be one of those three ways. Yeah. It's late on a Thursday- ... like Christy said, on Monday. That's got me thinking, well, maybe just adding in the contingency language ain't so bad.
Yeah. So, we'll have it worked out. Well, Monday's just the first reading. We could edit for Thursday. Could. But as I understand the way the gain sharing works, it's not only a question of how much money they received, if they didn't spend it all.
That's how they- It's literally whatever their net, quote, "profit"- Correct ... retained earnings, whatever you want to call it in this nonprofit world, that's what we get half of. Correct. So if they get an extra $900,000, but they have costs where they spend another $400,000, the amount subject to gain sharing would only be 500.
Correct. Yeah. So, do we want to say it's not gain sharing, it's just we get 50% back of whatever the state awards? I think gain sharing was just a useful- Right, yeah ... way of describing how we typically split the funds.
So that you understand how we're doing it today. Yeah, it's not- It wasn't... Exactly. So the actual real world would be if they do get 900, then we get 450 back? Yeah. Unless they also get hit with an unfunded mandate that they hadn't budgeted on.
How do we deal with that? We will retain the flexibility to respond to that, though. Yeah. You can always appropriate more. You can't, as I'm saying, once you appropriate it, it's gone. So, yeah, unappropriate.
Yeah. Yeah, which is why the- So I think that you- You understand where we're going. Okay. Any other- I speak council. Yeah. Okay. You speak council. Good. Any other action, Sam? Any other comments by council?
So Monday, is Monday a public hearing? Are we dealing with the budget at all on Monday? I can't remember. The real tax rate hearing is Monday, and then it's the first reading of the budget ordinance. Okay.
And then Thursday- Is adoption ... is the adoption. It should be- Wait. I'm- A few minutes. Six minutes. Yeah. No, I'm just kidding. I can't even be there. Yeah, at that point, we can have a discussion, but it would be really too late to have staff look into anything.
So, all right, everyone crystal? Yep. We're good? Yeah. That's right. Is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. All in favor, please say yes. Yeah. I second. Sorry. I just want to be a part of the meeting.