AI-generated transcript of Medford City Council Ordinances and Rules Subcommittee 11-28-23

[Zac Bears]: Medford city council subcommittee meeting on ordinances and rules meeting notice Tuesday, November 28th, 2023 at 6 p.m. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Collins. Present. Councilor Tseng. Present. Vice-president Bears. Present.

[Zac Bears]: Three present, none absent. The meeting is called to order. There will be a meeting of the Medford city council subcommittee on ordinances and rules on Tuesday, November 28th at 6 p.m. in the Medford city council chamber on the second floor of Medford city hall and via zoom. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the proposed budget ordinance paper 22-494. The subcommittee has invited chief of staff Nina Nazarian and finance director Bob Dickinson to attend this meeting. For further information, aids and accommodations, contact the city clerk at 781-393-2425. Sincerely yours, Zach Baer, subcommittee chair. Thank you for being here today. To my fellow councilors and to members of the city staff. We are meeting today on what I think is our third, maybe fourth meeting on the budget ordinance, definitely our second this fall, where we left the last meeting as we reviewed an ordinance draft prepared by this subcommittee, had what I would call a robust conversation on that draft for about an hour and a half. and we closed out with a motion to request that the chief of staff and the finance director provide a written response to the draft ordinance to be discussed at the next subcommittee meeting that includes a basic outline of what a reasonable timeline would look like for the budget process as discussed. And to add to that, I wanna say thank you. We got this document and I know you're gonna share it, but we have a document. I would say it goes beyond our request. I think it's a full updated draft. So I think that's really helpful for us to be able to consider tonight and going forward before the next budget season. So with that, if there are any Councilors who would like to make any comments before I turn this over to the chief of staff and the finance director.

[Justin Tseng]: Seeing that we just got this document, I'm still marking it up. And so if we could have the presentation, I'd be happy with that.

[Zac Bears]: Great. You good, Councilor Collins? Great. Madam Chief of Staff.

[Nina Nazarian]: Thank you very much to the members of the subcommittee on this subject and for the opportunity to discuss the presented ordinance that's before you. I do want to apologize for the time in which we're able to provide this draft. We had hoped to provide it earlier, but from a number of scheduling issues, you know, we were working on it this afternoon as well, to be candid, just putting some final aspects on it. So we were able to have a comprehensive and well thought out conversation with the subcommittee. So thank you for your patience. And obviously we're happy to continue the conversation beyond today and continue to work towards an ordinance that, you know, meets the objectives of the subcommittee and hopefully the city council as well as can fit within our current constraints and isn't something that is larger than we can manage today as we discussed at our last meeting. So from one of our take some of our takeaways from our last meeting included the after that lengthy discussion included the fact that the subcommittee stated that there were certain specific things that were most important to the city council as the subcommittee saw it. Specifically to have regular meetings and regular reporting, the earliest that the group could meet the possible, meaning the budget process and the city council. Um, the council to have an opportunity to provide input into the process before the final budget is formulated. Uh, and, you know, essentially a comprehensive proposal back to the city council. Those are the notes that I had jotted down at our last meeting as to the high level and most critical and important matters to this subcommittee and again, hopefully to the city council. So to that end, we've drafted, generally using the structure that was presented in the original draft, we've drafted what we believe to be aspects that are manageable and essentially feasible with today's staffing constraints and today's structures and today's systems. We all, I think, hope and I think The finance director and I, as well as the mayor, share the sentiment that we want to get even more sophisticated down the road, but we think that iterations down the road of this ordinance can be modified to accommodate that sophistication once we have the systems in place to be able to do so. So we're happy to walk through this. I mean, I'm happy to also either the finance director or I could give a high level overview of the sections that are here, if that would be helpful and kind of talk a little bit about the timelines. One thing that I will explicitly point out is that we have omitted aspects pertaining to the enterprise fund. And it was intentional because of the fact that our DPW commissioner and our water and sewer superintendent are, as you know, working on a strategic proposal plan and system. And there are a number of elements that need to come into play before I think we would recommend that anything be included here as far as the enterprise fund. But I think that that could be down the road and should be considered maybe a year from now as something that could be updated. But at this point in time, this would be just the main portions of the budget. We just don't want to put the cart before the horse and promise things that are being worked on parallel before the Water and Sewer Commission as well as the DPW Commissioner and his staff have had the opportunity to really give comprehensive thought and think through their process.

[Zac Bears]: So this is general fund only?

[Nina Nazarian]: Yeah.

[Zac Bears]: Yes.

[Nina Nazarian]: It's not to say that we wouldn't be attempting to follow similar timelines, but it's to say these things become law. These things become things we're required to follow. let's take our time setting the ones that we know we can accomplish and then move and augment this ordinance in the future when we know we have the systems in place to be able to do it again, because there's another body that comes into play with that as well.

[Zac Bears]: Just on that question, I mean, I think that makes sense. And we've heard from Commissioner McGivern and Superintendent Stone-King about the extensive, and to be frank, some of the water and sewer commissioners I've spoken to about the level of work that's going on there to get us into a place where we're, leave it at the fact that there are significant financial issues given the state of the system in the city. What about grant funding, revolving funds, special revenue funds? Just if we could speak to that as well. Has that also been excluded as a just general fund right here? right now?

[Nina Nazarian]: Yes. Yes. I mean, I can go on about why that is, but those in and of themselves are major undertakings. Um, so, I mean, I'm happy that we're happy to dive into any of those elements. Just want to be mindful as to the subcommittee's time considering your 7 p.m. meeting.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, no. And I just think, um, and correct me if this is an oversimplification because I'm sure it's an oversimplification of your job. But there's the general fund, the enterprise fund, and then what I would term everything else, which I think is grants, revolving, special revenue, et cetera. You know, I think we feel comfortable, at least I personally feel comfortable with my understanding of where the enterprise fund is at and coming back in a year maybe and looking at how we could incorporate them in here. What do we think the timeline is on that other bucket of stuff, which I know is a little bit harder to pin down?

[Nina Nazarian]: I'm happy to start this conversation and then I defer to our finance director. One, just starting with revolving funds. Those are dynamic, that's a dynamic funding bucket, if you will. Unlike an operating fund where an appropriation is set out at the beginning of the year, and that appropriation is the maximum that can be spent essentially, and you have to manage to that number. The difference with a revolving fund is that it's dynamic and that revenue is coming in as revenues going out. So doing forecasting and being able to present budgets, having done that in another community on a smaller level, even, is, it's a bit of a brain shift. It requires more, more planning, more analysis. We haven't set up those kinds of systems here in Medford at this point. We obviously work with our departments to ensure that we're not exceeding the budgets that are spent and that the revolving fund is always in a healthy balance. However, because it's a different approach entirely, it will take a different, I mean, as an example, just to speak specific to what I had to implement in another community is they're completely different budget sheets that get generated to be able to develop budgets. And then navigating those budget sheets are not entirely straightforward because, well, the lookbacks on them are taking into consideration revenue that's come in in prior years, but the year that's being spent on, all the revenue hasn't come in as you're spending. So it's just It's going to require the city, a bit of time to be able to work on that one thing alone. The enterprise fund might be the thing that is discussed next year as a potential addition in my mind. And then later down the road, how could we add other elements such as revolving funds or other special revenue buckets would be my suggestion, because I just, at this point in time, being able to carry this is already going to be an added workload to a department that's trying to weed through some old historical challenges and clean up. And then adding on top of that other elements such as a revolving fund budget process, which has never existed in Medford, is just beyond our capability at this point in time. I just, as I said before, I think, or alluded to before, I think we need to crawl before we can walk in this case. And that's probably not the best metaphor, because I do believe that we've done a better job than in past decades in providing budget information to the council. But I recognize that the council's looking for more of a conversation on this matter, and I think we are able to accomplish that. And that's the metaphor that I'm using for crawling and walking, essentially, on this.

[Zac Bears]: Got it.

[Bob Dickinson]: And just to add to that, obviously, you're aware most of the special revenue funds are set up for specific grants that can be, the grant money can only be spent on that, whatever the grant is for, and they are unbudgeted. They can be spent without appropriation. So what my department's been doing is trying to go through each and every grant fund, special revenue fund to make sure that we're in compliance. That's what you're generally supposed to do. We're in compliance with what the grant is for. We work with the auditors on that. And then at the end of the day, the thing balances out. We've gotten revenue in to cover the expenses if it's a reimbursement fund. So when we're thinking about what exactly the council needs would need to see and would look at for special revenue funds. And remember in Medford, not even counting the school, there's probably a couple of hundred special revenue funds, grant funds. We get new ones every week. So that's more of an ongoing conversation about what type of information the council would need.

[Zac Bears]: Got it. Yeah. And I think just as one Councilor, and sorry to belabor it, But both that and on that front, you know, we triage positions into revenue funds and we have grant funded positions that are essentially doing filling roles that we would like to see be operating positions. And I think my question is less aimed at how can we pigeonhole special revenue funds into this process? Because I understand that we're not gonna be able to budget in the same way and we can't rely on the funds in the same way. But to me, it's more to understand when we're triaging like that or when we have grant-funded positions that are filling operating budget roles in some sense, how are we, what's the impact of losing a grant on what the general fund need is, right? My biggest example I'm thinking about this year is ARPA and ARPA-funded positions. I'll leave ESSER and the schools to the school side, but we have a number of important positions funded through ARPA and understanding what the administration's plan is to essentially shift those onto the operating budget. So maybe not something as detailed as I understand exactly what you're saying is plugging it in and having the preliminary meetings, but at least understanding how we're gonna make sure that positions that we wanna keep in the longterm that are not funded in the general fund, what is the relationship there? How are we trying to shift those funds so that we can make sure that we can keep staff on in the longterm for roles that are longterm roles?

[Nina Nazarian]: And specifically to that, as you know, staffing with ARPA is only allowed through December 31st of next year. So as we're discussing the FY25 budget, all of that will become clear. We are actively working on this subject right now as it pertains to staff. We've been working with a number of different departments trying to pre-plan how we can ensure that those positions continue to support the city. and further information will shake out through the process, but it will all become evident as to how we're going to have to handle ARPA-funded positions in the fiscal 25 budget. And it is our goal to have those positions, to the best of our ability, continue to support city services.

[Zac Bears]: Understood. I'm going to pause there. I just wanted to get that framing in. Your draft here, we're talking general fund only, hopes in the future around enterprise, the other bucket, and I don't think we talked SIP here at all. So those would be future capital improvement plans. So those are future goals, but we're talking general fund right here. got it. Um, if you guys have questions, I can go to you now, but I also want to give you a chance to finish your presentation of the, of this before we go to questions.

[Justin Tseng]: Well, I was just wishing for maybe I had two quick questions. Um, earlier on in the presentation, you mentioned that you like in different municipalities, there's some, um, some systems set in place with regards to like making it easier to look at these dynamic funds, these revolving funds. I was wondering, not that we have money for that, because we don't have money for those systems, to implement those systems, but I am curious what that would look like. And the second question would be, I guess, very similar to what Councilor Bears was saying, was, is it possible to take you know, grant funded positions out of just like, instead of just talking about special funds, like, let's talk about special funds for staff personnel. Is that, is it possible to put that in here or is that too much of a lift?

[Nina Nazarian]: I'm happy to share my thoughts as usual. I'm not particularly shy, so forgive me for jumping in. But I mean, I can't speak, Councilor, saying to how it works in other communities. Frankly, the community that I was in had a revenue issue for certain revolving funds, so I had to implement the process to ensure that the revenue that the expenses weren't exceeding the revenues I can't speak to what other communities do because in the other communities that I worked in, there was no such process. So I've never seen one I actually built one in a much smaller community I defer to. our finance director on whether he's had that experience. As to the second question regarding staff positions, I mean, I think it largely becomes mute soon, but, you know, there are some minor areas where there is still support. You do see that information as it relates to transfers into the budget, for instance, casino mitigation funds. We've used it historically to pay for one engineering staff person. So that information is a part of the budget process. you know, the ARPA element, which is kind of the largest element, which is, you know, historically an unforeseen kind of funding source. And, you know, just kind of breaks the mold, if you will, of how we've historically operated. And for obvious reasons and good reasons, it won't be in the picture. So I don't know that it makes sense to, I wouldn't recommend it be incorporated into language, into an ordinance. Generally speaking, you know, guidance and advice from legal over the course of my career in developing. you know, what is essentially amounts to be a law. As we know, these ordinances become law. You want to be flexible with that. So you want to take into, it would be my recommendation that the council take into consideration there are things that are fluid that are going to change between today and in the future. And if ARPA is an element that's gonna change and it's the largest element that's on your mind, but otherwise the council is getting the sufficient information and it's no longer gonna be in the picture, I don't recommend it be incorporated into the ordinance.

[Justin Tseng]: but I guess seeing as like, it's not gonna take up as big of a part of our, you know, staffing in the future. It just, I mean, this is my opinion. It just doesn't seem like huge lift to include some just information like that in the reports, especially if we're going down from like 50 positions from schools and for city side to like just a handful, it seems reasonable. And I guess like the flip side of what you were saying is in the future, You know, we, I mean, I know folks in Washington are talking about financial packages in the future that look like ARPA to municipalities, and it would seem to me to be good to have some system set in place before where we're already practicing on kind of lower stakes, lower, smaller amounts of work, you know, a lesser workload. in preparation to set those systems up for the future. But that's, I'll defer to the rest of the council.

[Zac Bears]: It's just my thoughts. Thank you, Councilor Tseng. And if I'm incorrect, I'm not sure, and maybe we just need to double check on standard practice. When we get the staff charts in the budget proposal, do those charts include grant-funded positions?

[Nina Nazarian]: My recollection is yes. Yes, they do.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I thought they did.

[Bob Dickinson]: When you're looking at special revenue funds, there are many positions, I think particularly in the health department, that are, and a lot of school positions, obviously, that are funded by yearly federal grants that continue. So, for instance, school title one, title two, title three, blah, blah, blah. Those are all, those positions are, aren't likely to not be funded the next year. So that staff would continue using the grant money. And in terms of revolving funds, most of the revolving funds are, you could call them mini-enterprise funds, but they're very small. They're things like La Conte Rink, where the fees that the city earns from it keep the lights on there and pay for repairs to the Zamboni. We're not talking a huge budgetary concern there, it's from my point of view, it's just making sure that they don't go into a deficit situation.

[Zac Bears]: Right.

[Bob Dickinson]: And the revolvers, we don't really have any revolvers that involve a significant amount of money, I would say.

[Zac Bears]: Right. I think, and I think my general point here more than anything is, it'd be great for folks to see all that the, all that city government does without having to wait for the act for Because I don't even know, right? I see chief gen fund, I see enterprise fund, and then there's the other bucket, which is stuff that we do in government, good things that this city is doing, that this administration is doing, that showing to the public all the work that we do, that right now, as we present the budget, it doesn't present those elements of things. So, but we don't have to, I don't think we have to belabor it anymore. 18 minutes left. So I want you to let you guys finish this presentation of this draft. And I'm guessing we'll have some short discussion, but we'll probably have to come back for another meeting maybe in a week or two to see if we can lock this up.

[Nina Nazarian]: So okay, thank you. So very much in line with the kind of structure that was set out by I think Councilor vice president bears and the subcommittee. There's a quarterly financial report section. There's a preliminary budget meeting section. There's a city council budget recommendations to mayor section and a presentation and review of comprehensive budget proposal section. In those sections, as was stated and discussed previous during this meeting, we've covered the general fund and we've done our best to be we've pushed ourselves, right? We've said how early, what's the earliest we can do things, realistically. And this will be, I mean, you know, presumably once an ordinance is passed, it will be a good test to determine, you know, is what we expect to be what we can do right on place. I mean, we're trying not to set ourselves up for any type of failure, but at the same time recognize there are things that are out of our control. For instance, certain information doesn't become available at, certain times of the year as state aid, for instance, right? So we'd be able to, and again, this is really the finance director, we'd be able to do some conservative estimation to develop certain information to be able to provide information by, I think it is April 15th, which is the date we are proposing for preliminary budget meetings, because we believe that's the earliest date. We'd realistically be able to provide the council with as tight information as we possibly can. I may have said it at a prior meeting, but what we don't want to have happen is presenting information so early that we are forced to become conservative, more conservative than a standard budget practice would ordinarily recommend we be, so that we're not put in a position where we're overstating revenue and then finding out that that revenue is going to be less, and then we have to make cuts. That will create a system in which we have now interrupted government and the systems we're trying to further and created uncertainty in a process we're trying to create more transparency. So it's going to be counter counteractive to the intention I think of the Council and of the administration. We've done our best to push ourselves as far as we can. And should there be room to grow and get earlier, we can have those conversations at a later date. But realistically speaking, certain revenue hasn't even come in by a certain date, even local receipts, right? We're estimating local receipts by then. When we're developing the FY25 budget, we don't have a full FY24. local receipts. So we're relying on FY 23 receipts. And so the finance director has to make projections off of FY 23 and years prior. We just, we have to be thoughtful about that because it has a material impact to the process. Again, we don't want to overstate revenue and that's why we feel April 15th is the earliest we can start doing some of these preliminary meetings.

[Zac Bears]: Next is the budget council recommendations.

[Nina Nazarian]: Yes, so budget council recommendations. But before we get there, I will also point out that in section 3-102 preliminary budget meetings, in the essentially second sentence, third line down, it says, after beginning with department heads on that line, it says, the city council understands that in order for the mayor and finance director to be prepared to meet as early as April 15th on the following fiscal year budgets, an allocation must be provided to the school department slash committee. Said allocation shall be provided to the school department slash committee by the mayor or finance director by March 1st of each year. We think that's really important to have as part of this process. We can't build a budget unless the school departments element is somewhat known. So I want to point that out because we have historically made it a a goal to get the school department a number by a certain time so that they can begin their planning or further refining their budgets. And so in order it's like it's one of the largest elements of the budget and in order for us to be able to come in with other department budgets, we have to know what that largest piece of the pie really becomes.

[Zac Bears]: Sure. And that makes sense. I don't know. I don't know that I want to legislate school budget anything because I don't know that we should do that as the city council. I don't think, I don't have a problem with that being your practice. I just don't want to, without including the school committee in some way, impose anything on them as the council. So that's just my only caveat there.

[Nina Nazarian]: I think, I think there's, I don't think you can split the baby on this one, so to speak, and I'm not big on splitting any babies for that matter, but, So anyway, including my own. But I don't know that you can separate the two. I think that they're synonymous.

[Zac Bears]: And I do feel like we have to legislate it.

[Nina Nazarian]: I feel like there has to be an acknowledgement as to the fact that that will need to be a part of the process if we're going to try to accelerate the process in which the budget is presented. And I feel like it would be we'd be remiss in acknowledging that important element to this process. And I think we could potentially have communications with the school committee and make them aware of the ordinance and potentially notify them of this at the time in which this is further developed.

[Zac Bears]: . Let's quickly go through. We have counsel making recommendations. Your request is by March 15. We would be making recommendations prior to budget meetings is my read of this. Is that correct? The final section is presentation review of comprehensive budget proposal. The mayor would submit a comprehensive proposal by May 31. It looks like the additional meetings are in there. And it looks like maybe the list of what that proposal would contain has been kind of pared down a bit. I don't have the specifics in front of me, so I can't speak to them. But is that a basically a fair summary?

[Nina Nazarian]: Yeah, at a very high level, it's pared down to the general fund budget. And the only other thing I'd like to point out is that in order for this to work, going back to section 3-102, preliminary budget meetings, item three, last sentence before the bulleted items it says it shall be the mayor finance director or designees who select the order in which budgets will be discussed in line with the fact that we have one of the major elements of our budget is the school department budget we also have simpler budgets that we know we can move forward so we are saying that in order to be able to present these things by April 15th because of the revenue challenges we're going to have, because of the complexity of certain department budgets, we also have to be able to prescribe which ones are coming before the council first. So those will be some of the simpler budgets as one can imagine, because the last thing we want to do is present budgets and then say we have to remove, you know, proposed financing from those budgets in the future as revenue information continues to come in. We are in a kind of a, set up sort of a fluid process as of April 15th. Anywhere between April 15th, I mean, realistically, we've seen that the state hasn't set the budget until after June, the local revenues after June 30th. But by June, realistically, there's usually some relative certainty to the minimum expectations we can have. April is relatively early in that process. So there's a lot of conservative estimating. Sooner than that is even more challenging. But that's why we're saying that the departments that are, you know, more certain or simpler or, you know, faster to move through the process so that the council can have an opportunity to have discussions. We'd like to have those presented first. That makes sense.

[Zac Bears]: I think we'd be happy to set out a series of dates that you could fill in at your discretion with the departments, which has been our historic practice.

[Bob Dickinson]: Just as an example, of course, you know, you think about when to present the DPW. Well, you're basing it on expenses from the current year. We could have a huge snowstorm in April, whereas the finance department budget is relatively well known for the next year early on.

[Zac Bears]: Did you grab Larry? Okay. I'm going to go to, I think that's a fair summary. I'm going to go to my fellow Councilors for any questions, then we'll make some motions and then we'll wrap and probably come back. And I think we need a little more time to digest this and bring some suggestions back. So, um, Councilor Collins, then Councilor Tseng, um, thank you.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you for the presentation. Thank you for the document. Appreciate the time that you've put into this and all the thought that you've put into this. Don't have a lot of substantive comments to make because I need to read and digest this before I can, come up with anything substantial in return, but I do appreciate the discussion around the allocation of the school department budget by March one that was a question that I'd flagged just from the brief skim I was able to do. And or at least a next step, I would feel more comfortable perhaps referring this draft as well as the budget ordinance that we've drafted for context to school committee leadership or the full school committee to just start a conversation, get their feedback so we can understand what that would mean for their process and a way to incorporate that into the framework that would make sense with their process and not legislate where we shouldn't be legislating. excited to review this further and reconcile with the draft that came from our side. And hopefully in our next subcommittee meeting, we can also discuss more of the capital planning part of the ordinance that isn't covered here. Thank you.

[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I think we talked about a bunch of the differences between this draft and the last one. I think the biggest question on the top of my mind is the council budget recommendations, the timeline for that and how that fits in with the preliminary budget meetings. I mean, as you noted, Councilor Beres, Vice President Bears, the previous draft that the Council or the subcommittee was looking at basically had us make recommendations after the meetings. This one has us make recommendations before. And so I think that's something that we should discuss. I know our time is limited. The other big differences, as noted, are things like the enterprise fund. the fixed costs versus new expenses, parts of the ordinance, capital improvements. Those are the biggest differences that I see in front of me today. I would also support Councilor Collins' statement that we should refer the part relevant to the school committee to school committee members to get their input on it as well.

[Zac Bears]: I'll just make two comments. I think for me one thing that would be very helpful and we can talk about this, this may not need to be in the ordinance itself. And it seems like actually you kind of already included it, which I do appreciate. In the general fund, when we see a departmental budget and we see the increase year over year, it would be helpful for me to know how much of that is fixed cost and how much of that is new program. And I think that would help us really explain to the public that when the budget goes up, it's not going up because we're not adding a new position. We're not adding a new service. We're not adding anything. It's very literally inflationary fixed cost increases. And I think that's a huge important thing to explain to residents that Yes, in nominal dollar terms, the dollar amount has increased, but we're not getting anything more for it. It's because salaries have increased, costs have increased, everything else. And I just think that's, that's really essential. It seems like you're kind of already there with the amount that's going towards new staff or programs. So I think just, you know, we could clarify that as a go forward, but It'd be really nice to see that in a really nice big graphical representation in every department sheet, like 90% of this increase is just paying for things that we're already doing today because costs have gone up. So that's just my one little throw in comment.

[Justin Tseng]: And I would agree with that.

[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Given where we are on the timeframe, I think I heard three motions. The first motion was from Councilor Collins. to refer the relevant section regarding the allocation to the school committee, to school committee members. Is that correct, Councilor Collins? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. I think, and I'll wait for you.

[Nina Nazarian]: With some context though, obviously just, I mean, I don't know how you present it, but.

[Kit Collins]: probably be more helpful to send them this draft, and then the draft that came from the council for context. Sure.

[Zac Bears]: But the specific thing we're asking for a comment on is, do you have comments on the mayor saying that to put in ordinance that March 1st would be the date that the allocation would be provided to the school committee?

[Nina Nazarian]: I think, I mean, historically that the city has provided a number to the school committee. So this isn't gonna be any different than has been historical practice. No different than, you know, the administration has been able to work with the city council and provide for which departments will go first. This is memorializing that process to acknowledge that that's a critical element in order for this organization to be able to shift and provide revenue and other budget information as early as is being presented here.

[Zac Bears]: Got it. Understood. I think, is there an amendment to that motion, Councilor Collins?

[Kit Collins]: Has there been one?

[Zac Bears]: Would you like to make one? And that we will provide the drafts, both drafts of the budget ordinance as context.

[Unidentified]: Yeah.

[Zac Bears]: All right. And the committee reports, which would contain what you just said. I think I kept your chair open. Great. A second motion that I didn't hear made, but I can't make, but I would like to happen is if Councilors could submit to the clerk written comments on this, the draft from the administration by next Tuesday. So moved. Yes. Seconded by Councilor Collins. And the third motion would be to keep in committee and adjourn by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng. And then to you guys, what do you think about the 12th or the 13th at 6 p.m. for a potential next meeting on this? Two weeks from today or two weeks from tomorrow.

[Nina Nazarian]: At this point, I think I could do the 13th, but I wouldn't take it straight to an hour.

[Bob Dickinson]: I could do the 13th. I'd rather not do the 12th. It's my birthday.

[Nina Nazarian]: Our finance director's birthday is apparently the 12th. So we probably should avoid that day. And I also was aiming towards the 13th, but I'd be constrained to an hour. I'm not sure if that could work for the subcommittee, but.

[Zac Bears]: Well, we can at least hopefully get pretty far. So we'll do that. All right. On the motion of councilor Collins to join and approve all the motions seconded by seconded by Councilor Tseng all those in favor. All opposed. None. Motions are approved and the meeting is adjourned.

[Nina Nazarian]: Thank you.