Welcome to the City of St. Petersburg City Council Meeting. Your elected officials are Mayor Ken Welch, District 1, Copley Gerdes, District 2, and Council Chair Brandy Gabbard, District 3, Ed Montenari, District 4, Lissette Hanowitz, District 5, and Council Vice Chair Deborah Figg Sanders, District 6, Gina Driscoll, District 7, John Muhammad. And District 8, Richie Floyd. Good evening, everyone. We will call to order the November 27th, 2023 meeting with a roll call, please. Montenari? Here. Hanowitz? Here. Figg Sanders? Here. Driscoll? Here. Muhammad? Floyd? Here. Gerdes? Here. Capper? Here. Okay, this evening's meeting will begin with an invocation that will be given by Vice Chair Figg Sanders, and following that, we will have the Pledge of Allegiance. Please stand. May we please bow our heads and come to peace. As we stand before you with our heads bowed and our hearts humbled, we come with you carrying the weight of power on our shoulders. We pray that that power brings us peace and resolve to handle the business of the City of St. Petersburg. We pray to you that that power comes with commitment and understanding for the constituents and the communities that we serve. We also pray to you that that power comes with the understanding that we have the best interests of our constituents at heart and that there is no problem too large for you to solve. And together, the unity that we share on the diocese, one that we want to be blessed, graced, and approval of your mercies. Lord, we just come to you wanting you to just continue to take care of those that have experienced times of trouble, as well as smile with times of joy during this season of Thanksgiving. We want to bless those that have gone without and those that have gone short. And with those of us that have been in abundance, we continue to spread your word and your goodness and mercy. As we come to our holiday season for Christmas, remember this is not always a blessed time for everyone. And that we continue to find the kindness in our hearts, the willingness in our emotions, and our powerlessness of being able to share your love with others less fortunate. Again, we sit here doing the business of the city of St. Petersburg, and we just ask you to go before us, to lift us, to bind us, to provide merciful boundaries within us, to do what is right. Lord, these blessings we ask in your mighty matchless name. Amen. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. You may be seated. Thank you, Vice Chair Fig Sanders, for that beautiful invocation. All right, Council Members, we have an agenda before us this evening. I'll entertain a motion for approval. Second. All right, we have a motion and a second to approve the agenda. Seeing no request to speak, Clerk, please open the machine for voting. Council Members, enter your votes. Seeing all present, Council Members have voted. Clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Madam Chair, the motion to approve the agenda passes unanimously with Council Member Mohammed being absent. Okay, now we will go ahead and move into open forum. Clerk, can you please read the rules for open forum? If you wish to address city council on subjects other than public hearing or quasi-judicial items listed on the agenda, please sign up with the clerk. Only the individual wishing to speak may sign the open forum sheet. Only residents, owners of property, business owners in the city, or their employees may speak. All issues discussed under open forum must be limited to issues related to the city of St. Petersburg government. If you are speaking to an item on the agenda, you may only speak once during the open forum or when the item comes up on the agenda. In order to provide an opportunity for all citizens to address council, each individual will be given three minutes to speak, and after which the microphone will be muted. If you wish to address city council through the Zoom meeting, you must use the Raise Hand Feature button in the Zoom app or enter star nine on your phone at the time the agenda item is addressed. When it is your turn to speak, you will be unmuted and ask to state your name and address. At the conclusion of your comments, or when you reach the three-minute time limit, you will be muted. All raised hands will be lowered after each agenda item. Regardless of the method of participation used, normal rules apply, including the three-minute time limit on comments, the requirement that any presentation materials must be submitted in advance of the meeting, and the rules of the quorum. If live public comment is disrupted by violations of the rules of the quorum, the chair is authorized to accept public comment by alternate means, including by email only. And Madam Chair, we have no speakers in the audience, and there's no one on Zoom. All right, we'll go ahead and close open forum, and we will take up our public hearing item, item D1. Clerk, can you please read the title? Orders number 562H, an ordinance enacting year-end appropriation adjustments for fiscal year 2023 for the operating budget and capital improvement program budget, and adjustments to the fiscal year 2024 budget, and providing an effective date. And we have no cards on the side of Madam Chair. Okay. Hello, good evening. Good evening. I'm joined by Budget Director Liz Makovsky for a short presentation. Thank you, and good evening, Chair and members of City Council. This evening, we have the second reading and public hearing for the fiscal year 2023 cleanup, and fiscal year 2024 budget reconciliation, or cleanup ordinance 562H. At the November 9th Budget Finance and Taxation Committee meeting, we had a detailed discussion of both the FY23 and FY24 recommended budget adjustments based on the October 16th preliminary financial close. And later that evening, we had the first reading of the cleanup ordinance at the City Council meeting. In between now and the November 9th meetings, there have been a number of adjustments, entries to both revenues and expenditures. And this evening, I will give a summarized version of the proposed changes from first reading. The beginning fund balance for the general fund in FY23 was 57.631 million. Based on the city's financials as of November 9th, 2023, and the estimated FY23 entries included on the cleanup ordinance. It's estimated that approximately 13.735 million will be added to the general fund's balance. The FY24 budget entries included in the cleanup ordinance will use 8.611 million in general fund balance. And the estimated net effect is an estimated increase of 5.124 million in general fund balance with an FY24 estimated ending general fund balance of 62.756 million. This is an increase of over 1.5 million from the first reading estimate. Any additional budget actions taken during the year would change this estimate. Looking at an overview of the general fund at FY23 year end, this chart shows the estimated FY23 year end general fund balance based on the November 9th financial reports. Since the first reading, revenues have increased by approximately 1.865 million, and the majority of the increase was in the grants category and a small amount in the miscellaneous revenue contribution category. Estimated expenditures in the general fund also increased by 431,000. The net result is that the estimated amount added to the fund balance at the end of FY23 is now 13.735 million, compared to our estimate of 12.301 million at first reading, which is the increase of approximately 1.5 million. There are actions in the FY24 portion of the cleanup ordinance, FY23 rollover requests to 24, and FY24 supplementals that will reduce this amount. This slide shows the 10% core general fund target of 33.231 million, and the 20% general fund group of funds target of 66.985 million, and the estimated general fund balances at the end of FY23. We estimate that the 10% core general fund target will be exceeded by 38.1 million, and the 20% target by 46.8 million. The estimates do not include the 9.695 million in FY24's supplemental appropriation rollover amounts, which will be discussed later in the presentation, that will reduce the general fund balance, and therefore the amounts over target, fully expended by 8.611 million, after accounting for 1.084 million in associated grant revenue. The core general fund target will increase from 10% to 12% in FY24, and the new core budget fund target for FY24 is estimated to be at 43.178 million. Let's look at the supplemental appropriations needed to close out FY23. The appropriations on this slide for the general fund total 6.217 million. The amount listed for the first item is for budget authority only, and all amounts are included in the 350.203 million total expenditure estimate. And since first reading, the amount for the fire rescue department increased by $4,500, and there are no new items added to this list. In the other city funds, there are 18 different funds that needed FY23 cleanup supplemental appropriations. Two of these funds amounts changed since the first reading. Tropicana Field and the Water Resources Operating Fund amounts increased, and there were no new funds added since first reading. There are a couple of internal service funds that require increases in authority for FY23. Since first reading, the fleet management amount has decreased by 788,000, and the other two fund amounts did not change. On the capital improvement funds, there are funds that require supplemental appropriations in FY23. There's two changes since the first reading. It's the amounts for the DIS New Main Extensions FY23, and DIS TAPS, Meters, and Backload FY23 projects, and the Water Resources CIP Fund, and both these amounts increased since first reading. But they do have corresponding revenue to cover those amounts. So at the end of each fiscal year, we commit or assign certain amounts within the general fund. There's five categories that were established when council adopted the FY23 budget, and we now have projections for how much will be committed for each of these categories. The operating reappropriation or encumbrance amount in the general fund is $6.022 million, and is the only amount on this list that has changed since the first reading, and it decreased by just over $400,000. These are encumbrances that have been paid for an FY23, and are included in the $350, excuse me, the $350 expenditure amount, estimated expenditure amount. The land sales proceed amount and the other three amounts listed did not change since first reading. A full list of the FY23 operating reappropriations is located in Section 5, pages 7 and 8 of the backup, and there are a total of 41 funds. That entered into a contract or a legal commitment to spend funding in FY23, but were unable to complete the purchase, or did not receive the deliverable during FY23. These expenses were paid with FY23 resources, but will become an actual in FY24, and they've already been netted out of the beginning FY24 fund balance, so it will not have a budgetary impact in FY24. In the general fund, as mentioned on the previous slide, there's a total of $6.022 million in encumbrances to roll over in FY23, with just under $12,000 related to the BP original funding. And all of those general fund encumbrances are accounted for in that FY23 expenditure estimate of $350.203 million. So moving on to FY24 and the general fund supplemental appropriations. The FY24 supplement appropriation requests for both the general fund and other funds are mostly made up of items, programs, or projects that were budgeted for in FY23, but due to timing or other circumstances were not purchased or completed before year end. Therefore, the unexpended appropriation is requested to roll over to the next year to complete the purchase or project, grants, and non-departmental appropriations to programs whose fiscal years do not align with our budget fiscal year are examples of these types of supplemental appropriation requests. And this slide mirrors the earlier FY23 year-end slide and shows the impact of the FY24 cleanup items on the general fund balance. Again, the BP funds are separate from the general fund operating. And since the first reading, the total rollover and supplemental request amounts has decreased by 145,000 and is now 9.695 million. And I will highlight the changes in more details over the next few slides. And the net result is that the estimated amount of the decrease in fund balance during FY24 is now 8.611 million compared to our estimate of 8.756 million at first reading. Basically, we are budgeting to use 8.611 million of the FY23 surplus and FY24. Coming back to that slide at the beginning of the presentation, when you combine the FY23 and 24 cleanup actions, the total estimated net impact of the general fund is an increase in 5.124 million in fund balance. So again, as mentioned in a previous slide, the total amount requested in the general fund for FY24 supplemental appropriations is 9.84 million. And this slide summarizes those requests by department administration. The changes for first reading totaled a decrease of 145,000. The legal amount decreased it by 16,000, finance department by 100,000, and libraries request by 29,000. And additional information can be found on section 6, pages 9 through 11 of the backup. The detailed information on the FY24 supplemental appropriations for other city funds can be found on section 6, pages 11 through 12 of the backup. Since first reading, there's six fund amounts that have changed. Three of the housing grant funds amounts have changed, including the local housing fund, CDBG, and the home fund. The South Saint Pete CRA amount decreased. The downtown redevelopment amount increased by 88,000 for a transfer to the debt service fund. And the building permit special revenue fund request increased by 328,000 to fund the purchase of vehicles for new inspector positions added in FY23 that were not able to be purchased during the year. On the CIP funds, there are two changes since the first reading for FY24. Both changes are technical in nature. The first is an appropriation of 750,000 to the CADRMS project related to grant funding. When the grant was accepted earlier in the year by city council, the resolution appropriated the grant funding in the general fund when it should have been appropriated into the general capital improvement fund. So this change fixes that appropriation. And the second item is changing the name of the 28th Street, First Avenue North, Pinellas Trail project, through the 28th Street, First Avenue North to 13th Avenue North project. And no change since the first reading, there's still no required arts and public places fund transfers based on the FY23 transactions. And that concludes the presentations, if there's any questions. Very good, thank you so much. All right, Council, any questions? Council Member Montaneri. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Liz. Thank you for the presentation. I just would like to make sure I understand a couple of these slides on starting on slide to the cleanup ordinance summary. And I think you had a slide in the back of your PowerPoint presentation that kind of explained this a little bit more. But can you kind of go into detail the changes from first reading to second reading on this slide number to the FY23 entries looks like it's like a $1.4 million difference. Yeah, so there's a couple steps. We had increased revenue that came through from the first reading, and that was about $1.865 million. And then we had expenditures increase by $431,000, so that's going to offset that amount. And then when you look at the funds that changed, there was on the general fund, I think it was $145,000. Sorry, that's going into that $23,000 amount. But those were the changes on the FY23 side. And then if you move over to the FY24 entries, those amounts were the changes that occurred on the rollover request, which was the $145,000 decrease in the general fund. Okay. All right, thank you. And then on page 7, the fleet management difference, can you explain what happened there? So they were, when we did the first reading, the reports had them over by a much higher amount, and it was because there was a bunch of purchase orders that hadn't been closed down in time. So we worked with the department to get those purchase orders closed out. So it released that budget authority, and so they were no longer over budget by as large of an amount. And I actually think since the night that numbers come down even more. Okay. All right. Thank you. And then in the ordinance on page 10, and I brought this up at the BF&T Committee meeting, about the $300,000 for the upper-witted economic impact study. When I looked through the budget, I couldn't find this figure anywhere. So where is it in the budget? So the majority of it was in the FY23 consulting line in the economic and workforce development department's budget. It was part of last year's rollover amount. And then because they're under budget, they requested to roll over an additional $50,000 because a lot of these studies and consulting work we've done, the prices are going up. So they wanted to have a higher amount for that. And since they had savings, we included the rollover this year from $250,000 to $300,000. So it was in the 23 budget, or are you saying? It was in the 23 amended budget. Amended budget. Yes. In the consulting line. In the what line? Consulting object code. Okay. Well, I have an issue with this study, and I would like to, let me think about it, but I'm thinking about making a motion to transfer these funds into into another area and probably the urban tree planning program or something like that. But I did ask some questions at PF&T, like when this issue was going to come before city council and administration told us that they haven't made a decision on that. But I just question the need to even roll this funding over, and I think we can use these funds in another place. So I'll leave it right there. I'll let my colleagues speak. Thank you. Councilmember Driscoll. Thank you. And I appreciate Councilmember Montaneri bringing up the airport. That is one of my questions that I had about that. I didn't realize that it was somewhere in the budget. It certainly wasn't brought up, and I would not have gone along with that. I'm fully supportive of moving that funding somewhere else. On top of the fact that it's been made clear that we don't all agree on issues around the airport, but there also was an economic impact study that was done not too long ago on the airport. And it was quite favorable, I might add. I like the idea of moving that to an urban tree planning program because that's certainly something that we can all agree on that would be beneficial to our city. No doubt about it. Just staying in that section for now, there are also separate allocations for the Chamber Grow Together Leadership Alliance and also for the Grow Smarter Job Creation. One's for 30,000, one's for 40,000. Now, the Grow Smarter initiative has evolved into the Grow Together Leadership Alliance, and so I'm wondering why we have, number one, any money being allocated for Grow Smarter because it doesn't exist anymore. Or is that something where it's money that we still owe for something from the past? It's the remaining request from FY23 that was unspent that they're requesting to be roll over to FY24. Okay. Is there still a Grow Smarter strategy that's being done at the same time that its replacement is being done? I mean, it's two things here, but it's actually, there's only one program. Good afternoon, City Council. It's so great to see everybody after Thanksgiving break. Hope everybody had a great holiday. Thank you for your question, Councilmember Driscoll. Obviously, we are working on the new Grow Together Leadership Initiative. I'd have to talk to Mr. Kaper to see what the request was related to for this funding. We can certainly do that and get back to you, though, Councilmember. Okay. The, back on page nine, under finance, there's 250,000 allocated for consulting services for a cost allocation plan. Just briefly, what is that? So, we're, the best practices is do a cost allocation plan every three to five years, and we're at that point. We scheduled to do the work with finance to do that study in FY23, but we weren't able to get that accomplished, so we wanted to roll over the funds into FY24. It's also going to be a three-pronged study where we're going to look at indirect cost rates for grants, our burden rates on our capital improvement projects, and also the cost allocation plan. So, it's something we do every couple years, and it's, it helps look at our internal service funds and how we're allocating finance, budget, legal across to other departments. Okay. And then with city development, the, on page nine, the first Friday was allocated $10,000. Is that in addition to some other funding that had already been allocated when we approved the FY24 budget? Yes, I believe that'll, I'll let them do an additional event during the year for FY24 than what we had previously appropriated. An additional event, it's all one day, so. Not first night, first Friday. Oh, first Friday, okay. That, okay. I'm okay with that for now, but there are some conversations about first Friday and how it's going to be moving forward. So, we're going to have to, we're going to have to look at that. These aren't big amounts, but it does matter. It starts to add up. With the consulting services for planning and development services, is that, again, a best practices initiative that we haven't been told about? The consulting service 8,000, I'm pretty sure that's rolling over an unspent amount this year to complete a program that they're doing in the current year. Usually those are for the different plans that we do throughout the city. Okay. And then, I think this is my last one, the neighborhood matching grant program under neighborhood relations on page 10, $59,617 is being rolled over. That means that that's how much was not applied for or granted to neighborhood associations for projects, and that's a lot. So, I'm wondering, is that, and I didn't look back, but is that something, is that an amount that's pretty common for us to roll over? I think we roll over an amount every year, but without having that in front of me, I don't know. Yeah, I don't know that it's this much. And it may be that there's an upcoming, and I'd have to get with Susie, an upcoming project that's coming up that's going to cost a little bit more, so they may have kind of needed to bank those funds so that they can do a bigger project or another grant thing. But I'd have to get with Susie on that one. Yeah, okay. And I'll follow up with Amy Foster as well, because I want to make sure neighborhoods have access to that funding. That's all I have for now. Thank you, Chair. Councilmember Hanowitz. Thank you, Chair. And thank you for the presentation. And that last issue that Councilmember Driscoll brought up, my understanding is, and when I worked in the neighborhood, there was always money kind of rolling over because there are pending applications. So, I'm sure there's probably pending applications. But I agree that we should always make sure that there's money for the neighborhoods and matching grounds because it's a very popular program. So, in terms of Albert Whitted, the impact study, 300,000. I mean, this issue has come up before, and I wasn't expecting it to be brought up today. But since it was brought up today, I'm just curious, what is the status of this? Thank you, Councilmember. So, based on the current workload, and I mentioned this at BF&T, I mean, obviously, we're hyper-focused on the gas plant. We're also really trying to lock in on the marina. And these are just higher priorities right now than putting together this study and going forward with it. So, I'd say possibly springtime, you might see something come back to you for a request for approval on the study. Well, I just think, I mean, given all the hurdles with the airport, whether it's the federal grant monies, the referendum that you'd have to go to public, and all these other issues, I mean, we have $300,000 that's sitting there for an impact study. And we have issues like the marina that need money and other things. And so, I don't know, what is, you're thinking that you're going to have the impact study done this summer? Like I said, it depends on other things and how those go and what happens with the gas plant. Right now, I would say, you know, hypothetically, we'd be looking at maybe springtime to bring that study to City Council. You know, we don't know yet if City Council's going to approve that study. If it was approved, they would get to work in the summer, maybe in fall, you know, winter. Might have something back from the consultant would be my expectation. And then you still, depending on what happens, you'd have to have a referendum at some point? Depending on what happens, you know. And the earliest that would be would be when? I'm not prepared to answer that tonight. You know, I will certainly say that obviously City Council appropriates funding. If you'd like to move the money to another location, that's certainly your discretion. It's my understanding that that wouldn't prohibit us from bringing the study back and asking to appropriate money from somewhere else, which ultimately you would vote yes or no on, so. All right. Okay. I just know that this has been coming up for a while and it's money sitting there. There are a lot of other big items that are happening in our city. And given all the other issues, the airport, which is a big item to tackle along with the issues with the grant funding and federal monies and the referendum. I'm just thinking if it's something that's realistically is going to be happening where we should be holding that money. But okay, I'll leave it there. Thank you. Okay. We have a motion. I want to make sure I want to second what I think I'm saying. Council member Gerdes, would you like to clarify what your motion is for? The budget appropriation in front of us. The ordinance. Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Council member Montaneri. Well, I was going to make a motion to move the, like I mentioned earlier, the funding for the economic impact study of the airport to the urban tree planting program. And I'd like to ask Council member Gerdes if he would consider modifying your motion to appropriate, to move that funding from the study to the urban tree planning program. So we have an amended motion to approve the ordinance with the moving of the $300,000 to the urban tree study program. Tree planning program. Tree planning program. Okay. All right. So I'm just going to quickly take my turn since I haven't yet. And I was kind of expecting you to make this as a standalone motion for the moving of the money before we voted on the whole ordinance. So I was holding my comments for that. So I'm just going to speak specifically to the amendment. So as far as I'm concerned, there's a lot of places we could use this $300,000. And I'm not saying that I think it necessarily belongs in the Albert Wooded study. But I'm also not saying that I'm prepared here today to decide which program is more suited for this $300,000 over others. Obviously, approving of, you know, trees planting is a priority. But at the same time, we have lots of priorities. And so I would have liked to, I guess, had a little more opportunity to talk about where this $300,000 should go. The way I see it, to, you know, Mr. Curtis's point, $300,000 study comes before us one way or the other. So if we allocate the money in this spot today, we still have to vote on it when it comes forward. If we don't allocate it today, he just sat there and said he's going to probably bring another study at some point. And then we're going to have to vote on it then. Either way, we vote on it. So I am not prepared today to move this to another category without more conversation about what categories are best serving. And for me, I'm going to have to vote no on this amendment because that is, or on the ordinance, because that amendment is attached to it. I wish it would have been a standalone motion, but it wasn't. So that's where I stand on it. Council member Driscoll. Thank you. I like the idea of sending the funding to trees after I thought about it for a minute, because it's actually something that benefits our entire city, not just one district or two, but it's something that we all need. We've all always been supportive of more trees and we certainly don't have enough funding to do the work that's needed right now. So I actually think it's a good idea to do that and I'll be supportive of that. Have we got a second on that already? The original maker of the motion, the seconder accepted. Oh, okay. I missed that part. Okay. Thank you. Council member Curtis. Thank you, Chair. I would really prefer for us to be together on this. So I'll withdraw my motion so it can be done separately. Okay. So D one as amended has been withdrawn. Does this, the seconder doesn't have to second or withdraw. Okay. Um, okay. So there is no motion on the floor currently. Council member Hanowitz. Thank you, Chair. This has gotten very complicated. Um, so look, one of the things that I liked about the tree issue is we may not all agree on the airport issue, but I think we all agree on trees, at least from all the meetings that we've had. And I know for a fact that I've had conversations regarding even our waterfront and the problem with the trees on our waterfront from the saltwater and they're dying. And there is a real issue going on because of the drought. And when the storm last came in, you had saltwater go in and has affected the trees on our waterfront. And that's an issue that's cropping up. So if we're putting it on trees, that would be able. And, and I want to make it clear. I would hope that that can support if there is issues with trees in the waterfront, because that is the one of the most important things. I think in our city is our waterfront and the trees and citizens get very protective of that. So I would be absolutely supportive knowing that this is an issue that we are having. Thank you. Perfect. Sanders. Thank you. Thank you. I was readily willing to, to second the motion because again, we are looking at trees. And I think at the last count, we had our budget conversation. We spoke in abundance about the warning of trees, which is why I was okay with that. If we want to look at different areas, I would love to have that conversation as well. You know, like I said, me sitting on, on HLA and also understanding that ARPA will be going away soon. And there are some other conversations we would, we could have. Um, I would like to entertain that conversation. So, um, not to sound indecisive, I'm still supportive of trees. Um, most definitely. So by the, um, motion being withdrawn, um, I'm okay with that, but I still would like to look at other areas where we can apply some of those dollars as well. Uh, council member Montaneri. Thank you. I'll go ahead and make the motion to, uh, transfer the funds from the Apple Whitted Economic Impact Study to the urban tree planting program. Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Council member Floyd. Yes. Thank you. Um, I, I just want to get some clarification. I feel like the last time we talked about the urban tree planting program, uh, we were going to go through a process of, uh, doing a study to figure out how we can most effectively plant trees. So I'm, I'm wondering if like us sending the money there before we've done that is going to, uh, will the money get spent really is what I'm, is what I'm wondering. Are we going to wait until we have done that study? And so I, if anybody can answer some of those, some of that for me or speak to me. Um, is there anyone here from that department tonight? My concern is, is, is the money going to be spent in this fiscal year? Yeah. I mean, I'll just say a couple of things. First of all, I want to thank council member Hanowitz and respond to her comments about the waterfront and how important that is. And we're aware of that issue. Um, and if necessarily, if necessary, could certainly use this type of funding to address that, but we, we plan to address it as needed, uh, as it comes up. Um, the second thing is, you know, as I said, council makes the decision on how to appropriate funds. Uh, we'll honor what you do here tonight. If you want to move this towards tree planning, I will get with the team and make sure that we can use the funding to get trees planted. Um, so that'll be our commitment. Okay. That's, that's all I needed to hear. Thank you. Um, I'm similar to count, uh, council chair Gabbard. I like, you know, to come here today and, and say like, okay, we're going to move this money specifically to trees. Like, you know, we've all got different priorities. It's, it's, it doesn't feel great really. Um, and to feel like, you know, where else could 300,000 make an impact? I can think of a lot of places that I would prioritize, but, um, you know, I mean, I, this is the motion I have in front of us. I do support the urban tree planning program. So I guess that's where we're at today, but, um, I would have liked to have had this discussion a little differently. Thanks chair. Council member Driscoll. Thank you. And just to provide a little bit more context, the, um, administration was moving forward with, or had asked for, um, I believe it was $850,000 for the tree planning study. And when they were last before council, um, it was on a slightly different topic to do trees in the child's park neighborhood. I asked about, about that and, um, asked for consideration for that money to be shifted to actually just planting trees rather than studying where to plant trees. Um, and they said that they've actually been talking about that, but there's been no commitment on that so far. Um, this action today to, um, allocate 300,000 towards, towards trees. Again, I think it's, um, uh, um, a topic that we are all interested in and that we all support. And again, it's something that could go throughout the city. Um, and it's something that could be, that could be put to use immediately rather than holding it back, um, for a study that may come in the spring, may come in the summer. And if we, um, reject that study in that vote, then we could ask. Um, I think what council member Montaneri is doing is, uh, saving us some time so that we can put that money to good use more quickly. Um, and especially in light of the fact that we are, we have a lot of damaged, um, and dead trees out there right now because of the storm. So, um, I'm in agreement with this. Hope that helps. Thank you. Council Vice Chair Vic Sanders. Thank you. Last statement. It just came to mind that when we had this conversation about trees, um, one of the, the pauses I had about moving forward is that we had no, uh, specification as to where the trees could be planted. And that we also had trees that were left over, which was why they sprouted up throughout neighborhoods and communities that I got calls for. So I think me understanding the readiness of being able to utilize those dollars right now just came to mind. And so, and thank you, um, council member for reminding me of that extensive conversation, um, that we had about there being trees left over where those trees were being placed, um, and how we were determining which trees we were going to purchase. So I, I agree. I wish we would have had a little bit more time to discuss this coming to, to memory as to that last conversation we had in regarding the trees. Because like anyone else, I support trees, but I also support homeless children and other efforts that we can make an immediate impact with this year. Um, so I just wanted to thank you for bringing that memory back to me as to that last conversation we had. Thank you chair. So question Tom, actually perfect person to be coming to the microphone. Um, so just kind of thinking through other places that this money could be moved to, um, since we're doing this here on the dais. What is, can you remind us of the rules around the economic stability fund and how we can move money in and out of that fund? Um, cause I'm just thinking because I just continue to say like, yes, I want us to plant trees, but I'm no more confident in our ability to put $300,000 worth of trees in the ground before spring. As I am in us doing a study before spring. And first I heard, Oh, well trees, that's something we can use all over the city. And then now it starts into the waterfront instead of all over the city. And so that just brings me even more pause. Um, I don't think we're prepared here today to say $300,000 needs to go here and we're ready to use it tomorrow. So if we moved it into the economic stability fund, how would we then be able to move it into another category that we can all have a comprehensive conversation about? And maybe it does end up being trees. Maybe it ends up being a study. I don't know. I don't have a crystal ball, but I just don't feel like tonight my vote is to move it to one specific project. That's why I'm looking at the economic stability fund. So it's a, it's a great question. Um, but just as a reminder, there are rules, put money into the economic stability fund. There are certain things that have to happen that allow us to then spend money, budget shortfall and revenue of more than 4%. We could use some of that. So it would be very restricting to put it into the, uh, economic stability fund. The better option would be to put it into our general fund contingency line. Okay. And then we can, you know, just, um, have those resources available. Um, and then council can decide how they'd like to deploy those resources at a future time. That could be one potential option. Okay. Well, I would be much more supportive of that. And then would expect a new business item from maybe council member Montaneri to bring a conversation to be F and T about the $300,000. Um, I would be much more supportive of that at this point. So, uh, council member Gerdes. Thank you, madam chair. Council member Montaneri, would you be open to an amendment to move it to contingency rather than UTP? I'd like to keep it, uh, urban tree program. All right. Thank you, madam chair. So we have a motion and a second to transfer from Albert Whitted to urban tree planning program. And just for purposes of the vote, could you read, Liz, the changes that are up for amendment or pass it out one or the other? They just need to hear it or see it. So it would change the ordinance on page three. Um, the city development administration, which is, uh, the administration or economic and workforce development would change from two, 2 million, 255,000, $369 and 35 cents to 1 million, 955,000, $369 and 35 cents. And the public works administration amount would go from 2.5, 200. 200. Yeah. 200. Gosh, I can't say this. 2 million, 534,000, 34,558 to 2, 2 million, 834,000, 588. That was a mouthful. So this is two separate motions. First, the motion is to transfer. Then the motion would be for the ordinance. Okay. All right. So, uh, motion to transfer. Seeing no further request to speak. Clerk, please open the machine for voting. Council members, enter your votes. Seeing all present council members have voted. Clerk, please tally and announce the vote. I'm chair of the motion to approve agenda item D1 to transfer from the Abbott Whittett to the urban treaty program. Passes 4-3 with council members Vic Sanders, Floyd and Gabbert voting no. Council members Driscoll, Gerdes, Hanowitz and Montaneri voting yes. And council member Mohammed being absent. Okay. So now we have the ordinance as amended. Move approval. Second. All right. So seeing no request to speak on the ordinance as amended. Clerk, please open the machine for voting. Council members, enter your votes. Seeing all council members have voted. Clerk, please tally and announce the vote. I'm chair of the motion to approve agenda item D1 as amended. Passes unanimously with council member Mohammed being absent. All right. Very good. Thank you so much, Liz and your entire team, Tom, Jim. Thank you all for everything that you all do. Uh, we really appreciate you and all your hard work. All right. Now we will go to our second open forum and still no one, no one in zoom. Okay. We'll go ahead and close open forum and go to announcements. No announcements. Very good. Meeting adjourned. Thank you, everyone. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.