[00:00:02]
WELL,[2024 Capital Bond Streets and Transportation Subcommittee Meeting on October 26, 2023.]
GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE AGAIN.UM, ALI HUDSON, THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS.
UM, I SEE THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
UM, THEY ARE ACTUALLY ON THE, UM, LET ME SEE IF I HAVE A TEXT FROM MS. COOK.
SHAHAD, I THINK YOU ARE THE ORGANIZER.
MS. COOPER, ARE YOU, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, YES.
CAN, CAN YOU SEE ME
I CANNOT SEE YOU, MA'AM, BUT IT, I THINK IT'S OKAY.
UM, YEAH, I CAN'T SEE ANYONE, ANY EITHER.
AND I CAN, UM, MAYBE START RECORDING IF YOU'RE READY, MA'AM.
UM, COLLEAGUES, UM, I HOPE YOU ALL CAN AT LEAST HEAR ME.
CANDICE SAYS THAT THEY ARE ALL MUTED AND SO I'M THE ONLY ONE THAT'S UNMUTED.
SO, UM, ALI CAN, I'LL CALL SHAHA TO SEE IF SHE CAN, UM, OKAY.
DO THAT BECAUSE I THINK SHE WAS THE ORGANIZER OR MAYBE BOND.
UM, WE ARE STILL WORKING ON UNMUTING EVERYBODY.
UM, IF YOU CAN HEAR ME, LIKE CANDACE, IF YOU CAN HEAR ME, CAN YOU PUT THAT IN THE CHAT? OKAY.
SO AT LEAST WE HAVE SOME AUDIO, SO THAT'S GOOD.
UM, SO COLLEAGUES, LET ME TELL YOU WHAT HAPPENED AT THE, UM, MEETING THE OTHER NIGHT.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE PRESENTED OUR, OUR FINDINGS TO THE, UH, THE CBTF, WHICH IS THE BIGGER COMMITTEE ABOVE US.
AND BASICALLY WE HAD SUBMITTED 6 75 AND THEY DIMINISHED OUR, UM, ASK TO 3 75.
SO THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY, JUST TO TALK JUST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IT.
UH, THERE REALLY IS NOTHING WE CAN DO, BUT WE DO NEED TO RESUBMIT AND WE HAVE TO DO THAT BY MONDAY.
SO I'M, I'M SURE SHAHAD WILL HAVE TO, UM, UH, GET, GET YOUR INFORMATION, UM, PROBABLY FRIDAY, SATURDAY OR SATURDAY IN ORDER TO GET IT INTO A PRESENTATION FORM FOR THE NEXT MEETING THAT I HAVE WITH THE, UH, COMMITTEE CHAIRS AND, UH, THE COMMUNITY BOND TASK FORCE.
THAT'S PRETTY MUCH ALL THAT HAPPENED.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE GOT THE FULL LISTING OF, OF EVERY, ALL OF THE, UM, THE FUNDING AMOUNTS, BUT THEY WERE IN THE PAPER, AS A MATTER OF FACT THIS MORNING, AND ALI, IF I HAVE THEM RIGHT, 'CAUSE I HAD JUST WRITTEN THEM DOWN ON A PIECE OF PAPER.
I HAVE THREE, UH, YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE THIS, BUT I, I HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU, I HAVE 3 75 FOR STREETS, UM, THREE 50 FOR, UH, PARKS.
I'M GONNA HAVE TO GET UP FOR JUST A SECOND AND LOOK AT ANOTHER LIST 'CAUSE I DON'T HAVE ALL THIS ONE UNLESS YOU HAVE ALI.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? ALI? I CAN HEAR YOU MA'AM.
DO YOU HAVE THE, THE LIST THAT THE, UH, COMMUNITY BOND TASK FORCE CAME UP WITH? I DO NOT HAVE THE LIST.
UM, I CAN, I THINK JENNIFER SENT IT AS AN EMAIL.
I'LL TRY TO ACTUALLY FIND THAT, THAT MAYBE I CAN SHARE IT.
I DON'T HAVE THE WHOLE LIST, BUT I'LL, I'LL LOOK AT IT AS WE GO THROUGH.
IT'S, IT WAS READILY AVAILABLE THIS MORNING ON, ON, IN THE PAPER, UH, IN THE METRO SECTION.
UM, BUT THAT'S REALLY PRETTY MUCH THE GIST OF IT.
OH, ROBERT, CHRIS SAYS HE'S TEXTING US.
HE SAYS 3 75 FOR STREETS PARKS IS THREE 50.
UH, FLOOD IS 75, RIGHT? WHAT WAS A HUNDRED HOUSING WAS A HUNDRED AND THE NEXT ONE WAS 200.
SO THAT WAS CRITICAL FACILITIES.
YEAH, I HAD 'EM ALL WRITTEN DOWN.
I JUST DIDN'T HAVE THE HALF THE CATEGORIES.
UM, SO WHAT THIS MEANS BASICALLY IS THAT THE REASON WE HAD THE 3 75 TO BEGIN WITH, IF YOU'LL RECALL, WAS BECAUSE THAT KEPT THE, UH, THE STREETS
[00:05:01]
FROM DEGRADING ANY MORE THAN THEY ARE RIGHT TODAY.SO THEORETICALLY, I GUESS, AND PRACTICALLY, UH, IN FIVE OR SIX YEARS WHEN THEY HAVE ANOTHER BOND ELECTION, SINCE WE WERE CUT IN HALF THE STREETS WILL PROBABLY BE HALF AGAIN AS HALF MORE POOR.
WELL, THAT WAS BAD ENGLISH
SO THAT'S KIND OF UNFORTUNATE, BUT THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO WORK WITH AND, AND WE'LL WORK OFF OF THAT.
NOW, OLLIE, WHAT WE NEED, UM, TO HEAR FROM YOU IS HOW WOULD YOU LIKE US, HOW WOULD YOU AND SHAHA LIKE US TO GO FORWARD WITH OUR INDIVIDUAL DISTRICTS? BECAUSE THAT'S ABSOLUTELY WHAT WE HAVE TO HAVE IN PLACE BY MONDAY.
WELL, UH, WE DID SOME, UM, VERY SIMPLE ANALYSIS BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT MUCH TIME TO ACTUALLY PERFORM A MORE DETAILED, UM, ANALYSIS ON ALL THE, UH, NEW, UH, I GUESS, UH, FUNDING SCENARIOS.
AND, UH, YOU KNOW, WE HAD THE, ALL THE SPREADSHEET WITH THE, UH, OLD NUMBERS THAT WE HAD.
SO WHAT WE DID WAS, BECAUSE OUR SHARE, UM, WENT DOWN BY 44%, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.
SO WE APPLIED THAT 44 PERSON TO THE, UH, ALL THE COUNCIL DISTRICT THAT THEY CAN SEE WHAT THE ALLOCATED MONEY WOULD BE.
HOWEVER, FOR THE, UH, STREETWIDE, IT WAS A DIFFERENT, I'M SORRY FOR THE CITYWIDE, IT WAS A DIFFERENT STORY THOUGH BECAUSE, UH, THE CITYWIDE IS A LITTLE BIT MORE COMPLEX AND, UH, WE NEED TO KNOW HOW WE CAN ACTUALLY, UM, I GUESS REMOVE SOME PROJECTS FROM THE CITYWIDE PROJECT AND WHICH ONE IS MORE, I GUESS, MEANINGFUL OR IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMUNITY THAT WE NEED TO KEEP 'EM.
AND, UM, WHICH ONE IS NOT, UH, ONE OF THE, I GUESS, THINGS, UH, ON THE CITYWIDE, UM, I, I NEED TO PAUSE BECAUSE ALIA JUST JOINED AND SHE'S TRYING TO, UH, MAKE EVERYONE AS A PANELIST.
THANK YOU ALIA, FOR DOING THAT BECAUSE I, I WAS, I WAS GOOGLING IT, BUT I WAS HAVING PROBLEM UNDERSTANDING HOW TO DO IT, SO I'M GLAD YOU DID IT.
UH, AND THEN, UM, AND MEANWHILE LET ME SHARE THIS, UM, ALSO, UM, HERE YOU GO, MA'AM.
NOW WE CAN, WE CAN SEE YOU ACTUALLY, UM, THAT, THAT'S A GOOD THING.
NOW WE CAN SEE YOU CANDACE ALSO.
YEAH, WAIT A MINUTE, ALI, WHILE WE'RE DISCUSSING THAT.
WHILE WE'RE LOOKING TO SEE IF WE CAN GET EVERYBODY IN, UM, WE DID TAKE A VOTE AND I JUST, I WANT CANDACE TO GO OVER IT ONE MORE TIME.
I SENT IT TO EVERYBODY, I THINK AS A REMINDER.
SO CAN YOU UNMUTE CANDACE SO SHE CAN TELL US? YEAH, I'M GOOD.
WHAT WE VOTED ON SO THAT WE CAN MAKE, AND IF, IF WE'RE GONNA MAKE CHANGES TO IT, WE REALLY NEED TO TAKE ANOTHER VOTE.
I MEAN, WE CAN'T JUST SAY THAT WE'RE GONNA DO SOMETHING TO CITYWIDE IF IT WASN'T IN OUR ORIGINAL VOTE.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? YEAH, ACTUALLY I CAN.
SO WHAT WE HAD AGREED TO IN OUR SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING WAS THAT ANYTHING, SO WE HAD AGREED THAT THE BASELINE WAS THE 4 75 PLUS 50.
ANYTHING LESS THAN THAT, TRANSPORTATION WAS STILL GONNA GET THE 50.
SO ANYTHING THAT A HUNDRED MILLION, WE LOST THE 4 75 DOWN TO ACTUALLY 3 25.
SO WE LOST 150 MILLION, 75 MILLION WILL COME OUT OF THE DISTRICTS, 75 MILLION WILL COME OUT OF CITYWIDE.
THAT WAS WHAT WE HAD AGREED TO AS A SUBCOMMITTEE.
AND IF WE, IF ALI, WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING SOUNDS DIFFERENT THAN THAT, SO WE WOULD NEED TO RE-VOTE IF YOU'RE SUGGESTING SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
UM, NO, I THINK, UH, I DUNNO IF I'M MUTE OR NO, NO, YOU'RE GOOD.
UM, I, I BELIEVE, UH, WE DID THE SAME THING THAT YOU ALL HAD.
I MEAN, WE DIDN'T CHANGE ANY SCENARIO OR ANYTHING.
WE JUST CHANGED THE BUDGET, UH, ALLOCATION BASED ON THE REDUCTION THAT WE HAD IN THE, UM, WHAT YOU CALL IT IN THE, UM, RECENT VOTE FROM THE TASK FORCE.
UM, HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, UM, SOMETHING TO MENTION IS THAT, YOU KNOW, ORIGINALLY ON THE EXCEL FILE, I'M GONNA SHARE THE EXCEL FILE, UM, IN A MOMENT.
BUT, UH, ORIGINALLY WE HAD THIS, UM, 44% REDUCTION FOR PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION.
BUT AFTER SPEAKING WITH TRANSPORTATION TEAM, I THINK THEY RATHER, UM, KEEP THE TRANSPORTATION PORTION TO I BELIEVE $35 MILLION IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.
AND, UH, BASED ON THAT, BECAUSE THEY NEED TO FUND THE TRAFFIC SIGNALS.
SO BASED ON THAT, WE NEED TO PROBABLY ADJUST A
[00:10:01]
LITTLE BIT.UH, BUT AGAIN, WHAT SUBCOMMITTEE VOTED ON, WE KEPT IT THE SAME WAY.
WE HAVEN'T, UH, CHANGED ANYTHING AT THIS MOMENT.
AND I'LL SHARE THE EXCEL FILE.
AND I THINK ARO HAD, UM, QUESTION FROM TRANSPORTATION OR PLEASE,
UM, ALI, MAY I ADD SOMETHING WHILE ORO IS, UH, UH, FIXING THE TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY? PROBABLY, UH, IT IS JUST, UH, I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT TO WHAT CANDACE MENTIONED IS THERE IS A, A DIFFERENCE ON THAT CUT DID NOT GO DIRECTLY THROUGH THE CITYWIDE VERSUS UM, UH, PER DISTRICT.
UH, AS YOU MENTIONED, IT WAS NOT DIRECTLY 75 75 BECAUSE WE HAD TO BASICALLY ALSO REDUCE OTHER ASSETS ALLOCATIONS TO BE ABLE.
BUT, AND SIMILARLY, BECAUSE REMEMBER WE HAD THIS BRIDGES, SIDEWALKS, AND ALLEYS WHERE OUTSIDE OF THE 50 50 THAT WE TALKED ABOUT WHEN WE VOTED.
SO WE VOTED, WE, WE VOTED OUTSIDE OF THE EXTRA BUDGET THAT WAS PUT FOR, FOR BRIDGES, SIDEWALKS, AND ALLEYS STREETS WERE SPLIT 50 50 BETWEEN, UH, BETWEEN CITYWIDE AND PER DISTRICT.
AND ACTUALLY, UH, UH, PER DISTRICT WAS BASED ON OPTION A, WHICH WAS 75%, UH, BASED ON NEEDS AND 25% SPREAD EQUALLY.
AND THAT'S, I THINK WHAT WE VOTED ON.
I THOUGHT BRIDGES WAS IN TRANSPORTATION.
AND EVEN THIS, THIS 3 75 TOTAL IS BASICALLY EVERYBODY INCLUDING TRANSPORTATION PORTION.
SO, UH, YES, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I THOUGHT
IS THAT CORRECT? I DON'T HAVE THE SPREADSHEET, SO I CAN'T DO THE MATH.
THE 62 YOU SAID? YEAH, 162 AND A HALF SHOULD BE GOING TO THE DISTRICTS AND THEN 162.5 SHOULD GO TO CITYWIDE PLUS WHATEVER YOU AND TRANSPORTATION WORK OUT TOGETHER.
SO HUN NO, WE'RE, WE'RE, SO, SO LET'S, LET'S LOOK AT IT THIS WAY.
CAN YOU JUST HIGHLIGHT THE ALLEYS AND STREETS FOR THE DISTRICTS FOR ME SO I CAN SEE WHAT THAT TOTALS? THESE ON THE STREET TOGETHER IS 160.
SO IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S ABOUT TWO AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS OR $2 MILLION.
NO, THE ALLEYS WERE, REMEMBER ALLEYS WAS BASED ON A $60 MILLION TOTAL.
NOW THEY ARE BASED ON A $30 MILLION TOTAL.
YEAH, I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT WHAT WE AGREED TO AS A SUBCOMMITTEE.
IF WE GOT LESS THAN THE 5 25 OR 4 75, HOWEVER YOU WANNA LOOK AT IT.
THE DISTRICTS WERE SUPPOSED TO GET 162.5 OF WHATEVER WAS LEFT.
SO LET ME GO GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS AND I'M OPEN TO DISCUSSING IT.
IT'S JUST WE WOULD HAVE TO RE-VOTE ON THIS.
'CAUSE THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE AGREED TO.
NO, THIS, THIS IS THE ONE THAT Y'ALL VOTED ON.
AND THIS IS BASED ON THE PREVIOUS, UM, YOU KNOW, NUMBER THAT WE HAD, RIGHT? NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
$60 MILLION BRIDGES, 30 SIDEWALKS, 60 ALLEYS, AND RIGHT, IT WAS 475 STREETS FOR PUBLIC WORKS.
AND OF COURSE $50 MILLION FOR, UH, TRANSPORTATION ALSO THAT WE HAD, RIGHT? MM-HMM,
SO THIS IS THE OLD NUMBERS BASED ON THE OLD NUMBERS, THE TOTAL ALLEY AND UH, STREET WAS SOMETHING AROUND $353 MILLION.
SO WHAT WE AGREED TO AS A SUBCOMMITTEE WAS THAT IT, IF THE NUMBER WAS LESS THAN 4 25 FOR STREETS AND ALLEYS AND BRIDGES AND WHATEVER, EXCLUDING TRANSPORTATION, EXCLUDING TRANSPORTATION, ANYTHING LESS THAN 4 75 WOULD BE SPLIT EQUALLY.
SO IF I TAKE THE 3 25, WHICH IS WHAT WE HAVE LEFT, 'CAUSE WE GOT 3 75, I'M TAKING THE 50 OUT FOR TRANSPORTATION.
IF YOU SPLIT THAT EVENLY BETWEEN THE DISTRICTS AND CITYWIDE, THAT'S 1 62 0.5.
SO LET, LEMME MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND IT BECAUSE
[00:15:01]
WHAT I'M, I'M NOT APPLYING A PERCENTAGE.I AM JUST TAKING THE 3 25 AND DIVIDING BY TWO.
I UH, I DON'T THINK WE VOTED ON THIS ONE EXACTLY.
THE VOTE WAS BASED ON, WE DID GETTING OVER, OVER THE BUDGET, NOT LOWER THAN THE BUDGET.
SO YOU'RE SAYING IF IT'S LOWER THAN, UM, IT HAS TO STILL BE 25% EQUALLY 75% PER NEEDS.
SO WHAT WE AGREED TO WITH ANYTHING LESS THAN 4 75 WOULD BE SPLIT EQUALLY BETWEEN CITYWIDE AND DISTRICTS.
SO WHEN YOU SAY DISTRICTS FOR THE SPLITTING BETWEEN DISTRICTS, THE 25 75 SPLIT IS ONCE WE GET HOW MUCH IS GOING TO EACH DISTRICT? SO I'M JUST ALI TRYING TO GET US, HERE'S WHAT WE AGREED TO BEFORE YOU EVEN SPLIT IT BETWEEN THE DISTRICTS.
BUT, SO LET ME GO OVER THIS, UH, EXCEL FIVE WITH YOU CAN, BUT IT'S NOT WHAT WE AGREED TO.
SO I NEED YOU TO EXPLAIN ON TO ME WHY YOU'RE CHANGING WHAT WE AGREED TO.
MAYBE I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE NOT, UH, LOOKING AT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
YOU ARE SAYING THAT THIS IS THE NEW NUMBERS, RIGHT? BASED ON THE 375, THESE ARE THE NEW NUMBERS YOU'RE PRESENTING.
I'M SUGGESTING THEY'RE NOT CORRECT, BUT HOLD, HOLD ON PLEASE.
LET ME JUST ASK SOMETHING WHICH I, I NEED TO UNDERSTAND.
YOU ARE SAYING WHATEVER NUMBERS THAT WE HAVE IS HALF HALF BETWEEN CITY, UH, BETWEEN COUNCIL, DISTRICT AND THE CITYWIDE, RIGHT? FOR ANYTHING LESS, WHATEVER WE GOT MINUS TRANSPORTATION IS SPLIT EVENLY.
OKAY? SO THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME THING, RIGHT? THIS IS EXACTLY SPLITTING EVENLY UNDER 31 AND 131, ISN'T IT? BUT IT SHOULD EQUAL 162.5.
IF YOU TAKE, YOU'RE TAKING THE ALLEY THREE FIVE AND DIVIDE IT BY TWO, JUST TAKE 3 25 AND DIVIDE IT BY TWO, WHAT DO YOU GET? BUT YOU'RE TAKING THE ALLEYS ALSO, I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT THE STREET.
I WANT YOU JUST TO AGREE THAT WHEN WE ADD UP THAT ALLEYS AND STREETS, WHAT WE AGREED TO SHOULD BE 1 62 0.5 AND INCLUDING ALLEYS, RIGHT? AGAIN, ADDING UP ALL THE ALLEYS AND STREETS FOR THE DISTRICTS SHOULD EQUAL 1 62 0.5.
AND IT, IT IS BECAUSE LOOK AT THIS ALLEY, IT'S 30.
THE ALLEYS ARE $30 MILLION TO US, BUT ALLEY HIGHLIGHT ALLEYS TO STREETS.
NO, HOLD ON, HOLD ON, HOLD ON.
THIS IS THE 30 MILLION, LET ME JUST COLOR CODE THIS ACTUALLY MAYBE BETTER THIS WAY.
THIS IS ALLEYS, THIS IS THE STREETS AND TOTAL TOGETHER WILL BE 162.5, RIGHT? HUNDRED 61.5.
SO YOU'RE A MILLION OFF THERE.
AND THEN WHEN YOU GET DOWN TO THIS, WHAT I HAD SHAHAD HIGHLIGHT FOR ME, IT DOES NOT EQUAL THAT.
SO THESE TWO, IT BECOMES, THAT EQUALS 1 59 0.6.
THAT IS SOMETHING IN THE CALCULATION HERE IS OFF.
BUT REGARDLESS, THE, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING IS THE NUMBERS ARE NOT RIGHT, PLUS THIS IS NOT RIGHT BECAUSE IT SHOULD BE, WE SHOULD BE GETTING 162.5, NOT 161.5.
RIGHT? AND WE'LL, WE'LL FIX THAT ONE BECAUSE IN REALITY, THIS ONE AND THIS ONE IS THE SAME.
THIS IS 1 61 0.5 AND THIS IS WHAT YOU AGREED ON, RIGHT? THIS IS WHAT YOU, NO, THIS IS NOT WHAT WE AGREED ON.
1 61 0.5 IS NOT WHAT YOU AGREE ON.
SO LET ME, LET ME CLARIFY SOMETHING.
THIS WAS NOT THE WAY I DID THIS SHEET TO MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WAS AGREED ON.
LET ME EXPLAIN IT THE WAY I DID THIS SHEET.
IT MIGHT BE NOT, NOT THE SAME WAY THAT CANDACE IS REFERRING TO.
OKAY? AND THAT'S WHY THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE NUMBER.
SO THE WAY I DID THIS SHEET, OR MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE VOTING WE DID IS THAT ALLIE SIDEWALKS AND BRIDGES WERE OUTSIDE OF THE CALCULATION, ESPECIALLY SIDEWALKS AND BRIDGES.
AND THEN THAT'S WHY FOR THAT TO ME WAS LIKE THE 50 50 WAS GONNA BE ONLY FOR THE PORTION OUTSIDE OF THESE THREE, UH, UH, ASSETS, WHICH WAS BASICALLY, UH, STREETS EITHER STREET CITYWIDE AND PER DISTRICT.
I ACTUALLY EXCLUDED LOOKING AT THE TOTAL BUDGET THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE.
LET'S SAY IT'S WE'RE TAKING, WE'RE TAKING CURRENTLY, UM, I JUST DID A 44% DROP.
AND BASED ON THAT I GIVE LIKE JUST A $30 MILLION, UH, GOES TO TRANSPORTATION AND A FOUR, A 3 45 GOES TO US.
AND THAT'S JUST BASED ON THE 40, 40% DROP THAT WE GOT.
SO FROM THAT I TRIED TO CALCULATE BACKWARDS.
SO WHAT I DID IS BASICALLY LOOKED
[00:20:01]
AT BRIDGES.WHAT WE HAD, WE HAD A NUMBER BASED ON THREE ADDRESSING THREE BRIDGES.
WE DID THIS, UH, YOU KNOW, HUGE CUT BRIDGES DROPPED DOWN INTO ONLY TWO BRIDGES AT THIS POINT, YOU KNOW, THE CRITICAL ONES, SO IT'S 37 MILLION FOR SIDEWALKS.
THE FIRST SCENARIO WE PRESENTED THE, THE, THE SMALLER SCENARIO WAS $15 MILLION.
SO I FIXED IT TO THE LOWEST, WHICH WAS $15 MILLION.
ALI'S ORIGINAL PLAN WAS ONLY 30 MILLION.
AND THEN WHEN WE WANTED TO PROPOSE HIGHER, WE PROPOSED 60.
SO I DROPPED IT BACK TO 30 MILLION.
GIVEN THOSE TOTAL ARE WHAT, 30 PLUS 37 PLUS 15.
AND MINUS THAT FROM THE 3 45 TOTAL, IT ENDED UP WITH 2 63.
AND THAT'S WHAT I SPLIT IT HALF, 50, 50 PER CITYWIDE PER STREET, BECAUSE THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE VOTING.
OKAY? AND THEN, UH, BUILDING ON THAT FOR THE PER DISTRICT STREETS PER DISTRICT, WHICH WAS ONE $31 MILLION, $500 MILLION NOW IS WHAT I KIND OF APPLIED THE SCENARIO OF THE OPTION.
A 75% PER DISTRICT AND 25% EQUALLY.
AND THAT'S HOW I CAME UP WITH THESE NUMBERS FOR STREETS IN ALLEYS, UM, PER DISTRICT.
SO I THOUGHT I FOLLOWED EXACTLY WHAT I, HOW I UNDERSTOOD THE VOTING BECAUSE IT, IT EXCLUDED ALI SIDEWALKS AND BRIDGES IN MY, THE WAY I REMEMBER IT.
BUT I DUNNO IF I'M WRONG, IF I'M WRONG ON THAT NOW.
AND, AND I GUESS HERE'S WHERE I, MY THINKING IS AND WHY I'M PUSHING SO HARD ON THIS.
I THINK FOR WHEN THIS GETS TO THE CITY COUNCIL OR UP TO THE MEETING ON NOVEMBER 4TH, WHERE THEY'RE GONNA GO THROUGH EVERY PROJECT THAT WAS A RESULT OF CUTTING US FROM 6 75 TO 3 75, I WANT THEM TO SEE THE BRIDGES, THE STREETWIDE PROJECTS, THE COMPLETE STREETS THAT THEY ARE LOSING AS A RESULT OF THIS AND NOT JUST HAVE IT COME FROM THE DISTRICT FUNDS OR DISPROPORTIONATELY FROM THE DISTRICT FUNDS.
SO WHAT WE AGREED TO WILL ALLOW YOU TO GO AND SAY, HEY GUYS, WITH THIS NUMBER, WE CAN ONLY DO ONE BRIDGE.
WE CAN ONLY DO, BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW THERE'S GONNA BE PAIN WITHIN THE DISTRICTS.
BUT I WANT THE CITY COUNCIL OR THE TASK FORCE IF IT, IF WE CAN GET IT FIXED BEFORE IT GETS TO CITY COUNCIL TO SEE THE DAMAGE THAT CUTTING STREETS AND TRANSPORTATION SO MUCH DID TO THE BOND.
AND IF WE DON'T FOLLOW WHAT I BELIEVE WE DOCUMENTED AND VOTED ON, THEN I THINK WE RUN THE RISK OF THEM GOING, WELL, WE GOT ALL THE BRIDGES, OH, WE GOT THE SIDEWALKS, WE'RE GOOD, LET'S JUST KEEP GOING.
UM, BECAUSE THEY DON'T, THEIR ALLEYS AREN'T THE PROBLEM.
THEIR STREETS AREN'T THE PROBLEM.
SO IT'S A PERSONAL WHO AFFECTS WHAT, BUT WHAT WE AGREED TO IS NOT SHAHAD.
I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU DID, IT'S JUST NOT WHAT WE AGREED TO.
AND EVEN IF YOU DID WHAT YOU DID, THE TOTAL DOES NOT ADD UP TO 1 61 0.5.
IT ONLY ADDS UP TO 1 59 AND A HALF.
THAT'S FOR THE SAKE OF THE, I GUESS MEETING THAT WE HAVE.
$2 MILLION IS A LOT WHEN WE'RE LOSING HALF OUR MONEY
RIGHT? NO, I, I TOTALLY AGREE.
I I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING HERE, FOR THE SAKE OF, UH, THIS MEETING TO MOVE FORWARD AND WE CAN DECIDE TONIGHT ON, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS IMPORTANT, WE'RE GONNA FOLLOW THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GONNA COME UP, WE'RE GONNA REEVALUATE THESE NUMBERS AGAIN.
AGAIN, WE DIDN'T HAVE NO, I KNOW THESE NUMBERS MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERENCE, ALI, AND THE REASON WHY, BECAUSE SOME DISTRICTS DECIDED TO MOVE SOME OF THEIR STREET'S MONEY OR ALLY'S MONEY HERE AND THERE, AND THAT'S WHY SHOULDN'T IT? NO, UH, NO IT SHOULDN'T BE.
NO, BECAUSE IF, UH, IT SHOULD STILL ADD UP TO 1 61 0.5.
NO, BECAUSE 'CAUSE IF THEY MOVED THEIR MONEY FROM ALLEYS TO STREETS, THEY SHOULD GET A DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR MOVE OVER.
NO, SOME OF THEM REMOVE, REMOVED SOME MONEY FROM HERE AND DID, UH, CITYWIDE PROJECT INSTEAD NOW.
SO, UH, THERE ARE SOME OF THEM THAT ADDED TO THE, TO, UM, UH, UH, PROSPECTIVE PROJECT AND SOME OF THEM DID A COMPLETE STREET INSTEAD.
SO, UM, SO I HAVE A JUSTIFICATION TO WHAT'S GOING ON HERE.
I KNOW THE NUMBERS, I CAN PROVIDE THE, UH, I CAN PROVIDE, YOU KNOW, THE DETAILS TO WHAT WE NEED, BUT AT THIS POINT, I THINK, UM, THE INTENT OF THIS SHEET WAS NOT TO CHANGE WHAT WE VOTED ON.
THE INTENT OF THIS SHEET WAS BASICALLY TO FOLLOW WHAT WE DID BEFORE.
IF YOU THINK IT'S NOT WHAT WE DID BEFORE, THEN WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE AND BASICALLY REVISE IT BASED ON THAT.
AND I GUESS WHAT IS THE MORE IMPORTANT TOPIC HERE TONIGHT IS THAT, WHAT ARE YOU ALL THINKING THAT IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT MONEY SHOULD GO TO WHAT CATEGORY, RIGHT? I I GUESS WE DIDN'T CHANGE THE CITYWIDE PROJECTS.
THIS IS THE OLD NUMBERS, RIGHT? AND THIS IS WHAT WE HAD BEFORE, BUT WE NEED TO CHANGE IT.
[00:25:01]
REDUCE THAT IN ORDER TO COME UP WITH THE HUN $131 MILLION FOR EXAMPLE, IF THAT'S A NUMBER.AND I THINK WE NEED THE FEEDBACK FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS SAYING WHAT PROJECTS SHOULD GET OUT OF THE CITYWIDE PROJECT OR, YEAH, WELL, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST GONNA SAY OLLIE, THAT'S THE RUB, RIGHT? AND CANDACE AND I KIND OF DISCUSSED THIS, YOU KNOW, SEVERAL DAYS AGO.
WE, WE WANT THE WANT PEOPLE TO SEE WHAT IS GOING IR REGARD IRRESPECTIVE OF THE, UH, OF THE IRREGARDLESS OF THE, UH, COMMITTEE.
WE WANT OTHERS TO SEE WHAT WAS CUT CITYWIDE AS WELL.
SO, UM, IT'S NOT THAT IT'S A STRATEGY, IT'S JUST THAT WE WANT THEM TO SEE WHAT HAS HAPPENED AND, YOU KNOW, THEY MAY CHANGE.
SOME OF IT WE DON'T KNOW THAT.
UM, I THINK TO MOVE US OFF OF DEAD CENTER IS THAT I THINK WE'LL WORK TOGETHER, UH, STAFF AND CANDACE AND I, CANDACE'S MEMORY IN MY RECOLLECTION AND CATHERINE'S ARE ALL PRETTY MUCH THE SAME.
SO I THINK THE DISCUSSION, THE, SOME OF THE ISSUE IS, IS, YOU KNOW, WHEN PEOPLE STARTED SWITCHING SIDEWALKS INTO STREETS, MAYBE THAT'S WHERE SOME OF THE, UH, THE $2 MILLION LIE.
BUT I THINK WE CAN, I THINK WE CAN REASONABLY, UM, MAKE SOME ADJUSTMENTS THERE AND FIGURE IT OUT.
BUT I THINK WHEN YOU ARE PRESENTING IT TO THE COMMUNITY BOND TASK FORCE, WE DO WANT THEM TO SEE WHAT CITYWIDE PROJECTS ARE GONE NOW.
AND I WOULD ASK THE COMMITTEE IF WE WANNA TAKE A STAB AT IT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T DO THIS IN THE BEGINNING, OR DO WE WANT STAFF TO DO THAT, WHICH COMPLETELY EVALUATED THOSE CITYWIDE PROJECTS FOR US TO DO.
THAT IS GONNA TAKE SOME TIME FOR US TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THEY ARE, HOW THEY CAME TO BE, THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.
SO I THINK IT WOULD BE, I THINK FOR US, FOR, FOR US AS A COMMITTEE.
YEAH, AND I THINK WHAT WOULD ALSO BE HELPFUL, ALI AND SHAHAD, IS THAT WHEN YOU SAID IT TAKES 6 75 TO MAINTAIN THE PCI WHERE IT IS, WHERE DOES IT FALL TO WITH ONLY 3 75? SO HOW MUCH DEGRADATION, WHEN OUR PCI IS ALREADY SO BAD, WHAT DO WE THINK THAT LOSS OF HALF OUR MONEY COSTS US IN THE PCI INDEX? YEAH, I THINK THAT'S THE PART WE CAN'T TELL THEM.
YOU CAN SHOW THEM THE PROJECTS YOU'RE GONNA CUT, BUT WHAT WE CAN'T SHOW 'EM IS BY NOT FIXING ALL THESE OTHER STREETS AND ALLEYS, WHAT THAT'S GONNA DO TO THE PCI.
I, I GUESS, UM, LET, LET ME GO TO DARREN FIRST BECAUSE HE HAS A, A QUESTION AND I'LL ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT MORE ON, UH, YOUR TOPIC.
YEAH, I I JUST HAVE TWO QUICK QUESTIONS.
IN THE, UM, SPREADSHEET WE'RE LOOKING AT WHERE IT'S BROKEN OUT BY DISTRICT, DOES THAT NUMBER REFLECT THE TARGET NUMBER OR WHAT WE ACTUALLY SUBMITTED? BECAUSE I KNOW EVERYONE SUBMITTED A LITTLE BIT LOWER, YOU KNOW, TO STAY UNDER THE TARGET.
SO I'M WONDERING IS THERE A ROUND OFF ISSUE IN THAT? SO THAT'S, THAT'S ONE QUESTION.
UM, AND MY SECOND QUESTION, I GUESS MAYBE FOR LINDA IS, UM, IS THERE ANY CHANCE THAT COUNCIL COMES BACK AND SAID, YOU GUYS ARE NUTS TO GIVE AS MUCH TO PARKS AS YOU DO THE STREETS AND, AND TOTALLY REJIGGLES ALL THIS YET AGAIN? UM, TYPICALLY WHEN IT COMES TO COUNCIL, THEY'RE, THEY'RE LOOKING AT INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS, YOU KNOW, DID MY PROJECT GET DONE? YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT WAS A PARK PROJECT OR A, OR A, UM, STREET PROJECT OR WHATEVER.
AND SO THEY'RE HORSE TRADING SPECIFIC PROJECTS FOR THINGS.
AND THAT'S HOW COME, I THINK I SAID IN A COUPLE OF THE MEETINGS THAT WHEN I WAS ON THE COUNCIL, WE COULDN'T COME TO A CONCLUSION, SO THE MANAGER JUST SUGGESTED THAT EACH DISTRICT GET AN ADDITIONAL $3 MILLION FOR THOSE PROJECTS THAT WERE MOST IMPORTANT TO THEIR COMMUNITY.
SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY WOULD RE REDO THE ENTIRE THING AT ALL.
THE TWO TIMES I WAS, I WAS, UM, REVIEWING IT JUST SMALLER INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITY PROJECTS THAT WERE INTERESTED THAT WERE INTER UH, THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBER WAS INTERESTED IN.
I THINK YOUR QUESTION WAS, YOU KNOW, WOULD THEY REDUCE ONE, UH, CATEGORY, ONE ENTIRE CATEGORY OF THE BOND BY, YOU KNOW, A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS OR SOMETHING AND PUT THAT TO I DON'T THINK SO, QUITE FRANKLY.
I I, THAT WOULD BE A CHALLENGE.
THEY MIGHT CHANGE IT A LITTLE, BUT THAT WOULD BE A CHALLENGE.
AND, AND CAN SOMEBODY SPEAK TO THE NUMBERS HERE? ARE THESE GOLD NUMBERS OR ACTUAL NUMBERS? SO THESE ARE THE BASED ON THE PROPOSED NUMBER THAT WE HAVE AS OF $375 MILLION AND THIS IS THE PORTION FOR THE STREETS, ALLEYS, BRIDGES AND
[00:30:01]
SIDEWALKS ONLY.UM, AND YEAH, THIS IS THE NEW TARGET THAT WE HAVE TO LOWER OUR LIST OF PROJECT IN, IN EACH DISTRICT AND COME UP WITH THAT NUMBER.
AGAIN, BASED ON WHAT CANDACE WAS SAYING, YOU KNOW, THIS NUMBERS MAYBE $2 MILLION SHORT, WHATEVER, WE, WE CAN REEVALUATE ALL THE NUMBERS.
UM, BUT REGARDLESS WE HAVE TO REMOVE SOME OF THE PROJECTS FROM THE LIST AND PRESENT IT THAT WAY THAT, YOU KNOW, IT FITS THAT BUDGET FOR NOW.
WHETHER THE BUDGET CHANGES LATER ON OR NOT, I DON'T KNOW, IT MAY AND IF IT CHANGED, WE'RE GONNA CHANGE THE NUMBERS AGAIN.
SO IF I UNDERSTOOD ALL THAT, THE ANSWER IS YES, THESE ARE THE TARGET GOAL NUMBERS, YES, THESE ARE THE TARGET NUMBERS.
UM, THE, I'M JUST PLAYING POLITICS IN MY HEAD HERE AND YOU KNOW, IF I GO BACK TO PAUL AND SAY, WELL, THESE THREE BLOCKS I COULDN'T GET DONE BECAUSE OF THIS CUT OR WHATEVER, THAT'S ONE THING IF WE GO TO THE COUNCIL AND SAY, WE'RE JUST NOT GONNA DO ANY BRIDGES, UH, BECAUSE YOU CUT US SO DEEP, UH, THAT, THAT SENDS A WHOLE DIFFERENT MESSAGE, I THINK.
SO THAT'S JUST SOMETHING TO CONSIDER IN HOW WE, UH, MOVE FROM HERE.
UM, LEMME JUST MAKE A COMMENT TO THAT.
I KNOW THERE WERE SEVERAL PEOPLE, UM, AT THE MEETING THE OTHER NIGHT THAT WERE DISAPPOINTED ABOUT OUR CUTS AND WE'RE GOING TO CONTACT THEIR COUNCIL MEMBERS.
UM, YOU KNOW, IF THEY, WHAT HAPPENS IF THE ONE THAT WE'RE GOING, THE ONE THAT I'M GOING TO ON NOVEMBER THE FOURTH, I THINK IS THE DATE, WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
I MEAN, JUST, JUST TO UH, YOU KNOW, ACCENTUATE THE ABSURDITY OF IT.
WE'VE GOT A, A BIG, UM, KERFLUFFLE GOING ON IN D 14 NOW BECAUSE THEY APPROVED $7 MILLION TO BUILD A SKATEBOARD PARK AT GLENCOE PARK, WHICH THE NEIGHBORS ARE LIVID ABOUT.
THAT'S AS MUCH MONEY AS I GET FOR THE WHOLE DISTRICT FOR STREETS.
AND THAT'S HOW ABSURD THIS IS.
WELL, AND, AND YOU SHOULD CONTACT, AND I'M SURE YOU HAVE TOLD YOUR COUNCIL MEMBER THAT AS WELL.
AND IF WE CAN GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE HAVE THE NUMBER FOR STREETS AND THEY CAN SEE THAT JUXTA OPPOSE WHAT THEY DID HAVE, I THINK THAT'S GONNA MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
AND ALSO I THINK IF THEY, UM, UM, IF THEY SEE WHERE THERE'S, WHERE, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THEIR STREETS THAT THEY WANTED, UH, ARE NOT CURRENTLY ON THE LIST, I THINK THAT TOO.
BUT I WILL JUST POINT OUT ON DISTRICT TWELVES, BECAUSE I KNOW MAURA IS ON THE PHONE ON THE, ON THE CALL TOO, SO THEY WERE GETTING $4 MILLION FOR STREETS.
OH, SO IS, IS THAT THE NUMBER? HANG ON, LET ME LOOK AT WHAT THEY WERE GETTING.
IS THAT THE NUMBER NOW OR THE NUMBER 4 MILLION? THE $4 MILLION IS A NEW NUMBER FOR DISTRICT 12? YES, MA'AM.
I WAS JUST GONNA LOOK AND SEE WHAT THEY HAD BEFORE.
WE PASTED, WE COPIED THE TOTAL ON THIS SIDE.
THE ORIGIN, THE ORIGINAL TOTAL PER DISTRICT.
I GUESS I DON'T HAVE, OH WAIT, YOU CAN MOVE THIS SCREEN.
I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW YOU COULD DO THAT.
SOME PEOPLE CAN'T EVEN GET THAT UP 'CAUSE IT'S SO TINY.
I DIDN'T EVEN REALIZE THAT YOU, I COULD TOUCH MY IPAD AND MOVE THAT OVER.
OH, DARREN, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS SHOULD WE REVISIT THE SPLIT? BECAUSE IF WE MAKE THE CITYWIDE LOOK UGLIER, THEN MAYBE IT FORCES THE TASK FORCE TO RECONSIDER.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING? YEAH, WE HAVE TO GET THEIR ATTENTION IF WE'RE GONNA CHANGE THIS OR WE JUST ACCEPT IT AND ROLL WITH IT AND JUST LIVE WITH S****Y STREETS FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS OR
UM, YOU KNOW, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW HOW REALISTIC THAT IS, BUT YOU KNOW, STRANGER THINGS HAVE HAPPENED, BUT I HEARD THAT A BUNCH OF PARKS FORD PEOPLE ARE SERVING ON THIS.
THE PAPER EVEN MADE IT SOUND LIKE, AND MAYBE IT WAS JANELLE ATKINS WHO SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, PARKS HAD RECEIVED THE MOST SUPPORT FROM THE SURVEY IN THE PUBLIC.
AND I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS THE CASE.
I THOUGHT IT WAS STREETS AND IN PARKS, BUT I MEAN, IT WAS ALMOST
[00:35:01]
EQUAL, THE ALLOCATION.I WENT TO A FEW OF THE MEETINGS FOR LINDA AND IT IS, IT DID FEEL VERY HEAVILY WEIGHTED TOWARDS PARK'S, FAVORABLE PEOPLE.
UM, THAT CERTAINLY HAD AN AGENDA AS WELL.
QUITE HONESTLY, MY OPINION, THE CHAIR OF THE TASK FORCE IS A PARKS PROPONENT I'LL SAY.
UM, AND THEREFORE I THINK A LOT OF THE STREET'S MONEY WENT THERE.
SO WE NEED PEOPLE TO PUSH BACK.
YOU CAN LOOK, JENNIFER SENT OUT HOW EACH DISTRICT VOTED.
YOU CAN SEE, SEE HOW YOUR DISTRICT PERSON VOTED, WHETHER THEY AGREED WITH THIS ALLOCATION OR NOT.
AND YOU CAN GO PUT PUSH PRESSURE ON THEM TO SAY YOU TOOK FROM THE WRONG PLACE IF YOU'RE GONNA DO PARKS, OR DARREN, TO YOUR POINT, MAYBE WE SHOULDN'T DO THE SKATE PARK.
UM, BUT CERTAINLY THE TOWN HALL MEETINGS, THEY DID SEND A BUNCH OF CONTINGENTS OUT TO VOTE AND PUT BLUE DOTS ON PARKS.
UM, THAT WEIGHTED IT MORE HEAVILY THAT WAY.
BUT THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY DID NOT WEIGHT PARKS THAT WAY.
AND WHICH IS WHEN I WAS AT THE MEETING FOR LINDA, I KEPT PUSHING, WHY ARE WE NOT USING THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY VERSUS THE TOWN HALL VOTES? UM, BUT AGAIN, THE CHAIR SEEMED VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF PARKS, SO IT WAS KIND OF AN UPHILL BATTLE.
SO WE'RE WHERE WE ARE TODAY, UM, I THINK WE'LL LEAVE IT AS AT, IF YOU, IF YOU FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT IT, CONTACT YOUR COUNCIL MEMBER OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE ON THE, UM, C COMMUNITY BOND TASK FORCE.
I THINK THOSE ARE FAIR THINGS TO DO.
UM, AND I THINK THAT WHAT WE HAVE TO DECIDE RIGHT NOW, IT IS WHETHER TO TAKE IT OUT OF CITYWIDE OR TAKE IT OUT OF, UM, THE INDIVIDUAL DISTRICT.
AND I DO NOT HAVE, NOT, SINCE WE DID NOT LOOK AT THE CITYWIDE BEFORE, I'M A LITTLE RELUCTANT TO SAY TAKE IT OUTTA CITYWIDE BECAUSE I, I JUST HAVE TO GO OVER THE, THE ENTIRE CITYWIDE BUDGET, UM, AND SEE WHERE THESE LIE, WHAT DISTRICTS THEY'RE IN NOW, HOW MUCH PER DISTRICT EACH ONE GOT, BECAUSE NOT EVERYBODY GOT ONE.
AND I JUST, I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A CHALLENGE, BUT I'M OPEN TO LISTENING TO COMMENTS.
IF YOU, IF YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT THOUGHT ABOUT IT, LINDA, IF WE'RE FORCED TO CUT SO MUCH FROM, FROM ANYWHERE, WHY DON'T WE LOOK AT THINGS AGAIN, JUST THE BARE BONES, NOT WITH ALL THE OVERLAYS.
IF THE PCI IS WHAT DRIVES THE CONDITION OF THE ROADS, WHY CAN'T WE JUST LOOK AT EVERYTHING FROM HOW BAD THE ROADS ARE, WHERE THOSE BAD ROADS ARE AND GO FROM THERE? WELL, THEORETICALLY YOU DID THAT IN EACH ONE OF YOUR DISTRICTS BECAUSE THE PCI WAS PRETTY MUCH WHAT WE ALL USED AS THE EVALUATION.
UM, NOW ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THERE WAS OVERLAY, THERE WERE OVERLAYS THOUGH, THERE WERE ALL THOSE OVERLAYS ADDED.
UM, THOSE OVERLAYS THOUGH, THEY, THEY WERE NOT THE SAME AS THE EQUITY POINTS.
THE EQUITY POINTS WERE TAKEN OUT, IF YOU'LL RECALL, UM, WELL IF, IF I HAVE TO VOTE, IT'S TAKE IT FROM CITYWIDE BECAUSE I THINK THE DISTRICTS HAVE BEEN HURT SO BADLY THAT EACH DISTRICT IS GONNA BE FORCED TO DEAL WITH WHAT LIMITED FUNDS THEY HAVE LEFT.
LET THE CITYWIDE CITY COUNCIL FIGHT AMONGST THEMSELVES AND FIGURE OUT HOW THEY DO IT.
I I, I WOULD AGREE WITH MARA, WITH ONE EXCEPTION THAT, UM, AND I'M JUST GONNA THROW IT OUT HERE.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO ZERO EVERYTHING THAT ISN'T A COUNCIL DISTRICT THING OTHER THAN THE ONES THAT HAVE, UH, PARTNERSHIP FUNDING OF SOME SORT, UM, WHERE THERE'S MONEY COMING IN FROM ANOTHER SOURCE AND I WOULD JUST ZERO OUT EVERYTHING ELSE AND PUT IT IN AND PRESERVE WHAT WE HAVE BY DISTRICT.
CAN I JUST BACK UP A MINUTE AND ASK A QUESTION? THAT'S CRAZY.
BUT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT I THINK IS APPROPRIATE RESPONSE TO WHAT WE'VE BEEN GIVEN.
CAN ANYBODY HEAR ME? YES, SUSAN, WE CAN HEAR YOU.
UM, AND I, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO RESPOND TO THAT.
I MEAN, YEAH, THAT, THAT WOULD BE AN APPROACH
AND I SEE THAT YOU HAVE THE OTHER CITYWIDE STUFF IN YELLOW.
WHAT AM I LOOKING AT? I'M STILL NOT UNDERSTANDING ALL OF OUR DISCUSSION AS USUAL KEEPS SURROUNDING STREETS AND ALLEY STREETS AND ALLEYS, AND I THINK YOU GUYS KNOW THAT OUR, OUR BIGGEST PROJECT FOR HALF OF OUR DISTRICT IS A CITYWIDE PROJECT.
SO I AM, I JUST NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT HAS HAPPENED
[00:40:01]
AND WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING HERE WITH THIS SHEET IN, IN ADDRESSING CITYWIDE.SO WHAT, WHERE'S, WHERE'S THE 3 75 NUMBER TARGET ON THIS LIST? I CAN MAYBE JUST, UM, TAKE A STAB AT IT AND THEN, UH, MS. CO IF YOU WANT TO ADD SOMETHING, PLEASE.
UM, THE, THE THING IS THAT THE CITYWIDE, BASED ON THE NEW NUMBER, UH, WILL IT GET $131.5 MILLION, RIGHT? SO THIS ONE 31 MILLION, 1 31 $0.5 MILLION, IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOTAL NUMBER HERE, IT EQUALS TO 181.
SO BASICALLY WE ARE, WE NEED TO REDUCE $50 MILLION OUT OF THE CITYWIDE THAT WE ARE GONNA COME UP WITH THIS SCENARIO, THE 50 50 SCENARIO THAT WE HAVE.
UH, I'M SORRY, IT'S SO HARD FOR ME TO READ THOSE NUMBERS.
SO THE BOTTOM LINE THERE SAYS 310.
OH NO, UH, THIS IS INCLUDING EVERYTHING HERE.
YEAH, DON'T, DON'T PAY ATTENTION THAT MUCH TO THAT ONE BECAUSE AGAIN, SINCE WE COULDN'T ACTUALLY MOVE THIS ONE OR WE COULDN'T ACTUALLY REDUCE THIS ONE IN THE TIME THAT WE HAD, UH, WE KEPT IT AS IS AS PREVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, PROVIDED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE AND THEY VOTED ON.
BUT IF Y'ALL NEED US TO ACTUALLY GO BACK AND REDUCE THESE PROJECTS TO STAY WITH $131 MILLION, THEN WE CAN PROBABLY DO THAT AND LOOK AT SOME PROJECTS TO TAKE THEM OUT OF THE LIST.
UM, AND THEN PRESENT IT TO Y'ALL AND THEN YOU GUYS SEE IF YOU LIKE IT OR NOT.
I DON'T KNOW, BUT
SO ACCORDING TO THIS SHEET WE'RE SAYING WE HAVEN'T REALLY MET OUR 3 75 GOAL, CORRECT? NO, WE'LL MEET THE CORRECT 3 75 GOAL EVENTUALLY, BECAUSE THESE TWO TOGETHER WILL BE, I MEAN THE CITYWIDE AND DISTRICTWIDE PROJECT WILL BE $263 MILLION AND THAT'S A TOTAL, INSTEAD OF THREE 10, IT GONNA BE 262, UH, 263.
DOES IT MAKE SENSE? YEAH, THAT PART MAKES SENSE.
UM, SO THEN THE QUESTION IS, WE SEE HERE BY COUNCIL DISTRICT WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN TO STREETS AND ALLEYS.
BUT THE QUESTION IS WHAT DO WE DO WITH THE REST OF CITYWIDE? IS THAT OUR CONUNDRUM? I THINK, UM, UH, MS. COOK WAS MENTIONING THAT, YOU KNOW, SHE PREFERS THE CITY STAFF TO GO BACK AND REDUCE THIS TO GET TO THE 1 31 OR WHATEVER THE PROPOSED NUMBER IS, RIGHT, MS. GO? NO, I THINK WHAT I WAS SAYING IS WHAT WE AGREED TO WAS FOR YOU TO REDUCE IT TO WHERE HALF THAT DIFFERENCE CAME FROM YOU AND HALF WENT TO US.
THAT'S WHAT IS ALREADY AGREED TO.
I THINK WHAT DARREN IS SUGGESTING WOULD REQUIRE A REBOOT, WHICH IS THAT MORE OF THAT WOULD COME OUT OF THE CITYWIDE AND YOU'D REDUCE THAT EVEN FURTHER AND LEAVE MORE OF THE DISTRICTWIDE ALONE.
SO I'M, I WAS NOT PROPOSING ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT WE HAD ALREADY AGREED TO.
DARREN IS SUGGESTING SOMETHING DIFFERENT AND YOU KNOW, THERE MAY BE SUSAN, IF YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF CITYWIDE PROJECTS, YOU MAY PROPOSE THAT WE LEAVE MORE MONEY IN CITYWIDE AND TAKE MORE FROM THE DISTRICT.
SO I'M NOT SUGGESTING ANY CHANGE, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET THE NUMBERS ON THE PAGE SO IT WOULDN'T CONFUSE PEOPLE TO REFLECT WHAT WE AGREED TO SO THAT WE COULD WORK OFF KIND OF A BASELINE THAT WAS AGREED TO SINCE 4 22 SHOULD SAY 3 75.
IT DID RUN ACROSS MY MIND THAT IF WE HAVE TO CUT ANY DEEPER, THAT I WOULD MUCH RATHER TAKE IT OUTTA STREETS AND ALLEYS THAN LEAVE IT IN CITYWIDE.
BUT THAT'S ME AS A DISTRICT, I KNOW THAT OTHER PEOPLE DON'T FEEL THAT WAY.
SO I'M NOT SURE HOW TO TO GO ABOUT THAT.
BUT I HAD A SENSE YOU WOULD, BUT THAT'S WHY I WAS SAYING I'M NOT SUGGESTING ANYTHING.
I'M JUST TRYING TO GET THE SPREADSHEET TO REFLECT WHAT WE AGREED TO.
I THINK YOU'VE GOT A GOOD ARGUMENT TO LET'S SHOW THEM THE PAIN THAT THEY'VE CREATED SO THAT THEY GIVE US MORE MONEY TO PUT THOSE CITYWIDE BACK IN.
SUSAN, I GET YOU'RE SAYING, HEY, I MAY BE RISK AVERSE, I DON'T WANNA TAKE THE RISK, THEY DON'T ADD THE MONEY BACK IN AND THEN I DON'T GET MY CITYWIDE PROJECT.
SO I I GET BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT.
UM, I WAS JUST TRYING TO GET THE SPREADSHEET TO ADD UP TO 3 75 AND REFLECT WHAT WE HAD AGREED TO THINK.
I THINK WE NEED THAT, UM, THAT IS TRYING TO ACHIEVE, TO ACHIEVE, BUT ALSO LOOK AT THESE OTHER SCENARIOS.
'CAUSE I'M VERY INTRIGUED BY WHAT DARREN HAD TO SAY, BUT I'M CERTAINLY, UM, UH, ATTENDING TO SUSAN'S FLIGHT AND THEIR PRIORITY IN THEIR DISTRICT.
SO IT, IT WOULD BE HARD TO HAVE JUST A BROAD BRUSH.
I'M GONNA VOTE, I'M GONNA REINFORCE THAT ONE AND AGREE WITH THAT AS WELL BECAUSE FOR EXAMPLE, DISTRICT 12 HAS ZERO CITYWIDE AND THAT'S DESPITE PRESTON ROAD, WHICH IS A VERY
[00:45:01]
HEAVILY TRAVELED ROAD.WE NEED TO GET THAT ROAD ADDED TO CITYWIDE.
WE'VE TRIED AND TALKED AND TALKED.
PRESTON IS NOT A CITY STREET, PRESTON IS A STATE STREET, SO IT CAN'T EVEN BE INCLUDED IN HERE IF YOU WANTED IT TO.
IT'S A TXDOT SO THAT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE BEYOND THIS DISCUSSION.
WELL, YES AND NO, YOU PROBABLY HAVE TO HAVE A CITY MATCH TO GET ANY TXDOT MONEY AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE SOMETHING IN THE BOND, YOU PROBABLY CAN'T GET IT RIGHT.
UM, UH, AND TYPICALLY THEY WILL FIND A WAY TO DO THAT, BUT THAT WE'RE TALKING A LONG WAY OUT.
WE'LL BE INTO THE NEXT, OLLIE, IF I'M WRONG, YOU JUST CORRECT ME.
WE WILL BE INTO THE NEXT BOND ELECTION BEFORE PRESTON ROAD GETS REDONE BECAUSE THERE'S GOTTA BE COMMUNITY MEETINGS AND ALL SORTS OF, YOU KNOW, THERE'S MONEY TO BE, YOU KNOW, THE COUNTY WILL HAVE TO PUT IN SOME MONEY EVEN THOUGH IT'S A STATE PROJECT AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
SO I I'M NOT SO SURE THAT, UH, IS A CONSIDERATION.
ALI, IS THAT TYPICALLY ABOUT HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE WHEN ONE OF THOSE PROJECTS FOR A STATE ROAD IS, UM, PRESENTED? KEEP IN MIND THERE ARE SOME STATE PROJECTS THAT THEY NEED LOCAL MATCH, UH, OR SOME COUNTY THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY PAY MONEY OR STUFF LIKE THAT.
AND WE CALL IT AS, UM, PARTNERSHIP FUNDED.
AND I, I I, I HAVE MY UM, TRANSPORTATION TEAM ALSO HERE THAT I, I'M SURE THEY CAN PROVIDE BETTER INFORMATION, BUT A PRESTON ROAD IS THE TECH DOT RIGHT AWAY AND THEY NEED TO MAINTAIN IT ANYWAYS, WHETHER THEY WANT TO MAINTAIN IT OR NOT.
THAT'S A DIFFERENT STORY THOUGH.
I DON'T THINK PRESTON GOES TO THE COST SHARE.
IT MAY, I DON'T KNOW TO BE HONEST, BUT, UH, THIS IS JUST MY TAKE ON IT.
UM, CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME? THIS IS, YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU NOW.
UM, SO, UM, JUST FOR INFORMATION, UM, THE COG AND TECHSTAR ARE ACTUALLY DOING A CORRIDOR STUDY FOR PRESTON.
OH, THAT'S 'CAUSE OF THE NEW BELTLINE PROJECT.
WHAT I WOULD ASK, SORRY, GO AHEAD.
I WAS JUST GONNA SAY THE UH, EXTENT OF THE, UH, CORRIDOR, THEIR STUDYING GOES FROM 6 35 TO FRISCO CITY LIMITS.
SO IT COVERS, UH, EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN AND, UM, WE ARE WORKING WITH THEM, THE CITY'S WORKING WITH THEM, UH, TO ACTUALLY DEFINE, UH, DEFINE THE SCOPE AND IDENTIFY IMPROVEMENTS ALL ALONG PRESTON.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S IN THE WORKS RIGHT NOW.
MAY I ASK THAT ANYBODY ON THE CALL THAT DISAGREES WITH WHAT STREETS AND TRANSPORTATION RECEIVE THAT IS FROM DISTRICTS 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10 OR 12, YOUR TASK FORCE MEMBER VOTED FOR THIS, ALLOCATIONS ONLY 4, 8, 9, 13 AND 14 DID NOT.
SO IF YOU'RE FROM ANY OF THOSE DISTRICTS AND YOU'RE NOT HAPPY, YOU NEED TO RAISE IT UP TO YOUR TASK FORCE PERSON SO THAT ON NOVEMBER 4TH THEY CAN TALK ABOUT REALLOCATING THE MONEY BECAUSE THAT IS THE BEST TIME TO DO THE REALLOCATION.
UM, WHO HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION? ARE WE READY TO VOTE IF WE'RE GOING TO JUST LEAVE THE, UM, ALLOCATIONS AS WE VOTED ON PREVIOUSLY TO THIS, TO THIS MEETING AS UH, REDUCING THE CITYWIDE 50%, REDUCING THE DISTRICT 50%? DOES ANYONE WANNA CHANGE THAT? AND IF THEY DO MAKE A MOTION BECAUSE WE'RE KIND OF BEGINNING TO CIRCLE AROUND, UM, WITH THE CONVERSATION? WELL, ONCE AGAIN, I CAN'T SAY THAT I CAN VOTE ON IT BECAUSE I HAVEN'T SEEN WHAT THEY'RE GONNA TAKE OUT OF CITYWIDE.
UM, I MEAN, AGAIN, WE'VE, WE'VE COME TO A MEETING WHERE WE DIDN'T GET THIS SPREADSHEET SENT TO US AHEAD OF TIME AND YOU KNOW, SOME OF US CAMET.
SEE, I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE VOTING EITHER.
SO IN FAIRNESS TO THE CITY TEAM, JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE ALLOCATION JUST CAME OUT SO IT'S THE DAY BEFORE YESTERDAY, SO SURE.
IT'S NOT LIKE THEY'VE HAD IT FOR A WEEK, BUT I DO, I DO AGREE IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO SEE WHAT PROJECTS ARE BEING CUT SO YOU CAN VOTE FOR YOUR DISTRICT'S INTEREST.
YES, SHAHA JUST SHARED HER SCREEN BECAUSE SHE RECALCULATED THE NUMBERS.
UM, SHA IF YOU WANT TO TAKE YOU FROM UH, UH, IS, CAN YOU SEE MY SCREEN NOW OR NOT? BARELY? YES.
SO I TRIED TO RECALCULATE THE NUMBERS BASED ON, AS WE WERE TALKING RIGHT NOW BASED ON WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
SO IF WE LOOK AT THE, THE THREE, UH, THE TOTAL 3 75 GIVEN 35.5, THE MINIMUM THAT TRANSPORTATION IS TALKING ABOUT, UM, WE'RE GONNA END UP WITH THREE, NOT NECESSARILY THREE 40.
THIS IS ROUNDED UP BY THE SHEET, SO YOU WILL SEE SOME DIFFERENCES A LITTLE BIT.
THAT'S WHY THERE IS A 500 HERE, BUT IT'S ROUNDED UP.
[00:50:02]
INSTEAD OF 43 40.SO WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IS, UM, WHAT I DID IS BASICALLY THIS TOTAL OR THE THREE, UM, THE 3 39, WHAT I DID WITH IT IS I SPLIT IT, I SPLIT IT EQUALLY.
UH, CONSIDERING 50% GOES TO ALL THE ASSETS THAT'S CONSIDERED CITYWIDE AND 50% GOES TO ALL THE ASSETS THAT'S CONSIDERED PER DISTRICT.
AND FOR THAT, WHAT HAPPENS HERE IS IF YOU LOOK AT THE STREET CITYWIDE, THEY WILL BE INCLUDING SIDEWALKS AND BRIDGES TOTALS.
RIGHT NOW I ACTUALLY REDUCED SIDEWALKS INTO THE MINIMUM WE CAN GO WITH, WHICH IS BASICALLY THE $10 MILLION AS A PROPOSAL, WHICH IS BASICALLY COVERING ONLY THE COST SHARE PROGRAM, UH, UH, ANTICIPATED, UH, BUDGET NEEDED.
WE'RE, WE'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO DO ANY SIDEWALKS, UH, OUTSIDE OF THE COST SHARE PROGRAM, UH, WITHIN BOND IF WE REDUCE IT TO $10 MILLION.
SO, UH, THAT'S ONE OF THE, I I'M HEARING THE ARGUMENT IS REALLY TO PUSH TOWARDS WHAT CAN WE CUT AND WHAT CAN BE AN ARGUMENT, UH, FROM THE CITYWIDE PORTIONS.
SO THIS COULD BE ONE OF THEM, THE SIDEWALK.
I'M A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED ABOUT REMOVING BRIDGES BECAUSE IF WE DON'T TO, JUST TO THE POINT THAT CANDACE WAS MENTIONED, IF WE, IF WE JUST NEVER GET, UH, INCREASED ALLOCATIONS, WE'RE GONNA PROBABLY END UP WITH NO BRIDGES FOR REAL AND THAT MIGHT NOT BE A GOOD DECISION ON OUR END AT THIS POINT BECAUSE AS YOU ALL KNOW, BRIDGES ARE AT SAFETY CONCERN.
SO, UH, SO WE WOULD SAY WITH THE MINIMUM BRIDGES, $37 MILLION WITH THE MINIMUM SIDEWALKS, $10 MILLION AND BY THE WAY, BRIDGES WERE, WE HAD TO CUT MARCELLUS AND MARCELLUS IS AN OLD BRIDGE, IS AN IMPORTANT BRIDGE.
AND, AND THEN WE JUST, THAT'S ONE GREAT ARGUMENT HERE, YOU KNOW, DROPPING OFF MARCELL'S AS A BRIDGE FROM THIS LIST TO BE ABLE TO MEET THIS NEW BUDGET.
SO, UM, THEN WE HAVE SIDEWALKS, UM, AS I SAID ONLY THE COST SHARE PROGRAM AND THEN PLUS THE REST OF THE 50% HERE FROM THIS TOTAL WENT TO CITYWIDE.
WHAT WE ENDED UP WITH HERE, IF YOU SEE IT'S ONE $23 MILLION TO STREET CITYWIDE TO RE TO REPLACE THIS TOTAL HERE RIGHT NOW.
AND THEN THE OTHER 30% WAS SPLIT BETWEEN STREET PER DISTRICT AND ALLEY PER DISTRICT, GIVEN THAT THE ALLEY WAS ALSO REDUCED TO $30 MILLION, WHICH IS HALF OF THE ALLEYS YOU USED TO GET ON THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL.
SO THAT'S ANOTHER BIG CUT HERE FOR THAT IS REALLY YOU ARE GONNA GET JUST THIS REVIS THESE REVISED NUMBERS FOR THE PER DISTRICT FOLLOWING THE SAME, UM, OPTION A, WHICH WAS 75% PER UM, REFERRING TO THEM, 75% REFERRING TO THE UH, NEEDS AND 25% SPLIT EQUALLY.
AND THAT GIVE, YOU, GIVE ALL THE DISTRICTS A LITTLE BIT MORE MONEY HERE.
THAT IS STILL GONNA BE OFF IF YOU TOTAL BY THE 2 MILLION BECAUSE I HAVE TO REFER BACK TO THE CHANGE THAT WAS MOVED HERE FROM ONE OF THE DISTRICTS AND FIX IT.
AND I WILL, MY PLAN WAS ALREADY TO RETURN A ALL THE NUMBERS BACK TO THE ORIGINAL, BACK TO ONLY THE PERCENTAGES AND SEND IT TO YOU ALL TO DECIDE AGAIN ON HOW YOU WANNA PLAY WITH IT BECAUSE I KNOW YOU'RE NOT GETTING THE SAME MONEY ANYMORE AND YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO MOVE A LOT OF MONEY AROUND LIKE YOU DID PREVIOUSLY.
SO, UM, THAT'S ALREADY GONNA HAPPEN, BUT THAT'S HOW WE LOOK.
SHAHAD, I'M GOOD WITH NUMBERS AND I THINK I'M NOT FOLLOWING AND I THINK YOU'VE GOT A LITTLE TOO MUCH GOING TO THE COUNCIL DISTRICTS BASED ON WHAT WE AGREED TO.
'CAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'VE GOT ONE 70 GOING TO THE COUNCIL DISTRICTS VERSUS 1 62 0.5.
SO I'M HAPPY TO TAKE THAT UP OFFLINE BEFORE WE SEND IT OUT TO THE GROUP AND JUST MAKE SURE IT REFLECTS WHAT THE LAST MEETING SAID AND THEN WE CAN REMEET AND SAY, DO WE WANNA ADJUST IT OR NOT.
WHERE, WHERE IS THE ONE 70? WHERE IS THE ONE 70 THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO? GUYS, GUYS, GUYS, GUYS.
I DON'T KNOW IF EVERYBODY ELSE IS FOLLOWING THIS, BUT I'M NOT.
SO PLEASE, LET'S TAKE THAT OFFLINE LIKE CANDICE SAID AND OTHERWISE WE'LL BE HERE ALL NIGHT.
MY, I'M LOOKING AT THE BIG PICTURE.
I'M LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, IF WE WANNA KEEP THE CITYWIDE INTACT, LIKE WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO, UM, IF UH, AND THE 50, UH, WELL THE 50 50 IF WE GET REDUCED THAT WAS 50%, YOU KNOW, UH, GOES TO CITYWIDE AND 50% GOES TO STREETS NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE GOT REDUCED.
SO AGAIN, I'M GONNA ASK YOU ONE MORE TIME, DOES ANYBODY HAVE A MOTION OR DOES SOMEONE HAVE A COMMENT JUST TO THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE? WE NEED TO PUT THAT TO REST.
THIS IS BEVERLY, I HAVE A COMMENT.
[00:55:01]
GIVEN THE CUT THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED, I THINK IT IS ONLY PRUDENT THAT WE TAKE A LOOK AT CITYWIDE PROJECTS IN REMOVING SOME OF THEM, IF NOT ALL OF THEM, BUT I JUST DON'T THINK IT CAN'T NOT BE ON THE, THE CHING BLOCK.BEVERLY, WOULD YOU SUGGEST THEN THAT THE STAFF GIVE US THE LIST OF CITYWIDE PROJECTS, UM, WHERE THEY ARE, WHAT DISTRICTS THEY ARE, AND THEN THE LIST AS FAR AS THE 50% CUTS SO THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY SEE WHERE THEY, THE CUTS WILL BE WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING WITH A 50? YES.
I, I WOULD, I WOULD LOVE THAT.
AND THEN STAFF, IF YOU'LL ALSO GIVE US WHICH ONE OF THOSE ARE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS, REMEMBER WE DO NOT WANT TO LOSE THE PARTNERSHIP MONEY THAT WE GET FROM THE COUNTY OR WHATEVER SOURCE.
UM, NO, I DON'T THINK THAT'S EVEN ON THE TABLE.
I MEAN I WOULDN'T SAY WELL THERE ARE SOME MONEY PEOPLE FOR CHOP, BUT OH, OKAY.
SO YOU TAKE THE PARTNERSHIP, UH, UH, UH, PROJECTS OUT AND THEN HAVE THE STAFF CAN'T TOUCH PARTNERSHIP PROJECTS? YEAH, I DON'T THINK WE CAN TOUCH PARTNERSHIP PROJECTS.
I MEAN I GUESS WE COULD, WE COULD BLOW THAT MONEY, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S MARK DOES ANYBODY DISAGREE WITH WELL THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY IS LET'S WAIT AND LOOK AT THE LIST BECAUSE MAYBE WE WANNA TAKE SOME OF THOSE OUT IF IT'S NOT MEANINGFUL ENOUGH OR IF IT SENDS THE MESSAGE THAT HEY, THAT'S NOT A PRIORITY EVEN WITH PARTNERSHIP FUNDS, GIVEN HOW DEEP A CUT WE HAVE TO MAKE.
AND I JUST WANNA CAUTION YOU ABOUT STRATEGY ON THESE THINGS.
MAYBE THERE NEEDS TO BE A STRATEGY, BUT REMEMBER THAT'S WHAT GOT US PERHAPS INTO THIS, UM, WITH STRATEGY FROM OTHER COMMITTEES.
SO JUST RE REMEMBER THAT WE WANNA DO WHAT'S RIGHT.
UM, I JUST WANT YOU TO KEEP THAT IN, UH, ALWAYS ON THE TOP OF YOUR MIND.
YOU KNOW, I THINK IF A PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM HAS BEEN ON THE, BEEN THERE FOR A WHILE WA WAITING FOR OUR MONEY, THAT PROBABLY COMES, UH, SECOND AS WELL AS FAR AS THE CITYWIDE PROJECTS GO STAFF.
SO I LEMME I NEED TO SAY ONE OTHER THING.
I MEAN, I REMEMBER OUR EARLY DISCUSSIONS, I CAN'T REMEMBER THE WOMAN WHO LEFT TO SERVE ON THE BOND COMMITTEE, BUT YOU KNOW, WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT SAFETY AND IF, UM, BRIDGES ARE BEING TAKEN OFF OR IS ANY OF THE, OR THE ONE BRIDGE THAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING BEING TAKEN OFF, HOW, HOW MUCH AT RISK ARE WE OF HAVING SOME KIND OF CHAOTIC OR CRISIS WITH A BRIDGE COLLAPSING IF IT'S NOT REPLACED? I DON'T KNOW WHAT TEXT TEXTILE IS GRADING THOSE BRIDGES, RIGHT? OR ARE YOU GUYS GRADING THE SPALDING AND EVERYTHING ELSE ON MOLLY? WHAT, WHAT, HOW DO Y'ALL DO THAT? ARE THESE TOTALLY A CITY BRIDGE OR ARE THEY INSPECTED BY THE STATE? YEAH, UH, THE BRI THE CITY BRIDGES, THEY ARE CITY OF DALLAS BRIDGES.
HOWEVER, ALL THE BRIDGES, UH, GETS, UM, GETS, UH, RATED BY TDOT.
SO WE'RE USING TDOT BRAIDING AND UM, OBVIOUSLY, UM, IT IS THE FACT THAT THOSE BRIDGES ARE NOT IN A GOOD CONDITION AND THAT'S WHY THEY ARE ON THE TOP OF THE LIST.
UH, THERE IS NO CONSULTANT OR ANYBODY THAT CAN, YOU KNOW, TAKE ANY, UM, RESPONSIBILITY SAYING YES, IF YOU DON'T DO THIS, IT'S GONNA COLLAPSE IN THIS TIME OR IT DOES NOT COLLAPSE.
SO THAT IS A QUESTION THAT IS VERY HARD TO ANSWER.
WE TRY TO ANSWER THAT TOO, BUT IT'S DIFFICULT TO GET THE STRAIGHT ANSWER FOR THAT.
BUT GIVEN THE ANALYSIS, BUT SHAHAD, THEY DO GIVE YOU A RATING, RIGHT? GIVEN THE RATING? GIVEN THE RATING? EXACTLY.
GIVEN THE RATING, WE THOUGHT THAT THE TOP THREE SHOULD BE ADDRESSED, WHICH WAS MARCELLUS WAS PART OF THEM.
IF YOU CAN SEND ME THE RATINGS ON THOSE BRIDGES, I'LL TAKE A, I'D LIKE TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT.
WEREN'T WE TOLD AT THE VERY BEGINNING THAT THE BRIDGES WERE NOT EVEN PART OF OUR DISCUSSION BECAUSE THEY WERE A CLEAR SAFETY ISSUE? THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING.
WERE, BUT THEN A THIRD WAS ADDED, SO I MEAN, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT'S AS BLACK AND WHITE.
I, I LIKE THE IDEA OF LOOKING AT THE RATINGS ON THEM.
YEAH, THAT COULD PROBABLY TELL ME RIGHT QUICK IF, IF THAT YEAH, WE ACTUALLY HAVE A RATING AND WE ACTUALLY HAVE A REPORT TOO.
SO WE HAVE RUN A REPORT JUST BOTH FROM THE CONSULTANT SPECIFICALLY FOR THE BRIDGES.
WE WE RECOMMENDED AND WE WENT BY THAT REPORT FOR THE RECOMMENDATION.
LET'S GO BACK AGAIN TO WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, ABOUT CITYWIDE.
I'M GONNA GET YOU GUYS TO, YOU KNOW, GIVE ME AN ANSWER HERE.
UM, WE'RE GONNA PUT THE BRIDGES ASIDE FOR JUST A SECOND.
LET'S, LET'S GO BACK TO THE CITYWIDE PROJECTS.
UM, IF, IF WE GET FROM THE STAFF, THE LIST OF PROJECTS, THE
[01:00:01]
LIST OF PROJECTS THAT THEY WANT TO CUT, AND THEN THE LIST OF PARTNERSHIP PROJECTS, DO YOU THINK THAT EVERY PERSON COULD PROBABLY GIVE A YES OR A NO? UH, BASED ON THAT DATA? YES.IS THERE OTHER NOS THERE? ARE THERE ANY NOS? WELL, WOULD WE, WOULD WE, WOULD WE, UM, HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY, YOU KNOW, TO, TO DEBATE WHAT STAFF HAS IN THERE AND NOT, I MEAN, LIKE, UM, PERHAPS WE COULD, BUT YOU GUYS WILL HAVE, YOU KNOW, TODAY IS THURSDAY AND WE HAVE TO HAVE THESE DONE, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY BY SUNDAY, RIGHT.
SHAHAN, SO YOU CAN GET IT INTO SOME FORMAT FOR THE COMMITTEE QUESTION ON EIGHT 18, WE HAVE A LIST OF CITYWIDE PROJECTS THAT ARE IN ORDER.
WOULDN'T WE JUST KEEP THE PROJECTS THAT ARE ON THE TOP AND JUST TRIM FROM THE BOTTOM UP? WELL, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
YOU KNOW, WE'D LIKE TO LOOK AT THAT LIST.
WE'D LIKE TO LOOK AT THE, WE ALREADY AGREED ON THEM AND THE ORDER OF THEM AT A PREVIOUS MEETING WE HAD.
YEAH, I, I, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU, BUT WE HAVE NOT LOOKED AT THOSE REALLY IN ANY DEPTH WHATSOEVER.
I MEAN, JENNIFER, I AGREE WITH YOU, BUT I DON'T THINK ANY OF US EXPECTED A CUT THIS BIG.
CAN I JUST, IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT I JUST SAID, DID YOU HEAR ME? DR. PEREZ HAS HIS HAND UP.
OKAY, DR. PEREZ, IF YOU HAVE A HAND UP SPEAK.
I, NO, I WAS, I WAS GONNA JUST WAIT TO BE RECOGNIZED.
UM, I, I WAS, I WAS GONNA ASK YOU, UM, AND, AND, AND I'M ASSUMING THAT EACH OF, OF YOUR SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE PRIORITIES, UH, AMONGST YOUR DISTRICTS.
UM, HAVE, HAVE YOU IDENTIFIED THOSE AS WELL? AND, AND, AND THE REASON I'M I'M ASKING IS I, I'D REALLY LOVE TO HEAR THE INPUT FROM EACH OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS VERSUS HAVING, YOU KNOW, THE TEAMS CUT THE PROJECTS.
I, I THINK THAT THE, I, I THINK THAT THE SMART APPROACH, YOU KNOW, I, AND I, I, UM, WHAT'S YOUR NAME? UH, I THINK, UH, JENNIFER JUST MENTIONED THAT THERE'S A LIST, RIGHT? THAT'S PRIORITIZED BASED UPON SCORES.
UM, AND, AND I THINK, UH, AN EASY WAY IF, IF IT WERE STAFF TRYING TO PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER QUICKLY, IT WOULD BE START FROM THE BOTTOM AND CUT TILL YOU, YOU HIT YOUR LINE.
AND SO I, I'M ASSUMING THAT EACH OF YOU HAVE PRIORITY PROJECTS FROM, UH, DISCUSSIONS WITH THE COUNCIL MEMBERS.
AND SO IT, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL, UH, YOU KNOW, RATHER HAVING STAFF DO IT, BECAUSE AGAIN, THEY'RE ALL ENGINEERS, AND I LOVE ENGINEERS, BUT THEY'RE ALL NUMBERS AND THEY'RE ALL, UM, YOU KNOW, HEY, LIKE, LET, LET'S JUST BE VERY, UH, QUANTITATIVE ABOUT IT.
AND SO WHAT I'M HOPING IS THAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS CAN ACTUALLY PROVIDE, YOU KNOW, THE QUALITATIVE PIECE.
LIKE, HEY, LIKE WHAT IS ACTUALLY IMPORTANT, UH, TO EACH OF OUR, EACH OF YOUR RESPECTIVE DISTRICTS.
UM, SO, UH, AGAIN, JUST MY COMMENTS FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH.
I, I, ONE THING THAT YOU MIGHT NOTE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE SEEN THAT LIST OF PROJECTS, THEY'RE HEAVILY CONCENTRATED INTO FOUR DISTRICTS.
AND SO YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A HARD TIME.
THERE'S, THERE'S REALLY ONE THAT'S A PARTNERSHIP FUNDED FOR MY ENTIRE DISTRICT.
SO I DON'T REALLY, YOU KNOW, I CARE ABOUT SOMEONE 'CAUSE I USE THEM PERSONALLY, BUT FROM A DISTRICT PERSPECTIVE, MM-HMM.
SO I THINK IT'S REALLY HARD FOR US TO COME AND SAY, LET'S TAKE ONE CITYWIDE PROJECT FROM EACH DISTRICT THAT THEY CARE ABOUT.
BECAUSE THEY ARE SO CONCENTRATED INTO FOUR DISTRICTS.
AND, AND, AND I GUESS WILL, I WILL ADD TO THAT IS THAT THE LIST THAT WE HAVE, PART OF THE, THEIR ORDERING HAS TO DO WITH THOSE OVERLAYS AND THE EQUITY POINTS THAT WE WANNA ACHIEVE WITH THIS BOND.
AND SO, AS IT RELATES TO THE CITYWIDE PROJECTS, I THINK THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT ASPECT TO KEEP IN MIND.
AND SINCE THIS LIST IS ALREADY INCLUDED WITH THAT IN MIND IN ITS ORDER, THAT'S WHY I THINK STARTING FROM THE BOTTOM AND GOING UP WOULD BE A GOOD PLACE TO START.
AND THEN IF COUNCIL WANTS TO SEE THOSE OTHER PROJECTS ADDED, THEN THEY NEED TO APPROVE MORE MONEY FOR OUR, UM, COMMITTEE.
AND, AND, AND MY FEAR IS THAT, WE'LL, WE'LL GET YOU GUYS SOMETHING.
AND YOU KNOW, I I, I DON'T KNOW WHEN, WHEN YOU GUYS REQUESTED, I, I'VE BEEN KIND OF LISTENING IN AND OUT, BUT I, I, I GUESS MY, MY FEAR IS THAT, UH, WE'LL GET YOU SOMETHING AND THEN YOU GUYS ARE TRYING TO SCRAMBLE TO TRY TO SWITCH THINGS IN AND OUT.
AND SO, I MEAN, IF WE HAVE PRIORITIES FROM YOU UPFRONT, I MEAN, THAT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT WE COULD CONSIDER.
LIKE, IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT'S ON THE LIST THAT YOU CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT, THAT WOULD BE GREAT, GREAT INSIGHTS, UH, AND, AND APPRECIATED.
I HAVE TO ECHO WHAT, UH, CANDACE IS SAYING BECAUSE MOST OF US DON'T HAVE
[01:05:01]
ONE, YOU KNOW, SO, AND WE'RE NEVER GIVEN ONE.SO, UH, SOME OF US DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE THEY ARE, EVEN WHEN WE HEAR THE STREET NAMES.
SO IT'S, WELL, SERIOUSLY, SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A CHALLENGE.
UM, I DO THINK THAT, UH, LINDA, THE, THE, I MEAN, HE, WE, WE HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, THE HIGHEST PRIORITY ONES ARE THE ONES THAT HAVE PARTNERSHIP FUNDING.
THOSE AUTOMATICALLY GO ABOVE THE LINE.
AND THEN EVERYTHING ELSE, YOU KNOW, TOMORROW'S POINT.
IT'S, IT'S, WE REALLY DO LOOK TO, THIS IS WHERE WE LOOK TO CITY STAFF
BECAUSE SO MANY OF THESE CITYWIDE PROJECTS CROSS COUNCIL BOUNDARIES.
AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S HARD TO TELL FROM THE MEAGER DESCRIPTIONS WE GET, HOW MUCH OF THAT IS IN D 14 AND HOW MUCH IS IN D TWO, AND, YOU KNOW, IT MAY BE A BIG PRIORITY FOR TWO, BUT NOT FOR 14 AND VICE VERSA.
YOU KNOW, THERE ARE WAY TOO MANY ITERATIONS OF THAT FOR THIS COMMITTEE TO BE ABLE TO GIVE YOU PRIORITIES ON THAT.
AND SO WE REALLY DO NEED STAFF TO, TO, TO RANK THOSE FOR US BASED ON CONDITION AND EQUITY AND ALL THOSE THINGS.
UM, YOU KNOW, BUT WITH THE PRIOR HIGH, I THINK THE HIGHEST PRIORITY, GOING TO THE PARTNERSHIP FUNDED ONES.
BUT MY, YOU KNOW, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR EVERYONE, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THE COUNCIL DISTRICT STUFF, MY LIST WAS ORDERED EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ITEM SO THAT IF WE LOST MONEY, YOU COULD JUST MOVE THE LINE UP AND YOU DON'T, I DON'T HAVE TO RESUBMIT A LIST TO YOU.
AND I THINK WE JUST NEED TO HAVE THAT SAME TREATMENT DONE TO THE CITYWIDE PROJECTS.
CAN, CAN YOU TELL US STAFF, UM, HOW MUCH MONEY, UH, CITY, HOW MUCH MONEY ARE ON PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS THAT ARE CITYWIDE? THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
SO IF IT'S JUST THE ONES THAT HAVE PARTNERSHIP FUNDING COMMITTED, IT'S, UM, LIKE 60 MILLION.
AND THEN IF IT'S, UH, ADDITIONAL LIKE FOUR 1 MILLION, HOW MANY? 61 MILLIONS FOR THE, FOR THE FUNDED ALREADY? YEP.
AND THEN THE PERSPECTIVE, I THINK, OR AN ADDITIONAL 40 MILLION, THE ONE WE RECOMMENDED? NO, THE RECOMMENDED WAS LESS THAN THAT FOR THE PROSPECTIVE.
I THINK, UH, IT WAS ABOUT 19 TOTAL, 19 AT THE END WHEN WE RECOMMENDED PROJECTS.
SO, UH, AND THE REASON WHY THEY WERE 19, BECAUSE, UH, THERE WAS MONEY FROM COUNCIL DISTRICT 10 THAT WAS MOVED ALSO.
SO THEY WERE ACTUALLY, UH, NOT FULLY FROM, FROM THE CITYWIDE BUDGET, UM, UH, COUNCIL DISTRICT, UH, SKILLMAN WAS CONSIDERED PERSPECTIVE, YEAH.
IT WAS AC I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY, UH, I'M CALCULATING, I THINK WE HAD 14.9 MILLION OF PERSPECTIVE.
THERE'S A CALCULATION ERROR WITH SCUM.
SO 14.9 IN PERSPECTIVE, 61 MILLION AND, AND COMMITTED, CORRECT.
SO WE ALSO WANNA CONSIDER BRIDGES IN THAT PIECE.
WELL, ALL I'M TRYING TO GET TO IS THE, IS THE DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR THE REST OF THE, UM, PARTNERSHIP MONEY? HOW MUCH ARE WE TALKING ABOUT DEALING WITH? THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET TO.
I THINK MY, MY QUESTION AFTER THAT THEN IS HOW MUCH WOULD THE BRIDGES BE IF WE WERE TO CONSIDER THAT, IF SAFETY IS OUR TOP PRIORITY, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS RIGHT, BECAUSE LET'S BE REAL, I MIGHT NOT BE
HOW MUCH WOULD THAT COST TO DO BRIDGES AND ALL, ALL PARTNERSHIP FUNDING, RIGHT? BUT CAN WE GET, JUST GET RIGHT NOW JUST TO THE POINT WHERE HOW MUCH IS LEFT FROM THE, THE, UM, THERE'S 40, I'M SORRY, $7.9 MILLION LEFT.
UH, SAY THAT AGAIN CATHERINE, I'M SORRY.
UM, IF THE TOTAL FOR STREETS CITYWIDE IS 122.75, THERE MILLION, THERE'S A 47 POINT, THERE'S BASICALLY $48 MILLION LEFT.
SO, UM, I THINK KNOWING THAT IF WE TAKE THE, IF WE TAKE THE, IF WE JUST TAKE THE 48 MILLION, IF WE CAN JUST AGREE ON THE 48 MILLION, LET'S NOT TALK ABOUT THE BRIDGES RIGHT NOW AND PUT THE REST OF THOSE PROJECTS IN ORDER FOR THE 48 MILLION, AT LEAST YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN WORK ON.
AND, AND, AND WE CAN SEE, OKAY,
[01:10:02]
YEP.THAT WOULD GIVE US THREE PROJECT THAT'S GONNA GIVE US LIKE TWO OR THREE PROJECTS.
WELL, AT LEAST WE CAN SEE THEM, RIGHT? WE CAN SEE THOSE TWO OR THREE PROJECTS.
WE CAN, WE CAN UNDERSTAND THOSE.
IT'S NOT ALL SPREADSHEET FULL OF THINGS.
DOES ANYBODY DISAGREE WITH THAT? I LIKE IT.
HAVE A, I HAVE A, UM, A CONCERN ABOUT PRIORITIZING PARTNERSHIP PROJECTS.
I WANNA SEE THAT COMPARED TO THE PROJECT WITH THE EQUITY SCORES AS WELL, BECAUSE I REALLY FEEL LIKE THAT'S GETTING SHOVED OUT OF THE BOND AND IT'S ONE OF THE FOUR TENETS OF THIS BOND.
SO I WOULD WANNA SEE HOW MANY OF THE CITYWIDE PROJECTS WITH THEIR EQUITY SCORES COMPARED TO WHAT'S ON THE LIST OF PARTNERSHIP.
AND BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME BIG PROJECTS HERE THAT ARE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, BUT THERE MIGHT JUST BE A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF PARTNERSHIP MONEY THAT CLASSIFIES IT AS A PARTNERSHIP PROJECT.
AND I'M JUST, I JUST, I WOULD REALLY NEED TO SEE THAT LIST.
WELL, I, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH GIVING YOU THAT LIST.
I, I, I, EVERYBODY CAN HAVE THAT LIST.
I'M JUST GONNA SAY FOR MY PURPOSES, I PROBABLY AM AND JUST GONNA BE LOOKING AT THE 48 MILLION AND SEEING WHAT THE PRIORITY IS AND SEEING IF I AGREE WITH THAT OR NOT ON THE EQUITY PIECE.
IT'S NOT THAT I DISAGREE WITH, BUT IF YOU LOOK TO SEE WHICH, WHICH DISTRICTS GOT THE MOST MONEY, EVEN WITHOUT THE EQUITY POINTS.
'CAUSE THERE WERE NO EQUITY POINTS.
YOU CAN SEE THEY'RE CLUSTERED IN THOSE EQUITY AREAS.
SO I'M JUST, I'M JUST SAYING THAT'S JUST WHAT HAPPENED, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THOSE AREAS HAD HISTORICALLY BEEN UNDERFUNDED.
THAT IS, THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED.
SO THE MANAGER WOULD LIKE TO GET TO AT LEAST 30% OF THE ENTIRE BOND PROGRAM BEING IN EQUITY AREAS.
AND I THINK WE HAVE MET THAT NOW.
WE CAN HAVE THE STAFF DO A THUMBNAIL ON IT, BUT I CERTAINLY THINK THAT WE HAVE MET THAT.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT THOUGH, AND I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY WE CAN'T GIVE YOU THAT INFORMATION.
UM, I'M JUST SAYING FOR MY PURPOSES, I'M GONNA LOOK, LOOK TO THE 48 MILLION AND TRY TO PRIORITIZE THOSE OR TRY TO UNDERSTAND IT.
I PROBABLY WOULD JUST TAKE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION UNLESS I KNOW THAT, THAT THE PARTICULAR AREA, AND I'M PRETTY GOOD WITH KNOWING ALL THE DIFFERENT AREAS OF TOWN.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WHAT WE JUST SAID? AND DO WE HAVE A SCRIBE TO, TO ACTUALLY WRITE DOWN WHAT, WHAT I'M PROPOSING? IS THIS BEING RECORDED? YES, IT'S BEING RECORDED, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT SOMEONE COMES BACK AND LISTENS TO THE RECORDING TO DO THAT.
IT'S BEEN AN ISSUE THE ENTIRE, UH, TIME THAT WE HAVE NOT HAD A, A, UM, AN APPOINTED STAFF SECRETARY.
OTHER, UM, COMMITTEES AS WELL.
BUT POINT OF CLARIFICATION, LINDA, ON WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING, 'CAUSE I THINK I'M WITH IT, BUT THERE IS A CHANCE THAT A BRIDGE WOULD FALL IN THAT 48 MILLION BELOW THE LINE, BUT THAT'S WHERE WE'LL REVIEW THOSE AND HAVE TO USE DISCRETION.
IS THAT ACCURATE? I DON'T THINK SO.
BECAUSE THOSE BRIDGES ARE SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE PARTNERSHIP FROM THE, UM, ARE THEY, CONSIDER, I ASKED THIS QUESTION IN THE BEGINNING, I'M SORRY.
THEY ARE CONSIDERED CITYWIDE AND NOT IN TRANSPORTATION.
BUT WHEN CATHERINE DID, HER CALCULATION DID START WITH OUR STARTING POINT.
SHE BACKED OUT THE BRIDGES AND SIDEWALKS, SO THOSE WERE ALREADY INCLUDED.
DOES ANYBODY WANT A REPEAT OF WHAT I JUST SAID AS FAR AS THE VOTE ON THIS? IF YOU'LL JUST DO IT ONE MORE TIME AND I'LL DOCUMENT IT SO WE CAN SEND IT ALL OUT.
AS IT CONCERNS
THE PERSPECTIVE, MAYBE NOT IN ORDER, BUT JUST AS, AS THE THREE THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT, THIS, UH, PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM THAT HAVE MONEY ON IT'S $61 MILLION.
THE PROSPECTIVE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS AT $14.9 MILLION.
IT'S A DEBATE RIGHT NOW WHETHER THE THE UM, 48 MILLION FOR BRIDGES WILL BE PUT INTO THAT AS WELL.
AND THEN WE WILL, I THINK IT'S 37 37, ACCORDING, ACCORDING TO THE SPREADSHEET ON THE SCREEN, IT'S 37.
37, AND THEN THE REST OF IT WOULD BE PRIORITIZED.
WELL, I THINK SIDEWALKS IS IN THERE AT 10 AS WELL, RIGHT? YEAH.
MAY, MAY, I, MAY I JUST CLARIFY SOMETHING.
SO THE TOTAL BUDGET, THE 50% EXACTLY OF THE REMAINING BUDGET OKAY, IS ONE 90 IS 1 96.
[01:15:02]
OKAY.IS 1 96, 1 69, I'M SORRY, 1 69 0.75.
INCLUDING, AND SO WHEN YOU TAKE OFF $10 MILLION TO SIDEWALKS AND $37 MILLION TO BRIDGES, AND THAT'S ONLY CONSIDERING TWO BRIDGES.
SO WITHOUT THE THIRD ONE MARCELLUS THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, BECAUSE WITH MARCELLA'S IT WAS $59 MILLION.
SO, UM, WITH THAT TAKE, SO TAKING OFF 47 TOTAL FROM THE 1 69 0.75, WE ARE GONNA END UP WITH 1 22 0.75, WHICH WHAT CATHERINE USED, I ASSUME TO TELL US THE, UM, THE $48 MILLION LEFT.
SO THAT $48 MILLION LEFT WAS, UM, WAS ACTUALLY EXCLUDING, UH, YOU KNOW, THE PART THAT BRIDGES WAS ALREADY $37 MILLION WAS ALREADY THERE FOR BRIDGES AND $10 MILLION WAS ALREADY THERE FOR SIDEWALKS.
SO WAS $48 MILLION IS THE, IS THE NUMBER FOR THE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS OKAY.
FOR THE REMAINING PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS, FOR PARTNERSHIPS AFTER PARTNERSHIPS? WHAT'S LEFT AFTER, BUT IT DOESN'T
SO THOSE, THE $48 MILLION IS THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE'RE GONNA ACTUALLY PRIORITIZE THE REMAINING PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.
IS THAT CORRECT? CITYWIDE, CITYWIDE PARTNER.
THAT IS ASSUMING THAT WE KEEP THE THIRD BRIDGE OUT, EVEN THOUGH WE WERE CONCERNED THAT IT IS A SAFETY ISSUE AND IT MAY BE A SAFETY ISSUE, WE'RE GONNA GET DATA AND REPORT FROM STAFF.
YEAH, I'D LIKE TO LOOK AT IT, I'D LIKE TO SEE HOW FAR, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE RATING WAS FROM TEXDOT AND THAT KIND OF THING.
I'D LIKE TO, I'D LIKE TO LOOK AT IT NOW.
IF IT'S MY PREFERENCE, I'D PUT THE BRIDGE BACK.
I'M NOT THERE BECAUSE THIS IS THE BRIDGE THAT CAME IN LATE.
SO I, I WONDER IF THAT BRIDGE GOT ADDED BECAUSE WE WENT UP TO 6 75.
SO I WANNA LOOK AT THOSE SCORES TO UNDERSTAND THAT BRIDGE IS AN ADDITIONAL 22 MILLION, SO THAT WOULD TAKE THE 46 TO 24 26.
SO I, I JUST WANNA LOOK AT THE SCORES AND SEE IS IT REALLY A SAFETY OR WAS THAT THERE BECAUSE WE HAD 6 75, SO THAT NOW COMES ONTO THE LIST.
WHAT WAS OUR REASONING FOR EXCLUDING THE THIRD BRIDGE? IT WASN'T ON THE LIST INITIALLY WHEN WE WENT UP TO 6 75 IT APPEARED.
SO WE NEVER GOT JUSTIFICATION FOR WHY IT WASN'T ON THE BRIDGE.
AND THEN NOW WHY IT IS ON THE LIST.
YEAH, I WOULD DEFINITELY, ITS NOT LIKE WE DON'T NEED TO MAKE THIS DECISION RIGHT NOW.
LEMME JUST EXPLAIN SO QUICKLY.
THE REASON IT WAS ADDED ON THE LIST WHEN WE GOT MORE MONEY IS BECAUSE DURING THAT TIME THAT WE FIRST RECOMMENDED TWO, UH, WORST BRIDGES, UH, GIVEN JUST A PROPOSED BUDGET, AT THAT TIME WE WERE ASKING OUR, OUR CONSULTANT TO CREATE ANALYSIS AND GIVE US RECOMMENDATION.
AND WHEN THE CONSULTANTS SENT THEIR LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION, THEY INCLUDED THREE BRIDGES AND MARCELLUS WAS ONE OF THEM.
AND THAT LETTER, UH, IS AVAILABLE AND WE CAN SHARE IT WITH YOU.
IT DOESN'T QUITE TELL US WHY THE CONSULTANT ADDED IT NOW YET.
BUT I, I THINK IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE WE NEED TO MAKE THIS DECISION TODAY, BUT IN THAT 46 OR 48, I FORGET ADDITIONAL DOLLARS THAT WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS NEXT TIME THAT WE COULD SAY, ACTUALLY LET'S PUT THAT TOWARDS THE THIRD BRIDGE, CORRECT? YES.
YOU COULD PUT IT PUT TOWARDS THE THIRD BRIDGE.
BUT THAT'S NOT A DECISION THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE TODAY, RIGHT? WELL, IT NEEDS TO BE MADE TODAY, TOMORROW, OR THE NEXT DAY,
I I THOUGHT WE WERE GETTING MORE NUMBERS BACK TO, TO COMPARE THOSE, THE 48 FIRST, THE, THE THINGS LEFT VYING FOR THE 48.
AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT BRIDGE IS ESSENTIALLY ONE OF THE THINGS BUYING FOR IT.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER THAT I WOULD BE OKAY WITH, YOU KNOW, LINDA'S EXPERTISE WITH TDOT AND, AND UNDERSTANDING ALL THIS WORKING WITH CITY STAFF TO MAKE A DETERMINATION ONTO HOW CRITICAL THAT BRIDGE IS.
THEN THAT LEAVES THAT BALANCE AT EITHER 26 OR 46 AND THEN THAT GETS ALLOCATED AS IT GETS ALLOCATED AND THEN THE CITY COUNCIL'S GONNA HAVE TO DEAL WITH ALL THE OTHER CUTS.
[01:20:01]
I'M OKAY WITH THAT.CAN YOU GIVE US US STAFF THEN THE 48 MILLION AND THEN, UM, WITH, AND THEN WHEN YOU TOOK OUT THE BRIDGE, 48 MILLION WITH JUST THE REMAINING PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS AND THEN THE 26 MILLION AFTER YOU TAKE, AFTER THE BRIDGES ARE TAKEN OUT, OR JUST PUT A LINE THERE IS ALL I WANNA IS ALL WE WANNA SEE, I GUESS.
BUT WE WILL DISCUSS IT AND I GUESS YOU WILL GIVE YOU, IF YOU WANT US TO, WE'LL JUST GIVE YOU WHAT THE STAFF AND I AND, AND WHOEVER ELSE WANTS TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT, IN THAT MEETING.
UM, OUR BEST RECOMMENDATION IF YOU WANT US TO DO THAT, I MEAN, THAT'S FINE.
DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE TO ME.
BUT DO WE HAVE AN ENGINEER ON THE, UM, COMMITTEE? DO YOU HAVE A CIVIL ENGINEER? NO.
I WOULD, I I WOULD LIKE TO GET ALL THE STUFF THAT, THAT YOU'RE WORKING ON JUST FOR, FOR BACKGROUND, RIGHT? I'M SORRY.
SOMETIMES I CAN'T SEE WHO'S, BECAUSE MY IPAD IS SO SMALL.
WHO'S SPEAKING? WHO SAID THAT? I'M SORRY.
DOES ANYBODY ELSE WANT IT AS WELL? ALL THE DATA FOR TO SEE IT? I'D LIKE TO SEE IT WOULD LIKE WE'LL SEND TO EVERYBODY MEMBERS.
WE'LL SEND IT TO EVERYBODY THEN.
MS. COPE? UM, AURA FROM TRANSPORTATION HAS HIS HANDS UP.
UM, I I BELIEVE HE HAS A QUESTION AND I'M SORRY, I WOULD, I WOULD CALL ON YOU, BUT I CAN'T EVEN SEE THE LITTLE HANDS UP THERE.
THAT, THAT'S WHAT I'M DOING ACTUALLY.
I WAS, I WAS JUST, UH, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT A LOT OF THINGS, UH, AS TRANSPORTATION GOES TO THEIR PROJECTS, YOU KNOW, DRAWING LINES.
I JUST WANTED TO VERIFY WHAT THE COMMITTEE'S DIRECTION WAS.
WAS IT, UH, 50 MILLION FOR TRANSPORTATION? WAS IT, UH, 35 MILLION? UH, 35.5 MILLION.
'CAUSE THAT WILL AFFECT, UH, THE PROJECTS THAT WE'LL BE SENDING YOU.
RIGHT? SO THE ORIGINAL, UM, THE ORIGINAL, UM, VOTE BY THE COMMITTEE WAS TO LEAVE THE 40 MILLION IN THERE.
'CAUSE THEY WERE SAFETY ITEMS. CANDACE, AM I WRONG ON THAT? I, I HAD IT AT 50, NOT 40.
YES, IT WAS 50 FOR TRANSPORTATION.
BUT I THINK SHAHAD IS YOUR SPREADSHEET SHOWING 35 BILLION? THE TRANSPORTATION 30? YEAH, I'M LOOKING AT IT.
YEAH, IT SHOWS 35.5 BASED ON, UH, ON, UH, CHOKING IN A BOX.
THE CUT, BECAUSE THE CUT WAS, UH, GONNA BRING THE 44% CUT ON BOTH ON THE, ON THE WHOLE PROPOSITION WAS GONNA BRING TRANSPORTATION DOWN TO $28 MILLION.
BUT HOWEVER, UH, UH, OR WAS MENTIONING THE MINIMUM, UH, TRANSPORTATION CAN GO 35.5 AND THAT'S WHY OUTPUT 35.5.
BUT, UH, ULTIMATELY, I GUESS IT IS THE, UH, THE SUBCOMMITTEE DECISION.
YEAH, I MEAN WE VOTED FOR 50, SO WE WOULD HAVE TO VOTE TO CHANGE THAT.
TELL ME, TELL ME AGAIN, SHAHAN IS 50 ISN'T 50 WHAT THE BOND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED? THAT WAS OUR COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION IF WE GOT CUT, BUT THE I IN THE PAPER IT SAID THAT, THAT, I'M SORRY.
I'M THINKING ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE.
SHAHAD, EXPLAIN TO ME THE RATIONALE ONE MORE TIME, JUST REAL BRIEFLY WHAT THAT WAS.
SO, YEAH, SO THE, THE ORIGINAL TRANSPORTATION, UH, AMOUNT OR PROPOSAL WAS $50 MILLION AND THE PUBLIC WORKS PROPOSAL WAS $625 MILLION, WHICH TOTALED INTO 6 75.
WHAT WE GOT IS ABOUT 45, 40 4% CUT.
BUT THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE, THE VOTE.
NO, WE'VE GOTTA GO BY THE VOTE UNLESS WE CHANGE IT.
UNLESS SOMEBODY WANTS TO CHANGE THE VOTE, WE'RE GOING WITH 50 MILLION YOU GUYS, BECAUSE I CAN'T JUST SAY, OR NOBODY CAN JUST SAY THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT WE VOTED ON.
SO UNLESS THERE'S ANOTHER PROPOSAL, I MEAN, I WILL ENTERTAIN ANOTHER PROPOSALS OR ANYTHING IN BETWEEN.
THE QUESTION IS, CATHERINE, SINCE YOU'RE ON, YOU'RE ON, IS IT A ONE FOR ONE, SHOULD YOU GUYS TRANSPORTATION BE DROPPED DOWN TO 35 5 IN ORDER TO BE APPLES TO APPLES WITH CITYWIDE AND DISTRICTS? OR DO YOU FEEL LIKE YOUR PROJECTS ARE TRUE SAFETY PROJECTS
[01:25:01]
AND SHOULD STAY AT 50? I'M GONNA DEFER THAT TO RO WHO I THINK WAS THE ONE THAT RECOGNIZ, OH, SORRY, THAT NUMBER.RO UM, I'LL TAKE A STAB AT IT.
UM, OUR 50 MILLION, PRETTY MUCH THERE WAS, UM, WE HAVE A LOT OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS THAT ARE WARRANTED BUT HAVE NOT BEEN BILLED, WHICH ARE SAFETY ISSUES.
WE HAVE ABOUT $30 MILLION WORTH OF SIGNALS.
THEN WE ALSO HAVE SCHOOL FLASHERS THAT WE NEEDED TO UPGRADE.
THEY'RE STILL ON PAGER SYSTEM, UH, WHICH IS STARTING TO FAIL.
SO BETWEEN THOSE AND SOME CRITICAL SIGNALS, EXISTING SIGNALS THAT NEEDED TO BE UPGRADED, WE HAD 17 MILLION THERE.
AND THEN WE HAD, UH, SOME VISION ZERO PROGRAMS, WHICH WAS, UH, IMPROVEMENTS ON, UH, HIGH ENGINEERING NETWORK ROADWAYS, ABOUT $6 MILLION OF THAT.
SO THE 50 WAS PRETTY MUCH, MOST OF IT WAS ALL SAFETY PROJECTS, TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND VISION ZERO PROJECTS.
IF WE, IF WE GO DOWN TO 35, THEN WE PROBABLY HAVE TO, UH, DELETE, UH, THE SCHOOL FLASHERS AS WELL AS THE VISION ZERO PROJECT.
WE STILL WOULD HAVE TO DO THE WARRANTED SIGNALS BECAUSE THEY WERE WARRANTED FIVE YEARS AGO.
AND, UH, THE CITY HAS A LIABILITY PROBLEM IF WE HAVE DETERMINED THAT SIGNALS NEED TO GO, AND THEN WE HAVEN'T PUT THEM IN.
SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME OR WHAT DOES IT, WHAT, WHAT DOLLAR AMOUNT DO WE HAVE TO LEAVE IN SO THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE LIABILITY FOR THE ISSUE THAT YOU JUST HAD? I'M JUST CURIOUS.
JUST FOR THE, JUST FOR THE NEW SIGNALS, IT'S $30 MILLION AND THE REST OF THE 20 MILLION AND THE REST OF THE 50 MILLION, WE HAD VISION ZERO, UH, PROJECTS FOR HIGH ENTRY NETWORKS AND TO UPGRADE HIGH ACCIDENTS, UH, TRAFFIC SIGNAL LOCATIONS AND OUR SCHOOL FLASHER SYSTEM, WHICH IS, UH, STILL, UM, YOU KNOW, OPERATING ON AN OLD 1980S PAGER SYSTEM.
HOW MUCH WAS THE, SO THAT'S ALL SAFETY FLASHERS, THAT WAS ALL IT WAS.
THIS, THIS WHOLE TRANSPORTATION, 50 MILLION IS ALL SAFETY.
UH, WE HAD 1 MILLION FOR STREET LIGHTS AND THE REST PROVISION ZERO TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SCHOOL FLASHERS.
AGAIN, I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T HEAR ANY, I DIDN'T HEAR YOU.
GIVE ME THE INFORMATION ON, UM, THE CITY'S LIABILITY IF WE DON'T DO PART OF IT.
UM, WHAT I WAS SAYING IS THE NEW TRAFFIC SIGNALS THAT NEED TO BE BUILT, THE WARRANTED TRAFFIC SIGNALS.
UM, UH, THEY WERE ALL WARRANTED, I MEAN, DETERMINED THAT WE NEEDED NEW SIGNALS BACK IN 2017 AND 2018.
SO THAT'S HOW LONG THEY'VE BEEN WAITING.
AND SINCE OUR STUDIES SHOWED THAT WE NEED THE SIGNALS AND SIGNALS THAT A SAFETY MEASURE, WHAT I WAS SAYING IS, UM, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE POTENTIAL LIABILITY.
WE DO NOT ADDRESS THOSE, AND THAT'S ABOUT $30 MILLION WORTH OF PROJECTS.
JUST THE, FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGNALS.
AND ARNOLD, JUST REMIND ME RIGHT QUICK, THOSE WERE THE NEW ONES AND NOT THE VISION ZERO.
SO THE $30 MILLION IS A LIABILITY ISSUE.
WE AT LEAST HAVE TO KEEP THOSE IN THERE GUYS, OR MY OPINION.
UM, DO YOU WANT ME TO SHARE MY SCREEN TO SHOW WHAT THE BREAKOUT WAS BEFORE? OH, YOU CAN, YEAH.
REMEMBER THAT WE'RE SELF-INSURED
WELL, WHILE SHE'S DOING THAT, I'LL JUST OFFER YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD THING, A BAD THING.
I'M SORRY, I HAVE A TOUGH TIME CUTTING ANYTHING OUT OF TRANSPORTATION.
SO I'M, I'M FOR ONE, I, I'D LIKE TO SEE TRANSPORTATION STAY AT 50 AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO SEE SIDEWALKS RETURNED TO THE AMOUNT THAT WE HAD BEFORE AS WELL.
AND THEN JUST TAKE THE CITYWIDE LIST THAT WE HAD ALREADY HAD FROM THAT EIGHT 18 MEETING AND JUST TRIM IT UP THE BOTTOM AND THEN HOPEFULLY GET MORE MONEY FROM CITY COUNCIL AND THEN BRING IT BACK DOWN.
WE HAVE, UM, REALLY, WE HAVE A SUGGESTION FROM, UH, SUSAN AND FROM JENNIFER.
I THINK THEY'RE KIND OF SAYING THE SAME THING.
LET'S VOTE, LET'S VOTE ON TRANSPORTATION FIRST AND CONVERSATION.
UM, DO YOU WANNA MAKE A MOTION ON THE TRANSPORTATION FOR, I'M SORRY, THIS IS BEVERLY.
I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE, UM, KEEP TRANSPORTATION AT 50.
OKAY, JENNIFER, THANK YOU JENNIFER.
[01:30:01]
DID YOU WRITE THAT DOWN TOO? YEAH.ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
OR ALL THOSE THAT ARE NOT IN FAVOR, SAY YES OR NO OR SOMETHING.
SO I'M GONNA SAY THAT IT WAS UNANIMOUS.
I AM SORRY I CAN'T SEE EVERYBODY, SO I'M JUST GONNA SAY IT WAS UNANIMOUS UNLESS SOMEBODY TEXT ME OR, AND, AND JUST TO BE CLEAR BY DOING THAT, YEAH.
SHAHAD PUT IN THE COMMENTS THAT IT REDUCES THE NUMBERS WE TALKED ABOUT FOR CITYWIDE TO BE PRIORITIZED DOWN TO 39.6.
SO WE'RE AT 39.6 TO BE PRIORITIZED BETWEEN CITYWIDE AND JENNIFER.
WE CAN TALK ABOUT SIDEWALKS NOW.
UM, WAS IT 15 MILLION? WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL BEFORE TODAY? WHAT WAS THE SIDEWALK AMOUNT THAT WE WERE, I THINK IT WAS 28.
JENNIFER, I'LL JUST COMMENT ON YOUR PROPOSAL.
UM, YEAH, WHAT, WHEN THEY REDUCED IT TO 10, THAT, THAT, WHAT MY UNDERSTANDING IS, IS KIND OF A CLARIFICATION.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WAS FOR, THAT WAS FOR THE MATCHING GRANT PROGRAM.
SO WHAT GOT CUT OUT OF THE SIDEWALKS IS THE SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN, BASICALLY.
AND THAT'S WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE.
I I WOULD LIKE TO NOT SEE THAT CUT.
WELL, I THINK, YOU KNOW, IF WE THINK OF THINGS TO CUT, IF WE CUT THAT, THAT WOULD PROBABLY INCENT THEM TO FIND MONEY FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE TO GET THAT MASTER PLAN FUNDED, WHICH NEEDS TO HAPPEN.
BUT I THINK THERE ARE OTHER TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES, SOURCES OF FUNDING, BECAUSE THAT'S A BIG ISSUE THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO GO OTHER PLACES FOR THAT.
SO I WOULD, I UNDERSTAND YOUR PERSPECTIVE, BUT I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE.
I THINK DALLAS ALREADY HAS A HISTORY OF HAVING A HARD TIME FUNDING ITS SIDEWALK AND WE HAVE A LOT OF, UM, PEDESTRIANIZATION FOR TRANSPORTATION THAT PEOPLE THAT DON'T HAVE A CAR THAT WALK AND RIDE.
AND SO I THINK REDUCING THAT TO JUST A CAR SHARE PROGRAM WOULD, UH, WOULD NOT BE A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION TO MAKE A SIDEWALK METAPHOR.
WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE AS AN ALTERNATIVE, JENNIFER, IS THAT WE PUT SIDEWALKS ON THE LIST OF PROJECTS TO BE PRIORITIZED TO BE DISCUSSED RATHER THAN DOING THAT ONE OFF TODAY.
BECAUSE IT'S HARD FOR ME TO SAY TO PUT SIDEWALKS BACK IN UNTIL I SEE WHAT ELSE IS GETTING CUT AND EXCHANGE FOR PUTTING SIDEWALKS BACK IN AND SEE SIDEWALKS, I SEE SIDEWALKS AND EQUIVALENCY TO TRANSPORTATION AS A VITAL NO, NO BUDGE LINE.
WHEREAS I SEE THIS LIST OF CITYWIDE PROJECTS AS A MOVING VARIABLE WHERE ADDITIONAL PARTNERSHIP PROJECT FUNDING POTENTIAL.
AND SO, UM, I THINK LIKE FOR INSTANCE, $10 MILLION IN A A SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN IS GONNA GO A LOT FARTHER THAN SOME MILLION MILLION DOLLARS ON, UH, A COMBINED STREET PROJECT.
I DON'T KNOW THAT I AGREE WITH THAT, BUT I, I, YOU KNOW, I, I DISAGREE WITH PUTTING OF THE REMAINING $40 MILLION, CALL IT, 20 OF IT INTO SIDEWALKS.
BUT LEMME JUST GET THE NUMBERS STRAIGHT.
I THOUGHT THE SIDEWALKS, AND I'M LOOKING AT PROPOSITION EIGHT BUDGET SUMMARY.
THE CITYWIDE SIDEWALKS WERE 30 MILLION.
SO WHAT NUMBER ARE WE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT STAFF? SO THEY HAVE 10 IN THERE RIGHT NOW, LINDA.
AND THAT'S JUST THE MATCH PROGRAM? THAT'S A GRANT.
THAT'S OUR, SOME TYPE OF MATCH.
CAN I ASK, IF YOU'RE NOT SPEAKING, PLEASE MUTE YOURSELF.
I'LL JUST COMMENT ONE MORE TIME TO BEVERLY ON THAT 10 MILLION.
WE GETTING A LOT, GETTING A LOT OUT OF THE STREETS.
AND I, I'M TOTALLY WITH YOU ON THE NEED FOR THE STREETS.
UM, AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, THERE'S ONE AT THE TOP OF THE LIST IN OUR DISTRICT, BUT I DO KNOW THAT TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES IS A BIG TOPIC AND IT'S BEING ADDRESSED IN FUNDING SOURCES FROM ELSE OTHER PLACES.
AND THAT'S THE ONLY, UH, IMPETUS I HAVE FOR SAYING, WELL, LET'S GO SOMEWHERE ELSE TO GET THE MONEY BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH IN THE BOND, I THINK, OR THE CITY COUNCIL WILL DISAGREE WITH THAT AND THEN FINALLY COME UP WITH SOME MORE MONEY FOR BOND TO DO IT.
BUT ANYWAY, AND IT'S NOT THAT 10 MILLION ISN'T THAT MUCH ON THAT LIST IF YOU LOOK AT IT AND I'M ONE OF 'EM.
SO ANYWAY, SO JENNIFER, I HAVE A PRO, UH, YOU ARE MAKING A PROPOSAL OF LEAVING THE, THE, THE CITYWIDE SIDEWALKS IN THERE.
[01:35:01]
WILL RECALL FROM A MASTER PLAN.AND I'M GONNA ASK THIS QUESTION ONE MORE TIME.
IT WAS REDUCED JUST KIND AS A THOUGHT TO $10 MILLION BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE HAD MATCHING MONEY FOR.
BUT JENNIFER, ARE YOU SAYING TO RESTORE THE ENTIRE 30 MILLION? THAT WOULD BE, YEAH.
UM, I'M GONNA PROPOSE 15, JUST HALF IT, WE'RE GETTING HALF THE MONEY THEN WE JUST HALF THE SIDEWALK SAY, I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR YOU.
UH, UH, PROPOSE JUST HALFING IT TO 15 MILLION.
SINCE WE'RE BASICALLY GETTING OUR BUDGET CUT IN HALF, THEN WE JUST HAVE THE SIDEWALKS AS WELL.
SO THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE HALF WOULD INCLUDE THE 10 MILLION THAT WE'RE GETTING, UM, IN PARTNERSHIP MONEY FOR US.
IF YOU WANNA RESTATE IT, THEN CANDACE IS WRITING IT DOWN.
I PROPOSED THAT THE SIDEWALK BUDGET GOES TO 15 MILLION CONSIDERING OUR NEW BUDGET.
AND THAT WOULD BE OF THE 10 MILLION, CAN WE PROPOSE ONE BIG BUDGET? IN OTHER WORDS, SIDEWALKS, TRANSFER STREETS, ET CETERA, NOT THIS WILLY-NILLY PICKET HERE.
DO THERE, I MEAN WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE KIND OF DOING THIS SO HAPHAZARDLY I'D LIKE TO SEE THE WHOLE PACKAGE AND THEN MAKE A DECISION.
AND IF THERE ARE THREE OPTIONS, DO IT THAT WAY.
CAN WE VOTE ON THIS FIRST AND THEN WE'LL VOTE ON YOUR, UM, PROPOSAL? SURE.
WOULDN'T KNOW THEN A MOTION FOR, UNLESS, UNLESS YOU WANNA MAKE AN AMENDMENT.
IF YOU MAKE AN AMENDMENT, THEN WE CAN VOTE ON YOUR PROPOSAL FIRST.
BUT IT HAS TO BE AN AMENDMENT FORM.
I'M SORRY, THAT'S THE WAY IT'S, I MEAN, THAT'S ROBERTS RULE ORDER.
MARA, IF I WERE TO AMEND THIS, I'D LIKE TO SEE EVERY COMPONENT WITH SOME NUMBERS THAT WE CAN VOTE AS A GROUP.
AND IF THERE ARE THREE OPTIONS OF THOSE INDIVIDUAL NUMBERS, FINE.
BUT IT'S THE WAY WE'RE DOING IT NOW, IT, IT'S NOT COMPLETE, IT'S NOT A BIG OVERVIEW.
IT'S, IT'S KIND OF PIECE BY PIECE BY PIECE AND IT'S JUST VERY INEFFICIENT.
SO YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD A AMENDMENT TO, UM, JENNIFER'S PROPOSAL TO JUST SEE THREE NUMBERS IN GREAT BIG BROAD CATEGORIES.
DO I HAVE A SECOND ON THAT? I'M SORRY.
IF YOU HAVE A SECOND, CAN YOU EITHER SAY SOMETHING OR PUT IT IN THE CHAT? I'M SORRY, I CAN'T.
I CANNOT FIND A SECOND ON THAT, MARA, UNLESS YOU'RE OKAY, THEN WE WILL PROVOKE.
UH, THE REG, THE, UH, WE'RE GONNA GO BACK BACK TO THE ORIGINAL, UM, MOTION, UH, THAT JENNIFER STATED.
UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE ORIGINAL MOTION SAY AYE.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED TO JENNIFER'S MOTION? SAY AYE.
NOW I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, SINCE I CAN'T SEE HANDS AND STUFF.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT'S OPPOSED TO JENNIFER'S MOTION? SUSAN.
ANYBODY ELSE? TEXT ME OR, YEAH, I JUST WANNA LOOK AT IT AS PART OF THE BIG LIST.
I MEAN, I'M JUST ASKING THE QUESTION HERE.
UM, WHY WOULD WE MAKE IT PART OF A BIG LIST IF WE, IF IT'S BEEN ITS OWN CATEGORY THIS ENTIRE TIME IN THE PROCESS, IF WE'RE HAVING TO BREAK IT DOWN SO FAR, TRANSPORTATION AND SIDEWALKS, IF IT'S ALWAYS BEEN ITS OWN LINE ITEM, WHY WOULD WE CHANGE DISCUSSING THAT AT THIS POINT? OKAY, WE'RE THE DISCUSSION HAS BEEN, I CLOSED, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A VOTE COUNT, GUYS.
I'M GONNA CALL EVERYBODY'S NAME.
THIS WILL, THIS WILL WORK BETTER.
UM, CANDACE IS A NO, I'M GOING BY THE, BY WHAT I CAN SEE ON MY SCREEN.
DARREN, YES OR NO? YES, HE'S DARREN IS A YES.
UM, HANG ON, HANG ON JUST A SECOND.
WHO ELSE IS ON? HAVE MY MARIE IS A YES, MARIE
[01:40:01]
IS A YES.UM, THAT'S ALL I HAVE BECAUSE LAUREN DROPPED OFF FOUR.
SO I GUESS WE ONLY HAVE SEVEN PEOPLE.
WE DON'T HAVE A WHO, WE DON'T OH, NO, I, I, I MAKE THE QUORUM, BUT, UH, SO IT'S, SO IT'S FOUR TO THREE, SO IT PASSES.
WE HAVE LOOKED AT THE CATEGORIES OF BRIDGES, TRANSPORTATION, SIDEWALKS, STREETS THAT ARE NOT CITYWIDE, AND ALLEYS WERE TOGETHER, STREETS AND ALLEYS WERE TOGETHER.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT THEN? SO I THINK WHAT LEFT FOR US IS THE $34.6 MILLION THAT'S NOW LEFT.
WE NEED THE LIST OF PROJECTS PRIORITIZED BY THE CITY.
THAT WOULD BE DONE WITH THAT MONEY.
IT WAS 39.6 WITH THE INCREASE IN SIDEWALK.
DOES STAFF HAVE ANY, UH, QUIBBLE WITH, UM, THAT NUMBER? BECAUSE I'M GONNA ASK FOR A VOTE ON THAT AS WELL.
DOES STAFF AGREE WITH THAT 34 6 NUMBER? UH, HONESTLY, I HAVE TO RUN SOME CALCULATION BECAUSE, UH, JUST TO CONFIRM THE EXACT NUMBER BECAUSE, UH, UM, BECAUSE I THINK CATHERINE MADE SOME CHANGE ON THE PARTNERSHIP PERSPECTIVE AMOUNT FROM WHAT I HAD AND WHAT I HAD IS DIFFERENT.
SO I NEED TO KNOW THE EXACT NUMBER WITH HER THAT I CAN DO IT.
CAN YOU DO IT NOW? OR, OR, OR I COULD ASK FOR A VOTE JUST ON THE REMAINDER AND NOT, AND NOT HAVE THE NUMBER IN THERE.
SO CATHERINE WAS, WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S THE, THE PARTNERSHIP RESPECTIVE, INCLUDING SKILLMAN AND THE MONEY MOVED WAS REQUIRED TO BE MOVED FROM DISTRICT 10 TO COVER SKILLMAN IS 14.5.
WHAT, WHAT IS THE NUMBER? I THINK THERE WAS MONEY MOVED FROM, I THINK IT WAS, IT WAS BASICALLY ADDED AS A, UM, $1 MILLION FOR A PARTNERSHIP PROJECT PERSPECTIVE, BUT IT WASN'T, THAT WASN'T ONE OF THE ONES THAT WAS MOVED FROM LIKE LOCAL TO CITYWIDE.
AND SPEAKING OF THOSE, I MEAN, I THINK WITH THOSE, IT WOULD STILL BE THE SAME CASES IT WAS BEFORE WHERE WE HAD THE TOTAL NUMBER AND THEN IF PEOPLE WANTED TO MOVE THEIR LOCAL BUDGET TO CITYWIDE, THEN THAT COULD BE DONE.
SO WITHOUT THAT ON TOP OF THAT.
SO NOW WITHOUT THAT IT'S 14.5.
YEAH, THAT'S ACTUALLY WHAT I HAD.
SO THAT'S, THE REMAINDER IS 14.9? NO, THAT'S, NO, THAT'S THE PROSPECT.
SO I MEAN, I THINK, OH, I'M SORRY.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY, THERE'S ANY REASON TO OBJECT.
YOU'D GET TWO, UM, PROBABLY TWO COMPLETE STREETS PROJECTS AND A COUPLE STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.
JUST TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF WHAT WOULD BE COMING.
AND THAT WOULD BE ABOUT 40, 34 0.6 MM-HMM,
IS IT BETTER FOR ME JUST TO, TO ASK FOR A VOTE ON THE REMAINDER RATHER THAN GETTING A SPECIFIC DOLLAR AMOUNT? 'CAUSE WE COULD BE OFF ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
DOES ANYBODY WANNA MAKE A MOTION TO USE THE REMAINDER OF THE MONEY THEN, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY NOT DEFINITIVELY 34.60, WAIT, YES, DARREN, I SEE YOUR HAND.
I, UH, MAY I ASK A QUESTION?
I, I, I'M, I'M WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT WE HAVE ALREADY ALLOCATED SIDEWALKS, BRIDGES, YES.
STREETS AND ALLEYS BY DISTRICT.
AND WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT WHATEVER'S LEFT BETWEEN THAT AND 3 75 WOULD GO TO THE CITYWIDE PROJECTS THAT ARE NOT PARTNER FUNDED AND NOT PERSPECTIVE.
EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND THAT AND CLARIFICATION TO THAT, THAT LEAVES OUT THE THIRD BRIDGE, CORRECT? CORRECT.
SO I CAN I MAKE A MOTION TO, BECAUSE WE, WE WOULD HAVE ENOUGH TO COVER THAT THIRD BRIDGE WITH WHAT IS LEFT, RIGHT? 'CAUSE WE, THE DIFFERENCE IS LESS THAN WHAT THE BRIDGE IS.
WELL, IT'S THE BRIDGE OR IT'S A COUPLE OF CITYWIDE PROJECTS.
[01:45:01]
A QUESTION FOR CATHERINE.UM, ON THE LIST OF CITYWIDE PROJECTS, THE RECOMMENDED LIST FROM THAT EIGHT 18, ADMITTING THE FIRST TWO, THE PEAK WOMEN HASPER PROJECTS AND THE L CFA HIGGINS ENHANCEMENT, THOSE UNDER CATEGORIES AT THE TIME WERE LISTED AS COMPLETE STREETS, BUT DON'T HAVE A PARTNERSHIP NOTE.
ARE THOSE PARTNERSHIP PROJECTS AT THIS TIME OR ARE THEY STILL NOT PARTNERSHIPS BUT AT THE TOP OF THE CITY LIST BECAUSE OF THEIR LOCATION AND, UM, NECESSITY AND EQUITY? CORRECT.
THEY'RE NOT PARTNERSHIP PROJECTS.
UM, THEY'RE AT THE TOP OF THE LIST BECAUSE THEY MEET MANY GOALS OF THE CITY AND THAT THEY RANK THE HIGHEST IN TERMS OF ALL THE SCORING CRITERIA THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED.
THAT THOSE TWO AND THE, THE THIRD ONE SENIOR SENT TO LAMAR.
UM, MY, MY CONCERN IN TALKING ABOUT THE BROAD NUMBERS AND SAYING FUNDING PARTNERSHIP PROJECTS FIRST IS THAT THESE TOP TWO AND THREE PROJECTS GET REMOVED WHEN THEY ARE PRIORITIZED.
SO I WOULD NOT BE COMFORTABLE MAKING A VOTE ON GENERAL FINANCIAL ALLOCATION WITHOUT KNOWING THE STATE OF THESE PROJECTS THAT THEY WOULD, WOULD FALL INTO PLAY.
I'M SORRY, JENNIFER, I'M NOT QUITE FOLLOWING YOU.
WE'VE ALREADY TAKEN A VOTE ON THE PERSPECTIVE AND THE, UM, PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS, THE SIDEWALKS, THE BRIDGES, SO ON AND SO FORTH.
ALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE REMAINDER NOW.
SO I'M NOT EXACTLY FOLLOWING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
I'M NOT SURE I REMEMBER SPECIFICALLY VOTING ON, ON FUNDING ALLOCATION FOR PARTNERSHIP PROJECT VERSUS NOT PARTNERSHIP PROJECT.
I THOUGHT WE WERE GONNA GET DATA TO LOOK AT WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE AS A LIST.
YEAH, I, I, I'M WITH JENNIFER ON THAT.
WE DIDN'T, WE DIDN'T VOTE ON THAT, THAT, BUT IT WAS, UM, IT WAS DISCUSSED BUT NOT VOTED ON.
I THINK IT WAS, YEAH, DARREN, I THOUGHT IT WAS YOU THAT WAS SAYING, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T NOT DO THOSE 'CAUSE THEY WERE COMMITTED.
I MEAN, NONE OF THIS IS, SO WE CAN PUT ALL OF THE FUNDED AND PROSPECTS, ADD THAT TO THE 34.6 AND HAVE A DISCUSSION ONCE WE HAVE THE WHOLE LIST, WHAT DO WE WANNA PUT IN VERSUS NOT, BUT WELL, MAYBE WE ONLY HAVE A COUPLE DAYS GUYS.
SO I THINK FOR NOW, I THINK FOR NOW THE MOTION IS TO, TO GO TO BUILD ON THE MOTION, UH, LINDA WAS TRYING TO CREATE.
IT'S JUST THAT WHATEVER'S LEFT RIGHT, GOES TO ALL THE CITYWIDE PROJECTS, INCLUDING THE PARTNER FUNDED ONES PROPOSED OR POSSIBLE FUNDING AND OTHERS.
SO, MAY I TAKE A STAB AT THIS AND THEN WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT LIST IS.
SO THERE'S, WE, WE HAVE AGREED AND VOTED 50 STILL GOES TO TRANSPORTATION, CORRECT? YES, CORRECT.
WE HAVE AGREED THAT 15 GOES TO SIDEWALKS.
WE DID NOT VOTE ON BRIDGES AT 37.
DO WE WANT TO VOTE ON BRIDGES AT 37? BECAUSE I HEAR MARIE KEEPS ASKING ABOUT THAT THIRD BRIDGE.
SO DO WE WANNA VOTE WHETHER THAT GETS INCLUDED AND BUMP BRIDGES BACK OR LEAVE THAT AS PART OF THE LIST OF PROJECTS TO PRIORITIZE? MY MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT WE WERE WAITING ON WHY THAT BRIDGE WAS ADDED.
UM, I GUESS JUST LOOKING AT THE, THAT LETTER FROM THE CONSULTANT THAT SHAHAD MENTIONED, UM, I MEAN IF IT'S A SAFETY ISSUE AND WE'RE ALL CONVINCED, WHICH I GUESS THAT'S WHY WE HIRED THE CONSULTANT.
IF WE'RE CONVINCED THAT'S ALL A SAFETY ISSUE, THEN I THINK IT SHOULD BE ADDED.
SO WE'RE GONNA WAIT ON BRIDGES.
SHOULD WE VOTE ON THAT LINDA? I WOULD PROPOSE WE LEAVE BRIDGES AT 37 UNTIL WE HAVE MORE INFORMATION ON THE THIRD BRIDGE AND EVALUATE THAT AS PART OF WHAT TO DO WITH THE REMAINING FUNDS.
I THINK THAT'S A FAIR WAY TO DO IT.
I'M GONNA GO THROUGH THE, IT HAS BEEN MOVED IN A SECOND.
I'M GONNA GO THROUGH THE LIST.
AND THAT IS BRIDGES STAY AT 37 FOR NOW.
[01:50:01]
EVALUATE THE FOURTH, THE THIRD BRIDGE AS PART OF THE CITYWIDE.SO THE NOS HAVE A CHANCE TO RECLAIM THAT IF THE NEXT VOTE.
UM, SO WAIT, I STARTED, WE'VE GOT 1 6 50 FOR TRANSPORTATION.
WE'RE SETTING ASIDE FOR BRIDGES.
AND THAT IS IT FOR NOW IN TERMS OF SECLUDED FUNDS, WHICH WOULD LEAVE US 62.5 MINUS THE 15 MINUS THIRTY SEVEN, A HUNDRED AND TEN 0.5 TO BE ALLOCATED BETWEEN FUNDED PARTNERSHIPS, PROSPECTIVE PARTNERSHIPS, AND OTHER CITYWIDE PROJECTS, INCLUDING THIRD BRIDGE.
AND MY, MY PROPOSAL OF THAT IS THAT WE KEEP THE ORDER OF THE LIST THAT WAS PRESENTED BY CITY STAFF AT THE AUGUST 18 MEETING.
SO WE JUST GO DOWN THE LIST TILL THE MONEY RUNS OUT.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THEIR NEW NUMBERS BEFORE WE HOLD THEM TO JUST LIKE I AS A DISTRICT WILL WANNA REEVALUATE MINE.
AND BY NEW NUMBERS? JUST A NEW LIST.
'CAUSE THEY, THEIR NUMBER GOT CUT PAST, SO THEY MAY WANNA PUT HAVE, BUT THEY MAY WANNA PUT THE BRIDGE UP TOP, JENNIFER, THAT'S WHY I WANT THEM TO BE ALLOWED TO PUT RECENT OUT OUT.
SO, SO CITY'S RECOMMENDED CITYWIDE PROJECTS REDISTRIBUTED TO US FOR REVIEW FOR THEIR PARTY.
I DON'T THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A VOTE ON THAT PART, DOES THERE? NO, I JUST THINK WE NEED TO KNOW FROM THE SHAHAD AND ALI WHEN WE CAN HAVE THAT LIST.
SO PART OF THE LIST IS GONNA BE, UH, WE NEED A DISCUSSION, THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ON FOR THE COMPLETE STREETS AND FOR THE OTHER, UM, CATEGORIES.
UH, SO, UH, WE WILL DEFINITELY, UM, NEED TO MEET SEPARATELY FOR THAT.
SO DEPEND, I DON'T KNOW, DEPENDING ON THE TEAM AVAILABILITY, WE CAN LOOK AT THOSE LISTS.
BUT I WOULD SAY I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE CALL ANOTHER MEETING TOMORROW AFTERNOON AT LEAST BECAUSE WE DON'T, AND THEN BETWEEN TOMORROW, BETWEEN NOW AND TOMORROW AFTERNOON, HOPEFULLY WE CAN, WE CAN UM, BASICALLY GET SOMETHING, UH, GET SOMETHING VOTED ON AGAIN BECAUSE I WANT TO GIVE ALSO, UM, THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS, UH, A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THEIR, THEIR PER DISTRICT LISTS AGAIN AND REDUCE THOSE LISTS AS WELL BEFORE MONDAY.
WE'RE GONNA NEED, YOU'RE GONNA GET A SET LIST.
YOU THINK THAT YOU'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO DO THAT BACK SOMETIME TOMORROW? SO WE NEED TO SET A MEETING MEETING AND THEN YOU NEED TO GIVE EVERY SINGLE MEMBER THEIR NEW NUMBER SO THAT THEY CAN REVISE THE LIST.
WHAT I WAS HOPING ARE YOU, ARE YOU, UM, SUGGESTING THAT ALL OF THAT INFORMATION THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEND EVERYONE THAT FOR A MEETING TOMORROW, WE WOULD HAVE ANSWERS FOR OUR DISTRICT AS WELL AS FOR THE REMAINING, UH, NUMBER THAT, THAT CANDACE WAS DISCUSSING? WELL, YEAH, UNLESS WE HAVE A MEETING IN THE WEEKEND, BECAUSE, UH, WE DON'T HAVE, UH, BUT TOMORROW TO MEET ABOUT THIS MAYBE TOWARDS THE END OF THE BUSINESS TOMORROW AND THEN HOPEFULLY BY TOMORROW MORNING I HAVE TO GET WITH THE TEAM OFFLINE TO SEE THEIR AVAILABILITY.
BUT HOPEFULLY BY TOMORROW MORNING BEFORE NOON, WE CAN SEND THE LISTS AND THE, UH, THE NUMBERS PER DISTRICT AND THEN YOU GET A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT, UH, WORK WITH IT FOR A FEW HOURS BEFORE WE MEET, WHEN WE MEET.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO GIVE ME THE ANSWERS FOR YOUR PER DISTRICT, UH, AND UH, LIST.
YOU CAN USE THE WEEKEND OR SEND IT IN THE WEEKEND.
HOWEVER, THOSE BIGGER, YOU KNOW, UH, POTS OF MONEY DECISION WE NEED TO MAKE TOMORROW.
HEY SHAHAN, MAY I BREAK THIS INTO TWO PARTS? YEAH.
SO CAN YOU SEND OUT THE DISTRICT STREET AND ALLEY NUMBERS TONIGHT? 'CAUSE IT'S WHATEVER ADDS UP TO 1 62 0.5 SINCE WE'VE AGREED FIFTY'S GONE TO TRANSPORTATION.
BECAUSE THAT'S A SIMPLE CALCULATION.
IF WE, IF WE CAN ALSO VOTE ON ALEX TO BE $30 MILLION.
[01:55:01]
OH YEAH, I THINK THAT'S A PROPORTIONAL REDUCTION TO ALLEYS AS THE STREETS, CORRECT? ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT HAL? IT WELL, IT'S NOT QUITE HALF 'CAUSE WE WENT FROM 6 75 TO 3 75, SO I THINK IT'S A PROPORTIONAL CUT TO ALLEYS.YEAH, IF WE'RE, IF WE ARE VOTING ON THAT, I'LL HAVE THE, I'LL HAVE THE 50% GOING TO PER DISTRICT, 30 MILLION OF IT GOES TO ALLEYS AND THE REST FOR, FOR STREETS PER DISTRICT.
AND I WILL BE ABLE TO SEND YOU THE NUMBERS AND THEN PEOPLE CAN MOVE THAT AROUND.
IS THE 30 MILLION THE ACTUAL PROPORTION OR DID YOU SPITBALL THAT SHAHAD CAME UP WITH IT? SO I'M, I DON'T KNOW, BUT I CAN DO THE MATH.
NO, WE ORIGINALLY ACTUALLY HAD 30 MILLIONS FOR ALLEYS.
UH, WHEN WE GOT A A HIGHER NUMBER, WE INCREASED ALLEYS TO 60, SIMILARLY TO WHAT HAPPENED IN THE BRIDGES.
I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE SEPARATING THE STREETS AND ALLEYS SINCE THAT'S KIND OF THE ONLY THING WE HAVE DISCRETION ON.
YEAH, I THOUGHT WE, WE HAVE TO BECAUSE WE HAVE TO, BECAUSE THE WAY THE MONEY IS SPLIT IS BASED ON TOTAL NEED AND THE ALLEY NEED IS DIFFERENT THAN THE STREETS NEED.
SO THE WAY IT'S BEING ALLOCATED, WE NEED TO SET UP HOW MUCH IS GOING TO EACH BUCKET.
SHAHAD CAN'T DO WHAT WE'RE ASKING HER TO DO WITHOUT ALLOCATING BETWEEN STREETS AND ALLEYS.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE NEED PERCENTAGES ARE CALCULATED DIFFERENTLY FOR ALLEYS AND FOR STREETS? OH, ABSOLUTELY.
A PROPORTIONAL NUMBER FOR ALLEYS WOULD BE 29.44 MILLION IS MY QUICK MATH.
SO I GUESS, DO WE NEED TO MOTION AND VOTE ON THAT TO PROPORTIONALLY CUT ALLEYS AND STREETS? SURE.
I'LL PROPOSE THAT WE PROPORTIONALLY CUT STREETS AND ALLEYS, UM, FOR THE CITY, FOR THE DISTRICT-WIDE PROJECTS.
SO SHAHAD, THAT MEANS WE NEED TO MAKE ALLIE'S 29.4 MILLION JUST TO DO THE PROPORTIONAL SET.
UH, I'LL UPDATE THE NUMBERS, UH, RECALCULATE IT AND I'LL SEND IT, UH, FOR ALLEYS AND FOR STREETS PER DISTRICT FAVOR.
PUT THE OLD NUMBERS NEXT TO THE NEW NUMBERS SO WE CAN SEE HOW THEY CHANGE.
AND WHEN AND WHEN DO YOU NEED THAT? BY US OR FROM US? UH, UM, THE LIST, THE UPDATED LISTS.
I WOULD SAY, UH, I WOULD SAY THE LATEST, UH, THE LATEST, LET'S SAY SUNDAY NOON, SUNDAY NOON, THE LATEST.
WE HAVE TO TURN THEM IN ON MONDAY.
SO WE NEED TO HAVE THEM BEFORE THAT IN CASE IF WE NEED TO REFORMAT OR DOING THINGS.
BUT IT WILL BE REALLY HELPFUL IF YOU GUYS CAN STAY WITH THE EXCEL FILE THAT YOU HAD, UH, AND THEN REDUCE IT ON THE EXCEL FILE.
YOU SEND THE EXCEL FILE BACK TO US THAT WE CAN E EXPEDITE OUR, UM, WORK, UH, YOU KNOW, ONCE WE RECEIVE THEM.
I, I ACTUALLY HAVE AN EXCEL FILE WITH THE FORMAT WE USED AND WE WILL USE IT AGAIN FOR THE PRESENTATION AND BASICALLY HAS ALL THE RECOMMENDED PROJECTS WE ORIGINALLY HAD BASED ON THE ORIGIN, THE, THE PREVIOUS BUDGET.
I CAN SHARE THAT TOO AND YOU CAN USE THAT.
OKAY, SO WHY DON'T YOU JUST SEND OUT THE INSTRUCTIONS WITH THAT EXCEL FILE.
AND JUST SO SHAAD, WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE.
IT'S 29.4 FOR ALLEYS AND 132.6 FOR STREETS, WHICH GETS US TO 162.5.
RIGHT? YOU KNOW WHAT, CANDACE, IF YOU CAN SEND HER YOUR NOTES SO THAT SHE'LL HAVE, SO THAT WE'LL ALL AND SHAHAD PUT IT IN WRITTEN FORM.
SO WITH THE NEW, UH, YEAH, WITH THE NEW ALLOCATIONS ARE PER AREA, UM, THAT YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.
[02:00:01]
I NEED TO EXACTLY.IF YOU, IF WE LEAVE TRANSPORTATION AS 50, IT'S GONNA BE, YOUR NUMBERS WILL BE CORRECT.
UM, ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY, I JUST WANNA THANK ALL YOU GUYS.
I KNOW THIS HAS NOT BEEN A LOT OF FUN,
AND SO, AND SO THAT'S WONDERFUL.
UM, WE SHAHA YOU'LL SEND OUT THOSE NEW NUMBERS, THE SPREADSHEET, UM, YOU'LL SEND OUT, UM, WHEN OUR NEXT MEETING, UH, MEETING WILL OCCUR.
OR THAT COULD HAVE, THAT COULD BE FRIDAY AFTERNOON AND THERE'S NO RUSH ON GETTING DISTRICT, UM, INFORMATION UNTIL SUNDAY AT NOON.
BUT THOSE, THOSE NEED TO BE IN THE EMAIL.
THOSE INSTRUCTIONS NEED TO BE IN THE EMAIL.
ANYBODY ELSE WILL DO ANYTHING ELSE FROM STAFF OR THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
APPRECIATE YOUR, YOUR DILIGENCE ON, ON THIS.