[0:00:06] Okay, you should be good to go. Great, thanks. Welcome everybody. Tonight it is October 29th at 5 p.m. If you're looking for the Finance Committee meeting, you have come to the right place. I am the chair of Ben Grant. I'm an at-large member of the Council, and I'll ask my three colleagues to pass the baton around to introduce themselves. I'll start with the mayor. Good afternoon. I'm a direct ION mayor and I am an ex officio member of the committee, which means I have an opinion, but no vote. Why don't you just jump in? Hey, I am April Fornier, at-large counselor and member of this committee, and I will pass it to Councilor Pelletier. I am Wes Pelletier, Council for District Two. I will pass to Brendan. Hi, my name is Brendan O'Connell. I'm the city's finance director. I'm joined tonight by Ann Bilodeau,
[0:01:05] our city's deputy finance director, and Tiffany Mullen, our finance principal administrative officer. Great. Brendan, do we have any preliminaries before we get into the finance policy update, or can we jump right in there? We can jump right in. I'll just note that the city manager has also joined us.
[0:01:27] Danielle, I'm holding down the fort in your conference room right now. If you've left anything at the office, I can get it. Brendan, go ahead. All right. So this is something, the debt management policy, that we've talked about at various junctures over the last few years in the context of the capital improvement plan, in the context of even the operating budget and the pension obligation bonds, and also during the annual audit when we report to the council on the metrics that are in the debt management policy regarding affordability of our outstanding debt. And we had a preliminary meeting last month talking about some of the ideas and the red lines that we had in our policy, and they really fall into five key areas. And I'll just note that, you know, the last time this policy was updated was back in October 2020. We worked with the Finance Committee in 2019 and 2020 to really redesign the policy to
[0:02:26] make sure it was in alignment with best practices from external rating agencies in an effort to achieve and improve the city's external credit rating. And the reason that we care about our credit rating is because basically for every notch that we can move up with the rating agencies, and we now are at the highest notch with Moody's and S&P, we're saving about three to five basis points per million of debt issued. And what does that really mean? Three to five basis points per million is a three to $5,000 savings per million of new debt that we've issued. the policy was updated in 2020, we've been upgraded three times by the rating agencies and we've issued $92 million in debt. I estimate that we've saved over $650,000 for the city and counting, because that savings compounds every time, every year that we issue new debt as a result of those credit rating upgrades. So it's an important undertaking to make sure
[0:03:26] that we're staying up to speed on best practices. In this latest round of changes to the policy, we had a number of key changes. We've talked at length in the last few budget cycles about the pension obligation bonds and the fact that they expired and the final payment was made on June 1, 2026, something that should be celebrated. We talked to our external bond counsel and our external financial advisor about is there any reality that we may need pension obligation bonds in the future. And we came to the conclusion that hopefully no, certainly not in the short to medium term future. I actually sit on the main prayers PLD advisory committee, and we have one of the most healthy funded plans in the nation. We're typically at 85 to 90% funded. That means that they have funds on hand to pay out the liabilities for 85 to 90% of their claims without new money coming in. So that's great news.
[0:04:25] And we really do have a healthy pension system with conservative actuarial assumptions. So we removed that language. We had no key changes to our governing principles in the policy. So really all the key metrics within the debt management policy remain the same around reporting about demand, capacity of our ability to borrow, affordability for taxpayers, term and payment structure of bonds and our ability to do advanced refundings. Those all remain unchanged. Just as a reminder that for affording ability measures within the policy are that annual tax back debt service payments should not exceed 12% of general fund expenditures. Annual tax back debt service payments should not exceed 1.5% of Portland per capita income. Net debt per capita should not exceed the recognized moderate range by Moody's, which is currently at $5,000 and total outstanding debt should not exceed 5% of the state equalized
[0:05:22] valuation of the city. And we are safely within all of those affordability measures. And I report out on those to the council annually after the audited financial statements are received. So we just received an update back in March. And I can tell you just in draft that we are still well within all of those, even after the recently approved capital improvement plan. One thing that we felt was important to add into the policy was details about the referendum thresholds in the city charter. And there are really two key referendum thresholds, and these come up several times annually with questions from the public, questions from the council. And so even though only one of these two actually relates to bonds, we want to list them both in in the policy. So voters must approve general obligation bonds in excess of five one hundredths of 1% of the city's last certified state valuation for any single capital improvement item
[0:06:21] or item of capital equipment funded with bonds. And our last 2026 state equalized valuation was $20.3 billion, $20.28 billion. So one half of 1% is 10.14 million. If we had any single item of capital improvement that was above that amount, it would require a voter referendum unless it was an emergency. And I will say that we have used the emergency provision in recent history. Right when I was first starting back in late 2014 to early 2015, the city was replacing its emergency communication system and the existing system was failing. And so that project in total was 7 million. and I think our bond threshold at the time was below that. So the emergency provision was used that did not go out to referendum. Now the other threshold is for any single item of spending with taxpayer funds, that can be a combination of general obligation bonds
[0:07:18] and any other taxpayer funds must be less than seven and one half, hundreds of 1%. And that number is 15.2 million. So any project that uses a combination of taxpayer funds exceeding 15.2 million would require a referendum. And I can certainly envision a number of projects that are not in a too distant future that will likely require voter referendum. Obviously, the Franklin Street thing that's on the council slate for Monday, a potential new police department building, a potential new expo center building. Projects are quite expensive in this day and age. So I can imagine that these will come into play in the not so distant future. The last thing I wanted to address in the changes to the policy is standardizing calculations of contributions that are based on the CIP
[0:08:14] and removal of a $50,000 annual cap for public art in the land bank, which was really out of sync with sections of chapter 2 and chapter 14 in the city code. And this has been pointed out a couple of times in the future. Chapter two and chapter 14 essentially say back in the 90s, something was written in there that said an annual appropriation of half a percent of the annual CIPs shall be deposited into the Land Bank Fund and the Public Art Fund. And of course the city council is still required to appropriate any funds. So a vote is always still required on this stuff. And you do have the opportunity to say no to those, but those sections of the code say that this appropriation will be made. and it doesn't really leave it up to a choice. So last year we chose to use the full 0.5% of the annual capital improvement plan. However, there's really no details in there about calculation methodology, and it also doesn't address the fact
[0:09:13] that we're using bond funds and there are some IRS requirements around bond funds. So what we're essentially proposing is to remove this cap and clear up the language around how that calculation will be made. and I'll highlight essentially the excerpts here.
[0:09:34] Annual appropriation of 0.5% of the total general obligation bonds issued as part of the city's general fund capital improvement plan shall be contributed to the public art and land bank provided that such bond funds shall be issued only upon determination by the director of finance that such funds shall be used in a manner that complies with the IRS bond regulations applicable to government bonds. And the reason that we felt the need to add that language is because for many years leading up to those 2020 changes that were added into the debt management policy, money was being issued and given to the public art fund and the land bank fund, but not being spent. And a key part of the ability for the city to issue tax exempt debt is the requirement that bond funds must be spent within a two to three year period. And so we wanna work with the public art committee and the Land Bank Committee to ensure that they understand these requirements and will agree, yes, when we receive this money,
[0:10:31] we have plans to spend it within two to three years. Now, if they do not, we can still work with them on this. We can just choose to not issue that debt. So I could wait, even though the council might approve $50 million or $75 million in a given fiscal year, I could hold off and issue that in a future year closer to when they actually expect to expend this money. So, Brendan, can I jump in? Can I ask you a question? Before we move on to that, I just want to be clear, put it in layman's terms. Does that mean they're only going to get less if they're sitting on money that they haven't spent? They would only get more. Is that a fair way to characterize it? They would only get more under this proposal. So, from FY23 to FY27, the contributions in the city manager recommended CIP were 50K. And you can see on this chart how much more it will result in.
[0:11:25] They would still be entitled to all of these funds, even if they didn't have any plans to spend it in the next few years, we just wouldn't go to market and borrow the funds until they were ready to spend it. And that would keep us in compliance with the IRS requirements around the funds being spent within two years. Okay, thank you. So this will also require going to the public art committee, the land bank and the planning board to bring them up to speed on these changes and make sure they understand all of this. And I have included in the back of materials, the red lines, the chapter two and chapter 14, which require council approval. The red lines, the chapter 14 would also require planning board approval because that section is in the land use code regarding those. the regarding those changes to Chapter 14, the proposed amendments to Chapter Two in red line form
[0:12:24] in the Appendix A and Appendix B of the memo here.
[0:12:34] I'll also note that I see Councilor Sykes has joined us. She had a couple of questions about some of the changes in the policy that I want to address for the committee as well, if we muted. If I may, let me just see if the other members of the committee have questions first and then we could go to Councilor Sykes. Going once, going twice. Okay, Councilor Sykes. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Brendan, for this great presentation. I just have a quick question on the changes to those standing amounts that we're giving to the Land Bank and the Public Art Committee. So the changes I see it is that, I understand the issue around not spending the money and needing to comply with IRS rules, but can you just give me a sense of how much it would change from the existing policy?
[0:13:29] Because existing policy says it's for the budgeted CIP program. That's the percent of a point, what is it? 0.5, 0.05% 0.5, sorry, percent of that would be allocated. And now it's the same percentage of the bonds issued. So I'm just curious if there's a difference between those two numbers. So it's a percentage of the issue, the bonds issued for the general fund, CIP, because I think that's an important distinction and kind of a change in the reality of what the capital improvement plan looks like now. Just in the last decade, we've started to see hundreds of millions of dollars of capital improvement plan, capital improvement be done for the enterprise funds. The enterprise funds are intended to be self-supporting by their own revenues. But if we measure the capital improvement plan contributions to public art and the land bank, we all of a sudden are creating an additional liability for the general fund as a result
[0:14:28] of an enterprise fund project. So we wanted to recognize the fact that now the CIP includes things like private donations, state grants, asset forfeiture funds, and make sure that the language refers to the general fund capital improvement plan and the bonds issue associated for that. So I think what I would wanna understand, well, first of all, I'd like to know what the difference is over the last couple of years. Like what would this mean in terms of a change of funding for those funds? But then I also just sort of want to raise the question of kind of what was the intention of this in the beginning and try to align ourselves with what we were trying to do back then or what we think is appropriate now because I feel like the idea behind this, at least with public art may have something to do with, as we spend money on things in the city, we should also be spending money on art. And that should kind of be indexed
[0:15:26] to that larger pool of money that we're spending. I don't know if this is something we can answer tonight, but I think that as we all go into thinking about this coming to council, we should be really trying to figure out what we were intending and what we want out of this. How much do we feel we want to go to the Land Bank? How much do we feel we want to go to the Public Art Committee? I think there's also some other questions around some new funding sources for the creative arts in Portland. And maybe this doesn't have the same role as it once did. We have different committees now. We have Public Art, we have Creative Portland. So I don't know, I think this might just be a time, if we're thinking about perhaps doing a cultural plan, This might be a time to relook at this kind of holistically and figure out what we really want. But anyway, that's just my two cents about that. Do you mind if I just go into the other issue around the,
[0:16:26] sorry, what was the ending? It was the useful life of the bond. To the extent you can remember, yeah, the floor is yours, go ahead. Okay, thanks. Yeah, Brendan, could you, I'd send, I know I sent you a message. I was wondering if you could just explain a little bit what the rationale is behind that. And if you think that there is, if we need to change the policy or if we should be looking at this on a case by case basis. So sure thing, I just wanna highlight the excerpt for the rest of the committee so they can see the change that you're talking about and asking about. Yeah, Brennan, if you just do a little bit of table setting for the issue for everybody, that would be great. So we have a change in here where I'm just trying to find it so I can, before I share my screen. All right, here we go. Share. So as I mentioned, we worked with our external financial advisor and bond council on these changes. And one of the things in our policy previously said that maturity of our debt obligations
[0:17:24] must be no more than the useful life of the capital investment being financed. So essentially, it's a best practice in financial management to have asset liability matching. And I think the best example, although we're talking about bonds here, is think about a lease. You pay for a lease over the term of your lease. So if you're using a building for five years, you pay for that building over five years. The same thing applies when we're issuing debt. And we work with our financial advisor to understand what the market was looking for in terms of maturities. And it's typically five-year bonds, 10-year bonds, and 20-year bonds matching what other municipalities are issuing and what U.S. Treasury issues. And we categorize our assets into those buckets based on their underlying useful lives. This change essentially says that if a standard useful life is five years, you could borrow over six. This really would never come into play when we're going to the market for general obligation bonds. This would only come into play when we're going to the main bond bank.
[0:18:22] And our financial advisor actually raised an example of another local school district who was approaching the bond bank. And they were basically saying, yes, we know that the bond bank thinks that this asset's life is 10 years. I'm just using an example. But in our reality, we're using assets for beyond their useful life. So we would like to borrow money from you for the standard useful life plus two years because we know the average age of our fleet, for example, is 13 years when the useful life is 10. And the reason the bond bank is sometimes used is because they offer school districts principle forgiveness. So typically for smaller projects, they might say, well, forgive up to 30% of your principal. And we also can offer you an interest rate that's lower than the market. So that's really the only time that I could see this coming into play where there might be a disagreement with an entity like the bond bank that's offering a financing where they think that the useful life is five years but we might say it's six.
[0:19:21] But when we're going to market I don't see this ever coming into play. So, you know, if the committee didn't want this to be in there, I'd be fine with that. Does that kind of explain things? It does, Brendan, thank you. I wanted to just make sure that we're not going to end up spending more in interest because we're amortizing some of these debts over longer periods of time. But it sounds like this is a very specific case. And we wouldn't have to use it if we didn't want to. But yeah, thank you for explaining that. Yeah, no problem. Anyone else have questions about this? And Brendan, just for my own edification, is there an example where the city has gone to the bond bank for something under your tenure? Well, actually that's not true. Many years ago, we went to the bond bank for sewer and stormwater projects because they have a sewer revolving renovation fund.
[0:20:20] They offered a 1% interest rate. There's also some pretty hefty administrative fees and many additional requirements that we had to follow regarding materials and project administrative timekeeping. And just those alone raised the cost. so it was pretty comparable. And most municipalities start going away from bond bank funding. The reason that the schools still use it is because they have that attractive interest rate plus a component of principal forgiveness, which makes it a really great option. And we've really tried to pursue it and encourage school administration to pursue it. And they have done it several times in the last few years. All right, so it seems to me like this is valuable but probably limited use. In reality limited use in the future. Okay, all right. That generate any questions from anybody? It doesn't look like it.
[0:21:18] Well, you're muted again. Sorry, I'm just getting my agenda for the back-up. All right, so have you finished presenting the whole debt management change package? Yes, so, you know, next steps on this would be a vote from the committee to endorse these changes. And then we would begin the process of heading to these other committees to present and kick off the process of making sure the planning board, public art, and land bank were okay with these changes. And then we would come back to the council for the associated ordinance changes in chapter two and chapter 14. So a little bit of a long path ahead, but I have already kind of briefed some of the other parties that this could be coming and they should tune in to the committee meeting and potentially comment if they wanted. Okay. Councilor Peltier. Do we see, this all seems very reasonable to me.
[0:22:16] I guess like, is there, could someone come up with a reason that one of the other bodies would be opposed to it? Well, I think the example of the most recent CIP in Counselor Sykes has basically now requested this information. This last year's CIP, we measured the contribution to these other entities based on the total size of the CIP, general fund, enterprise fund, grant funds. So the dollar amount was big. it was, I think $460,000 for these two entities. And I got the sense, part of the reason this proposal looks like it does, I got the sense from some counselors that they were uncomfortable with that dollar amount. And if you look at the historical spending of those entities, they've been unable to spend even the 50K per year. Now, I think that there's more of a concerted effort amongst the land bank and public art to have plans to spend and start having some more aspirational projects with more dollars coming in.
[0:23:14] So I do think that there will be some, well, we'd like more, but yeah, I think we'd have to address that when we get to it. Okay, no, that's helpful. Thank you. Anybody else? Well, at least the public art commission can stop paying for the, the pro, the jewel box bus stop for the near future. So that also found money.
[0:23:46] So I guess I don't see any members of the public, I guess, would we take public comment now prior to a vote if there were any here? Yeah, so I'll just know for the record that there are no members of the public here in the attendees list. So I'll move on and- They're all waiting in line to vote. Yeah, that's right. Everybody in Portland is outside this office right now. Okay, I'll take a motion to pass these changes as presented and as in the agenda. So moved. Second. Thank you. Is there any discussion from counselors? Nope. And we will take the vote. Do we do this roll call style or hand style roll call style. All right, Brandon, go ahead. You can do the roll call. I do the roll call. Oh, great. Council pellet's here. Yes. Council for here. Yes. And I'm yes. the
[0:24:46] motion passes. All right. Moving on to other items for discussion. I put this on to just put some oxygen back into the issue of the MOU of Portland schools. I didn't ask for any action items tonight, but I would like an update on status. Maybe if you can identify any pressure points or pinch points at this time, I just want to see where things stand so we can try to move this along. Sure. So this was something that, you know, that came up last year. So I think the superintendent and others were asking if we could create a document to memorialize the relationship between the city and schools to make sure that the city council, the school board, the public, and even staff had an understanding of everything that was happening between the city and schools. And I've certainly learned a lot in the process of,
[0:25:45] I knew about any charges back and forth, but I didn't even understand the depth of all the things that we're doing for them and things that they're doing for us. So we had begun the process of drafting this document back and forth. And I think the city's council and the school's council had been involved to an extent and department heads had been involved to an extent. And so what we're aiming to produce is that document of the current state. I think that there are a few issues. I don't wanna speak for the superintendent, but that both sides would be interested in changing. And so where we're at right now is trying to come up with a document that we can all agree is current state and have a red line version of the changes that are desired and also identify the potential fiscal impacts of those potential changes. And that's why I think making sure that we have something ready to talk about during this budget season makes sense, making sure that we have a draft document
[0:26:43] that can be presented to the committee to talk through the potential changes. But I think we're pretty close to having a document of where things currently stand. I think there's so much that is there between the parties, so. So I want to be careful about the nuance here and address only trying to capture the current state of affairs. And I know there might be changes that one, either the schools or the city want to make. I wanna kind of park those off into the future somewhere. So I just wanna know if all we're trying to do is capture the current state of affairs right now, what issues remain to resolve, if any. And I think really just coming up with a draft that we, I guess like I wouldn't wanna publish a draft for the group that the superintendent didn't agree is what's happening now, but I think we're getting closer to having that.
[0:27:43] So I don't really think they're doing that. And I would just add Councilor Grant that it is also a costing, I think, even for existing what we're doing, existing just putting it down that needs to happen, which I believe, Brendan, you're undertaking, but not completely yet. Yeah, we've been having meetings with departments and trying to understand which line items are associated with certain services that are being provided. We were just meeting with Parks and Recreation talking about all the maintenance that we do at school playgrounds and the value of parking, et cetera. Okay, that's very helpful. So that allows me to know that there are some costing issues that are still being, trying to find a meeting of the minds on what that is. I think we're getting all of, we have all of sort of the structure there. We're making sure it's 100% accurate and then attaching a cost to it so that we understand what we're looking at can respond to any questions from the committee as well as from the schools.
[0:28:41] It's amazing the level of detail that exists. Like we pick up trash barrels that are next to a road as if like you know just like we do with homes. But if there's a trash barrel that's like in the middle of you know like the school campus like that one is the schools taking care of that one. So it's yeah it's like that level of detail right now. Okay did this discussion generate any questions from my colleagues? Yes, Councillor Peltier. Yeah, thank you for taking this up. Definitely something I hear a lot about. I anticipate us maybe bearing a little bit more of the cost than we have, hard to say, but I think that it's overall very good. And I would like to, depending on how this ends up looking, if we need to have a way to to, you know, arbitrary maybe stuff that didn't get hit. That might be good just so that we have, you know,
[0:29:40] I just hear so many times about people going to figure out, okay, who's doing this? And it's like, well, it's not parks, it's not DPW and just like streamlining that process. So they can say, oh, we're gonna go to staff to figure out whose problem this is. And there is no run around. And ideally that applies everywhere. but I think for the purposes of the MOU, I think just do it right and sort of make it last long would be great. So thank you for the work that's going into this. I think it's very important.
[0:30:16] Anybody else? Can we talk timeline? I'm not, you know, write this in stone, but this has been floating around for a while, so I'd like to try to commit to a rough timeline to get in this part done. So I'll turn to you, Brendan, first. You know, your team's doing some of the, sort of out of the costing. Can you give me a ballpark? How long, much more time you think that'll take? I mean, I certainly think we could turn it around by December, is what I'm hoping. But we do, yeah, the only unknown for me is just making sure the schools are okay with us putting something forward because I have promised the superintendent that anytime we substantially discuss this, it would give them an invitation. Of course. Yep. Yeah, and I purposely didn't want to make this meeting that high level. That's not what I wanted to do tonight. I just wanted to get
[0:31:08] this back moving. So I think that sounds reasonable given the complexity that it sounds like it involves. And then what process do you envision? I mean, they have their own finance teams. It's is something that you are going to have, are going to cross-check with them in terms of the dollar amounts you're talking about. Well, I think if we're just talking about documenting current state, then there's not really any cross-checking that's necessary. That's my question, right? I just want to be operating off a common set of facts to start with.
[0:31:51] And I guess for Danielle, are there other substantive issues or are we just waiting for the costing part to be added on to what's already been done? Waiting, I mean, we were confirming, as Brendan said, with all departments to make sure we had everything accurate. And then we had said, as Brendan mentioned several times with our lawyers and the school's lawyers, to discuss it. So there might be some additional, maybe one other additional meeting that has to happen on the legal side. I don't wanna speak for Michael on that. But I think that once that's done, it's just the costing that Brenda mentioned. And so I think December seems like a reasonable time frame as well.
[0:32:37] That sounds good. Beware when the lawyers get involved.
[0:32:44] Exactly. Actually, yeah. So thinking ahead, if that means December, I mean, we don't do we meet in December? I'm trying to remember what happens in that month because we're transitioning new members. Yeah, we're transitioning and we'll be doing that. The inauguration will be December 7th. And so we'll have new committees seated at that point, but usually in December, we don't do a committee meeting because the mayor, I believe, I know he's on here, I don't want to speak for him, but I will in that I think he's holding goal setting during December and then we'll be moving forward into January. So most likely it'll be in that January meeting where we would be ready to discuss it with the committee. And one thing I'll note is that the lawyers can't control what I write in my memos. So if I'm just documenting current state, it doesn't have to be in MOU format. I was planning on just presenting a summary of operations as they exist now, and it's not anything anyone's being asked to sign,
[0:33:43] but yeah, I think- And that's sort of what I meant by working off a common set of facts, right? That's how I see you're fitting into this.
[0:33:53] Okay, is everybody good on that or does anyone have any other comments or questions about this project? All right, seeing none, we can move on. This one is, I'm not sure who put it on, maybe Brennan, but planning about the future of the expo and the police department. Well, I just want to kind of put a bow on any items that were on the committee's work plan that we didn't necessarily get to this year. But the future of the police department, we are working with the low bidder right now on that RFP that we issued with the funds that were in last year's CIP. So that ball is rolling. I think the Expo Center one is a little farther away. Obviously the police department and with its location close to the Franklin project, that one has gotten more momentum on, in terms of moving forward than the other one. But I think, you know, that one is. What is the work that's going on with the police department right now?
[0:34:53] Just give me the top line version of what they're working on. Like kind of more detailed design of what they would need in the space.
[0:35:06] Okay. Damir, you came off of you. Did you wanna say something? I'm off. Okay. I just figured with the Police Department Project, you would have something to say. No, no, no. I want to see the reports engineering site plan, building design, I should say. I'll speak to that. Then at what point in that process are we in the site location choice phase? I'm not sure about that. Yeah, we can get you those details, Councillor. I think at this point, they'll be looking, It'll be part of that process, but I don't think they've identified a clear timeline as to when that would specifically occur. It'll also include obviously community outreach and discussion of this with the council and so on. So yeah, they'll be, that we're really looking more at getting this group on board
[0:36:05] so that we can start to do the initial design work and thinking about just the space that they would need and then we'll move forward from there. OK, I mean, I haven't talked to the others about this. My inclination is to keep that on the work plan. And I'm not sure Expo is going to come back on right away, especially I believe if I remember correctly, staff recommended it be shelved, at least for the moment. Yeah, Expo has a little bit longer shelf life. And we're working on getting that one moving forward as well, similarly to a similar process with the design phase. It's just a little bit behind this one, which we've been talking about makes sense in terms of timing and how we plan out these projects to make sure it doesn't hit us all at one time. Yep, yep, okay, great. Anyone else have anything they wanna say or ask about those two issues?
[0:37:00] Seeing Ted non so okay, you move on to future dates. So yeah, I think we just kinda hit on that a little bit. I don't think we have anything else for any potential November meeting of the committee. I think I will plan on distributing the details of the MLU that we talked about to the full council once they're ready, so we can hit the ground running once we have our next committee meeting. Yeah, that sounds good. So once the new council convenes, we'll start to set a schedule of being in in January.
[0:37:37] I think I'll just check in about the school MLU as that work progresses given what you said. Obviously we can't make decisions on it, but at least I can be minding the store. And then I put this last one on about remote meetings versus in-person meetings. I have interest in restarting at least some in-person meetings. I'm not dogmatic about this, but I think especially when it comes time for the real weighty budget discussions, I could certainly argue for in-person. I just think the quality of discussion is better in person, just in general in life, not just with this group. So I want to put that out there for people to give their thoughts at the moment. I know that has a different impact on staff and I want to be very sensitive to that. So
[0:38:29] anyway, I'll open the floor. If anyone wants to comment about that, I know April won't be with us, but you still can have thoughts about it. But Wes? Wes Bounds Yeah, very supportive. I agree. I think it's a better discussion and it's much easier to stay engaged and sort of dig into stuff which I think does need to be dug into so supportive at any level whether it's just the important ones or all as long as they're at 530. Fair. Anyone else among the members? Mr. Mayor, do you have a preference? I prefer face-to-face in chambers kind of interactions, but I'd like to think about how we can have staff participate remotely if possible because I want to respect the time they've already put in the building. Yeah.
[0:39:27] And 530 seems like a good time to start these things. How about this, just make a simple ask for staff. Can you let us know what makes most sense for staff? Like I absolutely want to support that and be respectful for staff's time. So how could that work? Who's gonna be overly burdened by that? Just give me a little sense of what that means on the staff side so we can try to have it both ways for some time. Well, you know, if we're talking about meetings where there's not public comment. Hybrid, I think we could keep that a possibility. I think we still do, I don't know about how the other committees are doing things, but I think if we decided to go in person around budget time where we were actually having detailed presentations from department heads and Q&A, that would be a good opportunity
[0:40:21] to give those who could attend in person that opportunity, because I think many would take that opportunity. I know I hear from some department heads who, during budget time, prefer to meet in person. Oh good, that's helpful feedback. But yeah. That's good to know. Yeah, I would just add that some do and some don't. I hear from the ones that don't. And I think that it's difficult, I think from the other staff side it's sometimes hard because we do have meetings, sometimes it works out. We have like one every evening during the week. And so it's difficult to make it to all of them. But I think that that is, if there's a hybrid option, that would be great. And if it was, you know, if people were given that ability, I think that would be really helpful. Okay. Well, that's very helpful. Yeah, go ahead, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, I mean, I'm glad you brought up tonight. It was a topic that I would ask
[0:41:21] the next rules committee to at least discuss that and generally the whole idea of hybrid meetings, but. Yep. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. I mean, it's hard to say what's an important meeting and a less important meeting, right? All of our work feels important, but I do want to try to make some choices based on that, just the level of discussion that we're inviting that particular night, what's the topic, you know. So we'll just, I'll consider that as everyone has some interest with some, you know, balancing involved. So once we start looking at the next schedule, I'll do it with an eye towards getting to some mix in. It's unfair. Yeah, go ahead April.
[0:42:15] Depending on which committees I get named to, I may also be popping in for budget discussions because it will absolutely be relevant to, of course, what we're doing at the state too. So I'll keep an eye on those agendas. So I know where I'm going. Great. Yeah, I found myself tuning into the school board meeting the other night, because I just can't help myself. So, all right, any other discussion on meetings, dates, formats, I think we're good there. Okay, any other items for the good of the order? All right, I'll take a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. And to the roll call again, Councilor Peltier Yes, that's a four year. Yes. And I'm a yes. Thank you everybody and we'll see you soon. My committee meeting.
[0:43:14] Sorry I didn't, I didn't, didn't even think of that. Congratulations. I did it. You made it. I made it. You have to get elected on Tuesday? Yes, yeah, I still have to. Hopefully people still show up and vote for me. You have no opponent though. They're voting April, they're all over the hall right now, trust me. It's wild, yeah, it's wild. And we were just on a call with all the different communities that we're working with around the the country and in every state, everyone is really pushing early voting, especially in like Arizona, because they have such historic flooding right now. They have like a little bit of a break over the weekend, but then they're supposed to have more on Monday and Tuesday. So they're trying to coordinate who has pickup trucks, who has SUVs who can get people to the the polls all over the red. So yeah, it's been wild.
[0:44:13] Well, you can rest easy, go help your friends. I've already voted. That's all you need, one. All right, later. Thank you guys, bye.