[0:21] The last one for this fiscal year. Is any items in the room? All. Is that of of. That’s for. Now returned to our. Week I start all over. You. I’d like to call to order the June Finance committee meeting with the city clerk. Please call the roll chair. Clerk here. Vice chair Adams here. Councilmember Shapiro.
[1:05] Present. Councilmember Taylor. Present. Thank you, everybody, for being here today. We will start with the consent agenda. There are three items. Is there any one or any of these anyone would like to pull? If not, can I get a motion to approve the balance? Move to approve the consent agenda? Is there a second?
[1:29] Mike will come on, but I’ll second. Okay. We have a motion. Second. All in favor, say aye. All right. Oppose. Likewise. Those are approved. We will now go to the general agenda. Item D1 resolution awarding a contract for security and company police services. Allied universal security services in the amount of $3,236,475.50.
[1:59] Excellent. Good afternoon, finance chair. Clerk. Members of committee and members of Council. Mayor Darren Redfield, the purchasing manager. The item before you here is to award a contract for security and company. Police officer services. One item note this contract combines the city contract with the transit contract.
[2:20] So those are together now. So it’s a very robust contract. It includes entry screening, armed officers authority to detain after hours security. A new component is roving security of various city facilities on a random schedule. And three dedicated vehicles. The evaluation panel had property and facility management, um, transportation risk management, and an assistant city manager.
[2:49] We received four proposals, which was great when we evaluated those. Allied, Universal and North State came out as the highest scoring vendors. Um, we offered a virtual interview with both of those vendors since they were the highest scoring, most qualified vendors, and we gave them a the same list of questions, as well as some scenarios to run through.
[3:09] And that that interview is worth an extra 20 points. So in the exhibit, you’ll notice that there’s an interview panel extra score for those two vendors there. Um, the final results in the indicated that Allied Universal was the highest scoring vendor. And so we were recommending award to Allied Universal.
[3:27] Um, this will be a vendor change and there will be time for them to do this before August 31st, before the North State contract terminates. Um, we went through this six years ago when North State took over the contract from Allied.
[3:47] Um, wanted to point out that there’s, um, two things in here that we have asked the awarded vendor to retain current personnel, but we also reserving the right to if there’s any personnel that we’re not in favor of continuing, that we have the right of refusal for that. Um, my final comment is related to pricing.
[4:04] The contract is for three full years, fixed price for the 3.2 million, and then it does have two one year renewals for a total of five years. Um, if you noticed a cost difference in here, I had one sentence about that. Their bid of 3.8. What happened was we need to get within budget, particularly for the transit contract. It’s unit prices.
[4:21] And so staff reviews reduced the number of hours in order to get us down to that final 3.2 million figure. So, um. And that’s for three years. That’s for three years. So that’s a million a year, roughly. Roughly. Okay. Yeah. Yeah.
[4:37] Fairly comparable to what we’ve had actually in the past four years. So yep. So as you’ve noticed, Allied submitted the lowest price, uh, North State actually submitted the highest price that’s on your on your calf there. So, um, so I’ll take any questions. I also have Jeff here with transportation. I have George with property facility management. If you have any detailed questions.
[4:58] Okay. Thank you. Adamson. Yeah. And how is this, this new contract or vendor? Uh, going to work with Wister and others in light of all of the issues that we’ve been made aware of over the past couple of years or whatever, and how is this going to be any different? Or
[5:20] would it than being on site at the buildings listed be any different than what we already have? Wow. Jeff. Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem Jeff, as Director of transportation, answer your question.
[5:42] Uh, one thing is that this one opportunity, this new solicitation, allowed us the opportunity to do was to refocus on on the deliverables for our security. So we have post orders, and we also have, uh, strict FTA guidance on how we render security services at the public transit facility. Since the funding that we have is subject to FTA oversight.
[6:00] To answer your question very plainly, though, we will follow the existing staffing model and then try to do a better job with the post orders to make sure that we are addressing all the security needs there. This does not fund any metal detection or anything in that in that facility. So it will be very similar to what it’s there today.
[6:13] And we’ll continue working with the police department for their foot patrol, uh, and various things in the area. So we’ll do our best to, to monitor all the activity that goes on. Um, but at a high level, this contract provides a very similar level of service to what is there today.
[6:31] And and they did just say that, uh, the employees basically will remain the employees that we have working now with us. We’ve asked them to retain those employees. They’ll probably what happened last time is they needed to apply to that company, go through their background screening process and be onboarded as a new employee. So I believe that most of them were.
[6:46] And I’ll make a comment to that. The contract language just gives the city the opportunity to approve, uh, those those provide or those individuals. So if, for example, if they do choose to onboard with the new company, align it with the contract language would give the city the opportunity to authorize that.
[7:06] In other words, if they were proficient in doing their job. But we would want to bring them on board. But if they were deficient and we had issues with that, it was documented in their performance. We would scrutinize their our interest in bringing them over to the new company. Okay. Kind of like what we did with the union and the. Exactly.
[7:22] Okay, exactly. Got it. Thank you. Uh, Mississippi? Yes. I see that Allied is. Headquartered, I guess, in Charlotte. Does a contract require the company to hire a certain percent of local residents to serve our facilities? I don’t believe so.
[7:43] I don’t know if George wants to speak that. I don’t believe that we can restrict that. But what we did ask for is the contract manager to be here locally. Um, who is head of this contract? So that’s our direct, uh, liaison, who is you know, David is the one right now here is on site. So, um.
[7:58] Is there a reason why we don’t try to increase our tax base by having these people live in our community? I’m going to say imagine that they do most of them. Well, and I was going to say, um, attorney fringe can can jump in as well.
[8:21] But I would say even for our city employees, um, we have a requirement for department heads and above to live within a 30 mile radius of city hall. But to to be fair, we don’t have the or to be transparent, we don’t have a requirement for our own employees to all live within the city limits. Preferred obviously, but not a not a legal requirement.
[8:44] Okay. Any other questions? Comments? Can I get a motion from someone? Please move for. Approval for approval of item G one. A motion and a second. And I think we will vote electronically on this. Let’s see. Yes, we are. That is proof. Thank you very much. We will now go to G2. Item.
[9:09] City clerk will please read this please. Item G2 resolution awarding a lease agreement for Kimberly Park hydroponics greenhouse facility to enter his family farms. Doctor Miller, you have the floor. Thank you. Good afternoon.
[9:31] So this is a food resilience project, which many of you know that began when the city entered agreement in 2016. Can you this loss? Oh, sorry. I found it. And it did use original funding. Used bonds, which means that it is required to continue to be owned for a period consistent with compliance with those bonds.
[9:54] The facility has not been active as hydroponics since June of last year, when Hope of Winston-Salem of two year contract went was completed, and they chose not to take the one year extension offered. So we began this request for proposals to I.D. an operator to advance our food resilience goals and take responsibility for the facility.
[10:18] And it began last year when we started with the letters of interest. We received three letters. And based off these letters, we modeled the RFP to transition from a city paid operating contract to a lease model. This allows the facility stewardship to reduce taxpayer subsidy and to keep the facility alive and with the food resilience goals.
[10:42] So we received four that we were able to score, and the scoring was structured to focus on mission and execution and to sustain operations and protect the city’s investment.
[11:05] Anders Family Farm scored highly overall, and not just in one factor, and you can see a little bit from their their submission that they were a NC finalist for Small Farmer of the year. It is a female owned company and they have certified practices for several items. They’ve already have a hydroponics facility, and they propose a 2500 lease rate. But they plan to completely offset this through education and outreach.
[11:35] They are planned to take care of the facility and document in the ways that they’re going to keep it up. And here are some items that that they plan to do. Partner with schools. Partner with the co-op extension. They had a references for all of these items. So and with that I ask for any questions. Any questions? Yes, Mr. Adams.
[12:05] Um. Thank you. Um, we all know some of us that have been here a while. This project, uh, the one thing that, uh, that I, my my concept and Councilmember Clark will always say he’s a tomato is $5 or $10, whatever.
[12:30] But the concept was to ensure that people that lived in marginalized communities in our city, because we don’t have grocery stores, and in the neighborhood that this, uh, hydroponics farm was built, there was a food fair right there with a dairy on that. And then it became the discount house on Patterson. Uh, but that was it.
[12:51] And then it closed, and that was decades ago. So, you know, sometimes I tell people when you have an idea, we just discussed that. And you, you create a it in your mind. It seems like it can get done. It can be done. It can be successful.
[13:11] But you don’t really think about the hurdles that you have to succumb. You know, to pass, to get to where you want to be. Fast forward, uh, this concept was started back in 2014, if not earlier.
[13:40] Uh, and it’s taken 12 years, but it was always the intent to be able to feed the community fresh vegetables as well as start helping our children to understand how they have to understand what they put in their bodies, families, maybe cooking classes, interactive type education or so they could become more interested in their health and welfare.
[14:06] Uh, also making sure that there were tours for the community and others that wanted to see this process, because a lot of people had not heard of hydroponics until I dropped it back in the day. So, uh, for me personally, as long as the dream stays alive and there are people now that are doing this all over the place, hydroponic growing. Uh, I am very supportive of this lease. And, uh, but I also know that they know.
[14:29] And you’ve let them know that I visit, and I go look. And I do my own homework. But I look forward to working with Andrew’s farm, and I wish them much success with this collaboration with the city. Mr. Scipio. I need. Okay. Um. Thank you.
[14:51] I had a couple of questions about, this proposal. First of all, um, the way it’s written, there is no access for the community to come in to this facility and benefit from any of the food’s grown because it seems like all the food is going to go to restaurants or something like that.
[15:11] Is that right? They had to agree for the RFP that 51% would stay local and they plan to participate year round at the fairgrounds. Um, in an, you know, so we do expect a good portion of the food to stay local. It is not going to be given away as it was in the previous operating case.
[15:32] And it won’t be available for residents nearby to come in and buy unless they go to the farm. But we did not require it on site location. And and it says there’s a the the lease fee. Um, is I think $2,500 a month with an in-kind offset.
[15:57] Uh, so in actuality, if they do the in-kind services, there won’t be a fee. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. And, um, how much of those in-kind would offset the fee? They have laid out a proposal of what items they expect and what it would, what they are asking is right. Could we possibly see that? Whatever that is? Okay. The details. Thank you.
[16:26] Any other questions or comments? I might add, the last couple years when we had another person in there, we were subsidizing that to the tune of a couple hundred thousand a year, I believe. So the fact that if we can do this for zero would be a significant increase for the budget. Okay. With that, no other questions.
[16:45] Can I get a motion, please? Second. We got you. Uh, all in favor, please vote accordingly. That is approved. Thank you very much. We’ll now go to G three if the city clerk will please read that. One. Item G three.
[17:10] Request for a public hearing and consideration of items related to the long term lease of City Park land in support of the downtown amphitheater. Public hearing date June 15th, 2026. Okay, before we get into this, we will probably have some type of motion out of committee, but, uh, the ordinances will require a public hearing at the city Council meeting.
[17:33] So for and I see some folks hear from it, uh, the committee will simply make it some type of recommendation, but it will go to the city council next Monday night, where a public hearing will take place. With that, Mr. King. All right. Good afternoon. Thanks. Chair. Clerk. Mayor. Committee members. Um, I’ll give a brief rundown of this request. That’s before you today.
[17:52] So in September of 2025, I think this, um, concept of leasing some city park land in support of the downtown amphitheater was first brought to city council. And what was before you at that time was a five year lease with two, one year, um, options for extending that. And the rate on that was basically $12 annually.
[18:10] I think the discussion at that time, um, was that the parkland, roughly the one acre of parkland adjacent to the amphitheater site, will be used for the artists village and support of the amphitheater.
[18:27] And I think the concept at that time was the use of temporary structures on the artist village, as conversations around the amphitheater are progressed and this has moved along and gained steam, I think right, what has happened is that there’s been a need for those structures to become permanent in nature. And so the the concept of leasing this parkland has changed.
[18:43] And what is before you today, um, the amphitheater LLC has submitted a request to the city to lease basically the same land, same acre of parkland for a term of 30 years. Um, and the terms of this would be $1,000 a month.
[19:03] Um, for the first five years of the lease and then years 6 to 30 would be $1,000, and then they would increase annually commensurate with CPI. Um, and um, you can see the site plan there that’s been submitted with this request. That kind of shows how the land would be used to support the artists village there. Um, so in this image, North would be to the top.
[19:22] Um, the amphitheater site would be kind of to the bottom of the screen there. Um, and sixth Street is kind of running right through the middle there. So essentially you’re going from a five year lease to a 30 year lease of this parkland, different terms on the lease amounts. And in terms of processing this request, there are really two functions for city council.
[19:44] Um, one, in 2001, you adopted a resolution that required the sale or long term lease of parkland, have public hearings at the city, county Planning Board and in front of city Council itself. So, um, this item went to the Recreation and Parks Commission in May.
[20:03] It went to it was a public hearing advertised at the planning Board for May 28th. It was heard there there was no nobody there. In opposition, the Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of this to you.
[20:19] And as Councilmember Clark alluded to earlier, a public hearing has been advertised for your June 15th meeting to satisfy the second piece of that resolution from 2001. That’s part one of the process for handling this request. Part two of the process is to handle this essentially to deal with the lease terms.
[20:37] And any lease of ten years or over is treated by the statutes essentially the same way as the sale of city owned land. So it goes through the upset bid process. So, um, the applicant has submitted the the 5% deposit to the city. That’s on hold on file with the clerk’s office. Um, and essentially, if city council decides to move forward with this at your June 15th meeting, we will advertise the ten day bid period starting after that.
[20:58] If there are no upset bids after that, at the conclusion of that ten day upset bid process, the manager would be authorized to execute the lease or the terms described within. So I’m glad to answer any questions on this.
[21:15] I know there are folks here with the amphitheater development that are here. If you have any questions for them as well. Mr. mayor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um. Thank you. Yeah. Um, so the the old town house as well. Yeah. Wait a minute. There we go. Thank you. Uh, obviously, the deal is changing a bit. Uh, to our favor, in my opinion, uh, my understanding.
[21:44] And Bucky and Amos. Here. Of Live Nation, which we hope will join us in this partnership. Uh, needed this longer term thing. But if I remember correctly, the tax value on this property is about 242 20, something like that. That’s roughly correct. Okay. Let’s call it. Two. 240 just for giggles.
[22:07] So we’re going to net 360,000 at least based on the initial contract. So we’re getting over the 30 year period, we’re getting more than the actual tax value of the property there.
[22:26] Uh, it’s going to create some permanent structures there that, uh, technically would become ours if the walk away from the from the lease lease agreement, unless they took them with them, I guess. So, um, I think I can see that the need for the longer term to make this work out, because there’s a huge investment that’s going to be made here. I think it’s going to be the 20 million plus a dollar. So it seems to me very reasonable city from a financial standpoint.
[22:44] It’s a better deal for us than the original one. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mister Dane, would you like to say anything? If you give your name and address for the record. Uh, Bucky Dahm, 3007 80 Kirklees Road, Winston-Salem. And, uh, Council member Clark, chair Clark and the members. Um, just appreciate your considering this.
[23:09] Obviously we’re looking at this because the investment has increased considerably and we want more permanence, stability as we go through this process and the project.
[23:27] Uh, our plan right now is to break ground on the amphitheater in late July or early August of this this year, with an opening of spring of 27. And this, this what we’re trying to procreate here with this artist village is more of a park like setting for the artists to enjoy when they’re here, and hopefully that spreads the word within the industry. And other artists want to come and come to Winston-Salem. Thank you sir. Any questions? Comments? Mr.. How do you cut mine.
[23:48] Off? Just for clarity, this artist village is open to the public or is it a closed facility for just the performers? It’s a closed facility for the for the crews. They’re traveling the local crews that are working the shows, as well as the artists themselves. It will be fenced and gated off. Yes.
[24:07] So it had restrooms on it. Are they going to be restrooms for amphitheater? Uh, people come to see the shows? Oh no. Definitely yes. That’s on the other side. That’s on the side on the other side of the street. Definitely. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Chair. Clark. A couple of questions.
[24:28] The first question, uh, when this first was presented to council in September, I don’t remember, were we told that Live Nation would be the concert promoter, uh, for this venue? I thank. The council member to clarify. that we. Are in discussion with Live Nation. But they haven’t committed. Anything.
[24:52] Um, honestly, this is some things they looked at when they looked at the site that, uh. Okay. I’m sorry that they would like to like to see. So, uh, that’s, that’s where this is kind of evolved.
[25:08] At the same time, I think we realize once we got into the project and got well into the fall, we realized that the temporary structures weren’t going to be adequate and that the total investment of the entire amphitheater was increasing such that we needed more stability. There.
[25:27] Okay, I knew that, um, in my mind, this was the first time I had heard of that Live nation would be connected to the amphitheater, and the statement was made just a little while ago that the reason for the 30 year lease request was coming, uh, because this is what Live Nation needs. Uh, I talked with the manager.
[25:54] Someone just said that I talked with the manager yesterday about, uh, Live Nation’s participation, and I had some questions and concerns because they have, uh, recently been accused of, um, uh, ticket inflation. Uh, and they were found guilty. And, uh, I just am very concerned about entering the city, entering into an agreement where we will be the vehicle for Live Nation to have 30 years to, uh, monopolize, uh, this, uh, concert promoting for the amphitheater and maybe, possibly, uh, inflate ticket
[26:25] prices that our citizens will have to pay. So I’m just really concerned about, uh, an agreement with a company that was found guilty of those things. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Comments? I always forget to cut it on, uh, just a brief comment. Um, the entertainment venue.
[26:53] And I’m aware of some of the articles that you’ve read. Um, my answer to that is quite simple. You don’t have to go to a concert. Uh, the last concert I went to was a Rolling Stones concert, and Mick Jagger was 15 years younger than he is now. Uh, to me, this is discretionary income.
[27:11] You can go. You’re not go. Uh, I do think, uh, the developers, actually, I believe we’re going to be dealing with the developers. You will have a contract with. The fed. If that happens, it’ll be a contract with Live Nation. And the. Reason or whoever. It could be the reason. It is the third party.
[27:29] Whoever they sign with, makes a commitment to bring so many shows through. That’s really what they’re doing. And they would be looking at, okay, we have a venue here, here and here that we can work this in here and therefore that it makes sense to them.
[27:47] But but there are other folks I know you’re talking to. Uh, I think it’s great if we have a private citizen that’s paying this market rate. And by the way, we call this park land. This is really just land. There’s no picnic tables. There’s no bathrooms on it. It’s quite hilly. I believe if it’s the land, I think it is.
[28:08] Uh, not not good for much other than, I guess, walking around on it or whatever, but, uh, I’m extremely supportive of this. I think it is a great idea, uh, to get we’re having some concerns with downtown. We need to get more people downtown. We’ve had a number of restaurants close, etc.
[28:27] , and we need to get the the critical mass back downtown. So with that, oh, Mississippi, I’ll ask a question and I will. I will, I’ll my question is, I just clarification if at the end of this lease or any time before the end of the lease, I think someone just said that the buildings that were
[28:51] constructed would be the city’s. Is that accurate? I think what we put in the terms in your car, Councilmember Scipio, or the conclusion of the 30 year lease, or if the amphitheater ceases to operate before then, the developer will return the land back to green space.
[29:10] Or if an alternative agreement could be reached between two parties i.e. if there were buildings there at that time that were of value to the city, that we wish to have some interest in, and it was mutually agreed upon and we could work out a deal.
[29:24] Then we could we could structure a deal where we could take possession of those buildings if that could be worked out, but otherwise it would be returned essentially to green space. Yeah. That’s correct. All right. Thank you. I move for approval of, uh. G second. We have a motion. A second, everybody, please vote when this comes up. And that is approved. Thank you all very much.
[29:52] And again, Mister Dane, it will be at we will have a public hearing Monday night. So it’s good to see you. Mr. Dane is a former retired employee of the. City.. Yeah. And I think you live in the West Ward. If I called that address correctly. Thank you very much. Okay. We will now go to G for the city clerk will please read this one.
[30:13] Item G, for consideration of items related to the fiscal year 2025 2026. Budget ordinances. Mister Dash, this is the current year budget. Not to be confused with the new budget that starts in 21 days or so. This is. The current year budget. Yes, sir.
[30:32] So good afternoon, chairman. Mayor Jim, members of the city council, we do a year end amendment every year. Generally speaking, this amendment is on consent as a result of one of the items in for transparency, both for the council and the public. I had asked the manager that we actually put this on general agenda.
[30:47] There are quite a few, uh, a number of amendments tied here. Generally speaking, like I said, they would go on consent. I will not go through each one of them unless council members would like me to. There are several of them that are technical in nature.
[31:03] Uh, several of them that record expenses at the Benton, uh, for financial accounting standards that we have to do. Uh, there are some additional areas where we are cleaning up some accounting entries that we have done in our housing programs. There are a couple of entries related to motor vehicle privilege, tax and power bill funding. Again, these are very technical in nature. We’re not adding anything to the budget.
[31:21] We are just moving money around as the state requires for street resurfacing and general fund operations. There are four amendments on here that are smaller in nature, so there’s an Emergency solutions grant increase from DHHS in an amount of $163,000.
[31:45] There’s $150,000 transfer from the general fund to the ballpark fund to cover insurance and maintenance and other operating costs at that facility for year end. We have included the parking fund payment. So you approved the termination of the lease with R.J. Reynolds, part of the money that we would get from R.J. Reynolds is going to go to the county, per the original economic development agreement.
[31:59] So we have an amendment in the parking fund for that amount that would go to the county. And then there’s also no amendment in the occupancy tax fund for $125,000 to support bus services at the International Black Theater Festival.
[32:20] Uh, aside from that, there is one larger amendment there for the general fund as well. Uh, during year end, we often transfer money between service areas inside the general fund. We are doing that as well as asking for an appropriation of general fund balance and the public safety service area, which will help cover expenditures mostly related to police department and attributable to overtime for special events.
[32:39] Training costs for increased belt classes, which is a good thing. We are hiring more police officers. We are getting many more of them into the classes and increased benefits costs. So several years ago, the City Council authorized increased benefits when we had roughly 20% vacancy across the organization.
[32:57] Many of those benefits were covered by salary savings. And as we continue to hire, we don’t have the salary savings in the public safety service area of the general fund to cover things related to recruiting incentives. The vacation payout policy change, as well as the uncapped holiday accruals.
[33:13] Again, in prior years, we would have expected salary savings to cover most of this. We will be working diligently in fiscal year 27 to make sure that this is managed correctly. And I will say that the police department has cut its average overtime expenses by paid period by 36% since January to help get closer to this year’s budget.
[33:29] But again, we will come back with a better plan for 27 as well. So we wanted to do this one on general agenda in case you had any questions, as there were many things on the amendment itself. If I were to add all these up, what’s the impact on the fund balance? General fund balance? Generally speaking.
[33:52] To be offset by any I worry about decreases in fund balance. So the the police win is about a million and a half. And it’s $150,000 for the ballpark. Those would be the two majors. The rest of them may have very large amounts, but they would have no effect on general fund balance. Just moving between buckets.
[34:08] Yeah. And on the public safety side, we have been a little conservative with the numbers. So I would hope that we’re not actually spending that much of fund balance. But we did project a number so that we made sure that we came in underneath it. Okay. Thank you very much. Any questions comments. Can I get a motion.
[34:25] For approval of item G for. Motion approval? Item G for if we have a second if everybody please vote. When that comes up. Okay. Done G5 let me introduce this one when we. Oh excuse. Me. Oh yeah. Do you want to say something. No. I’m good okay. Oh yeah. It’s a clerk. Please read G5.
[34:57] Item G5 consideration of resolutions approving funding for nonprofit agencies. At the budget meeting. Last council meeting when we approved the budget, the budget we approved simply had a one line item for nonprofits, which was 941,000 or something like that. 9565 thank you. Approximately. Thank you.
[35:27] Um, but we still need to allocate that. And I deliberately put that off until today. Uh, because we had not had a chance to to we had some discussions on it, but we never finished those discussions. Uh, we’re not behind schedule. We typically adopt the budget. The second meeting in June.
[35:47] So we’re actually two weeks ahead there. And this is less than, well, a little bit more than 1% of the budget. So we’re not talking a lot. Do you have the pages that you were going to hand out or go over.
[36:01] ? The city clerk does have copies of what are included in the calf. So if you would like to physically have a paper copy of it, and if it’s. Good because we may want to walk through things and it is my intent that we will get this resolved so that we can vote on it Monday night and be done with the budget for. Uh. For the year. And we’ll see.
[36:22] Everybody gets one. I’ll make some further comments. Council Member Clark I’d also note the 956 number is the general fund number. You have the occupancy tax as well. Thank you sir. Okay. Just I’m going to go over the general fund community agency proposal first. And on the back is the other one.
[36:45] I’ve got an extra copy of anybody Needs anyway to remind everybody the 841,000, all those items above that were were organizations that got at least four. Votes, so to speak, from either council member. The mayor also, uh, voted as well. We did.
[37:11] I don’t know if we officially approved it, but we did, I guess, accept that. And then we had to deal with and it’s the difference is 114,000. As you see there, if you flip to the back side, I’ll talk a little bit more of that in a minute. To the back side.
[37:27] Uh, the totals 406 and the first, I think that’s five items. Um, work got at least four votes. And we kind of agreed on that. And we were left with 28,000. What I did, for better or worse, is several people offered additional ones they wanted included from the mayor on down.
[37:50] And I will say I did contact Miss Adams Adams, who wasn’t at the meeting, and see if she wanted any. I took the ones that were there and kind of prorated it down. Uh. Is that what the group is below? I think it is. Yes, yes.
[38:15] Uh, basically took what they originally amount, um, came out and this just prorated it down is what it did that on the other ones. There was a suggestion and this is the way I interpreted it may not be incorrect. People say well and by with colliding just for the record was the one that I put on there. I didn’t think we were giving them enough money.
[38:33] But anyway, since they do help put hats on beds to use them over here. And again, these three organizations, I think, for example, James Taylor, I think that’s your youth summer programming. Uh, and I can’t remember who did what kind of prorated these as well.
[38:51] So what I would like to propose today that that we limit our conversations to the 28,000 and leave the 378 as is, because that was agreed to by at least for and on the front page of the other side that we look at the 114 and leave the 841 as it is. Uh, for better or worse, I accept the.
[39:14] Wishes of the council members, and I was one of them that voted. And that’s why I think the 841 should stay as it is, because that’s kind of what we selected. And the 378 with that, I’m open to any type of suggestions on what to do with 114,020 8000. And I’ll start with Miss Adams. Yes. Thank you, chair Clark.
[39:35] Um, my only request or concern again is that we hear the constituents of the city who pay the taxes in order to be able to do this, and. There have been a lot of concerns in the media, social media, about Claudia.
[40:01] And I’m not saying that we need to pull back on the money, but I’m also saying right now, I was on that board when I first got on the council in 1011. I think in 12. And even then, my concern this is when they were at the sidewalks building on the north side.
[40:25] My concern is, again, just like a lot of the citizens is verifying that agencies, they get tax dollars, that the programs that they do that we ensure that everybody has access to those programs on opportunity, whatever that means.
[40:46] Somebody from the city is, is going to have to go to work, and we’re going to have to make sure that that is done, because if we have citizens accusing us of voting to give money to agencies that don’t cater or want to deal with marginalized youth or children, then that’s a problem. So but we can’t prove that unless we actually audit programming like we do for vendors or anybody else. So it’s not like a heavy lift.
[41:12] But I think in order for us to be able to show a good faith effort to our citizens that we care, and we heard them that, uh, and I’m not just singling out colliding. It could be a couple others on here, too, that we need to make sure all of them have programming. That’s equitable to the diversity of our city.
[41:33] And if they’re having programming that children, marginalized children don’t get an opportunity to go and participate, then that’s a problem. And not saying that the city has to solve it, but there has to be some collaboration done with other agencies to ensure that these children have an opportunity to be there. Again.
[41:52] When I got on this, this board back in oh 9 or 10, 11 and 12, I communicated the same thing because nobody could tell me the numbers and the races of the demographics of the children. They were catering to, and the city was given a lot more money then than it is now.
[42:15] So I just want us to be cognizant of that, and I want that on the record that I did speak to that, uh, for our citizens that have that concern. Thank you. Chair. Thank you. Any other comments, Mister. Warner? Thank you. Chair. Uh, it was. It was stated.
[42:42] In the last meetings that we had two pools of money and the occupancy tax, um, money fund would need to go something that dealt with heads and beds. There are several, um, folks, or organizations that are listed. Um, that contribute to heads and beds.
[43:20] Um, there are very few organizations, uh, and I’ll bring up Claudia that, um, that asked for a certain dollar amount and has gotten as close as calli team has to their full ask. The fact that the occupancy fund needs to, at least in some way, touch heads and beds. There are several other organizations that deserve some of that need some of that and would make this a more equitable, equitable, um, choice.
[43:48] If there is 1200, 12,000 that we’re going to put on a secondary funding to Claudia, my recommendation and suggestion would be that 12,000 go to either to the youth overall. And as those programs come up, we help fund those.
[44:16] We all have that same challenge and passion to make sure that the youth are taken care of as much as possible. Um, so just to put that over in that fund and as things come up throughout the year, use it for that would be a great thing. Yes. Colliding does do things with the youth, but I was told at one point that the asked the total asked for colliding.
[44:36] It’s just a small part of their overall budget. If it’s that smaller part, then their budget would be okay. Might have to tighten the strap a little bit, but it would be okay. But for our youth, in so many other ways, not that they can’t go to the colliding.
[44:59] Yes they can, but there’s more programming than just the one that needs that kind of thing. So it was also suggested that you would prefer not to have any organization dip into both pockets. And so if that was the statement was good for one, it’s good for all.
[45:24] Let’s not double dip for any one organization and let’s spread it around. It’s not a lot of money. It’s not. It doesn’t go but so far. But let’s let let’s see what we else we can do and help another area of the community with it. Thank you. Mr. Warner.
[45:41] You’re suggesting giving this to an organization that doesn’t put any heads on beds? No, sir. So I’ll give an example. Um, not listed here is bookmarks. No, I’m talking about the youth you wanted to. You. If you said for the youth programming, that is not a heads on beds organization. That’s summer stuff. I’m just trying to understand where you’re coming from.
[46:01] Well, because it is already listed in that category. If we turn to the back. No, it’s not on. It’s actually on a category that’s not on either one of these. Youth summer programming. The youth program is on another page in the book. In the book.
[46:21] The youth summer programming is already part of what set aside in the occupancy tax fund at the request of one of the council members in a former budget workshop, it was that we would set aside a smaller portion.
[46:34] Additionally, for youth summer programming, this could be used and has been used for things like Fairgrounds Fridays in the past and other events that take place during the summer. I would also note, although we historically use this for heads and beds, again, the statutory requirements. That’s right, that it be used for an economic development or cultural and recreational purpose. But somewhere in the budget I saw it was $40,000.
[46:53] And what was the source of that funding for the youth summer programs? It’s in the occupancy tax fund. This would be adding to that bucket. Okay. But it’s not on this sheet up top. It is part of a separate to the occupancy tax fund is nearly $1 million fund. And so that’s something that’s something. That’s a whole different.
[47:11] In the operating budget. It’s not a community agency different page city sponsored programs. Understand the youth. As I said, the youth summer programming is on a different page in the budget book.
[47:31] So anyway, uh, any other comments before we go around? Uh, I’m trying to take everything, and then I’m going to try to come up with a great compromise. Uh, chair Clark, you’ve done a great job, first of all. And you have two, Scott. But I’m in agreement with Council member Joyner for him to receive money from two parts and no other organization receive money from two, two parts.
[47:53] I just think that that’s not the look that we want our citizens to see. I think we need to have a look of fairness and equitable. Thank you. Okay. Let me make a proposal. We may get out of here on time that we I’ll drop the collodion off of the back page. And that 12,000.
[48:14] I will prorated into the 1234567 items on the other page. Good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Drop the 12,000 on the back page and move that money to the front page. The lower half. But you couldn’t. That’s right. That’s the wrong part. Excuse me.
[48:39] I’m going to drop the Palladium and take the 12,000 and prorated amongst the ones up top. Yes. And that way it kind of stays heads on beds. Uh, and I don’t know what that is. That’s. It’s 1 or 2% more, but amongst old Salem, National North black theaters as the river on Piedmont and Salem Symphony, I will take the 12,000 and prorated accordingly 2000.
[49:02] Yeah, something like that. And then that will get everything balanced. I would like to make a comment I have in my office the annual report. The fees people pay to enter pays about a third of the cost. Two thirds of it is raised by donations and whatever I am visibly upset of.
[49:28] Some of the comments made that for some reason that is some type of an elitist organization. Um, ask the Chamber of Commerce what are the five places they take companies to? It’s one of them. It is that impressive.
[49:50] I was just in Charleston and paid the same fee I pay for my two grandchildren to go to the Children’s Museum in Charleston versus colliding. Ours is ten times better than this. It was no comparison. It is a super buyer. They certainly to the extent of 67% of their budget, does not come from admissions. They do lots of programs for folks here, and it is an invaluable part of this community.
[50:20] It obviously stands out downtown, but when people. Okay, tell me about Winston-Salem, they take them to them. They take them to Old Salem, they go out of the house, they don’t show them our home, our office depot or our Home Depot buildings. They are the same as everybody’s across the country.
[50:37] But when they ask what’s unique about it, those are some take them to Wake Forest. Uh, those were some states. Show them some of those type things, but I, I think we have been badmouthing one of the best organizations in this city, and it concerns me, but I’m willing to to move the money around to get it done.
[50:54] But I just think if anybody wants to, it’s on my round table in my office. You can come see their annual report. How many people come through it? Uh, it is a big budget. I think it was 3 or 4 or $5 million.
[51:07] It’s a lot of money down there. 4 million? Uh, but, um, it is a super organization. This town should be very, very proud of it. And I’ll just leave it at that. Anyway, those are my suggestions. We take the 12 pro rated up top and we’re done to. The 2400 each. Between each one of them. Yeah, whatever the math is. Yes, ma’am.
[51:31] Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I saw the calls this issue when I said, since they are doing so much with, uh, bids, that they probably should go under. Yes, that’s right. I can see you can blame me for that.
[51:55] I did not at that time mean that they should get one something from one budget and something from the other. That’s right. And so, um, I am very happy with eliminating that 12,000. Now, I do want to speak to them and all of our nonprofits in the city, and the perception that they are only for certain classes of people in this city.
[52:19] I do know that coalition early on made an effort to offer free access, and they were doing outreach to underserved communities. Uh, and it’s a very real challenge to, um, get our people to go to those places where they perceive themselves not welcome. It’s not part of what they do.
[52:44] So I challenge all of our nonprofits to assess what they do to truly be receptive to all of our residents coming in. So, um, if you are a regular at Collider, Home, you wouldn’t feel that way if that’s something you do and you want to do for your kids, but people who don’t who’ve never had that access, uh, there is a
[53:11] different perception. And we must not act like it doesn’t exist. And to that end, I’m going to say that I am not in favor of giving old Salem an additional $2,000, because in the past year, they would not allow a film company to come and produce a production about African-American in North
[53:36] Carolina. Uh, and I felt that was just a blatant slap in our faces for whatever reasons. And we moved that production to the Coliseum. Um, so I was I’m not in to the fairgrounds. Thank you. And it was a beautiful production. So I say that to all of our our nonprofits.
[54:02] When the city gives you money, it’s for all people in this city who have paid taxes, regardless of race. And they should examine what things they do not want and why they don’t want it. If it’s truly an interruption of their normal business. I could see that. But what was desired was not that because they were willing to work off site.
[54:28] Um, so I am truly in favor of moving the money, but I, I personally would not like old Salem to go through, um, to get an additional amount of money. You know. sometimes all of us have to be reminded what our initial mission. Was. Purpose. Objective. And also within all of. That.
[54:55] The perception of any business institution, whatever you want to call it, organization. If there are people, customers or you have not been able to get or customers that leave your business or doing service with you, and their perception is that you didn’t treat them right or you didn’t respond to
[55:16] them the way you treated the person in front of you. That’s a real, real life perception. And there are some of us in this room that go through this more than most.
[55:35] All I’m saying is to what you’re hearing, Councilmember Clark, and it’s unfortunate that you feel like the community and others are giving colliding a bad rap or giving old Salem a bad rap. But for those of us that have been born and raised in this city, we know the reality of these organizations and you all can paint the picture any way you want, but as long as there are people that can talk and
[55:55] breathe and speak truth, we are going to do that. And whether you want to hear your perception of what people, black people, brown people, white people, poor people, rich people think of you, then that’s that’s your thing.
[56:12] But all I’m saying is all of these just like Council member Scipio, all of the nonprofits need to check themselves. Are you doing really what you started out to do? Do you actually ask your customers from all areas of humanity, what is your perception? Just like you get the surveys on your phone when you go to Lowe’s or go to the grocery
[56:32] store or wherever. How did you feel about your experience with us today? I think they need to do more of that. It could help to alter their programming as to what they think the community wants versus what they want. So, you know, going forward, I agree.
[56:53] I remember sitting on this board with Councilmember Clark and Councilmember Taylor, and I was very adamant about these same agencies getting money forever. Why why do they? Well, you know, people come here, they want to see this and they want to see well, that’s because we don’t market any other things in our city besides the big 3
[57:13] or 4. And that’s unfortunate, because Winston-Salem would not be Winston-Salem without all of this people, whether that’s Winston-Salem state, whether that’s Delta Arts, whether that’s any of the museums that we have, whether it’s the theater festival, you know.
[57:34] So for me personally, Councilmember Clark, and I’m going to end my comments and I’m getting ready to vote or do whatever. But I agree with Councilmember Scipio on the old Salem, uh, the the money, uh, because they did not and I heard about it.
[57:54] I got emails about it that they were going to be up in my ward doing their filming because they weren’t welcome at this organization, this icon that supposed to represent our city, welcoming people. And I also agree with, uh, dividing the money appropriately between the one, two, three, the other one, two three, 45444. Okay. Miss Burgh. Thank you. Council chair. Clark.
[58:20] I also agree with, uh, not, um, with dividing the money among the others and not giving the 2500 to Old Salem. Thank you. Okay. Uh, then I will make the motion that we eliminate the 12,000 and distribute that money amongst the four items. The four organizations above, excluding Old Salem. Can I get a second to that motion? Second.
[58:44] Okay. All in favor, please vote when it comes up. Councilmember Clark, we are distributing that evenly. Not on a prorated basis. Correct? $3,000 across the four equals 12,000. Yeah. That’s fine. It’s not enough money to matter. That’s fine. This will be voted on Monday night.
[59:09] And, uh, so just to remind everybody, we didn’t change anything on the front page of mine and on the back page, we moved that 12,000 up. Okay. I think is that the last item? Have we voted on the general fund amounts in total? Thank. Oh. Oh. Excuse me. Yeah? Yeah. Well, let me amend my motion. We’ll revoke that. We accept.
[59:34] Pay the front page as shown. And on the back page, we appropriate the 12,000. Would you take that as a friendly amendment? Yes I would. Okay. Let’s vote again, please. Be sure we do it right. Thank you all very much. And if you all give me one second, I think that is it.
[1:00:05] That will be the only budget item Monday night. I believe. Oh, yes. By the way, we have a list. Of what organizations? People are on the boards of. And we will make unusual motions so that you get excluded. So instead of being one motion, it may be 5 or 6, but it’ll all make sense.
[1:00:31] Please look at it when you get your thing and be sure we have the right organizations for. You. Okay. That’s it. With no other