[00:00:04]
          WHEN A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE COME TO ORDER. FIRST ON OUR AGENDA IS, I HAVE THE WRONG DATE 
          [1. Resolution approving Neighborhood Investment Plan funding awards and submission of the FY 2026 Annual Action Plan totaling $8,693,689]
IN HERE. I HAVE SOME AGENDA. I DON'T HAVE THIS RESOLUTION APPROVING THE NEIGHBORHOOD INVESTMENT PLAN, FUNDING, AWARDS AND SUBMISSION OF THE FY 2026 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN TOTALING 8,700,000, ROUGHLY. MISS, DO YOU WANT TO COME UP AND TALK BRIEFLY? AND AS YOU COME UP, I WILL SUPPORT. I WILL NOTE WE HAVE GLOBAL GOOD NEWS HERE. WE HAD SOME UNCERTAINTY ABOUT WHETHER MONEY WAS COMING THROUGH, AND WE SEEM TO BE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT UNCERTAINTY. YES, WE ARE SO AND THIS IS OUR LAST STOP IN OUR FUNDING PROCESS, ANNUAL FUNDING PROCESS THAT BEGAN IN JANUARY. SO YOUR APPROVAL TODAY WILL ESTABLISH THOSE FINAL PROJECT AWARDS, ALLOCATING NEARLY $8.7 MILLION IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS, EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANTS, JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANTS, PROGRAMS, AS WELL AS THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND AND OPIOID SETTLEMENT FUNDS. SO ALL THAT ALLOCATION OCCURRED IN ONE PROCESS, AS WE HAVE BEEN DOING ON AN ANNUAL BASIS FOR MANY YEARS. THE FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS WERE PRESENTED TO THE FULL CITY COMMISSION ON MARCH 25TH, AND THESE WERE BASED ON ESTIMATES, AS MAYOR LAGRANGE JUST MENTIONED, BECAUSE WE DID NOT HAVE OUR FINAL PROGRAM AWARDS FROM THE US DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT. 
          THOSE CAME JUST LAST WEEK, AND THOSE HAPPEN TO BE JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN WE ANTICIPATED FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AND THE HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM, AND THEN SLIGHTLY LESS FOR OUR EMERGENCY SHELTERS GRANTS. SO SPECIFICALLY, CDBG INCREASED $35,407 AND OUR HOME ALLOCATION INCREASED $42,661. AND THEN ESG DECREASED $1,290. SO NOT BIG CHANGES, BUT VERY HAPPY OF WHERE WE'RE POSITIONED CONSIDERING THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON NOW. 
          ADJUSTMENTS WERE MADE TO THE PROJECTS THAT'S INCLUDED IN YOUR RESOLUTION THAT FOLLOWED OUR CONTINGENCY PROVISIONS, THAT WE PUT IN THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS, THAT IDENTIFIED WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF EACH OF THESE FUNDING SOURCES WERE INCREASED OR DECREASED. SO WE FOLLOWED THAT THOSE ESTABLISHED CONTINGENCY PROVISIONS AND MADE THOSE ADJUSTMENTS. YOUR APPROVAL TODAY ALSO AUTHORIZES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF TO SUBMIT THE ANNUAL ACTION PLAN TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT. THE PLAN IS ACTUALLY OUR APPLICATION FOR THE CDBG HOME AND ESG PROGRAMS. SO AND AS REQUIRED BY HUD, WE HELD A 30 DAY PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD THAT INCLUDED A PUBLIC HEARING THAT WAS IN FRONT OF YOU ON APRIL 15TH. WRITTEN COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED THROUGH APRIL 24TH AND FORWARDED TO YOU AS WELL. AND I JUST WANT TO WRAP UP BY THANKING COMMISSIONERS SASSY, KILGORE AND ROBINS FOR THEIR WORK IN THE RFP WORK GROUP IN TERMS OF HELPING DEVELOP THE RECOMMENDATIONS BRINGING FORWARD TO YOU, AS WELL AS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF WHO REALLY DO A LOT OF THE HEAVY LIFTING AND REVIEWING THOSE APPLICATIONS AND GETTING THEM TO THAT POINT. THAT'S AARON BENSHOFF, JOANNA SCHULTE, BEN GROSSE, CAMILLA JOHNSON, AMY BROWER, AND TAMMY VINCENT. THANK YOU. ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS? WE'VE GONE OVER THIS IN BROAD CONCEPT BEFORE. COMMISSIONER SASIC. THANK YOU, MAYOR, AND THANK YOU, MISS BULLOCK, FOR THE OVERVIEW. I THINK THAT WAS A NICE EMAIL TO GET AFTER OUR LAST MEETING THAT THOSE PIECES WERE CONFIRMED. I JUST WANTED TO REMIND EVERYONE, YOU KNOW, AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH OUR BUDGET PROCESS, THESE ARE, YOU KNOW, FEDERAL DOLLARS. AND WE DO LOOK AT A VARIETY OF FACTORS WHEN WE HAVE THAT SUBCOMMITTEE. AND THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOUT THE COMMUNICATIONS THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS WITH THE DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS WHO ARE RECEIVING FUNDING. THERE ARE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE OF THESE FEDERAL DOLLARS. IN MY DAY JOB, I HAVE A LOT OF FEDERAL FUNDING, AND THERE IS A LOT OF COMPLIANCE AND TRACKING AND DIFFERENT PIECES THAT ARE NOTED. AND SO I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THOSE PIECES WERE ALSO REVIEWED BY, BY THIS COMMITTEE, JUST TO, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER FURTHER STEP IN COMPLIANCE. CERTAINLY THAT'S SOMETHING YOU ALL ARE DOING, BUT THAT IS SHARED WITH THAT, THAT BODY AS WELL. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. 
          OTHERWISE I'LL ASK FOR A VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES. THAT 
          [2. Resolution approving the FY2026 budgets for the Grand Rapids Brownfield Redevelopment Authority, Grand Rapids Economic Development Corporation, Grand Rapids Land Bank Authority, Grand Rapids SmartZone Local Development Finance Authority, West Side, Southtown, Michigan Street, South Division-Grandville, North Quarter, and Uptown Corridor Improvement Authorities, and Uptown Business Improvement District]
BRINGS US TO OUR NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS RESOLUTION. AND AS MISS ROMERO TO COME UP FOR THIS. 
          PARDON. SO MOVED. YEAH. SORRY. CITY MANAGER WAS LAUGHING ABOUT THE LONG TITLE HERE I WILL I'M 
          [00:05:02]
GOING TO WADE THROUGH IT JUST FOR BECAUSE THIS IS AN OPEN MEETING. THIS IS A RESOLUTION PROVIDING 2026 BUDGETS FOR THE GRAND RAPIDS BROWNFIELD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, GRAND RAPIDS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, GRAND RAPIDS LAND BANK AUTHORITY, GRAND RAPIDS, SMARTZONE, LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY, WEST SIDE, SOUTH MICHIGAN STREET SOUTH DIVISION, GRANDVILLE NORTH QUARTER AND UPTOWN QUARTER IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITIES, AND UPTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. THAT'S A WHOLE BASKET OF THINGS THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE TOWN CARE ABOUT, AND I THINK WE MAY HAVE COVERED JUST ABOUT EVERY QUARTER OF THE CORNER OF THE CITY THERE. YES. GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU. YES. THIS IS THIS IS THE 11 DIFFERENT AUTHORITIES THAT THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ADMINISTERS AND I'M HAPPY TO GO THROUGH. SHOULD I GO THROUGH EACH AUTHORITY? OKAY. I WASN'T SURE THE FORMALITY HERE. SO I, I FEEL LIKE WHAT YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO SEE HERE IS TREMENDOUS GROWTH BETWEEN ALL OF OUR AUTHORITIES. AND I'M HAPPY TO GO INTO DETAIL IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. MAYOR, MR. ROMERO DID AN EXCELLENT JOB LAST WEEK COVERING THOSE DURING THE BUDGET WORK SESSION. AND JUST FOR A POINT OF REFERENCE, WE WOULD NORMALLY VOTE ON ALL THESE INDIVIDUALLY 11 TIMES THIS YEAR. 
          WE BUNDLED THEM TO SEE HOW THE CONVERSATION GOES AND IF NEED BE. IN THE FUTURE, WE WILL VOTE ON THEM. EVERY ITEM AGAIN. GREAT. SO FIRST OF ALL, DID I GET A MOTION? I'M SORRY, I FORGOT. YES COMMISSIONER IS PRETTY QUICK OFF THE MARK ON THAT. THANK YOU. AND IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS? SEEING COMMISSIONER SASSY I, I THINK, YOU KNOW, THANK YOU FOR THE BUNDLING BECAUSE I THINK IT MAKES SENSE A REMINDER TO THE PUBLIC THAT EACH ONE OF US SERVES ON ONE OF THESE AUTHORITIES. WELL, NOT ALWAYS NECESSARILY BROWNFIELD OR THE LAND BANK, BUT I DO SERVE ON SMARTZONE AND BROWNFIELD. AND SO WE ALL HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO SEE WHAT THOSE PIECES ARE AND OUR AUTHORITIES. I THINK IT'S AN EXCITING TIME FOR AUTHORITIES TO REALLY MANY OF US, YOU KNOW, THINK WE'VE HEARD STORIES ABOUT LIKE SOUTH TOWN ADDING TO HOUSING PROJECT PROJECTS, LOOKING AT HOW TO REDO DIFFERENT FACADE GRANTS. AND SO I THINK IT'S JUST A REMINDER THAT WE WANT TO I MEAN, I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR EVERYBODY, BUT THAT WE'VE BEEN HAVING THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW THESE AUTHORITIES, HOW COULD WE EVEN MAXIMIZE THEM EVEN MORE SO, AND I DO SEE VERA OUT IN THE AUDIENCE. I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR SHE IT'S NOT ALL OF THE BUT THE CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY. SINCE I SEE YOU IN THE AUDIENCE, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK, ESPECIALLY SOMETIMES WITH THESE AUTHORITIES. WE DON'T ALWAYS HAVE KIND OF THAT CONSISTENT CORRIDOR MANAGER MIGHT NOT HAVE THE CORRIDOR MANAGER. AND THANK YOU TO, YOU KNOW, OTHERS IN THE DEPARTMENT. CERTAINLY JORDAN ON ON SMART ZONE. NOW I'M GETTING TO THE PROBLEM WHERE I START NAMING OFF PEOPLE. BUT ANYWAYS I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT FROM THE CORRIDORS BECAUSE I THINK IT IS WE'RE AT THIS POINT WHERE WE'RE GOING TO KEEP ON PUSHING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION AND HAVING HAD THIS AS PART OF THE REVIEW LAST WEEK, I'D ASK FOR VOTE AND SUPPORT THEN. ALL IN 
          [3. Resolution approving the FY2026 budgets for the Downtown Development Authority, Downtown Improvement District, and Monroe North Tax Increment Finance Authority]
FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES BRINGS US THEMATICALLY TO A VERY SIMILAR ITEM THAT IS RESOLUTION FOR THE 26 BUDGETS FOR THE DDA DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND THE DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND THE NORTH MONROE NORTH TAX INCREMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY, WHICH WE OFTEN ACRONYM AS TIFA'S. SO I'M SORRY, MR. KELLY. GOOD MORNING, MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS. SIMILAR TO YOUR LAST ITEM, THIS WAS PART OF YOUR BRIEFING LAST WEEK. I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD, BUT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. IF YOU DO. JUST A REMINDER, THESE ARE. WE'RE ALL RECOMMENDED TO YOU BY THE RESPECTIVE BOARDS AND AUTHORITIES REPRESENTING THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT IN MONROE NORTH, TAX INCREMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY. AND I'LL, I GUESS, ECHO WHAT COMMISSIONER SASSY SAID AND ALSO POINT OUT THAT IN A SENSE, THESE TWO ARE CLOSELY THEMATICALLY RELATED IN THE SENSE THAT HISTORICALLY WE HAD WE'VE HAD A DDA FOR A LONG TIME, BUT THESE OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS ARE SORT OF COMING ALONG AND DOING THE SAME SORT OF WORK IN DIFFERENT REGIONS. SO THIS IS MAYBE A LESS DECENTRALIZED, LESS CENTRALIZED WAY TO FOCUS ON INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS. AND OBVIOUSLY, SOME OF US, I THINK A NUMBER OF US WERE GROUNDBREAKING FOR CANAL PARK. AND SO DDA PLAYS IN A LOT OF THINGS INSIDE OF ITS BOUNDARIES AND IS DOES A WHOLE LOT MORE THAN, THAN MAYBE PEOPLE THINK OF AS CORE, ITS CORE FUNCTION OF LIKE, YOU KNOW, KEEPING DOWNTOWN LOOKING GOOD AND FUNCTIONING WELL. BUT IT'S ALSO PLAYING IN LONG TERM INVESTMENTS. SO THANK YOU, MR. KELLY AND ANY, ANY DISCUSSION OF THIS ONE. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. MOTION 
          [4. Resolution Establishing 2025 Property Tax Millage]
CARRIES. THANK YOU, MR. KELLY. THANK YOU. THIS BRINGS US TO THREE THINGS WHICH I BELIEVE OUR CITY MANAGER IS GOING TO BRIEF US ON. SO IF WE CAN TAKE THEM SEQUENTIALLY, THE FIRST IS RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 2025 PROPERTY TAX MILLAGE SUPPORT. THANK YOU MAYOR. I'LL JUST 
          [00:10:08]
HIGHLIGHT BOTH THE PROPERTY TAX MILLAGE, THE PROVISION OF FEES AND THE BUDGET BRIEFING ALL IN ONE. AND THEN YOU GUYS CAN DELIBERATE AND VOTE AFTER THAT SO SOMEONE CAN PULL UP THE SLIDES PLEASE. WHILE HE'S DOING THAT, I WANT TO THANK OUR ACTING CFO, SCOTT, FOR HIS WORK AND GLAD TO SEE THE RETURN OF OUR CFO, MOLLY CLAREN, BACK TO WORK YESTERDAY. SO SHE IS IN OTHER MEETINGS TODAY AND LOOK FORWARD TO HER REENGAGING. SO AGAIN, TODAY IS THE DAY FOR YOUR ADOPTION OF THE BUDGET, THE TAX RATE AND THE FEES, THE BUDGET YOU'LL VOTE ON IN YOUR AFTERNOON MEETING ITSELF THIS MORNING IS AFFIRMING THE REVENUE. AND I'LL ALSO HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT WE HAVE MADE FROM INTRODUCTION TO ADOPTION. NEXT SLIDE. AND JUST AS A REMINDER, WE'VE HAD SEVERAL PUBLIC SESSIONS ON THE BUDGET SINCE ITS PUBLIC PROPOSAL TO INCLUDE YOUR MOST RECENT HEARING LAST LAST WEEK THAT ALLOWED THE PUBLIC TO COMMENT ON ANYTHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE WORK SESSIONS OR ANYTHING THAT'S IN THE BUDGET. NEXT SLIDE. SO THE APPROPRIATIONS ARE STILL SIMILAR TO WHAT WAS INITIALLY PROPOSED. SOME ADJUSTMENTS. AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT $735 MILLION TOTAL APPROPRIATION WITH 196 MILLION FOR THE GENERAL FUND. YOU'LL SEE THE BREAKDOWN BY STRATEGIC PRIORITIES. NEXT SLIDE. AND YOU'VE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS. IN THE EARLIER ITEM, MISS BOHATSCH INDICATED THERE WAS SOME ADJUSTMENTS IN SOME OF THE FEDERAL AWARDS, CDBG AND HOME FUND, AND YOU'LL SEE OTHER ADJUSTMENTS IN SOME OF THE REVENUE FORECASTS FOR TOTAL OF $53,000, ALMOST 54,000. NOT SIGNIFICANT. NEXT SLIDE. WHEN I PRESENTED THE BUDGET, THERE WERE SEVERAL POSITIONS I INDICATED THAT WOULD NEED TO BE ADOPTED BETWEEN PROPOSAL AND FINAL, AND THAT WAS ESTIMATED AT 506,000 507,000, ROUGHLY. AND WE HAVE GONE BACK AND WE'VE DOWNWARDLY REVISED THAT COST. NOW IT'S A LITTLE OVER 505,000, AND PARTLY DUE TO SOME PERSONNEL ADJUSTMENTS IN A PARTIAL FUNDING OF THE YEAR. NEXT SLIDE AND YOU'LL SEE A DETAILED LIST OF THOSE ADJUSTMENTS FOR STAFFING PRIMARILY THAT RESULTS IN THAT 507,000. SO YOU'LL SEE THOSE GRANT POSITIONS WHERE FUNDING IS BEING DISCONTINUED, AS WELL AS SOME POSITIONS WHERE WE WERE ABLE. WELL, SOME ADJUSTMENTS, EXCUSE ME, TO THE COST OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATION IN THE PARKS DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS OUR CONTRACTUAL SERVICES WITH NETWORK 180 AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. NEXT SLIDE. YOU ALSO HAD ROBUST DISCUSSION AROUND SOME OF THE FEES IN THE OMNIBUS FEE SCHEDULE. AND THIS IS A REMINDER OF WHAT HAS BEEN ADJUSTED FROM WHAT WAS INITIALLY PRESENTED WITH THOSE OVER A THOUSAND FEES. SO THE PARKING SYSTEM METER INFRACTION, WE HAD RECOMMENDED AN INCREASE BY $5. THERE WAS NOT SUPPORT TO THE CITY COMMISSION FROM THE COMMISSION AND THE DISCUSSION, WE ADJUSTED THAT BACK TO WHAT WAS THE PREVIOUS YEAR'S COST AT $15. AND YOU'LL SEE THE PARKING. AND THAT WAS FOR NON-ESSENTIAL INFRACTIONS, THINGS THAT HAPPENED OUTSIDE THE DOWNTOWN AREA. AND YOU'LL SEE THE PARKING FINE ADJUSTMENT FOR ODD PARKING. WE HAD RECOMMENDED AN INCREASE FROM 20 TO $25, AND JUST BASED ON THE VARIOUS DISCUSSIONS THAT WERE ON THE DAIS, WE HAVE PROPOSED A ADJUSTMENT OF WHAT WAS HALF INITIALLY PROPOSED $22.50, $2.50, AND COMMISSIONER. PURDUE INQUIRED ABOUT THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SERVICE AGREEMENT FEE 5%. THAT BUDGET THAT YOU JUST PASSED AS PROPOSED DID NOT INCLUDE ANY REVENUE FROM THAT PROPOSED FEE ADJUSTMENT. THAT WAS PART OF A DISCUSSION ITEM. IN THE EVENT THAT WE WOULD HAVE PROCEEDED WITH CHARGING THE AUTHORITY THAT THE FEE WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE SCHEDULE. AND SO TO AVOID ANY CONFUSION, WE JUST RECOMMENDED DELETING IT. 
          AND WE'LL DO FURTHER ENGAGEMENT. AND IF THERE'S ANY OUTCOME FROM THAT ENGAGEMENT, WE'LL COME BACK 
          [00:15:03]
WITH AN ADJUSTMENT TO THE FEE SCHEDULE. NEXT SLIDE. THE MILLAGE RATE IS UNCHANGED FROM THE PROPOSED BUDGET. AND NEXT SLIDE. AND I WANT TO REALLY THANK I WANT TO REALLY THANK ALL THE STAFF. I HAD A LISTING OF THE VARIOUS STAFF THAT HAD CONTRIBUTED TO THE PROCESS. SO NOW I WILL DO WHAT COMMISSIONER SASSY ATTEMPTED TO DO AND MIGHT GET MYSELF IN TROUBLE. BUT AGAIN, I ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED SCOTT'S WORK IN ALL OF HIS BUDGET STAFF AND THEIR TEAM FOR WORKING ON THIS. THIS IS NOT JUST FOR US. WE THEY THE STAFF DOES A GOOD JOB OF MAKING THIS DIGESTIBLE OVER FOUR WEEKS, BUT THIS IS MONTHS AND MONTHS OF WORK. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THEY'RE ALWAYS EITHER PREPARING FOR A BUDGET TO PROPOSE OR IMPLEMENTING A BUDGET AND DO THIS WORK YEAR ROUND. AND EVERY TIME I DO IT WITH RENEWED SENSE OF PURPOSE, ENERGY AND PROFESSIONALISM. SO THANK YOU AND YOUR STAFF FOR WORKING WITH ALL THE DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS WHO, IN ADDITION TO THE OPERATIONAL FOCUS, AND WE HAVE CERTAINLY HAD A LOT OF STUFF HAPPENING ON OUR CITY. MAKE TIME TO DILIGENTLY PAY ATTENTION TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETAILS OF THE BUDGET. I WANT TO THANK MY EXECUTIVE OFFICE TEAM. LOU CANFIELD, WHO IS NOT HERE TODAY BUT HAS DONE A GREAT JOB AS CHIEF OF STAFF AS WELL AS OUR STRATEGY OFFICER, FOR MAKING SURE THAT THE BUDGET DOCUMENT IS NOT JUST NUMBERS. WE CAN EASILY JUST GIVE YOU A LIST OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND THAT'S THE MINIMUM COMPLIANCE OF THE CHARTER IS JUST PROPOSE ALL THE DEPARTMENTS COSTS. BUT WE PUT CONTEXT AND POLICY AND OUTCOMES AND PUT IT IN LANGUAGE WHERE THE NUMBERS SPEAK IN A WAY THAT, EXCUSE ME, WHERE THERE'S CONVERSATION MORE THAN THE NUMBERS JUST SPEAKING FOR THEMSELVES. AND THAT TAKES A LOT. IT'S NOT JUST A CALCULATOR OR EXCEL SHEET. AND SO I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR MAKING THE BUDGET PRACTICAL AND PURPOSEFUL FOR BOTH OPERATION FOR POLICY AS WELL AS FOR CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT. I WANT TO THANK THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE STAFF. YOU HEARD A LOT FROM THE PRESENTATIONS FROM DEPUTY CITY MANAGER AND ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER MATTHEWS, AS WELL AS THE MANY QUESTIONS THAT WERE RESPONDED TO IN THE WORK SESSIONS BY ALL THE DIRECTORS WHO ARE SITTING IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM ON THE BACK ROW. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR YOUR DILIGENCE AND WORK. AND OF COURSE, I WANT TO THANK THIS COMMISSION FOR A WEEKS STRAIGHT OF A LOT OF INTENSE DISCUSSION. BUT IT IS IMPORTANT AND I APPRECIATE THE FEEDBACK AND THE DIALOG. SO WITH THAT MAYOR, I'LL TURN IT BACK TO YOU. I'M SORRY, MR. SANDIN. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE SHOULD HIGHLIGHT BEFORE THE VOTE? NO, SIR. YOU DID AN EXCEPTIONAL JOB. JUST KIND OF HIGHLIGHTING THE CHANGES FROM PRELIM TO FINAL. IT REALLY WAS A MIX OF KIND OF ROUTINE ADJUSTMENTS THAT WE SEE ANNUALLY, AS WELL AS PUTTING FORWARD THOSE UNFUNDED POSITIONS. SO I THINK IT'S THE ADJUSTMENTS THAT WERE ANTICIPATED TODAY. ACTUALLY, I HAVE A NOTE HERE AND A QUESTION, IF I MAY, IF WE GO TO SLIDE EIGHT, THE FISCAL YEAR 2026 FISCAL PLAN ADJUSTMENTS TO DATE SPECIFICALLY TO THE PARKING SYSTEM, THE FEE, NAME OF PARKING FINES, SEASONAL PARKING. ODD EVEN THE COMMISSION WAS ACTUALLY AT A 3 TO 3 SPLIT. AND I THINK WE STILL NEED TO DISCUSS THAT ON THE PROPOSED 2250. THE YEAS, AS I RECALL, FOR THE 2250 MID ROAD WAS. COMMISSIONER MILLER, GRAND AND COMMISSIONER ROBBINS. THE NAYS WERE COMMISSIONER PURDUE, MYSELF AND COMMISSIONER BELL. DUE TO A IMPORTANT PRE SCHEDULED COMMISSIONER, KNIGHT WAS NOT ABLE TO BE A PART OF THAT CONVERSATION. AND I STILL BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO DECIDE TODAY AND HAVE A MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION EITHER SUPPORTING THE INCREASE TO 2250 OR REJECTING IT. AND I'D LIKE TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION NOW IF WE ARE ABLE. 
          MAYOR, MAY I MAKE A SUGGESTION IN RESPONSE TO COMMISSIONER KILGORE'S COMMENT? SURE. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD DISCUSSION TO HAVE, BUT SINCE THE ITEM THAT YOU GUYS PUT ON THE FLOOR WAS ACTUALLY THE PROPERTY TAX MILLAGE, I WOULD RECOMMEND YOU GO AHEAD AND DELIBERATE ON THAT VOTE ON THE MILLAGE. AND THEN THE NEXT ITEM IS THE FEE SCHEDULE. SURE. THEN YOU CAN PICK UP THAT CONVERSATION THEN. YEP. GREAT. THANK YOU CITY MANAGER. THANK YOU. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DIDN'T FORGET THAT. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MILLAGE ITEM THEN SEEING NONE I WOULD ASK FOR. WE HAD A MOTION I BELIEVE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. MOTION 
          [5. Resolution Authorizing FY2026 Service Provision Fees to be effective July 1, 2025]
CARRIES. THAT BRINGS US TO OUR NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING 26 
          [00:20:02]
SERVICE PROVISION FEES. I HAVE A MOTION. SO MOVED DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER KILGORE. YES. 
          ALREADY MADE YOUR POINT. YES, I THINK THAT I THINK WE CAN BOIL THAT DOWN TO A IF ANYONE'S CHANGED THEIR POSITION, PLEASE SAY SO NOW. OTHERWISE, COMMISSIONER KNIGHT. HONESTLY. 
          UNDERSTANDING AND LISTENING TO BOTH SIDES OF THE FRAMEWORK. I DON'T DEAL WITH ODD EVEN, BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS THAT DO, AND LOOKING AT WHAT PEOPLE ARE DOING OR HOW THEY'RE BEING IMPACTED, HOW THEIR FINANCES ARE BEING IMPACTED, I THINK I'M LEANING MORE TOWARDS THE NAY SIDE WITH THE REST OF THE GROUP AND KEEPING THE NUMBER WHERE IT IS CURRENTLY. AS WE CONTINUE TO LOOK AT WHAT OUR ECONOMY LOOKS LIKE AND WHAT PEOPLE'S INCOMES ARE LOOKING LIKE AND HOW IT'S REALLY IMPACTING OUR COMMUNITY. THANK YOU, I WILL I THINK THAT'S A THAT'S A43 FOR LEAVING THINGS AS THEY STAND. I WOULD POINT OUT I AS WE THINK ABOUT THIS, WE USE A HOW MUCH DO SERVICES COST MODEL. AND WE DID IN THIS BUDGET WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE BROAD BROAD INCREASES TO FEES FOR THINGS LIKE HAVING A BLOCK PARTY. AND THOSE ARE GOING UP TO REFLECT THE COST OF ACTUALLY ADMINISTERING THEM. SO WE'RE GOING TO BE PASSING A BUDGET WHERE THE COST OF HAVING A BLOCK PARTY GOES UP. BUT THE COST OF. NOT COMPLYING WITH CITY REGULATIONS DOESN'T GO UP. BUT THAT'S THE WILL OF THE COMMISSION. SO ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON PROVISION FEES? YES, MAYOR, I DON'T RECALL. I HEAR YOU, THESE ARE IMPORTANT THINGS TO WEIGH, BUT I DO NOT RECALL GETTING FEEDBACK FROM CITY STAFF THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE A MORE CHALLENGE TO CONTINUE TO GIVE TICKETS. WHAT I REMEMBER IS THIS WAS SPECIFICALLY AROUND COMPLIANCE. THAT WAS A DISCUSSION THAT I REMEMBER THAT WE WERE SORT OF HOPING TO RAISE THE TICKETS TO HOPE THAT OUR NEIGHBORS WOULD COMPLY MORE WITH ODD AND EVEN PARKING. THAT'S WHAT I RECALL. IT'S BOTH. IT'S BOTH COMPLIANCE AS WELL, AS THE FEE HADN'T BEEN ADJUSTED IN SOME TIME. SO OKAY, IT'S BOTH AND I WILL THANK YOU FOR THAT. CITY MANAGER AND I WILL ALSO SAY OF, YOU KNOW, BLOCK PARTIES ARE IMPORTANT, BUT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS YOU KNOW, THE UNEVEN IS SOMETHING THAT I BELIEVE THAT EVERY RESIDENT COULD POSSIBLY OR A MAJORITY OF RESIDENTS MAY OR MORE RESIDENTS, RATHER THAN FOLKS THROWING A BLOCK PARTY, MAY BE IMPACTED BY. 
          SO THAT'S WHAT WHEN WE'RE THINKING OF TRYING TO SAVE FOLKS MONEY IN THEIR POCKETBOOK, AS WE TALKED ABOUT IN FISCAL COMMITTEE TODAY OF A POSSIBLE RECESSION, MOST FOLKS SAYING RECESSION. 
          THIS IS WHERE MY DECISION SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THIS HAS COME FROM. BUT THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR EVERYONE'S A VERY ROBUST DISCUSSION ON THIS. WERE THERE OTHER COMMISSIONER SASSY? MINE WAS JUST MORE A PROCESS ISSUE. SO NOW THAT THIS WAS WHAT WAS PRESENTED THEN DO WE NEED A FORMAL AMENDMENT OR YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WE'RE TAKING THE BUDGET AS A WHOLE. SO I'LL LOOK TO THE PARLIAMENTARIANS JUST. YEAH. YEAH. SO IF, IF THE THIS IS WHAT'S PRESENTED. SO IF THERE IS A CHANGE TO THAT, WE WOULD NEED TO AMEND THE SCHEDULE IN THAT SPECIFIC LINE. WHAT NUMBER IS THAT ON THE SCHEDULE? SCOTT, CAN YOU TELL US THE LINE ITEM IS WE WOULD GO BACK AND ADJUST IT TO I DON'T RECALL THE SPECIFIC LINE ITEM, BUT WE DO. WE WILL BE ABLE TO ADJUST THAT AND RESUBMIT THAT ITEM. GREAT. SO COMMISSIONER KILGORE, ARE YOU MAKING A MOTION THEN FOR AN AMENDMENT? YES. MOTION TO AMEND THE PARKING FINE. SEASONAL PARKING. ADD EVEN TO THE ORIGINAL $20 FEE, I BELIEVE, AS IT STANDS FOR THE PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR. SUPPORT, SUPPORT. 
          AND I THINK WE MAY AS WELL DO A ROLL CALL VOTE SINCE IT'S GOING TO BE CLOSE. COMMISSIONER KILGORE, I I'M SORRY. YES. SHOULD BE PROBABLY CALLING THIS OUT, NOT ME. MAYOR, CAN I JUST CAN YOU JUST HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARITY? CAN YOU REPEAT THAT AGAIN, PLEASE? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER PURDUE, I'D LIKE TO AMEND FOR THE SCHEDULE. WE DON'T HAVE THE SPECIFIC SCHEDULE NUMBER, BUT TO AMEND FOR THE PARKING FINE, SEASONAL PARKING, ODD AND EVEN TO REMAIN AT THE $20, WHICH WAS THE PAST FISCAL YEARS FINE FOR THIS RATHER THAN THE PRELIMINARY, WHICH WAS $25, OR THE MIDDLE ROAD THAT WAS RECENTLY PROPOSED, WHICH WAS 2250. SO FOR THE PRICE TO REMAIN AT $20 RATHER THAN ANY INCREASE AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. WE GOT OUR SUPPORT. GOT THE SUPPORT. 
          ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER KILGORE. YES, COMMISSIONER. NIGHT. YES, COMMISSIONER ROBIN'S NO. 
          [00:25:04]
COMMISSIONER. SACHS. NO. COMMISSIONER. PURDUE. YES. COMMISSIONER. BELICHICK. YES. 
          MAYOR. LAGRANGE. NO. MOTION CARRIES. ALL RIGHT. SO WE WILL HAVE THAT ADJUSTMENT IN THE AFTERNOON MEETING ON THE FEE SCHEDULE, MAKING THAT ONLY ONE ITEM. THANK YOU SO MUCH, MAYOR. 
          [6. Motion to amend Parking Fine – Seasonal Parking Odd Even Fee Schedule back to $20.00.]
NOW, I BELIEVE WE HAVE A AN INITIAL MOTION ON THE. OH THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S A MOTION TO PASS THE NOW AMENDED RESOLUTION. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION AT THIS POINT? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. THAT BRINGS US TO OUR NEXT RESOLUTION APPROVING NAMING A 
          [7. Resolution approving naming new park space at 680 Cesar E Chavez Avenue, SW, "Navarro Plaza"]
NEW PARK SPACE. AND OUR PARKS DIRECTOR IS HERE. THIS IS WE'VE HAD SIGNIFICANT DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS, BUT NOW WE ARE AT THE POINT OF MAKING A DECISION ON THIS ISSUE. 
          SO IF YOU COULD REFRESH OUR MEMORIES BRIEFLY, DIRECTOR, THAT'D BE GREAT. GOOD MORNING. 
          SORRY. I'M SORRY. BEFORE WE GO, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? SO MOVED. SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. COMMISSIONERS DAVID MARQUART, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION. A LITTLE OVER A YEAR AGO, WE EMBARKED ON A PARK NAMING PROCESS, THE FIRST OF ITS KIND UNDER THE NEW PARK NAMING POLICY. THE TEAM BEHIND ME HERE WORKED VERY HARD AND DILIGENTLY TO MAKE THIS A VERY FAIR, VERY TRANSPARENT AND A VERY ROBUST PROCESS. I BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY THAT IT WAS JUST THAT. AS A REMINDER, THE PROCESS INCLUDED DEVELOPMENT OF A STAKEHOLDER GROUP OF TEN NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS FORMED TO OVERSEE THE PROCESS. CITYWIDE NAME SUBMISSIONS WERE ENCOURAGED, WITH MATERIALS AVAILABLE IN MULTIPLE LANGUAGES. TARGETED OUTREACH WAS FOR THE RENAMING PROCESS WAS SENT TO NEIGHBORS LIVING WITHIN A QUARTER MILE RADIUS OF THE PARK. 
          FROM THAT OUTREACH, 164 NAME SUGGESTIONS WERE RECEIVED, AND THE STAKEHOLDER GROUP OF TEN RESIDENTS UNANIMOUSLY SELECTED SIX FINALISTS THAT WE REVIEWED WITH YOU THE EVENING OF THE PUBLIC HEARING A FEW WEEKS BACK. SO THAT BRINGS US TO TODAY. AND WE HAD FOUR SPEAKERS AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, ONE OF WHOM WAS OPPOSED TO THE NAME THAT WAS BEING PROPOSED, AND THE THREE OTHERS THAT WERE PERHAPS SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN. SO THAT BRINGS US TO TODAY FOR DELIBERATION AND CONSIDERATION OF THIS RECOMMENDED NAME BY THE RESIDENTS AND THE STAKEHOLDER GROUP. THANK YOU. DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER BELICHICK. SO I WOULD LIKE IF YOU WOULD TAKE A MOMENT TO REVIEW HOW MANY CITYWIDE VOTES YOU RECEIVED AND WHAT THE BREAKDOWN WAS BETWEEN ALL OF THE SIX NAMES THAT WERE PUT FORWARD. GIVE ME ONE MINUTE. I'M TURNING TO MY COLLEAGUE FOR SOME SUPPORT ON THIS. I MEAN, I COULD RATTLE THEM OFF IF YOU WANT. BUT I THINK IT'S BETTER IF IT COMES FROM YOU GUYS. VICTORIA. YEAH. BEAR WITH US. ONE SECOND. WHY DON'T WE COME BACK TO THAT? IS THERE ANOTHER QUESTION WHILE THEY LOOK THAT. LOOK IT UP, COMMISSIONER KNIGHT, YOU HAD A QUESTION OR COMMENT? KIND OF A STATEMENT. HAVING TALKED TO A NUMBER OF STAKEHOLDERS IN THIS PROCESS AND HEARING THE CONCERNS NOT ONLY AROUND KIND OF HOW THE PROCESS WENT AND SOME OF THE HICCUPS THAT WERE IN THE MIDST OF THE PROCESS, BUT ALSO REALLY THINKING ABOUT OUR, OUR, OUR COMMUNITY'S HERITAGE AND THE FEELING OF PEOPLE CONSTANTLY BEING LEFT OUT OF CONVERSATIONS, NOT INCLUDED IN CONVERSATIONS, THEIR VOICES NOT REALLY BEING HEARD LIKE A PERFORMATIVE, PERFORMATIVE TYPE OF PROCEDURE THAT HAS HAPPENED, WHERE THEY FEEL LIKE THEY'RE BRINGING THEIR VOICE TO THE TABLE AND THEIR TABLE. THEIR VOICE IS NOT BEING CONSIDERED IN SOME OF THESE DECISIONS. AND I FEEL LIKE AS A COMMUNITY, WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REALLY STEP BACK AND THINK ABOUT HOW WE'RE INCLUDING AND ASKING PEOPLE TO USE THEIR TIME, THEIR VOLUNTEER HOURS, WHERE THEY'RE NOT BEING PAID TO BE A PART OF THE PROCESS AND THE GROWTH OF THIS COMMUNITY, AND BEING ABLE TO REALLY LISTEN TO WHAT THEY'RE SAYING AND TAKE THOSE THINGS INTO, INTO ACCOUNT. AND THAT'S NOT DISCOUNTING ANY OF THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE. BUT IT'S ALSO LOOKING BACK AND SAYING, WHAT? WHERE ARE WE NOT LOOKING THROUGH OTHER LENSES? WHERE ARE WE NOT TAKING IN TO CONSIDERATION THE THOUGHTS AND CONCERNS OF OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS, ESPECIALLY IDENTIFYING AND THINKING ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THIS COMMUNITY AND HOW THINGS HAVE SHIFTED AND CHANGES CHANGED ACROSS NEIGHBORHOODS AND 
          [00:30:05]
COMMUNITIES. SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, BEFORE COMMISSIONER BELICHICK CONTINUES ON, I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO STEP BACK FROM NAMING THIS THIS TODAY AND REALLY GO BACK AND BE ABLE TO ASK MORE QUESTIONS OF THE PEOPLE WHO WERE INVOLVED IN THIS AND REDO THIS. AGAIN, I THINK BEFORE, BECAUSE ONCE YOU PUT A NAME OUT THERE, IT'S REALLY HARD TO RETRACT THAT. IT'S HARD TO TAKE THOSE THINGS BACK. AND SO I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE DOING IT RIGHT, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS A NEW PROCESS AND WE THOUGHT THAT WE HAD IT RIGHT. WE DON'T ALWAYS GET THINGS PERFECT. AND SO THE OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO REALLY TRY TO GET THIS RIGHT AND MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE INCLUSIVE OF ALL PEOPLE AND ALL THE VOICES THAT WERE A PART OF THIS DECISION ARE IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS. SO, COMMISSIONER, THANK YOU TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS. SO I'M MAKING A MOTION TO TABLE THIS TODAY OKAY. AND THAT WE COME BACK AND THAT THE PROCESS IS WORK THROUGH AGAIN. AND THAT WE MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE NECESSARY VOICES ARE AT THE TABLE BEFORE WE MAKE THIS DECISION. IS THAT RIGHT? I WILL SUPPORT THAT. BUT WE CAN FINISH OUR DISCUSSION TOO. SO, SO. SO THE PREVIOUS THE PREVIOUS MOTION WAS TO APPROVE THIS. SO I THINK THERE WAS ALREADY A MOTION THAT WAS ON THE TABLE. THEN YOU MADE THIS SECOND MOTION TABLE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND. SO IF WE DO THIS THE RECOMMENDATION NOW AND TABLING WOULD BE TO CONTINUE WITH THE NAME NAVARRO. 
          GO DO WHATEVER WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT WHATEVER ENGAGEMENT THAT MEANS. BUT WE'RE COMING BACK TO THE SAME RECOMMENDATION WHICH IS TABLING IT NOW. SO IF YOU DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER JUST TO NOT APPROVE THE NAME. AND THEN WE GO BACK AND WE START ALL OVER WITH THE NEW PROCESS. AND OUT OF THAT PROCESS WE'LL BRING FORWARD WHAT COMES FROM THAT PROCESS, BECAUSE TABLING IT IS JUST BRINGING NAVARRO BACK FOR IT. SO WE DON'T WANT TO. SO, COMMISSIONER KNIGHT, YOU'RE WITHDRAWING YOUR MOTION. YES, I'LL WITHDRAW THAT MOTION, BUT I WANT TO NOT APPROVE THE NAME. UNDERSTOOD. SO WE'RE IN DISCUSSION NOW. THE ORIGINAL MOTION. OKAY. OKAY, OKAY. OTHERS WANT TO BE HEARD ON THE DISCUSSION PART. I WOULD LIKE PERSON THE PERSON TO SECONDED WITHDRAWALS. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO WITHDRAW. I, I'M HAPPY TO LET COMMISSIONER STACY GO. I DO HAVE SOME MORE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO WHEN I COME BACK TO ME. 
          OKAY. COMMISSIONER STACY. SURE. I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU ALL WERE PREPARED, BUT I CAN GO AHEAD AND SHARE MY THOUGHTS. YOU KNOW, I THINK AFTER THE LAST MEETING AND THIS IS MAYBE WHERE THERE IS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME UNCERTAINTY, RIGHT? AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS AROUND THE TABLE. AND THANK YOU ALL FOR KEEPING US ON THE PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS, BECAUSE MOST OF THE TIME WE ARE VOTING AFFIRMATIVELY AND WE APPROVE IT AFFIRMATIVELY, THAT THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS. SO I TOO HEARD SOME CONCERNS, AND I THINK I SHARED THAT AT THE COMMISSION MEETING. AND SO I FEEL LIKE THOSE RESPONSES WEREN'T ANSWERED. SO THAT'S WHY I WOULD ALSO BE VOTING NO AT THIS TIME. I THINK THIS IS I DON'T WANT THIS TO BE SUCH A BINARY DECISION, BECAUSE I DO APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT WAS DONE. I ALSO THINK THIS BEING THE FIRST TIME WE'VE DONE THAT, AND WE'RE DOING IT WITH A NEW COMMISSION BODY, IS TAKING THAT, TAKING THAT STEP BACK TO SAY, WHAT ARE THE THINGS THAT OCCURRED? I THINK THERE IS SUCH A HISTORY IN THIS COMMUNITY. 
          OBVIOUSLY, THERE WAS A STREET RENAMING THAT HAPPENED OVER HERE AND PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE I DON'T WANT TO TAKE AWAY. HONESTLY, I GOT A REALLY CRAPPY MESSAGE AFTER THIS FROM SOMEBODY WHO SENT ME SOME REALLY CRAPPY THINGS. AND SOME OF, YOU KNOW, THAT EMAIL AND, AND IT WASN'T NICE. AND WHAT I THINK IT DID WAS TRYING TO PIT THE BLACK AND THE BROWN COMMUNITY AGAINST EACH OTHER. AND THAT'S WHAT I DON'T WANT TO OCCUR. I THINK THERE'S A HISTORY OF THE BLACK COMMUNITY IN THIS REGION. THERE'S A HISTORY OF THE LATINO COMMUNITY IN THIS REGION, AND THERE'S GOING TO PROBABLY BE A HISTORY OF OTHER COMMUNITIES MOVING IN THIS REGION. AND SO I THINK WHAT, YOU KNOW, AFTER TALKING TO MY COLLEAGUE, COMMISSIONER KNIGHT, IN THE PAST IS JUST THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS THAT ARE ANSWERED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE WAS A QUESTION LIKE, WAS A MEETING CANCELED? YOU KNOW, DID WERE WERE PEOPLE'S VOICES MISSED. AND SO I FEEL LIKE I HAVEN'T THAT HASN'T BEEN ANSWERED. AND SO I ALWAYS WANT TO EXPLAIN WHY I WOULD VOTE NO ON SOMETHING. I THINK WHEN YOU VOTE NO, YOU SHOULD ALSO OFFER AN ALTERNATIVE. AND TO ME THE ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE HOW DO WE COME BACK AND SAY WE'VE GOT SOME DIFFERENT PEOPLE AROUND THE TABLE TOO? SO LET'S NOT DENY THAT. AND TO SAY THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME AND SOMETIMES WE DO THINGS, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE'VE LEARNED. I'M LOOKING AT YOU, MR. MATTHEWS, ON THE PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING. RIGHT. WE DID THAT ONE TIME AND WE HAD A WHOLE PLAN AND THERE WERE THINGS THAT WE NEEDED TO ADJUST. AND SO SOMETIMES THERE ARE THINGS WHERE THERE IS VERY MUCH A DEFINITE 
          [00:35:02]
LIKE, RIGHT, THE COST OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT IT IS GOING TO BE FOR AN INFRACTION OF ODD EVEN. WHAT WHAT DO YOU WANT IT TO BE? WHAT DO YOU NOT WANT IT TO BE? I THINK FOR THE ABILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS, YOU KNOW, COHESIVENESS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT'S WHAT I WOULD SUPPORT. I ALSO WANT TO THANK THE VERY HARD WORK THAT WAS DONE FOR THE PEOPLE THAT VOTED. AND YEAH, I JUST, I, I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE BEST THING AT THIS TIME. SO THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER. YEAH. IF I COULD JUST CLARIFY IN THE CANCELLATION OF THE MEETING, I KNOW THAT WAS A POINT OF CONTENTION, AND I DID PROVIDE CLARIFICATION THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE WITH REGARDS TO THAT, THAT CONCERN AND THAT QUESTION. I DO HOPE THAT REACHED ALL OF YOU. THAT CLARIFICATION CLARIFICATION DID INDEED NOTE THAT THERE WAS THE LAST MEETING, THE COMMITTEE MEETING THAT WAS CANCELED OR DELAYED BECAUSE THE PUBLIC VOTE WAS KEPT OPEN LONGER THAN ANTICIPATED. AT THE CLOSE OF THAT PUBLIC NAMING SUBMISSION PROCESS, THE GROUP, THE COMMITTEE WAS ASKED AGAIN IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO RESCHEDULE THAT MEETING, TO WHICH THERE WAS NO RESPONSE BACK TO OUR DEPARTMENT AT THAT POINT. WE THEN PROCEEDED WITH NOTIFYING THE COMMITTEE OF THE NEXT STEPS, WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE ANY QUESTIONS. THE DEPARTMENT RECEIVED NO QUESTIONS. SO I FEEL LIKE WE DID COMMUNICATE CLEARLY AS TO WHAT WAS DESIRED AND WHAT NEXT STEPS WOULD BE, AND WE NEVER RECEIVED ANY RESPONSE. IF I COULD RESPOND TO DAVID, THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK, I THINK WE'RE. SOMETIMES WE'RE DEALING IN WHAT IS, YOU KNOW, WHAT OCCURRED AND THEN ALSO WHAT IS THE FEELING. AND I THINK OUR JOB AS A COMMISSION SOMETIMES IS MAYBE NOT SO MUCH. I MEAN, YES, IT IS ON WHAT OCCURRED, BUT WHAT IS THE FEELING. AND SO I THINK WHAT I WOULD HATE IS SOMETHING THAT ISN'T IS ABSOLUTELY, YOU KNOW, A WONDERFUL THING AND A POSITIVE THING TO HAVE CONNOTATIONS THAT MAYBE WHETHER IT WAS REALITY OR PERCEPTION. 
          RIGHT. AND SO OTHERS WHO WERE WHO, WHO BROUGHT THOSE FORTH ARE NOT HERE. SO I WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT TOO. THERE'S AND SO THAT PERCEPTION IS THERE. AND SO I THINK NOW WE'RE AT THAT POINT WHERE WE, WE HAVE TO KIND OF DEAL WITH THE PERCEPTION. AND SOMETIMES THAT CAN HAVE DEEPER WOUNDS. AND SO I KNOW IN THIS COMMUNITY THERE HAVE BEEN THINGS IN THE PAST LIKE WE JUST AND THIS IS NOT PUTTING THIS ON YOU, MR. MARQUARDT, BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK ABOUT AUBURN HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD IN THIS IN THE CITY IN THE SECOND WARD. AND WHY THAT NEIGHBORHOOD GOT STARTED IS BECAUSE AND THEN, YOU KNOW, KIND OF WHAT HAPPENED IS LIKE ORIGINALLY THERE WAS A PRICE PUT OUT AND THEN THE PRICE WASN'T LIKE ACCEPTED. AND THERE WAS A WHOLE HISTORY OF THAT. AND SO IN THAT CASE, THAT WAS TRUE. BUT I THINK THAT THERE ARE THESE LIKE PERCEPTIONS SOMETIMES OR FEELINGS. AND SO I THINK OUR JOB AS THE COMMISSION IS TO HOW DO WE KIND OF HEAL SOME OF THOSE WOUNDS? HOW DO WE RECOGNIZE THEM? HOW DO WE SAY LIKE, HEY, WE FELT LIKE WE DID THIS AND YOU DIDN'T DO THIS, AND YOU FELT LIKE WE DID THIS AND WE DIDN'T DO IT. AND SO I THINK WE'RE KIND OF MORE AT THAT POINT. AND SO THANK YOU FOR SAYING THAT BECAUSE I ALWAYS, YOU KNOW, WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE IN THE CITY ARE OBVIOUSLY THE WORK IS HIGHLIGHTED. SO ANYWAYS, I'M RAMBLING ON, BUT I STAND BY MY VOTE. I DO WANT TO JUST JUMP IN BRIEFLY HERE AS WE MOVE FORWARD, BUT I DO QUESTION LIKE I UNDERSTAND THAT NO RESPONSE, NO QUESTIONS SEEMS TO BE THE MEASURE. BUT YOU KNOW, MAYBE THEY WEREN'T BY EMAIL, MAYBE THEY WERE BY A VOICEMAIL. MAYBE THEY WERE BY, YOU KNOW, BEING IN A MEETING IN A SHOP SOMEWHERE. AND THERE WAS THOSE KINDS OF THINGS COUNT AS SAYING I WANTED MORE. AND SO THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF COMMENTS THAT I AM HEARING FROM THE COMMUNITY IN THIS, IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. AND ONE OF THE SO THE PROCESS OF THIS AND I THINK MY COLLEAGUES HAVE HIT THIS ON THE NOSE IN THE DISCUSSION HERE, THAT THIS IS OUR NEWEST PARK TO BE NAMED SINCE 2011. AND THE REALITY IS THERE WERE 209 VOTES CITYWIDE. 
          I'M IS MY IF YOU GUYS HAVE THAT NUMBER. BUT I'M SURE THAT THAT WAS RIGHT. AND THAT'S A THAT'S A OKAY SURVEY FOR SIX NAMES BEING BEING PICKED FROM. BUT THE DISTRIBUTION OF THAT DATA WAS VERY RELATIVELY EVEN. AND THERE WERE TWO THAT WERE THE TOP WITH ONLY A THREE VOTE DIFFERENCE. 
          AND IN MY OPINION, AS A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS, IT'S VERY HARD TO SAY YOU HAD A CLEAR FRONTRUNNER. YES. YOU HAD A NUMBER THAT WAS BIGGER THAN ONE OTHER NUMBER. BUT IT TO ME, IT JUST AS A COMMON SENSE KIND OF APPROACH TO THE DATA WOULD HAVE BEEN TO SAY WE HAVE ESSENTIALLY A STATISTICAL TIE. THERE'S BEEN 209, NOT A HUGE SAMPLE FOR THE WHOLE CITYWIDE, YOU KNOW, A 54 TO 51 VOTE IS VERY CLOSE. IT'S LIKE HALF OF YOUR POPULATION THERE FOR THE STATS, A SECOND 
          [00:40:01]
ROUND OF VOTING TO WHITTLE IT DOWN FROM, YOU'VE GONE FROM 6 TO 2. TO GO FROM 2 TO 1 WOULD HAVE BEEN BENEFICIAL AND COULD STILL BE BENEFICIAL BECAUSE IN THE END, THE PEOPLE LIVING ACROSS THE STREET OR DOWN THE ROAD FROM THIS PARK ARE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT NAME EVERY SINGLE DAY AND TO COMMISSIONER POINT, WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE THIS GENERATING A NEGATIVE CONNOTATION. EVERY TIME A NEGATIVE ENERGY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, EVERY TIME THIS GOES THROUGH. AND FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN TRYING TO RAISE THE QUESTION, TRYING TO GET RESPONSE FROM THE DEPARTMENT, IT CAN FEEL LIKE IT'S DISJOINTED SOMETIMES AND THAT THERE ISN'T, YOU KNOW, MAYBE A CLEAR LINE OF COMMUNICATION FROM THE BOTTOM FRONT LINE TO THE TOP. AND THAT'S NOT SAYING THAT YOUR STAFF AREN'T DOING GREAT WORK, OR THAT THE COMMUNITY DIDN'T WEIGH IN AND HAVE GREAT IDEAS. CLEARLY 164 NAMES WERE GENERATED. SO THERE WAS COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AROUND THIS. BUT I WOULD ALSO NOT AGREE WITH YOUR ANALYSIS ON THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT THERE WERE FOUR PEOPLE WHO TALKED, BUT ONLY ONE OPPOSED. I HEARD MORE OPPOSITION ON ALL OF THOSE, AND THERE WERE PEOPLE IN THE DOWNSTAIRS WHO WERE NOT ALLOWED UP THAT NIGHT BECAUSE OF THE LONG AND FULL ROOM THAT ENDED UP LEAVING. AND I WAS TOLD LATER THERE WERE 3 OR 4 PEOPLE THAT WOULD HAVE TALKED THAT ALSO DID NOT WANT THIS. AND WE HAVE BEEN RECEIVING THINGS AS A COMMISSION TOO. SO WE WERE I PERSONALLY, AFTER OUR LAST CONVERSATION, WAS HOPING THAT THE DEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE TAKEN SOME MORE DIRECTION AND REVIEWED THAT. BUT SINCE THIS IS THE PROCESS GOING FORWARD, I PERSONALLY AM NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS NAME AT THIS TIME. I THINK THAT THE PROCESS NEEDS TO BE REEVALUATED. THE SECOND NAME OF UNITY PARK OR SOME COMBINATION OF THE TWO. IF WE DID ANOTHER ROUND OF ENGAGEMENT WITH NEARBY NEIGHBORS AS A THIRD OPTION, WOULD YOU BE OKAY WITH WOULD BE OKAY TOO? BUT THAT'S I DON'T THINK I CAN APPROVE THIS NAME AT THIS TIME. COMMISSIONER ROBBINS. YEAH, THANKS, MAYOR. I ECHO A LOT OF WHAT'S BEEN SAID SO FAR. YOU KNOW, I'M ALWAYS CAREFUL ABOUT WANTING TO SET A PRECEDENT WHEN WE DO SOMETHING. I THINK AS BEEN AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED, THERE'S BEEN PROBABLY SOME OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW WHAT THE ENGAGEMENT PROCESS LOOKS LIKE WHEN WE HAVE A SITUATION LIKE THIS. AGAIN, IT'S BEEN, WHAT, A DECADE AND A HALF SINCE WE'VE HAD HAD THE SAME SITUATION COME BEFORE US PREVIOUSLY. SO I THINK FROM THE PUBLIC COMMENT, THE EMAILS I'VE RECEIVED, IT'S NOT THAT THERE'S NECESSARILY FRUSTRATION WITH THE TWO NAMES THAT IT'S COME DOWN TO, BUT RATHER JUST THAT THEY WERE SO CLOSE AND WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH ONE OVER THE OTHER, WITH ONLY A DIFFERENCE OF A COUPLE VOTES. AS MY COLLEAGUE HAS SAID. SO TO ME, IT MAKES SENSE TO MAYBE JUST BRING IT BACK TO A VOTE BETWEEN THOSE FINAL TWO. IF THERE'S IF IT'S THAT CLOSE. I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, IS THE BEST USE OF THE STAFF RESOURCES. I HAVEN'T REALLY HEARD ANY ANY FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY SAYING, WE WANT TO SCRAP IT AND START WITH ALL NEW NAMES. I THINK THERE'S SOME GOOD CONTENDERS THAT PEOPLE ARE HAPPY WITH. IT'S JUST A MATTER OF HOW THE FINAL IS PICKED. SO WHATEVER WAY TO MOVE FORWARD IN THAT MANNER, WHETHER IT'S AN AMENDMENT TO THIS TO OR A POSTPONEMENT TO ALLOW FOR, FOR THE STAFF TO JUST OPEN IT UP TO A FINAL VOTE BETWEEN THOSE, THOSE LAST TWO TO GIVE BETTER CLARITY ON WHAT WHAT THE WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS THE PARK TO BE NAMED. THAT SEEMS LIKE THE WISEST APPROACH, IN MY OPINION, BUT OPEN TO OPEN TO OTHER THOUGHTS TOO. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS INPUT. SO I'LL WEIGH IN HERE A LITTLE BIT. AND I DON'T MEAN TO I DON'T WANT TO LEAN TOO HEAVILY ON THIS, BUT. 
          WE HAVE AS A COMMISSION A LIMITED AMOUNT OF RESOURCES. THE CITY HAS A LIMITED AMOUNT OF RESOURCES. AND SO I THINK ANYTIME WE'RE MAKING A DECISION, WE CAN ALWAYS SAY, OH, WE SHOULD HAVE TAKEN MORE TIME TO MAKE THE DECISION. WE SHOULD HAVE GOT MORE COMMUNITY INPUT. I MEAN, THAT'S CAN SORT OF BE AN INFINITE IF YOU DEFINE THERE WASN'T ENOUGH INPUT, YOU CAN ALWAYS CLAIM THERE WASN'T ENOUGH INPUT AT ANY TIME THAT THERE'S A CLOSE ELECTION, THERE'S GOING TO BE AN IMPULSE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T PREVAIL IN THAT ELECTION TO FEEL LIKE, BOY, IF THINGS HAD ONLY BEEN A LITTLE DIFFERENT AND TO WANT TO DO OVER. I THINK WE HAVE SEEN THAT EVERY PRESIDENTIAL CYCLE, EVERYONE WISHES THAT THINGS HAD GONE A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY. IF THEY'RE ON THE LOSING SIDE OF A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, FOR EXAMPLE, I THINK THAT I AM HESITANT TO APPLY 2020 HINDSIGHT TO SOMETHING TO WHERE PEOPLE ENGAGED IN GOOD FAITH IN A DECISION, AND THEN YOU HAVE A RESULT. AND SO THAT'S SORT OF SAYING, WELL, WE WERE JUST KIDDING. WE HAD THIS PROCESS AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO USE IT NOW. WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T PREVAIL AREN'T HAPPY WITH THE RESULT. THAT'S A DANGEROUS THING TO SAY. 
          AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE'S AN IMPULSE ALSO FOR 2020 HINDSIGHT TO SAY, WELL, WE COULD HAVE DESIGNED THE SYSTEM BETTER. MY FIRST REACTION IN THOSE SITUATIONS IS ALWAYS SAY, GREAT, WELL, LET'S DESIGN IT BETTER FOR NEXT TIME. BUT A LITTLE BIT LIKE IF YOU'RE PLAYING A GAME OF BASKETBALL AND THEN YOU CHANGE THE RULES AFTER YOU PLAYED TO SAY YOU WON RATHER 
          [00:45:01]
THAN YOU LOST, OR I MEAN, YOU CAN CHANGE THE THREE POINT LINE FOR A BASKETBALL GAME, BUT YOU PROBABLY SHOULD CHANGE IT BEFORE YOU PLAY THE GAME, NOT AFTER YOU PLAY THE GAME. THE I ALSO CERTAINLY I MEAN, THE WORD PERFORMATIVE WAS BROUGHT UP BRIEFLY AND I, I TEND TO THINK OF THAT AS A NEGATIVE WORD. AND SO I DON'T I THINK THAT THERE WAS I, I DON'T WANT TO SUGGEST THAT I THINK THAT THE, THE PARK STAFF DID A GOOD JOB OF TRYING TO ENGAGE HERE. NOW, I DON'T WANT TO HOLD THEM TO A STANDARD OF PERFECTION. I DON'T WANT TO HOLD MYSELF TO A STANDARD OF PERFECTION. SO WHEN YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, WHEN A LAWYER LOOKS AT THINGS, THEY, YOU KNOW, IF YOU SCREW UP AND YOU GET THE WRONG NUMBER OF PEOPLE ON A JURY. YEAH, YOU DID SOMETHING WRONG ENOUGH TO HAVE TO RETRY THE CASE. IF YOU DO MINOR THINGS WRONG, THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY INVALIDATE THE RESULT. I MEAN, NO PROCESS IS PERFECT. SO THAT BEING SAID. ODDLY ENOUGH, USUALLY I THINK THERE'S A AN INCLINATION AMONG ALL OF US TO VOTE COLLABORATIVELY WHEN THERE'S A SENTIMENT ON AN ISSUE. AND USUALLY THAT'S ON A YES. BUT I'M HEARING AT LEAST FOR NO VOTES HERE. SO HAVING EXPRESSED ALL THAT, AND I HOPE I WAS HEARD BY STAFF, I AM GOING TO VOTE NO HERE TOO, BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS A THIS IS A TOUGH CALL DECISION, AND I WILL DEFER TO THE SENTIMENT OF MY COLLEAGUES, EVEN THOUGH I MIGHT HAVE BEEN INSTINCTIVELY A YES ON THIS BECAUSE I WANT TO SUPPORT THE WORK OF STAFF, I ALSO WANT TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF MY COLLEAGUES ON THE DAIS. AND SO THANK YOU. AND I THINK THAT THE I THINK THAT I HOPE YOU HEARD THAT A COUPLE OF THINGS. ONE MIGHT BE A SUDDEN DEATH ELIMINATION PROCESS WHERE YOU SCRAPE ALL THE OTHER NAMES IF YOU GET DOWN TO A FINAL TWO AND JUST VOTE BETWEEN THOSE FINAL TWO, IF THAT'S LOGISTICALLY NOT A WHOLE LOT OF WORK MIGHT BE A GOOD MODEL FOR THE FUTURE. SORT OF LIKE CHOICE VOTING. BUT THE OTHER SUGGESTION I HEARD WAS TO SEND IT BACK WITH DOING EXACTLY THAT. AND I DON'T THINK THAT IN THIS INSTANCE, WE'RE ASKING YOU TO DO ANOTHER TWO YEARS OF RE-ENGAGEMENT HERE. 
          WE'RE ASKING YOU TO JUST GET CLARITY WITH A SINGLE UP DOWN VOTE ON THOSE ON THAT BINARY OPTION. AND I HOPE WE DON'T WIND UP WITH A COMPLETE STALEMATE, BECAUSE IF WE WIND UP WITH AN EQUAL NUMBER OF VOTES, THEN WE'LL HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO WITH THAT PROBLEM. I GUESS WE'D HAVE TO VOTE TO SPLIT THE TIE, BUT IN ANY CASE, I THINK I'LL I'LL JOIN MY COLLEAGUES ON THAT. SO THANK YOU, DIRECTOR. SO IF I CAN HAVE A VOTE ON THE MOTION. LET'S SEE. WE HAD A MOTION ON THIS ALREADY. JUST WHO IS THE WHO IS THE MOVER? I'M SORRY. ASSASSIN. OKAY. DO YOU WANT TO. SORRY. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH OF A PURIST YOU ARE ON THIS. IF YOU'RE GOING TO VOTE NO ON THIS, DO YOU WANT TO MOVE FOR SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO VOTE NO ON? YOU'RE YOU'RE YOU'RE ALREADY IT'S ALREADY UP FOR VOTE. SO EVERYBODY JUST VOTED UP OR DOWN LAWS OF THE MEDES AND PERSIANS. YOU CAN'T WITHDRAW YOUR MOTION. SO I ASK FOR A VOTE THEN ON THIS. UNLESS THERE'S FURTHER DISCUSSION. I JUST WANT A POINT OF CLARITY. JUST SO PEOPLE UNDERSTAND MY COMMENTS. I NEVER TO DEMEAN ANYONE OR TO BELITTLE THE WORK THAT IS DONE. BECAUSE Y'ALL WORK A 9 TO 5 AND YOU WORK REALLY HARD AND YOU DO GREAT WORK. SO IT'S NOT THAT. IT'S JUST WE HAVE TO ALSO LISTEN TO TAKE IN ALL THE INFORMATION, NOT ONLY FROM WHAT YOU GUYS BRING TO US, BUT ALSO WHAT WE'RE HEARING IN THE COMMUNITY. THAT'S OUR ROLE. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S CLEAR TO Y'ALL. MAYOR, IF I COULD IN RESPONSE. THANK YOU FOR THAT. I THINK WE HAVE TO SET THE TONE FOR CIVILITY AMONG COMMUNITY CONVERSATION, AMONG THE DAIS AND AMONG THE STAFF, SO THAT I APPRECIATE THE CLARITY AND IN SUPPORT OF NOT THE OUTCOME, BUT THE PROCESS. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE MAYOR WAS TRYING TO DO. THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT FROM THE BEGINNING WAS CLEARLY DEFINED WITH THE PARKS ADVISORY BOARD AND THE COMMUNITY, AND I THINK THE STAFF DID A OUTSTANDING JOB OF MAINTAINING INTEGRITY WITH THE PROCESS. AND THAT PROCESS CALLED FOR COMMUNITY VOTE. IT CALLED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, AND THEN IT CALLED FOR YOUR FINAL DELIBERATION. TODAY, WE WERE ASKED BY SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, SEVERAL MEMBERS, SEVERAL OF YOU, TO CHANGE THE PROCESS IN THE MIDST OF THE PROCESS. AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I'M UNCOMFORTABLE DOING BECAUSE I THINK YOU SAID IT EARLIER. WE'RE DEALING WITH AN ELECTED GOVERNING PUBLIC BODY. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT VOTING. VOTING INTEGRITY IS VERY IMPORTANT. AND SO THE FACT THAT WE WERE TRYING TO HONOR WHAT CAME THROUGH THE PROCESS, I THINK, SPEAKS TO US NOT USING OUR INDIVIDUAL DISCRETION. AFTER THE VOTE. I WOULD LIKE CLARITY BECAUSE I HEARD SOME SAY ONLY BRING BACK THE TOP TWO, AND I HEARD OTHERS SAY OFFER A THIRD 
          [00:50:02]
OPTION OF A COMBINED NAME. SO I DON'T WANT TO REDO THIS AGAIN. I THINK THIS HAS TAKEN A LOT OF STAFF EFFORT, SO IT WOULD BE AFTER YOUR VOTE TO BE CLEAR ON IF YOU'RE ASKING OUR PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT OF WHAT TO BRING BACK OR IS THIS WHAT YOU ARE ONLY INTERESTED IN HEARING FROM THE COMMUNITY? BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, THERE'S A NAME, THERE'S A DECEASED PERSON'S NAME ON THIS RESOLUTION. I WANT TO HONOR THE FAMILY AND THAT PERSON AS WELL. 
          AND THIS IS THIS IS NOT ABOUT ANYTHING REFLECTIVE OF THAT INDIVIDUAL. IT'S JUST ABOUT US NOW REDEFINING THIS PROCESS. THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK. IF YOU COULD CALL. ROLL CALL. VOTE. 
          COMMISSIONER KNIGHT. YES, COMMISSIONER. SASSY. WAIT. WHAT ARE WE? WE'RE VOTING ON SUPPORT. 
          THIS IS. PARDON ME, MR. MR. MAYOR, CLARIFY. SO IF YOU WOULD SAY THAT IF I RESOLUTION APPROVING THE NAMING OF A NEW PARK SPACE AT 680. OKAY. COMMISSIONER SASSY. NO. 
          COMMISSIONER ROBBINS, NO COMMISSIONER BELCHER, NO COMMISSIONER PERDUE, NO. 
          COMMISSIONER. KILGORE. NO. MAYOR. LEGRAND. NO. NOW, IF I COULD HAVE A BRIEF GO DOWN THE ROW AND JUST BRIEFLY. SO I THINK THE QUESTION IS EITHER DO WE WANT TO DIRECT STAFF TO GO BACK AND HAVE AN UP DOWN VOTE ON THOSE TWO NAMES OR PROPOSE A THIRD? AND I THINK IT WOULD BE A UNITY HYPHEN, NAVARRO PARK AS AN OPTION. SO WOULD YOU IN FAVOR OF SENDING BACK VOTE FOR TWO OR VOTE FOR THREE? COMMISSIONER KILGORE I'M IN FAVOR OF ALL THREE. I THINK THAT'S THAT'S FAIR. OKAY, COMMISSIONER KNIGHT, THAT'S FINE. ROBINS, SUPPORT. SOUNDS LIKE YOU GOT THREE. SO, COMMISSIONER PERDUE. YEAH, I THINK REALLY WHERE THE CHALLENGE CAME WAS THAT MEETING THAT WAS CANCELED AND THE CONVERSATION THAT WAS MISSED THERE, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE THERE WERE SOME NAMES THAT WERE SO CLOSE. SO I THINK WE SEND IT BACK TO THAT STAGE. I DON'T THINK IT'S OUR, OUR ROLE TO TELL THEM WHAT NAME TO CONSIDER OR WHAT PROCESS TO EXECUTE, FOLLOW THE PROCESS, WHAT WHAT PROCESS EXECUTE. FROM THIS POINT FORWARD, I THINK IT'S PICKING BACK UP AT THAT LAST MEETING THAT WAS MISSED AND LET THE ADVISORY BODY MAKE THE DECISIONS ON HOW THEY WANT TO APPROACH. IF THEY WANT TO JUST DO THE TWO, IF THEY WANT TO DO THE THREE, I THINK THAT'S UP TO THEM TO COME BACK. BUT I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS HAVING THAT LAST OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO DISCUSS AND DECIDE TOGETHER. THAT'S WHAT THE FEEDBACK WAS. I FELT THAT IT WAS MISSED. OKAY, COMMISSIONER BELCHER, I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THE THREE, BUT I DID WANT TO TRY TO INTERJECT AND MISS THE OPPORTUNITY. SO I'M GLAD COMMISSIONER PERDUE DID MENTION THAT TOO, BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT THAT IS WHERE THE PROCESS WENT OFF THE RAILS IN THAT REVIEWING THAT PARTICULAR RESULT OF THE NEARLY TIE, THAT STAKEHOLDER GROUP REALLY NEEDED TO BE ENGAGED AND MAKING THAT DECISION. DO WE DO MORE ENGAGEMENT? DO WE NOT? THAT'S REALLY HOW THE PROCESS WOULD HAVE BEEN. AND WE MAY NEED TO LOOK AT THE POLICY. I THOUGHT YOU HAD SENT IT TO ME, BUT I COULDN'T FIND IT AGAIN. ON WHAT THE POLICY ACTUALLY HAD REQUIRED THE STAFF TO DO. SO THAT'S JUST ANOTHER POINT TO LOOK FORWARD TO. THANKS. AND I'LL ADD MY VOTE TO THE SEND BACK. THE SEND BACK THREE FOR COMMUNITY CONSIDERATION. SO I THINK YOU'VE GOT DIRECTION THERE. THANK YOU. THAT BRINGS US TO OUR BRIEFING ON THE CURRENT YEAR'S OR THE 
          [ FY2026 Proposed Budget]
UPCOMING YEAR'S BUDGET. AND CITY MANAGER, I THINK I HAVE A CONCLUDED MY REMARKS EARLIER, SO 
          [8. Motion to go into closed session.]
I HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO ADD. GREAT. THAT THEN BRINGS US TO WRAPPING THIS UP BEFORE 11:00. 
          BUT BEFORE WE DO THAT, I THINK WE HAVE I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION THAT WE GO INTO CLOSED SESSION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PENDING LITIGATION. SO MOVED. SUPPORT. MADAM CLERK, IF YOU CALL THE ROLL. COMMISSIONER. YES, COMMISSIONER. KILGORE. YES, COMMISSIONER. PURDUE. YES, COMMISSIONER. NIGHT. YES, COMMISSIONER. ROBINS. YES, COMMISSIONER. YES. MAYOR. 
          LEGRAND. YES. MOTION PASSES. A REMINDER TO EVERYONE. PUBLIC SAFETY WILL BE HAPPENING AT 1230. AND THAT
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.