Springfield City Council — May 23, 2022

0:09 Have we heard from Damien? All right, I'll try to text him. I'm going to call the City Council work session to order with roll call. Mayor Van Gordon. Here. Councilor Pitts. Councilor Moe. Here. Councilor Rodley. Here. Councilor Stehr. Here. Councilor Woodrow. Here. Councilor Pishioneri. Yes, I'm here. Thank you. All right, we have uh two items tonight. The first item is the police levy discussion, and I believe Sam, you've got the staff report. Hi everyone, good evening. Uh I'm just going to make quick 30-second announcement here, then pass it over to our special guest, Tony and Michelle, to present everything. This is the first of several meetings on our police levy. Uh about a month ago, we conducted a survey of the community on their thoughts on

0:54 the police levy and the police department, Friday's Springfield issues. Uh we wanted a chance tonight to present those results to you. In a couple weeks, we'll come back, myself will come back with some support about the actual levy title, the ballot measure, and that whole thing. Uh but tonight, we'll focus more on the survey, the analysis, the results, um but try to keep all questions about levy amounts and that until a couple weeks from now. Uh I think with that, unless there are any immediate questions, Tony, you're up. Okay. Thank you, Sam. Give me a a second to get everything queued up here.

1:46 And Tony, before you get started, do you want the questions as we go, or do you want to get through the whole thing and then get into the questions? Yeah, that's a good question. I figured that our presentation is about 20 minutes. We have about 30 minutes for this agenda item. That leaves about 10 minutes for discussion. But we can but if there are burning so there are we have time to discuss at the end but if there are burning questions, please do speak up or put the question in the chat and either Michelle or I will be able to respond. All right. Great. Well, let's get going. Okay. Well, thank you counselors for giving DHM

2:33 research the opportunity to present our findings on this important research. My name is Tony Yacarina with DHM research and I'm happily here with Michelle Neese who is the president of DHM and she'll be providing some support along the way. The purpose of this opinion voter research is really to gauge support for a potential police levy renewal, measure satisfaction with public safety services and really an array of services, identify what voters think are the strongest reasons to support the levy as well as the strongest reasons to oppose

3:18 the levy and also to identify the most trusted messengers when it comes to the levy. A little bit about our methodology. We employed a hybrid approach which means that half of the 300 respondents were received were in contact with a live interviewer who reached them either by landline or cell and the other half of respondents received a text message on their smartphones inviting them to participate in an online survey. We employ this hybrid approach really because nowadays

4:07 different takes different ways to reach different kinds of people and and this is the way that we thought um we could reach genuinely diverse and representative audience. The survey was conducted in mid to late April. It took about 12 minutes to complete. And we set quotas and weighted the data by age, gender, race, educational level, party affiliation, and ward uh to ensure that we had a representative sample of what the likely November 22 electorate will look like. Margin of error plus or minus 5.7.

4:53 And occasionally you'll see in the charts ahead of you they don't always add up to 100%. Sometimes they might be off by 1%. But that's simply due to rounding of the sum of separate sub responses. Okay. So, the first thing we like to do in surveys like this is to get a sense of the general mood of the electorate and to get a sense of you know, what's on their minds. And we start uh the survey and we started the survey as we start many of our surveys with a version of a question that Gallup developed decades ago. And um we've been asking across Oregon communities for

5:39 decades ourselves. And that is open-ended or no, not open-ended, but all things considered would uh would you say the city of Springfield is headed in the right direction? Are things off on the wrong track? And as you can see, about half of Springfield voters say the city is headed in the right direction. Um normally we might want to see well, historically we might want to see better positivity among Springfield voters. In Ron, hang on a second. Bish, do you have a burning question here? Just going back on the on the opening statement regards to the margin of error and a question of of the

6:25 who the respondents were. Yeah. So, the it seemed like that 5.7 is is a little bit wider, broader than most surveys that I've seen in the past. And or at least maybe I'm remembering those wrong. Is that Is that abnormally a little touch high? Uh we could have gotten down about uh 1% plus or minus 1%. Um if we had reached out to 400 voters. Okay. But um there is a feasibility issue about whether or not we could have actually reached 400 voters. That's that's based on the number then. That lowers the That lowers that

7:11 probability. Okay, that makes sense. And so the other question is that you I noticed that you say Springfield voters, but yet in part of that survey it shows that there is a certain number of people that were that were contacted that did not show a voting track in um right, zero to four uh cycles or there's some that had not respond not voted in some cycles. Is that correct? We um we modeled our sample in a way that we try to get a representative group of what the likely November general election turnout will be. So, did you base that on on activity and

7:58 in the last four cycles of voting or Correct. And that's based on historical data. Okay. And and you will have some because you have young people in the survey by definition they of course cannot have voted if they're, you know, close to 18. Got you. So, these are these are registered voters as well then. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. I have a question about transformation. How far did you transform the data when you modeled it? Uh not a lot. We we do know certain things. We know that um uh non-affiliated voters are slightly less likely

8:44 to participate. Uh we know that younger voters are slightly less likely to participate. Younger voters and non-affiliated voters are overlap a lot in terms of groups. Um but really just by a few percentage points. I don't have that information in front of me, but we feel pretty confident. And when I look at the cross tab attachment, is that the actual raw data or is that the transformed data? That's the weighted transformed data. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Okay. So, um as I pointed out earlier about half the electorate think the city

9:29 is headed in the right direction. Um to put things in context here. Um, voter mood across Oregon has been pretty sour in the last few years. To give you some comparisons, only 8% of voters in Portland uh in a recent survey thought the city was headed in the right direction. 18% in Salem thought things were headed in the right direction. So, these numbers, comparatively speaking, are actually pretty good. And we do know that there is a strong correlation between positivity and support for money measures that leaders put before voters.

10:19 We asked them an open-ended question just to see what's on uh voters' minds. Uh and then we code their responses. As you can see, uh voters most often are saying that homelessness, public safety, and housing affordability are the biggest issues. This is significant for one huge reason, and that is that um there is a potential proposal out there to a uh a levy renewal designed to address one of the things that voters have the greatest concerns about. So, the levy renewal is aligned with voter concerns and needs, and that's a good thing. Shirley.

11:04 Yeah. Just a quick question. The response of homelessness, um you said this was an open-ended question. So, they gave you responses rather than you're asking them what they thought about them? Exactly. This is totally open-ended, so it gives us a really raw sense without any sort of guidance uh as to what people are really thinking. Okay, so code they they provide open-ended responses, and then we code them into these various categories. Okay, so that basically ends up to be a generic anything connected with homelessness category. Yes. Okay. Okay. Um we then ask a voters a closed-ended

11:50 question about their satisfaction with police, jail, and other city services. The reason we ask about a whole array of services is so that you can put these satisfaction uh percentages into some sort of general context. As you can see, seven of 10 voters are satisfied with police, law enforcement, and uniform patrol services, and about four in 10 are satisfied with jail services. Uh these findings also show uh that about 25% if you look at that second bar, about 25% of voters are dissatisfied with police. Um

12:37 lower uh that's that's something to be concerned about. Uh lower satisfaction levels for jail services really have less to do with negativity and dissatisfaction and really more to do with they just don't know. All right, so who's the most satisfied with police services? As you can see, it's Republicans, non-affiliated voters, or voters who are members of other smaller parties. Um uh residents in wards five and six, uh those with less than a those who have not graduated from a four-year college, and white voters.

13:23 Uh as you can see, also as the chart points out, there is lower satisfaction among Democrats, residents in wards 1 through 4, uh college graduates, and voters who identify as people of color. So, um still a majority satisfied, um but there are certain groups that you'll need to pay attention to to make sure that levy addresses their concerns. All right. So, uh when we do these kinds of surveys, one of the things like we like to do near the beginning is kind of a cold ballot measure test without a lot of information as, you know, frankly, a lot of voters will just make a decision

14:10 based on reading the ballot title. And uh so, we offered a uh question asking them whether they support or oppose providing very minimal information, something that resembles a potential ballot title. Uh and you'll see that 54% um say they'd support the police levy renewal. Uh it'd be nice from an advocate's perspective for that to be a bit higher, closer to 60%. Um but the good news from an advocate's perspective here is that is that dark green uh column there. Um typically, you want about half of your support to be certain support, and in

14:57 this case, uh you've got much more of that. Uh among supporters, a lot are certain supporters. That certainty of support for the levy is higher among certain groups, uh Republicans, non-affiliated voters, uh voters in wards 3 through 6, seniors, um and those with a high-school education or less. You're You're not your softer supporters are your Democrats, your non-seniors, Ward 1 and 2 residents, and and those with some college education or college grads. I have a question.

15:42 Yeah, sure. If I was a citizen out there and I'm looking at these charts, Republican green 54%, Democrat gray 49%, that would confuse me. Um, what that what that means is um well, the the total percentage show percentage support. The dark gray the dark colors or the dark gray show certainty of support. The light colors or the light green gray, they show leaning support. So, you can see um, the intensity of support among Republicans and non-affiliated voters, as well as among Democrats, where you

16:28 see that intensity or strength of support kind of outweighs those who are leaning towards supporting the measure. Right. And I sort of read it the way that you describe it, but if I'm outside a person outside looking at this, I would be confused. Yeah, we didn't include all the many percentages in there, just we were concerned about clutter. But, thank you for that feedback. Um, we provide slightly more information to voters about the levy. Um, it was first passed in 2002 2002. It renew at this current it would renew at the same rate,

17:14 uh, and it would cost the average household about $238 a year for 5 years. Um, providing this additional information doesn't seem to have a significant impact on support or opposition for the measure. Normally, when you emphasis Yeah, question. Oh, okay. Normally, when you emphasize that it's a renewal, you will you would see an uptick, but I think the insertion of the information about $238 you know, dollars per household uh, may be leading to some skittishness. So, not much impact when you provide a little bit more information.

18:01 Um, however, that? What's that? So, the the question you just asked was that you think that the addition of the actual cost was providing some skittishness between your test and pretest, right? Is there anything in the data that supports that or is that just inference? Um, it's let's say it's inference from our work on other ballot measures, where we've tended to see when you emphasize renewal, you see a little bump. Okay, thank you. Sure. Okay, provided voters the list of several reasons why they might support

18:46 or oppose the levy. Um, the interesting thing here is that voters find all the reasons that we presented to support the levy uh, compelling. You know, 68% and above, all the way up to 78% of voters think, wow, these are these are very good or good reasons to support. Notably, uh, the strongest reason to support the levy, I would say by far, uh is that it might provide some financial additional funding for mental health services. Um 78% greater than the other uh percentages, but notably that 50%

19:35 um 50% of voters think that it's a very good reason to support. Now, this is not to say that other reasons aren't compelling. Uh as you'll see reason number two and reason number three also garner uh 75 or roughly 75% of voters also think reasons number two and three are compelling reasons to support. And those get to the fundamental issue of just ensuring that courts can operate efficiently and ensuring adequate staffing for police so they can do their jobs. So funding basic operations, uh providing adequate staffing, these are compelling

20:22 reasons. Joe, the most compelling is that it might provide support for mental health services. Yeah. Thanks, Sean. I was probably just ahead of you, Tony, on the next question or the next statement where indicates that when we open the jail and that the statement of property crime has dropped about 50%. And so I just uh I think that's amazing, but I have not seen that number before and I'm just wondering what that source that number was and if it's verifiable. Yeah, well, we worked with uh we worked with the whole team uh at the city of Springfield and that was information provided to us. I can I

21:08 personally can't tell you where that source was from, but it was considered a reliable source among the the team that helped develop these reasons. All right, thank you very much. And I just as a as a side note, I think we have probably Neo and Nancy and maybe the chief here uh present, but if they could um send me something or or to the council in regards to that number, so that way uh when this comes up or if this comes up, I think that's a very strong argument or a very strong reason. If the public knew that, that may be a very good high point in which uh the public would need to be educated on. But if I can get some sort of verification via email from our management team, that'd

21:53 be great. Joe, Nancy's right writing it down right now, so uh people here are nodding their head. Perfect. I appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. Um one thing that's interesting to point out is that there's actually a lot of consensus among key groups as to the top three arguments uh to support the levy. It it may seem uh from all the X's you see, you know, they're they're mostly on those among those top three arguments uh that we referenced before. Republican voters may seem like the outlier here, uh but uh would point out that you know, 70% of Republicans uh still think a good

22:40 reason to support the levy is that it can provide funding for mental health services. So, it may not be the top argument uh among Republican voters, but 70% of Republican voters still think it's a compelling reason to support. So, a lot of consensus uh around these reasons to support. Now, we also provided reasons to oppose the levy. Um uh five reasons to oppose the levy. One thing I want to point out right from the start is that the reasons to support the levy that we saw previously outperform all the reasons to oppose it uh

23:26 considerably. The strongest reason to oppose, however, is that voters first want to see greater police accountability before they invest in more public safety services. Uh so that that really jumps out as the most compelling reason to oppose. Now, that most compelling reason to oppose the levy, perhaps not surprisingly, um you know, that that voters want greater police accountability, perhaps not surprisingly, it's coming from Democrats. Uh and voters in wards one and two, uh remember your Democrats are your

24:11 softer supporters of the levy. So, uh if I were an advocate uh advocating on behalf of the levy, uh one thing to consider would be to emphasize ways that levy funding might provide additional resources, training, etc. to help enhance accountability. Uh and that what might be a way to pull some of your softer supporters into your stronger support camp. Okay. So, after we've um present reasons to support and present reasons to oppose, provide voters with more information, we do what's called an informed or final test to see where

24:57 voters were at. And as you can see, uh after learning more, support for the levy does increase slightly. Um still not at quite at 60%, uh you know, which could provide a a a comfortable margin, um but still a very close to 60% and with certainty of support uh very high. Okay. Um finally, we ask voters what groups or individuals they most trust when it comes to how to vote on the levy renewal. Now, we could have asked about many

25:42 different groups, uh but the groups we asked about here are similar to groups we ask about uh in other surveys that we do in other communities. And the first thing I think to point out here is that a majority of voters trust all of the messengers that we tested. Um but also, as is true in a lot of communities, uh your non-elected um non-appointed leaders tend to enjoy the most trust. So, you look at these top three, um community emergency response team members, volunteer residents who train to deal with emergencies, your small business owners, leaders of local

26:27 nonprofits. Um those in the when you get to the bottom three bars, you know, your police chief, your councilors, your police union, they still enjoy a majority of uh a majority of voters still trust them on the levy, but you know, distrust is a bit higher. And that again, that's not uncommon uh given what we've seen in other communities. I think a big takeaway here is that the more that community leaders, um, who are volunteers, who are small business owners, who are leaders of local nonprofits, the more uh, those groups get involved in supporting um, and advocating on behalf of the police levy,

27:14 uh, the better off you'll be. Okay. So, just to just to sum up a few key takeaways, general mood, key issues, again, voter mood leans positive in the city of Springfield, and that positivity uh, correlates, uh, with support for the proposed levy. Uh, voters also consider public safety as a one of the biggest issues, uh, facing the city. So, voters are likely to be receptive to a levy that addresses one of their biggest concerns.

28:00 Uh, when it comes to satisfaction with police services, remember you've got about seven in 10 voters who who are satisfied. Um, also, satisfied satisfaction with police also corresponds or correlates with support for the levy. Um, uh, a majority of Democrats, college grads, people of color, they're are satisfied with police services, but satisfaction is lower, uh, among those groups, and those groups are more likely to want, uh, uh, a police levy renewal that ties, you know, that that that in

28:45 that enhances, uh police accountability. Support increases after hear after voters hear more about the levy. Again, especially reasons to support and oppose. And um among supporters, you know, certainty of support those who are certain of their support uh those far exceed those who merely lean towards support. Typically, what we tell um tell folks is that ideally around this stage of the process, you'd want to have

29:31 about 60% support. 60% is going to give you that um a little bit of comfort um especially because as you get closer to an election with a money measure, people start to feel a little nervous uh about the impact it might have on their pocketbooks. And if combined also with a an organized opposition, it can start to bring support down. So, being around 60% and you're close gives you that uh comfortable margin, you might say. Uh just to remind you, strongest supporters are your seniors, your

30:16 non-college grads, your voters in the wards three to six, Republicans, non-affiliated voters. Your softer supporters, uh those you'll need to work on, are your non-seniors, your college grads, uh your voters in wards one and two, and Democrats. All the reasons to support the levy outperform reasons to oppose. Uh I that's also a good sign. Strongest reasons to support additional potential funds for mental health services. Again, that's not to say of second and third reasons aren't important as well. You know, providing adequate staffing for police, ensuring

31:01 the courts can operate effectively. You know, voters want a levy that enhances that's going to enhance treatment. Um, uh, that's going to provide resources for mental health and also that enhances enforcement. Uh, and these are things that the community cares a lot about. Uh, strongest reasons to oppose, especially among Democrats, you know, they want to see greater police accountability before they invest in police. So, anything you can do to connect the levy to police accountability efforts, uh, will likely help build additional support. And there you have it. Uh, Michelle and

31:46 I would be happy to ans- answer any questions. Um, Leonard. I Sorry. Uh, thank you. Uh, thank All right. Is somebody talking? I I can't hear you. We can't hear you at all. Can you hear me? You can't hear me? Well, Try speaking again and we'll see if you come in gargled. All right, Leonard, we're going to go to other people and then we'll come back to

32:33 you. Anybody else have questions? All right, it doesn't look like there's any other questions. All right, Leonard, do you want to give it one last shot and we'll see if we Yeah, how about now? Uh go ahead and try it. Okay, how about now? Yep, you're sounding good. Anything? All right. Hey, um okay, so that thanks for the report. It sounded Yeah, it was very informative. I We can try to stop his video and that might help. Yeah. Let's go ahead and do that.

33:30 Leonard, can you hear us? Yes, I can hear you fine. Can you hear me? Yes, they stopped your video, so hopefully that'll free up some bandwidth here. Yeah, thanks. Go ahead and try again. Yeah, let let let's give this one more try. Um you know, it's um I I wanted to ask um I noticed that you're planning on drafting the ballot measure after you talk to us. Are you looking for any input on how to phrase the ballot measure? I can step in here, counselor. We'll be doing that discussion in a couple weeks. We'll bring forth proposed title, some reasons, some updates, some history, uh and then turn it over to council to give us direction on that and then come out couple weeks after that for the resolution. So, not yet. That's what I got right now. Thank you. And Sam, that's when we're we will have

34:16 all the policy conversations about what's in, what's out, you what the amount is, that kind of thing, correct? Exactly, that'll be the fun one, yep. Okay. So, does anybody have questions specific to the specific to the survey? I It looks good. It was really informative. Um I I'm glad you guys cast the broad net. I actually got this survey. In which case I did not answer it. Cuz even though I am a likely voter. Anybody have additional questions? All right. Thank you so much. We really appreciate the time. Welcome. Thanks. Thanks for the opportunity. Thank you.

35:02 All right. So our next topic is with Erin for CDBG one-year action plan. Hi. I just double-check sounds okay. Yep. Um good evening, Mayor, Council. I'm here tonight to discuss the fiscal year 2023 Community Development Block Grant allocation and the Community Development Advisory Committee's recommendation to Council for funding. Each year the city receives an annual allocation from the federal US Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant funds to be used for local affordable housing projects and other community projects that primarily benefit folks who are low and moderate income.

35:48 In order to receive these funds, the city must go through an annual public process to identify current needs and potential strategies that align with the current five-year Eugene-Springfield Consolidated Plan. So this past January, Council held a work session and gave direction to staff to prioritize a number of current programs, including the Home Repair Program that that benefits low-income homeowners with needed repairs for health and safety. Council also directed staff to prioritize funding toward the regional Lane County Human Services Commission that provides social services for low-income persons in Springfield to support the strategy to increase the

36:34 supply of affordable housing. Council also wanted to support the staff costs to administer the program and then directed staff to put the remaining estimated funds available to the public through a request for proposals process. So, that's what we did. Simultaneously, the city released a request for proposals soliciting current projects from community groups as well as put out the draft allocation for public comment. So, through that RFP process, the city received two eligible requests for funding that are summarized in your packet. The first from St. Vincent de Paul was requesting funding to replace the roofs on 14 of their low-income rental

37:20 units as part of the Ash Meadows affordable housing development. That those units are available at an affordable rate to folks who are earning 50 or 60% of area median income and that affordable housing development is estimated is I think projected to stay affordable at those rates through 2041, so another 19 years. The additional request was from the city's Development and Public Works Department. They want to plant trees in low-income neighborhoods that have a low tree canopy cover. So, city staff during this time also went ahead and explored a few of the other strategies requested by both council and the Community Development

38:05 Advisory Committee. During the January work session, councilors had expressed interest in supporting affordable housing as well as economic development projects. We didn't have a project or program set yet, so when staff went ahead and talked with folks administering business loans through the city manager's office as well as community lending works. Um, certainly interest in helping businesses, but the need is still figuring out between how to pair the federal requirements of this program with what some of the need is being seen certainly by community lending works. Um, so there's talk of having more conversations this summer, but there wasn't a program or a project that was put forward in time for this action

38:51 plan. Um, the home repair program was also reviewed. Um, costs have certainly increased for labor and materials. Um, there was also interest from our advisory committee to sort of how do we reach more people that need this program? Um, and understanding that recently we've actually seen a lot of roof repairs, which are more in the expensive side um, of our sort of home repair gambit. Um, is there a way that we could increase funding for this program serve more people and certainly serve them with these sort of higher need repairs. Um, and the last sort of strategy that staff looked at more deeply was the home home ownership program. I think council and the advisory committee both expressed um,

39:36 strong interest in seeing how can we support low-income homeowners to buy certainly in this market. Um, after talking with mortgage loan uh, mortgage loan officers, um, I think staff figured out how there's a way to do it, but we need to revamp our program, increase our loan amount, um, and figure out how can we use all of the options available through the CDBG program. Um, so there is a recommendation in your packet um, to fund increase funding for the home repair program and the home ownership program. Um, I will say the advisory committee committee met three times this spring to um, hold public hearing to review and consider the public comment on the draft plan to evaluate the

40:23 proposals that came through the request for proposals process and to discuss ultimately a recommendation to council for funding given the different strategies. So you'll see that recommendation in your packet. Again, it's the fully funds the two requests that came in through the RFP to increase funding than we've seen before for the home home repair program and the home ownership program through the shop program. To maximize funding for the human services commission for social services as well as you'll see funds for grant administration and planning and then certainly funding for increasing the supply of affordable housing. I will just say when the advisory committee met on May

41:08 11th, HUD had still not yet released their allocation for each of the jurisdictions and so we were operating with an estimated amount. When I put this packet together, we were still operating with an estimated amount and in the last week HUD has HUD has announced what that our final allocation will be for fiscal year 2023. So there is a revised amount. I'm going to see if I can share it. And if not, I've emailed a copy to AJ. Maybe she could share a copy. I think our allocation just went down about $15,000. So some of the numbers are really just tweaked slightly. So it's more or less the intent is through the the allocation you see in your packet.

41:53 Um but that's yeah. I I'm looking for direction from you all and questions and ultimately I'll bring back a final allocation for your approval in June. All right. Corey. Thanks Sarin. This is great. My um, and all of these sound fine to me. My main question is a clarifying question in terms of how What are the parameters and how do we define what a low-income neighborhood is? Um, particularly in Springfield where we tend to have, you know, we just tend to have mixed neighborhoods. So, how what How do we define that? It's a great question. Um, because these are federal funds, we look to how HUD has told us how to define a low-income

42:39 neighborhood. And it's really using census data. Um, and so we're looking at block groups within the census to say, um, are there at least 51% of persons in this neighborhood that are earning less than 80% of the area median income. And so we have that information mapped, um, through our GIS department. Um, and with the request through public works, they then overlaid that map with sort of where we're seeing low canopy cover and I think where some of the more like heat index is. So, where are the more hotter neighborhoods? Um, and so if we could prioritize not only where the low-income neighborhood is, but then where we're seeing fewer trees, I think

43:24 that is the proposal that came through is prioritizing those neighborhoods. Um, and we I could certainly share a map, um, of where that information is. I would love to see that, but also I just appreciate your explanation cuz I think that makes a lot of sense. So, thank you. Sure. Joe. Thank you, Shawn. I Thank you, Erin. I I really like how you put this together and it was understandable. I it makes sense. I support uh, what you have written and as far as the $15,000 reduction, I think that, um, the, uh, if you just take a little nibble out of each one of those would be very low impact to any of those

44:09 programs. I do support the tree program with our public works. It makes a lot of sense to because the the thermal load on the residences and on those structures can be both very damaging to those structures, the roofs, and also very difficult to have to be able to be comfortable in those homes when the temperatures are up. And so I think the a decent tree canopy means a lot. Plus that I think it's also naturally speaking for us us humanoids, we we like the trees in this area. And so I think I would just cut them cut all those back just by a couple thousand dollars to make up that shortfall if that's what you're thinking. And I would support that, but if that's not what you're thinking and you're

44:54 thinking we can make it up somewhere else or whatever, that's fine. I I support all these to just move forward. Leonard. Um thanks. Yeah, I'm I'm just going to chime in with support for all of the programs. And um I I would like to know is there are there any studies that have been done talking about how trees affect the thermal load of the low-income homes if they're or in homes in general. Um I'd be interested to hear that. I can certainly share um it was actually our our buddy Sam Kelly Catroppa um who gathered a lot of that information. So I can make sure he

45:39 shares that sort of what what that heat index sort of the result of that on neighborhoods is. That would That would be great. Yeah, I'm I'm for fully funding all of these that you've just described it if it's possible. Thanks. Merilee. Well, I'm just going to be repetitive, I guess. I just I went through the whole thing, was very pleased. I I appreciate all the work that uh committee went through and the different meetings that they had cuz I know this is not an easy process, especially when you didn't even have a a number to work with until this week. So So I just Yeah, I just wanted to say I appreciate it and I I was in favor. I'm very comfortable with what you've come up with on the on the list. So thank you.

46:25 Damien. Hi. Uh I might have missed it uh and if I did, you know, that's on me, but I'm curious about the type of trees just because I don't know about y'all, but you know, for for the last couple of months it ain't been that easy to breathe and I'm just curious are any of these trees going to potentially affect anybody's allergies in those particular neighborhoods which cuz even though, you know, like do you trade one comfort in order to suffer part of the year? I mean, I'm I'm just Yeah, I'm just curious. Has that been thought about? That's a good question. It's been thought about in the sense that I think it's in the code in terms of the type of

47:11 street tree um that we can plant, but um I'll certainly bring that up to Sam when he's working on this project to keep that in mind. All right. I think Joe, did you bring your hand back up? It's your background. It It got lost. Oh, sorry. Um yeah, I did. I just wanted to hear that we're all aware that we make sure that the height of the trees don't interfere with the amount of the power lines cuz that would just be a waste of money. That was for the benefit of somebody else out there that doesn't think we listen. And then um but I also knew and Damien, you got a a good point, but I think most all that the pollen is um a conifer related and I don't think

47:56 conifers are permitted to be between the the buffer zones between the sidewalks and streets. So, but I I think that's that's a good point. So, if we could get some trees that don't grow too tall, that have a nice canopy, and and not put out a ton of pollen, I think that'd be the target. But, I'm pretty sure uh Brian Conlon over there or Ben has uh keep that in mind. So, there we got a sharp group over there, public works. And I will just note for the record that PC that I'm looking down at right now just keeps warning pollen high, pollen high, pollen high. Um all right. So, if some if Aaron, if you can help make sure uh that Damien gets an answer on that one, um as soon as you guys have it, that's fine. Are there any other questions? Uh

48:41 I think you're getting the head nod here, Aaron, and then we'll bring it back in public session and talk about it then. Yeah, and I'll just clarify, it's in the packet, and I'm sorry again, I'm having some internet issues. Um but the the as the CEDAC the advisory committee proposed um to maximize the Human Services Commission like not to do an across-the-board cut, but to just sort of maximize what it could and for social services and admin staff, and then just take the remaining difference out of increasing the supply of affordable housing, and that's where staff supports that, too. So, just wanted to clarify. It's in the packet, but um Okay. if that works. That's great. So, we will see you back in June. Great. Thank you.

49:26 Thank you. That is our last item for the evening, so I'm going to adjourn us. Have a great night, everybody.