Raleigh City Council Budget Work Session Minutes - 06-08-2015

BUDGET WORK SESSION

The City Council of the City of Raleigh met in Budget Work Session on Monday, June 8, 2015, at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber of the Raleigh Municipal Building, Avery C. Upchurch Government Complex, 222 West Hargett Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, with the following present.

Mayor Nancy McFarlane, Presiding Mayor Pro Tem John Odom Councilor Mary-Ann Baldwin Councilor Kay C. Crowder Councilor Bonner Gaylord Councilor Wayne K. Maiorano Councilor Russ Stephenson Councilor Eugene Weeks

Mayor McFarlane called the meeting to order at 4:11 p.m. All Council members were present.

PROPOSED FY16 BUDGET – INFORMATION RECEIVED

Mayor McFarlane distributed the following list of changes to the proposed FY16 budget that is a summary of discussions she has heard and her take on preferences voiced by the Council in different ways.

Watershed Protection Revenue – move the $411,000 from last year to Water Capital Projects Fund in FY16 (see Budget Note #1)

Watershed Protection Fee – increase from $0.10 per 1,000 gallons to $0.15 per 1,000 gallons (see Budget Note #2)

Invasive Plant Management – reduce professional services by $125,000 and approve alternate proposal $62,500 for one full-time staff position and supplies (a net reduction of $62,500)

Budget Note #5: Targeted Economic Development Infrastructure – use the coming year to answer the three key policy questions posed by staff and develop the criteria, program and measures for implementation in FY17

South Park Heritage Walk – incorporate appropriate portions of the Walk as projects are developed in the affected area

Tarboro Road – wait until the results of the current economic study are released to determine the best use of funds to drive economic development in the area June 8, 2015 Page 2

Mission Valley/Avent Ferry – Option 1 from Budget Note #6 – no cost in FY16. Mayor McFarlane stated this option encourages staff to start the process of stakeholder input. Other Agency Grants – Option 1 from Budget Note #9 – no increase in cost in FY16

Add the following Other Outside Agencies: Marbles $ 25,000 Sister Cities 1,300 Hospice 62,500 (per year x 4 years)

Summer Youth Employment Program – add 10 positions 22,600 TOTAL $111,400

To be funded from: Reduced Professional Services $ 62,500 (from change in invasive plants program) Other Outside Agency Reserve 48,900 (reduction from $220,000 proposed) TOTAL $111,400

Establish Curator of Exhibitions and Collections Position (see Budget Note #11) – no budget impact

Mayor McFarlane asked if the Watershed Protection Fee is separate. City Manager Ruffin Hall replied it is only an impact related to the Public Utilities Fund; it does not interact with the General fund. However, Council can include it in its same action.

Ms. Crowder pointed out the Nessie Foundation was omitted from the list of Other Outside Agencies the Council might grant money to. While the dual purpose community safe room/ community center planned for construction would be on Chris Parrish's property, the money requested would be used to help at-risk youth. If there is a question of public money going to a private entity on private property, she believes that could be addressed through contractual agreements with the City. The agreement(s) could be written so the City could get its money back if the property is sold in the future. Ms. Crowder stated at-risk youth aligns with the City's strategic plan of educating children and keeping them safe in the community. She would like to discuss this further.

Mr. Odom asked if anyone had come up with such a contract. He expressed concern about investing money in the private sector and protecting the City's money if there is a private sale of the property later. Mr. Odom said he has not heard from Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources (PRCR) staff about what they might or could do there. It sounds great, but he has a lot of questions. Ms. Crowder agreed those questions need to be answered. She asked City Attorney Tom McCormick if this is something that can be discussed with the owner and if it should be handled through the PRCR Department. City Attorney McCormick replied it should start with PRCR as it is being presented to the Council as primarily a PRCR facility. It should start there to see how the facility would fit into their capital program and whether PRCR's June 8, 2015 Page 3 schedule includes having a facility in that area that might compare to this. After hearing that, if Council determines it's a good spot for that facility, and PRCR staff says they can manage the facility and this is where they want it, the City could work out something contractually to accomplish this. No work has been done on any type of contract or agreement yet.

Mr. Odom stated in his conversation with the property owner, the property owner said he is going to run the facility, and Mr. Odom is nervous about that. It makes him nervous to add this piece to the City's excellent PRCR without long-range planning. Ms. Crowder said she does not disagree with that, but she thinks a conversation needs to be held with Mr. Parrish. He has an endorsement from the Boys and Girls Club that the club would move an after-school children's program to the facility. She would like to explore this further.

Ms. Baldwin suggested it would be helpful to (1) have PRCR prepare a report for the Council regarding what Council just discussed, (2) have clarification of what the grant money would be used for, (3) have clarification on what the County Commissioners are doing with Mr. Parrish's request to them for funding.

Mr. Weeks said he knows a little bit about the Nessie Foundation; he has had many conversations with Mr. Parrish and has visited some of the events the Foundation holds throughout the year. He agrees this is something the City could look into it, but carefully. County Commissioner James West has said he would look into this request because it is near Jones Sausage Road and Rock Quarry Road. Mr. Weeks said Mr. Parrish is doing a good job out there and he has seen the Boys and Girls Club program there. He is willing to explore this request further and would also like to hear from PRCR staff.

Discussion of the Nessie Foundation's application for a Human Services Grant continued. The City Council wants the Wake County Board of Commissioners to make its decision first, but the County Commissioners want the City Council to make its decision first. The Mayor pointed out the City would not be building a facility in conjunction with the County. Several Council members, including the Mayor, expressed concern about the use of public funds for a facility on private property. Mr. Stephenson cautioned the City needs to be careful about the use of public funds so there is a clear public benefit. There needs to be a clear joint use agreement regarding public funds to ensure public use of the facility. As Mr. Odom pointed out earlier, if something happens and the facility is sold, the contract must ensure the City gets its money back. Mr. Stephenson does not think the City needs to wait for the County's decision. Mr. Parrish has also said he can get bridge financing if the City splits its participation over five years, which would be $47,400 per year for five years. Mr. Stephenson said the City has a strong interest in the work Mr. Parrish has done for at-risk children in Raleigh; it is an impressive record of community service for little or no personal gain. If the City can get protection for the public use of funds, Mr. Stephenson thinks the City and the County should participate.

Mr. Maiorano said the Mayor and Mr. Odom articulated a number of the same concerns he has. Additionally, he wants to know what this request and facility will be measured against. It is an important thing for the City to do and is an important service to the community, but each Council member could come up with a long list of equally important and critical items the Council couldn't fund if it wanted to. At what point does the Council ask how this can be achieved? June 8, 2015 Page 4

Mr. Maiorano believes this is an outstanding idea that is worthy of support, but not financial at this time. Mayor McFarlane asked Ms. Baldwin to clarify her request for information. Ms. Baldwin responded it is for PRCR staff to return to Council with recommendations on how this could be structured and clarification of how the money would be spent. She had also asked about the County's involvement and Council received that answer during this discussion. By "how it would be structured," she means how the facility would be used, whether the City would have part ownership, and what would happen if the facility and land were sold later. Mr. Odom would like to see how this facility would be incorporated into the existing parks system, how it would affect the system, and what it would contribute. Ms. Crowder asked if this would include a conversation with Mr. Parrish. Mr. Odom replied no, because he is not part of the PRCR Department. Mr. Maiorano thought a conversation with Mr. Parrish would be reasonable, since Council is discussing using a facility that is going to be built on his property. However, he said, he is not aware of any intent or desire on the part of the Nessie Foundation that this facility be built into the City's parks program and system. The City was merely invited to financially support the construction of this facility. City Manager Hall suggested the Council allow staff to develop a report in response to their questions. He doesn't think PRCR staff can really respond today because those questions were not part of the Nessie Foundation's application and staff hasn't done work with them on a level that would answer Council's questions. Staff is also not ready to make any recommendations regarding this matter.

Mr. Weeks asked if "Other Agency Grants" is the same as "Other Outside Agency Grants." Mayor McFarlane said "Other Agency Grants" relates to the Southeast Raleigh Assembly (SERA), the African American Cultural Festival (AACF), and the Hillsborough Street Community Services Corporation (HSCSC) for which staff had laid out a step-down program in funding until those agencies are in compliance with the City's 25% maximum funding policy. Mr. Weeks asked about the balance in Council Contingency; he thought it was around $40,000. City Manager Hall told him the balance is approximately $32,000 due to the most recently approved expenditure of $11,500 for roof repair of the Joel Lane House. Referring to the list of changes to the proposed FY16 budget, Mr. Weeks said he appreciated the addition of 10 positions to the Summer Youth Employment Program, but wanted to discuss SERA and the AACF. He asked if the $26,300 for Marbles and Sister Cities could be taken out of Council Contingency instead of being added to the budget, and that money given to SERA and AACF in the budget. Alternatively, he made a motion for $29,000 to be taken from Council Contingency to provide an additional $9,000 to the AACF and $20,000 to SERA. This would be a one-time occurrence. Mr. Weeks preferred Option 2 from Budget Note #9. He said even though all three organizations were notified of the step-down program a year ago, the large difference in FY15 and FY16 funding for SERA and the AACF would be a "crash" for the two organizations if Council chooses Option 1 instead of Option 2. Mayor McFarlane reiterated the list of changes to the budget is a summary of the general consensus she heard. She thinks all three organizations were notified three years ago that the Council was going to be moving to this model and that was a fair amount of warning for them to look at other options and increase their private donations or however they decided to address the reduced funding. Mr. Odom seconded Mr. Weeks' motion. Ms. Crowder stated she has had several conversations with the Executive Director of the HSCSC as to why this reduction is necessary and why the City must play fair by all three organizations, and therefore she cannot support this. Mayor McFarlane stated there was a motion and a second June 8, 2015 Page 5 and called for the vote. The motion failed by a vote of 2-6, with Mr. Weeks and Mr. Odom voting in the affirmative. Mayor McFarlane distributed copies of a list of Other Potential Changes to the FY16 Budget that involved Budget Note #13 and #14 as shown below.

Budget Note #14 – Night and Weekend Parking

Budget Note #14 was in response to Ms. Baldwin's request for additional information related to the night and weekend parking proposal.

Background – As utilization of the parking decks increases due to growing demand in the downtown, so does wear and tear in the decks. Current deck revenues are not sufficient to adequately maintain the cleanliness and upkeep of the decks. In order to facilitate parking deck upkeep and maintenance, staff has proposed a flat rate $5 night and weekend parking fee, effective December 31, 2015.

Projected Revenue – Staff projects a $5 flat rate fee will generate $972,000 in the second half of FY16. $247,000 will be spent on nighttime and weekend janitorial services in the decks, providing a better parking experience for our downtown visitors. $548,000 will be used to upgrade equ9pment to provide pay-on-exit machines. $177,000 will fund cashier staffing in the evenings and on weekends.

The following was included in the list of Other Potential Changes to the FY16 Budget.

Removal of evening and weekend parking fee. 24-hour janitorial service $247,000 Staff – evenings and weekends $177,000 Upgrades and improvements $548,000

Removal of paid parking on evenings and weekends would remove the need for staff.

Downtown Raleigh Alliance (DRA) should be consulted about the increased janitorial services.

Upgrades and improvements – Capital Budget

Mayor McFarlane said she thought a very good point was made at the June 2 budget public hearing with regard to the hardship that would be imposed upon hotel and restaurant service workers, or anyone making minimum wage, if they had to pay for weekend and nighttime parking. City Manager Hall stated if Council chooses not to move forward with nighttime and weekend parking, the automated equipment is something that could be deferred and included in a capital program in a subsequent CIP (Capital Improvement Program).

Ms. Baldwin pointed out that with the completion of Skyhouse and other developments, the City has new leases for the parking enterprise fund. She asked how much total new revenue will come in based on those leases. Transportation Operations Manager Mike Kennon replied that, June 8, 2015 Page 6 comparing FY15 to FY16, staff estimates a $1.8M increase in revenue. That money is programmed for parking deck repairs. Staff has composed a list of about $4.5M in repairs that need to be done on half of the City's decks. Staff does assessments on the decks every five years, in two separate groups. The $4.5M applies to the first group and repairs have been prioritized. A portion would be completed this year. The $1.8M includes nights and weekends. If Council chooses not to move forward with the nighttime and weekend parking, that money would be subtracted and the remainder spent on deck repairs. Ms. Baldwin asked if staff considered charging for parking only on Friday and Saturday evenings. Mr. Kennon said staff did not, but can go back and look at those numbers. At this time, they have numbers for seven days a week. He suggested there are also other options that could be considered, such as janitorial services only five days per week.

Mayor McFarlane asked if the DRA had also looked at their increased revenues from these new developments like Skyhouse. DRA should be included in any conversation about an increased need for janitorial services. Ms. Baldwin said she had spoken to DRA President and CEO David Diaz today before this meeting. DRA staff will bring their recommendations and comments on the parking program to the DRA board at its meeting this Thursday.

Mr. Odom stated one of the main purposes for establishment of the BID (business improvement district) was to keep downtown Raleigh clean. He asked if the BID money that went to DRA is required to be used for janitorial services. City Attorney McCormick replied that is one of the services DRA provides and the City (PRCR Department) pays for. DRA has funding sources other than the municipal service district (MSD) tax increment, but he does not know how DRA allocates the money.

Mr. Odom asked if the City will make money with the projected $1.8M increase in revenues and if the parking enterprise fund will be in the black. Transportation Operations Manager Kennon responded that staff projected the General fund will subsidize $0.5M in FY16, down from $1.5M in FY13. This subsidy will be applied even if Council does not approve the fee for nighttime and weekend parking. Mayor McFarlane said it is her understanding the revenue from nighttime and weekend parking is applied to 24-hour janitorial services, staffing, and upgrades and improvements that are separate from the $4.5M. If the City does not charge for night and weekend parking, but the increased janitorial services are still necessary, is that something for which the City should partner with DRA? Mr. Odom said his point is that the City already subsidizes those services. He confirmed with Mr. Kennon that the figures for janitorial services, staffing, and upgrades and improvements are only for six months; the figures would have to be doubled for one year. One year would total approximately $1M which, when subtracted from the additional revenues of $1.8M, leaves only about $800,000. Mr. Stephenson confirmed with Mr. Kennon that the upgrades and improvements are a one-time cost, not a six months number. City Manager Hall stated one of the concepts of the proposal, to include the one-time equipment in the fee, was that ultimately, once the equipment funds were spent, probably over the first 18 months, the revenue stream could go toward paying down the subsidy.

Ms. Crowder asked for clarification on the DRA; specifically, whether the money the City gives them for janitorial services is for parking decks or streets. She requested a breakdown on how that money is spent. City Attorney McCormick said while he could not provide a breakdown, he June 8, 2015 Page 7 believes the contract for cleaning the parking decks is separate from the general contract for cleaning the streets and downtown maintenance. He does not know whether DRA uses the MSD money or other funds for the separate contract.

City Manager Hall asked Transportation Services Manager Kennon to address the cleaning contract the City has with DRA. Mr. Kennon explained the City has no contract with DRA for cleaning the decks. He believes DRA provides cleaning services for the downtown area, in the MSD. The City contracts with DRA for security services for the decks.

Another question posed by Council was what else the City gives DRA. City Manager Hall stated the City gives them a contribution of about $108,000 out of the General fund in addition to the MSD annual tax revenue of approximately $1.2M.

Mr. Odom said the purpose of the MSD (BID) was to clean downtown and that included everything, not just sidewalks. That was the purpose for creating the MSD and everyone had agreed on that. He is in favor of charging for parking, but said something needs to be worked out for service workers. Mayor McFarlane pointed out the parking fee does not take effect until December 31, but the City needs to have conversations with the DRA regarding their contracts with the City and what the City is paying them to do.

Ms. Baldwin stated she is not in favor of the parking fee at this point as she is not sure what she would be voting on. Before she votes, she wants to know how service workers would be accommodated and wants to hear from downtown businesses that would be impacted by the fee. Mr. Maiorano agreed the Council would benefit from the additional information before voting. Ms. Baldwin asked if the fee had to be voted on with the budget or if it could be initiated at a later date since it relates to an enterprise fund, not the general fund. City Manager Hall replied it could be done either way. The proposed ordinance in the packet includes the revenue and expense. Council could remove the fee and vote on it at a later time with a budget amendment to include the revenue and expense, or it could approve the fee with the understanding that Council will receive additional information later.

Mayor McFarlane asked that the Council receive additional information next week.

Budget Note #13 – Bike Share

Budget Note #13 was in response to Councilor Gaylord's request for additional information about a bike share program. The budget note provided an overview of the program and a summary of the potential benefits, projected membership, and the status of sponsorships.

Mr. Gaylord stated he is very conflicted with this item. He is excited about the opportunity for a bike share program and believes the City should look for innovate solutions for transportation alternatives to get people off the roads as much as possible. The challenge is that staff and Council haven't figured out the logistics of how to pay for it, who will sponsor it, etc. He asked if an approach could be devised to allow Council to make this investment later in the year contingent upon outside sponsors to make it a true public/private partnership. Once sponsors are found, he would like Council to allocate funds to implement the program. The City has an 80% June 8, 2015 Page 8 grant from CAMPO that will cover a majority of the capital cost. If Council could earmark $425,000 of capital investment on the front end from surplus CIP funds, then look at the Transportation CIP (hopefully not the Sidewalk CIP) for funds, and figure out how to take $285,000 from the general fund for operations and maintenance, he believes Council could take advantage of this opportunity.

Ms. Baldwin said in her conversation with the DRA today, she learned they are putting their resources and priorities on retail study, retail mix, and recruiting retail. Based on that conversation, the DRA does not think it has the bandwidth to raise the money at this time. However, a suggestion came forward that a meeting be convened of the DRA, the Greater Raleigh Convention and Visitors Bureau, the Hillsborough Street Community Services Corporation, NC State University, and the Museum of Art, all of whom would be beneficiaries of a bike share program, to see who might want to lead a fundraising effort. A dedicated fundraiser will be needed for this and private sector groups should demonstrate a willingness to support this with more than just words. Mr. Gaylord said he totally agrees, and it is disappointing to hear the DRA feels its bandwidth cannot accommodate this. He sees the program as eminently sponsorable and it should not be difficult to pull together a group of sponsors.

Budget and Management Services Director Joyce Munro cited a breakdown of program costs. The sponsorship amount has been identified at $220,000. The $285,000 represents the City's annual share of $220,000 (one-third of the cost) plus one staff person at $65,000 to manage the program. The remaining third of $220,000 represents the private sector share. $425,000 is the capital investment. Staff anticipates $215,000 in user fees from those who use the bike share service.

Mr. Stephenson is a fan of this program and has used it in other cities. It is a tourism, marketing, and economic development tool. The program is always focused in downtown areas. Every one that he has used appears to be well-used and is always promoted well. He hopes there will be some downtown funding sources for this. Mr. Stephenson likes the idea of downtown promoters getting together; perhaps some hotel and meal tax could be used for this. He also likes the idea of looking at surplus funding from CIP projects to get the City the $2M federal grant. Mr. Gaylord's proposal is a good one and will be a fantastic success. Mr. Stephenson thinks sponsorships will come in.

Ms. Crowder asked what would happen if the City gets private partnership share funding the first year but not after that, and if the City would drop the program. She wondered if it could become a $400,000 to $500,000 project for the City every year. BMS Director Munro confirmed that if private partnership funding was lost, the City would be responsible for covering the full $653,000 annual cost of the program.

Mayor McFarlane asked about the deadline for the grant and whether the bike share program could be put on hold until private funds are ready.

Transportation Planning Manager Eric Lamb explained staff is sitting on "go" to enter into a municipal agreement with NCDOT via CAMPO to encumber those funds. There is a specific amount of engineering work and lead time that goes into developing the actual individual sites; June 8, 2015 Page 9 in this case, 30 stations. That is 30 individual sites that staff must identify and do the design work for. If Council decides it wants to move forward, it will need to budget the money so the City can enter into a municipal agreement with NCDOT, start the design work, and have those funds set aside and encumbered so it doesn't lose the grant money. The funds must be encumbered through NCDOT and USDOT by September 2016. All the lead time would have to start July 1.

Mr. Stephenson said since five of the stations are on the NCSU campus, there was discussion about the possibility of the University being a financial partner in this. He asked if staff had reached out to the University. TPM Lamb replied the conversations with NCSU staff have been informal. The University is interested, but the City has not entered into a formal agreement with them yet in terms of what their sponsorship amount would be. If NCSU decides not to participate, there would only be 25 stations located throughout the City and the overall cost would be reduced by five stations. The five stations would be located entirely within the NCSU boundaries.

Ms. Crowder asked if she understood Mr. Odom to say the $285,000 or some portion thereof would come out of the Sidewalk CIP. TPM Lamb said there is $2.4M set aside in the sidewalk fund for this year. As an eligible fund, those would be adequate monies from which to pull the $425,000 necessary for the local match on the construction funds. Ms. Crowder commented that the Council talks constantly about making Raleigh a walkable city. Taking money out of the sidewalk fund to help implement this program takes this goal out of focus. Mr. Lamb pointed out the Council's charges has always been to make Raleigh a bikeable city as well, and staff is trying to meet both those demands as best they can. The City is spending more on new sidewalk construction than it ever has before. Even if the sidewalk fund was reduced from $2.4M to $2M in FY16, the City is still ahead for sidewalk construction. The Mayor wondered if there was a way to move forward with the caveat that if the private funds needed are not raised by "X" date, the City would not implement the bike share program. TPM Lamb replied that was staff's intent by offering the April 1, 2016 deadline. If multi-year sponsorship funds are not secured by that date, the project will be canceled and funds paid back to NCDOT. This date would also give CAMPO the chance to reallocate the funds to other projects so they would not be lost by the region.

City Manager Hall observed that bike share programs across the country are very viable and cities want them. The question he suggests Council to consider carefully is where or who is the responsible party for the fundraising in the private sector? That is where biggest point of decision lies in terms of this particular issue. Mr. Odom said the Council often appoints a Bond Committee when it considers doing bonds. He suggested the Council could create a fundraising committee for this project. Ms. Baldwin reiterated a stakeholders group should be convened to gauge interest in the program.

Discussion continued. Ms. Crowder asked about the $653,000 cost. BMS Director Munro referred her to paragraph 4 of the budget note: "The annual operating cost of a system of this size is estimated to be $653,000. The City will charge fees for this program (proposed fee amounts below). Based on projections, the system is expected to generate $215,000 in user fees. June 8, 2015 Page 10

The remaining $438,000 per year would be provided by a mix of sponsorships and City funding." Usage Fees User Fee Additional 0 – 30 Mins Half Hours Annual $80 Free $4.00 24-Hour $8 Student $50 Free $2.00

Ms. Munro said in looking at the share of those remaining operational costs of $438,000, the initial proposal under the decision package was that the City of Raleigh would provide $220,000 of operating costs, would seek private sector sponsorships for the other $220,000, and would cover the additional increment of approximately $65,000 for the cost of a staff position. Therefore, the City's obligation for operations is $285,000. There is an additional $425,000 capital match against the grant.

Ms. Baldwin asked what the total cost would be minus the five stations at NCSU, and if all the stations are equal in cost. TPM Lamb replied all the stations are more or less equal in cost. The total cost minus the five stations at NCSU is approximately $550,000. Responding to a question from Mr. Gaylord, Mr. Lamb said if Council proceeds with this plan but decides not to move forward on April 1, 2016, all this information would be relevant for subsequent years when the City can pull sponsorships together. However, the availability of the grant is unknown.

Mayor McFarlane said Mr. Weeks must leave for another engagement. She asked if Council needs the answers to its questions about the Nessie Foundation project, the bike share issue, and nighttime and weekend parking before it takes action on the budget. City Manager Hall replied the Council does have outstanding questions that would impact its choices about balancing the budget. Staff can provide Council with reports as best it can within a week.

MR. WEEKS DEPARTED THE MEETING AT 5:22 P.M.

Ms. Baldwin asked if the Council could add consideration of the budget to its Tuesday, June 16 meeting agenda. This would give staff an extra day to prepare reports. City Manager Hall stated the June 16 agenda will be fairly robust. The Mayor said her preference is to keep the Monday meeting to finish talking through everything and give staff a chance to amend the budget and related documents if necessary so they could possibly be adopted on Tuesday.

Budget Note #12 – Transit Budget and Route Data

Budget Note #12 was in response to Councilor Baldwin's request made at the June 2, 2015 City Council meeting for additional information on increases to the FY16 Transit budget, and ridership numbers and cost of each GoRaleigh route.

Ms. Crowder noted the cost per rider in the FY15 GoRaleigh transit ridership and cost analysis in the budget note varies greatly. She asked at what point the City decides a particular route cost is June 8, 2015 Page 11 not sustainable. Mr. Odom said the cost is the same for everyone who rides a bus; the cost per rider is based on how many people ride on a particular route. Ms. Crowder asked if the Council should ask itself if the City really needs bus service for a route that costs $11.39 per rider, and Mr. Odom replied yes, it should. The City needs to get transit going, so the initial up-front cost for a route may be higher until there are more riders.

Mr. Maiorano asked if the lower part of the cost analysis chart that shows the more significant dollar amounts is all part of the Fortify project. Transit Administrator David Eatman said it is not all part of the Fortify project, but it is all contracted and the City gets a fully-allocated reimbursement for all of those routes. Mr. Maiorano asked if this is part of a larger conversation the Council is in the midst of right now. Ms. Baldwin responded it is, and that was the purpose of bringing this forward.

Transit Administrator Eatman said the City has a policy that outlines which routes meet policy. It is based on farebox recovery, ridership, and things of that nature. Staff compares the criteria to that of all its other routes. If a route scores low, staff reviews it and determines how they can reallocate those resources to make them more productive. Route 54L (Spring Forest Crosstown), with a cost per rider of $11.39, is currently under review. Mr. Maiorano said staff must have some sort of matrix to analyze these routes and determine how long a route has been in place, where the stops are, whether something has been done that impacts the route and its uptake time, etc. Mr. Eatman replied affirmatively, adding that Route 54L is not very old; it is only about a year old but has not performed. It will probably change within the next six months. Mr. Maiorano commented we must evaluate how we're spending our dollars to create the biggest bang for the buck and the biggest opportunity for usage.

Budget Note #15 – Technical Corrections

Budget Note #15 contained technical corrections to the FY16 Proposed Budget. It was not discussed.

Budget Note #16 – Draft Budget Ordinances and Related Resolutions

Budget Note #16 contained draft copies of the FY16 budget ordinances and resolutions. It was not discussed.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, Mayor McFarlane announced the meeting adjourned at 5:29 p.m.

Leslie H. Eldredge Deputy City Clerk