This meeting of the finance standing committee is called to order at 1035 a.m.

on September 3rd, 2025.

Thanks everybody for being here with us today.

It's been a nice August recess, I hope for everyone.

I know you you got to beat the Heat Auto Woman Finn Lyson.

And you were up in the Great North.

And Milwaukee.

My dad's 101st birthday.

Awesome.

And the flooding of the city of Milwaukee, which made ours look like a drop in the bucket, literally.

Oh, well, if that's that city is still recovering, and there are literally thousands of people who lost their home.

Oh my god.

Because the floodwaters washed out their foundations completely.

Wow.

You know, my dad's basement got probably three or four inches of water, but saturated throughout, and it's now gutted and has to be rebuilt.

So an ours is a minor case compared to all of the tragedy in the city.

And I'm surprised it was national news, but anyway, my dad had a wonderful 100 first birthday.

So that's all good.

Happy birthday to him.

Let's start with our roll call.

Alder Roman Finlayson.

Present.

Alder Woman O'Neal.

Present.

And Alderman Huntley is here at this point.

Is there a motion to approve the agenda?

Mr.

Cheryl move approval of the agenda is written.

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

And then is there a motion to approve the minutes from July 16th?

The very last time we met.

Move approval of minutes 1725.

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Excellent.

Okay.

Looks like we got a couple of grants to approve.

You know how much I love money from other people.

Uh from other entities besides city taxpayers.

Let me be clear.

So uh starting with SA 326.

We have this is a grant to APD.

Uh Captain Miguez, you're here, right?

Yeah.

Good to see you.

It's been a while for everybody.

It feels like a homecoming.

Uh I'm used to seeing you guys practically every other week.

So can you tell us a little bit about SA 326?

Yes, Captain Amy Migeth with Annapolis Police Department, the captain of administrative services.

This is a grant through the governor's office, gun violence reduction grant.

We applied for more funds than we received, but we received just over 9,000 for overtime for officers to work in communities that have experienced gun violence and to make arrests to for people wanted for gun crimes.

So that's what this uh grant will be used for.

Great.

Any questions?

I do have a question.

Uh Captain, uh, this looks like a very small amount compared to what we've received in the past.

Can you tell us what the amounts have been in the past and why we have not gotten this grant for several years?

We've uh applied unsuccessfully for it in the recent past and not been awarded any money.

So I think we asked for 40 some thousand for the same kind of funding to pay for officer overtime in these communities experiencing gun violence.

Um grants have slowly been getting less and less through the state.

And this we're happy to get it um this time at least, but we were not expecting to be funded for the full amount, even what we asked for.

So, but we have received this grant in the past, just not in the recent right, right.

All right, okay.

All right, thank you.

Yeah, no problem.

Just out of curiosity, what does this equate to in terms of how many overtime hours?

Let me see.

You know, we do a rough estimate because in general we have a supervisor working, we have officers working.

Right.

So it doesn't pay for what we actually do end up staffing.

Um, let me look it equates to about 20 hours for a supervisor and about 103 hours for an officer.

Okay.

Well, then let's uh let's not take up too many more hours of your time and let's go and get this approved for those 120 hours.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Uh any other questions.

All right.

Is there a motion for approval of SA 326?

I'll move approval of SA 320.

Favorable recommendation.

Okay.

Second.

Sorry, I'm out of practice.

All those in favor say aye.

Excellent.

Thanks for being here, Captain Miguel.

Next up, we got essay 426 from Department of Transportation, Capital Reserve.

Uh do we have somebody here for that?

No.

Buckland or anybody from the finance department want to jump in here.

This is a pretty significant one.

Yeah.

So the explanation is we tried to explain as much as we could in there.

It was an error in the budget process.

Um there was a budget revision through throughout the fiscal year in FY25 that actually already accounted for the grant.

So when the budget was done for 26, that revision was not taken to account.

It recounted the grant.

So we don't have $810,000 in grants.

We still only have that original grant that was already accounted for.

So the funding for this project without changing the total project amount has to come from capital reserve.

We can't change the bond.

Um the bond ordinance is already underway, so we can't put it on a bond.

So the only way to pull it is from the reserve.

Got it.

Okay.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, we had a grant last year, we then double counted it for this year.

And so we're at we need to replace that accidental double counting with capital reserve funds.

Correct.

Okay.

And what is this actually going to within the Department of Transportation?

Um, this is for the um the I'm sorry, the roof replacement.

Oh.

So it's a capital project that's already in the works and what does this do to our capital reserves?

How do they look with uh this 405,000 dollars taken out?

We have now about 600,000 left.

Okay.

That's so what's the consequence if we don't approve this?

I mean, given that you as you said the project is underway, but also we want to make sure that we have appropriate reserves because we could have some other emergency, right?

We could have some other thing that pops up uh and we'd want to have that cushion still.

Yep.

Um definitely concerned from me too.

The other alternative would be to find another project that was approved in the FY26 budget using the capital reserves and take the funding from that project and just reallocate it to this project.

So um, and also keep in mind this is a transportation project that's being paid with capital fund or capital reserve in the general fund.

So that would be a decision if somebody on council wanted to make the um I guess the amendment to switch a capital project funding instead of taking more, but you could you know push out one of the FY26 capital reserve funded projects to 27 and use this funding right now.

Um but that would be your choice.

Yeah, Honorable Neil.

Thank you.

Um along those lines, would it be possible for your department to perhaps make some suggestions as to which project might yep?

We can um definitely work with um public works too and see if they have any projects in there that um aren't gonna happen right now or something that could potentially be pushed.

Um being that this is a transportation project, um, if transportation and the parking fund all had fund balance, some that could be something that could be drawn from.

Um, but the the other option would be to take from the parking fund balance um to support the transportation fund.

But the downside of that that the parking fund balance depleted.

Yes, that the transportation fund is not self-supporting and the parking fund is already substantially supporting the transportation fund.

So the well will run dry, yeah.

But those are the three options.

We could see an analysis of perhaps best choice projects.

Perhaps the council could take a look at weighing the odds of which project would be best to push off.

Okay, yep.

We can um we can get together a list of capital reserve projects that were funded with FY26 budget, and then if there's something that's more favorable than another.

But we can start by circulating that list.

What's on the table?

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Yeah, I think the idea of going down to just $600,000 in the capital reserve gives me some pause.

So hypothetically, say we approve this, say some other emergency comes up, we need to spend $600,000 out of the capital reserve.

Our capital reserve gets depleted to zero dollars.

What do we do after that when the next emergency comes?

There will be um just another little bit of reserve would be that when we do close the book, there will be another layer added, but that is money that is typically used like this year.

We used four million in the budget process.

So it would just be less that could be used in 27, but there will be a transfer into that to replenish that fund once the books are closed.

But that's right now we can't determine that.

So that's why we didn't use that as another option.

And but just to give you a little bit of no, I get what you're saying.

And the but the budget stabilization fund is not an option for that.

That's something we would have to have bigger circumstances to cap into it, right?

Correct.

Alderman Finlison, you had a question.

Thank you.

Um I I would ask that the director of transportation be part of the discussion.

Um, as we're looking at what projects are deemed to be eligible to be moved in any capacity.

Um I know he's not here today, but I would like to make sure that um his project, he's his voice is heard when the decisions are being made about the projects out of transportation.

Yeah, certainly.

Um, I just want to clarify that the all the projects would be on the table, not just the transportation fund.

There is one large transportation fund project from FY26, but that's mostly bond funded, and we can't commingle the bond funding that was appropriated.

So it would just have to be looking at the capital reserve funded projects.

Okay, so that means that uh public works, the director uh would also be weighing in on what those projects are.

Correct.

Okay.

Um, did you say, and maybe I didn't hear you exactly which project this is referring to?

It's a transportation roof.

It's a what?

The the roof replacement roof, it's the roof.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

So is there an urgency towards approving this one today, or could we uh postpone action on it till our next finance committee meeting to then have some additional options from the directors if you still go uh I would caution us doing that because this is actually fixing it a problem that was in there because money out the door, so rather have clean books than I hear what you're saying.

I think there's like half of this that is correcting a problem, and half of it is filling a hole, half of it is acknowledging that there is a hole and half of it is filling the hole.

We should definitely acknowledge the whole, but we might want additional options for how we fill the hole, Mr.

Chair.

I'd like us to ask the finance director what the implications might be to delaying this, if any.

I think I would we would have to get with um the transportation director too.

I know this project is already it's not it's something that's on like it's going on right now.

Um, so it's already been in the works.

They do have the expenditure appropriations, so it doesn't change their ability to spend the money, but we essentially have negative bonds.

Um yes, you can wait.

Yes, in short, yes, you can it can wait.

I wouldn't wait too long.

Um I'm not sure what the legal process of like it coming to you and then amending it and like who does it has to go back to.

Um I don't know what the timeline looks like for if we wait.

I guess it would come back to you in the next finance committee meeting on the 17th.

So then it could go to um council on the 29th, 25th, 20th, that whatever date.

So that would be, I think that would be okay.

Well, this doesn't speak to how to fill the void that's being created.

So even if we delay it, it still doesn't address what you're asking for.

I don't think there's any reason to delay this.

Sure, you surely you can come back with a uh proposal to figure out how to come up with additional funding, but it's not gonna impact this SA.

Well, I think it I think it does.

It both corrects that we do not actually have this grant.

And what it does to address that is transfers money from the Capital Reserve to replace that money.

So I think it as written, it both acknowledges to keep my analogy and I just acknowledges the whole and fills the whole with capital reserve funds.

But we could also you could also pass or you could also move forward with this and then acknowledge that we are looking for at the next finance meeting and a proposed revision that replenishes that five four five from somewhere.

Yeah, yeah, that's what I was thinking.

So um, Mr.

Chair, I make a motion that we give a favorable recommendation to SA4.

Okay.

Uh well, I will call for a vote on that.

Um those in favor of uh favorable recommendation on SA 426 say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Uh motion carries.

So we will move this forward to our next uh meeting, and then we'll work.

So is it gonna be the finance department's responsibility to bring us some options at our next meeting for how we might be able to replenish that capital reserve fund?

Yes, um, or we can circulate that via email, and then we can have a um proposed essay written for the next meeting to vote on.

That's probably a better idea.

I can send that to you today.

Thank you.

Uh okay.

Uh moving on down the list then.

Uh thanks for that spirit of discussion on that one.

We have SA 526, five comes after four.

This is a grant from the fire department for the Maryland Department of Service, Maryland Department of Service and Civic Innovation.

Oh, this is the Mentee program.

Cool.

Very exciting.

Good morning.

Doug Romaly Fire Chief with me, Jeannie Coglin, our fire administrative officer.

Uh, this program here is the one the council is aware of that we've been working on for probably the last couple of months.

Uh, it came up relatively quickly.

But this is the cadet program or intern program with partnership with the state of Maryland, the Annapolis Professional Firefighters, the city, and the Maryland Fire Rescue Institute, which is a portion of the University of Maryland.

So the state is funding the hourly costs for these interns.

And basically, the city of Annapolis is going to bring these 10 individuals in and train them to be firefighter EMTs.

When they leave this program, they will come out with national certifications and be ready to go to work.

Um, and obviously, if there's positions open in the city of Annapolis, we will certainly be looking at these individuals because we're training them.

Uh, but with that, this agreement uh comes some added cost on the city side that we had to come up with some funding uh because they are 40-hour week employees and because of um human resources laws, we have to be able to provide them benefits, at least offered benefits.

Uh so that was out there.

They are individuals that are 2018 to 25 years old, and uh most of them will not be seeking those benefits, but we also have to because we're training them as firefighters have to put them in protective clothing, which is costly.

So uh we're picking up those costs, and uh, some of the and the finance can go into it a little better with the human resources costs, but the city's got to pick up social security and fICA and that type of stuff.

So with that, uh, and this amendment is uh just where these areas are coming from, not only from the fire department budget, but the mayor's office came up with some money from Annapolis United, and I believe the city manager's office came up with some funding so that we can uh keep the cost down for the city of Annapolis, uh, provide these interns an opportunity to find out what public safety is all about and come out with certifications.

Very exciting.

I've been uh seeing this uh opportunity.

I've been advertising it to residents, and uh seems like a really good option.

And uh boy, uh taking money from the city management and putting it into the fire department.

I think the residents will love that.

That's uh that's a the kind of thing people love to hear.

So uh sounds like a really good opportunity to me.

Anybody got any questions?

Uh well, I don't have a question, but I do have a comment.

Congratulations, Chief.

How long have we been talking about trying to get cadets in the pipeline because they are in the pipeline to becoming firefighters?

And so, you know, I'm so pleased.

It's been a little we've had this discussion a long time.

So we're very excited.

This is uh this is a unique program in the state of Maryland.

This is the first of its kind where we're actually bringing in paid interns and training them, actually sending them to a career fire school.

Uh now this they also are doing this on the Lower Eastern Shore.

The University of Maryland is picking up eight individuals and training them.

But the curriculum is going to be the exact same.

We've been meeting with them throughout this.

Uh and our partnership with the University of Maryland Fire Rescue Institute is providing uh instructor pay for some of the support instructors that go along with it.

So, but this is a unique opportunity.

Uh the rest of the departments across the state are looking at this, and uh it's very interesting.

We're excited about it.

It's gonna be a lot of work, but we are excited and we hope that it comes comes out to be something that's very successful.

We've heard from the council for many years.

How can we get some local individuals involved in public safety and we've thrown it out there?

It was very competitive.

Um, not all the individuals that we would like to have seen get in, got into the program, some of which we had some local residents that would have been great for the program.

Unfortunately, they didn't have driver's license yet.

And uh it is a requirement for this because part of it is teaching them how to drive emergency vehicles because it's part of what they have to do.

Uh, but I can tell you that our recruiters have actually talked to those individuals.

We're working with them, we're gonna keep them in the pipeline for uh recruiting in the future and actually reached out to help them maybe get their driver's license in in some of those aspects.

So it's opened up a lot of opportunities for our staff that at least talked to some people.

We went out to the local clergy um to the high school and talked to some of the counselors.

So uh it's been very interesting to watch this program come forward and we'll keep you posted as it moves forward.

Please do.

You know, one of the hindrances to getting driver's license for some young people is taking getting the class and taking the test.

And I knew I know that the governor had a program, I think, to help with that funding.

Um that might be something you look into if they are having issues getting their driver's license.

Um would I be in appropriate to ask how many females are in the class?

Three.

Can I ask that question without being uh I don't think that violates any any laws?

It's a actually I can tell you it's a very diverse group of individuals from the Annapolis area, uh, and there are three females that are part of that.

Well good.

Well, thank you, and good luck with it.

I'm excited.

We appreciate the support and help.

And so just so I know if uh these medical costs aren't needed, right?

If nobody actually wants health insurance, do we expect that that those funds will go back to the Annapolis United program?

No the funding that currently in there, I believe, to 40,000 from City Manager's Office and uh and the office of the mayor.

Um we feel we're gonna have to utilize that.

We we actually talked to the individuals beforehand and make sure uh because I I'll tell you the finance director was concerned about uh some of the cost involved in it.

And at one point it's like, you know, we may not be able to do this because of those costs associated with it, but we did our research, we talked to the individuals.

Uh, we know where we need to be, and this is this is what we need to run the program.

So I I don't there will not be any cost savings.

We're actually taking some money out of the fire department budget that goes towards it for some of the other uh aspects that needed for it.

Got it.

Okay, thank you.

I must have misunderstood something you said earlier.

That's all good then.

Uh all right.

Anything else?

Okay.

Uh is there a motion for a favorable recommendation on SA 526?

Uh Mr.

Carroll recommend a favorable recommendation for SA 526.

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

I thanks so much for being here.

Very excited to see this get off the ground.

Thank you.

Uh okay.

This next one uh is interesting.

It says city council on here, and uh I didn't know about it.

So this is 10th SA 626 is moving some money from the reserve for one-time usage into city council special projects for a grant to the Maryland Banneker Douglas Tubman Museum.

Where did this come from?

What's the genesis?

Uh this was uh uh request that Alderman Gay had brought um had brought to us.

Um related to um related to the um uh hubman panicker Douglas the wrong word museum.

Um uh and so this is um this is related to that.

Um they are um uh hosting um an after school program um for for youth and planning um planning a trip um to Africa.

Um I asked you know where in Africa I'm sorry?

You know where in Africa?

I actually do I'm sorry, travel to Senegal.

Ah, Senegal, okay.

Yes.

Um and so uh he was um asking whether the city could um support uh grant for that purpose.

So we have have prepared that and obviously that discussion is now for you guys, but that is that was the purpose of the money um and its origin.

Go ahead.

Sorry, thank you.

Do we know what the grant is bringing?

Um my understanding is that it is um uh support airfare and travel expenses for those youth participants or one.

Uh I actually am not sure how many there's um my understanding is there are 10 students total who will be taking that trip.

I cannot imagine $10,000 would cover 10 students.

Um it it is some subset of the students who would be going on that trip.

I I excuse me, I think there are other organizations that are also contributing, and the fact that the city is a contributor encourages others to also.

Thank you.

Uh yeah, I have been pretty opposed to spending our one-time use funds uh on all sorts of things, and I think I'm gonna stay consistent on that and say I'm not a fan of this.

We spent down what was four and a half million dollars into like two uh less than a hundred thousand dollars if I'm remembering correctly.

So trying to take every last nickel out of that doesn't seem like a great idea to me.

Uh so that's that's where I come down on it.

Did you have something to say, Director Moran?

I just wanted to um add just for a point of acknowledgement that it would bring our reserve down to 36,000.

That was unspent in the thank you.

Well, I'd like to repeat that our funds from the city will be used to leverage others if your own jurisdiction doesn't believe in what your programs are, then it's very difficult to get others support it.

Do you know is that sort of a a formal thing?

Like are we part of a some kind of formal matching requirement, or it's just a sort of we're we're trying to make that encouragement.

Are you asking whether the city, you know, every well, many, many of our nonprofits who come to us for funding need our funding to leverage county, state, and national funds.

Um there is no formal process, but we do know that when they look at the applications, they're gonna ask what your local jurisdiction is doing.

And again, if the local jurisdiction doesn't support the program, then it's difficult to get others to support your program.

So no, the answer to your question is I don't think there's a formal agreement of some sort.

It's kind of a given.

Yeah, I get what you're saying.

It it shows our comment.

All right.

Uh is there a motion for a recommendation on this.

So I'll make a motion to give a favorable to SA 626.

Okay, all those in favor say aye.

Aye aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Nay.

All right.

Motion passes.

This will go to the council.

All right.

Um next up we have 0125, but I'm pretty sure Alderman Arnett wanted to withdraw this.

Uh does anybody have information to the contrary on that?

No, that's when the three or the four of us last met, that's what he was in agreement to.

I've been told that it has to be pulled on the floor.

So that's why it still has to come to finance committee.

Got it.

So I guess we can just make a quick unfavorable recommendation on it, given that so.

I would suggest we take no action as opposed to an unfortunate okay, sure.

Sure.

All right.

Um so do we need a motion for that?

Or we can just move on.

I'm sorry.

Do we need a motion for that, or we can just move on?

No, I'm yeah.

Easy peasy.

All right, here's the real meat of today.

Oh, 3125, general obligation bonds and bond anticipation notes.

Very exciting stuff.

Um I do have a bunch of questions.

No, I'm not kidding.

I do have a bunch of questions to ask about this, but uh, Miss Moran, do you want to start with a overview for us?

Or I mean, this is uh a pretty big piece.

Correct there's not good, but I don't know.

I'm not sure why, sir.

We didn't have anything for public works.

Oh, you think for this?

Yeah.

Yeah, I guess so.

Um anyway.

Uh Director Moran, do you want to get started?

Sort of give us an overview on this.

I know you and I have talked about it a couple times, and then I can jump into some of the questions I brought.

That's all good.

Yep.

Um, I will welcome any questions.

Um, it's obviously a lengthy document um in a very formal document that's actually written by bond council.

Um, all it's doing is providing the ability to issue bonds, general obligation bond, um based on the adopt the FY26 adopted budget and all of the previously adopted budgets where we have not sold bonds for.

Um, so the appropriation for bond funding or bond issuance has been obviously taking place from FY22 to FY26 without actually going to bond sale.

So we were able to utilize cash reserves and prior proceeds from bonds, ARPA funding, um, and a multitude of things to cover our cash needs, and no bond sale was necessary or needed.

Um, so this bond all or this ordinance, although looks very large, it's because those bonds have not been sold for such a substantial amount of time.

The finance department, I do not plan on issuing bonds at that rate or that amount.

That just is what we need to in order to have the ability to match the previously appropriated bond funding plus the additional 26 bond funded projects.

This also gives the option, you'll see there's been some questions on what the bond anticipation note is, and that is if the city decided that we were not going to go to bond sale um and issue long-term debt, there is the option to pivot and do short-term debt.

Um, and then within three years it has to be rolled over into long-term debt.

So it's an interesting discussion on what the interest rates are doing and what our predictions are.

There's pros and cons to both.

Um, I think it is a discussion on what cash is going to be needed and what projects are moving forward.

Oh, and then yes, another issue or another question that was brought up was what does this do to the previously approved bond ordinances that have not been exercised?

And if this is not passed, the FY25 bond ordinance stays in effect.

We can issue bonds up to that amount, but only to the projects that were included in that ordinance.

So anything from 26 budget that was either a new project and bond funded or additional funds that were added to projects that were bond funded, they would not be able to be spent with bond proceeds.

But if this passes, then it supersedes the previously approved bond ordinances.

So this is not 73 million on top of the other bond ordinances.

Oh, okay.

That is very helpful to understand.

Thank you.

Um, like I said, I brought a bunch of questions, but I'd turn it to my colleagues if either of you guys want to start first with any questions you have about it.

Well, I'll I'll start, yes.

Um, but I I would like for you to repeat something you just stated.

You said the 70, what is the number?

71, 73, 73 is not new bond funding is what your thing.

So it's you said bond funding that was approved through 25.

It's it's accessible.

But 26 is not.

Did we not pass legislation?

Or is this the legislation?

Correct.

This is the legislation to include the projects that were included in the FY26 budget and bond funded.

New project.

Or existing projects that added new bond funding to them.

Okay, I think that's what we need to see.

Which of those projects and what is added to those projects?

You know, in my mind, and I think I've had this discussion with others.

Um for some time, we've said we have more bond funding than we're capable of using.

And this is DPW's telling us when we can handle all of this, these projects.

So on top of what projects we're not able to get to, we're adding additional funding, or are we not?

And I guess that's the question.

That's what we need to see.

Yep.

So included with the ordinance was also a couple schedules.

Um, and if you look at the exhibit one, that's really where the breakdown of the projects is.

Um at the very end of that chart, that's where you'll see the 73 million at the total at the bottom.

So if you if you have it in front of you, I can walk you through the columns if that would help.

Okay, I see the 73 million.

I guess that would help.

I guess it's the last two columns that we're talking about.

Yes.

So if you we want to take the the very first project and walk through that as an example.

Okay, the um what act acting cove.

Yeah, correct.

One of my favorite.

Yep.

So you'll see the first column with numbers is the prior approved appropriations.

Okay, the 91.8.

Yep.

And then the next column is what prior.

So that's an additional, or is this now the new total?

And if so, where does that come from?

So let me jump in a second.

You guys are talking about two different columns.

No, we're not.

We're talking about the last what you said prior approved appropriations.

You said 91.8.

Those are two different columns.

The prior approved appropriations column where the numbers 1976 10.

That's the column director Moran's on.

Yeah.

So you wanted to start from there.

I just want to make sure we're starting over on that.

Okay.

So the 1976 10 is prior approved appropriations.

So anything prior to the FY26 budget.

The next column, 535,000 was what was added funding through the FY26 budget process to the total project.

Next column, 732,610.

That is the combination of those two.

So total project appropriations is now 732,000.

Moreover, the breakdown of that 732 will be the next four columns, which are capital reserve or other 5,000 grants, 450, and then the remaining 277,610 is what is funded through bonds in total.

So if you add up the 5,000, the 450, and the 277, that's going to give you that 732.

So then the last three columns are just a breakdown of the bond funding.

So the 91,000 829 and the 1857 eighty-one equal the 277,610.

The the breakdown of those is just proceeds from the general obligations that have already been spent.

So we have not issued any bonds.

Okay.

So some total of all of those last columns will be the 73.

The very far right column, correct.

So if we were to need all the money and all these projects were going to happen right now, and we anticipated needing all this cash, we would have to have a bond sale of 73 million dollars.

We know that that's not realistic.

Um so we do we do look down at how much money we have, the um the percent of cash being spent, how quickly it's being spent, and have a more realistic projection.

Um, and it's right now we're thinking 36 million will be what's actually issued in bonds.

But we take a look at that with um public works as well as it gets closer.

So in the next couple weeks, we'll scrub it again to see where the projects are.

Okay, so my question is I guess for uh director Vogel, are all of these projects doable in the time that this bond funding is being allocated?

I see the finance director shaking her head.

No, the practitioner, um we gotta call them up from the back of the room.

Who's hoping to avoid us today?

Because that's that's the question.

You know, are we creating this pot of funding that we're really not going to be able to utilize?

Or are we um for Vogel Public Works Director?

Uh I'm simply gonna reiterate Director Moran's answer is that $36 million is her current estimate of what we would need to carry us through to the next bond sale, which I believe you're anticipating two or three years from now.

Correct.

So, and she also said that we will be refining that numbers 36 million dollars is kind of that starting point, uh, and that she and I and the public work staff will kind of dig into the details there and make sure we get that as close as possible.

You're speaking from the funding perspective.

I am asking from the practical shovel in the ground perspective.

Correct.

They're one they are one in the same so that you're telling me that you'll be able to accomplish all of these projects.

No, ma'am.

Well, that's my question.

If we were to accomplish all of the projects, she would need the full 72 million dollars.

Exactly.

And that's what we're seeking to approve to in this legislation, are we not?

That's what it says.

Yes, the legislation gives the ability because that's the way that the budget was passed as appropriated.

So the question then would become should the bond should the budget have been passed with additional bond funding if we didn't anticipate these projects actually happening?

But this is this ordinance is written the way that the bond was appropriated through the budget process.

So this bond authority appropriation has already been adopted, approved, adopted.

That doesn't mean that we have to exercise this full amount, which is what director the director was saying is that we're not going to issue 72 million dollars in debt because we recognize that that amount of money and that level, all these projects are not going to happen right away.

So we do take that into consideration.

That's why we don't issue 72 million dollars in debt.

But this is the way that the budget was passed.

So I'm looking for, and I'll repeat it.

I'm looking for a practical pretty much accounting of what is going to be accomplished with the existing bond funding and with the additional bond funding in the times that we're talking about.

You know, did we accomplish, and this isn't a uh an attack or anything, but did we get through all of the projects in 25?

Maybe maybe a way to ask what Alderman Philason is getting at is what in historically, what percent of that's not my question.

No, okay.

That's a good question.

But my question is how many of the projects that we fund in 25 did we complete or are on you know, on the way to being completed, and how many of them are in 26 realistically going to be accomplished to need and and maybe in the 27, whatever it is, to need this additional uh funding, this additional 73 million.

So where's where do we have it?

And director Vogel, can you provide that?

I mean, you surely you know.

The document that I would point you to is the capital budget, which does indicate when projects are planned for construction or or specifically what we are proposing to complete in uh in the next fiscal year.

So that's not a that's not a great, it's not rolled up into a total summary, but again, that is that is something that we are talking about working out, right?

Taking this uh adding another column here and saying uh the total expenditures we would anticipate through, let's say the end of 2027 okay.

I I guess um and I understand the chart and I understand how you came to the 73 million, you know, in the past, and I hate to bring up previous directors, um, but we were given a list.

So we knew exactly what we were gonna what the expectation was in a given uh fiscal year, and that's what we're looking for again.

I'm looking for again, and I'm gonna ask the question.

Sure.

If you're if you have that list, it would be helpful.

We could make it sure we'd reproduce.

But we're not gonna be able to accomplish all of these in given fiscal years.

So we're gonna be, and we know what the CIP looks like and how many years out.

We're just I'm just trying to see where the funding is needed for which year.

And is the 73 million tied to specific projects?

And we see them.

I I got the chart, I understand that.

But what are we gonna actually accomplish?

Or what are we just putting aside until another time?

If I if I may, I think I wanna make sure I'm I'm hearing correctly.

Um I've heard a lot of frustration from council and from others about um that gap between what's approved in the CIP for a given year versus what's actually completed.

And that gap then begs the question of I don't necessarily, I can't look at the CIP and have a realistic sense of what's actually gonna be accomplished this year.

So I would like sort of some further information to get that sense.

Um from just speaking for my myself, um, but I think it I think we've we've certainly spoken internally.

Um I think that having a gap that's that large is a bit of its own problem.

Um, and that's one of the things that I would like for us to really talk about for this next year is how do we have a smaller gap than that?

You're never gonna hit everything perfectly, but but that sense of frustration and that sense of I can't just look at the CIP and have a sense of what's actually gonna get done this year, I think is a problem that we need to kind of address like from the get-go.

Um, and so I I think that it's I I think I understand what you're asking is give me a realistic sense of what what can what should I be able to actually expect from this year?

Um, and I I think that's something that I think that's something that we can work with as a and and to answer and and certainly that view of how much are we actually gonna issue, which is sort of filtered through that lens.

I think that's something we can share, right?

We're sort of expecting this and then this, and this is how much, therefore, we're actually gonna issue.

Um the bond ordinance self itself, of course, just simply reflects the approved budget.

Um, but it doesn't address that gap that you were talking about.

And I think that's a I think that's a reasonable question, and I think that's something that we can share based on you know, where do we think uh you know how how did we arrive at that number that of bonds that we actually think we're gonna need.

Um, but I would also, as a follow-up to that, like to see us have smaller gaps from the get-go, if that makes sense.

I I want to be clear, I'm not opposed to what's being asked for, because I trust that you've done the numbers and we see them here.

What I need, and I think the community expects and wants to see exactly what's being accomplished in each year using the funds that have been approved.

So and I'm disappointed that we don't have it today.

Um, but I think we need it, and I would hope that we have it in front of us so that we can justify making this.

And I know the bonding agency, they're flowing on the CIP that we created and we approved.

So they're gonna tell us the the best case scenario, which is fine, but we need to be able to justify it to our constituents to the taxpayers how these funds are being used and if they are being used, and if they are being used for the projects that are approved.

So, but um city manager uh Buckland, you understand the point I'm making.

So thank you.

I think you had a question.

I did.

Um we've been we're looking at numbers.

I know that the bond ordinance lists the 73 million.

Um you've talked about actually 36 million, so you must have an idea of which projects are covered under that 36 million to get to that amount.

Is that correct?

It's it's not a perfect science, and we do look at it as we get more information in.

We look at it on a cash flow basis of what projects are spending down quicker than others.

For example, like the sewer fund, they their bond funded projects spend quicker than maybe general sidewalks or what whatever it may be.

It's um we look at that the cash flow um also.

So it's it's a percentage, it's not perfect.

Um it's it's about 50%, but you know, take City Doc for example, there are bond funds in there.

Um, you know, there's a lot of other considerations in that.

So the full bond funding for that would be 9 million, realistically, we are considering 2.5 million in bond funding.

And that's just that's an easy one to take out, for example, because it's one that we really look at, but um, it's a moving target.

But we we are very cautious in what we we issue um because we are obligated to spend that money within three years or pay back the interest of the IRS.

So that's not lost on us.

So that leads to sort of the culmination of my question.

And if the 73 is not what we're going to use, and it's what I've heard from the public as um putting up huge red flags, and we're looking more towards the 36.

Do we amend the ordinance to reflect a lower number to get to where Buckland had said she'd like to see a smaller gap, we would like to see a smaller gap so that we're knowing we know that we are funding projects in a realistic number versus uh a number that would cover everything, and we know we're not going to cover that.

So I'm wondering if it makes sense for us to amend that, even though in our budget process we passed this number so that we're not putting ourselves out there as we're just grabbing every dollar can, but we're actually grabbing the dollars that we need to complete the projects that we know they're going to be able to complete in the bond.

I think that's a budget question of this is how the budget was approved, and maybe in 26 it should have been approved based on realistic expectations of the project um progress, and that bond funding should have been used in projects that we knew were happening or split between years that we knew they were going to be happening.

Um because in practice, yes, you you shouldn't issue bonds on projects that are not actively moving, you should wait until they're going to be actively moving and then issue the bond.

This bond ordinance gives us the ability to spend proceeds at the level that they were funded.

So if you decrease the bond ordinance, you have to decrease the project appropriation because it has to agree.

So we've appropriated now, for example, a project for um cars beach.

Um we have the budget authority to spend in that project, but the bond ordinance gives us the ability to spend those proceeds in those said projects.

So if we decrease the bond ordinance, you're only approving that amount for that project based on the bond ordinance.

So you then you have a discretion between or you have a um a discrepancy between what your budget ordinances and what projects are able to use proceeds from, so they don't agree.

Okay, I think the better I don't have a solution.

Um I think that the budget was passed the way it was, and um I kind of raised that question during the budget process of we shouldn't put the bond funds there unless you know we know that project is actually happening in that year.

And I do want to acknowledge we actually did do some scrubbing this last year, right?

Um it's you know, I I want to make sure, you know, Burr, the budget team, you know, rack and parks.

We did do some scrubbing this last year.

We need to continue that, right?

That's that was the start of a journey.

So the city is aware of this, is make is trying to make some strides, but you're not gonna get all the way to the finish line, right?

On that first play.

So, you know, that's that's a journey we need to continue, clearly.

Thank you.

So um, my first question is I was looking at and unfortunately now I can't pull it up, but I think maybe it was our presentation from Davenport.

And it looks like this number, the 73 million dollar number is significantly higher than our previous uh bond sales.

Could you explain how it differs from previous bond not bond sales, bond ordinances?

Um and why that is if we go back and look at like the one from last year.

Yeah, because we haven't issued bonds since 2022, so it just keeps adding more and more and more of unissued debt that was appropriated through the budget.

I get what you're saying.

So we we didn't need the cash flow um for a number of reasons, whether it was the project status or the additional ARPA funds, or uh whatever it may be, delays um we weren't using the cash as it was being appropriated through the budget process, so therefore conservatively we don't issue debt unless we need to.

We're actually still setting on interest that we are the end of this year calendar year, we have to pay back interest because we haven't spent the proceeds.

Got it.

Okay, that answered my question.

Thank you.

Um so this goes back to this question we've we've been hatching out, but to put my fine point on it.

What percent of what we obligate the the of what we approve in the ordinance this year at 73 million dollars, last year it was a smaller number.

Historically, what percent of that is getting spent in each one of those time?

Are we talking 80%?

Are we talking 40%?

Roughly in in the year of appropriation, you mean time period spent, but in in X number of months beyond the passage of that budget.

Um let's say three years, because that's sort of the time period we're looking at.

So if bonds are uh or if a project is approved in in FY25, let's say, then you have FY25, 26, and 27.

Um 50 is probably a good number for that.

Okay.

50 to 50 to 70.

So um just at the bottom of exhibit one, the and the totals, yeah.

You will see the appropriation funded by bonds.

Right.

And that I don't know the breakdown of which years those were appropriated right now, but that's anything prior to 26.

Um, was I'm sorry, including 26.

That's all appropriations.

This is the 155 and 59 million or 60 million of that has been spent in that period.

So I'm sorry, can you just say those numbers again?

Yep.

So the 597 million, yep.

That's proceeds from the bonds that have already been spent on those projects of the 155.9 that was appropriated.

Right.

Okay.

Wow.

Keep in mind these would be heavily skewed by two very large projects that have been delayed.

City dock.

The two city dock flood mitigation projects.

Oh, those two.

Okay.

And I suppose also mainstream rebricking, which is not main street rebricking, which is another big one that's gotten delayed.

Not quite of that magnitude, but that's a multi-million dollar one.

Um, I'm sorry, did you have a question on Lyson?

I was trying to follow um Miss Moran's numbers.

Um you were getting ready to ask her, and I oh you're talking about so down here uh on the bottom, the total appropriations funded by bonds.

Yeah, and how much of that has been expended.

So where does the amount that's been extended?

That would be uh the 59 million dollar figure.

Okay, so that has been expended.

So this ordinance will allow it to go to 96.

Like that I'm seeing 96 but minus the unspent proceeds from bonds that are already issued, which is 22 million.

That's from the total, though.

I was just looking at that one project.

Right.

So the 96 would be the delta of those two, but we have 22 million to still draw down from this is a little bit of a different question than what we've been getting at so far, but because I recognize there's a difference between what we're authorizing to be issued and what we actually issue.

But if we do actually issue the bonds, and then for whatever reason we realize that we have significantly less of a need for that cash, maybe there's a pandemic and we get more ARPA money, whatever reason.

Um what are our opportunities to for lack of a better term, call that back?

So that's um interesting question because I've brought that up as well.

My um the complication with bonds is once the debt is issued, you can't repay it.

It's not it's not just like a general loan.

There's um a lot of tax implications, there's a lot of criteria and restrictions because it's tax exempt bonds, and because we're selling bonds with the assumption of an interest, um it's somebody's making money off of it, you know.

So it's not it's not easy.

You can't just repay back your bonds.

Um otherwise it would have made sense to use ARPA funds to repay and save on the interest, but you can't do that.

So that is another reason why bans could be used.

Um, for example, if somebody, if it a municipality had a project that they knew they were eventually gonna get grant funding for, well, if it's a reimbursement model, they're gonna get a banned, get that grant money.

You can re-b you can pay back bans.

So you can buy off that debt.

If you don't use the cash and you say, you know, we've decided not to move forward with this, or we need to rethink this project because we lost grant funding, or we're getting grant funding, you have more flexibility with giving back that money and not having to pay the interest for 20 years or 30 years.

Um, but with bonds, that's once they're issued, they're issued.

And so we're not making any distinction here between a ban and a bond.

Correct.

But is there are there examples where councils do get into that level of detail?

I mean, it's certainly a I can see the argument against it, right?

We want to give you the flexibility to respond to market conditions, but it also seems like a very significant decision, the extent to which we issue a bond versus a ban, and we're not really we're not making that distinction here.

So are there examples of places where the council does make that decision?

I um I'd have to do some research.

I'm not sure what the level of detail that council usually gets into, but it's something that I've been discussing with Davenport.

Um just in the fact that the short-term debt is also seeing about short-term debt, it's current markets like 3.75, where long-term debt is about 4.15 to 4 and a quarter.

Um, so there is better interest rate right now in the short term, but the cautionary point or the conversation or less, however, you structure it, you have to roll that into long-term debt if it's not repaid.

You either repay it or it goes to long-term debt.

So if the market improves and we have a lower interest rate, which is what we're all hoping for, um, we could issue debt at a decreased interest rate.

However, if the interest rate goes up and we haven't repaid those bans, we do have to roll that into long term debt.

So you have to be mindful of that.

I guess risk.

Can you tell me some more about the factors that you're watching as you think about and try to assess what the interest rates are going to look like over the long term?

Obviously, the overnight lending rate is one.

Are we looking at trade factors?

Just generally, what what factors are you looking at to try and make that assessment?

Um, I'm just looking at the the current market and the way that the trends are.

We we haven't seen any effect of the tariffs yet.

I think that's very much to be determined.

Um I think the volatility of the economic state right now is very hard to predict.

We can't look at historical.

Um it's a it's a very it's very unknown.

Um I think it's it's worth considering the bans right now.

It's worth considering waiting to go to bond sale.

Um it's gonna be a very large discussion on what grant funding comes through, what projects are priority, and what's actually moving.

Um, I think these are all very valid questions.

Yeah, yeah.

Uh I wish I had an easy easy answer.

But you're in the Wall Street Journal, I get it.

Uh well, yeah, watching C-span, you know, all the things.

Uh there was something you just said I wanted to go back to.

You said uh it's worth considering delaying the bond sale.

What we've been hearing was that there's a real urgency for us to make sure we gather some proof so you guys can go up to New York and do this bond sale, and I think it was October was the plan.

Are those plans changing?

No, that that's not changed as of now.

That would be a conversation with the greater whole.

Um under the the council and the mayor as right now, we we do have a deadline of when we could issue that debt under this ordinance.

So it gets you know, can you remind me what that's gonna issue the debt with an a new mayor after a previous mayor has already signed the bond ordinance and all of the um the documents that are required with the bond sale?

So you want the same administration or the same people signing off that are agreeing to issue the debt that are actually issuing the debt.

Got it.

Okay, that makes a lot of sense too.

But uh yeah, hard to do that with the amount of volatility we have.

Um could you help me make sure that I'm understanding exhibit two correctly?

So this is exhibit two is the schedule of general obligation bonds outstanding.

This is funds that we need to repay.

Zach, am I correct in that?

This is all the total outstanding bonds that we have right now.

This does not consider the new bond funding.

Right.

So if we were to issue 36 million, then we would be at one.

And obviously each year we pay down some of that principle, but this is as of the end.

And so the uh the reason that we have a particular column for proceeds from revenue bonds 2015 A, is that because we anticipate paying those off fully this year?

Why was that specifically called out within now?

I'm back to exhibit one.

Um, so those are just revenue bonds.

So revenue bonds are different than general obligation bonds in the sense that they are repaid not through the they're not backed by the full faith and credit of the city.

They're backed by um like water and sewer rates and um yeah, that's other revenue streams other than the tax base.

Well, that actually leads me right into my next question of um why are we not distinguishing between parking fund bonds and general obligation bonds?

In which in exhibit one.

Is it I'm looking, I was looking specifically the city doc project where the bond funding is overwhelmingly uh oh gosh, I lost it, but the bond funding was overwhelmingly through the parking fund.

And yet uh we don't break that out in here.

Shouldn't that be if we're breaking out other revenue bonds, doesn't it make sense to break out that revenue bond?

I guess I don't understand the question.

Okay, maybe I'm not being clear.

The uh I'm hoping that some okay, Jake.

Uh if I miss state this, that that there'll be a correction.

Um the primary the bulk of the revenue bonds under the P3 arrangement are not actually held by the city.

Right.

Right.

So they don't appear on the city books.

What does appear is the waterfall payment.

Um but the fact that that waterfall payment.

Well, like I said, the the revenue bonds isn't it isn't on our side anyway.

So that's why they don't appear.

Right.

If that makes sense.

No, that makes sense to me.

But my question is more that we have on the capital projects, the capital budget, 13,56, or sorry, 13,506,000 of parking fund bonds for the city dock project.

And then over here we've got it listed as uh in exhibit one.

We have it listed as 13,756,000 of appropriations funded by bond.

Uh total, right?

Not broken out.

But I won't spit out any more numbers until you know what I'm saying.

So okay, let's let's take it from a different angle.

This 13,756,000 of appropriations funded by bonds or the city doc resilience and revitalization project, which we have here on exhibit one.

Is that intended to be exclusively general obligation bond?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

Then why is it that when we look at the um capital project for the city doc revitalization that we only see 11 million four hundred and seventeen thousand dollars of general fund bond?

You're looking at the CIP budget itself, correct.

Uh that's I can follow up with you.

I don't okay.

And this well, and and a big part of why I'm confused about it is because that 13 million breaks out into 4.5 and roughly nine, and yet within the capital budget, it's not showing that we have any prior approved general fund bonds for the city doc project.

So that that really doesn't seem to add up to me.

So if if it needs to be a follow-up, we can put a pen in it.

But uh those numbers just aren't adding up, and this is obviously a very big, very important project as the director um Vogel was saying.

So I want to make sure we've got it all our eyes and cross LRTs on our biggest ever capital project.

Yeah.

Okay, but but ultimately the question is why uh how does the bond funding we're seeing here in exhibit one relate to the bond funding for city doc that we see in the capital budget?

That's that's my very broad question that I'd like to follow up on.

Um okay, let's see.

Went through most of these here.

Okay.

Last thing I got for you, I think is just the fact recommended an amendment.

Uh it was pretty minor, but do we have a way of addressing that concern?

Um maybe looking over Ms.

Reuter for that.

The recommendation I believe that they had was to add section two language, correct?

Um, so the bond ordinance is sufficiently long and complex.

That language um it normally gets called out as this section two, but there's actually a whole bunch of of sections to that ordinance, and it's actually in 27.

Um, which is the this it so if you look at the first reader, it's the last page um under number 27.

That's where the language is that says this takes effect, you know three days after um I don't have it in front of me.

So I'll so you're saying it's section 27.

This ordinance shall take effect from the date of its approval.

Yeah.

So I think that language is there, but it looks different than what we typically see in legislation, it's not called out, it's not visually separated.

Um but I think the the content is there.

I think it looks different.

Um that honestly is I think up to you guys of of how you prefer to for for clarity and readability and um I I think that's up to you guys if you want to make that kind of change.

No, that I'm not sure that the content necessarily changes.

Um, but the readability and the clarity potentially changes.

It sounds like they just want us to fill in the blank.

Yeah, yeah.

The date and the signatures and the like.

I know I was in that meeting and I didn't fully understand the request at the time.

So I I think it's satisfied.

Um I'll just muse and say I think it's kind of wild that we have in here that we have to put it into a newspaper in general circulation in the city, and uh, you know, we in a couple years we very well may not have newspapers in publication in the city.

Uh but that's just my own musing.

All right, that covers all my questions.

I really do want to make sure that we get everything addressed with City Doc.

Um, but I think we can do that before this gets its final approval.

I think we can move this forward out of this committee rather than wait the whole thing up.

And so any either of my colleagues have anything more.

Well, I I'd like to um Ms.

Moran, are you comfortable that the numbers are the same as in the CIP?

Because uh the chair just pointed out uh you know, like what $2,000 uh difference in uh the exhibit and what's in the CIP.

So I trust these numbers came from the CIP document.

No, it does tie.

It's the 250 from the 26 budget that were general fund plus the previously approved appropriated 3.5 million.

So those total to the total you'll see in exhibit one.

Okay, but that that's consistent throughout.

I'm I'm just confirming that that's three point five million is not listed as prior approved appropriations in the budget book I'm looking that somewhere else.

Can I come get yeah?

Here, you want to just come take a look at it?

I think director Burr may have uh right.

So here's what I'm seeing.

Here we have uh-huh.

Okay, yeah, okay.

So the parking fund is included.

Okay.

Yes, so the the way that the debt the debt service on parking fund project would be reproduced.

Got it as a debt service line item.

Got it.

Okay, this is making much more sense.

See, I was trying to add it like this.

Yeah, makes more sense to add it like that.

That would do it's the 20th.

Okay.

So then I do still have a question about it, but it's a much less uh I wouldn't leave direct remote.

Yeah, Bird's getting the steps in today.

So then my question on it is why if we're breaking out the revenue bonds, are we in with for 2015?

Why are we not in this exhibit breaking out other revenue bonds like from the parking fund?

Because that's not a revenue bond.

Oh, it's not.

No, it's all general obligation.

Okay, and is that because we they were originally of revenue bond and then we purchased it as a general obligation bond?

Wasn't that no, that it was never a revenue bond?

Okay.

Right.

All right.

Yeah, the the thing to keep in mind is that there's sort of two tranches of debt.

The revenue bonds is what's held outside.

Yeah, sub debt the city took on.

Right.

Is not revenue bonds.

Got it.

Okay.

All right.

That is lining up for me then.

Thank you very much.

Uh so basically the the point that I'm getting at here is no, the parking fund is not distinguished from the general obligation bonds, and that's appropriate.

Okay.

Got it.

Thank you.

All right.

That's uh that's all my questions then.

May I ask a question?

And it's simply about a title.

Uh the Annapolis Walk Park Improvement, which really I thought we had changed the title to parking as opposed to being about the park.

As long as we're clear, but I think it it I think we changed the title.

But I could be wrong, but I don't have the the booking.

Yeah, it's okay.

And I'll take this opportunity to remind our wonderful budget staff that we would like that uh adopted FY26 budget book soon.

Because we have the yes, that's I received the email.

It's it's coming.

It's through it's it's a lot of back and forth of uh review process.

It's a very thorough process.

We don't want to put out a document that doesn't totally tie to what was approved.

So yes, it's it is I promise it's not being a I didn't think it was.

All right.

Um has it come.

Oh, hey, what's up, Mr.

Trudeau?

Budget manager Jake Trudeau, I will say too that the budget ordinance has been on Legislature since June 25th of this year.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Can we make a note on the front page of uh of our web five website that says that please that's a question for our webmaster?

Uh um okay.

So uh is there a motion to approve 03125 or to make a favorable recommendation on 03125?

Mr.

Chair, I'll make a recommendation of a favorable recommendation.

Second, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All right, thank you very much, everybody.

I believe that just about concludes our agenda.

Oh, we have our finance department update.

And I see we've got a bunch of these written out now.

Look, oh, even today's.

There we go.

That's that's for you, Autumn Finlison.

We got it written out.

Yeah.

As request.

I appreciate it.

As requests, thank you very much.

Um, well, in that case, uh I'm happy to read it.

But uh, do you want to give us highlights also?

Or do we want to just ask you questions about it?

I'll take questions.

Okay.

Anyone got questions about the written finance director report?

Um, I didn't have one question on this about the staffing.

You it just what you wrote here is a little bit vague.

Uh could you a little more clearly say what you're thinking about where the greatest areas of need are?

Um I I get you're trying to determine that, but what's your initial thinking on that at this point?

Um I am looking at everyone's job responsibility for the task lie, um, shifting some responsibilities from staff that we do have right now and um areas of growth.

Um it's been we're taking it a little bit slow, um, trying to plan strategically before we hire a full-time person um and not knowing where the need actually is.

I'm at the deputy position that is needed.

Um it's not clear to me yet whether it needs to be a split role um at a different level, or if it's really going to be able if we're gonna be able to accomplish what we need with the detail we need in all of the different areas of finance.

We have um I I don't want to say silo, but we have a lot of silos in accounting, seven different areas that I believe are um require a lot of oversight, and I don't know that one deputy can dig into the detail that's needed or whether that's a different level, a lower level that has specific areas to hone in on.

Um we also have right now we're working with IT and a couple of other areas that I feel there's not efficiencies that we can eliminate a large amount of workload that's unnecessary.

So we don't want to hire, for example, somebody to help with AP when we're trying to do three things with IT right now that could drastically change the workload that's in AP.

So it might make more sense, or it would make more sense to have an accountant that's helping with year end close and monitoring of our receivables versus an AP clerk when we're trying to make efficiencies at that level.

So it's we're mindful of the need, but we're trying to be strategic in it first.

I may have to um, you know, and this is of course for the historical perspective.

When we created deputies or um the number two persons in the department, regardless of what they were called.

The intent was to have someone to be able to step in those positions if need be.

Um, and so might it be valuable to bring in a deputy as you're reorganizing so that that person would have a full scope of um the department as opposed to being brought in and just being told this is the way it is, and you know, that kind of thing.

So just for your consideration.

Thank you.

All right.

Anybody got anything else for the good of the order?

Any other questions, any other concerns?

Anything you just want to tell Chief Coralli how good his hair's looking today?

Well, all right.

Uh seeing none, is there a motion to adjourn?

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Meeting adjourned.