But these uh all right, I hope we get home to the safely.

I think you're right.

Yes.

Yeah.

Oh gosh.

Take care.

Oh it is.

Oh, listen.

I don't think based on who's here, I guess not.

Okay.

This is the only copy I have, but that's the I thought you might have.

Okay.

Uh Shawna Kelly is absent.

Haldeman in the Lodge, Larry Wolveshire.

Honorman Lodge, Michael O'Brien is present.

And Alderman Richard A.

Dow too.

Okay.

Okay.

We have one, two, three, four, five, six in attendance.

Also in attendance.

Alderman Clemens.

All right.

First item on the agenda is public comment for anything being acted on this evening.

You have three minutes.

I don't think I need three minutes.

Are you going to act on item seven on your agenda?

Table in committee.

No, not at taking either one of them off the table.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else?

No.

Communications.

You want to add uh yeah.

Uh without objections, so accept a communication after the agenda was prepared.

We have received a communication from Alicia Romara, executive director of the Great American Downtown region an update from the Great American Downtown on the uh downtown.

Okay.

No objections.

Okay.

Continue.

Unfinished business?

None.

New business resolutions.

Before us this evening is our twenty-five two hundred and twelve, establishing an expenditure expendable trust fund for the national resource center.

Mr.

Chairman, I would like to make the motion to recommend final passage.

Motion is the final passage, recommend to the full board final passage of uh R252.

Any comments as Elderman to you?

Thank you, uh Mr.

Chairman.

Um I just want to say for both this one and the next one, so I don't have to speak again.

Is that when you know I voted for the ordinance with camping, my expectation was we are going to do a resource center.

So I support both of these, and you know, like a lot of people said that spoke earlier today.

It's it's just a step, it's not the the end, um, but it's a first step to match what other cities and towns have done in well, cities have done in the state.

So I think we need to do it, and uh I support both of them.

Alleman Clemens.

Um, yeah, to piggyback on what my colleague just said, um, although I'm not on the committee, I I will support this when it gets to the full board.

But um I I did want to note that uh the prime sponsor, uh the woman Kelly, and on this one and the next one.

I am working with uh her so that we can hopefully expand the scope of this next year.

Um we didn't want to bring anything any amendments in this evening uh because we didn't want to jeopardize the public comment on the funding piece of this.

Um, but we do I just wanted to give people a heads up that you know I think there are other issues surrounding um resources for our unsheltered population, and so the goal will be that, but um certainly I support this in its form, and I'm hoping that we can add just a few more things to it that we'd be able to fund out of it.

So anyone else seeing none?

All those in favor signify by saying aye, aye opposed, motion carries.

Well, uh before us is our 25213, establishing an expendable trust fund for the national resource and the funded by donations.

All right, the motion on the floor is to recommend final to the full board final passage of R25213.

Any questions?

Uh we've already heard from a couple people.

Anyone else?

Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye opposed, motion carries.

Also before us this evening is our 25214 relative to supplemental approachations of 59,499 and 98 cents of unanticipated revenue from the United States internal revenue service into the capital equipment reserve fund.

Mr.

Chairman would like to make a motion to recommend final passage.

Motion on the floor is to recommend final passage to the full board of R25214.

Questions?

Discussion, Alliman Sullivan.

Thank you very much.

As it was brought up uh or uncovered in public comment that we don't have this money yet.

Uh given the unpredictability, I would say at the federal level, especially around the uh internal revenue service.

Um, I'd like to make a motion to table this until the money is received.

Okay, table motions not debatable.

All those in favor of tabling it say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Nay.

The um we have a correspondence from the government saying that the money is on the way.

I mean one would hope that we can trust the government that far.

And and it it only will be applicable once we get the money that we're accepting it.

Any other discussion?

Alderman Clements by just real quick, yeah.

As you said, I mean, even if we pass this this resolution tonight, if we don't get the money, we can't spend it.

So that was great.

Any other discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye, aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

This evening is our 25215.

Relative to supplemental appropriation of three million dollars of assigned fund balance into fund 7074 special education expendable trust fund.

Okay, the motion on the floor is to yes, I have the motion is uh to recommend final passage.

Motion is to recommend final passage of R25215.

Questions, discussion?

Thank you.

Uh so out of this three million, it was mentioned that they are gonna use for some for this year and some for next year.

Could um think uh superintendent uh Andre is still here wondering if uh we could specify how much is used this year, how much is used next year.

Please Dr.

Andre.

Uh good evening, Dr.

Andrade.

Uh Superintendent of Schools.

Umlivan, it's not an exact amount for this year.

Um this is more anticipated, as we're kind of um going through is as Mr.

Gray uh mentioned earlier um in the contract service line we're we're anticipating an up to amount of of above four million dollars and it's only budgeted around 1.5 right so we're moving money from wages into that account um hopefully we don't need the contract services for the whole year so we're not quite sure we'll be at the end of this year so we're hoping that it's um we won't need to tap into that three million dollars quite honestly uh it's more again being proactive in future years so we want to make sure that we're within our budget for this year but it sets up just in case something happens so uh we're not again knock on wood today anticipating a big dollar amount of that we would have to tap into this year follow up all up please thank you uh budget one on one question so I in the public hearing I asked about the special revenue fund so when I looked at the school budget and the appropriations I went to the line items around special education and I came up with a budget appropriated of um just over well it's about 11.7 million dollars so are these uh special education uh services is it paid out of those line items or is it paid out of the special revenue fund it's really it's kind of it's some is high the the um what's not in those line items is also the amount of special educators in wages right so some of the offset is actually um providing um contractor agency folk to replace our paraeducators or our special education teachers and that's actually in our wage line so it's not in a special education line so special revenue um uh the special special education special revenue um might be for transportation it might be for additional services but what's not accounted for is the wages for the special education in our current paraeducators that might be a uh an opening that we need to fill through an agency okay follow up yeah what happens if we do nothing so that's um we could be in violation of some IEPs of not providing services and then uh one option that we're currently doing is meeting with families to say there might be uh the need for a compensatory services that might be through tutoring um extended school year so there's other ways that we have to make up for those services if we don't provide um the the special education services or the one-to-one para during the school year yeah so it's it's or the families could take us to court and sue us yeah just a comment yes please so to that point um I there are folks in in my circle that are experiencing that and and um have referenced that specifically yeah uh about the city and and the amount of services that they're getting and the services that they're not getting correct uh so that is um that's not data that's what what I call anecdota uh which isn't you know you can't put a number on it but you hear it and it applies um so yeah I think um it is uh this is a this is a big issue uh on top of a bigger issue uh that you know that was referenced in the in the uh public comment but um yeah I I went back and forth on this one and I appreciate the explanation um I wasn't sure I was gonna support it and I was thinking about reducing it but after the additional comments uh I'm gonna support it okay it's like a tieman Tebo thank you uh Mr.

Chair so um to all the Sullivan's point um you know I have I I've sent you an email on someone that's having an issue with an IEP and so um I know it's out there it's definitely uh an issue so um I understand that what is the impact if we and again to all again to Alderman Sullivan's point if we reduced it this year to 1.5 and then maybe next year we look at it again what's the impact is it the fact that things can change so much next year that maybe we can't get the 1.5 next year or what what would be the impact of that yeah I think I think some of it's timing right I think we're again being proactive with the the money that's now available larger picture of like is this a good investment in the future right so whether it's three million two million five million dollars I think this is really a uh a good collaboration with the city on this is not getting better we have the opportunity and time to make a solid investment to protect the city to invest in our students if stuff if needs come up so I think this is really you know a snapshot in time of is three million dollars the right number is it one point five is it five million right but I think really um

Right.

So whether it's three million, two million, five million dollars.

I think this is really a uh a good collaboration with the city on this is not getting better.

We have the opportunity in time to make a solid investment to protect the city, to invest in our students if stuff if needs come up.

So I think this is really, you know, a snapshot in time of is three million dollars the right number?

Is it 1.5?

Is it five million, right?

But I think really um I'm really happy with the conversations we've been having with the city on this is a true proactive approach that's something that it's not getting better.

And we talk about data.

Yeah, some of it this is some of the conversations we have around IEPs is about emotional data.

It's more qualitative.

I feel my kid needs X.

Yeah.

And so we provide services and then we we look at some of the data if we're moving to um relieving some of power support or less services, and there's emotions involved.

People like, but what happens if?

So can I have another year of that service?

Yeah.

So those are the like the harder conversations, and people feel like I'm not getting the service, and we're like, maybe the students are getting what they need.

So uh that's gonna be a harder cultural conversation.

But this really the three million dollars, if we don't get the three million dollars this year, it may not be a bad thing, right?

We have special revenue um there, we can come back for a special appropriation to move it, um, and then we move forward in that.

So again, I think there's no one around this horseshoe in the city, either the Board of Alderman or the Board of Education that want to harm students.

We'll find a way to make it happen.

It might be a little ugly, uh, the process we have to go through, but I um very confident that we will do right by our kids in the long run.

Um, but this is really the three million dollars is how do we, when we have this snapshot in time in this pool of money, what is the right investment moving forward?

So whether it's 2.5 or $4 million, it's really a proactive approach to how do we offset un is Alderman Down say the unknown unknowns that if something kind of comes up that we have a resource available, and I think it could be a model for other communities to look at how are we planning forward for our needier students.

So it's not an exact science on the dollar amount, but I'm confident through these conversations that we we're taking a proactive approach to um address the needs of our students.

Great.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um I just had a um sort of a broad question in regard to I I know a lot of the services that are being provided now, like you sort of been contracted out.

Um again, this could be a real you know, broad answer.

What's the structure of a contract like that look like?

See occupational therapist, speech therapists, stuff like that.

Is that like school year to school year?

There are some that are school year and a school year.

So this is and I give uh Mr.

Gray a lot of credit right here.

So this in the past we would kind of pay as we go.

And with Mr.

Gray and the special edge department is entering contracts and go in front of the Board of Education for kind of the I don't want to say the first time, but more proactively saying we may need um so in our budget last year, just more like we we budgeted for approximately 400 paraeducators.

We've only hired 350, but our build-in principals and our IAP say we need around 400.

So those 50 paraeducators are kind of contract.

We still look for our operating before the contract, but in the meantime, students need services.

So there's 50 um paraeducators through services.

And we're trying to say it's no more than X, and that's where we came up with the $4 million in contracts.

We might not spend up to the $4 million if we can kind of reduce it, but we try to put a cap on it.

So no more than X with a with a company.

And some contracts are around $800,000.

We're hoping that it's less than that.

Um but there are some um students who require one-to-one nurses and we'll hire them for 180 days at the beginning of the year.

We know we'll need that.

But the contract services right now, um, there might be a situation um that comes up like we're giving you a paraeducator for 60 days, and then we'll review it to see if that data is gonna, is it making a difference or not?

So those are the like some of the short term that we're looking for as opposed to you're guaranteed uh uh this service for 180 days.

Let's look at the data, create the urgency.

Um, are we making progress?

Can we find another alternative?

So we're getting into the much shorter um contracts of saying it's in there for 60 days, but the larger contract with the agency is uh up to like 800,000 so we can encumber that money so we're able to uh offset and we have a target that we know we're gonna be spending.

If that makes sense, does that make sense a little bit?

Just a follow-up comment.

I I appreciate those comments because it really speaks to um you know, to not to use a uh construction uh analogy, but the unknown unknowns of even the the kids entering this system.

You know, it would be nice if there was a rigidity that they entered the system in September and they exited it for the summer in June.

That's not the way it works.

You could absorb seven kids in one school from a neighboring district at the beginning of the year, and that's seven kids that you didn't have before, but then another kid's gonna get diagnosed in December, and then you have to set up the IEP in January, and now you're looking at eight, nine, you know.

It it fluctuates.

So understanding how that changes and how you're constantly moving the pieces around, I really think speaks to the need for this.

Yeah, if I just may add to that, um just even again, like the tragic events of you know, very thankful for a great fire department.

But in response to the fire the other day, there's displaced students now require different transportation, right?

That's now we're um the displaced uh other factors come into place that was unbudgeted for.

And so that'll be a cost that comes in.

But um again, I think Mr.

Gray is doing a nice job forecasting.

Uh, but this number is really again how do we proactively think about um the needs of our students.

So three million, whether it's 2.5 or 4 million dollars, but it's really that proactive.

And I again I'm really confident that everyone around this horseshoe, the Board of Alderman, the Board of Education really have the students' best interest at heart, um, and then proactively collaborate on how do we support all of our students in our community.

Okay, thank you so much.

So having been on the board of ed for 10 years and chairman of the budget for many of them, it was always a variable target and a very expensive target, and things can could happen very quickly.

And now, on top of that, we have all of these I'll call them non-public schools, although they they're classified as public schools, but these other schools that a child can come into tomorrow require a very expensive special ed requirement, and they're going to go to the superintendent and say, hey, I this child needs to be entered into this tomorrow.

And it can take between going through the finance part of the Board of Education, then come back to the Board of Alderman and get funding, could take eight weeks.

Uh having these expendable trust funds is a place where they can go get the money immediately and then the following year put it in their budget.

But that that stuff can happen on a daily basis, and we don't know.

And these expendable trust funds are to keep us from getting in financial problems.

So I would recommend we do the full amount.

Any other questions?

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed, motion carries.

Yes.

Also we have uh 25 216 relative to supplemental appropriation of $300,000 of assigned fund balance into anticipated fund 7090 resources and expendable trust fund.

I would like to make a motion to recommend final passage.

The motion on the floor is to recommend the full board final passage of R25216.

Any discussion?

Alliman Sullivan.

More just a request.

Um I I would like to see uh maybe we could add it into the record for tonight, uh, just the budget of how this 300,000 is gonna be spent.

It was referred to um during public comment, but I'm wondering if we can memorialize that in writing.

We can take the comments from the public hearing and if anyone's listening, maybe we could just put a chart together and just itemize it out just so we have it for the public.

We can ask Director Bagley for one of those.

Thank you and add it to the minutes.

All right.

Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Just a question um for you or for our president.

Um so when will this get to the board of all the make it for next week, right?

Or will it?

It should.

Oh, yes.

Should make it okay, good.

I just wanted to make sure we were trying to it was gonna be the next one.

Any resolutions or ordinances that are hanging out at the end of the year, all die.

I know.

I know.

So we'd have to go through this again in January, including the public hearings.

I was just worried that we have two more meetings, and I was hoping it would get in next week's, not the one at the end of the year, just trying to push it as quickly as we can.

Alderman Clemens.

Related to what I had said earlier, Alderwoman Kelly and I are working on along with additional items for that other and an Alderman Wheel share, along with the additional items for that the expendable trust funds.

We may want to put additional money to have those things funded.

Again, I don't have anything in writing.

It'll be introduced as its own separate ordinance.

But I did publicly say, and I will say this now, and I because I've told the public on multiple occasions that I would push to have services in the amount of a million dollars for various things related to our unhoused population.

So I understand and I appreciate Leeway.

I understand tonight's 300,000 of it.

But I I did not want people to watch this and say, oh, there was Alderman Clemens.

He said he was going to put a million dollars and he didn't do it.

It's coming.

So I assume it's coming in January.

Correct.

Because it would never correct time to go through.

Correct.

All right.

Any other questions, comments?

Seeing none.

All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Alden O'Brien.

Also before us is odd 25217 relative to supplemental approach appropriation of 220,000 of assigned fund balance into fund 7080 80.

Police overtime expendable trust fund.

Mr.

Chairman would like to make the motion and final passage.

Any questions?

Discussion.

Alderman Clemens.

You know what?

I lost my train of thought, actually, believe it or not.

I'm fine.

All right.

All right.

Oh, can I just say uh Alderman O'Brien?

Yeah, I I support this, but also keep in mind the fire department had a major six-alarm fire, which meant that they called back people from their beds and got them up and then came in from home.

And I would uh imagine that's out there too.

That's appropriation.

How can you say you've got to have a fire of that proportion?

How can we say the tragedy of uh sky metal?

You know, so I'm glad we could cover it.

Thank you.

I talked to the chief today, they're still working on it.

All right.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries Alderman O'Brien.

Yes.

Also perfor us is odd 25218 relative to supplemental appropriation of 1,500,000 of assigned fund balance into fund 7026, capital equipment reserve fund.

Mr.

Chairman would like to make the motion and recommend final passage.

Motion on the floor is to recommend final passage of R25218 to the full board.

Discussion.

Alderman Sullivan.

Thank you.

Um I am not going to support this.

And the reason being is using uh all the information that I have in front of me.

Uh we had started the year with uh a surf fund balance according to what I see of 5.7 million.

We added uh two and a half uh from budgeting, which brought us up over seven.

Uh from everything that I can see here, the amount of vehicles uh that we were gonna purchase for fiscal year 2026, I'll call it 11 million dollars.

But of that, only 3.6 was gonna be cash.

The other 6.8 was gonna be bonded.

So even if we didn't put the five and a half, I'm sorry, the two and a half million in there, we would have had enough to cover and then a little bit extra.

So for that reason, I'm not gonna support adding another one point five.

I understand that they want to build up the fund over time, but I say we do it during the budget.

Years ago, uh the board had a lot of money in the surf account when it was originally established, then used it for other things and got it in a hole, and we've never been able to dig our way out.

So and and with the amount of increase in cost of of vehicles and the increase in time to get them built, is making SURF very unsure these days.

And so I I think that adding this money to it instead of the 2.5 that we probably should add to it, is a reasonable compromise.

Alderman Clemens.

Yeah, thank you.

Um Mr.

Chair.

So I certainly will support this when it comes to the Board of Alderman.

The argument of that that I was hearing repeatedly tonight in public comment, not just about this, but about other arguments, it was you know, we should budget it and not do this in in surplus.

And I and I can understand that from a from a purely theoretical point of view.

Um you would instead of so for example, instead of this one and a half million tonight that we're doing, we would have put it in the budget, and then this one and a half million would have been added back to the tax rate, and you would have balanced that out, right?

So we still would have had a six percent tax increase.

However, there's a there's an issue with that I see with there's a benefit that you get from doing it this way, and the benefit that you get from doing it this way is that you can assess your needs halfway through the year, like we're doing right now.

Okay, and if you have an emergency that comes up like that fire or the sky metal shooting or who knows what, and you can't put what you wanted to, which was the one and a half million towards SURF or whatever we're putting money towards, you put it towards that other thing.

And so to me, it's six to one half dozen another, but to me the half a dozen is better because I can change that if I have to.

So I I it's just a it's it's a personal, it's it's a personal philosophy for each alderman.

I get it, but at the end of the day, it really equals out to be the same amount of money, either way, and in this way, it actually doesn't cost the taxpayer anything more in what we're raising by and then having to put it back towards them.

So again, it's six to one half dozen the other, because again, if you wash it one way or you wash it the other, like we're doing now, it's the same amount of money, and it's already been taxed.

So it's just it's a point of view, and I and I and I respect the difference of opinion, but to me it's a little bit better to do it this way.

Okay, Alderman Sullivan?

And I respect that.

But the way that I look at it bigger picture is when we add this 1.5 million supplementally after we already approved the budget, we then now have a new level.

And then if we want to use the number of four percent, that we're not building, we're not building a budget off of the the number that we appropriated originally.

We build the number off of what we budgeted and then appropriated, and then it goes larger next year.

So then I guess to I the way that I see it is now we're what do they say that they turn up the heat on the frog slowly or something like that.

It's just it's just a question of we're now we're raising the f we're raising the floor of where that budget increase is gonna come from, and that's that's how I see it, and this is an opportunity to kind of go back a little bit.

Alderman Clemens?

That's that's true.

All the Alliman Sullivan, but if you think about it, if the budget was a million and a half larger at the beginning of last year, right?

So in other words, instead of raising that cap of 1.5 million in July, we're doing it in December.

I understand.

Yeah, so I just it happens no no matter which way you do it, it had that one and a half million still would have happened.

Any other questions and comments?

Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay.

Motion passes.

Alderman Bryan.

Yes.

Also, we have uh 25 219 relative to supplemental appropriation of one and a half million dollars of assigned balance fund into fund 660 benefits self-insurance fund, Mr.

Chairman.

I'd like to make a motion for final passage.

The motion on the floor is to recommend to the full board final passage of R25219.

In discussion, Alderman Sullivan.

Yeah, sorry, I'm on the fence on this one, uh, truly.

Um Director Cummings had mentioned that we're or we can't well, we have some fluctuation.

I did make a note here that we're on plan to be where we need to be.

I understand that maybe we might have some unforeseen issues, but I guess I would go back to what we've budgeted, and are we fully staffed at the city level to uh take so this is a question.

So are we fully staffed at the city level to account for uh the insurance needs that that we've budgeted for?

So are there any open heads that are gonna, you know, we're halfway through the year, let's call it.

Um are we fully staffed?

And is this going to be an issue?

Because we're gonna we gotta cover those benefits.

Well, Director Cummings.

Uh thank you, uh Ms.

Chairman Tim Cummings, Director of Administrative Services.

I'm not sure I fully understand the question.

Are we fully staffed?

Uh I I assume you mean citywide with all of our employees, or you mean that all the money that you've budgeted to cover wages and benefits are all the people that you've budgeted for, are all those heads filled?

I so the answer is no.

Okay, but I don't necessarily think there's a correlation with your question because we still have with the existing population that is available, we have claims coming in, and those claims are what are driving the cost.

Okay.

Uh hold on.

So if so, going back to my other question, and if we were to move 1.5 million over, and you then raise your budget on that amount by 1.5 million, and maybe that's two points.

I don't I don't remember what you said, but let's just say there.

Your budget for fiscal year 27 then starts at that point and goes up.

No, it doesn't.

If I may, Mr.

Chairman.

Director Cummings.

That law, I and I was I was gonna make this comment earlier.

I I agree to uh wholeheartedly with Alden Clemens.

Um it's philosophical to some degree, and but to your point, that logic applies if it's an operational budget and you're thinking of it an incremental budget off of the general fund, where right now bumping up the base, and that is a bigger thing that we need to get to next year to be able to make to make the the department's budget work for SERF, for the benefits fund, for the trust funds in general, that logic doesn't apply.

And so um I I'll tell you if for next year's operational budget, we are going to hear what our consultant tells us the claims are going to be, and we anticipate that as of right now to be somewhere uh uh a budget increase of somewhere between 10 and 12 percent.

If we don't do this now, it's probably gonna be more like 15 percent.

That's that's the reality of the of the situation.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

One more follow-up.

So what you're telling me is these, while it is while it does go into insurance, this is not attached to an operational this is not an opex.

This is not correct.

If I may, Ms.

Chairman Cummings.

This is not in the general fund.

Another way of looking at it is fund 1000.

Okay.

This is this is separate and apart from that.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

All right, any other ultimate bow?

Thanks.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh thank you, Director Cummings.

So I understand what he was trying to say in the beginning with are you budgeting for full staff when it comes to claims?

Like I know, so again, you don't have a full staff.

I get that piece of it, right?

But you're saying claims with this staff is gonna be X.

Are you budgeting what would claims be if you had everybody, or is that a certain percentage of, you know, if we're 75% staff, this is what we're thinking claims would be.

Because those people you don't have are could either be really healthy people, they could be really sick people, or they could be in between, right?

And so what are you budgeting to?

Like, what's that?

So we are budgeting what what we believe to be the personnel will have in the budget, and that only makes up 80-ish percent.

The other 20 percent never shows up because we actually didn't hire them, because it's an 80-20 type split, rough numbers.

Okay, so it's 100% of the 80 percent that okay, gotcha.

Thank you.

So it it's the same thing.

We we allocate money in the budget.

If we're short, say five people in DPW, we put the money in the budget so they can hire them.

They can't hire somebody if there's no money to pay them.

And the insurance goes along with the pay.

So you know, if we hire them, we're all set.

If we don't hire them at the end of the year, there's money left over.

And and probably makes up some of the stuff we're talking about now, and unanticipated.

So I I mean I've had that discussion with many of the division directors, and they say you have to fund so we can hire because somebody comes in and we can hire them, and especially a police officer, and you say, Well, wait a minute, we can't hire you for six weeks or eight weeks because we have to go back to the board of Alderman and get the money put in the budget.

Nah, it doesn't work that way.

Not the not in the the environment we have today with hiring.

Any other questions?

Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Aldermore Burns.

Yes.

Also uh on the table is I 25 220 relative to supplemental appropriation of 200,000 of assigned fund balance into Department 194 contingency account 7010, general contingency for the intended purpose of covering expenses to clean up Main Street and the riverfront.

I would like to make a motion to recommend final passage.

The motion on the floor is the recommend of the full board full final passage of our 2520 discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Oppose, motion carries.

Also for Forest is odd 252.

Relative to supplemental appropriation of 325,000 dollars of assigned fund balance into Department 194 contingency account 7010, general contingency for the intended purpose of covenant community development block grant and lead program expenses due to the federal government shutdown.

Mr.

Chairman, I would like to make a motion to recommend indefinite uh postponement.

Motion on the floor is to recommend indefinite postponement of R 252.

Any discussion none.

All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Also we have R 2523 relative to supplemental appropriation.

Uh 95 uh 95,784 and four cents of assigned fund balance into grant project activity 1092, fiscal year 2020, lead paint, hazardous control grant.

Mr.

Chairman, I would like to make a motion of final passage.

Motion on the floor is a recommended of the full board final passage of R25223 discussion.

See none, all in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed, motion carries.

Also, Mr.

Chairman, uh we have uh 2524 relative to supplemental appropriation of 900,000 dollars of assigned fund balance into capital project activity, police department roof repair and replacement.

I would like to make a motion to recommend final passage.

Motion on the floor is to recommend to the full board final passage of R25224.

Any discussion, questions.

No.

Well, those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed, motion carries.

New business ordinances, none.

We're not taking anything off the table.

General discussion.

Seeing none.

Public comment.

None.

Remarks by Alderman.

By a hair.

Alderman Thibault.

Thank you, uh, Mr.

Chair.

I just uh first want to thank the the fire department for their their action the other day.

That was one of the biggest fires.

I think somebody said in the last 27 years in Nashville.

So you know, a lot of those firemen probably weren't even alive then.

So to be pushed into service, um, you know, they did a great job.

So I just want to say that.

The other thing, I you know, I couldn't go today.

My my son uh got into honor society uh tonight at uh Nashua South.

Um and I promised I would say something because I couldn't be there because I was at an ethics committee meeting that never happened.

So I just want to say I'm proud of you, great job, Andrew, and uh sorry I couldn't be there.

Anyone else?

Uli Sullivan.

Thank you.

Um I want to make some comments about uh I watched the finance committee last night.

Um I was a little dismayed, and I I feel that perhaps and maybe the the the my language might be a little bit strong, but I feel that maybe this project in this particular area might be mismanaged.

Uh I don't want anyone to get me wrong.

I don't I'm not against the Riverwalk project.

Uh it was it was it was a concept that was uh approved and built before I even uh got into this seat and and anything, just like and I say this on the record all the time, like the performing arts center.

I know a lot of people are against it, but uh make make no mistake, uh it's there now.

Um I'm on Team Nashua and I'm pulling for it because I want it to do well for the city.

But uh when it comes to this, um, and I watched it last night.

Um I I am gonna be asking more questions about the progress and more importantly about the return on the investment that we're gonna get from this uh from this project.

And I felt that last night's explanation of the emergency PO had me concerned about the management of a 21 million dollar project uh funded by the taxpayers.

Um I started to pay attention to this in 23 when there were contracts being signed, money's appropriated, and there hadn't been a shovel put in the ground.

Uh but it's here now.

Um it's it's done, I I think mostly done, uh it seems done.

Um but last night a communication came before the finance uh committee letting them know that 281,000 was spent to cover an emergency PO that was cut on November 19th, just 10 days before the stroll.

This is uh I feel just another uh part of the story.

Uh a year ago we were here uh just to refresh everyone's memory about the eminent domain situation on Water Street because of of this same project.

Um the owner of the building felt that no one was talking to him, and why do they want to take this little piece of my property?

Uh and he felt that he wasn't being represented properly.

Um and then miraculously after we took the resolution under consideration, there was a deal made and it happened.

So it's great when people communicate.

Um I think when we look at the contract that was signed back in March of 24, uh, it had said in the contract that it was supposed to be done by August of 25, and if it wasn't done, it said in the contract, the contractor was supposed to pay us 1,200 a day for every day that they were late.

Um, and I didn't see a change in the contract.

I did see I did see change orders, but wasn't sure if that changed the contract.

Uh the PO is a result of a change in the original scope of work.

This was the fourth change order made on this part of the riverwalk project.

Three prior change orders went through the proper channels to get this approved.

Why didn't number four get approved?

And getting back to the emergency PO from the comments made last night by the administration.

It's this admin, this alderman's opinion that this emergency was self-inflicted.

And why do I feel this way?

It was said publicly last night that the mod modifications signed off on November 19 were actually suggested back in August, September.

Somehow it took two to three months to get a quote, negotiate a final price, $30,000 lower than what we agreed to.

While there was some back and forth, we knew when the stroll was, yet we waited until the last possible minute.

Further on in the conversation, it was revealed that this project may have an additional 900,000 in cost coming our way.

Isn't it done?

If it's close to done, shouldn't we know a number by now?

Um are we is are we dropping a ball here?

I think we need clear direction and certainties, not speculation.

So I don't want to just sit here and rail on this.

Make a positive declarative statement to the city.

So when they go on this page, they know when the project is gonna be done and what the future will look like.

Clear, concise, easy to follow.

I should be able to say to anybody in Ward 9 or throughout Nashua, if they have a question about the Riverwalk, go to this page and look at it.

You'll understand all of it after spending 10 minutes.

So last night it was it there was a remark made that what we could have done differently, and no one has laid out what it looks like.

My answer to that was simple.

We have a process and we should follow it.

Thank you.

Yeah, uh I too would like to commend the uh National Fire Rescue for the wonderful job that they did.

It seems like upon arrival wasn't one building, it wasn't two buildings, it was three buildings.

And uh right now, we as city fathers can sit and say there's too many firemen on duty.

But on that morning, there wasn't enough.

Not that he got injured, that it was only one.

And so I think that's very good.

But unfortunately, as with all fires, people get displaced.

When I did the job, it was a lot of fun, except if you look at the tragedies that occur with a fire.

And I think we have something like 30 people that have been displaced, and now it's getting to the holidays.

So those that feel a little bit benevolent, do some research.

Look at the American Red Cross.

They usually provide vouchers for living conditions, the Salvation Army.

Probably perhaps even give uh the health department a call, if you so wish to make contributions to help these uh displaced people.

Um it's it's a lot.

You think about it in a fire, you know, no big deal, but the personal photos, the family Bible, your documents.

You know, so these people are going through the uh a lot.

My hot goes out to them.

So if the good citizens want to contribute to some of these organizations, it would definitely help them out.

Thank you.

Just uh couple things.

Uh I talked to Chief Buxton today, he's very, very proud of the way his people handled the fire.

The other thing associated with that is in past boards, I'm sure Alderman Clemens remembers, we had people that were opposed to mutual aid.

Well, if we didn't have mutual aid the other day, we'd had a fire like the Crown Hill fire because of the proximity of all those buildings.

And I can't name all the state places were there, but we had trucks from Lowell from Merrimack from Hudson from Salem, and and we had other cities, I think Kingsborough was one of them, covering our stations because all our trucks were gone.

Anyone else had a fire, we need to have somebody sitting there.

So it was well coordinated, and I give a lot of credit to our emergency preparedness director who has this stuff down pat.

Uh amazed at how well a job she does.

We should be very proud of her.

She only comes comes out when we have a crisis like that, like the Sky Meadow thing, the Sky Meadow thing was did was so well because that was all the practice they've been doing for months on if we ever had a school shooting.

Fortunately, we've never had a school shooting, and I hope we never do because we our schools are well protected, but that's where they got all that stuff.

The other thing is there was comments about the legislation not being an entire book of what's in going on in the legislation.

We have never first of all, the legislation gets written by legal, and they put in what is required, and and it's not always spelled out.

That's why we have the public hearing, that's why we have it through committee.

And I will tell you that I for God knows what reason, not too long ago.

I checked some of the older legislation, and there was far less in the legislation document than they have today.

Far less.

Again, that's not in our purview here.

Yeah, Mr.

Chair, and in regards to that last point, uh it's an appropriation into an account, right?

So in order you would have to look to that account and then see what the appropriate uses of the funds are in that account.

The legislation itself that appropriates money in there isn't going to tell you what that money is doing once it hits the account.

You have to look at the account and say, what are the purposes in those expendable trust funds that they can use?

And it could be anything.

And from what we heard, the testimony tonight, a lot of this stuff was reserved, unknown unknowns, as you say coming into the future.

So you're not gonna be able to create a list.

Like to Alderman Sullivan's point, like for the excuse me, for the um resource center, we probably can get that.

But not all of these are going to have that.

And um, and again, and that's where you go back to the expendable trust fund itself and look at well, what what is the purpose of that account?

What can you do from it?

What is it historically been used for?

And you and you, you know, so the legislation to fund it isn't going to show that.

Right.

Secondly, I wasn't going to mention it, but since everybody else has that fire affected, you know, was on my street.

I live on Ash Street.

Um, it affected my neighbors, and I I just hope that the community can rally around those folks.

Um there's lots of GoFundMe's out there.

There's I donated to one of them.

There's also the uh I also donated to the American Red Cross.

Uh the Salvation Army is doing uh things, and uh I recommend you know you take a look, and um if you are able to please please donate to what to one of those.

Um I did have one thing I wanted to say.

Congratulations to Andrew for his induction into the art society.

Yes, yep.

Alderman Senate.

Um, thank you, Mr.

Chair, not to belabor the point, but um probably is the guardian of the youngest kid in this um chamber at this point.

Um it it can't help me uh to think when tragedy strikes of the kids involved, and I know that there are children involved.

And an interesting note I saw that I thought was from the American Red Cross was when they were talking about necessities that they need donated.

Sometimes those necessities even um even encompassed something simple as teddy bears.

You you consider any child in that um dwelling just lost everything, and how traumatic that can be to a young child, um, especially where we consider it's the um the holiday season.

So we you know we reflected a couple weeks ago on Thanksgiving and being grateful for what we have.

Um, you know, maybe it's a real opportune moment for all of us to pay that forward a little bit with that in mind.

Okay, thanks.

One last thing.

I feel very comfortable with the amount of money that would be allocated for the police roof.

However, when they take the rocks off and start ripping up the roof where the water's gone through, there could be insulation or or even some structural issues that might have to be taken clear.

We don't think that's the case right now, and we think that there's more than enough money in what we've allocated to take care of the roof.

So just want to leave it at that.

All right, your favorite motion?

Yes.

And you're you're almost accurate in the time of getting out of here.

Uh I would like to make a motion to adjourn.

Motion on the floor is to adjourn.

All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries, we adjourn at 1040.