Joint Committee on Capital Expenditures and Debt Service Planning to order on June 25, 2026.

Mr.

Clerk, could you please call the roll?

Yes, uh, Mr.

Mayor.

Um Director Sullivan.

Present.

Director Foto.

Director Cummings is present.

Uh Alderman Clee.

Here.

Uh Alderwoman uh Kelly, I believe is not with us this evening and has sent her regrets.

Um Alderman Clemens again is not uh here this evening, has sent his regrets, and then uh President Wilshire here.

And then finally, Mayor Donchus.

Here with six members present.

You have quorum.

All right.

So I will um recognize Director Cummings to uh show us a draft plan.

Thank thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

So um what's up on the screen and what hopefully hopefully all you have in your hands is an updated draft uh debt service spending plan.

Um and it is based off of the work we've done today, uh building upon the work we did two years ago and also the recommendations from the Capital Improvement Uh Committee and the plan that they put out uh just just about six months ago.

Um with that being said, what the directors have come before you more recently and has discussed as their priorities.

I'm going to quickly walk you through the plan so you can see uh how it is laid out.

I'll say for the record that this is a draft and want welcome any type of changes that you see uh as uh important, but the key thing to take away here is assuming we want to continue with the same policy directives we we gave in the past.

A couple of years ago we started with uh uh a baseline of about 25 million in debt service to be to be you know sold year over year, adding about a 5% inflationary figure, and remembering that we're trying to do this over an average over X amount of years that you know some years we may be less, some years we may be more than that, but on average we want to we want to be about 25 million plus the the inflationary figure.

You can see here uh down in the bottom an average of debt being sold of about 30.5 million, and that stays on track with what we had previously discussed as about 25 million with the uh inflation on average over the horizon of the plan.

So what I'm basically telling telling you is as this plan is laid out, we are on track and we are we are on plan.

With that now being said, I will go back up to the top, and what you see in white is the approved resolutions of bond authorization that are currently um still active, and you'll note that we haven't sold all the debt yet as authorized, and so we have that accommodated to the years going to the right.

Next, you'll see the unauthorized debt, and that is in blue.

These are anticipated bond authorizations that have been discussed as priorities, and I have taken the opportunity to program them, and that's what you're seeing going out to the right.

The next is our unprogrammed and unauthorized, that is the green.

These are projects that didn't make it into the blue category.

Um they are still open for discussion, uh, but I but it is how I wanted to present this information to you all uh to show you how we could possibly stay on plan and try to uh accommodate as many projects as possible.

I'll note, and I didn't want to do this uh without discussion.

Some of the group projects in green could be programmed in the later months.

I'm sorry, in the later years, as you can see.

I only programmed uh us out through FY33.

It certainly could go out in FY34, FY35, so on and so forth, but I wanted to have further discussion before we actually did anything like that.

What I really wanted to uh illustrate is that we are on plan.

We we are following the directives that had been previously established relative to the policy guidance, and really wanting to make sure that if it's acceptable to this group, we move forward with bond authorizations to continue moving some of the projects forward that we've been we've been working on.

We we do have uh a bunch of projects that we could uh issue uh bond resolutions for sometime this summer.

I'll I'll just note that I believe that we are ready to issue a construction bond for the DPW garage and fleet maintenance facility.

I believe uh we could issue uh another bond for the library and for design.

We could issue a bond for the fire training facility.

We could issue uh a bond for an ERP system.

We could issue a bond for pool rehabs.

We have a contractual obligation, and although we don't need to pay for it right away, we do have a need to issue a bond for a pedestrian bridge due to the redevelopment that's happening over on the Mohawk tannery site.

And then we do have a couple reoccurring items that I'm gonna talk about.

One is surf.

I have taken the liberty of programming surf at uh year over year, three million dollars because we know that that's a reoccurring cost that we are gonna need to accommodate.

This year we're gonna need to also, in addition to that, authorize an additional $5.1 million in funding to just meet our SERF schedule as we anticipate.

I also added in, and this is subject to conversation, uh, a neat uh a general obligation debt service for paving.

Uh we don't need that monies until 28, and I I plugged it in at 2 million dollars.

But what I'm trying to do is build this in for the future.

Similarly, I also took the opportunity to build in a $2 million capital maintenance debt service plan for the schools and $1.5 million for the fire department.

And these could be reoccurring costs year over year or reoccurring obligations, I should say, year over year.

Um, but I what I really wanted to do is cede the idea that we need to start accommodating these types of costs, and we could still make it work with our bond schedule.

I'm I'm sorry, our debt schedule as outlined.

One of the things I want to note is we typically never actually spend as much as we say we're going to.

The last couple years, we uh in FY26, we only uh ended up selling about 17 million dollars in debt.

This year, FY26, um, it's about uh I'm sorry, in FY27, it's about 15 million.

Um, and then anything we do moving forward would be for FY28, and looks like we're we're slotted for 24 million dollars, but as I've noted as I found over the last few years, we tend to come underneath this number that we plan on because we can't actually um do as much work as we anticipate, and all this gets pushed out.

So just keep that in the back of your mind as you're as you're reading uh this this plan.

Uh so I I'll stop there in case there's any questions.

All willing clean.

Uh thank you.

Um first the the average that you have here of 30.5 million dollars.

Is that average of all the ones that you've programmed or only five years or that's all only what I programmed.

What you programmed, okay.

Yeah.

And so the the blue is what what you said that you've unauthorized, but your programming, in other words, you're pushing it out, correct?

I I am showing it.

As if we had approved all these things.

Correct.

Yes.

That's right.

And that that follows down to the bottom line.

I get that.

But my I guess my next question is just for those that are listening and questions that I've received as well.

Is when we talk about um debt and we talk about bond, there's a difference between when we say we're gonna obligate this, in other words, we we take a bond for we'll say five million dollars.

It doesn't all get sold in one year, and you're programming that out as you plan it to be sold.

And the comment that you made is that we actually haven't been selling as fast as expected because of the work not happening necessarily, progressing as quickly as we do.

That's absolutely correct.

Okay, so then my next question would be are we concerned that suddenly they're all gonna hit at once?

It won't change the average because whether we spent you know three million dollars one year and two million dollars the next year, we still spent five million dollars within this plan, but do we expect that it would suddenly kind of hit us all at once if we keep this as a rolling average?

Excellent, excellent question, if I may, Mr.

Mayor.

Yes, please.

Thank you.

Uh that's one of the reasons why I did the exercise of actually programming it out so you can actually see the big things you need to really take away from this plan and call your attention to is how we have spread out the selling of the debt of the DPW garage and fleet maintenance facility, and then how we're able to mirror that against the library project.

And it's one of the reasons why if we want to keep if we want to keep on track with doing these projects, we do need to be working towards these types of goals and these milestones because if we let one of these projects slip, then yes, we will have a problem.

But if we actually stay to what we're doing here, we shouldn't we shouldn't have any any problems at all.

And if you see, I I've built up a little bit of a runway where we're selling the debt early earlier on is the design monies, and then a couple years later you have the construction monies hitting, and then the project kind of ends or tailors off.

And that's that's exactly how we would anticipate this, and it's staggered in the sense that you have the DPW project, you have the library project, and then you have the uh station number five, the fire station project, all following in sequential order, and it all can be accommodated.

So if I may so keep that in mind, I'm gonna run back to that 17 million and fifteen million that that we've done over the last two years.

We obviously had programmed much more than that in those two years.

So that money will actually be paid in upcoming years.

And that's I guess what I'm the if if this this kind of continues, we've really um gonna be paying them off.

It still means that we're only averaging the same amount, correct?

I that I because that's what I'm gonna be hearing from people.

So that's where I call your attention up to the white and everything up in the white is what we've authorized, but haven't sold a hundred percent of the debt, and so we still need to plan and accommodate for it, and that's what we've done.

Okay.

So uh FY27, you'll see that makes up the 15 million.

That is gonna be uh, you know, sold this fall.

Okay.

And then uh we see that in FY28, we are still gonna have some monies that we're gonna need to sell from an authorization that occurred.

Um just look, and I I believe that's the DPW um the DPW garage design monies.

So we're so we could sell that as well in FY28 and still accommodate this plan as outlined.

Okay.

So if just one word.

Well if I thank you so much for indulging me.

So I guess my my concern, and I'm not I'm not saying it properly, is that if I jump to FY29 and I see that we're we're gonna sell the the thinking is that we're gonna sell over 33 million point six dollars.

Um the the question that I would have is if these other things that had kind of gotten backed up if suddenly they hit in one year and we have to do 40 million dollars instead of 33 million dollars because of of the backup, but they we didn't do it on time.

Does that create a tax nightmare?

No.

No, no, I well, because one, I I I've yet to actually see that happen.

Historical average has shown that we just you know, I think I think it's a great point.

I think it's something we should keep in the back of our mind as we're planning, but we just haven't encountered that yet.

And we would that's why we're actively managing this, so we don't end up in that situation.

That's that's perfect.

And I and I I know people are gonna call me a bobblehead for this, but I truly do trust um the people we have in charge, and I appreciate the the comments.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

She trusts you in front of their face.

All right, I have a couple questions.

So if we look to line 12, which is the DPW garage, this suggests we sell ten million dollars a little bit more four years in a row.

But construction of that facility would take not four years.

I mean, you would so wouldn't we need to sell those bonds more quickly?

Excellent question, Mayor, and I saw something that I actually had a conversation earlier today with uh CFO Enray to ensure we were doing this correctly.

One thing that folks should know is the DPW construction garage project is gonna be at least a two-year construction project.

So that's that's and so because of that, we can spread the debt out longer to make it a to to to to accommodate this.

All right, so if it's a two-year project, how do we obtain the money over four years?

We have we will have the money and then we pay ourselves back.

All right.

So we front it in cash, and you're saying then we um we we um actually borrow the money and pay ourselves back later.

That and that is our that has been our typical practice on some.

Yeah, I I remember talking to previous CFOs.

But but I'm not aware that we have carried that much cash.

We've expended that much cash and waited that long to get the bond authorization or the bond sold and get the money back, so to speak.

So I it's an excellent question, Mayor.

I think we need to actually understand from the construction manager what the um what they would call the draw schedule would be, because I don't know how much they're gonna need at what point in time in a year.

Uh, but it's something that we can definitely focus on.

And we've got the same issue with respect to if uh if the library project were authorized, you've got four years uh running of ten million dollars, so it's the same the same issue.

It it would be around the same issue, yes.

And um just something for the CFO.

Uh what what do you think?

What are we obtaining now for money we invest?

Uh what's our interest rate for money that we're carrying, you know, and we have in CDs and the like about now I think we're we're getting about three percent on our uh investments.

Three point three.

Yeah, it's about three.

Three percent, yeah.

Correct.

All right.

And if I were we to sell bonds today, the interest rate we would pay is higher than it used to be.

I know that.

Four four maybe.

Yeah, right.

Averaging about four right now.

Four percent.

Okay.

Yeah.

And I'd like to note also that um we are able to um use uh on hand cash to carry us with these projects, and we have an 18-month time period that we can carry these projects before we have to um start selling some of the authorization to refund our expenditures.

And what what um what uh provides for the 18 percent or the 18 months?

Um that's a federal um uh guideline on on bonding.

But I thought that was we had to spend the money within 18 months after we borrow, after we all after we borrow it.

There's not not we can't, we're prohibited from carrying a project with cash for more than 18 months.

Sort of the converse.

Thank you for the question.

There are two different provisions.

One provision is we can uh carry it for 18 months and then reimburse ourselves, and then once we do sell, we must um uh use those funds within uh within a 24 uh month period.

We have to um utilize the funds if the federal government, it's very tightly regulated uh through a process called arbitrage, where we have to report what we are actually spending, and um we have to fall within the guidelines by of the federal government of the percentage that we spend um in three-month increments.

So that is highly regulated, and we have those reportings done um yearly on all of our funds.

Okay.

Yeah, and just a couple things.

One, in the green, you've got the um a holding area in the police station.

I think they've been telling us that's a liability.

Um that we somehow need to address.

So what we should do with that.

And the other thing is the the washing stations in the green, but I thought that was a some of our significant savings on our on our material which reduces surf costs.

So I guess my first question would be if we're we're not gonna keep that, if we're gonna keep that in the green, do we have in the design of the DPW building an area inside the building where they can hose off all the salt and stuff until we have the washing station?

That ought to that ought to be in the design because we're not saving on vehicles if they're coming in loaded with salt, plus it'll probably degrade the inside of the building if we're not careful.

If I may, Mr.

Mayor.

Yes.

So a couple questions there.

Again, Tim Cummings, Director of Administrative Services.

Uh I'll start with the last point.

Uh yes, it within the current DPW design, there are there is uh an ability to hose off wash the vehicles.

I want to note for the record that this is not something that could accommodate all city vehicles.

This would be something that would that would be specific for the DPW equipment and vehicles to your point to maintain the the uh life of the vehicles.

Um so that is uh part of the current plan, but that is separate from this project that you're referencing in the green uh section here, where we would be looking at a citywide car wash uh to accommodate all city vehicles that we would be looking to have on the uh the DPW garage site, and we are designing and planning for it.

We just don't have the monies yet, and we are we are keeping a close eye on this uh uh on the DPW project, and if we can uh figure out a way to make it work, we will definitely do that.

But I didn't feel it was appropriate not to have it uh listed here because I do know it's a priority and it's something that I believe folks want to think about.

If we're not able to do it, we want to be able to plan for it.

Yeah, I did think in our in our discussions on the design of the DPW building that two things uh we were hoping that there'd be enough savings, because uh I can guarantee these are all high, um, that we'd have enough money to cover the washing station.

That is uh the intention, and that's what we're that's what we're working toward, and I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

To your uh first point relative to the police cell block renovation project.

I do know it's a priority for the police department.

I believe they've said it could be something that could be done in the later years.

I don't exactly have an actual uh time frame uh when it can be done.

I do know they're working on a design of it now.

I think once we get through that design portion, we'll have a better cost estimate and a better understanding of when the project should be done.

And and we could certainly look to um accommodate it in in the future uh or sooner if you'd like.

But I just want to note, and this is a really critical, anything that's in the green here is gonna change the average, and that's the blue.

And that's was so that's when the real conversation is gonna need to occur as to what you may or may not want to do to be able to keep this uh plan uh on track for the policies directives we've been given uh in the past.

Just one other quick question.

The fire training facilities in the blue, DPW garage is in the white.

But if I'm not mistaken, we can't do the DPW garage until we move the fire training site.

So how do you accommodate that?

So the white is only the money that was for design or pre-construction.

The blue, I I apologize, Mr.

Mayor, I'm sorry.

Uh uh Tim Cummings, Director of Administrative Services.

Um the blue We know you are the blue highlighting the garage uh and fleet maintenance facility is the construction portion of it, and this has not been appropriated yet.

And I and I truly would like to bring this bond resolution forward this summer, and it's part of the reason why we're going through this exercise.

We bring the to bring that forward, we approve the bond for the DPW garage.

Are we gonna have to do the fire training at the same time because you've got to move the fire training to the fire training facility would need to be done as well, yes, and that's why it's accommodated in the blue here at 1.5 million.

Any other questions, comments?

I I did have one director Sullivan.

I just want to make a quick comment.

It's both selfish and I think obvious.

Um obviously the hydro improvements is contemplated here at a 35 million dollar project.

The way that project was presented to the committee, and perhaps uh to the fault of the project was as a bundling of both the regulatory fish passage requirements and the replacement of the mine falls turbine.

Uh I'd like to have further conversation with Director Cummings and CFON Wright about how we perhaps split that project because obviously a portion of it is in fact a regulatory requirement, and the turbine replacement is not.

So I I bundled those for the sake of presentation to the committee.

But the reality is between 10 and 15 million dollars of that project is required under the licensure of the facilities.

And so I think a conversation is ripe about the viability and revenue stream for those facilities over the next 12 months, certainly.

Uh but I think for the purposes of of planning, at least 10 to 15 million dollars do need to be accommodated at some point over the next five years, recognizing that if the city chooses to move on from the hydroelectric facilities or facility in one form or another, certainly it could be removed from the plan.

And then I just had one question, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh I'm looking at the Pine Hill Station number five, and I I recognize we're not looking at years 20 or 33 and 34 just yet.

What line?

What line?

Uh that is line 19, 19.

19.

Okay.

Um and I'm just I'm not suggesting the spreadsheet be changed, but the 16 million dollar loading in 31 and 32.

Is it fair to say that that too could be spread out over four years if need be?

Uh or or no?

And if no, what why not?

Just because those are obviously substantial, you know, debt service carrying figures comparable to the library and the DPW facility that will impact borrowing capacity in 31 and 32.

If I if I may, Ms.

McDonald.

Thank you.

Um great question.

Uh and I should say a couple of things.

One part of the difficulty of this exercise is doing just this because we have so little information, but we're doing the best we can to try to accommodate and plan.

So anything that's here, everyone needs to know is subject to change.

I have good intelligence to tell me the DPW garage is going to be a solid two-year construction project.

I also have good intelligence to tell me that the library renovation project is going to be a solid two-year construction project.

I because of that, and knowing how we finance projects, I felt comfortable spreading those two projects out more and know we could be compliant.

Okay.

The fire station project, I believe at this time, and remind you, my information is limited.

I don't have as much intelligence.

I believe it's a one-year construction project, which means I think it I think possibly we could stretch it out to three years, maybe, but I don't think you could do four.

And I think your point is well taken, and as I refine this, that could be an area we improve upon, but I'm just not confident in that yet.

So I wanted to be conservative.

And when do you expect the um design of the deep the DPW garage to be completed?

We anticipate the design of the DPW garage to be completed within the next two weeks.

It's imminent, and we would be looking to move to construction for the fall.

We are starting with a September time frame, and that's what we're trying to keep the project on track for.

Um something.

Yeah, just a quick question.

And I know you you answered it, so I apologize.

But so the blue, the unauthorized, that just means we haven't approved a bond for it, correct?

That's what you mean by unauthorized.

But in conversations, um, this is for the most part been the decision that we said these are kind of the priorities that need to go forward.

Is that am I correct on that?

That's why would there um not just that you didn't program it, but it's been the conversation we've had, such as the DPW garage, the um the pedestrian bridge, and and so on.

So it's that that's right.

I mean uh I I if I may, I believe that these are the projects that over the last year or two have been actively worked on.

There's some sort of commitments being given towards them.

Uh there has been work on it, it's been prioritized.

Uh, something I should note here is everything that we've put on here follows the CIC process, and we actually went ahead and put the rankings in here to help give you further guidance, and I appreciate the work that uh uh Sam Durfee and his team did to to get us to this point so we can have a conversation like we're having now.

Um and so for the most part, you're absolutely right.

In fairness, there's some newer projects on here that you know you should think about.

One is the pool rehabs.

So I've heard clearly that this is a priority.

I can tell you it was not on the plan, you know, two years ago, but understanding it and we need to accommodate for it.

I added it here, but that is a newer project.

I've also added in some of our what I consider some of our reoccurring costs that we seem to need to accommodate for.

And I would be doing the community a disservice if I didn't build a plan in.

The question could build this into the plan.

I think the question is is am I maybe doing too much at 1.5 or 2 million dollars?

Am I doing the right amount?

I don't think it would be responsible to not do anything.

But I think I think I am trying to plant the idea that we need to start doing something, and I'm trying to show you that you can do it in some of the other projects.

One, a broader community conversation on what you want to do, and and that and that should drive the additional conversation of we have regulatory requirements, we need to incorporate that.

How do we build that into this plan?

And we certainly can have that conversation and do that.

Um thing about the hydro.

There is a revenue stream from that, which may fully or partially pay for the at least the fish ladder portion of this.

Um and that might put it in a different category.

I don't know, in the sense that uh, you know, it's it produces enough revenue or nearly enough to cover the cost.

Um the other one that is not the same but similar is the uh pedestrian bridge for uh you know related to the Mohawk Tannery project.

Um that is paid for, I think, fully uh if we bought if that were bonded by the revenue coming from the tra the tax revenue coming from that project.

So to some degree those are in a maybe a separate category.

Alder Woman Clean.

Thank you.

I I just want to continue.

Um to that end, um if we could see the ones that that are what I will call is an obligation, meaning the Mohawk thing, the um the hydro, if we could whether it's just highlighted or different color or something like that, that would kind of help move this along too.

Because to me, those are things that we've contracted that we would do it.

And I know um we could say, well, the the heck with it, we're not gonna do any of these things and and and deal with it that way, but I want to stay on promise.

So yes.

So can I just understand what you're so the next turn of this document, I'm hearing that you'd like to elevate the hydro and the pedish and uh well it's not an approved resolution, correct?

Or it has at the um did the Mohawk tannery get that was approved?

The contract was approved.

But not the bond, the bond, but not the bond, okay.

So even if we just had like a uh uh another category as unauthorized, meaning that there's no bond, but obligated, you know, that we're kind of our feet to the fire on it, just so we we can kind of pull those out and say, let's start with these are going to have to get through.

The alderman still can say no, obviously.

So I do have the pedestrian bridge that you're talking about programmed.

Yes, it's in it's number 23.

Yep, so it's just there isn't a bond authorization yet, but we certainly would like to anticipate and we can accommodate it.

Well we to your point though, we haven't done that yet for hydro.

Part of the reason why is because I didn't know the right number to use.

I only had 35 million to go off of.

We can do an exturn and and and 15 million, is that so if I if I may, uh the last slide in the presentation that I did does give us the ability, if you think back to that, which you probably can't remember, it does give us the ability to actually split out expenses between the regulatory and the turbine project, so I can work with Director Cummings to do that.

Uh I don't know the exact number off the top of my head, but it's somewhere in that realm uh recognizing we're not at 100% designed just yet, but we'll be over the coming months.

So yeah, happy to do that.

And the mayor makes a great point just to kind of circle back.

This is general obligation, right?

But there are other bonding that occurs.

We have the TIFF with the rivet with the riverfront, that nothing is on there for that.

Um hydrogenates its own revenue, so um, you know, we certainly can look at the revenue generating.

Good example, parking garages.

We uh we did general obligation bond, but we know revenue comes in from from parking.

So certainly the point is well taken that it's not a just a dollar for dollar in and out.

Um so to again to that end, what I would like to see is you know, um, we're having this discussion, but if someone were to grab this piece of paper, I would like them to be able to look at it and say, um, while these are not authorized, they're um there's still something we we have to consider that we're going to have to do a yes on it.

And I know the Board of Alderman can still say no, I'm only one vote.

They still have that right to do it, but I'd like just just that to be pulled out, even if it's just on the top with a little asterisks that say, so that we can kind of at a glance look at it.

And then my my second question, if I may continue.

I'm sorry.

So if I may, along those points, then one of the projects that what that I'm gonna highlight right now that I think you need to have further discussion on is the resource center.

And so that's I I don't have it programmed, but I've identified it.

We have a congressionally directed spending in here, and I believe there's gonna be a match required.

And so um maybe not, I don't I don't know, but Director Sullivan?

I I do not believe it's it's pending.

We don't have a full understanding, but there may not be a match requirement.

That said the project is certainly larger than the congressionally directed spending that we've received.

Right.

So but that is so in flux.

I mean, there's um in addition to that, there's some grant there's a grant application plus um Harbor Care is thinking about offering their facility under some terms that they haven't even explained, so that wouldn't require you know construction really.

So um it's so up in the air that it's hard to even put a number on it.

And and I know that there's legislation coming through that will be discussing this as well.

And so I mean so those are some of the reasons why I felt it was probably best to keep them categorized as unprogrammed for that very reason.

Another one in fairness is keep auditorium.

I know that that's a hot topic.

Um I want to just note that I actually didn't even put a dollar amount in on that on that one.

And that's because I know that there's work being done right now on it.

I didn't want to bias that work.

Um and I believe the Board of Alderman is going to be getting a presentation on it at the July meeting.

And then there should be a conversation about what this body wants to do, and certainly we can figure it out, but I wanted to kind of just note it as I know it's an active uh it's an active priority for for some folks in the community, and that's why I put it in the green.

Yeah.

Um again, I have no problems with those staying in the blue or those staying in the green.

If we just had some kind of whether it's on the bottom that says there's some obligatory obligatory to this, or in the case of the resource center, there's congressional money pending, however you want to word it, just so that when people are looking at this, we're not trying to say, oh, wait a minute, there's it it's kind of at a glance in here.

Um but my next question is um the rankings.

So is one the best or 123 the I'm gonna defer to Director Sullivan on this one.

I believe Director Cummings knows the answer, but he's proving a point here that the ranking is a bit it's a one is the highest priority.

Okay with with, for example, 120.

He's proving that the score that the numbering could be more clear, perhaps.

Um but it's one is the highest priority with that being the uh fire deferred maintenance.

Number 13 years.

Correct.

And then as listed here, commuter rail is the lowest rank priority actually actually on the project.

From the CIC, that is correct.

Yes.

We put a lot into grading every single one of those projects.

I I'm not I'm not complaining.

I just wanted to understand this a little bit better.

So when I'm looking, I guess my concern is I'm looking at the pedestrian bridge.

This is why I brought this point up at a 99.

Um when we know that we've got an obligation to I know we're not shovel ready, I know any of this, so that's why I think it drops down.

But much like the Lock Street project did too.

So if I may just respond to that, Mayor.

Yeah.

And Alderman Dow, correct me if I'm wrong here, but uh the major factor in CIC decision making is need, urgency, criticality.

The pedestrian facil pedestrian bridge is certainly a contractual obligation, and I think it received a higher score because of that, but I think we all recognize is is not a needed public infrastructure improvement.

Um I think that's why it received a the rank that it did, uh despite the fact that the I believe the committee knew it was a contractual obligation.

That but that explains why.

You know, I think the pools though are a needed project in the sense that what are we gonna shut them?

You know, they could be shut down if we don't do these projects.

And so so that's a couple more things add something to that ranking.

The first of all, I think the bridge we committed to as part of the development of the tannery site.

So I would say we're on the hook to build the bridge at some point.

The other thing is the reason it got a lower requirement was we put higher requirements on things that were shovel ready.

So that was uh one of the criteria.

And one was funding, and the funding, you know wasn't going to be imminent.

It was supposed to be out a couple years.

In fact, I thought it was in the third 30, but anyway, and and it wasn't shovel ready.

Uh please please understand I'm not being critical of these numbers.

No, I don't think I'm just expecting two others might have ended.

I'm not um being critical of the of the of the rankings and so on.

And I did I did comment about not being shovel ready.

So I get that.

My concern again is people looking at this and seeing number 99, much like the when we were looking at the CIC and I saw Lock Street way down there on the bottom, going, uh oh, you know, we have a grant for this and so on.

I just wish there was a way of kind of asterisking it, you know, put like an A, B, or C next to it that says yes, it's lower for these reasons.

However, we know that there is an obligatory um part to this.

So some of the if I can some of the ranking was if if uh if funding was coming in from another source, yeah.

It wasn't ranked high here.

This was like a spending ranking.

Okay.

And uh like the airport, for instance, ranked very high because 95% of the funding is coming from state or federal government, and it was like for spending five thousand dollars, we get you know a million dollars.

So they get ranked very high.

Um so then my next question is um in the past I remember Alderman Dowd kind of educated us on this when we were looking at the um the McCarthy um McCarthy Street School, middle school, and we talked about we're paying we're paying slowly paying off, almost gonna be paid off the the high school by the time this is built.

So we're not we're not like double up that one's being paid off when this is doing.

Is there any way, and it may just muddy the water, so it's if the answer is no, I do understand it, but is there a way of us knowing what will be paid off as we're so that if we I do see a $33 million year, if I know that there are a number that had been paid off, I don't have as much anxiety about it.

Is that possible?

If I may, Mary.

I was gonna say you or don't.

Yeah, well, I I I'm gonna hand it over to CFO and right in a second, but I want to answer your question very explicitly, yes, and thought processes.

That would be a separate chart table.

I don't want it to get muddied with this uh conversation.

Okay, but uh we do on the next time we get together, want to show you that, and I'll hand it over to CFO Enright.

Thank you.

Thank you, Don and Wright, CFO.

Last year um we did provide a schedule of a projection of how the expenses are going to go in accordance to the schedule of the selling of the bonds, and we were uh happy to report that we went from double-digit percentage increases down to single-digit um increases because of the the bonding level in the in the prior years and how the controlling that we are are projecting through this process, how it is going to benefit us in the long run, and that's what we look at to try to keep things even keeled so our budget isn't going up and down.

When you look at this schedule in front of you, it's kind of frightening where you see it going from 32 to 50.

Yeah, we watch it closely.

Okay.

We we will make sure that as we are selling that we uh we are not gonna have a blip in the budget for the um the debt expenses.

So if I just can clarify that that means that when you talked about that 24 uh months or 18 months that we have to sell it, you're going to schedule it accordingly, so we really hopefully don't really hit the 50 million dollars or unless something else has been paid off to cover this.

That's right.

Good.

Because I I will admit I looked at 33, 32, 50, and I my heart sunk.

I was like, we're doing it all in one year.

So but thank you.

It works out, it's what we want is a gradual smooth lineup.

Yeah, yeah.

And that's and and what you really want to do is as the debt falls off, you layer in the new debt.

Okay.

Ultimately, the goal should be as you're trying to keep your debt service year over year and your operational budget relatively stable, increasing at an amount that can be accommodated by the tax rate.

And so once we are uh we are working towards these goals, and we we started thoroughly a couple years ago, and now we're continuing along that path.

Um again, I my concern is someone gets this document, looks at it and says, Oh, good.

Can you imagine what our tax rate is going to be in the year you know 31, everybody better move?

Um, because they don't see the the sell-off, they're only seeing the buy-up.

That's why I'm that was why my comment was as it was.

So things get misinterpreted sometimes purposely, sometimes just out of not knowledge.

So thank you.

Mr.

Mayor, one way to alleviate that is that the debt service payments are a small percentage of our overall budget.

So it fluctuating a little does not affect our overall city budget and and tax rate significantly.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Director Solomon.

Very brief.

Uh you know, the I was looking at the FY27 surf catch-up, if you will, the 5.1, and then the three million subsequent payments out to 2032.

We can't see the future.

Do we believe that that $3 million will be adequate generally to maintain the surf schedule that's currently in place, or I I know it will change year on year, of course, but should that be more like four?

Does it need to be five, or is three feel like the right number at this at tonight on this date at least?

Gone in my CFO.

That's a very good question.

Um we continually monitor the the schedule and refine it with the department heads in terms of future expenses.

Um, and we work very closely with the mayor on developing the budget.

Um last year we had a plan to uh fund the surf at 2.5 million through the budget with a five million in the budget this year.

We had other constraints on the budget and had to pair back what was funded actually in the budget this year.

So we try very hard to roll in as much of those costs we can year over year in the budget.

Um so hopefully that's our plan that we can get to the point where we're not bonding more than the three million.

That's great.

Excellent.

Thank you.

I just had a really a quick question.

On the uh pool rehab, um, this looks like we're contemplating rotary pool.

And I was just wondering if any consideration had been given to Centennial Pool.

It's that's right behind us.

It says times three, doesn't it?

Correct.

I I I it's just for three pools at three million dollars, I believe.

Yeah, that's number 22.

So we have two pools that need to be replaced.

And they're more than a million dollars.

Yeah, far more.

Yeah, two, two and a half.

Each pool each.

Each.

So that's an adjustment that needs to be made.

Okay.

Because I I I thought it was I thought it was each.

So now so the more appropriate number is five million for two pools and then another seven, seven point five.

I mean, we don't right now we're not looking at rotary pool.

Rotary pool is okay.

We're the two pools that need to be replaced are um the the first one is rotary that we're replaced, we're designing right now.

And so we contemplate uh that one in fiscal year 27, and then we're hoping to replace centennial pool and fiscal year 28.

So it's just two pools for five million dollars.

Correct.

Okay.

We can make that adjustment.

Any other thoughts?

So what were the two pool centennial and rotary and rotary?

Okay.

So Mr.

Mayor, just a couple other points.

What I'm hoping to do is produce a document that outlines the policy directives that we had developed the last time around, and just for a reminder, try to stay away from bonding anything under 1.5 million if we can uh try to on average authorize debt of around 25 million or sell for 25 million over the horizon of the of the life of the the plan here.

Um try to incorporate an inflationary figure of about five percent on that on that 25 million.

One of the that everything I just said has been previously discussed.

Um another item that was previously discussed.

I want to make sure is on the record is using supplemental appropriation in the fall for surplus.

That's cash to pay for capital projects, so we don't have to accommodate it with paying interest on bonds, and also don't put it into the budget where we're paying uh increasing the the tax rate, and so there are some projects where we would be looking to do that again in the in the fall.

One project that comes to mind is our transportation projects, our transportation projects.

If we have the surplus available, we do have some projects on the horizon that we would need to use.

But each individual project is is well under the 1.5 million.

I would say probably in total, we would need about one to two million dollars in what I would call transportation match to be able to continue moving our transportation projects along.

Again, it would be the intention to do that in the in the fall using the surplus that the city has.

And the reason I'm asking is because I know after this last fiasco with the state um making the changes to our charter of the spending cap and so on.

What we used to be able to exempt through the the previous Alderman T-Boom's um legislation and so on is no longer exemptable.

So that's just my concern.

Are we going to run into where he he and others keep saying, well, we can do it, but I know Attorney Bolton has said we can't.

So I mean I would be all for being able to exempt the um the debt.

Not only attorney, but the the courts have repeatedly ruled that the city is correct.

That's because Mr.

T Boom has brought several cases of the case.

No, so that we can we can exempt is that the the courts have said that?

They're just saying the way we're handling things is okay, legal.

Yes.

No, the point I was making was the last iteration from the state.

Kind of said we had to go back to the original thing.

If I if I meant uh just as an example, in the bond resolution that was, I believe, just passed or um slated to be passed, there was a provision in it that exempted the debt for the for the roofs of the bicentennial uh school.

It's a very similar type of thing that I'm talking about doing.

So, yes, I will make sure we work with legal to make sure we get the verbiage correct.

But the concept basically is is, and as I understand it, this was a matter of practice that uh Maureen Lemieux in implemented where at the start of the budget season there was uh a resolution that made it clear that the that that the uh bond authorizations were gonna be exempting the the debt and from the cap calculation.

And that's all I'm suggesting happen again as we go back to that type of practice.

It would make it easier and cleaner for us moving forward to actually understand what is and is not part of the cap calculation.

Um I will say this plan is predicated on the idea that something like that happens because I don't believe that we would because of how the courts have interpreted the uh um the charter and our ordinances that we could be able to accommodate this plan without it.

Perfect, thank you.

All right, anything else?

So I think the plan here is to for Director Cummings to make some adjustments, changes to this the plan, the overall plan document, come back to the next meeting and we'll review it, right?

Yeah, that sounds good to me.

All right.

With that understanding, is there then a motion to adjourn tonight's meeting?

Before we adjourn, yes, I um I'm sure all of us here want to say it.

Um I want to give my condolences to Alderman uh Clemens for the the loss of his wife.

Yes.

It's it's been very hard on him and her and family.

So my deepest condolences to all of them.

Yes.

I think they are in everybody's thoughts, prayers.

Yes, definitely.

Thank you.

All right, is there a motion to adjourn?

So moved.

All those in favor of the motion, please say aye.

Aye aye.

Opposed.

And the meeting is adjourned at 6.55 p.m.