CIP schedule.

We'll just go right in order of the uh the slides that we have.

So Jim, you want to start this off?

Sorry, CIP.

Good evening, counselors.

Jim Nolan, Director of Finance.

We're gonna start out with uh with CIP.

So what I'd like to start with is I think everyone should have a schedule that looks like this.

And essentially what this schedule is, it's just a roll forward schedule.

So that column to the left with the numbers, that's going to be what was in our CIP document that we reviewed uh back in January.

All right.

The items in red, those are going to be the items that we're proposing to defer until future years and not include in the 2027 budget.

And then that column to the right, the proposed budget 2026-27.

That's going to tie out to what we have in our proposed budget.

All right.

So purpose of the workshop, why are we here?

We're here to present comprehensive list of identified fiscal year 2027 budget needs from department directors, they believe require funding to protect public health and safety or maintain current facilities and infrastructure.

We're here to discuss with council in workshop workshop format to get council thoughts and ideas as it regards as it relates to the fiscal year 27 budget.

And what we're going to focus on tonight is we're going to focus on the general fund, uh, the funding requests, which are supported by taxpayer dollars.

And I just want to note, similar to what it would just piggyback on what we were talking about with this schedule here, uh, consistent with prior years, the fiscal 2027 proposed budget has deferred projects, which were identified in the CIP document, which were which was workshopped in January.

And uh the following proposed projects are outside of any bond funding uh that we have in place for for uh infrastructure.

Okay, uh CIP funding trend.

So this is gonna uh tell us really what we've done over the the last uh handful of years.

So starting in 2001, our adopted budget, we funded capital at about 1.6 million dollars.

Uh as you can see over time through 22 to through to the fiscal year 26, we've been in that four and a half million dollar range to you know as low as 1.6 million.

Um, and we all know that that we have a we do have a significant amount of uh capital needs within the city.

Uh and this year, what we're proposing for uh fiscal year 2027 is a total CIP amount of six million two hundred and forty-three thousand five hundred and thirty-three dollars.

And what that's really comprised of, um thanks to council.

Uh we we do have that committed fund balance that was uh really surplus from last year that we're able to have in addition to our unassigned fund balance.

So what we would what we are proposing is we'd like to use uh three million eight hundred and seventy thousand from committed fund balance.

What that will do is that will bring that committed fund balance to zero.

So that's putting the money right to use.

Um, and then the balance would come from uh taxpayer dollars in the amount of two million three hundred and seventy-three thousand.

Uh so what we're looking at here is our fiscal year 27 and 26 CIP comparative.

Um, so when you look at the column to the left, the CIP requested in fiscal year 27.

Uh, that's that's going to be what we discussed in January of this year.

So we had we identified uh $13,670 worth of worth of projects.

In order to balance our budget, we have to defer seven million seven million four hundred and twenty-seven thousand, and what we have proposed for paygo, what we with um a combination of our committed fund balance and uh taxpayer dollars will be six point two million.

And that compares to last year's adopted budget of three million one hundred and twenty-three thousand.

Um looking at kind of looking at this document here, it's really in the format of the CIP document that we discussed in January.

And what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna run through just those high-level categories and um really just notable projects that we will be that are proposed to be funded in fiscal year 27.

So information and communication systems, the notable projects that are proposed to be funded are technology upgrades, harbor Wi-Fi, uh GFOA compliant budget and popular finance annual report and reporting software, which includes implementation, and a police investigative uh technology equipment.

And that total proposed funding is six out six hundred and fourteen thousand dollars.

Uh moving on to facilities improvements, uh the notable projects that are uh proposed to be funded was the brick market HVAC HVAC system.

Um and that work's already been completed.

So that was that project was approved in advance.

All right, and uh school capital fund, uh library boiler, fire station five building improvements, city facility security, recreational improvements, and carousel uh storage, and that under facilities improvements, the proposed funding is two million and four hundred and fifty-nine thousand.

Transportation improvements, the notable projects are roadway and sideway sidewalk improvements, uh transportation pilot programs, and that's uh proposed funding of 1 million 75,000.

And um areas areas of note uh would be the city was recently awarded approximately four million dollars for the street safe streets for all um grant, and that's uh funding to design design and implement safety improvements supporting Newport's commitment to safer, more accessible streets for all users, and also investing in sidewalk repair and maintenance is uh is funded through the operating budget.

So that does not come through capital.

Uh parks, grounds, and playgrounds, notable projects that were proposing funding, uh park facility upgrades, playground improvements, historic park restoration, and a match for uh Cardians field improvements for a total of 580,000 proposed.

Uh other major general fund projects, um the notable ones as far as the the more the larger ones would be the municipal support for UAV, the acquisition of Navy hospital property, the cottage street vault, snow removal equipment, vehicle wash base system, uh wayfinding signage and uh study, and also a uh capital reserve in addition to um fire SB SCBA and fire hoses, and that's total proposed comes to 1,515,000.

So what I just reviewed there is really just coming from this document here.

So that was just a very high-level review.

Um, what's included in this document is just is just general fund.

Jim, I have a quick question.

I just want to make sure that um I'm tracking things.

Um, I'm seeing some different numbers between the presentation and here.

Okay.

Um, for example, the facilities improvements, the adjusted projects on here seem to be more than what is on the presentation.

Okay, just want to make sure I'm not missing something.

Um I just want to make sure I oh I see um that two you're looking at the total proposed, the two million four fifty nine compared to the two million four zero nine.

Is that what you're looking at?

Yes, yep.

Okay, and I think that that's gonna be an adjustment that those are the late adjustment that we made.

So let me get my notes and we'll be able to reconcile that out.

Yeah, because as I also noticed the same thing for um public service parks, grounds, and playgrounds, and then the other major projects.

The adjusted projects and the proposed budget columns just um aren't matching up to unless I'm unless I'm missing something.

No, I it there were some late adjustments, so okay.

Let me let me Elizabeth and I will reconcile those before we close tonight.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

Yep.

Um, I have a question too.

For the building improvements for City Hall, the adjusted projects, obviously the zero in the proposed budget.

Um, could you talk a little bit about the building improvements and why yeah, and now I'm actually gonna defer to Bill Ricchio and he'd be able to get into the detail much better than I could.

All right, thank you.

And I and I will note um uh the purpose of tonight's meeting is to talk wave top level uh items.

Certainly we'll have other opportunities.

Uh public safety notwithstanding, because that workshop is done, but we'll have detail opportunities to get into some more details uh at the subsequent workshop for the other for the other departments too.

Mr.

Bill.

Hi.

Hi.

What was the um I'm sorry, can you give me the um the the building improvements for city hall?

Um the requested was 60,000, and then 60,000 is not in the budget for that.

I just wanted to know like what those projects, like what the money is being taken from being applied to, or you said taking from.

Yeah, so like there's nothing in the proposed budget for 2026-2027.

It was removed, adjusted.

Oh, that was um that was the design for a new HVAC system.

Okay.

Um I was mostly asking because of my I brought up a little while ago the that there's no access to the elevator on the second floor.

Like there's a door you can pull open, but it doesn't work if like if you're in a wheelchair or something.

So I was just wondering if that was in the building improvements.

No, but I'll look into that.

All right, thank you.

Second floor, you said, yeah, this door right out here.

You there's no way to open that door unless you can physically pull it open, which wouldn't work if you're right, yeah.

That was my only question.

Thank you.

Yep.

I have a question also.

Um the cemetery restoration money, the 35,000 is being it's not being funded this year.

Can I ask you why?

Why it was it's it's just recommended, you know, priority-wise.

Um, you know, it's just uh a small thing.

We've been funding it for a long time.

And it kind of helps offset private funds.

So would it would it continue into the future?

Probably not, but this year, with uh given the circumstances of what we're dealing with financially, we just thought it was something that needed to uh be removed this year.

Well, I don't agree.

I mean, I think that they the cemetery commission does so much work and they do so much with that 35,000, and it's it's work that you know would be done by the city.

Um cleaning stones and making sure that the cemetery is clean and making sure that it's kept up.

I I think that that money needs to be allocated.

Again, just recommendation on operation.

Yeah.

The other one was um in the tree, uh the tree conservancy.

Um, well, that's more about um the money that it's under the taxpayer money, but um we've cut that also, I think in almost a little more than in half.

Yeah, the community grants.

Yeah, we're gonna get to that.

All right, never mind.

Thank you.

But I you know, one of the things that I had wanted was to have the tree conservancy as part of the budget.

Um just like the Potter League is with um the police department, and I think that you know they do a lot of city work also, and um, I think that they need to be a part of that budget.

If not this year, then I'd like to see it for next year.

Are you thinking within the public services department?

Yeah.

As a separate line item to fund some operations, yes.

Is there an amount that is being um desired?

Well, I'd like to see 25,000 in the um in the yes, in the city's budget.

Because we've lost a lot of the tree canopy.

There's um supposed to be more planting going on, and they are very helpful with watering and getting trees and um planting them.

So I think that's important.

Thank you.

Those are my two, those are my two things.

They're small, but they mean a lot to me.

Counselor, is that the uh I'm seeing a line item here, pre-canopy restoration fund.

Seems like a new project this year.

So okay.

I just want to make because I think we had separate in the civic service was a $7500 award, but right.

I think we're gonna help the um to buy some trees for the canopy, but we also have to maintain them.

We have to water them.

I mean, and the tree conservancy does a lot of that work.

So okay.

We'll make a note of it.

I think part of the thought too for the um removal of that from a larger meeting we had internally was the very recent announcement of the million dollar appropriation for um broader landscaping with around the Pell.

So we felt um the expansion of the canopy up there would allow us to you know offset by a year for this potential funding, but again, everything's up for conversation, but that's how we that's how we came to that.

Okay.

Um help offset it.

Yeah, because they're a big part of that um push for the appropriation as we also understood it.

So yeah, I understand.

Um Jim, I just want to go back to Council Smith's um question about the just the differential between the schedule and the report.

Should we be going by the schedule right now?

Like, so for instance, uh the public services, it's you know, in the schedule is 505,000 because we took out the 75,000 for the historic park restoration.

But in the I'm sorry, I just want to make sure I'm following what you're looking at.

So like you like in the overview for uh parks, grounds, playgrounds for one example.

Okay, right.

So you have we have four projects totaling 580,000.

One of them is the historic park restoration, but in the schedule, the historic park restoration is deferred.

So should we be following the schedule?

Which is the notebook, uh the chart should be following the the overlay.

Overview.

Just want to bounce them back and forth.

Sure.

No, I absolutely um see what well he's looking.

I see what you're saying, counselor.

Thank you.

Uh on on slide four of the presentation, we have 580,000 on the uh Excel spreadsheet.

We have 505, the difference is 75,000, which is conspicuously identical to the historic uh park restoration fund.

So that might have been one of those last minute adjustments.

So we just have to figure out that's exactly right.

So thank you.

Yeah, which is fine.

I just want to know which one should we be following.

Yeah, yep.

We should be following this one here.

Yes.

So this is gonna be the detail that's gonna get us to that six million two hundred and forty-three thousand.

I'm sorry, Mr.

Chair.

When we say notable projects, what do you mean by that?

Those are projects that that we are proposing to be funded.

Okay, so but the CIP is not proposing to fund the historic park restoration, right?

So or is that is it is it just that particular portion of it, the 75,000?

That's gonna be that particular portion that's sticking out.

That's okay.

Okay, okay.

So how much are we looking to spend on that?

On the facilities improvements, that's gonna be uh 2,409,000.

Okay, thank you.

I apologize for that.

That's an error.

Any other questions before we move on to uh enterprise funds?

All right.

All right, uh moving on to enterprise funds.

Um sorry, Mr.

Chair.

I I just want to make sure of something.

So just because something is you have adjusted projects here that appear to be taken out completely.

That doesn't necessarily mean that they are taken out.

It just means that the funding might be coming from some other some other place or or we can defer those into into future years.

So they're still important projects to the city.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Thanks.

If I have any other questions, I'll okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Enterprise funds.

The water water fund CIP.

Water fund pro water fund projects funding is at $4,169,000 in fiscal year 2027 with a five-year total of $28,698,000.

The water fund projects that are unfunded.

We have uh $17,990,000 in fiscal year 2027 with a total five-year unfunded project level of $114 million.

To note, uh water rates are regulated by the PUC, which is the public utilities commission, and rates are determined to support operations in addition to capital needs.

Funded projects are at $25,666,000 in fiscal year 2027 with a five-year total of $60,996,000.

And W and just as a side note, WPC projects are uh supported by ratepayer dollars.

And as we can all see, there's a massive need, and uh we really have an inability to fund it at this time.

Um so we we need to find some sort of funding uh some sort of other funding source outside of uh ratepayer, and that's really to address stormwater flooding uh throughout the city.

Um maritime and parking fund, maritime projects uh that are funded within the CIP are 14,382,000 uh for a five-year total of 15 million six hundred and fifty-two thousand, and the parking fund project, the CIP funding is one million five hundred and seventy-five thousand, and that five-year total is at three million one hundred and twenty-five thousand.

All right.

So our other our other funding sources, um, we have a typo here, this those two items in yellow, they were in draft form.

Um so when we look at the general fund equipment replacement uh for vehicles, that 777,000, that's a that's a correct number.

Um, however, that general fund grants and congressional appropriations of 25 million, uh, we were we were hoping that we'd be able to include uh some brick brick grant grants and um grants for uh the cliff walk.

Um but that that number, I can give you the accurate number is 1,725,000.

All right, and um our last other funding source is infrastructure bond, which we are um currently going out to borrow this week.

Um, and that the amount of that bond is 35,600,000, and what we would have remaining on that 985 would be 62 million nine hundred thousand.

Well, just for clarification, do we have the the list of the projects for the bond?

We do.

Yes.

Would you like to go through um yeah okay?

Just for public.

And did you want to go through the tranche uh the the projects that represent the tranche we're about to uh to go out to to issue or for all of them as a recap?

Just what we're going out for okay, okay.

Now yeah.

So we're going out to bond uh for this first tranche of 35 million six hundred thousand, and that's gonna include um Easton's Beach Demolition, which is a memorialized project for 800,000.

Uh for our 2025 and 26 road improvement program, six million public safety facility acquisition of land, that's five million seven hundred and fifty thousand.

The um Elizabeth Brook Daylighting, which would be our grant match, that's five million three hundred and seventy-five thousand Easton's Beach Nourishment Study and programs at for a million dollars.

Seawall repairs two million five hundred thousand, and the Harrison Avenue site for five million.

In addition, so those are our general fund projects.

Um, in addition to that, uh, we have with related to maritime.

We have the uh Pratty Park Bulkhead at $6 million, the Elm Street Pier rebuild at 1.5 million, uh, and street peer matching for 500,000.

And then in addition to that, there'll be some bond issuance costs.

Um that's and that's what will bring us to 35.6 million.

Uh Mr.

Chair.

Um the Elizabeth Brook and the Eastons um pond, those were matching funds for grant, right?

That's so but we're still going to withdraw that money for those projects, even if we're not gonna be doing those projects.

So Director Schultz, he'll he'll be he would be able to a better person to explain that, but um how it's been explained to me is that work has been done in advance that we can use as a match that and that's that would be that that 5,375,000.

So there's currently work going on related to Elizabeth Brook.

Okay.

That would be would be our match.

And Easton's too.

Uh Easton's.

Uh so we're we're not going out for Eastons right now.

So that will be in a later tranche.

So um I'm I'm not sure how much work has been done to date on that, but uh, but that would be matching funds up.

Okay, thank you.

Which we're more optimistic about now than we were two weeks ago with the reinstitution of the brick grant program by the federal government.

So uh it's not capped, it's capped at 20 million now versus 15 million like it was before, so it's not as good as it was before, but I think with that matching fund availability, we're in a strong position to compete for one of those grants.

So we are absolutely going to pursue that.

And that's actually uh part of the reason that that number up there it looks really big and it feels like we cut it down, but that's just because we don't have any grant agreements in place.

But it's anticipating um some availability for those grants down the road.

So we're we're cautiously optimistic that we'll be very competitive.

There's any questions, Mr.

Chair.

Go ahead, council.

Um, I have a question only because this was something that that came up recently, the snow removal equipment.

Um I I guess I just want to make sure, given the last blizzard and and some of the complications, um, that we have what we need in place just in case we run into any of these issues going forward.

The 80,000 that is being deferred, is that because there's something that that we think we don't need, or because I'm also looking at the cottage street vault for 175k.

So what's prioritizing that over making sure that you know we have the equipment and the staff that we need to ensure that it isn't uh public safety issue with future blizzards or or issues, sure, and and these were conversations that we had with Director Riccio, and he he'd be able to answer those a whole lot better.

Yeah, that'd be great.

Thank you.

We had a street sweeper.

We were gonna propose um the equipment because of um not saying just the blizzard, but in general, we have taken a much more aggressive approach to sidewalks.

We took on the bike path, which I'm pretty sure that's gonna be a regular thing, and I just think you know, our uh tentacles are gonna be spread over more.

So that is changed from going after a uh street sweeper to um going to uh another piece of sidewalk equipment.

Okay, so that that was a difference in 80,000, so that it wasn't really a cut per se.

It was just that the value was lesser in going after a different piece of equipment.

Okay, the second question I didn't I didn't hear it from when I was saying yeah, no, that that was okay because I was only because it was the line item right above the snow removal was the cottage street vault, so for 175k.

So for 175k.

So I was just wondering what prioritized that over the 80,000 um for snow removal equipment.

Um the vault is something that we found very haphazardly and you know, it's easily most easily said we're we're on notice, right?

Okay, it's a significant structure that's under the um the surface of the road, and we need to figure out what our options are, and that money um would be used for a structural assessment of it.

Okay, and a lot of the um the estimate that I have that is 175 relates to potential environmental cleaning of it in order to do the appropriate assessment.

We continue to look for other options.

We're considering filling it with a variety of materials from crushed stone to flowable fill, et cetera, et cetera.

Well, bridging a structure over it to make everything better, but um well, not better, but um you know, just we we don't know its condition and we need to um I mean, as shocked as we were to find it, we now know we have to do something because if something is to happen, it's not going to be in a good position that the city's in.

Okay, thank you.

Now we say something was to happen.

We're talking about just collapsing.

Yeah.

That's my thought.

Yeah, you didn't so we haven't done any any more, I guess I'll use the word digging for lack of a better term, but um no, we found it because we were doing um we found preparations for road improvements and we were doing four, so we found it covered and we lifted the cover and said, yikes.

So it's that's pretty it's interesting for sure.

I believe Director Schultz noted that he's not often surprised by anything anymore.

And that surprised him.

So that says a lot.

Right.

Not a surprise we needed financially or you know, otherwise.

Uh any other questions for Director Rickeo?

Right?

Thanks, bro.

All right, well, I'll move on to the uh civic support and civic services grants.

Sorry, Mr.

Chair.

Um, I just have a question.

Um for Serbian typically I recuse from civic support because I am involved in so many of the organizations.

So should I step away for this part?

Is one of you uh associated with one of the a lot of them a lot of them?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Yeah, just to be on the safe side, yeah.

You'll just yeah, okay.

Good evening, counselors.

Um just give a little overview of where we are with community grants, and then we'll get right into um the actual recommendations.

Uh it struck me that it was about a year ago at this time that I had a little bit of baptism by fire because I had started three weeks ago to this time when you all directed our office to look at the way that the community grant programs ran.

So at that point in the fiscal 26 year, all of the applications had already been submitted.

So we did look at how we would evaluate and review those applications.

Um made some you know progress in that process.

So we go to the next slide.

Uh so basically for 2026, just as a quick reminder, the council approved 20 civic support grants valued at 168,430.

Those are the ones funded through the Sears Trust, and it also made 10 civic support or civic services grants uh valued at 104,000.

And those are the grants supported through the general fund.

Um between last year and now, in anticipation of this new funding cycle, we further revised the evaluation process, but we also completely overhauled the application process.

So we had a much more deliberate and transparent application process, which included a complete um benchmarking of what other municipalities are doing so we could look at best practices.

We redesigned the application form and process, put it online, um bifurcated the uh application for organizations who fall either under or over 500,000, which is the state sort of landmark for different fiscal responsibilities.

Um we tiered that application process, making uh those with larger budgets and more staff a little more rigorous um and accountable, and then we uh further refined the peer review process.

Um so as you can see there, there's a summary, what is proposed for 27 is uh 18 civic support grants funded through the Sears Trust totaling 151,000, which is uh about 11,000 less than was funded last year, uh, and a total of 11 civic services grants totaling 98,000 uh funded through the general fund.

And that is approximately $6,500 less than was budgeted and funded in the current year.

So if we go to the next slide, um this was what you saw at the March 4th meeting and you preliminarily approved.

These are the civic support grants funded through this year's trust.

And if you have any questions about those, I'm happy to answer them.

But our focus today, uh, I understood was to be if we go to the next slide, um, those civic service grants, which uh are 11 of them, they are funded through the general fund.

So again, happy to answer any questions other about the process or the recommendations in front of you.

Have we got any feedback on how we do the uh the rubric now since last year?

Sure.

There are two rubrics that we employed.

One is used to look at the the applications themselves and looking at the responses that are received.

So the peer panel, so six people who are uh convened, uh met in January to do that.

They have an initial review prior to convening and then a second read with the full committee together.

And then once they are scored, and what you see in that column uh that says score availability, so the uh large organizations could have up to 45 points, and the smaller organizations up to 33 points, those are their final scores, and then they're put through a final rubric which allocates the percentage of award based on their scoring merit.

And that's where you see what the final recommendation is.

No, but have we got any feedback from either the services or from the team that does this as it working?

Is it are there still questions or I'm sorry, I didn't catch the last part.

Do we think this new system is working?

I'm gonna say have we got any feedback from any of these these groups that are um you know that apply for these uh grants and services or are we heading in the right direction, or can we do better?

Well, I think after you know going through the year of how we've made these changes, um, it was the process was well received by applicants who renewed.

We also had some who dropped away and other new applications who are first time.

Um we did have a few, you know, as is the case with new technology, a few glitches at the start of the launch of the website.

But generally everybody reviewed the process um well.

And then in terms of the peer review panel, I think we had a great response and um very equitable and fair process evaluating it.

So I think everyone felt quite strongly about the recommendations that are in front of you.

Good.

Yeah, so hopefully there's no there shouldn't be any question as far as who gets what money because everything's all you know put in a formula and and discuss that way as opposed to just personal feelings, basically.

You're referring to the no yeah, absolutely want to pick to it.

Yep, yeah.

Yeah, to answer to answer that, that's correct.

It was a much more subjective process in the past.

Um there's a much more uh um objective criteria involved now, you know, regarding the regarding the allocations.

Um I I will say in answer to your to your previous question, um some organizations uh did come back uh because we did put a cap on uh on on some of the awards, and uh what we found that was um uh a few years ago when the when the ARPA funds were still uh we were still flush with money from ARPA, many of the organizations were getting were getting larger awards.

Uh that money just doesn't exist anymore.

Um so so Peter, um uh so the group put uh caps on I want to speak about the caps, uh Peter, just briefly to council?

Just on the caps for each uh briefly.

Yeah, and they were each tier.

The the the highest category was cut by $10,000 in terms of eligible award amounts, and then each tier has an amount up to so, for example, if you want the specifics.

Sorry.

Um the tier one grants are up to five thousand dollars, tier two is up to fifteen, tier three is up to twenty, and then the highest is up to thirty thousand dollars.

The other thing I would say is that with civic services, all although the same lens is applied to civic support, but because civic services fall um under the general fund, we look even more closely at how these um organizations and what they are proposing align with city initiatives and priorities.

Um so the case can be made that you know uh these could be services that the city um might be providing, but we don't have the capacity to do so, and so this is a way to augment that and one can say delivered because of these uh nonprofit agencies are very efficient in what they're already doing.

Right, Peter, um the Eastern Rhode Island Conservation District.

What does that bring to Newport?

I'm sorry, which group, Gene?

Hi, I can speak to that.

Okay, sure.

Yeah, thank you.

Teresa Creen, Director of Resilience and Sustainability.

Um, right now the Eastern Rhode Island Conservation District is assisting the city with um match dollars for the a residential curbside composting program.

We the total project budget there is funded through a sizable grant to the city from 11th hour racing.

Um I believe it's 25,000 that the Eastern Rhode Island Conservation District is putting forward is leveraged resources, and they're really focusing on the outreach education monitoring and data collection um for the residential curbside composting program.

Eastern Rhode Island Conservation District is also um the applicant and the awardee for the $680,000 NIF WIF grant.

That's the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation grant for the daylight part of the daylighting of the Elizabeth Brook.

So the city did sign a letter of support um for that $680,000 NIF WIF grant.

And we've um in working in collaboration with the Eastern Rhode Island Conservation District, they hired an engineer and we're also coordinating with the Rhode Island Department of Transportation pretty much to look at the rail corridor and the pinch point of uh stormwater drainage through underneath the Rhode Island DOT rail line.

Um and then also there's a parcel right across on Cottington, right across from the uh shopping center that is an uh undeveloped parcel next to where they're the boats are all wrapped.

Right.

Um and they uh DOT is actually has a finalized wetland design for that parcel.

And part of the $680,000 NIFWIF award that Eastern Rhode Island is managing is looking at the hydraulic connectivity of that wetland design to the Elizabeth Brook.

There's also supposed to be a sizable outreach initiative.

So Director Schultz um and I have both been involved in coordinating with that, uh, in addition to the Equidnik Resilience Group.

Thank you for that explanation.

I know years ago um they were part of the civic support, and we were finding they were working more with farmlands out in Portsmouth and uh Middletown, which I don't begrudge, but at the time um we kept saying, well, what are we getting out of this?

But it it does sound like uh they're doing some work in Newport.

So I appreciate that.

Sure.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Mr.

Chair.

Um how many applicants did we have for the civic support grants?

Sorry, what was that?

How many applicants did we have for the civic support grants?

How many people, how many organizations applied?

I know that we how many groups applied over um of the 29 groups.

There were 32 that applied overall.

Okay.

Um the the reason for uh the few that didn't uh make it through to completion were based on the eligibility requirements, which was another thing we added in terms of compliance with state regulations, tax filings, yeah, etc.

etc.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

What is the Newport City Development Council?

Newport, which the Newport City Development Council.

Oh, that is part of the chamber.

Oh, right, okay.

That's been a long-standing economic development.

Yeah, it okay, yeah.

Thank you.

I was wondering where the chamber was, and there it was.

They sort of rebranded as just that name in this.

Okay, thank you.

No questions.

Thank you, Peter.

Thank you.

It's gonna be the overview next, or all right.

I'm gonna be uh presenting the the overview of our our 2027 proposed budget.

And what we're gonna be covering summary, uh, we're gonna review significant components of the proposed fiscal year 27 budget, uh, key dates of the budget cycle and fiscal year 27 tax billing timeline, proposed levy increase for fiscal year 27.

We'll discuss the two-tiered tax program and participation levels.

Uh, we'll discuss the tax levy categories.

Uh, we'll review proposed tax rates, and we will uh review the impact of the tax rate change to the proposed tax rate change to average assessed uh residential property, and we will go through our proposed uh general fund revenues and our proposed general fund expenditures.

All right, uh some key dates that we have um throughout this budget cycle.

Uh we are scheduled to uh have council formally receive the budget um tomorrow, which will be April 8th.

We have our departmental budget workshops, which we had police fire, parking, and maritime on March 30th.

Uh tonight we are reviewing the budget overview, personnel, capital, civic support, uh, general government and city manager departments on April 9th, we're scheduled for resilience and sustainability, uh, which includes public services, planning, zoning, and building inspections.

And just to note, um on April 16th, water and water pollution control, which is under resiliency and sustainability will be on April 16th.

Um and April 15th, we will uh um be reviewing the school department.

The first public hearing, um, we are projecting that to be May 6 with a second public hearing on May 13th, and if needed, we um can review for uh an additional public hearing on um May 27th, if needed.

All right, an important component of our our tax structure is obviously getting the the tax bills prepared and sent out.

Um, and in order to do that, uh tax rates must be approved by city council prior to billing.

Um fiscal year 26.

Well, it's really 27.

That's that we're in our second year of using our city's tax billing, our new uh city's tax billing software.

Uh tax bills scheduled for generation the week of June 16th.

Uh, and that's to support an early July mailing by our third-party provider.

And this timeline ensures taxpayers have adequate time to meet the first quarter due date, which is August 5th.

All right, um, real estate tax levy explanations.

This is just gonna be really a general review of what we went through last year.

Uh the city's property tax role is defined by the following categories.

Under residential, we have owner occupied and non-owner occupied, and that's our two-tiered program.

Uh in addition to commercial and tangible property, which are you know, that would be things like business fixtures, um fixtures and equipment, things like that.

We do have restrictions and guardrails.

Uh the city cannot exceed a four percent increase to the tax levy, with the following exceptions.

Um new debt service increase, non-property tax revenue loss, or a substantial tax based growth base growth requiring expanded services.

Our commercial rate is tied to one and a half times the lowest residential rate, which is our owner occupied, and um related to so general assembly and general assembly has locked in the tangible property rate at 14.88 cents and has given a $50,000 exemption for business businesses for their furniture fixtures and equipment.

Our proposed tax levy increase is 1.87%, and that would amount to uh additional revenue of 1,725,257, which would bring us to a total fiscal year 27 proposed tax levy of 93,739,039.

And it's administration has uh we we continue continue to bring a really measured approach to managing our our tax levy uh growth, our residential two-tiered tax terminology, so owner occupied that's our residential taxpayer that has been approved based on application submitted during the open application period, our non-owner occupied, those are our residential taxpayers that are not eligible for or did not submit an application during the opening application period.

And um later in this uh the presentation we'll we'll talk about average assessed value, and that's really just the average value of all residential properties uh in this particular year.

So, how does this work?

Um, qualifying owner-occupied properties may apply for reduced rates through our newport's two-tiered system, and um coming up in 2027, it's it's a three-year full renewal period.

So in 2027, it will be it's not gonna be a full renewal period.

Um, and that that will be from January 4th to February 26th, and then in um calendar year 2028 will be a renewal for all residents, and that will be that application period will be open from January 3rd to February 29th.

All right, uh, as I mentioned earlier, we are entering uh year four of our two-tiered residential tax program, and it appears that growth for owner-occupied applicants and approvals has stabilized.

Uh, when we started this program back in 2024, uh 35 36% of our tax role was owner-occupied, and that steadily increased in fiscal year 25.

That that owner-occupied made up 45% of our resident uh tax roll, and that jumped to 51% in fiscal year 26, and we're seeing a stabilization right now in fiscal year 27 at 52 percent.

And that total number in in fiscal year 2027, uh the number of owner-occupied are 4,352,000, or excuse me, 4,352, and that owner uh occupied exemption would be 1.2 billion.

So um in total, there has been a you know, because there's a roll, some are we'll roll on, some will roll off.

Um, about 183 properties were added to the owner-occupied program fiscal year 27 compared to 473 last year, and the additional 183 properties represents approximately 52 million in owner-occupied exemptions, and that's compared to an additional um one uh 134 million that we saw in uh our prior year.

So, how is our tax levy funded?

So we're really seeing some consistencies year over year, where so you you look at the four years of our residential or two tier program.

Um the resident owner occupied, so of our total tax levy, uh resident owner occupied compried comprises of about 22 percent.

Our uh non-owner occupied is about 52 percent.

So in total, our residential between owner-occupied and non-owner occupied, um, our tax levy is supported by uh our residents at a at a rate of 75% with commercial um bringing in about two 22%, 23% of our tax levy, and tangible is at about 2.3%.

All right.

Um, so looking at at rates, um, our proposed rates for owner occupied for fiscal year 27 will be seven dollars and thirty-two cents, and that compares to last year at seven dollars and eighteen cents.

Our resident non-owner occupied, we're proposing a rate of eight dollars and uh eighty-six cents, and that compares to last year's rate of adopted rate of eight dollars and sixty-nine cents.

Our commercial rate proposed for fiscal year 27 is ten dollars and ninety-seven cents compared to last year's adopted rate of ten dollars and seventy-seven cents, and our tangible, which is fixed, uh, will remain at 14.88.

And I just have a uh a note down here.

Um, as we're working through our workshop into um getting the the budget read, there may be a slight adjustment in rates, uh, which is not uncommon because we're we're working on our certified tax roll, um, but we do not project it's gonna, it's it's gonna really move all that much, but just there may be a small slight adjustment.

Mr.

Chair question.

Hey, counselor.

Welcome.

I was listening indoor.

Um, what is the max differential between the rate that year-round residents are paying versus part-time residents versus commercial properties?

So when you look at our commercial properties, that's so that differential is gonna be one and a half times our lowest residential rate, which will be our owner-occupied rate.

So, really, we take we'll take in order to get to our commercial rate, we'll take our resident owner-occupied rate, multiply it by one and a half percent to get to our commercial.

Uh, as far as the differential between owner-occupied and non-own owner occupied, that's really dependent on the level of exemptions that are being proposed.

So we're we're proposing that we keep that that exemption for uh owner-occupied at 284,433.

Is there a legal restriction on the differential between the owner-occupied and non-owner occupied?

No.

So that rate theoretically, I'm not advocating for this.

I'm not advocating for this, but just for the record, could float as high as high as 1097 per mil.

Yes.

Thank you.

I I believe so, and I'd certainly want to defer to the solicitor being.

Yeah, um it's still gonna, you're still gonna have that issue of the residential rate compared to the commercial rate to look at the the um uh I would say you're probably right on that then theoretically.

Theoretically.

This again, just theoretical exercise here.

If you were to increase the resident non-owner occupied rate to the full rate of the commercial right now, what would the aggregate impact on the budget be?

I can certainly do that calculation and and get an answer to you before we leave tonight.

Thank you.

All right, um, this is a comparison of owner-occupied and residential to uh prior years.

So uh what I'm gonna so going from left to right, uh our proposed fiscal year 2027.

Uh if that average, so the average assessed value of a home of 1,185,000, uh, we are applying a 24% exemption, which amounts to 284,433.

So when we net the average assessed value to the exemption, that brings us to a net uh proposed exemption or proposed um value of nine 900,000.

Okay, so we have to divide that by a thousand to get to our rate, right?

So that's how we get to the 900.704.

If we apply that rate of seven dollars and thirty-two cents, that average assessed value uh would see a tax bill of six thousand five hundred and eighty-nine dollars, and that's a difference of about a hundred and twenty-five dollars from last year.

And looking over time, if you look back to uh our column all the way to the right, our actual fiscal year 24, that's when we implemented our our two-tiered program, and that average assessed value um resident owner received a reduction in their tax bill of about $878.

Um, moving to fiscal year 25, the increase it just remained flat.

So that there was about a $2 increase that that property would see compared to in fiscal year 26, they saw an increase of about 182 dollars in their tax bill.

And what we just discussed under the proposed budget, we were looking at uh an increase of about 125 dollars in this fiscal year.

All right, how will proposed rates impact the average assessed home homeowner tax uh tax bill?

Which uh we really we we talked about some of this, but I want to bring in the non-owner component as well.

So um all the way at the bottom that what we talked about that per proposed fiscal year 27 tax bill for that average assessed homeowner would be six thousand five hundred and eighty-nine dollars for that resident non-owner occupied, would be looking at a tax bill of ten thousand four hundred and ninety-eight dollars, which is roughly two hundred dollars um greater than greater than last year.

That's so that would be the variable.

All right.

Do we have any questions on that or do we want to move on to revenues?

Okay.

Uh moving on to revenues.

Um left to right, we have our our 2027 proposed budget uh compared to our 2026 adopted budget with a dollar change.

And then uh to the far right will be our 2025 actual.

So looking at our total, and these are the the large categories that we have within our budget.

Um, so our total lack local taxes will be are being proposed at 104 million five hundred and twenty thousand, and that's compared to ninety-nine million one hundred and sixty-five thousand last year.

And I'll go into more detail on these on these categories in the following slide.

Um total state and federal aid, we're proposing five million three hundred and eight thousand compared to five million one hundred and forty-seven last year.

Our total service charges and fees, we're proposing 15,391,000.

And that compares to last year's uh adopted of 13,775,000.

Our total use of money and property, we're proposing 4,011,000, which compares to last year of 3,077, 3,779,000, and our total contributions for sale of the property, uh, which is it stays consistent at 203,000, and our total other sources uses of funds.

Um, that's the and that big change right there, that $4,070,000, that's gonna be what we're proposing within our CIP, that committed fund balance amount of $3 million plus coming into into the revenues to support CIP.

So in total, our total general fund revenue, we're proposing at $133,506,000 uh compared to $122,270,000 last year.

And to get into uh really those budget drivers, the increases um.

Thank you.

Uh so uh local taxes, which will be our that's the that's a summary description.

Um, and the detailed description would be our tax levy.

That increase from last year is proposed at 1,725,000.

Our local tax, which is includes our room tax based on the legislative changes that went into effect on January 1 of this year.

Uh we're looking at an increase of 3,468,000.

Our charges for services would be an increase of 900,000 uh due to the traffic camera tickets that we're ex that we're receiving, and charges for services would be an increase to building permits of about 323,000.

And um, as we talked about, uh we we do thanks to council and and revising our fund balance policy uh back in September.

We do have uh 3,870,000 available, which we're proposing um to use within our our capital program.

So the camera tickets that that figure the 900,000 is that after everything's paid off.

Yes.

That's that'll be net.

That yes, that would be net.

Um and that that includes that's for the red light and the the speed.

That is correct.

And is that assuming all tickets are paid?

Or is that actual money in hand?

There's a lot, there's there's there's some unknown.

We we have some data that we can that we're that we're using currently to come up with that 900,000.

We think that's that's uh a solid number, but there's there's a there's a lot of unknowns that that that are still out there.

Jim, how many excuse me?

How many speed cameras are there around?

I believe uh I believe there's one, just one just the one set.

Just the one okay.

Middletown has some new ones, but Newport still only has the one.

Okay, thanks.

All right.

Um I just really that one of our driving factors for increased revenue in our proposed budget for 20 fiscal year 27.

It's really related to the uh the rooms tax and the impact that uh that legislation has has had with the city in a in a positive way.

Um and really when you look at this, our our components that that have really benefited the city is that uh the city is now receiving a whole home tax, which was going to be things like our Airbnbs, uh 30 days or less, and that five percent number, the city receives 25 percent of the five percent.

Okay.

So the tax is going to be if somebody pays a hundred dollars for a room, that tax will be five dollars.

All right, the city will receive twenty-five percent of that five dollars.

All right, so that's that's uh that's a benefit to the the city that we weren't receiving in prior years.

In addition to the city is also receiving um an increase in the local tax from one percent to two percent, which is um really what what drives that is we're looking uh three million plus increase in revenue that we're projecting.

All right, the so I think worth discussing is is housing aid and and the really the impact of regionalization.

Um we currently do not have housing aid included in our fiscal year 27 budget.

Uh and the reason being is if we lock in with ride with the uh school building, we will will be really we'll pigeonhole ourselves into that lower rate.

All right.

And we're estimating or really that that maximum rate of reimbursement, if we do not regionalize, we'll be at 55 percent.

What we're using here is really just it's the conservative number to say we may not get to that full 55 percent.

So that projection of 52.5 is assuming that we will not receive um all four of the incentives that that are available.

Um and then when you look to the right, that increase of um up to 7578.5 percent, that is if regionalization does occur, uh, we would be eligible for an additional 26 percent maximum of 26 percent, and that's two percent per grade.

That is if regionalization does occur, uh, we would be eligible for an additional 26%, maximum of 26%, and that's 2% per grade.

So really to cut through some of these numbers here, there's uh a catch-up component to the construction of Pell and Rogers.

So what happened during the the early stages of construction, uh Ride we um paid what they called pay-go.

So they they paid the city seven million nine hundred and twenty-seven dollars.

Um excuse me, seven million nine hundred and twenty-seven thousand.

All right, so that's what was paid up front.

We use those funds to um to construct the buildings.

However, that was based on a calculation of assuming a 35% reimbursement.

So if we do not regionalize, we will still be eligible for that differential in a lump sum.

So that lump sum really escalates if we do regionalize.

All right.

Uh so there's there's a a big a big number as far as what's available for for catch up, regardless of whether regionalization happens or not.

However, we are gonna have to wait until 2028 to start receiving any of that catch up.

And what was happening in the past, that would happen all in one year as far as the catch up, but the um governor is proposing that that get spread out over three years, and that's just a proposal right now.

So when we look at these numbers, I I just have that catch-up year, year one, two, and three.

So that if we were to submit, if we had an idea that that regionalization may be a possibility or not, we would submit to Ride um in July of 2027, and that would just be an estimate.

And then what we would have to do is we would have to turn around in July of 2027 and request uh final approval, and then we would be then that first payment would come through in um in September of 2027, which is our fiscal year 2028.

So when you look at that total catch-up amount, um, if we if that proposal from the governor does come through, uh we we that would really be amortized at if we stayed if regionalization did not occur at three million dollars, and if regionalization did occur, we'd be looking at about seven million dollars per year for per three-year stretch.

Um excuse me, Jim.

Um, haven't we already settled the fact that we're gonna get the um those incentives?

Haven't we already not that I'm aware of?

I think the the one thing in in speaking with um Rhode Island Building was there's an incentive for newer and fewer schools and with originally NACTEC was supposed to come down, um, but that that did not.

So really what we're being told is from the school department that yes, we are gonna meet that 55%.

And what we're telling is we're getting told from Ride is that well, maybe you're not because you you you did not knock down NAC Tech.

Wow.

So we're we're trying to be somewhat conservative, and that's why we really are just estimated what what I just presented to you is just really estimated on not receiving that full 55%.

Right.

It's the midpoint of the two.

We're we're in solid ground for three of the four five percent increments for incentives.

It's that last one that uh that director Nolan is talking about that's uncertain.

So just by keeping that building and only having two programs in there, we we lose that incentive.

I'm not saying that I'm not suggesting that that we're gonna lose it.

I'm just suggesting that I'm I'm getting two different answers from two different groups.

Um so we until we go and and apply and and get final approval, we we won't know in if we get those those full five or full four incentives.

Okay, thank you.

So if we only get I'm sorry, if we only get the four incentives, then I mean the three incentives, how much less of a reimbursement would we get?

Um I'm eyeballing here based on yeah, I because go ahead, Colin.

So yeah, we have an updated the one in front of you is is uh updated with some more specifics.

Um but if I work in the opposite direction, it looks like it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 450,000 for that five percent.

450,000 less than what you see up.

Okay.

Like two two.

Okay.

And and I have that I I have specific numbers.

We ran that scenario, so um, I can get you specific numbers.

Thank you.

That's what that differential will be.

Thank you, Colin.

All right.

Um within our revenue in fiscal year 27 budget, we include 3.9 million in short-term investments.

Um as we know, that's all gonna be dependent on uh on the market.

Uh and we we have investments that are allocated across treasury notes, bank interest discounts, and mortgage-backed securities.

And um with really just our our financial environment, uh the Federal Reserve, or there's an expectation or there might it might be expected that uh that they maintain relatively stable rates in 2026 with modest declines uh beginning later in the year, uh filed by gradual easing in 27.

Long story short, we we we can't project the market, but we do we are being somewhat I guess I'll say aggressively conservative with this 3.9 million if there's such a term, right?

Uh just because we simply don't know what what's gonna happen to interest rates and when the feds may cut them.

All right.

So if the Fed cuts any more than 50 basis points, uh we we'd we'd really be in a position where the way that the budget is presented right now, if that came in short, we'd have to be looking at you know um freezing expenses, the hiring freeze.

Uh so that we'd have to have to certainly take take a look at those those to make sure we have that that balanced budget.

All right, fiscal year 2027 proposed expenditures.

Uh in summary, salaries, overtime and holiday pay proposed at 36 million four hundred and ninety-five thousand.

That compares to adopted last year of 33,904,000 transfer to school budget of 31,12,000 compared to last year of 29,905,000, and that represents a 4% increase.

General fund services is being proposed at 18,37,000 compared to last year's adopted of 17,731,000.

Our contributions to police and fire pensions is proposed at 12,949,000 compared to 12,524,000 last year, and that represents uh full contribution based on our actual valuations, so fully funding those two pensions.

Uh debt service, an increase uh from last year.

So in proposed 2027, be 11,143,000 compared to last year of 9,26,000.

And that's um that increase is based on uh Rogers Roof that has um expired that matured and adding on the uh infrastructure, the the money that we're going out to borrow this week.

Um we'd have our first payment due in 2027 benefits other than police and fire pension proposed 2027 of 10 million five hundred and seventy thousand, and that compares to our adopted last year of nine million six hundred and eighty-six thousand, our capital budget transfer of six million two hundred and forty-three thousand compared to last year of three million one hundred and twenty-three thousand, our transfer to OPEB trust, and that's represents uh proposed twenty-seven of five million eight hundred and fifty-seven thousand compared to last year of five million four hundred and thirty-nine thousand, and that's based on our actual valuation as well at uh 100% ADEC funded.

Uh transfer to equipment replacement of 829,000 compared to adopted last year of 789,000.

Uh so total expenditures, which balances with our revenues of 133,506,000 in fist proposed fiscal year 27 compared to adopted 26 of 122 million three hundred and eleven thousand.

Jim, the uh the salary change is those mostly contractual raises.

They they are so so the the majority of the city's employees are are fall under one of four unions, and uh so they they are contractual, yes.

And and we'll go through a lot of that within our personnel.

Yeah.

Um Jim, I have a question.

Sure.

Um when we talk about total taxes, um, and I think you said uh 70 something like 75 per 70 something percent of it is residential.

Yes.

So are you saying that the other 20 per 20 some percent is commercial meaning hotels and that's right, businesses?

That's correct.

Yes, and that's maintained.

That's it's really been at the 20 roughly 22, 23 percent.

Okay.

So about 23% of our uh revenue comes from the tourism industry, essentially.

That is with yes, with yes, within the commercial, yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks, Jim.

We do the uh personnel next.

Just the last one.

No.

Oh no, we got finance.

Shouldn't somebody be like passing you gator on IM?

It's crazy.

If it goes well, the gator pass is bucket.

Okay.

Um so we can we can hop right into our uh 2027 proposed uh budget.

What's included in this presentation is just general fund only.

All right, and uh what we're what we'll go through is really just staffing and our pay plans.

So within our general fund only, so we're our proposed employee count in fiscal year 27.

Uh would be make up.

So we we've just talked about our four unions, which would be ASME, FOP, IAFF, which is fire, and then um NEA.

So proposing 27 within ASME, we're proposing 78 employees, and that compares to 76 that we had last year, and that differential of two we'll talk about, and that's the uh um additional two laborers that we're proposing.

Uh FOP will remain flat at 84.

Our fire, which is IAFF will remain flat at 94.

Council will be seven, NEA, which is our supervisory union will remain flat at 17.

Our supervisory group will remain flat at 44, and our unclassified, which are our solicitors, um, would be will remain flat at six for a total proposed employee count within the general fund only of 330, and that compares to last year of 328.

All right.

Um, so we're we're proposing new two new positions, um, and they're both uh within the ASME union, and we're proposing two new laborers that would have a starting salary, uh projected started salary of 49,838 dollars with benefits of 40,986 for a total salary and benefits of 90,824.

And that that benefits just for informational purposes, that will include payroll taxes.

We project at the high end on health, so we we project out that that that individual one of family plan, um, which is roughly 25,000 for the year, in addition to dental life and and pension contributions that are made on their behalf.

Okay.

So attached in the next few slides.

I I won't go through each line item here, but this is our non-union scale uh for general fund only.

And there's and I'm just gonna highlight a couple changes.

So when we look at the number of assigned positions, there is not an increase, but what we are proposing is if we look at page the next Elizabeth.

If we look down to the affirmative action officer, um moving that grade from uh an eight to a seven to align with the responsibilities of that position.

And then if we look at the next page, just really quickly on that position.

Who's in this position right now?

This position is vacant right now.

How long has it been vacant for?

Since uh August.

Why is it vacant?

Uh partly because we we we had a difficulty with filling it initially, uh bouncing it off the other positions that we had from the previous budget.

And we we ultimately opted to uh to wait to see if we could have some adjustment made to that and then ultimately use the next budget cycle to re-engage.

I did speak with a couple of counselors about this uh uh about the pay grade difference uh and looking at the labor opportunity that's out there, which is which is better than it used to be.

The last time we went out for this position, we only had one out.

Uh we think we'll do much better than that this time.

So, but yes, it has been unfilled uh since August.

How many people have been in that position over the past few years?

Since I've been here, one I know we had a version of it uh a few years ago.

Uh it had been gapped for about two to three years at that point.

Um before I was here, so I can't speak to the specifics.

And so by cutting the compensation of this job, we think that we're gonna have a better chance of filling it.

It's it's not so much about cutting the I understand where you're going with that.

It's not so much about cutting the compensation.

The the difference between seven and eight is is fairly small.

Uh it's really more about being fair with the equitability of the responsibilities of the position vis-a-v other S7s with on the cities within the city staff.

So we felt for a small reduction in pay coupled with an improved labor market for this type of individual.

We think we can get a really good individual, but at a more responsible price to the taxpayer.

Still not on the logic, but we can move on.

Thanks.

Okay, and uh, and I'm just going to highlight um one more change.

It's not a change in the number of positions, it's a change in the grade, which is our city engineer, which is uh deputy director of public services, um, increasing that from a 10 to a 12 to align with with uh the responsibilities of that position.

And other than those two changes, nothing has changed since last year as far as grade increases, decreases or number of positions.

So as I just noted, um, no additional non-union staff are proposed in fiscal year 27.

Uh, what we are proposing with is it is within the ASME um union, which would be those two labor positions, and in fiscal year 27, the proposed salary scale for our non-union um employees would be adjusted for three per for three percent colour, and in this next slide, this would be the salary table, um, which would which is adjusted for that three percent cola, that proposed three percent cola.

All right, to um review the the status of uh union contracts, our fire contract has been ratified for the period July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2027.

The um the cola adjustments in fiscal year 25, so the three percent, fiscal year 26, 4%, fiscal year 27 at 3.5 percent, and part of that that contract, the 24-hour shifts were implemented, and also uh the salary table reduced from a five-step salary table to a three-step salary table.

FOP contract has been ratified for the period July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2028, with colas of fiscal for fiscal year 26 of 3%, fiscal year 27, 5%, and fiscal year 28, 5%.

And that uh salary table was also reduced from five steps to three steps.

Um we're currently in negotiations with uh ASME, that contract expired June 30, 2024, and we were also currently in negotiations with NEA uh with that contract that expired June 30, 2025.

And this is uh really a look back of employee colas by our employee groups working left to right would be our ASME, NEA, fire, police, and our non-union.

And just um really just to kind of that those notes at the bottom.

So when for ASME between 2022 and 2024, um it was ratified that it would be a flat dollar amount, which really would put a percentage to that.

We wouldn't be able to do that.

It's really a range depending on where you sit in the table.

Um, and that's a seven-step table.

So that that explains what those those percentages would be.

All right.

Um impact of unsettled union contracts.

So Jim, I'm sorry, I just want to make sure I'm clear.

Yeah, the NC when it says no change means that uh, for example, on under asked me from fiscal year 24 to 25, 26, 27, it's $2,500 per year that that would be stepping up.

So the NC that that's no contract.

So I should have specified that.

So we we currently do not have a contract, so we we do not have a call up.

Are we building anything into the budget?

We are okay.

Got it.

Yes, yes, we are in that same one.

Thanks.

But to that point, what we're building into the budget, we it might be right, it might be wrong.

So if we're way off, then um really funding to cover that projected cost of living adjustment.

Um we'd we'd have to absorb that.

Um, hopefully not through any any type of you know, assignment of fund balance.

Um, but we we look to maybe have a hiring freeze or um spending freeze or something along those lines.

Thanks.

And if there's any questions, I'm more than happy to answer.

Thank you, Jim.

All right.

So next we'll go to the Department of Finance.

All right, Department of Finance.

When you look at our uh budget roll-up for proposed 2027, our salaries are coming in at 1.9 million, and that compares to our um adopted 2025-26 budget of 1.79 million.

Fringe benefits um our 27s being proposed at 952,000, and that compares to 896,000 from our adopted 26.

Purchase services, adopt or proposed 2027 of 57,375 compared to adopted in 26 of 54,375.

Supplies and materials, uh, really flat at 54,000 for fiscal proposed 27 compared to um adopted 26.

And that's along with our other category as well.

And just to lend some, you know, a little a little bit more detail.

Um, that purchase services line, that's that includes our copying and binding uh for our budget, CIP, some of our bigger bigger presentations, and that's at a 23,994.

Uh legal advertising is under purchase services.

Um, and that we do that for our CAPA and budget.

That's coming in at $2,850.

Uh dues and subscriptions, those will be, you know, our our for our accounting staffs who were CPAs who cover their licenses and and also getting to trainings and any publications that we need.

Um, and one of the bigger components within contract services is our um ACA reporting that we have to do at year end for 1095s for affordable care, the care act.

Um included in supplies and materials.

That's that's gonna be items like our check stock or envelopes that we need for AP payroll, our W-2s, uh, as well as you know, miscellaneous office supplies, and um, we do have a couple thousand dollars in there for a replacement of a desk for two desks.

Or that other line item that's really just mileage reimbursement.

Uh the component, so who who makes up the the finance department?

So administrative services, we have three employees, uh, municipal court, one assessment, four, billing and collections, four, our accounting staff makes up seven employees, and our school accounting and payroll comprises of three employees for a total of 22.

Uh notable projects uh within the finance department.

We are proposing a really it's we're very excited about it.

Uh a new budgeting software that we are going to be able to leverage off of monthly and quarterly reporting, as well as our popular financial report that we uh submit to GFOE each year.

And there's also a capital reserve that's being proposed at 50,000.

That really doesn't apply to finance, that applies really across the board, but but we're reporting that tonight.

Looking at uh some of the achievements from the finance department, uh the certificate of achievement for excellence and financial reporting.

We have consistently received that award from GFOA since 2005.

Uh the distinguished budget presentation, which is an award that comes from GFOA as well.

We've received that consistently since 2006.

Uh the certificate achievement, outstanding achievement in popular financial reporting.

We've received that um since 2014 when we started uh um applying for that with GFOA, you know, that first year was in 2014.

Really, the combination of those three is uh they call it the triple crown.

And uh we've we've consistently uh received that since uh 2003 since the inception and newport has been the only consistent recipient of um of really those those awards in uh in New England.

So we're very very proud of that.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

Jim, has there been a an increase from Blue Cross?

And if so, what is the percentage?

There is um so we it's coming in at about seven and a half percent based on our experience.

So there's there is a significant increase that that we're we're gonna be seeing in in health.

Um and and dental is really piggybacks on that as well.

Thank you.

Just before you move off this.

We really do have the best finance department in the state.

Uh if you go to a GFOE meeting or League of Cities and Towns, Jim is like the Tom Brady of Finance Director.

So Elizabeth too, right?

The two of you, the whole department is outstanding.

Uh, and I just want to say how proud I am to represent a city that has you guiding us on the figures like this.

That means a lot.

And and we we do.

We have a wonderful team, and we rely on every single one.

We really do.

We're a good team.

Thank you for that.

Thank you, Jim.

It's a break.

Uh next up's canvassing.

Canvas.

Next few.

Okay, I'm gonna uh review a few uh canvassing.

And we have um salaries coming in for FISP proposed 27 of 2020, and that compares to our adopted 2026 of 133,000, fringe benefits in proposed fiscal year 27 of 58,000 compared to 45,000 in adopted 2026, purchase services, a slight increase of um being proposed in 27 for 38,500 compared to 32,000 last year.

Other charges, small dollars that staying consistent um with our supplies of materials with a slight increase over last year's adopted.

So just to highlight a couple of areas, um the salaries and what salaries include.

So you're gonna you're gonna see a an increase from 27 to 26, and the salaries include about 144,000.

That's gonna be for Hugh and uh Sam, our two employees in uh canvassing, and plus an additional about 57,000 for temporary temporary employees for upcoming primary and uh general election.

Uh within purchase services, we have uh contract services for 30,000, which is really set aside for if there's a need for a special election.

So it's really a contingency that we've what we've carried over the years.

Um, and also under that purchase services includes copying and binding and conferences, conferences and training.

The other charges for a thousand dollars, that's mileage reimbursement.

And um supplies and materials, that's just general office supplies and uh dues and subscriptions.

Repairs and maintenance, that's that's the we it's probably not a perfect place to put it.

Um, but for lack of a better place, that's going to be the cost of storage units, and uh, and also the rental of uh polling locations for the upcoming uh primary and general election.

Uh personnel, um it's comprised of Hugh, which is uh who is our election administrator, and Sam, who is our senior clerk.

And uh just some some items of note, uh fiscal year 27.

Uh we do have a uh primary and general election scheduled, and um canvassing office joined the U.S.

Alliance for Election Excellence Pathfinders Cohort, which is a group of 50 election offices across the country working to implement voluntary nonpartisan standards in election administration, and also our staff and board members participated in the state's elections training certificate program, uh a new 13 class training training program on Rhode Island elections with the first round of graduates uh finishing this June.

And if there are any questions, I can certainly answer them if I can't.

Hugh will be able to answer them.

All right, no questions.

All right, move around, city clerk.

Okay, so this will be my last brief.

All right, uh City Clerk.

Uh proposed salaries of 465,000, and that compares to our adopted 26.

Oh, I'm sorry, I'm getting ahead of myself.

I'll start over.

Um, city clerk, uh, our proposed salaries for fiscal year 27 amount to 466,000, and that compares to 436,000 in adopted 26.

Uh we're fringe benefits, which will be our health and dental payroll taxes.

We're looking at a slight increase based on increases in premiums and purchase services, uh proposed 27 of 90,500 compared to 80,500 in fiscal year 26.

And um, really, when you look at our other charges, supplies and materials, we're not looking for any increase.

That's going to remain flat.

So just to put a little um really what's included in our purchase services.

That's there's about a ten thousand dollar differential from this year to last year.

What's included in that line item?

Uh we have ten thousand dollars for legal advertising, uh $30,000 for um uh avenue, which is our land evidence uh software, $16,500 for Granicus, which is our live live streaming um modem for meetings, eleven thousand dollars for next requests, which is our app or request software, and also eleven thousand dollars for GoGov, which is uh for our online applications.

Uh personnel who makes up our our city clerk department.

That's gonna be Laura is leading leading the team as our city clerk with Carlos as our deputy city clerk, and also we have uh four very wonderful senior clerks within uh within the office as well.

And that would be Eileen, Christina, Caleb, and Kristen.

All right, just to uh okay, just to note um the deputy city clerks is successfully completed the second year of a three-year program working toward towards his certificate, certified municipal clerk designation through the New England Municipal Clerks Academy, successfully implemented next request, which is our appropriate for public information request software, and also just to put things in perspective.

Um we've had 13,000 city clerk filings, land evidence filings of about 11,481, vital records 2,791, marriage licenses 737, licenses processed 707, and rental registrations of 280.

So they they are busy, busy folks.

And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thanks, Rim.

Colin, you want to come up to the podium?

Would you like that?

Yeah, let's go.

Jim was up there for the last two hours.

He's gonna do that.

Good evening, Council.

Happy to bring up the rear here this evening.

City Manager Department.

Our roll-ups are fairly static, slight increase to salaries and friends and benefits just to the normal course of increased costs.

My salary is not going up, but we have uh annual uh cost of living rates that apply to each of our additional personnel.

Uh uh not much movement in purchase services other than a little bit of additional uh work in the communications department, which I'll get to in a minute.

Um internal services is flat, supplies and materials is relatively flat as our operating expenses.

Next slide, please.

Uh our personnel, uh I rolled all of our three directorates kind of into one just for simplicity.

So we have four in the office of the city manager, and myself and the deputy, plus uh uh the assistant to the mayor and the assistant to myself, uh four in the human resources office and three in the communications department for a total of 11 personnel.

And just some quick highlights.

Um item of note in the roll-ups for purchase services, uh uh uh, or I should say for our salaries, uh the the manager's department salaries include 78,805 that go to overtime costs for associated specific special annual events.

Not every single event that the police cover overtime costs for, but for eight specific events they're listed there, we have a separate budget so that it doesn't unnecessarily impede on the police patrol overtime budget.

Uh that's something we instituted a few years ago, and we expanded it greatly once we uh took back control of the uh uh the volume uh for the St.

Patrick's Day parade, which represents at least half of that total.

Uh contract services line item in the city manager's budget includes $50,000 uh of an annual commitment that we've made through fiscal year 31 for the salary of the program director at the Newport Edward Town Community Learning Center.

Um Middletown pays the other 50,000 uh for a total of 100,000 dollars for that.

So that's baked into the city manager's budget.

And then last but not least, the communications director, it's been doing some enhancement this work to move to the quarterly production of the new print newsletter uh called wavelengths.

Um that cost is largely offset by reductions that that that director has been able to make uh in a reduced need for office supplies as it moves to an increasingly digital environment.

So I think that the increase was 10,000 for the magazine to cut 7500 for office supplies for a net increase of only 2500.

Um additionally, the human resources department, though not marked here, continues to be actively involved in recruiting.

Uh and uh and that's about it.

So if you have any questions about the uh the front office, I'm here to answer them for you.

Any questions?

All right, all right.

Thank you, Counselor.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

That's it.

Mr.

Rice, you want to come up just one question.

I missed it.

Uh in our revenues, is there uh uh money from uh passenger ships from cruise ships?

How much money did we make?

That that cruise ship revenue is included in within maritime, which is an enterprise fund, which we did not go through.

We we kept the revenues just at the general fund level.

But yes, they are included in maritime.

I don't have that in I don't have that in front of me, but I can certainly get that to you.

Okay.

Even though the legislation passed last year.

So I'm not sure if they have um the information yet.

Okay.

You're welcome.

So I just are we in the general questions now if that's okay.

Um sidewalks.

I see the CIP reduces sidewalk allocations by two million.

Can you just detail that a bit more?

Uh thank you for that question.

Yes, uh, we don't want that transportation slide in the CIP to to look as though it's a low number.

What we would prefer that you focus on is a couple of things.

One, uh, there's four million dollars from the state streets for all grant that we're gonna be useful using for a variety of uh transportation safety improvements around the city.

So if you if you think of that as an addition to the CIP, that's really like now we're now we're above five million dollars.

Additionally, uh the sidewalk repair budget is typically funded through operating funds.

Uh spot corrections to sidewalks around the city are covered under a $1 million plus operating budget within the city engineers budget.

That goes to fixing sidewalks in various spots and segments that are being pushed up by tree routes, for example, or are otherwise in disrepair, curb cuts that are needed, et cetera.

Additionally, from the road improvement program, which is in public services, uh when a road is done and it has an adjacent sidewalk for purposes of economies of scale, that sidewalk will also be done.

You saw a lot of that with the last two seasons.

We will continue to do that.

Uh in fact, tomorrow night, that item uh is actually on the docket, and there will be a listing of about 11 streets to be done this year, and about six of them will have associated sidewalks done as well.

So when you when you push all those stacks together, that's how we address sidewalks in the city.

So it just but again, it's it's showing a two million reduction in the CIP for sidewalks.

I think I'm missing again.

Is that I realize all the other work that we're doing?

Are we not?

Are there not an additional two million of sidewalks that we need?

Or I I think you're so I I believe you're so we have this the road repair program slash sidewalks.

I don't I don't have it in front of me, I'll have to go back and look.

But I remember we were talking about that when when as a staff we went through and internally looked at all the items.

And it's it's not so it's a reduction in the sense that the road improvement program used to be three million dollars for the last each of the last two years because of the availability of bond financing that we had.

We've we've exhausted that six million dollars now, and as we move into fiscal year 27, it's coming down a little bit back to more traditional values.

I think it was one point zero.

Uh uh, don't quote me on that.

It's like 1.7, I think was the road improvement program for this year.

So we've exhausted the other bonding capacity that we have under the 98.5 bond for any sort of roadway improvements.

Correct.

Okay.

That was fiscal 25 and 26, now going into fiscal 27.

Um, we're coming back down to the to a more traditional number we would use for uh road repair allocations.

So we did have a two-year surge, right?

Uh we're actually still wrapping it up.

Uh, but now that that money's been exhausted, uh, it would be it just it wouldn't be we just don't have the flexibility to to keep going three million dollars every year.

Why not?

We we could it's a it's a community values discussion, but uh when you have $13 million in these and you have to turn it down to 6.7, uh you have to make judicious decisions about cuts, and that's that's a decision that we've recommended to make.

Council has the prerogative to look for offsets if they want to restore any of that funding.

I mean, I think I'm sorry.

I was gonna say also uh we are limited to it to an extent.

One of the one of the items you noted in the uh in the personnel uh presentation was an increase in the city engineers classification from 10 to 12.

That's in large part uh to stay labor competitive for good engineering services, but also uh to make sure that we have the bandwidth.

Uh, this is part and parcel of a broader strategy we have with the city engineers department to have the bandwidth to do all of these projects and all the permitting that goes with them.

So we're we're reaching a little bit of a bandwidth crisis in the engineer's office, and so that also limits what we're able to do from a year-to-year basis when you juxtapose that with all of the other responsibilities, that individual has variety park seawalls, construction of buildings, et cetera.

Yeah, I'm very focused on the capital improvements.

I I can say that when I hear from taxpayers, whether they're year-round residents, part-time residents, commercial.

What they're increasingly frustrated with is the poor quality of our infrastructure, whether it's roadways, which are most apparent because everybody sees it, sidewalks because you're you know tripping across it, or you feel like you're dodging traffic, or the infrastructure we can't see, which is the bulk of the liability the city has, the seawalls, the pipes underground.

And I'm hearing your logic that, well, you've got you know X amount of need and X minus whatever that factor is of actual available resources.

If that's the logic, why are we not taking full advantage of our tax levy authority to the full 4% cap?

We absolutely could do that.

Um, but knowing that we've been close to 4% uh increases for the last two years, um, and with the availability of some of the additional hotel revenue this year, coupled with the needs we have for all of the collective bargaining increases.

Uh we just really felt like the responsible thing to do was kind of split the difference this year uh from a taxpayer uh standpoint.

Um we also had the significant rate increase last year for wastewhile water pollution control.

So we're trying to kind of look at look at the taxpayer here and and and see what the best thing to do for the taxpayer is.

I I you're absolutely right.

We could we could increase the levy of one percent of levy is about a million dollars ballpark.

So if we did 2.78% instead of 1.78%, uh that's that's a million dollars right there.

thing to do was kind of split the difference this year uh from a taxpayer uh standpoint um this we also had the significant rate increase last year for wastewh water pollution control so we're trying to kind of look at look at the taxpayer here and and and see what the best thing to do for the taxpayer is i i you're absolutely right we could we could increase the levy of one percent of levies about a million dollars ballpark so if we did 2.78 percent instead of 1.78 percent uh that's that's a million dollars right there and if you wanted to devote all of that to sidewalk we could we could try to do that again mindful of the resources that we have from a from a management permitting standpoint Jim I asked a question earlier about tax rates and a hypothetical scenario right that we raised the non-resident tax rate hypothetically I'm not recommending this but up to where the commercial rate is right now what would that generate an additional resources if we weren't encumbered by the cap if you haven't gotten a chance to do that yet too we can circle back and you can have everybody also talk about it or I could do a calculation which is yeah even just a rough one would be helpful because here here's where I'm going with this I was driving south listening to the meeting right and I'm passing through municipality after municipality after municipality and we are the the jewel of the state and our infrastructure is in extreme disrepair and every year we come forward and say well we just we don't have the resources to we don't have the resources to do it but and I agree that our residents can't bear any more burden.

I think we've done the right thing there in holding the line on taxes for residents but now it's starting to percolate through other places like the utility rates which are obscene in the community and the challenge I have is that when I step back and look at aggregate the tax burden that's being carried by nonresident taxpayers um we actually have one of the lowest tax rates in the state we're in the bottom third of all communities.

It's part of what makes us such an attractive place for investment for things like seasonal homes.

And what I can't reconcile is why it feels like we're living in an episode of gray gardens right where we're constantly talking about how we're totally resource constrained and we can't do these things and we are surrounded by real estate that is rapidly appreciating in value creating enormous amounts of wealth for people who aren't the people that make this community work every single day.

And I understand the political sensitivity that's being walked here in the line and I think for the record we need to hold the line on taxes for residents who live here particularly middle class residents but I'm increasingly ethically challenged by the fact that we're starting to run the risk of systems failure because we don't want to do what's politically inconvenient that we have to sit here and hear the utilities director talk to us about a potential failure of our water and wastewater system unless we continue to support an obscene increase in rates on year round folks who already can't afford to pay them but in the meantime are providing one of the lowest tax rates for people who have vacation homes here or second homes here.

It seems fundamentally unfair and it's further pressed for me by the conversations I have with these individuals who say look I'm not paying higher taxes just to continue the status quo that I disagree with on their behalf right I think they're right on that.

But they have been more than willing to say we think the city needs to be investing in its infrastructure and that feels like a reasonable place to go.

So that's from a policy perspective big picture when I look at the budget the the right balance point that I'm trying to figure out because it just feels if we can't fix these things here with access to the resources that we have existing in a world that is one of the lowest tax rates of any community in the state it doesn't feel like we're taking on the hard decisions we need I I appreciate that commentary.

I will say that last year it felt like I went in high and I was being fought against to come down it's ironic that now it feels like I'm coming low and I'm being fought against to go up so you'll never hear an objection from me if if you're if you're giving me the latitude with proper proper adjustments to perhaps some of the the rates that we have to come up because I agree with you I think we need some of that work but I'm also trying to be sensitive to taxpayers based on previous experiences.

So I appreciate that input.

Let me provide some color because I think it's it's helpful to have that point.

At least from my perspective we're talking about here is there is a high level of sensitivity to the expansion of the administrative enterprise that is government that's additional positions that's additional salaries at high levels and I think that the taxpayer is right to be vigilant on those fronts where we're seeing cuts and it's frustrating is actually on the core infrastructure because the pass through impact of that is in the form of rates the pass through impact on that is on the quality of life that most people enjoy in a day-to-day basis when their interaction with government is with their interaction with a sidewalk or with a road or with the quality of their drinking water.

And so I don't want to mix the two of those things I think it's a fair observation it's understanding that policy perspective we're trying to calibrate here but people want to see better infrastructure and I think they're willing to pay for it whether they're here for part of the year or year round yeah I you know I've got to I respect what you're saying but I kind of got to disagree right now people are complaining about gas prices they're complaining about home prices they're complaining about energy prices all of this and food prices all of this is coming at one time it's unfortunate and yes Newport has kept their taxes in check at all times.

They're complaining about home prices, they're complaining about energy prices.

All of this and food prices, all of this is coming at one time.

It's unfortunate.

And yes, Newport has kept their taxes in check at all times.

I've been around a long time, and I've seen them when they've gone up and they've gone down.

We had a lot more families here.

And sometimes, you know, I I worry that we're not going to have the families.

We're not going to have the children here, because we have people look at us as having a very upscaled environment.

Well, let me tell you, there's so many different organizations working around here for the people that don't have what you're talking about.

The water thing and the sewer, we have addressed on a number of occasions.

You got the Rhode Island Infrastructure Bank that won't give us loans or or that sort of thing that every other community in the state practically can get.

You know, I just I think right now we're going through some really tumultuous times.

And shoot, I'm waiting for eight o'clock tonight.

I hate to say that.

I I just don't understand, you know, we have always invested in our infrastructure.

We should continue to do it if we have additional monies or grants or whatever to continue to work on it.

But this is so multifaceted.

This city, when you take a look at it compared to other sleepy towns, we're not a sleepy town.

We're awake for six months of the year with all the people coming in, and then we get a little bit of a break.

But we do have infrastructure needs.

And perhaps next year, when people are feeling more comfortable about their economic viability, um, we could raise the rates.

Well, I just I mean, I want to clarify on this, right?

There's a duality here that we've created that we're not living up to.

It is very, it's it's all fine and well for us to keep taxes low for residents.

And under no circumstances do I think we should be increasing taxes on residents.

But when you shortchange yourself on making infrastructure investments because you're keeping taxes low on residents, and you take it away from them on the flip side in the form of increased utility rates uh that have risen an extreme rate, you actually aren't helping flow through that benefit.

What we're talking about here is should we be looking at the commercial base in the non-resident base that this community has?

Because they're the ones right now whose burden is falling on residents who are here year-round paying things like utility rates.

I think we're we're coming from the same place here, right?

And so I want to be clear under no circumstances should we be raising taxes or fees on residents who live here year-round to pay for a system whose capacity we're building to meet the system at its peak.

And that's why I'm asking, you know, should we be looking at the differential that we have between resident and non-resident?

And if we're gonna take advantage of that 2% volume that we have there to have capacity to address these problems, making sure that balance falls on those who can afford it.

Because the people who have second or third homes here who are wonderful residents in our community want better infrastructure and they're asking for it.

And if they're in a position to afford a second or third home, rather than nickel and diming them on little fees, I think we should just go directly to them and say, hey, here's what we're looking to pay for.

Oh, I'm all for that.

That's why we're here.

That's that's what we do.

You know, this, you know, people, this the CIP, the budget we get, that's no administration's job uh to come up with something, but it's it's our duty to put it what's the money where we want to put the money.

So at the end of the day, it's it comes down to the seven of us.

So we'll always have infrastructure need for sure.

So I just wanted to add, so under your hypothetical um situation, that would, if we brought that non-residential rate up to the commercial rate, that would add about 2.3 million dollars.

2.3 million.

That's correct.

There's your sidewalk.

And that would bring us up to the 4%.

Um, just a question.

Um, what kind of capacity would we need as far as um staffing and um I don't know, in order to um increase the sidewalk um budget by 2.3 million.

I I mean what what it would where where is the um the rub there?

It's it I don't want to get so some of this involves ongoing collective bargaining negotiations, uh working with some of the positions within those units.

So I don't want to get into too much detail there.

But in essence, the construction part is easy.

We we we can contract that out.

It's the management of the pre-construction and and the permitting approvals that go with that.

You know, every linear foot of sidewalk at some point or another, you're gonna have to permit X, Y, or Z.

And so the more of that that you have to do, it just adds to the bandwidth constraints that a limited department has.

So we're taking some steps.

You saw you saw part of it today with increasing the labor competitiveness of the city engineer.

Uh whether that you know, Bill Boardman is a wonderful city engineer, but he's not going to be here forever.

And at some point I'm gonna have to replace him.

And and I have to, I just have to be mindful of of not only rewarding him for the great work that he does, but also being able to compete for the talent to replace him.

Um, secondary to that is some efforts uh with um improving the the status of the deputy city engineer and some of the folks that work for him in the engineering office.

And again, I I don't want to go into more detail on that because it's ongoing negotiations, but but we're trying to boost that up.

But within that 2.3 million, we would have to look at increasing some um labor in the in the city.

I I don't think it's I mean one of those positions is currently unfilled.

Um so certainly making sure that that position gets filled, but one of the reasons it's unfilled is because it's it doesn't pay enough to get that kind of quality engineer.

So that's I don't think it's so much new personnel, but we need to fill the billets that we have.

Sorry, I use the Navy term there, billet.

It's a job.

We need to fill those jobs, and we need to be competitive for it.

Force of habit.

Then we run into the other issues that we have is you know, we'll get this money, but then how much are we gonna I don't want to say waste, but how much are we gonna put on we're gonna do a study?

And then we have to get another group to come in and look at something instead of just getting this money and going right to work with it.

You know, just to put out the middleman and we should just that is the nice thing.

That is the nice thing about sidewalks.

They don't require a whole lot of studying.

It's just get out there and do it.

Um there's also sensitivities with with trees.

Uh some of the reason the sidewalks are in rough shape, you know, you have competing interests here.

You have the the the arborist interest in in containing the trees that you have versus the ADA interest in flattening that sidewalk out to make it more passable.

Those two those two values tend to compete.

So we have with our tree warden, we have to get together and make some tough decisions on that all the time.

Yeah, well, we'll get a deeper discussion on sidewalks on uh was it Monday?

Uh uh Thursday is public is uh is no calling I'm sorry, BPAC workshop.

Well that's true too.

Yes, the BPAC workshop on 5 30, that'll be over at Innovate Newport, uh, because the uh the chambers is occupied by uh uh I think zoning.

Um but we'll also have we'll also touch on the surface of it as part of the resilience and sustainability workshop on Thursday night.

Right.

Any other questions?

Comments?

Suggestions?

All right, thank you guys very much.

Have a great night.