Good evening, everyone.

It is six oh two PM on Tuesday, October seventh, twenty twenty-five.

I'd like to call the meeting of the special meeting of the Peoria City Council to order.

I'd also like to welcome everyone that's here in our uh council chambers as well as those watching on Cable Channel Twenty Two and on our City of Peoria YouTube channel.

Madam Clerk, the council mics are open.

Please call the roll.

Mayor O'Le.

Present.

Councilmember Allen.

Present.

Councilmember Carmona.

Here.

Councilmember Sear.

Here.

Councilmember Gordon Young.

Present.

Councilmember Jackson.

Here.

Councilmember Kelly.

Here.

Councilmember Euler.

Here.

Councilmember Riggenbach.

Here.

Councilmember Valpula.

And Councilmember Vespa.

Here.

You have a quorum present, Madam Mayor.

Thank you very much.

Before we stand for a moment of silent reflection or silent prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, um, I'd like to read a statement uh pertaining to the um the passing of Sean Newell, because I'd like for you to think about he and his family in our silent prayer and silent reflection.

We are saddened by the passing of Sean Newell, a respected journalist and valued member of Peoria's Press Corps.

Sean's insight, professionalism, and commitment to truth and fairness guided his distinguished career and strengthened our community.

As a reporter, a news director, and later as general manager of WMBD, WYZZ TV, he set a high standard for integrity and journalism and generously mentored many who followed in his footsteps.

Madam Clark.

We have a public hearing.

25-279 is a public hearing regarding the 2026-2027 biannuals.

I'd like to ask for a motion to open the public hearing.

Councilmember Allen, second by council member Gordon Young.

Is there anyone present that would like to speak to the Biennial Budget?

City of Peoria 2027, 2627 biennial budget.

Yes, please come forward, give us your name.

Hello, my name is Eric Hutcheson.

I live at 4110 North Hawthorne in Peoria here.

I'm here as a volunteer for the Center Bluff Neighborhood Association.

We have an interest in one of the projects that's on your list.

It's a street lighting project that's on Knoxville Avenue between Corrington and McClure.

It's a series, continuous series of seven street lights in a row that are out and have been out for a while on that stretch of road.

It's currently on your list.

You'll see that there's a cost estimate on it.

It's not currently funded.

So I just wanted to give you a little a few numbers and a couple of names that you might recognize.

These street lights that are out in a row are actually on the west side of the road.

And on the west side, there's nine businesses that I could see, and three of those are currently vacant.

Those businesses include the Planned Parenthood Clinic as well as Whitney Veterinary Hospital.

On the east side of Knoxville, there are actually 15 businesses or residences, and four of those are currently vacant.

And then a couple of names you might recognize on that side are the OSF Children's Hospital has a facility there, as well as the Peoria Public Schools has the Knoxville Center for Student Success, which is an alternative high school.

And one of the things the high school offers is night classes.

So having good street lights would probably be helpful for them.

So fixing the lights is more complicated than replacing bulbs.

That's why it's taken a while to get it done.

There's underground wiring that needs to be fixed, and council member Carmona was very helpful for us getting some feedback from the city manager and from the director of public works to find out kind of a little bit about what's involved in that and why it's taken a while to get it done.

So that's the situation.

I don't know how that would be involved.

I don't know what it's even been discussed.

I have no idea, but there's an idea.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for your input and your ideas.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak to the 2026-2027 biennial budget?

And final call.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak to the 2026-2027 biennial budget?

Can I get a motion to close the public hearing?

Move by Councilmember Kelly, seconded by Councilmember Euler.

Please cast your ballots.

Did we vote to open?

That's okay.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah, we just didn't.

Okay.

All right.

Madam Clerk.

25-278 is a communication from the city manager and finance director comptroller with a request to hold a discussion on the 2026-2027 biannual budget.

And on your desk, there is a handout of report backs from the September 30th special meeting.

Mr.

Manager.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I'd like to turn the floor over to Director Craddy to walk through the report backs that we put together for council.

And then after we've done that, I have a few comments that I'd just like to made about make about some other budget uh adjustments that we'd like to you to consider as budget motions at a future meeting, uh, and then obviously answer any questions the council may have about the the budget or um any requests for additional report packs as well.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Manager.

Um the first report back, which is question number three, um, was from Mayor Ali related to uh if you remember correctly from our presentation last week, um we had had a zero with an asterisk next to the goals associated with downtown development.

Um staff went back, reviewed the existing um organizational-wide goals and department goals to look at where there could be alignment.

And we will in review we felt that there were four that would have direct impact in downtown development.

Um I think the other thing, and just to kind of echo uh the discussion from the assistant city manager Richardson last week.

Um, there are a number of actions that are occurring in this arena and will continue to happen that we will be bringing back to council after the budget process to kind of look at our status on the strategic plan.

Um, and so in some ways, this was a subset of the the data that we were looking at in terms of the direct goals.

Um, but the actions are just as important as those goals are.

Um, and so we'll have more information on that at a future meeting.

Okay, thank you.

Uh, question number four was a question about pavement preservation from Councilman Allen.

Um the question one really kind of started from we had $500,000 in this year's budget to look at uh doing some mill and overlay work and payment preservation work um in the in our on our streets.

Um and that is in line with the amount that was budgeted last year.

Um but I did want to provide council a little bit more detail in terms of looking at really the last five years plus the future years to see that really um $500,000 is the low point in both 25 and 26, but we do anticipate going up to 960 um in the out years, and we've also every year before this spent more money on that.

Um it's still, as I'm sure the public works director would say, is still not enough for the what needs to get done.

Um, but that is where the numbers kind of fell with the the budget that we had and the allocation that we had.

In terms of question five, uh Councilman Rigabach had a similar question looking at ADA sidewalks and sidewalk funding.

Um this one has a few more little wrinkles in it than just the pavement preservation because when we look at these in buckets, we look at them in how those projects are set up.

Um, and so we have our sidewalks and ADA ramps, we have our sidewalks and ADA ramps in 61605.

We had a specific grant for that work.

Um we had sidewalks and ADA ramps as well as and our qualified census tracts, and I apologize for just leaving that as QCT, um, but that is qualified census tract.

Um we had uh identified sidewalks within the Evans Street project, um, and we also had kind of an asset condition uh score.

Um so looking at the sidewalks and EDA ramps for uh 2026, we're a 500,000.

Um we only had a hundred thousand in this year's budget for it.

Um, and then we also do anticipate going up again in future years.

Um the one thing I will add to this is um this is not necessarily all inclusive of the sidewalk work that is getting done.

Um if we are reconstructing a road, many times we're also reconstructing the sidewalks with that work.

That's a little bit more difficult for us to pull out and review, um, but there is other dollars are getting spent on sidewalks, it's just not specifically in these kind of budgeted subsections.

So um there are more dollars going into sidewalks throughout the city.

In terms of question six, this was a question from Councilman Sear looking at the 2023 bond that we issued on behalf of the Peoria Civic Center.

Um, the councilman was correct last week in the terms of that this debt service is interest only through 2029 when the remaining um bonds do roll off.

Then we get a relatively um standard bond payment of close to two million dollars in the remaining years.

Uh it is similar to how we've structured other bond deals with the with associated with the civic center, um, where we have some larger principal payments in the out years.

Um, and so this is in line kind of with how we funded these bonds before.

Oh, Councilman Sear.

Thank you, madam mayor.

Thank you, Director Craddy.

Uh just one question.

Um can you explain to all of us what it means to have a first optional call date of uh 2033, please?

Yeah, so when we issue bonds, um, we usually put in there what is called a call date.

That is the first that is the first date that we're able to, in essence, refinance or refund our bonds.

Um, we traditionally put those in our bond issuances because when we get to the back half of those bonds, usually interest rates are higher.

Interest rate market's been a little wonky the last few years, so that's not necessarily truly the case right now.

Um, but we leave that option on there because usually we can find some interest savings in that remaining 10 years by refunding it into another 10-year instrument at lower rates.

And so we usually keep that option.

Um we don't always um use it.

If rates are not in the right spot, we have a couple of bond issues right now that are callable.

Um, but the market rates we would pay, there is not a present value savings for us to refund those right now.

So um we can actually do that call all the way up until the payoff date.

So if the interest rate market changed substantially, it really just is that first opportunity that we have to refund those bonds.

So just to make sure I'm clear or we're clear, the good reason to refinance or recall a bond would be lower interest rate in the future.

Yeah, usually we're around we're around five percent right now, so anything lower than five percent, usually at least one point because all the closing costs and all that stuff, uh, that would maybe make sense to refinance.

Yeah, traditionally, kind of the the metric that gets used is if we're gonna save at least five percent um overall on interest costs, it makes sense financially to refund them.

Um, but yeah, usually in a situation like this, if we went back out to market on a 10-year bond in a normal rate environment, we're probably talking about something in the high threes.

So hopefully eight years from now, I'm not here anymore, but we got some young people here on the horseshoe that maybe will be here.

Um you refinance or recall bond, what would be the new term for as far as uh years, number of years length?

Uh traditionally we keep it to the existing term year.

So if we do it at the 10-year mark, we'll do a 10-year bond.

Um council does not necessarily have to do it that way.

You can extend the life, but we traditionally keep it to uh the overall bond being 20 years in totality.

So depending 10 years from now, what our financial situation is, we could recall that bond if it makes sense and then issue a 20-year bond again.

That correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you very much for your answers and for uh this report.

Thank you, madam mayor.

You're welcome.

Councilmember Kelly.

Uh thank you, madam mayor.

Uh, just to follow up on that line of questioning, uh, Director Craddy.

Um in 2033, if we called those bonds, uh do we have to pay a premium on the principal?

So technically, we pay a premium on this bond issue to keep the call date.

Um, there is a cost associated with us having the call option.

Um whether or not at the time we reissue, we end up having to pay a premium.

Um really depends on what the market is is bearing at that point in terms of the interest rate market.

Um I've seen it go either direction when we refund.

So I think uh part of your answer is that uh we call it par.

Correct.

Okay, and then the new issue can get a little dicey.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

You're welcome.

Director Craddy.

Yep.

All right, moving on to question number seven.

Uh, Councilman Sear had a question about types of assets that generate revenue.

Um, kind of looking through our assets.

I included in here the general classifications of assets the city has in terms of how we book those and how they show up in our audited financial statements.

Um kind of doing the review and thinking about those assets that do help us generate revenue.

And I think I just want to put the caveat, it may generate revenue.

That doesn't mean necessarily we're making a profit on some of these efforts.

Really came down to in my mind, four ass four asset types.

Um, so we have our sewers, both sanitary and sanitary and storm.

Obviously, we are charging fees for the use of those, so we're attempting to recoup some of the costs of that installation over time.

Um, the parking decks, um, we are charging people to use those decks.

So there is a financial component in terms of generating revenue for the city from the parking decks.

Some of the vehicles that we purchase, really, if it's intended to help with some of these revenue generating aspects, whether it's sewer, stormwater, parking enforcement, and even community development in terms of code enforcement, has a has a revenue generating effect.

For example, in community development, it's more about you know kind of making sure we're following our standards.

Um, but they do obviously generate revenue off of some of those tickets.

Um, and then lastly, is we do have some buildings and land that we lease for for certain purposes.

Um, so we obviously get rent income from those assets.

Um, those are really the main classifications of assets that we own that at least in my viewpoint that is generating revenue for the city.

Um council member Search.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Thank you again, Director Craddy, for your work on this.

This is a great question.

I think it's a great question.

And a lot of people call me regarding this question.

And I'd like to ask your permission, Madam Mayor, to have our chief uh fire chief, Mr.

Solberger, do a quick presentation on an example of what happened uh because I asked this question.

So would that be okay to have permission?

Do we need a vote or no?

We don't need to vote.

Thank you, Chief.

Floor is yours.

Good evening.

I just want to make sure that I'm hitting the mark for you, uh, Councilman Sear, are you referring to the training tower, fire recovery, or both?

Uh I'm um I'm interesting all three.

We talked about the safer grant insurance and the question, so that people that are listening to us, I don't know if anybody listened to us tonight.

Uh, but the question was uh when we issue bonds, should we look at issuing bonds?

Number one was the length of the bond, which is obviously the pre is it depreciation schedule of 20 years.

Number two, I was asking for maybe a discussion about maybe we're issuing bonds that to areas where we're getting uh uh revenues from that area, like Mr.

Craddy talked about a couple of them.

Then I have discussion with many people, one of them with the chief Solberger, and we talked about the Safer Grant and insurance revenues and the training tower.

So just talk about a little bit of that place.

Yep, absolutely.

I'll start with our training tower.

So since 2022, we've had the ability to expand our capabilities with training and education for other municipalities.

It used to be in years past that we would train Pekin, Canton, East Peoria.

Those made sense because they're the closest fire departments to us.

Over time, though, we've expanded our abilities and we train firefighters from throughout the state.

So with that, we've generated over 200,000 from our training academy on a yearly basis since 2023.

So we host a training academy in the spring and the fall each year, and obviously that number fluctuates based off of the requests from those outside municipalities.

Um, and part of the one of the CIP requests for the fire department in 2026 was reinvesting into our training tower so we can continue that trend move moving forward.

So that would be the expansion of our uh training uh boxes, our burn boxes, and that's how we we set things on fire, and then we train our firefighters that way.

But it's also we need a parking lot down at the training tower, and I don't think that we've had a renewed parking lot down there in I know in my 28-year career.

So to continue with this pace, I think there just needs to be an investment into our training tower.

Um, in regards to fire recovery, if everybody can remember back in 2023, um, we presented to the council a unique opportunity working with insurance companies only, ensuring that no city residents ever received a bill, but each insurance um uh claim or each insurance package that each person has could give us the opportunity with the city to be able to work with insurance companies and and get some cost recoveries back.

I'm proud to say since the inception of this program, it has generated over $625,000, and so that's a substantial amount of money that comes back to the city of Peoria.

All these revenue generating ideas for the city are earmarked and and they're part of the general fund on an annual basis.

So specific to the safer grant, working with the city manager, the legal department, and the finance director in the spring of this year.

Um we were I was given the ability to apply for a FEMA SAFER grant with much delight, and um I would honestly say that I was floored to receive the email from FEMA that we were awarded that grant.

So what that means is it gives us the ability for the City of Peoria to accept that award, hire 11 firefighters.

Now what does that mean to you outside of the fact of hiring more firefighters and alleviating the stress to our firefighters that are working overtime now?

In 2026 operational budget, 1.2 million dollars is in the budget for overtime funding for rescue one.

By accepting the FEMA grant, we would eliminate that 1.2 million with the FEMA grant year one and year two is a 25 percent match for the City of Peoria, which would equate to 400,000.

That would be an immediate 800,000 dollar um positive financial impact on the city if it's considered.

Um we also recognize too that we have to be able to see past our nose.

We do recognize that this is a three-year funding opportunity.

We do recognize as a fire department that after the funding, you know, from the federal funding and in the uh everything that the city of Peoria is going to bring forward, we do recognize and understand that those are different discussions.

So as I've had the ability to speak with legal and speak with the city manager and some city council people that have reached out, the fire department does recognize that.

So over that three or four-year time frame, it makes us feel good inside that we have the ability to properly staff our fire department, work in a safe and efficient manner manner, but then also recognizing that after the funding opportunity, it is a different discussion.

Thank you very much, Chief.

Appreciate your being here tonight and explain that to all of us.

Yep, no problem.

If I can ask a couple of questions, Director uh Craddy, I wanted to question that the reason I was having the conversation to Chief under the bonding, the bonding uh portion, by the way, Director Craddy or or uh uh city manager, the uh budget call summary by the CIP uh document that is by funding source.

Does all my colleagues receive this by funding source?

Uh I don't believe that's been shared.

We can share that with the council as a report back.

I don't think that we've shared that with everyone by funding source.

If I can, I'd love to all my colleagues be aware of by source where all the money comes from from all these expenses.

Happy to do that.

Thank you very much.

So one of the questions was under the uh bonding uh general obligation bonds.

The uh second one was the fleet for the fire department, and that's why I was questioning that I want to know about where that three million dollars was gonna come from.

And after discussion with the chief, I mean, right now tonight, uh, you know, if you take three million dollars a bond over 20 years, uh I mean it's a lot, it's gonna be a lot less than 625 billion dollars for an insurance program and and 200,000 a year for the training tower.

So that's why my question, the last meeting, I don't it's not really a good question anymore, because we do have programs that do generate some income, but I mean you have to know about all these.

So uh that that's my goal tonight was just to share that information with everybody.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

You're welcome.

Councilmember Kelly.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Uh Chief Salberger, could you uh come back up to the podium, please?

Uh thank you.

And uh just to let everyone know, Chief Salberger and I have had uh discussions uh in this past week uh concerning the uh safer grant.

Um Chief uh partially cutting to the chase.

On average, how many uh firefighters do we lose each year?

That is quitting or retiring or becoming disabled or whatever.

How many approximately six question the uh we you and I didn't talk about that, and I'm I'm sorry.

Thank you for the aha moment.

Um we generally lose through attrition six to ten firefighters a year.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Um I'd just like to point out to everyone.

Um the the safer grant uh I was always under the impression that the safer grant paid for 11 new firefighters for I think I was really mistaken for five years, but for I was corrected on that for three years.

And it does not.

Um it pays um uh the city is out twenty five percent of the grant in the first two years.

That amounts to 410,000 for each of those years or 800,000 out of a total expense of a million six.

So in other words, we we have to pay 25 percent of that.

The grant pays 75 percent of that for two years.

In the third year, we have to pay 65 percent of that grant.

And then after that, we're on our own.

Okay.

So we net end up with, and this is our second safer grant.

Uh uh I I'm sorry, Chief.

Probably I think I uh I I don't have any more questions for you, just my uh soliloquy.

Okay.

Okay.

I'll stay up here just in case.

Okay, thank you.

Um this is our second safer grant.

Um, each for 11 firefighters, which means that we're net adding personnel after whatever kind of attrition we have from uh you know from the department.

This comes with the long-term pension liability.

Uh so it it ends up increasing our liability for pensions.

It increases our payroll.

These are uh these are highly trained, very competent people, which means also, and they're in a dangerous profession, which means also that their wage rate is very, very high, and we're locking ourselves in with more employees and more employees, some subsidy on the front end, but that goes away pretty quickly.

And then we we foot the bill.

We may disagree about whether or not we need more firefighters, net net, or whether we can not need whether we can afford more firefighters.

Um it's a worthwhile discussion.

The way I was hearing about the safer grant, which may be wrong, was that this stuff is covered for the first few years.

It's it's not.

We still have a a uh uh we still have substantial payments to make for those first three years, and then the whole McGillah of a uh currently at a million six additionally to where we were before the grant every year.

And then, and we've we've had two of these now.

And I don't know if the council is willing, and and during budget, we're not gonna really cover this.

Uh we're gonna go forward or not with the budget, pretty much as is, I think.

But I think that we need to talk about what the most efficient uh size of our fire department is versus what we're willing to pay to have that department.

My own opinion is we we need this this grant is putting us further behind in increasing our liabilities.

And I guess presumably I'm saying I'm not sure that's worth it, but I may be wrong or I may be, but I'd like to have this discussion, Madam Mayor, after budget, because I think it's important.

This sounds like a bunch of free money coming in.

We're gonna spend more than the free money, and then it goes away in three years anyway.

So I think you better there's gonna be an opportunity for that discussion during this budget session.

Uh the manager will explain these budget adjustments uh that might be converted into budget motion, so that we can talk about it.

Okay.

All right.

Uh thank you, madam mayor.

And and Chief, thank you.

Thank you.

Chief, uh quick question.

I thought this was the third safer grant.

This is the the third safer grant we received one in 2015 as well.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

If I could though, just to eliminate maybe a little bit of confusion.

The first or the second safer grant that we did receive for engine two, the funding mechanism was different because it was post-COVID.

So maybe that you know, where some of the confusion was is that during that funding mechanism, it was zeros for three years because it was post-COVID.

This funding model that we're experiencing right now is the same funding mechanism that they had before COVID.

Thanks, Chief.

I I was not aware of that.

Thank you.

You may want to stick around, Chief.

There's several lights, and some of them may pertain to I'd love to.

Councilmember Regenbach.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

And thank you, Chief.

We're all rolling our sleeves back here tonight as we dig into these numbers a little deeper.

Um I think this is a great discussion, and the safer grant is something that is a very competitive um grant.

So congratulations to you and the team for for putting the proposal together that was awarded that.

I think if we are honest with ourselves, we know what the proper staffing level is for our fire department.

We made cuts during COVID that literally ran your men and women ragged.

I think we've done a responsible job in getting those staffing levels back.

And during that time, um Chief Bachmann gave me a uh article to read describing staffing for fire departments as a business model versus a response model.

And I'm gonna dig that up and share that with my colleagues because I think that's really a very important thing for us to keep in mind.

Um we have the best qualified firefighters for a reason because we we value that and um I for one am not prepared to take a step backwards in that.

With that being said, I'm also gonna keep the pressure on our state leaders um that pension reform is a must for cities and municipalities to remain alive.

So we need real reform that will help help us maintain the level of service that we want for our community while honoring and respecting the the commitments that we've made to those men and women in the past.

So I'm Leader Booth, Senator Kaler, I'm representative of Spain.

We implore you to get to the table and allow us to join you at that table and express our concerns so that those will be fully addressed so that that is not an impediment to us providing the proper safety to our citizens.

So thank you, Chief, for the things you've done at the training tower, the the insurance um end of things.

I mean, there's been some incredible um milestones from your department alone, and and and we want to make sure that we recognize that.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Thank you.

Councilmember Vespa.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um I I echo a lot of uh council member Griggenbach's comments.

I I think it's I think it's great that um that our department has been generating so much revenue for for the city.

Um you've done a great job with that, Chief.

Um just back to the safer grant.

Um so you say about six firefighters.

Um, you know, we lose to attrition every year, is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay.

And how many firefighters do we hire per year?

We usually backfill whatever those spots through attrition, so the six to ten we would backfill the same.

Okay.

So I mean if if we use the safer grant for 11 firefighters, that's two years worth of hires.

It's correct.

Potentially, or it could be one year based off of the six to ten ratio.

So if we don't have the safer grant, then we pay it all ourselves.

Correct.

If we take the safer grant, then it's mostly paid for for a few years.

Okay.

I makes sense to me then.

So thanks, madam mayor.

Thank you, Chief.

Welcome.

Councilmember Gordon, yeah.

Thank you, madam mayor.

I um I think part of the challenge when when questions are being posed is you all are so trained and qualified, and you do such an amazing job.

You really do.

Um I know it's challenging, right?

Um what we don't want to do as a city is get lost in not having the appropriate, and I always say this is the appropriate apparatus, or the we don't want firefighters who are so tired, now they're making careless mistakes and lives are being lost, or there's injuries, and then we're gonna pay on the other end.

Um I commend you all for everything being top-notch and always trying to raise the bar, making sure we have what we need in this city to keep the citizens safe.

Um I am in full support of the safer um uh uh award.

I think that um, first of all, I know that it's so competitive, and just the fact that I mean it speaks to this department, just the fact that you were awarded it not just once, twice, three times.

Um, but I just again want to commend you, but I want uh my colleagues to just keep in mind that public safety includes the fire department.

We often think police um only in that um aspect, but we definitely have to make sure that you have what you need.

And so I thank you for the information um and all of the work that you all do.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

You're welcome.

Councilmember Sear.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I'm gonna have to do something I don't like to do, but I guess I have to agree somewhat, most of the thing that Councilman Riggenbach just said.

All right.

But to me it's really simple, and correct me, Mr.

Uh Director Craddy or Chief.

So um, how much uh overtime do we spend uh how much money do we spend on overtime every year or the next three years?

I don't know the number right off the top of my head, but I believe it's over two million dollars a year for the fire department.

Okay, I've been I've been told us that was a million two roughly million two is direct funding for rescue one for two positions every single day.

So 48 hours of overtime every single day times 365.

Okay.

So a safer grant would help.

I was thinking more like a million, two to a million five.

Wouldn't it live how much of the what percentage of overtime you think is uh hiring eleven more firemen will eliminate?

Well, it would eliminate those two positions every single day for 365 days a year.

Um I can come up with what that percentage might be, but part of the the staffing model too is is that's how we get to the number 11.

So we're putting three firefighters on shift on three shifts, which equals nine.

Part of the safer grant is is that it it takes into account um days off.

So we do have two positions, floater positions that'll backfill spots.

So you're gonna see a further reduction in overtime and hours work by our firefighters.

So the bottom line for me, and maybe I don't have all the information, but from what I know about the operation, and if we save 400,000 a year for the first two years, and uh we don't save it costs us, we have to invest 400 for the first two years, seven to eight hundred dollars, eight hundred thousand dollars a year three.

I mean you're looking at one point six million dollars commitment from the city, but we're saving I know over a million, two to a million five every year, and just on overtime.

So to me, just if if it's true, I'm I'm I mean you can verify these numbers, Director Craddy, but I think the the the just the savings alone on overtime makes it at least two to one.

So to me that it's a great investment.

Number one, number two, we're not even counting what we just talked about, all the revenues that the fire department's creating for the for the sea.

So uh if all my information is correct, I mean it's a no-brainer, but I'm sure we'll have some more discussion.

So thank you very much again, Chief.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

You're welcome.

All right, Chief.

I think you can take your seat.

All right, thank you.

All right, I'll move on to question number eight, which is the city council budget.

Uh so the the conversation came up about the large numbers in the city council budget.

Um so in this discussion, um traditionally when we're having the conversations around the council budget, it's it's what is included in our general fund.

And that number uh this year this year is close to 500,000.

And if you look through the back of that report back, um I've included an updated sheet uh or two pages for the budget book.

Um that has been updated online.

It is also uh on the digital version as well as the PDF version online, it's updated to show that.

Um one of the things we're one of the areas that my staff and I have been looking at um is we don't have what would traditionally be considered an an admin department.

So not to get in the weeds of how general ledgers are set up, but usually there's an admin department to do some of these things that are citywide costs, things like health insurance, FICA, IMRF costs, those kind of areas.

Traditionally you'd have an admin.

When the system got set up, it got defaulted to Department 10, which is the city council budget.

So when it was looked at from a holistic manner of the entire budget, those numbers were included.

The other aspect I included in the handout is just to, I think, give council some solace is I I wanted to show the tie out of what all those numbers were to the original budget, so there was some clarity around what those numbers are.

And that will be something we'll my staff and I will continue to look at to kind of clean some of those areas up to look at some of those admin features.

The one other area I would just take a note with this conversation with council started in FY FY22 going into the FY23 budget.

If you look at the bar chart on that first page, that is why you will see that it looks like there was three and a half million dollars in council expenses.

So by the time that conversation was over, we were at fiscal year end, and some of those admin costs that were in the general fund still stayed in the council budget.

We made the change going forward, and really that cost was uh health insurance for some of it for our staff.

Umward after 20 after 22, um, those have been split out into the individual departments.

So that's a little bit in the weeds, but kind of wanted to explain why you had a pretty high little number and then we went down.

Good.

So I don't know if there's any questions on that one.

Thank you for that explanation.

I I think Councilman Kelly wants to speak to this.

Uh thank you, madam mayor.

And uh Director Craddy, uh I thank you for the good work you've done on this.

And you have made it sometimes I'm a little thick, but you made it very clear to me.

Um, what was going on and what you'd like to have going on in the future.

Uh but of course these numbers are now pleasing to me.

Uh there's work yet to be done.

But I thank you very much for uh the very good work in uh putting this putting this together, and it makes it all make more sense, I think for all of us.

So much appreciated, sir.

Thank you, madam mayor.

You're welcome.

I agree.

All right, moving on to question number nine.

Councilman Sear had uh report back question on if we were to freeze uh anticipated revenue increases for our sewer, stormwater, and garbage, um, what that would look like from an impact standpoint to the budget.

Um so we had anticipated a 3% increase to our lateral fee next year for the sewer fund.

Um that would equate to $200,000 in terms of uh a cutback from our budget.

Uh the garbage fee is was slated to go up twelve dollars for each account.

The total anticipated revenue for that was 427,000.

Um the stormwater fee increase was slated to be 2.9% or the rate of inflation as it's currently laid out in the ordinance.

Um and the total revenue impact for that would be 478,500.

Um so those three items, if council um wanted to look at not taking any of those fee increases would equate to a little bit of uh a little bit over 1.1 million dollars in cuts to those three areas.

Um just for I think some background context in terms of you know, obviously the the downsides with those cuts to revenues.

Um in terms of the sewer fund, we do have a a decent fund balance in the sewer fund right now.

Um, but however, this is the area that we fund most of the capital work that is occurring as part of our uh CSO obligations.

Um, and so as we have been discussing kind of the changes in costs for the CSO, um staff has been looking at options to use some of that fund balance to potentially lessen the impact of future rate increases.

So just some of that revenue coming off the table could long term affect uh how much more we would potentially have to bond for if we don't have those in our reserves.

Um in terms of uh the garbage fee.

If the garbage fee doesn't go up, if for those that remember, I know it's something the councilman sear does discuss every year.

Um the garbage fund has been in a negative position for a number of years.

Um we are slated for that to come out of a negative position with these fees in 2026.

This would put it off another year till 2027.

Um that's would really be the impact on the garbage uh kind of garbage fund.

Um in terms of stormwater, um we have a number of you know obligated projects from the capital side as well as ongoing maintenance to make sure we're maintaining the infrastructure we're putting in place.

Um, and so this would mean you know, having to make potential decisions in the long term about do we have to cut back on some of the operational components?

Do we need to potentially eliminate a capital project?

Um it's not it's would not necessarily be an immediate this year discussion, um, but it would make it that that would be a discussion we would have to have.

Okay, councilman Sear, did you have a response?

Yes, thank you very much, uh Madam Mayor.

I like what Councilman Riggenbach says earlier rolling sleeves tonight.

Um so I got some some some comments to make and then a couple questions.

Number one, it is so important, and I don't know how we do it, but it's so important to have current information when we make our decisions, right?

For the budget this year, and sometimes we just don't, and I don't know how we correct that.

What are some examples I'm talking about?

Like Mr.

Kelly, Councilman Kelly asked about the council.

So that was not accurate uh page.

Uh I talked to city manager about the narrative from our our chief of police was incorrect in this year's uh to rearing binder.

Same thing with public works.

Uh and same thing here.

The fourth one I got right here is your budget.

You come to us every month with the monthly financial report, right?

And monthly financial report that I'm looking at, that's the last one we receive.

I'm seeing stormwater utility with a 42 million dollar balance, account balance, 42 million dollars.

So in your in this report on this question, the last paragraph, the last uh uh uh sentence there talks about the stormwater utility fund as a fund balance after considering approved and obligated capital project, five million dollars.

I mean, that's a 40 well that's a 37 million dollar swing from me looking on this report and making a decision on the budget.

Can you explain to us a little bit the difference if there's any between the approved fund balance and the obligated and how does the funding works at City Hall from projects from past project that we made we put money in there, we have approved, but it has never happened.

So can you I mean it's a and we're getting deep here, but I want everybody to understand how it works basically.

Yeah, absolutely.

Um when we look at the monthly financial report, we're really looking in those fund balances are presented on a cash basis, looking at the cash we have on hand for our needs.

So that does not take into account what you just what you just brought up in terms of obligations or any approved changes from the council.

So from a capital standpoint, um, when we have capital projects get approved as part of the budget, those projects are open until they're closed.

Um, and usually those projects get completed um within a certain time period.

Um, but those projects stay open.

And so councilman, to your point with the stormwater utility is from a cash basis, we are sitting there at 42 million dollars in cash.

We do have close to over 30 million dollars in obligations for existing capital projects that council has approved that to the best of our knowledge, pending any council discussion or changes would get completed.

And so I know that sounds like a little bit of a different piece, but a lot of times with the financial reports, we present it on a cash basis.

Budgetarily, we look at it including our obligations so that council knows what we really have available to us in terms of that approval.

Um, what I will also say is um our next meeting we will have our next monthly financial report, and as part of that financial report, I will break that down for council a little bit more in detail so you can kind of see those obligations and things that are approved in comparison to those cash amounts you see.

Um, so it can maybe kind of clear up some of uh where you see some of those differences.

Thank you very much, Director Craddy.

I think you're doing an outstanding job.

We just need more and more educate education once in a while, so that we can make, I mean, we have a big responsibility to make vote on very important thing for the future of the CDP organ.

And I think if as we get better information, more accurate information, I I would think it would help all of us.

So thank you very much for all you're you're trying to do.

Now, madam mayor, would that be okay to make the motion and this time in the butt and uh in the conversation?

To make a motion about the budget.

That'd be would that be okay?

Because I'd like to make a motion.

I'd like to move that the sewer fee, garbage fee, and storm fee as presented by Director Craddy uh not increase in for the budget 2026 and 2027.

And I think I've had conversation with all of you about this.

I'd like to move uh in that effect tonight.

Is there a second?

Who did that who said second seconded by council member Euler?

Uh so now we're gonna have a lot more discussion, Councilman Seer.

Uh starting with Councilwoman Jackson.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um Director Craddy, I just wanted to follow up with the comment you made uh in talking uh to Mr.

Uh Councilmember Sear.

You said point of clarification capital projects are did you say depleted or if they aren't done within a certain time frame?

So traditionally the projects stay open as long as they are ongoing projects.

If a project does go without any work done on it for a two-year period, um we do for a two-year period, we do close them, and those obligations come off the books, and in essence it comes back in as available fund balance.

Um that that is a council, that is a council policy that's actually in this book.

So I you know, we we uh have these sheets uh talking about capital projects and it'll say fiscal year 25 through 29.

That's four years.

So you're telling me if a project is listed for two years, then it could be potentially depleted even though year 2029 has not reached yet.

So no, really the out years outside of the budgets that are formally being approved are more of planning for what those will look like.

These are situations where if council had approved a sewer or stormwater project, say in 2025 or 2024 or 2023, and that work was still ongoing, we treat those as obligations that are getting spent down because council had approved them.

It's really not the future ones get taken up in the year in which those funds are getting appropriated by the council.

You know, I I had my question tonight.

Uh I came here wondering about the numbers of capital projects.

I know we budget for two years, and I was uh kind of curious as to the numbers of capital projects that are completed versus those that are kind of um spilled over into the next year.

Uh but if I hear you correctly, you're telling me that's not always the case, even though it may be spilled over for a second year at some point, it could be deleted if it's not completed within that second year.

No, what that is so is as long as the project is being worked on, right?

So if we have shovels in the ground doing the work, those projects stay open.

Let's say we had funding for um fiber optic work that we were gonna lay fiber optic.

If for a two-year period that project never started, no money was spent out of out of it, we close the project.

Um, because it it at that point we look at it as a dormant project that can be closed.

As long as there is ongoing work, um, it does stay open.

Um, in terms of kind of that conversation, you know, we will have projects that start in 2025 that will have work done in 2026.

Um, but all of it may be funded in 2025.

And so um that is something that you know we as staff have been looking at and trying to um get more information around what that looks like and in terms of those projects being done um within the time frames and how much that rolls over.

Um I just don't I don't know those numbers necessarily off the top of my head.

Well, I'm just kind of wondering what impact that has on uh the numbers, you know.

We we budget with what we anticipate might be uh a cost for a project.

Uh does that amount get deleted?

Um we get to the point of project close out, and we're happy because it only costs us 1.8.

Umce we've gone through project closeout, that 200,000 dollars that we had originally allocated or obligated, um, we put back into the fund balance.

Let's say it's uh project that's being funded through local motor fuel tax.

In the in the case of the discussion around the fund balance, we would take that off obligation, which is gonna increase the fund balance presented to council, or as I look at it, available for you to allocate future funds would go up 200,000 when we close out that project.

Um same thing would go for projects that just never started.

Um if the project never started, and I want to be very clear like usually that's looking at potentially like vehicles, some facility projects, most road projects, sewer projects, those projects get underway and get started and we do the work.

Um those would also do the same thing.

At the two year mark, we'd stop we stopped looking at them as obligations and start presenting them as available fund balance for council.

Okay.

I I do have one last question.

Uh if there's any way uh we could get a list of projects that we put in, capital projects that we put in the budget uh that are actually never even started.

Um how many?

I was just kind of curious how many would potentially pop up within a course of a two-year budget.

Do we keep track of that or do we know we'll be happy to prepare that list and and share that with you?

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Yes, is there a particular project you want to ask about, Councilwoman Jackson?

No, but I am very curious as to how many projects don't get completed that we have included in our budget.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Councilmember Regenbach.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Councilman Sear, I really like the idea and the motion that you just made, but I think it's it's premature for me to be able to vote on that.

When we spoke previously, there was gonna be some that was part of a grander plan, and I think the city manager had been working on that.

So if we could hear some of those details before we vote, I think I would I would be likely to support it, but until I hear the other side of the equation, I I wouldn't be able to support it.

So if we could do that, that would be great.

Okay.

And deferral is an option as well.

I think we need to know the at what cost and what the consequences are, because I'm in the same position.

I I like the idea about not increasing the sewer garbage or storm water fees, uh, but I think we need to understand what we're voting on and are there projects that can be delayed in order to make this happen.

Uh we talked about some of that.

So what at what cost and and what are we looking at?

I want to know the full picture as well.

Councilmember Oiler.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

Councilmember Seer and I went through the proposal that he works through uh Patrick with you last week, I guess.

One of the items on there was a couple million dollars in rail grant funding that was being added in.

What's that for?

And do we already have expenses related to that budgeted in?

So I was gonna hope hopefully I was hoping we'd get through all of the report backs, and then I was gonna talk about some additions that we need to make to the budget, but if you can bear with me, I'll just walk through them all right now because there's about five or six of them that we need to go through.

Can you hold off because there's some more uh council member input?

But yes, we want you to do that.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

I can wait till that.

Okay, thank you.

Uh councilmember Carmona.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Uh I just I kind of have to say this uh memory that is permanently ingrained into my mind before I was on the council.

I sat just over there.

And uh on a particular night, council voted to one give themselves a raise and uh two not support uh councilman Sears motion to keep the real estate tax at the same dollar amount as a as the year previous.

Um so for me that kind of just reassured why I was doing what I was doing.

And I think it's important for us to think about all of our taxpayers that um, you know, even though this is you know at a million 1.1 million dollars, um and you know, Director Craddy, you made a comment that it might uh increase, say the stormwater fee on average, whatever, $15, something like that.

You know, I understand that that's not a big dollar amount.

And I'm also not here pretending that any of us around the horseshoe make a lot of money either.

Um but what I am saying is that I think it's very important for us to um give the taxpayers a win and to show them that we're willing to do other things other than just reach into their pocket when we need more money.

So um just something to think about as we continue this conversation.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

You're welcome.

Councilmember Kelly.

Uh thank you, madam mayor.

Um Councilman Sear, I uh very much like your idea.

Um putting it forward for both budget years, uh makes me a little uncomfortable.

Uh I would prefer to consider what your motion is uh pretty strictly for uh 26.

Don't know what's going to happen in between.

The other thing I'd like to uh say is uh because if we're going to if we're going to see some additions and corrections and whatnot, and how we're going to pay for this and you know all that.

Um I would be uh uh very uh strong in opposing as we have done in the past the public works budget as a piggy bank.

Public works, uh if we put something off from 26 to 27 or from 27 to 28, etc.

There's further deterioration that occurs, which is the reason for it being in the in the public works budget, and so we're going to have more work to do in that out year than we were going to do in the originally budgeted year.

Now everybody's got their favorite uh favorite areas in the budget.

I understand.

But I uh I feel I would be remiss in saying that if we're if we're going to pay for that uh lack of revenue and try to pull in a balanced budget at the same time, something has to give.

And um I think public works is very much behind the eight ball now.

There if we do what is is budgeted for this year in public works in net terms, we will still be further behind than we are now.

That's how much behind we are in public works.

So I just want to put my two cents in.

And and Mr.

Sear, if you would uh consider anyway uh a one-year freeze, I think uh that that would be easier for me to swallow.

Okay.

I don't know about the rest of the council.

Uh thank you, Madam Mayor.

You're welcome.

Councilmember Reganba.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

To make this as clean as possible for parliamentary procedure reasons, would it would would you the maker and seconder of the motion consider withdrawing it?

Let us hear what the manager has to say on that side, and then bring the motion back after that discussion takes place.

I'm happy to vote on it tonight, but let's at least make sure we get the whole picture of what we've asked for before we do that.

Councilmember Sear.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um I I'd like for all of us to listen to uh City Manager Urick.

I mean, I've had many, many conversations with him and Director Craddy, and I'm fully supportive of this latest change uh as uh late as four o'clock this afternoon.

So these are great questions that my colleagues have, but I'm hoping that uh that you feel like I do with Mr.

Urick's presentation that you'll agree that it makes a lot of sense.

And just to make sure, you know, if you don't want to vote tonight, I'd like to vote tonight.

I don't want to change my motion, but we're still a couple weeks away, you know, from having to not having to, but to the earliest we can approve a budget two year two weeks from now after the truth and taxation meeting and another meeting for for our for public.

So uh so I just want you guys to know maybe I'm jumping the gun a little early, but I just want to make sure you know that I'm um in uh total support of what uh city manager Urix gonna talk about.

And I think it's a great idea, and we can definitely have an easy balanced budget.

So thank you, madam mayor.

You're welcome, Mr.

Manager.

Uh thank you, Madam Mayor, and thank you, council.

Um so there are probably a half a dozen items that as staff was putting the budget together that we realized after the fact that we should have included or have changed since then, some of it is as soon as last week.

Councilman Sear had expressed his desire to me to not want to raise these revenues that's the motion on the floor, and then said he wanted to look me to look at and Director Craddy, how can we balance the budget?

And how can we come forward with some modifications that could balance the budget?

In essence, putting our expenses and our revenues on a level footing, whereas the budget that we presented to you spends down three million dollars of cash in 2026, which is fund balance, which has been raised for capital improvements, but but it's being spent down for that.

And then in 2027, it's just a little bit over a million or just under a million one.

So first the items that we were prepared to tonight to talk to you about that would come back to you as budget motions that we're not prepared this evening to have them as budget motions, but just to to inform you of what those are.

And the first is what Councilman Olier mentioned, which is passenger rail.

Uh as you know, we've been selected as part of the Federal Rail Administration's new corridor ID program.

Uh in that, we are in the first step of that process where we are creating a schedule, scope, and budget for the next phases of this project.

Step two, where the federal government and and our team will work towards creating what is called a service development plan.

That service development plan will look at how we would operate the rail line, and then in the in that service development plan, uh it would look at general high-level costs, operating times, rail location, station locations, the capital investment that's needed in order to make the rail operate.

That um estimate we were originally thinking was about four million dollars.

Well, in our conversations with our team on Friday with the entire working group leadership group that the mayor has convened, that number is actually 6.4 million dollars.

So at $6.4 million, 90% of that is gonna come from the federal government.

In step two, 90% comes from the feds.

So we we're gonna have to match $640,000 with us and our partners uh who have in the past have raised 160,000 to help to contribute towards that effort, and the state of Illinois.

Um we also heard from the state last week uh that there may be some state money that would cover almost all of that match and into the the third step in the rail process, which is step three.

Step three uh isn't gonna be well let me back up.

Step two from a duration standpoint is a 30-month process.

And so we know at some point in time during 2026, we're gonna get approved to move into step two, and so we need to budget for that.

But then that's gonna run for 30 months.

And then we would move into step three.

Step three uh is where you start to do the environmental clearances, and you uh so it's it's the environmental clearances, um pre-engineering and and the pre-engineering work.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um that's probably a 25 million dollar project, and it comes with a 20 percent match.

So now we're talking about five million dollars.

Well, you know, it it's not, you know, one of the things that we have to do in step two is select an operator, whether that's Amtrak or Metro.

Those are really the two operators that we would have of the rail line.

Umtrak obviously runs the national rail system, Metro runs the metropolitan system outside of the city of Chicago.

Okay, so it's a little larger run than what they're normally accustomed to.

So it may be something that they might want to look at.

And we've met with Metro and talked to them about it, and there's some interest on their part with doing that.

But at some point, this as this project moves from planning into construction, it pivots from being a local project to really being a state project.

We are in the state's rail plan, so that's something that we're part of already.

So, you know, rail service on the route to Rockford, on the route to the Quad Cities, that's all really being driven by the state of Illinois.

So at some point in time, we're gonna probably see that handoff for the Peoria route as well.

So that was the first item.

So that would be a $6.4 million grant over probably the years 26, 27, and 28.

And that would be split up between those fiscal years that we would be looking at.

The second project.

Mr.

Manager, that um the match, the 10% match.

Can you talk about who's all involved in supporting that match?

Thank you, Madam America.

The the we've we've got the county has participated in the past, Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, uh the North Central Illinois Council of Governments, which represents the community, the communities north on the north side of the Illinois River.

Um and those communities that have have contributed include LaSalle, Peru, Ottawa, Morris, Utica, all of them have contributed uh to participate in this because all of those communities would be along that rail line.

So we've made that ask of them as well again as we move into step two uh that they would provide that that continued financial support for the project.

They've been very active in the in the team and participating.

Um, having this over multiple fiscal years means that as you plan and budget for that, they don't have to plan for a large contribution up front.

They can stretch that out over time.

So that's something that we would look at with that.

Thank you.

So that that that was the the answer on the rail grant.

Second, um, and this was recently announced, and we shared this information with you last week.

Um, you know, we have just been awarded from the state of Illinois 6.9 million dollars for the Wisconsin Avenue project from McClure to Forest Hill.

Um fantastic news.

It's great news for us because that $6.9 million dollars means that that's not six point nine million dollars of state motor fuel tax that we were gonna put on that project in the years 27, 28, and 29.

So uh this project doesn't it doesn't have an impact on the 2026 budget, but for future budget years, uh it will free up 6.9 million dollars of that that state motorfuel tax funds to be able to use on other road needs we have uh inside the city of Peoria.

So that's that's very positive.

In addition to that, we have received word that this that the state granted Peoria County 10 million dollars to improve Sheridan Road from Glen Avenue to Northmore.

So and that reconstruction of that project ties in directly with the Sheridan Road project we have from Northmore to Knoxville.

So um, or Giles Lane, I mean as it connects in with Knoxville and Giles Lane.

So that that's a nice connection of that project there and and ties in directly um with those two projects.

In addition, and this is uh really um for Councilman Sear and for Councilwoman Jackson, uh the state also built into their five-year capital plan money for Illinois Route 29 uh that runs through Councilman Sears district, 87.2 million dollars to fix 2.6 miles of roadway.

Um from Gardner Lane down to Lawrence.

Um, and then 42.7 million dollars to work on 3.1 million uh miles of road on Lincoln and Howitt, uh, which will go from Washington to Griswold.

So you know, those are two significant projects, and also Councilwoman Jackson.

Uh it includes the replacement of the Adam Street Bridge at the far western edge of our boundaries, southwestern edge of our boundaries of the city, replacing that bridge over the rail lines as you come into the to the city off of 474 or from Bartonville.

So that's 189 million dollars of state money in this next five-year capital plan that will be coming forward.

I would just add that um we had a a fantastic meeting with Illinois's new Secretary of Transportation, Gia Biagi.

She came here and met with us by request.

It was a meeting that was planned related to the the rail project, but we ended up talking about many projects, and it was the day that she had announced the uh release of the the awards for the 400 million.

So she was a breath of fresh air.

She's definitely a supporter, not just of what's happening uh in Chicago and the north part of our state, but what's happening in central Illinois.

So it was a very positive meeting.

Indeed.

Third item is as you know, um, we've we've had a lot of discussion about Expo Gardens and the and the two million dollar land bank grant.

Um we have um secured the acquisition of Expo Gardens at the auction uh for one million two hundred and one thousand one hundred dollars.

Um so we're gonna need to come back to you with the budget amendment for the grant so that we have that grant booked for at least the 1.2 million, but then looking into 26, we need to put the the remaining 798, 900 into the budget so that that can be um so the expenses can be paid out of that for that as well.

So that was the third item.

Um with regards to Expo, you know, we've been trying to get information from Expo Gardens about uh their operating expenses to keep their buildings operational.

They do have some leases and some obligations they're gonna carry over for us since we now uh are well we will have title and on the property, I think in that about 20 days.

Um so with that uh I would just ask your consideration to uh put into the public works budget 100,000 for this year and next uh just as uh money to care for the property, just so that we can we can maintain the property uh going forward.

I don't know if we're gonna need all of that because I don't have a good handle yet, not getting any in any clear information from expo, but I just wanted to make sure that we had that that coverage there as well.

Um the chief talked about the safer grant.

Um councilman Kelly mentioned that there is you know that that there's ongoing costs, and we certainly understand that, but over the three year period, it's three million dollars of federal funds, and then there would be 1.8 million or just under 1.9 million dollars of of local matching funds that would meet that.

And and he's correct, it's 7575 um and then uh 35 is the federal reimbursement uh for that grant.

Um, but at least, and I think Councilman Sear, you mentioned it, with the 1.2 million dollars of overtime, um, we're really looking at kind of a the the kind of net savings to the city for the first two years of the grant of being roughly about $789,000 a year.

Okay.

Um and then one of the per year for those first two years.

One of the there's a couple of concerns, and Councilman Vespa, you mentioned you were asking about the hiring process.

Safer puts a basically it's a floor on the number of officers or firefighters that we can have, regardless of the hiring going in and out.

Our staffing level will have to stay at 202 firefighters or 202 employees in the department for the the three years of the grant plus that fourth year.

So one of the and I I'm just telling everyone this because you need to know this as you make your decision.

If the economy turns south and we have to make staffing cuts, this is going to put a freeze on us making any cuts to the fire department, at least of their sworn personnel.

You just need to know that.

So for that four-year period of time.

So uh, and then the second element with this federal funding that's coming forward, and this is with all federal funding right now, is examining the terms and conditions that are coming out with the grant requirements.

Um the current administration is making um conditions and and uh making new conditions of the grants um that pertain to DEI that pertain to uh immigration enforcement uh and it's you know some things that we can't necessarily comply with based upon the laws that we have in Illinois.

So we need to make sure as we review the and legal reviews the terms and conditions uh that we've done that appropriately and make it a a recommendation for you on that.

And then you know the the last item that that the finance director and I had looked at is is we did look at you know some of the revenues um that we had and and I think that there's some that we think that we can adjust upward, specifically real estate transfer taxes and building permits.

Uh not a lot, probably you know, about 350,000 dollars between the two, but that moves them in in that direction.

So those were the items that that we were looking to bring forward.

Councilman Searod asked, you know, if there were some other items that we could look at at balancing the budget, what could we look at?

And and specifically, are there capital projects that we could reduce?

And we looked at the capital projects and we looked at at two projects specifically that we made a recommendation to him on.

Um both happen to be in the fifth district.

Um one is Hickory Grove Road, and then the other is Sheridan from Northmore up to Knoxville and looking at those two projects.

Um what we would do is leave the engineering in place in 2026, but move all the construction out into 2027.

I in conversations with public works, um, we felt that that could be accommodated and that we could we could accommodate that um and that that may be one aspect that we could look at at moving those two projects forward.

Um if we were to do all of that along with the proposed revenue decreases, um, we would not be quite there.

There'd still need to be more that we would have to cut.

And um so in looking at that in the conversations with the finance director, we looked at some operating budget adjustments as well.

And and the two that we looked at were um a contract that we have with the Greater Peoria Sanitary District for operating our sewer system, uh, where we feel that we can adjust that in 2026 by about $600,000 less based on what we've been spending kind of currently with that budget.

Um and then the second, and I'll let the finance director explain this, would be looking at our pension contributions that we make in 2027, not what we're proposing for 26, but what we're proposing for 2027.

Yeah, so uh so what we looked at and we are still recommending to do the additional 1.8 million dollar contribution in 2026.

Um we had maintained that in 2027.

Um and so looking at trying to to balance these numbers, that was what we looked at was still having enough budget to be able to handle what will more than likely be the increase next year, but not making an additional contribution next year.

So that was really kind of where we landed because that would be around that would be a two million dollars.

So if you're keeping score at home with that laundry list of what I just put together for you, I see councilman Kelly's writing everything down there as for walking through it.

Um it would balance both budgets.

We would have both budgets then would have revenues virtually equaling expense it what it would mean is in 2026, we would put back six thousand six hundred and eighty-two dollars into fund balance, and in twenty twenty-seven it would put twenty-five thousand five hundred and ninety-four dollars back into fund balance.

So if you did all these if we did, if you did all of that.

Now, if you take one out or you take two out, those numbers are are going to change.

And that and but you know, and that that is council's prerogative about how you would want to go about doing that.

But but you know, if we did all kind of 10 of those items and and put those in, because some of those I think, you know, the grants I think we have to put in.

I mean, just because we're gonna we're we're gonna need that.

Um so you know, I think looking at that um you can you it's doable if that's if that's council's prerogative to go forward with those as as budget recommendations.

And if directed, we can prepare, but you know, we were planning on the first items that I talked about preparing budget motions for you to bring back uh next week, right?

Um and if that's council's prerogative, we can put all that together in kind of a series of budget motions that council can can take up and deliberate on as well.

It would be good to see all that listed out.

Thank you.

Councilmember Allen.

Uh thank you, madam mayor.

Councilman Kelly, I was I was right with you and uh trying to um keep up with the with the chicken scratch over here.

Uh just a clarifying question, Mr.

Manager, regarding the the passenger rail grant funding.

So you said the federal grant, or I guess the federal grant was for six point four million dollars, and they'll cover 90 percent of that, and then the remaining 10 percent, the city of Peoria provides matching funds, or is that the consortium of the municipalities along the route?

The city of Peoria and the and the consortium.

So we'd be looking at at making that match.

And last week we heard that that it's possible that the state may have some funds if they're working as they work through their transit bill, they're trying to put some money in for downtown transit um or down state downtown, downstate transit, excuse me.

And if they're able to do that, there may be some funding that would be specifically set aside for the Peoria to Chicago rail court or step two and three, right?

So after the 90 90 percent, there's a remaining 240,000.

So between the remaining consortium and Peoria.

Now, do we pay a little bit more since we're the the biggest route, or would that be evenly divided between the municipalities?

No, we've we've we've um in the in the pre prior match that we had, we were always paying the largest amount um and anticipated continuing to do so here with us.

Sure, sure.

Thank you.

No, absolutely what not.

I definitely appreciate uh councilman Sears uh ingenuity uh looking for us to find ways to uh balance the budget.

Um and I agree with Councilman Carmana's looking at ways to to get taxpayers to win right now.

Everything is high from electricity bills to going to the grocery store.

Uh I do want to provide some context though.

Uh when the particul that council at the time voted on the raise that was prior to the 25 election, and that doesn't go into effect until after the 2027 at large election.

So this particular council is not recurrently receiving a raise, so I do want to provide some context on that.

Um I would feel comfortable on voting on this when I see it all on paper in totality.

Um there was a lot thrown at us today.

I know that we're still in the genesis of these budget conversations, and so I do want to take this seriously because I do think that we need to do our due diligence to do our best to give taxpayers uh a break because Lord knows we all need it, but I want to make sure that I have everything in front of me so I can make the best informed decision.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

You're welcome.

Councilmember Riggenbach.

Thank you, madam mayor.

Director Craddy.

Um the last thing that in that laundry list was the pension.

The 1.8 million additional that we're gonna we have for 2026 remains.

What happens to 2027?

So existing in the 2027 budget right now is our anticipated increase plus an additional contribution similar to this year, but it actually because just we did it based off an inflationary factor, we had it at two million.

So what this would do is we would still have our anticipated increase in the neighborhood of 1.9 million year over year.

We would not have the additional contribution budgeted currently in 2027, like we do when 2026.

But we would be making the actuarial required payment, not the minimum payment.

That is correct.

All right, that's that's as you know, very important to me.

Um I think this let sounds really good, but as it I didn't write down things quite as fast as my two colleagues here.

So to see this all in writing, I think would be would be beneficial.

So would it be appropriate to make a motion to defer the vote on the fees until next week when we have everything together and can see it as a package?

Absolutely, I think so.

Do you want to make that motion?

I'll make that motion, yes.

Is there a second second by council member Allen?

And if I can just add one piece of color commentary to that also, when we're talking about what this means to the average taxpayer, the those those three fees um is gonna put about 40 50 bucks in their pocket annually.

So that's not chump chain, so I think that's something that um is really worthwhile.

And Councilman Carmona, you've been talking about this since the day you were seated, so we appreciate your persistence on that.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Welcome.

Councilmember Kelly.

Uh thank you, Madam Mayor.

I'll I'll probably go for the deferral.

I don't think we can discuss anything else while that motion is on the floor, but I would like to uh return to uh some of these items uh before we close up shop tonight.

Okay, thank you, ma'am.

You're welcome.

Councilmember Sear.

Thank you, madam mayor.

Ms.

Capusco, is that proper um rule of conduct?

While we have a motion on the floor and a second to have another motion to defer that motion.

You can't have a motion to defer a motion that's pending, but there does need to be a vote on it with any without any additional uh discussion.

Okay.

I didn't I didn't hear everything you said.

Can you speak up a little bit?

Thank you, Mayor.

You can have a motion to defer a pending motion, but there should be a vote on it without any additional commentary from the council.

All right.

Well, we have a motion on the floor to defer, I think, for one week.

And um we have a second to that motion.

So pardon me, the motion was made by council member Riggenbach, and it was seconded by Councilmember Allen.

Okay.

Please cash your ballots.

Motion passes unanimously.

Mr.

Manager.

I think there may be other questions that council may have about some of the items I've raised.

So I think Councilman Kelly had maybe had a oh yes, yes.

Councilmember Kelly, you want to you had some other items before we close up shopping.

Are we talking about question number 10?

We got serious.

No, I know we haven't got we we still have report back questions to follow up on.

But I did you have a qu I want to clarify that.

Did you have a question about the items I raised, or were you going back to the report backs?

Um about the questions or about the uh data that you put forward.

Okay.

Is it is are we out of order or in order to discuss that, madam mayor?

Or to discuss the items that I just raised, if I think you had a couple of questions on those.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Sure.

Um the $6.9 million for Wisconsin Avenue.

Um that's uh do we do we have some sort of a uh uh city financial obligation or is that all in other words, that's we have a six point nine million dollar grant for that purpose, or did so if you turn to pay the very last page in your budget book, last page.

That's the Wisconsin Avenue project.

That's where those W's always are.

I know my last name is you, I understand that.

Okay.

So this project is a 9.1 million dollar project.

We have spent a million dollars on the project to date.

So when we applied for this grant, we told the state we could get this pro we will start this project and and move forward with construction.

You want to use these dollars for this purpose.

So they have granted us six point nine million dollars out of nine.

Out of the nine.

Okay.

If you look at the state motor fuel tax line, which is under the bottom green bar that says funding, there's seven million fifty thousand dollars of state motor fuel tax on this project.

Now that we're gonna get a state grant, instead of using the state motor fuel tax proceeds that we have, we're gonna use a state grant to pay for that.

So that replaces this money that that is budgeted for 27 of 2 million 25,000, the 2 million one hundred and twenty-five thousand in twenty-eight, and then two million seven hundred and fifty thousand of the money in 2029.

Okay, so I uh so in 2026 we're not spending any money.

Correct.

Okay.

And we're we're we're getting covered for almost seven million, but that's starting in 27.

Correct.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Yes.

Um I'm just trying to okay.

We've got 86 million for Route 29.

Now that's that's state money.

That's a state funded project.

We we we may have some local match dollars in there.

So does that have any effect on our budget at all?

I would no, but it it it was just announced.

Okay, okay but what it what it affects, it affects people that drive inside the city of Pure.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

And uh Lincoln and Howitt another state highway.

Is this does this have any effect on our budget?

No.

Okay, okay.

Okay.

Um in your report back to us on this, and you know, uh please include uh for instance the pass passenger rail grant, uh you know, six hundred forty thousand dollars, that's wonderful, but uh or uh yeah.

Please include for instance the pass passenger rail grant, you know, $640,000.

That's wonderful.

But uh or uh yeah.

Um but we have uh uh six uh six uh um six point four thousand that's it's gonna cost us.

So even though we're getting all this money, it's it some of it is gonna cost us.

That's correct.

Yeah.

Okay.

So it's more four million.

Right.

Yes.

Yeah, we go.

Okay.

Um so if in your report back to us you could line out uh these things that are going to potentially change our budget, that puts our discussion of this budget item that uh we'll prepare it like we've prepared budget motions in the past that will show you the current budget, the changes that you make, and how it will affect the budget up or down, and then you guys can make the informed decision based upon that.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Welcome.

Councilman Allen.

Uh thank you, Madam Mayor.

Uh Mr.

Manager, are you are you accepting report backs currently?

Oh, absolutely.

Um I know that in the past, you using our Americ Rescue Plan Funds, we uh allocated significant amounts of money towards violence prevention, and I know that we don't have that funding available uh in this current budget cycle, but if we could just get a report back on where we allocated those dollars to, just so that way we have that as a reference point to our constituents, I think that would be very beneficial.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

You're welcome.

Are there any other requests for report backs?

Councilmember Sear?

Thank you.

Madam Mayor, uh just a couple.

Uh Director Craddy, you've done an exceptional job here in our conversation.

I'd like for for us or for you to release uh uh this report you gave me on all the taxes and and um and fees that we have, so everyone, my colleagues are aware of this work that you've been doing, which is tremendous.

Really appreciate this.

And the second one is uh have to look at my phone for a second here.

Uh I was looking at my tax bill, and we talked about and uh Councilman Allen just asked me again.

Um I need to report back on the there's 11 different line item on our tax bill.

12, I'm in uh district uh uh Dunlap School District, it'd be 12 if you include District 150.

Can we get a report back the last eight years?

Eleven of these items, what is the rate was for the last eight years on each item of these 12 line items?

Yeah that okay?

That should be fairly easy.

Well uh just to clarify uh if we are we gonna look at at because you have multiple townships inside the city of Peoria, we have multiple school districts inside the city of Pure.

Right.

So if we want to for simplicity's sake, do you want to just look at it?

Because the the Lion Sheriff people live in either the Dunlap School District or in Peoria public school district.

So I mean, because otherwise we could pull a bunch of tax rates together for you.

I mean, if you wanted to look at Pleasant Valley and Pleasant Hill and Peory Heights, I mean you've got I Councilman Search, I think you have four townships in your district.

So, you know, it how do you want us to to to present that information?

Because just like I said, just 12-line item with the last two should be Dunlap School District and look uh and district 150, so that when we all have conversation with our constituent and they're mad at us.

No, we're easy target.

That well, you guys know why are you raising our tax?

I want people, people do not understand.

One of the things I want to try to do the next three or four years, educate my constituent, my voters, about how the system really work, and we all you know that why.

I mean, we control 50 cent 15 cents of every dollar that we pay in the real life.

I want some ammunition so that we can all be educated on the same thing and and carry the same message and say, hey, we are easy target, understand that, but you don't get mad just at us because we only give me 15 cents of your dollar.

So that's why I'm looking, that's why I want this report.

Happy to get you that information wholeheartedly agree with your statement.

I'm sure you would.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

You're welcome.

Uh Mr.

Manager, can you tell us what to expect at the next meeting next week?

Yeah, so what what we can do is with the information that we put together, and and we'll put together the report backs that have been requested.

I think we've got four.

Um that I've got two from Councilman Sear, one from Councilwoman Jackson, and one from Councilman Allen.

Um we'll put together the list of the budget motions so that you can kind of see where the dollars go in and out.

Um not only for 2025, because we'll have the the money for the the land bank grant, but 26, 27, and we'll show 28 and 29 because there is some of that money that carries out that far.

Okay.

So we'll put all that together in a report for you with each of those uh structured as individual votes and individual motions, and then we can bring that back for council's consideration.

Okay, and next week's meeting it's a regular meeting.

It's a regular business.

We are a budget meeting.

So you know, looking at the agenda, I think we've got 16 agenda items, and then we would have this.

So thank you.

Madam Clerk.

Oh, hold on just a minute.

Um, Councilmember Sear.

I'm sorry, Madam Mayor.

Thank you.

Just uh one last report back.

It was three report back, Mr.

Manager.

I won't make sure that no, the first one was about the um capital budget by funding source.

Funding source, the taxes and fees report.

Correct.

Those are the two I had.

Is there a third?

Tax rate history.

Tax rate tax rate.

Sorry.

Okay, you're right.

Excuse me.

No, we got it.

You say you're right history.

I like it.

No, no, no, I got one report.

Sorry, Madam Mayor.

I see uh our city treasurer, Mr.

Monolongo in attendance tonight.

Um, and I talked to Director Cradd just a little bit about that, but I'd like to have a report back on all our um account receivable.

I mean, we never talk about our account receivable, and we got a lot of money out there that hopefully uh I was hoping Mr.

Hayes would have been here since he mentioned that before.

We was not very happy with our collection uh agency, but I'd love to know how much uh how much uh receivable we have that possible, Director Crady, to work with Mr.

Monolongo there, and we do that.

We do an internal report on a monthly basis, so I'm more than happy to do that as a report back.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, madam mayor.

Okay, you're welcome.

Madam Clerk.

We're at citizens opportunity to address the city council, and we have not received any cards.

Okay.

We do not have an executive session, so we are at adjournment.

Okay, can I get a motion to adjourn?

Move by council member Allen, second by council member Carmona, please cast your ballots.

Thank you for your service.