All right, well, let's get started.

It is now 6 32.

And the this is a meeting of the board of fiscal committee for the board of finance.

Board of representatives.

Sorry about that.

A little crazy this morning.

Uhing better.

Anyway, uh we have an attendance today.

Members of the board, uh, co-chair Morrison, Terry Adams, Karen Caporelli, Virginia La Cruz, Ciara Dorsey, Emil Goldberg, Parker Johnson, Noel Pine, and I think that's it.

I don't know, Sam here.

John Bouchard is also on.

Uh great, thank you.

Anyone else?

Did I miss anyone?

All right.

Great.

Thank you.

I have you.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

And with that, uh we have a quorum.

We have the requisite number of members of the fiscal committee.

And we'll get started with the first item.

Now I think that there is one member.

Who is it?

Who is not remember who is we wanted to call out?

This is a regular meeting of the fiscal committee.

There'll be a budget presentation starting at 7.30.

So one hour from now.

And if you're here for the budget presentation, you you're welcome to stick around, but you also may come back in an hour if that might more sense.

So with that, let's get started with the first item.

First item is it number one, F32.053 for 50,000.

And additional appropriation from operating.

The mayor's office, Stanford Boys and Girls Clubs, location, Yerwood Center, amount from contingency, mayor, contracted services to cover two months of lost rental income resulting from the city's need to evict tenants due to asbestos abatement.

And motion to approve.

Motion.

So is there a second?

Second.

Second.

All right.

I open the floor for discussion.

There are any comments.

Anyone wish to jump in?

All right.

Hearing none, I'll call for this by voice vote.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

All here voted in favor.

So the motion carries unanimously.

All right.

On to the item number two, F32.054 resolution.

Respect to the authorization issuance and sale of not exceeding 65 million dollars.

City of Stanford General Obligation Refunding Bonds.

So moved.

Is there a second?

I open the floor for discussion.

And I see that Tony Romano is here.

Tony, would you like to discuss what's going on?

Sure.

So yeah, my name is Tony Romano from the OPM department.

We have uh at the time of this resolution was written.

We have an opportunity to uh refund some uh some bond issues that we have on our portfolio.

Um we have the potential of uh saving uh roughly uh one little 1.8 million dollars, which which will come out to about 140,000 dollars uh a year for the next 12 years.

Um given the climate of the of the activity of middle in um in the middle east, um you know uh rates have been going up, so we're not sure exactly where we're gonna land.

Um if rates keep going up, we we won't uh seek this refund and opportunity, but um, but we still would like your approval because we um we plan on doing doing this refund in late May, early June.

And um if if uh rates do go back down, or if uh portion of our portfolio is still we we still deem that we can uh have some kind of a savings.

We will move forward um with the refunding of of the older bond issues.

Um this if we do move forward, this will not extend the uh maturity of the bond, so they they would uh stay the same.

And um, but basically it depends on what kind of rate we would get.

Um I do have our Barry Bernardi, our financial advisor.

If you have any uh specific questions on what we're looking to do, and we also have uh Sandra Doss and our bond council.

Um they both help us, uh they helped us put this together, and um this could be a uh a saving opportunity for next year's uh budget.

Um, but again, it all depends on what kind of rates we get.

So if there's any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.

Are there any questions from the floor?

Uh sorry, thank you.

Uh sure.

Who who's our which uh who's the underwriter?

Um we would propose to do it on a competitive basis.

So we would open it up to all underwriters to bid on.

Okay.

And who was the last person that that did our last bond issuance?

Who was the underwriter?

Um again, that was done on a competitive basis.

I I don't have the winner in front of me, but I think there was close to 20 bids for the last bond sale.

Okay.

What's the rate of the bonds we'd be refunding?

Well, there's a universe of various maturities out there.

Um, and those coupon rates range from 2% to 4%.

And what are we looking to bring them down to?

Well, we look at each one individually, and each maturity has to add value, and um, or else it would not be refunded.

So what we've seen happening as Tony explained with interest rates going the wrong way, going higher, that universe of $65 million of outstanding maturities that the city has uh has been getting whittled down.

Um the city is planning to do what's called a new money bond issue for various capital purposes, up to 80 million dollars.

And as Tony said, the the reason why we think it makes sense to go ahead with the with the authorization is it gives the city flexibility to move very quickly.

If the market for the refunding gets better, uh the city could move quick while we issue the new money bonds, we could piggyback the refunding bonds and move very quickly.

Um again, e each maturity would be looked at by itself and would only be refinanced if it adds economic value for the city.

Oh uh that that seems reasonable.

What what is your threshold for adding value?

In other words, does the coupon need to fall by a certain amount?

What's your like help me understand how you make that decision?

That's a good question.

Um we we recommend that the city follows uh the government finance officers association or GFOA has a benchmark where they say they look at what's called the present value.

So so they look at every maturity and says if the present value of the savings um divided by the bond being refinanced, um, is two percent or higher, then it makes economic sense to do it.

If it's below two percent, we would drop it out and not include it, leave it for another day.

Okay, uh that's fine.

I yield.

Thank you.

Thank you, Emil.

Uh Representative Wapai, thank you.

Just uh wondering, Barry, if you could just speak to what what if any do you see then as the as the downside risk of doing this?

Is there any potential risk?

I I I do not.

Um as Tony was saying, if if this was a standalone refinancing, there'd be a lot more risk because what what it would involve is all the time and energy and cost to get it all teed up ready to go.

And then worst case scenario is at the last minute we say, well, this deal doesn't make sense, and the city's left holding all these expenses with no deal to do.

But but the reason why we think it makes sense now is because the city is is paying all these costs to do this 80 million dollars of a new money bond issue.

So we're paying legal counsel, we're paying the rating agencies, we're we're paying to do all the disclosure work and and everything.

The incremental cost to add the refunding is not that much, so that mitigates the risk for the city.

So it's really would be done in conjunction with the new money bonds.

If it doesn't make sense at the time, we tell Tony, Tony, it doesn't make sense.

Uh he's all right, just leave the refunding alone, we won't do it, we'll just do the new money bonds.

Okay, so there's no scenario in which there's a downside.

Correct.

Um right, because the worst case scenario, it does not make sense to do any of it.

We won't do any of it.

Even though you have the authority, hypothetically, if you approve it, it doesn't mean we're definitely going to do it.

It just means we can move quickly if the market cooperates.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Follow up from what is the incremental cost of doing the extra 65 million over the 80 million?

Um I don't know exactly, but but there's definitely synergies.

There's um, you know, to put this disclosure document together, uh, to have the rating calls, a lot of it um, I don't want to say it's zero, but there could be um we won't incur any of those costs until we know the market is is uh up to date.

Like, for example, we're gonna talk to the rating agencies anyways for a rating on the 80 million dollars.

Then if the refunding makes sense, it would say, hey, listen, we're gonna do an additional uh bond issue.

There may be a small incremental cost to to to do that refunding, but we would only do that if the market is cooperating and we can move quickly.

Thank you, Rayleigh.

So I I have a question.

What is the actual cost in terms of legal compliance uh and other rating issues about refunding these bonds as a standalone entity?

Well, if if it was done as a standalone, all of the costs would be allocated to the refunding bonds.

And and on average, when the city issues bonds with two rating agencies, legal counsel, municipal advisor, paying agent, escrow agent, printing copying, it averages between 100 and 125,000 dollars.

Okay, thank you.

Are there any further questions from either anyone here in the conference room or anyone out in the cloud?

Thank you very much, Mary.

Appreciate the information and Tony, you too.

Do you have any follow-up questions or any comments you want to make before we vote?

Okay, with that seeing that.

Uh I have a motion on the floor, and it's been seconded.

All those in favor, I will try this by voice vote.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

That uh zero resolution carries nine zero zero.

Thank you very much.

On to item three, uh, F32.

Resolution.

Uh point of information.

Yes, uh, representative Delacruz.

Yes, my co-representative Flory Hyatt is trying to join the meeting.

But she's not succeeded.

Can someone help her?

Uh Barbara, you can can you give Florey a hand, please.

Maybe she's gonna be yeah, maybe she's gonna be resent the link.

Well, apparently the link isn't working for her.

All right, we got it.

I will send her the link.

Thank you so much.

Sorry for the interruption.

Uh F32.055 resolution authorizing the mayor to enter into and sign agreements with the Connecticut Division of Emergency Management and Homeland Security for the City of Stanford Cybersecurity Navigator Risk Manager project.

Uh is there a motion to approve this?

I move to approve item three.

Is there a second?

Second, seconded.

Thank you.

Uh I open the floor for discussion.

Any comments, questions?

Discussion.

Anyone raising a hand?

Okay.

With Representative Bouchard.

Yeah, thank you very much.

Um just a quick question.

Why is this being considered by the fiscal committee versus one of the other committees?

I don't see any particular funding application here.

Thank you.

Uh any carpenter here.

Yes, sir.

Good evening.

So this is an authorization for funding, and a resolution will accompany every request for funding appropriation.

This one is for the is this for the navigator.

So there should be um an additional, and I can't see the agenda where I say down.

I apologize.

I wasn't, I didn't receive an invite to the meeting, so I don't have the agenda in front of me.

There should be an accompanying request for an appropriation for the navigator as well that will accompany this resolution.

Item nine uh point of information, Representative Bouchard.

We think item nine is matching F32.061.

Barbara, can you scroll the screen to item nine?

Thank you.

Uh that is correct.

Great.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um welcome.

Uh are there any further questions?

Any questions from the floor?

Any questions from that?

I'd like to hold this approval by voice vote.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

Then it's carried 900.

On to the next F30, item four, F32.056.

A resolution authorizing the mayor to enter into and sign agreements with the Connecticut Division of Emergency Management and Homeland Security for the City of Stanford.

Implement endpoint detection and response XDR project.

I would entertain a motion to approve this.

So moved.

Second.

And seconded.

Moved and seconded.

I open the floor to discussion.

Any comments, questions from the Ford here or from anyone else?

Representative Bouchardi.

Yes, same question.

And is there another item on the agenda that ties funding to this item itself?

Thanks.

This request, if I may, I'm sorry.

If I may, this request is already in the capital budget and has been approved previously.

So the resolution is just accompanying for the award to sign the agreements that the funding has already been approved on this one.

Great.

Thank you very much, Anita.

Okay.

Any further questions?

Comments?

With that, I would ask that this be carried by voice.

We do a voice vote.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

Thank you very much.

It's carried 900.

Are there any abstentions?

Okay, we still carry 900.

Thank you.

Item five, F32.057.

For 2.5 million dollars, additional appropriation capital.

Project CP4.

000091.

I hope I got the right number of zeros.

Lathan Wider Community Center Renovations, Capital Improvements, Fund Source, Private Contributions and Federal Grant.

I'd like to motion to approve this.

Appropriation.

So move.

And a second.

Any questions?

I open forward to discussion.

Any questions?

Anyone else?

Any questions?

I do have a question.

Scott.

Yes.

Okay.

It looks like this is all for private contributions in a federal grant, and the city is not actually contributing any capital to this.

Is that correct?

Correct.

There's no additional city funding.

This is a federal earmark HUD and a special revenue community development program fund.

And Anita could speak to the fund sorts, but correct, no additional city funding.

Great.

Okay, thank you.

That was my one question.

Are there any other questions?

Oh, yes.

Hi, Scott.

How are you?

Good, good.

How are you?

Good, thanks.

What additional um improvements are you going to do at the Lakeland Wider Center?

Sure.

So this is for 2.5 million.

We also have an additional $500,000 from a previously approved capital project budget.

So we're targeting $3 million of improvements, which may include any of the following.

So there's kind of, you know, no no kind of complete program yet, but the scope of work will generally include roofing, HVACs, schematic upgrades, co-compliance upgrades, and general, you know, refurbishment upgrades.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any further questions?

Oh Representative Camparelli.

Thank you for recognizing me, Chair.

Um, my question is are any of the improvements going to be sustainable ideas?

Like, you know, we're seeing a lot of innovation in sustainability in rooftops where there are rooftop gardens or greenery or you know, solar or anything like that.

Same with that.

No, that's that's an that's an excellent question.

So we haven't kind of gotten down, you know, even the conceptual design.

Uh you know, from a sustainability standpoint, we're really incorporating sustainability into everything that we're doing uh in the facilities department.

So thanks to your point, you know, electrification, potentially utilizing you know, keep pumps that are all electric for you know the additional rooftop units, uh excuse me, the replacing the rooftop units.

Uh there's currently no ventilation throughout the hallway, so potentially utilizing heat pump ventilation that's all electric.

Uh taking a look at solar opportunities, obviously with a three million dollar budget.

You know, we're potentially limited, but looking at all potential opportunities related to solar.

Uh, you know, we currently the the building management system is up and operational, so we have much better controls already over the heating system throughout the building.

So um we just completed uh the LED replacement, lighting replacement in that building last year.

So uh I think it's a great question.

Everything that you know we look at when we do any sort of new build or upgrades will have sustainability components in it.

That Scott, that is so great to hear.

And to that point, you know, I've been having a lot of conversations with uh the Connecticut uh Green Bank and also Sierra Club, and they have a lot of different programs that they could offer the city on you know when it comes to solar panels and things like this.

I don't know if you've spoken to any of them, but I'd be happy to connect you with some of them.

Yeah, we know we we do have a good relationship with the Connecticut Green Bank, so certainly anybody you have relationships with, I'd be happy to happy to meet and speak with them.

Absolutely.

Okay, I'll look to connect you with them in the next week or so.

Sure.

Thank you.

I yield, Chair.

Thank you.

Uh Representative De La Cruz.

Uh thank you.

I just want to concur with representative camp for his question.

I was going to ask the same question.

She made me do it, and I commend her for it.

Thank you, and I yield.

All right, thank you.

Uh there any further questions?

I don't see any hands up.

Um meeting or in the meeting caucus room.

I'm looking for a voice vote.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Uh anybody opposed.

Anybody abstained?

Here, one of the subject.

But I've sanctioned from representative.

All right.

All right, the motion.

What was that?

801.

81 801.

801.

And with that, thank you very much, Scott.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh on to the next item number six, F32.058.

A resolution authorizing the mayor to enter into and sign agreements with the Department of Housing and Urban Development for Latham Wider project.

Uh obviously, this is paired with the preceding one.

Uh I would look for a motion to like for a motion to approve this.

Motion to approve.

Um a second.

Second.

Thank you.

Virgil.

Uh any questions?

Any comments?

Any hands?

Seeing none, I'd like this to be a voice vote.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Anybody opposed?

Anybody abstaining?

All right, one absence.

A zero one.

Okay.

Item number seven, F32.059 for 75,000.

An additional appropriation grant, community dev program funds to support outreach and community engagement for free public Wi-Fi at the Lakham Wider Community Center in Cove Island Park, including activation and digital connectivity assistance.

Parentheses, no new city funding required.

Uh motion to approve.

It's appropriation.

Second.

Second.

All right.

Thank you.

We have a motion's been approved and seconded.

Any comments from the floor?

Comments from the cloud.

Representative de la Cruz.

Yes.

Or does the range extend to a wider area of the city?

Good question.

Anita, are you here?

I am here.

I'm wondering if anybody from the IET department is on that would be more inclined to be able to answer the range of that.

And if not, then I can take a stab at it.

Yes, Anita, the question is triggered by the fact that we need to install air quality monitors, and they require Wi-Fi, so they ended up they end up being installed where the Wi-Fi is available, not where the monitors are needed.

And I was wondering if this installation would alleviate that uh constraint.

So Representative Dela Cruz, what I can say is that I know that Cove Island, we will be having the infrastructure so that it will benefit the park area.

I and Lathe and Wider, the infrastructure, of course, is being installed in Lath and Wider.

It the intent is to support the low-income neighborhood, but I cannot tell you the range.

I would have to defer and get back to you on that answer of how far the reach is on the Wi-Fi itself.

Yes, Anita, if you could because Waterside has very low income neighborhoods, and one of the issues is Wi-Fi and accessibility.

So if you could look into that, I would appreciate you know letting me know what I can expect.

So I think that we have done.

I will ask what the range is.

Absolutely.

Okay, thank you so much, Anita.

Uh thank you, Chair, and I yield.

Thank you.

So Representative.

Are there any other questions?

We'll do this by voice vote.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

Any abstentions?

So books carried 801.

Right.

Item 8 for F32.060 for 86,308, an additional appropriation grant.

Emergency communications center 911 telecommunications to covers cover the salary of four public safety dispatchers.

I'm looking for a motion to approve this grant.

So second.

Thank you.

We have a motion is approved.

And sorry, not the motion has been seconded.

We're on our way to opening the floor to debate for discussion.

Any questions, Representative De La Cruz?

Thank you, Chair.

The salary is for safety public safety dispatches with a salary of 86,308.

Is that the salary for each?

Uh Anita.

Would you like to answer that?

Ms.

Carpenter?

I can answer.

Yes, yes, sir.

I can answer that.

Um that the answer said is no.

And what this appropriation is uh doing is we were awarded more funding from the state than what we had originally allocated.

And so this is simply um reconciling actual.

So we are just asking for the appropriation of the difference of what had not been um previously appropriated from the total award.

So this is supplemental.

It is.

We're reconciling, yes.

Okay, Anita, and for what period of time does this go be?

Is it continuing?

And um it only cut it, it's uh this is annual funding that we get from the state to support the 911 center, and whatever we get is what they spend on salaries, and then the city budget makes up the difference.

I see.

So this is for one year, and the expectation is that something like this would be grant funded in the subsequent years correct.

We annually get around 470 some thousand dollars, and I think we just underestimated what we were expecting in this current fiscal year.

We didn't budget enough uh in the budget, and this is just that difference that we actually were awarded to to make up with what the actuals are.

I see.

Okay, I think I thank you for that to refin.

Uh very okay.

I yield.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Representative Doa Cruz.

Uh any further questions.

All right.

With that, I'm gonna ask for a voice vote.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

Any abstentions?

The motion carries nine zero zero.

On to the last and final one, nine F32.061 for 156,200, an additional appropriation, grant technology management services funds awarded to hire a cybersecurity consultant to lead cybersecurity risk management efforts.

Motion to approve motion to approve.

Well moved.

Seconded.

And seconded, great.

I open the floor to discussion or debate.

Uh representative uh representative.

Just a quick uh question of clarification here on the source for this one on the on the uh supporting document.

It says FEMA slash city of Stanford, but it says everything is supported by grants.

I'm just curious what portion of that source would be on the city of Stanford.

It doesn't look like any of it.

Um sorry.

Yes, three go ahead, apologize.

I'm so sorry.

Um, and I I don't if the if can we open the um appropriations um and you can see the the breakdown?

And so um shoot if I can see it.

Can't see it.

Barbara can you thank you for Anita?

It's 31,240 is T I G F.

Oh, I see there's a line it on this issue.

I'm sorry.

All right.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Okay.

Are there any further questions?

Uh Representative O'Pine, did that answer your question?

Thank you.

Okay, all right, great.

Thank you, Anita.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you, Tony.

Uh are there any further questions for the floor?

In that case, I would call for this by voice vote.

All of them in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

The motion carries nine zero zero.

And with that, uh gonna get the time right.

706, uh fiscal committee uh meeting is now over.

I'd like a motion to adjourn.

So move.

So who second?

Seconded, and we are done.

Thank you.

Okay.