All right, thank you for coming back in.

We'll just wait for Jennifer and we'll be good to get started.

Here she is.

There we go.

All right.

And we have resumed.

I uh I'll start from the beginning of the item.

Just didn't sure it was recorded.

Um the um request for authorization supplemental capital project appropriation is for citywide technology replacement and upgrade.

Project C65201.

Total amount requested 186,400.

The City of Stanford is advancing a key digital equity initiative to expand free high-speed public Wi-Fi at two major community hubs, the Lathen Wider Community Center and the Boys and Girls Club of Stanford.

These sites serve thousands of South End and East Side residents annually, including many low-income immigrant and multilingual families who face significant barriers to affordable internet access.

The project will extend and upgrade network infrastructure to provide reliable indoor and outdoor coverage at both locations, supporting remote learning, telehealth workforce development, and other critical online services.

Technical design and installation will be completed by qualified vendors, meeting the grants requirements of one gigabyte per second symmetrical speeds.

This investment creates long-term scalable public access points in trusted community spaces and represents a major step in closing digital divide and improving opportunities for its most underserved residents.

Sure.

Good evening, everyone.

Sorry for the odd camera angle here.

So yeah, I think Jennifer, you did a great job of giving the overview.

Um so I can basically skip the first slide.

Um so yeah, as you noted, uh, this has been about um six months in the making.

Well, actually, August, so maybe about three months, I should say, closer to four months.

Um so this, as you said, is a partnership with stamp with in um is going to be a collaboration.

I should say with the Stanford Partnership and Mayor's Office and the Office of Economic Development.

Um, the two sites in in qu in um in question are the ones you see on the screen.

Uh essentially um the one where we already have fiber, which is the one on the left, the um Nathan uh the Lathenbiter, I should say, uh community center.

Um it we already have City Fiber there and um what it involves to get the Wi-Fi uh broadband connectivity.

Um as you said, one gigabit, you know, one one gig one GBPS upstream and downstream is to install um you know Wi-Fi access points.

Um there'll also be um routers installed, repeaters, cables and connectors, and other hardware.

Um the second site is the one on the right, which is the boys and girls club at the 347 Stillwater Avenue.

This site does not have Citi Fiber.

Um, but so we will have to install Citi Fiber unless we want to go the leased route fiber um route, uh in which case the grant uh will have to be adjusted in such a way that it is operating dollars because lease model uh necessitates us to pay on a monthly basis.

Um, but we are hoping to have this done with Citi Fiber, which will give us more um accessibility into the site.

But other than that, everything else is the same for both the sites.

The only difference, of course, being the fiber.

Let me pause there and ask if we have any questions before I go to the next slide.

Any questions from the board?

I see a hand from chat.

And you're on mute.

Sorry, I did it again.

Um quick question, uh Prasad.

Uh thank you very much for that.

The um one is a public uh building.

I think it's my belief that City of Stanford owns um Lathen Wider.

Uh the other one is privately owned building.

Um so how does that arrange?

How do the the arrangement in the boys and girls club differ from the uh the other one?

Excellent question.

Um so from an accessibility standpoint, you're right.

Um the city has more um you know, more ownership, accessibility, however you want to define it for the uh lathen wider community center.

The boys and girls club, um we we do have some equipment there.

Um in fact, we have um already have an existing Wi-Fi there, we have network access points.

Um we just don't have fiber there.

Now I I'm smiling because we just had this conversation today.

So we I had one of my team, um uh Sammy reach out to the point of contact at the uh boys and girls club.

The rationale uh Chester is that it they will they would love to have uh broadband connectivity in the center as well as in the surrounding grounds.

And um, even though our need to enter the or access the building will have to go through two levels, meaning that we have to request permission to uh to access that.

We don't expect that to be a stumbling block.

Um, in fact, we are hoping that they will understand or they will appreciate that this is um essentially an upgrade to their network capabilities.

And uh we are also very fortunate that this is being done and overseen as as Jennifer stated at the outset by the Stanford Partnership.

Um so this is really a community um collective initiative, and we're hoping that that'll that's the theme that'll resonate with them.

So you so you're believing that um in lieu of any kind of compensation or reimbursement uh monetarily, there's an in-kind benefit uh to this.

Right.

You you could you um yeah, you uh I think um it is it is also fair to say that um the the primary beneficiaries of the boys and girls club um are necessarily the ones who will you you know leverage this service the most.

And that's kind of the um the hope that we are we are we're working on.

Um and I think in terms of the uh the actual sites um feasibility itself, um we were struggling with this, I'll be honest, because like I said, this doesn't have the city fiber installed.

Um so this was uh to be fair, two birds, one stone uh kind of a deal for us.

We are hoping that if the grant is approved, we could actually run city fiber to this building, and that'll give us eventually more accessibility from a fiber standpoint.

So that's that's the overall role.

Okay.

So and then lastly, so this uh federal grant um is not yet approved.

Is that what you're suggesting?

It has been approved.

So this is uh yes, correct.

So this is more of a capital project appropriation request.

Um in plain speak, um the way it was explained to me because I had the same question.

If the grant is approved, uh what what exactly is my nature of my request?

Uh the nature of my request or our request is to leverage these funds uh for the upgrade of the Wi-Fi uh in these two locations.

So the grant has been approved.

Yes.

Okay, good.

Thank you very much.

Yep.

All right, uh moving on to the next nose.

Don't see any other questions.

Moving on to the next one, um, the the total breakdown of the the uh the grant funds that we see being used here um across two sites, access points, which is so the first category uh lines one through five uh or rows one through five is uh equipment costs, like I said before, access points at both sites.

Uh the reason you see that the uh access points, the number of access points at the um boys and girls club is uh smaller, uh just 30 as compared to 50, it's a smaller site.

Um, but the routers and all is the same.

Um the installation costs uh is possibly the biggest uh line item here.

And the reason for that is uh 30,000 of this 74,000 right here is the installation of the fiber itself.

Um and then there'll be oversight from the Stanford Partnership, which we have not included here.

Um so that is a question that um will be discussed at some point with Darrell Johnson and his crew at the Stanford Partnership.

But uh, as far as the uh the equipment cost is concerned, which is what the grant covers for the most part, uh, this is the breakdown for it.

From a timeline perspective, um phase one and phase two are almost um over, meaning that um the initial collaboration and the partnership that was struck between uh the mayor's office, the office of the economic development, uh technology management services, which I lead, and the Stanford Partnership that was uh that was forged back in April, uh August, I should say.

Uh the two sites that were selected um happened over the last two or three months, which is when we submitted the the application for the grant.

Um fiber work extension is going to start uh immediately upon approval uh by the planning board, by the board of finance and the board of reps, uh, which we are expecting to happen through the course of December.

So starting January, we will start working on the fiber install.

We're working with the Department of Transportation to help us plan the fiber route uh to that other site.

And um, of course, all the network installation points are not as um uh time consuming as the fiber, but we're still trying to get us a head start on that.

The goal, of course, is by phase four uh we hope to have the um the you know the outreach, uh meaning that we uh would let the you know get the messaging out that this these two sites have heightened lifeguite capabilities um and any monitoring of the signal strength that's set up, which will need to happen before we uh make it efficient.

And we're hoping that that'll all be completed by June of 2026, which is the time that this grant uh execution needs to be completed by.

All right.

Um any further questions from the board?

I'm sorry, just just one more.

Um, will this have um to the extent that the board approves this uh request?

Does this have any impact at all on the capital request for uh citywide technology upgrades uh that we're currently contemplating through the capital budgeting process?

It will not.

Uh these funds are over and above, uh separate from the request that was previously presented last month.

So these are uh net new funds that have been made available to us by the state of Connecticut.

All right, thank you.

Um further questions.

Uh kind of motion on this item.

Uh Jeremy move approval.

Um to have a second for the motion.

Second from chat, all in favor, trace your hand.

Um, if you can indicate uh hand raise as well.

Bill, are you still with us?

All right.

Um Bill you can oh, okay, there's the hand raised.

All right, thank you.

Um, and so it passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you all for your consideration.

Look forward to seeing this in action.

Um so that is it for um those business items.

And so the rest of our agenda is there a view of the capital budget uh for the coming fiscal year.

Um so Tony, if you want to go ahead and pull up the current um proposal that were um that's been brought to the board for review.

Uming that the next step is then to um host this for public hearing in January.

Um I appreciate uh chat for stepping in uh with me to look through all of the line items, um, which as always far exceed the amount of funding that we have available and for proposing uh a more systematic way of being able to uh walk through uh these different priorities.

Um you can ignore for now the cheering because that needs to be cleaned up a little bit.

Um before diving into the items, uh wanted to be able to walk through again kind of uh some of the um rationale for how um we whittled down the projects.

Um, would you like to kind of talk through the factor matrix?

Um, and then I can fill in as well.

Sure.

Um the um for those of you who have um uh who read my initial email, um I had um suggested you know uh a criterion for um to uh help start the process that was based on kind of the prioritization of need, um based on the assumption that certain classes of projects, you know, potentially um had uh had a higher uh importance factor relative to the need.

Um said simply the the notion that um you know um a life safety project is of uh of greater importance to the public than a public um uh benefit convenience factor as an example.

Um so but if for those of you who who recall some of your management theory from uh college or graduate school, you know, the um the kind of uh importance urgency uh matrix.

So but if for those of you who who recall some of your management theory from uh college or graduate school, you know, the um the kind of uh importance urgency uh matrix.

Um what that what the importance side uh misses is the urgency side.

So something could be highly important um but but not at all urgent.

Uh something else could be highly important, but very urgent.

And so uh the urgency deals with a kind of um uh a second level criterion that uh deals with uh time timeliness, time sensitivity of um grant requests and things of that sort.

So uh Jen um developed the second part, um, which we then put these two criteria uh matrices together and came up with these, these recommendations.

Um thank you, Chet, for walking through that.

Um so I'll just note that in terms of the time sensitivity criteria, um, they're similar to um how many projects were classified in the last last year's budget cycle, um, the highest urgency items being ones that should not be delayed, um, kind of the next tier down being projects that are um time sensitive in particular because they have um some sort of external matching uh leveraging of other funds, um, moving down through items that are um uh create a pretty immediate operational cost benefit and then projects that are uh either more phaseable or deferable.

Um so again, kind of uh I'll I'll spare you walking through all the math, but again, by kind of crossing those two um types of factors together, um came up with uh kind of a relative ranking of which projects um rose to the top in terms of uh priority.

Um so from there we walked, I walked through and determined, you know, there are certain projects where um they can't really move forward unless you have full funding.

Um and you know, other projects are are ones that you can break into pieces a bit more.

And so the um the ultimate amounts that are in uh this proposal are broken down to reflect that.

Um and then I also do want to just um note that um, and again, referring to the um kind of importance urgency matrix that there were a number of items that um are highly important and uh in our current estimation could um um wait until next fiscal year, however, shouldn't wait indefinitely.

Um we have for the uh the past few years really been primarily focused when we're producing a capital budget um on uh the the immediate coming uh fiscal year.

However, um it is part of the charge of the planning board to also do some forecasting um for the next five years.

Um so uh as we're going through for projects that kind of are in that um high importance but um not as high of urgency um would like to be placing some of those items into the upcoming out years as an indication of a desire to make sure that that's still prioritized soon.

Um and I also want to commend the multiple um departments at the city that have um in the last couple of years really developed uh methodologies and uh habits of doing this like long-term facility planning and having a whole uh slew of projects that ought to be implemented over the next few years in alignment with you know uh comprehensive plan and other priorities for the city.

And so um going through and then starting to place items that perhaps um are not as urgent for this fiscal year is I think a way to honor that um that longer term planning.

Um the what we put into the out years is not binding, however, um I think a item for future discussion is um uh whether and how we might uh talk with the other um related review and approval entities like the mayor's office and the board of finance to determine whether even if not um uh statutorily true if if it if it makes sense for us to be able to um have a strong indication that that an item that's been placed into the next out year um is highly likely to actually receive that funding in the next um fiscal year.

I hope I hope that makes sense.

Jen?

Yes.

Well um has there been any internal discussion of um uh biannual planning?

if not um uh statutorily true if if it if it makes sense for us to be able to um have a strong indication that that an item that's been placed into the next out year um is highly likely to actually receive that funding in the next um fiscal year i hope i hope that makes sense jud yes well um has there been any internal discussion of um uh biannual planning um that thank you for bringing that up um uh that has not been explicitly discussed um i chat i know you and i could kind of discuss that a little bit offhand um so the state um of connecticut's budget is approved on a biennial basis um we have a system of a long uh legislative term uh which is a budget year and then a short um legislative term this is a short legislative term year uh upcoming this uh winter um in which they um look at policy items but are not um deliberating on the budget and so um another thing you know certainly not to dig into deeply or discuss this evening but perhaps to consider for the future might be whether um uh something along the lines of a um biennial um budgeting uh cadence uh could make some sense again with you know certainly with room to make amendments and adjustments on an annual basis when things change but that we we know right now through a lot of the uh analysis that we've been able to do from the requests um that we received for this fiscal year that a good chunk of what is not uh what has been um presented and will ultimately and is ultimately not approved for this year will become priorities for next year and so rather than starting from scratch um perhaps there's a way to be able to um put that analysis forward uh so again longer discussion and would require um some administrative um as well as uh charter changes actually for that to be uh binding in any way um but it's especially given how much time and effort goes in um from the departments and pulling together these proposals as well as on the part of the planning board and other agencies and reviewing them a thought to consider for the future um so um I uh in the interest of not being too tedious I'm not going to walk through every single budget item um I did want to um just start by highlighting um those items the like larger items that were um that were in that like very high in that um urgency um and importance uh matrix um the the first being out of the board of education requests uh the request for um Julia Stark school uh life safety improvements so out of our estimated about 40 odd million dollars uh 1.5 uh million being allocated to that um a number uh there were a lot of big requests um for the board of education um and in walking through uh the challenge was to determine which of those uh could benefit from um partial funding and which projects uh for which that really wouldn't make a lot of sense um the um I'll note just a few of the larger one a few of the other larger projects that are under the Board of Education docket uh working from the bottom up um there was a large request for um Stamford High School Interior Code renovation um while we didn't grant the full request um did uh put in uh 1.5 million dollars for that um and the um request for um for Rogers International um for um uh each fac and uh I think building envelope work uh was uh fully um allocated at um 962 uh thousand dollars um the rest again I won't go into detail on all of them and a number of these projects um I'll note a question marks about whether partial allocation makes sense uh or whether the Board of Education um might prefer um for some of these line items to be consolidated um uh so that some projects move forward and others uh wait for the next uh fiscal year.

I'll pause and actually see if there are any specific questions about the Board of Education items, noting that this is a pretty significant chunk of the overall allocation.

Again, out of 40 million, we're looking at just SRI of 7 million recommended.

Seeing and hearing no questions on that.

And as always, there is a lot more need than we're able to allocate.

Out of all of these, just to highlight priorities, the Bartlett Arboretum has come before us previously for allocation for the greenhouse and pavilion.

And that after bidding it out and doing some value engineering determined that they needed an additional allocation to be able to keep that project moving forward.

So we did not uh grant the full request, but hopefully it is a sufficient amount for the Bartlett to be able to move forward.

And this is one where I think we envisioned probably phasing out the request over a couple of fiscal years so that it can be completed in uh in a timely manner, but again, kind of spreading the uh the three million dollar request over a couple of capital budget years.

Um so I Tony, we can we can I guess we can go through the out years um uh uh offline perhaps for the most part, but um I think basically this is one where like the balance of what is not funded out of the requested um we could put into the uh the following fiscal year and the out years.

Um another of the uh priority items that's been ongoing um is from the Ferguson Library for um uh HVAC equipment replacement, both at the main building and at the Harry Bennett, um, noting that uh it is not just a library, but also that they serve as cooling centers for the city.

Um this again, we were not able to allocate the full amount uh requested, which is uh north of three million dollars, um, but about half, um, which hopefully is sufficient to be able to move forward um uh equipment replacement at at least one of those two uh locations within the coming fiscal year.

And this again is one where I would envision putting kind of the other half of what was not uh funded into the next fiscal year.

Um and then the East Side Library, just noting that one came before us last uh capital budget year as well and is still connected to uh a several million dollar federal earmark.

Um, and so um that is taken priority as well.

Um I think that is it for kind of the largest allocations out of the um the non-city agencies.

Um are there any questions or comments on on that section?

Again, that's from the Avon Theater through to the Stanford Museum.

All right.

Um hearing none.

Um next then is um engineering.

Um this is one where it was it was tricky to determine um, I'll admit, uh kind of how to prioritize because there are always uh lots of uh roads and bridges that require repair.

Um the uh the top priority for engineering and and which is fully funded in the request was um old Long Ridge Road Bridge.

Um this is one where um there is an award of a state match for this, and so that is why the full amount was allocated to be able to meet that match.

Um and then uh I'll also note the animal shelter, which has been a significant portion of the capital budget allocations in the last couple years.

Um they had presented um some expenses which are related to closing out um kind of the the site aspects of the project, so not required to build the building, but um so that they can uh uh re uh remove remediated soil and also take down the old animal shelter uh building.

Um and so that is a uh we put in a partial allocation uh uh for that and uh would anticipate the rest of that being put into the following fiscal year.

Um another item prioritized um was uh John Bakuzi Park phase two.

This is one that was connected with a grant uh a grant match from the National Park Service.

Um the last uh large item being the citywide solar uh photovoltaic project.

Um this is one where there's anticipated uh not only the return on investment itself, but also anticipated uh tax credits that would be that would bring down the total um project cost for the city.

Um I was not able to quite figure out how to put the full uh requested amount in, but uh the majority is there to be able to move uh many of those uh solar installations across the city forward.

Um the other uh projects that have for now been left um unfunded are projects for stormwater and uh bridges where you know certainly we want everyone in the city to be able to have uh um safe and functioning infrastructure and that each of these um is a butts uh a relatively small number of um of properties, um, you know, some less than the number of fingers on my hand.

Uh and so uh for now those had been uh deprioritized, and the assumption is that these are projects that can't really partially move forward, they really have to be fully funded in order for that to make any sense.

Um any questions about the engineering slate.

Okay.

Umward then to um I guess I'll uh so for fleet management.

Um there is um there was the request for electrical vehicle charging stations.

This again was one where there's a potential for a grant match.

Um board uh was not able to make full use of the potential for that state grant.

And so I think um for projects like this, and I think you know, something where um I'd certainly appreciate the input of the board as well as when we go to public hearing is uh whether there are some other adjustments that can be uh made across the budget to be able to maximize uh the potential for for leveraging uh grants that uh we expect are going to be time limited.

Um but again, this was um about as much as we were able to figure out uh how to put in and it can still move forward, obviously, as a partial project because it's a multi-site photo photovoltaic project.

Uh sorry, the um multiple vehicle charging stations rather.

Um and then um have a outstanding question actually about the the second fleet management item, the storage building at the city yard.

Uh we had previously allocated funding for um for the actual storage building, uh which uh has been uh encumbered as I understand it, and this allocation is for the actual construction of it.

Um the uh trying to determine whether a smaller allocation would still be useful to move the project forward and if it could be put across a couple of uh fiscal years.

And if not, I think we'll have to leave it as is.

And I guess I'll do land use as well.

So the first the BMR housing program management system, this is to set up an entire um system so that the um below market rate um housing program rather than being scattered across um all of the different um primarily private uh operators of of those um BMR units instead that it can be consolidated within uh the city for the benefit of many people.

So that's a project that really needs to be fully funded in order to move forward.

Um unfortunately had to um deprioritize the microforest feasibility, though that would be lovely to have microforests, and then I guess a sort of a question mark for the overall needs assessment for city fields.

This is one that's languished for a few years.

Um I think is important as a priority given how many um subsequent uh capital investments it would impact.

Um and uh for now it's there as a partial allocation, and I'm not sure if a partial allocation makes sense or not, um, but we'd like to hear back from the land use bureau on that.

Um I'll pause there to see if there are questions or comments.

All right.

Umward to um maintenance facilities, which again I really uh we do want to commend uh maintenance facilities uh team for really doing a lot more um multi-year and proactive uh planning.

Um the first, just the very first item, uh which is kind of a meta item, I suppose, uh to do lifecycle planning and assessment.

Um for now had put that in as a partial allocation, and so would like to hear from the department to see if that is sufficient to be able to move forward with at least some of this uh lifecycle planning and assessment.

Um and then um I won't walk through all of the items, but the um one of the projects that rose to the top for full funding was the lathe and wider community center sprinkler system, um, as that um building uh which uh as we know was flooded and is um coming back online soon.

Um this was a prior, this was a time sensitive and like life safety related um improvement that needed to move forward.

Um and then another of the larger items, but which is a partial allocation is uh the roof replacement line uh for which we put in three quarters of a million.

Um I don't know uh unless Chat you think otherwise, if there are others that are um of note to walk through in detail.

Um, but I think in this section in particular there was this tension uh between the important and the urgent, I would say that there are a lot of these items that are deeply important and they're kind of not if they're not necessarily like life safety items in particular.

It became a little bit more difficult to prioritize them versus others, and a number of these are partially funded with the hope and understanding that uh many of these are kind of citywide uh funds to do multiple projects and hopefully the partial allocation is still useful.

Um any questions or comments on the maintenance facilities items.

Okay.

Um next we move to uh parks, um, which again uh has always had a pretty large um uh allocation request of which we were able to um meet a fair amount of uh a large amount of the funding um was related to um uh projects that had some sort of um external matching or some time sensitivity.

So um Cummings Beach, um that is one where again there's been a kind of a multi-year pay down of a match for um an external grant.

Um and I is this Tony, was this the final year of that uh five years?

I believe that's what he said in his presentation.

So yes, I believe so.

Okay, so that's what I thought I just wanted to make sure to confirm.

So again, just um appreciate the long-term planning approach to that, and so just honoring making that final fifth year um capital allocation.

Um and then hatch field park was one that um though it's that one had some um time sensitivity related to other funding as well, I believe, but it's not reflected as like a state grant or private contribution.

Um just to back up the I'm just looking at the request.

I do have a couple of out-year requests for 75,000.

Okay, yeah.

Um, for Cummings.

Uh Beach.

For uh maybe something's not the wrong page.

No.

I'm sorry, I was looking at the wrong page.

Uh they don't have any out year requests, so this probably is the last.

Okay.

Um so um right.

So there were a couple of like kind of pretty big ticket, um, you know, million or two million dollar um allocations to um fully fund or close to fully fund uh the scope of work, and then um some of these others are kind of revolving funds uh to be able to work at multiple sites, such as the all-season accessible park bathrooms, uh playground rehabilitation, uh fencing, lighting, um, just uh kind of adding in some funding to keep those uh accounts uh current so that when things come up uh the department is able to uh make necessary repairs and then also uh fully funding the ongoing uh goal of more uh citywide tree weight planting.

Um and I will I will say I think one of the more challenging items to determine whether and how to prioritize was uh what is listed as the last um priority item number 15, the baseball and softball um in field upgrade.

Um I think this is one where I my impression is that a partial allocation is Rob I think may not be as helpful as hoped.

Um, but I also want to recognize that those facilities in particular are like very, very high use and uh generate some um permit fees for the city.

Um any questions about parks.

Um Jen, uh on that last one.

Um this was not the study uh um that we're talking about.

This is the actual implementation.

Correct.

So so um it would seem to me that it is imminently um phaseable um and and can be broken down into a number of parts.

You know, if they if they can't do uh all the parks simultaneously, they can do you know uh whatever parts they can.

You know, I realize I I'm mixing up this field's request with the boe fields request.

That was the one that was so the um right last year one of the larger allocations was for um was it the OE fields request, um, which covered two um fields and we were received a lot of letters about that um in support this year.

The request for the Board of Education um field renovations was uh a million dollars.

Um, but it's for I think a combined track and field um renovation.

And so that's one where I think I have a question mark about whether partial funds are helpful or not.

Um sorry for mixing that up with this other fields request.

Okay, but but coming then coming back to the right going back to it.

Yeah, the uh item the uh priority 15, I guess, uh under the um park maintenance one.

Um let me just uh get my eye on it.

So that's that's the Northrop Park.

Um but actually it's uh item 14, these uh baseball softball um in um um in field updates.

Correct.

So this one um was uh yeah, so this one was not um highly detailed, but the notes that I had were that the next two fields um that would be uh prioritized included uh scalsey and then a field next to the ice rink.

Um so it's uh for conversion to TERF.

Um so it is one that could be phased, and also since it was listed as the last priority for the department, it ultimately was not um prioritized.

Again, sorry for confusing the two.

Um any other questions or comments on the parks allocations.

Um but um and we can I'll I can go uh through um after, but a number of these items I do want to make sure are reflected in the out years um for um both the kind of revolving funds like the bathrooms um to make sure that it's noted that that's ought to be an ongoing priority.

Um next under solid wastes, this was one of the biggest allocations.

Uh this was um repair to the tipping floor of the transfer station.

Um this one, the full allocation was prioritized because if the uh floor of the transfer center becomes any further damaged, um it will cost even more to fix it.

So um this is a very high priority item.

Um then under stormwater management um environmental compliance uh is one where we just are trying to keep um some money in that account on a raw vaulting basis.

And then the stormwater pump stations uh had the full allocation.

This was presented actually by WPCA um, but is under operations because this is the uh city's portion of capital funding uh for a uh kind of multi-part project, as I understand it.

Um I guess I'll work through road maintenance and then see if there are questions.

Um the one of the more challenging questions is always how much to put into street patch and resurfacing.

It's probably one of the most popular uh budget items, and you know, we could easily spend uh you know more than twice uh what's allocated here.

Often do I will note also that um oftentimes as our um very efficient uh traffic and road maintenance team uh that they are approaching running out of balance will come uh to the board for um additional uh allocations out of um uh capital non-recurring uh when possible.

So um the five million meets a good chunk of uh the needs, and I I do think I note the mayor had had a priority of paving a certain amount of number of roads um by the end of their first term and managed to finish that off pretty well before the end of their first term.

So um yeah, so anyway, good progress has been made on that, and we'll see if it's possible to add more of the utility paving, the reminder that that was um so that we had funds on hand to be able to um when the utility companies dig up one side of the road that the city can um take on just repaving both sides of it at once, and they'll get repaid um by the utility afterward for the work that they would have had to do to restore the road.

Um and then I think the rest uh are pretty straightforward, um, just at least partial funding for uh sidewalk uh construction as well as this unaccepted road uh rebuilding and repaving account, which is a newer uh request, I believe, um, so that each of those has some funds to move forward.

Um questions or comments on those.

All right.

Um to traffic engineering.

Um I want to I do want to note for context, this is one where I think we didn't make as many allocations last fiscal year because many of these accounts had uh significant balances, and the department has done a very good job of spending those down in the last fiscal year.

Um the uh the biggest item here is the roadway design and reconstruction.

Um this is um this is one where believe we're trying to I was wanted to make sure that we were at least putting in enough for completion of the largest uh projects, but um was not able to figure out how to put in the full 2.5 million.

The exception being the Bedford and Summer Street planning study, that being an item that well, partial funding is not possible because the request is for 50,000.

Any questions or comments on these.

Next, I'll just I'll do the whole public safety chunk.

The public safety and security cameras and emergency safety polls has been had a steady amount of investment in putting those in around the city.

So kind of maintaining a similar level of investment in that.

So that uh hopefully that is enough for the city to be able to move forward with the next step of um you know drawing up architectural plans and and doing more of the work required to put it to bid and to be able to put in you know requests for state grants and so forth.

Um I know that this is a uh priority of the mayor as well.

So you know, once this whole thing leaves our hands, um it's up to the mayor to determine what to adjust up and down.

Um the police department uh allocation um for vehicles was a partial allocation to be able to meet at least some of those vehicle requests um under the fire department, um keeping pretty steady with the um annual um investment in um personal protectional equipment, uh breathing apparatus, etc.

Um, and that the biggest item in there is for the fire apparatus, um and that one being um important uh time sensitive because the um there is a match that uh was privately raised uh to be able to move forward with the purchase of that apparatus.

So putting it in the full amount that they can move forward with that.

Um I think yeah, I think that is any questions about the public safety items.

Um all right, uh the last chunk is the short-term financing.

Um so uh Board of Education.

Um we uh well, so overall the theme is that almost all of the requests from Board of Education for um short-term financing were prioritized, um, heard loud and clear, um, especially on the district wide technology equipment that if we defer, then it just gets put into the next year and the next year.

Um, and so um I'm also really shocked that we have um Promethean boards that are 16 or more years old.

I didn't, I honestly didn't know they'd been around that long.

Makes me feel a little old in terms of how long I've been out of school, but um, and so that full allocation is there.

Um the security upgrades is partially funded because that I think that was across three school sites.

Um so under Ferguson Library, um, tried to put in um more than half of the request for um PC replacement as well as the um replacement of their um self-checkout technology, um, noting that you know the um machines that are at the Ferguson library are important for members of the public who otherwise don't have um uh personal access to machines.

Um under short-term financing operations.

Um the okay, I think the so the biggest item was under the citywide vehicle replacement and upgrade.

So that is where the um like the refuse trucks, um, they were under that um line item.

So that is where the um like the refuse trucks um they were under that um line item um it was noted that the um currently the uh site or sorry the the fleet availability right now on any given day of our um garbage trucks I think was a 65% which is um atrocious so um being able to fund I think two or three additional vehicles will hopefully help put a dent in the um the fleet condition um and uh yeah I don't I don't know if there's much detail that's useful for the rest but again across the board um mostly um the partial allocations uh for different vehicles um oh my the the first item under short term financing operations as citywide technology repair replacement and upgrade um there were a number of um like kind of big ticket uh systems level uh replacements that need to be made including one that was related to public safety um and so um that is why um a good chunk of that um was funded and I I don't think we could uh I don't think we could reduce that one without um impeding our ability to um be able to replace a couple of uh really time sensitive systems for the city um any questions or comments there okay um and then the last um is always the WPCA special revenue um because they are putting out their own bonds uh really we're just our role is just to um be um I guess yeah we include them and they don't count against our um uh safe debt limit and so as long as the WPCI um expects to be able to um cover them through their um their own revenue then they get um uh put forward as part of the capital plan um all right uh so that's our that's our quick rundown um uh chat if there's anything else you um feel is important to add by way of context um no but I do have one question um Lindsay had put together a draft of the um transmittal amount which of course was based on last year's tiering system which had four levels correct um and I and this one has six have you given any thought to um oh what the different tier numbers uh the new tiering system will uh will be calling um I will know I I um I have not and this um the the tiers that are listed there were from like kind of my first to go at this before um chat you and I kind of matrix things together so I'd say probably like I don't know more than half of it holds but I didn't have a chance before our meeting this evening to translate the um the matrix that we have of um what it's is it four by it's a four by five is that right um so yeah so they're 20 different potential combinations um we and so um I think yeah so the next task is to figure out um now based on the application of that how to break down uh the projects into um different tiers I will say that I think the first um the first tier that we used last year in the capital budget transmission letter which was just highlighting those projects that um were very high urgency and like really needed to um move forward in whole um in the fiscal year I think that category still makes sense um and the second uh category um one in which the projects are um recommended to be prioritized based on um external um grant matching uh commitments um in order to leverage those funds I think that category still makes sense as well um and so I think the question is whether to um like how useful additional nuance is for uh the rest of the items that are kind of partially funded um and uh um and then again as always there's a big chunk of items that are um not included in this year's budget it may be useful um to though designate again like through the um uh highlights in the out years as well as I think perhaps a note in the um uh in the transmittal letter of some projects that um we recognize as highly important slightly less urgent but that um hopefully can be prioritized in the um next fiscal year cycle okay so uh do we do we um will we need to still put that together for this year yes um well I mean I'll say that so the tiering is really there's no requirement uh that we tier the projects um understood but it's really been more a mechanism by which to be able to um explain in a more concise way why certain chunks of projects have been prioritized and also so that as the projects continue to

So uh do we do we um will we need to still put that together for this year?

Yes.

Um well I mean I'll say that so the tiering is really there's no requirement uh that we tier the projects.

Um it's really been more a mechanism by which to be able to um explain in a more concise way why certain chunks of projects have been prioritized and also so that as the projects continue to move through the chain to the mayor and the board of finance and the board of reps um uh in particular highlighting you know, kind of those tier one and tier two projects out of the whole thing that um are kind of more strongly recommended, and then kind of noting that the rest of the items that are included are um important and perhaps more discretionary.

So that's really the purpose of the tiering.

Okay.

Any other just general questions or comments?

Okay.

Um again, thank you, Chuck, for digging into all these details with me.

Um I think we've got a lists um going of some items for which it might be useful to get a little bit more insight from the departments on um the relative urgency or whether partial funding um is worthwhile.

Um and uh and you know, kind of as lightly noted, I hope that perhaps uh there can be more of a conversation around the multi-year planning, and if that starts to move forward, would love to be able to engage more of our um board members and uh working through um the um the thought and uh deliberation on that alongside our city staff.

Well, while we're talking about that, uh Tony, I'm I'm just curious.

Um do you have any um thoughts on that um issue that matter?

Uh no.

Okay.

Okay.

No, uh I'd rather hold off on that discussion.

Fair enough.

Okay.

Okay.

All right, fine.

Um but we are, you know, um, you know, perhaps what's more important is finding some mechanism to do uh a longer term capital planning process.

Um so it's it's not literally just year to year.

We have some sense for what next year or the year after could bring, especially for you know, multi-year projects.

Um and and and the first weakness, of course, of the of uh of just being able to do it is having having it be able to hold from year to year.

So I that that's really what's kind of driving that discussion.

Yeah, just to point out, I believe during the last charter revision that was discussed to have uh you know a two-year budget cycle for capital.

And um it obviously it didn't pass, but it if for I know we've discussed it in the past, and for for us to implement that, we would need a charter revision for the board of reps.

Got it, got it, I understand.

Well, well, I I suspect the um you know recalling back that uh charter election, charter revision election, there were a few other things that probably were the drivers for the failure of that thing.

Then I mean it didn't end up on the pocket at all.

No, it did not, it was not in the there were I think you know dozens of proposals for what could have been included in the charter revision deliberations, which ultimately got whittled down to a handful of items.

Got it, got it.

Okay.

Um, but yeah, there's that charter revision process was the um the kind of mandate by charter, at least this often process, but the um board of reps is um has the power to do charter revision processes more often than that.

Um I know the um uh we have significant turnover um in the board of representatives as of yesterday.

Um so we'll see um how that impacts uh their um priorities.

Well, well then uh for just for the sake of discussion, let's let's call it something else just for a moment, because I think what under underlays the issue is perhaps far more important.

And that is Tony, a number of departments have very successfully seem to embrace the idea of longer term planning, capital planning for their capital budgets.

And we as a planning board um both support that, but we'd also like to see if there's not something that the city can uh implement that allows the departments to be able to be assured that if they put off you know half of their request until next year or or the year after that it's not going to just get lost.

So the planning board would like to be able to kind of help them ensure those commitments.

But we will need some help at the city side.

Yeah, that's gonna be a difficult task.

Um, just the way our chord is written.

Um I mean, I've seen where a department will change their their request.

Yeah, um it's it's it's a tough task, but um, you know, you know, we can you know the planning board can hold them to it and you know we can look at last year's request and and make the determination when they make their uh their capital request for next year.

Um but uh it I've seen request I see them take take them out of the budget request the following year.

It it's it's it's gonna be difficult to manage.

Okay.

Yeah, I think it's more a matter of figuring out sort of by custom rather than sort of by charter.

If there's a way to demonstrate, you know, I mean that that really is the function of being able to do the capital forecast to be able to have some sense of what things to prioritize, knowing that certainly things can change and departments may um decide to reorder their projects or some other more urgent priority might come up, but to the extent that we can signal in a meaningful way.

Um I think that's kind of what we're trying to figure out.

Um I I honestly I don't know exactly when uh as a board we stopped uh doing the more detailed um capital forecasts.

I know when I started on the board um that we that part of the discussion was often what else to populate in the out years, and at some point uh kind of stopped doing that, I think because it didn't functionally translate into what the budget would look like the next year.

Um and so um I know that it will certainly never make sense to try to get um the next year or two you know set in stone.

Um, but um I think uh it will likely be um a reassurance to some of the departments to be able to note that you know perhaps uh you know 15 or 20 percent of of the next year's budget is made up of items that um were noted as a priority um in the prior budget cycle.

I think that's kind of more the objective.

Yes, I think I agree.

Um so the um uh procedurally um does the entire board need to see the transmittal letter before it it is uh posted for public review.

Um I was just going through the emails from last year and no, that that wasn't um yeah.

That was my understanding.

I just wanted to confirm.

Um this is my second rodeo or first and a half, I guess, because I stepped in halfway through last year.

Um so um, so yeah, so based on the discussion that we had here, um uh I'll uh shore up the transmittal letter um and um uh update the tiering to reflect again.

Um I think still retaining um similar to last year the the tiers one and two around um projects that are high urgency and projects that have those um external funding commitments and then uh figuring out how to describe um uh which items are more discretionary and and the considerations that go into that.

All right.

Um well, thank you all very much.

Um the well, and I I and then as a matter of uh since we're we're we're not um approving the budget, we're just going through and putting together a draft for public hearing.

So we don't need a motion on this either, correct?

Okay, great.

Okay.

Well, um, so with that, um, our next regularly scheduled planning board meeting is December 16th.

Um, that will be a regular meeting.

Um, our first meeting of the year will be January 13th, which is the as mentioned public hearing for the capital budget, um, which we will hold remotely or um okay.

Jen, how are you going to deal with the outstanding questions?

Um Tony, are you gonna uh pass along the questions and then pass along the answers back to Jen for us, or uh will there be a meeting to take in those questions and answers or how last which is how we did it last year?

Right.

Um, I mean I I think that so last year we were able to transmit a lot of those by email and get responses, and then to the extent that made sense, some of the departments came to the public hearing to um be able to explain a bit more, but a lot of times I think the responses can be um answered um by email.

Um and I think also a lot of the other questions uh are uh yeah again for any given department, whether um based on their prioritization, they might prefer um kind of pushing perhaps partial funding for one thing up into another item.

Um and that's something where I think either by um by email or by coming to the public hearing, um certainly welcome the departments um expressing um those uh requests and preferences as well.

Um but yeah, so this will be published for um the public and for the departments to react to and also ask questions.

Um and then we have the fun task of figuring out how to cut this down even further from right now it's about 50 million dollars in um bonds to likely 40 or 45 um when we will receive the um safe debt limit letter uh before the end of the year.

Jenna, does this uh form also um when you and I finished, I think there were three or four questions that we had um uh identified to be asked of departments.

Are they somehow um recorded on this in this format uh in a column on the far right or something some other way?

Uh right.

So the I think the main questions that we had, um, which I have in this separate document, there was one first and pretender for the arts about um how the different projects tie together in particular um the exterior exterior wall rehabilitation and whether the completion of that uh um how that impacts the item after the um rich form exterior envelope, uh my recollection from the pre-meetings was that um it would be difficult to move forward with that second item without the completion of the first, and so that's the reason for holding off on funding it, but if we hear otherwise um then you know we could revisit.

Um I asked that uh I understand.

So um I'm asking about now the mechanics.

Right, the mechanics is right.

How do those questions get back to the departments?

Um uh we'll add them into the comments here and uh I think uh just compile a list for Tony to transmit to the departments is how we had done it last year.

Okay.

Um so if there are any budget revelations between now and January, feel free to share them uh by email.

Um but otherwise we'll move forward with getting this published.

Um all right.

Uh so um that concludes our meeting.

Uh thank you all very much.

It's nice to be able to conclude a meeting not too too late for once.

Right.

All right, okay.

Bye everybody.

Thank you.