All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Minutes are adopted.

Item number one.

Councilman Lanier approval disbursement from District 7 improvement funds for Southview Elementary pre-Kund day total a thousand bucks.

Anybody know what's going on there?

No, what a fund day is.

I can so uh Mr.

Lanier uh we did chat for a little bit about this request.

So it um it's just a thousand dollars to South View Elementary.

It is their um yes, pre-K fund day or pre-K field day um that he is wanting to be able to contribute for their expenses to be able to set up the fund day for the kids.

Okay, and Mr.

Holmes, we're all clear that's obviously in the in the ballpark, right?

Yes, sir.

Okay, any other questions, comments?

Not as there are a motion.

Second, all in favor say aye, aye.

Items approved.

Item number two, Ms.

Stanridge general fund reserve for future improvements, budget revision number six, how time flies.

Yes, sir.

So and this one is actually very long and extensive, it has four different working parts to it, and I'm gonna go through them individually and we can we can discuss them individually, but just know that that this is longer and bigger than we normally do.

Um the first one is that the we are closing out a project and putting it towards contingency.

So the Alberta Bridge lighting is completely closed out, probably has been for a while, and so we are taking uh the leftover change in that um in that project came in under budget.

We're moving 59,000 into contingency.

Okay.

The part B of that of the budget revision is um the is a request to move a $317,000 into the Stillman Boulevard Bridge.

Um, I'm gonna do a quick briefing on the um history of the funding for this project.

You were just kind of briefed on the project side of things in the last meeting.

Um 2024, we budgeted 1.5 million dollars towards the planning of this um of this project.

It was out of the 2024 uh capital proposal, so the um general fund surplus from the year we then added 1.5 million to start the preliminary design work and the engineering for this project.

Also within 2024, we applied for um for a BIP grant uh with the federal government.

BIP is a bridge improvement program.

Um so within that within that grant application, we were not awarded the amount, but we were given very high marks um and grading on our application, and we were told that if we could finish design work um and add a little bit of match money to it, then we would be we would be in a very good position moving forward if we were to reapply for something like that.

So the BIP grant is come was coming up again last fall.

We were planning on doing exactly what they told us to do.

We were we had um we were gonna finish out design work.

Uh the 1.5 million that was already previously applied for design was only going to get us to 85% design though.

And so the BIP grant uh was coming up in the fall, it then got uh doged, I guess, for lack of a better term, uh back in the fall, the uh close out of the BIP grant.

We were alerted to that, and so we were looking for any other grant opportunities that we could get that were big dollars with the federal government um to be able to assist us with that.

So now the build grant is coming up.

Um we have the build grant opportunity where we are um planning to apply for at this at the end of this month.

Uh our total amount to apply for is about 23 million dollars.

Um, and we will be coming pro possibly back to finance committee uh next week to request that specifically, but in the interim time, in order to get to full design, like they really requested us to do, um, we will need another three hundred thousand dollars towards the design contract.

Um the other seventeen thousand is from what was briefed to you in projects committee on the railroad and applying for their um review, the railroad review that is necessary for all of the permits, and so we are requesting that we are putting $317,000 into the Sherman Boulevard Bridge um project from contingency within the RFFI, which is kind of a history lesson on where we're gonna where we have been and where we're going with this project.

So 850, is that what we got in it so far?

No, 85 percent.

What do we have in it to get to 85 percent?

1.5 million.

1.5 for the design.

Yes, sir.

And now we're adding another three 317.

Three so we're just under two right?

Yes or 1.817.

We're under two to get to 100% design which then enhances our prospects on a 20 roughly 23 million dollar build grant.

Correct.

Yes.

The match that would typically come with the build grant is what?

So generally in the past the building university boulevard it was a this 20% million in that.

Yeah so generally with the build grant in the past it's been a 80 20 match requirement so 80% paid by the by the federal government 20% paid locally.

So there's another five so I but I will tell you that the um the city of Tuscaloosa and that area is now considered to be uh both rural and depressed area and so because of those two designations we are not required to attach a match we could do a hundred percent federally funded if we if we wanted to I do not necessarily is there any reason we would not do that it lessens your competitiveness your okay yes it lessens your competitiveness within the pool of applicants um so we have been um trying to figure out exactly what the right balance is versus expensiveness um within our budget and I think that we have gotten to a point where we've gotten comfortable with that level um and run it by all of our grant that model being 8020 no sir it would be that level being what is so I think that it is 17% match is what we're looking at.

It's 17 point something percent match but it's about four million dollars and we'll brief all this when we come to ask for application next week but I guess this is this can be a good preview.

No sir it's not um they are considered prepaid costs and so it goes towards helping the narrative of your application but it does not go towards being competitive with the grant application so that's item B you want to pause for breath yeah that would be great.

So Mr.

Gardner the I know on the the only brush I've had with the bill grants was you know the long running saga we had with the University Boulevard West segment right where initially we were putting in we were putting in 10 million and they were we're gonna come up with 17 and then just kept getting uglier and uglier until finally we said you know this my mem my memory of that and the question related to this is a memory of that is as Ms Sanders was talking about enhancing the prospects of grant award we and this sounds pr pretty normal parts of the game we designed things into that project that were it only our own interest we probably wouldn't have put we did it because it enhanced the prospects for a ward does that sound that is a very that's a very fair statement yes okay so is there a comparable here so um the the University Boulevard project we we were going to go toward a raise the it was a raise grant I'm sorry and and part of the federal requirements to procure a grant like that added things to the scope like uh bicycle paths and and maybe some some additional items pedestrian things and it and it led us to having to acquire additional right away along University Boulevard which is was just an enormous cost to buy buildings of turf yeah so um the decision was made that we would do that project with with our own money um where we are today on the Stillman Boulevard bridge you know we've gone through all the federal processes for the uh selection of the uh of the engineer the NEPA all the environmental documents have all been done up to this point uh and that's what's consumed some of the 1.5 million dollars uh that has gotten us to here today uh so the ask is to get us to a hundred percent design take care of the review costs associated with the railroad reviewing the documents throughout the project up to the point that we get the railroad permit and I think that the one of the onuses of your question really is that so part of the raise grant issue was that we kind of over designed ourselves into an application that looked great but we maybe couldn't afford at the time once it came down to right of way acquisition um and and is that is that happening yeah that's what I'm asking Mike is that is there a comparable dynamic in this project so generally I'd say well with the build grant there is not that requirement to enhance um the uh connectivity aspects uh for for the

And I think that the one of the onuses of your question really is that so part of the raise grant issue was that we kind of overdesigned ourselves into an application that looked great, but we maybe couldn't afford at the time once it came down to right-of-way acquisition.

Um and and is that is that happening?

Yeah, that's what I'm asking, Mike.

Is that is there a comparable dynamic in this project?

So generally, I'd say well, with the build grant, there is not that requirement to enhance um the uh connectivity aspects uh for the grant application requirements.

I mean I was for a bridge there's not a requirement to enhance the connectivity.

Probably maintaining the connectivity.

I don't know about enhancing the connectivity, but so we already have incorporated if you remember from the renderings, there is a shared use path on the north side of the road uh the road and a sidewalk on the south side of the bridge today in the proposal that we showed you earlier today, and there are there is connectivity uh that takes you down to the MLK intersection where we started with uh MAK phase one project, and also extends a little farther um eastward beyond the bridge for a future connection of that to get you into downtown.

But we've already got all that incorporated.

I do want to add just for a bit of perspective.

One thing, and you're right about the the comparison on the University of Boulevard raise grant.

I believe we applied for that in 19 and was awarded maybe 08 and 20 or 21.

Um there were two factors that hit us.

One was the great uh inflation between that time of the construction inflation, the 40% increase over 18 months in construction prices.

The other issue we had that we should not encounter with this one is the right-of-way acquisition.

We were gonna have to we didn't we had to acquire that right-of-way, I believe, by the end of 22, and there was no way we would have been able to meet that requirement just because of how invasive that project would have been.

So that that was also part of our calculus.

So I just I don't think with the Stillman Boulevard Bridge, we will have right-of-way to collect and as they mentioned, but it will not be to the scale that we would have had with the university.

Uh yes, there's four homes on the north side of the road, and then there'll be a little bit of property acquisition on the south side of the road at that warehouse property.

Um, but but it won't be a substantial amount.

Okay.

Members, any questions or comments?

Non-committee members, any any other questions or comments?

Okay, is there a motion?

Well, and we still have two item, two parts of the budget revision.

So sorry.

That was yeah, that was only that was number two of four.

So I'm so sorry about that.

Um item number three, uh, or item number C, I guess, on this budget revision is um if you will recall last week we took uh 220,000 dollars um out of the 2019 B bond to be able to pay for TPD vehicles just to be able to um timeliness of the 2019 B bond payout.

Um that is complete, and uh and our conversation within finance committee was that those 220,000 dollars that was that were freed up elsewhere to be paid towards RSA.

Um, and so that is what the C section of this budget revision is going to do.

It is going to take 228,000 dollars out of two out of the TPD take home vehicle program budget line and send it to a transfer to the general fund to be set aside.

The fourth item within this budget revision is simply moving 21,000 between Cypress Creek drainage phase two and back into the neighborhood storm drain, Cypress Creek drainage as a total overall project is now being paid for by NOAA's Ark phase two or sorry, NOSARC 2.0.

And so, in order to maximize the amount within the neighborhood drainage um conglomeration of projects, we can close out that one selected project and put 21 grand back into neighborhood drainage.

Okay.

Now any other questions or comments that is a lot I think.

Anything else bundled up in this I think I went through everything?

Motion.

So all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Bundle is approved.

What do we got uh the standard?

Just this last one.

General fund budget revision number seven, item three.

So it's receding it in the general fund and putting it directly towards the public safety RSA restricted amount.

Okay.

Questions, comments?

Motion?

Motion.

So all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Item is approved.

Any other items to be brought before finance committees asked?

If not, is there a motion to adjourn?