2026-10-06 - Board of Aldermen Special Meeting

00:28All right.

00:30>> Put all the paper in the middle of the

00:32floor.

00:33>> Yeah.

00:58order on Tuesday, October 6, 2026 at 7

01:01p.m. in the aldermanic chamber, which

01:02has been duly noticed in two places,

01:05including the city's website in

01:07accordance with the requirements of RSA

01:0991A. The prayer will be offered by

01:12Alderman O'Brien and Alderman Johnson

01:14will lead us in the pledge to the flag.

01:20Almighty God, we have the high on and

01:22the serious duty to manage the affairs

01:24of our beloved city. Fill us, oh God,

01:28with a spirit of unity and understanding

01:30which enables us to face our multiple

01:33problems with a serene mind, with

01:35justice and charity for all so that any

01:38and all decisions made by us will always

01:41be for the betterment and greater

01:43happiness of all our fellow citizens. So

01:46help us God. Amen.

01:48>> Amen. I pledge algiance to the flag of

01:52the United States of America and to the

01:54republic for which it stands. One nation

01:58under God, indivisible, with liberty and

02:01justice for all.

02:10>> Let's start the meeting by taking a roll

02:12call attendance, please.

02:16Alderman Clemens here. Alderman Clay.

02:25Alderman Revan

02:26>> here.

02:28Alw Smith

02:30>> present.

02:31>> Alman Tebo

02:32>> here.

02:33>> Alderman O'Brien is present. Alman Greg

02:36>> here.

02:37>> Alderman Dow present. Alderman Sullivan.

02:48>> Alderman Senate.

02:55>> Alderman Johnson

02:56>> present.

02:57>> Automan Kelly

02:58>> here.

02:59>> Alman Morgan

03:00>> here. Alderman Lopez

03:06or President Wilshshire

03:08>> here.

03:09>> Okay.

03:13>> We don't have the mayor and corporate

03:16counsel.

03:20>> So we have 11 present.

03:22>> Yes, we do.

03:22>> Thank you.

03:23>> I'm sorry.

03:24>> Excuse me.

03:26>> Custom. I will turn the meeting over to

03:28Alderman Dow.

03:30>> All right. this

03:31>> for the zoom the video is off on the

03:33alder manic chamber. I don't know if

03:34that's intentional or usually that's on.

03:40>> If it is, I don't know how to fix it.

03:44>> See that little camera at the bottom

03:45left that says video slash? You think

03:48you can

03:50>> see if that does it? Oh, well, never

03:53mind.

03:54>> Got to be from inside there.

03:56>> We're going to go blind.

03:59We're AC tonight.

04:03Okay. This evening we have a public

04:05hearing on several

04:08uh resolutions.

04:09Um so I would ask that people keep that

04:12in mind when they're given testimony and

04:14asking questions. And the first uh

04:17public hearing we have this evening is

04:18on R26059

04:21authorizing the mayor and city treasure

04:23to borrow an amount not to exceed $3

04:26million through the issuance of bonds

04:29and or a loan through New Hampshire

04:31Department of Environmental Services

04:33state revolving loan fund for the

04:36wastewater treatment plant phase one

04:38upgrades project. Would you Yes. would

04:42you introduce yourself and give a brief

04:44overview?

04:45>> Yes, thank you. David Bush, wastewater

04:47superintendent. Uh so this is phase one

04:49of the wastewater's 20-year facility

04:51plan. Uh these projects are to renovate

04:55uh the items at the wastewater facility.

04:58also replace some items including

05:00concrete concrete tank repair, uh

05:03chlorine bulk storage tank resizing,

05:05septage receiving area modifications, uh

05:08also replacement of some uh needed water

05:11meters. Uh the upgrades for this project

05:15are all geared towards maintaining the

05:16existing infrastructure and meeting

05:19regulatory permit compliance as we are

05:21regulated by New Hampshire DEES and the

05:23US EPA. And uh I just want to point out,

05:26I know it's been brought up at other

05:27meetings, but for clarifications, this

05:29isn't funded through the taxes. This is

05:31uh the wastewater enterprise fund uh

05:34which are factored into the approved

05:35sewer rates.

05:37>> Thank you. Any uh amplifying questions?

05:41>> Thank you.

05:42>> Thank you.

05:44>> All right.

05:46I'll now call for testimony in favor of

05:48R26059.

05:52You have to come up to the mic.

05:57Thanks,

05:58Mr. Sheay.

06:00>> Thank you very much. Uh Paul Sheay,

06:02board of public works commissioner. I am

06:05coming here to speak in favor of of all

06:07of the public works related items

06:09tonight. I will not come up to speak on

06:12each of them. I do of course support

06:14this. Uh the wastewater treatment

06:16division is doing an excellent job

06:18making sure that we are keeping up with

06:20environmental concerns and there are a

06:22lot of areas for improvement in the

06:24facilities there. And so this is uh one

06:27one piece of that. Uh we have ongoing

06:30planning and process for further

06:32investment in wastewater treatment

06:34facilities which are all essential to uh

06:37treating the water and making sure that

06:39we treat the environment right.

06:42Thank you very much.

06:43>> Okay. And and before I go, I so I won't

06:46speak on all of these. I I will say that

06:48I'm in favor of them. Um and I'll I'll

06:51come back up when it comes time for the

06:52garage.

06:53>> Thank you.

06:54>> We'll note that.

06:56>> Others in favor?

07:01>> Lori Oralano Nasha. Um I just have a

07:03question on this the enterprise fund

07:06because this is wastewater. Um and it

07:08was stated that it doesn't uh involve

07:10taxpayer money. Is any part of the

07:12enterprise fund funded through the

07:15general fund? Do we is it totally 100%

07:18self-sufficient or does it require

07:20taxpayer money to cover the costs? I

07:23know we have some wastewater that bills

07:26that aren't paid for exactly how

07:30selfunded is it?

07:33>> Direct a photo. Do you want to handle

07:34that?

07:38>> Certainly. I I want to apologize for not

07:41being with you this evening. I uh

07:43nursing a bad cold. Um

07:46um yes, the answer to that question is

07:48it's it's a true enterprise fund and it

07:51is completely

07:53um funded by uh the wastewater fees.

07:59>> Okay. Thank you.

08:02Any other testimony in favor?

08:05Seeing none additional testimony and

08:07opposition

08:15name and city.

08:16>> Yes,

08:18>> my name is Bill Fo. My home is number 35

08:21Indian Rock Road. So, it's pretty

08:24obvious that all these resolutions are

08:26going to pass tonight. Um, they're all

08:28very worthy things to do and many of the

08:31aldermen have already endorsed them. So,

08:33a public hearing is kind of a moot point

08:35here, but um I am inquisitive. So, I

08:38will ask something. Um

08:41when the mayor introduced these

08:43resolutions the other night, he was

08:44sitting right there and he said, "This

08:46is a lot of money." He said that. So,

08:49you want to make sure you get it right.

08:51So, my question is or my disagreement

08:54with all this is why is there no basis

08:57for any of these numbers? There's no

08:58math. There's no explanation of the the

09:01um the process that was used to develop

09:03these budgets. There's no similar toss.

09:06There's no uh historical actuals.

09:09There's no quotes from suppliers.

09:11There's no I talked to this guy and I

09:13get this. There's no well I assume this

09:15and I applied a factor one. There's none

09:17of that in any of this. How can you do

09:19that? How is that even possible? How can

09:21you possibly

09:24uh accept this or deny it if you don't

09:27know whether the math is correct how it

09:31was developed? They may be very worthy,

09:34but if you don't see the math, you don't

09:36see the basis behind it. How can you

09:39know? Maybe, you know, Mr. Cummings

09:40likes to stand up a real time. Maybe you

09:42can ask him when he comes up to explain

09:45the basis be behind each one of these.

09:47I'm sure he did something to develop

09:49these numbers. I'm sure we just didn't

09:50pull him out of the right. So, can you

09:52ask him to please explain that? Thank

09:54you.

09:57>> Anyone else in opposition,

10:03>> Gloria Orano Nasha, I want to speak to

10:05the point that was just made because I

10:07reached out to an alderman to ask, "How

10:10do you know what you're looking at?" I

10:12mean, you did a ad hoc debt committee

10:14meeting at the end of June the 27th and

10:17all the projects were laid out, but the

10:19backup material wasn't there. Then we

10:22had the board packets come out last

10:24week. Total spending around $87 million.

10:28Nothing was in the board packet

10:29specifically supporting these. Now,

10:31we're here tonight with uh hearings for

10:34all of this spend. There's $66 million

10:37here to be spent tonight. There isn't a

10:39single piece of backup. John Sullivan

10:42said to me more than a week ago, I wrote

10:44to the administration and asked for all

10:47backup for all these bonds. I presumed

10:49it would be part of the board packet. So

10:51over the weekend when I looked at it and

10:53saw nothing. Yeah. How do I come out

10:56here and evaluate these numbers? And how

10:58do you I will tell you I reached out to

11:00Director Cummings to get the pool

11:03information because I could not wrap my

11:05head around $5 million for two pool

11:07renovations. And it was Turner Group who

11:09did it. And I can't wrap my head around

11:11that because I looked into Manchester

11:13bonds for pool renovations or

11:15expenditures. They didn't even bond.

11:18175,000 to renovate a pool. We have 5

11:22million for two pools. I can't wrap my

11:25head around this spending. And there's

11:27nothing here to justify it. And I think

11:30you do yourselves all short as agents

11:34for us and our the constituents when you

11:36don't have the backup. And then I have

11:38nothing to come here and go off of. You

11:42know, it's an awful lot of spending. I

11:43know when we come to the garage, I'm a

11:45hard no. The pool, I'm a hard no. These

11:47wastewater, which is project upgrades,

11:50how you built the 3 million, I have no

11:52idea. But at least it's been in the

11:54budget. I mean, but I I don't know how

11:58you expect us to intelligently question

12:00what you're questioning when you have no

12:02information. It's just amazing to me.

12:04And also some of these bond amounts 2.5

12:07million 2 million what was through ad

12:10hoc committee debt committee what was

12:12our decision on not bonding at a certain

12:15level we were going to try and use cash

12:18we finished the first first quarter of

12:202027 where do we stand on salaries where

12:22do we stand on employee cycles what was

12:25our spend rate do we have cash that we

12:27can cover some of these that we don't

12:28have to bond out 20 years and pay 3 4

12:315000 in interest to do what I call for a

12:35municipality fairly short money projects

12:39because all of this is bonded and next

12:41hearing you got a whole bunch of bonds

12:43that are a million dollars just a

12:45million. We weren't going to bond for a

12:47million. We got a lot of it. So I'm not

12:49I'm not supportive of that. But you know

12:52I'm here and I'm here totally blind and

12:54I feel somewhat ignorant because I don't

12:56have any data to to argue with you on

12:58what you're looking at for spending.

13:00Nothing. It was never published.

13:03>> Anyone else in opposition?

13:07Seeing no one, once again, testimony in

13:09favor.

13:12Seeing none,

13:14once again, testimony in opposition.

13:17Seeing none,

13:19I will now close the public hearing on

13:22resolution R26059

13:25at 7:13

13:27p.m. And I will open the public hearing

13:31on resolution R260

13:34at 7:13

13:36p.m. R26060

13:38authorizing the mayor and the city

13:40treasurer to issue bonds not to exceed

13:434,275,000

13:45for the city's sewer infrastructure

13:47improvement and sewer and drain casting

13:50replacement programs.

13:55Uh good evening, Dan Hudson, city

13:57engineer. Um um I represent uh DBW

14:00Engineering uh work closely with

14:02wastewater on these projects. Um so this

14:05is our annual bond request for sewer

14:07infrastructure and castings. Uh through

14:10this program we do all the pipe repair

14:12work, the pipe lining work um and

14:15investigation of those pipes. In

14:17addition, we replace broken castings uh

14:20through our paving program, but this is

14:21where the funding comes from for that

14:23work uh that's that's uh coordinated

14:26with the paving program. Um,

14:30basically, uh, with these bonding

14:32authorizations, then we go and we

14:33contract all the the work and, um, we

14:36don't know exactly what we're going to

14:38run into. We video pipes, we find

14:40things, we can fix things when we have

14:41this funding in place. U, but it's not

14:43not as simple as, you know, uh, one

14:46little defined project and we're bidding

14:47that out and here's the result of it.

14:49So, um, if we didn't have this money,

14:52uh, in place, then we wouldn't be able

14:53to do the things that we need to do to

14:54keep our system up to snuff and, uh, and

14:56be able to respond quickly to issues.

14:58So, be happy to address any questions.

15:00>> Any amplifying questions?

15:02>> Yes, Alderman Tibo. Thank you, Mr.

15:05Chair.

15:06>> How do you come up with that that that

15:08amount? Do some math for me.

15:10>> Sure. So, there's two aspects, and this

15:12comes from the CI uh P uh report as

15:15well, but um there's $4 million for the

15:20capital infrastructure, the uh sewer

15:23infrastructure improvement program, and

15:24then a different CIP, there was the sew

15:27drain sewer drain and casting re

15:29rehabilitation for $275,000.

15:32So, the net of those two is the total of

15:34this resolution.

15:36>> Followup. So that's the money that the

15:38company that's doing the work told you

15:40it's going to cost. Is that

15:42>> No, as I indicated, we do this

15:43resolution and then we'll bring

15:45individual contracts

15:47>> for approval. Right. Right. So uh this

15:50establishes the funding source that we

15:52have to be able to go out, hire the

15:53engineers, hire the uh the inspectors,

15:56hire the construction folks to do the

15:58work. Every one of those individual

15:59contracts come back comes back before I

16:01mean assuming it's within the purchasing

16:03policy, right? uh exceeding the uh

16:05$25,000 which almost everything is every

16:07single contract comes back for

16:08subsequent approval.

16:09>> If we didn't authorize this money now,

16:12you wouldn't be able to go do that.

16:13>> We couldn't go design and plan and and

16:15and implement these projects.

16:16>> Okay. Thank you.

16:17>> You're welcome.

16:18>> Any other amplifying questions?

16:21Thank you, Mr. Ludson.

16:24Okay. Okay, I'll now open up testimony

16:26in favor

16:27of R260.

16:33Seeing no one, testimony in opposition.

16:39Seeing none, once again, testimony in

16:42favor.

16:45Seeing none, testimony and opposition.

16:48Seeing none, I'll close the public

16:51hearing in R 260 at 7:16

16:55p.m. and we'll open the public hearing

16:58resolution R26061

17:00at 7:16 p.m.

17:05R26061

17:07authorizing the mayor and city treasur

17:08issue bonds not to exceed $2,550,000

17:13for various wastewater capital

17:16improvements.

17:18Again, for the record, Dan Hudson, city

17:20engineer. So, this is a host of, if I

17:22added up correctly, seven different CI

17:25uh C projects um CIP projects um uh

17:29totaled up into this one resolution. Um

17:32a variety of things. One's the annual

17:34storm water management abatement. So

17:35that's that's the money we use to do

17:37drainage improvements um throughout the

17:39city. CSO consent decree operational

17:42expenditures. Uh there was a consent

17:44decree from EPA and that that gives us

17:47the funding to uh address and uh follow

17:50through on all the commitments that were

17:51made as part of that. Um Cso flooding,

17:55everybody's familiar with what CSOS are.

17:57Uh uh and we try to eliminate those. Uh

18:00and we do that through making various

18:02improvements. again some some uh

18:04drainage and uh storm water separation

18:06projects. Infiltration inflow, that's

18:08the program where we try to eliminate

18:10clean water in the sewer pipes because

18:12we're paying to treat that, but yet

18:13we're not charging anybody for that

18:15because it's just leaking into our

18:16pipes. So, uh that's accomplished

18:18through through some some uh study to

18:21find out where we have it. And then uh

18:23also the lining program. Um we have a

18:26levy. We're required to continue to

18:28address any issues found on the levy

18:30that Army Corps identifies. Um, so

18:32that's funding for that. And then

18:35there's a couple other individual

18:36wastewater projects, secondary clarifier

18:38upgrades and exterior dock and tank

18:40coating that if you have specific

18:41questions, I'm sure uh, Superintendent

18:43Bush can answer that. But um, just a in

18:46summary, a totaling up of a number of

18:48various projects um, that we would like

18:51to get funded and be able to accomplish.

18:53So happy to address any questions.

18:54>> So this is the type of work that the

18:56federal government oversees and make

18:57sure that we do.

19:00>> Yes. Yes. So everything's permit driven.

19:01I mean uh we have storm water permits,

19:04we have uh permits for the the

19:06wastewater treatment facility and and go

19:08on and on and on. All these programs

19:10stem from those various permits. Um

19:12they're somehow uh tied in. You know,

19:15the city city has an integrated plan

19:17where we've gone through and evaluated

19:19all the permitting uh requirements and

19:21the projects that need to happen to uh

19:23stay in conformance uh in good standing

19:26in our with our permits. And this is

19:28kind of the follow of that. all these

19:30various programs kind of are aligned

19:32with those permit requirements.

19:34>> Amplifying questions.

19:40>> Seeing none.

19:41>> Thank you.

19:41>> Thank you. All right. Now, we'll open up

19:45R 26061. Testimony in favor.

19:55>> Hi, I'm June Lemon. I live here in NSHA.

19:58I'm a commissioner of public works. I

20:01want to say that wastewater

20:03is extremely important and as both uh

20:07superintendent Busher and our city

20:10engineer have explained, a lot of this

20:13is driven by permitting issues. We don't

20:15get to dictate to the state how much we

20:18do. The state gets to dictate to us what

20:21we do and then we have to pay for it.

20:24So, I'm in favor of these also because I

20:28like being able to turn my tap on, have

20:31clean water, and then flush my toilet

20:34and have it go away. So, I just see

20:36these as necessities. None of us wants

20:39to spend this kind of money, but this is

20:44what it costs. It's like, you know, my

20:46daughter works at Market Basket.

20:48Somebody came in with a basket full of

20:50stuff and said, she said, "This is, you

20:52know, $125."

20:54And the person said, "Well, I'd like to

20:56spend 80." And Lucy said, "But this is

20:58what the food costs. This is what this

21:01costs." Thank you.

21:03>> Okay. Any other testimony in favor?

21:11Commissioner Shane,

21:13>> I know I said I wasn't going to come up,

21:14but I was hoping. Um,

21:18Board of Public Works Commissioner Paul

21:20Sheay. I wanted to offer some insight

21:22for constituents here that a lot of

21:24these items um that have come before you

21:28tonight already have had some amount of

21:32discussion and review at the Board of

21:34Public Works. Uh there's a lot of

21:36information uh available as to what has

21:40been uh fleshed out conceptually uh what

21:43has come in in terms of bids so far. uh

21:47some of the items will come before us in

21:49the future. Uh the board of alderman

21:51will uh provide approval for the bonds

21:54and then the contracts relative to the

21:56items uh will uh either go out to bid um

22:00or or otherwise uh be reviewed and and

22:03determined uh who the the preferred uh

22:07local company is as I understand it.

22:09Sometimes there's uh contracts that that

22:12that that's the way that it works out.

22:15And I could I could misunderstand, but I

22:17believe I believe that's how it works.

22:18And and so um as these items progress um

22:23after funding is approved um there's

22:26always an opportunity for uh further

22:28constituent input at the board of public

22:30works. We're always glad to hear from

22:32you. As far as the uh wastewater items

22:36go, um we do very well here in Ashe in

22:41terms of our our wastewater rate. Uh

22:43there's a very detailed uh presentation

22:46on on how that works out and how it

22:48compares. Uh we are we're doing a good

22:50bit better than uh Manchester in terms

22:52of the cost of wastewater treatment and

22:55the the rate of pay that constituents

22:57have, wastewater customers have. Uh and

23:00and that information is also available

23:03Thank you.

23:03>> Okay. Any other testimony in favor?

23:08Seeing none additional testimony and

23:10opposition.

23:19Lori Ordano Nasha. I just want to

23:21understand a couple things with this

23:23one. Um,

23:25do we have the permits? Do we have the

23:27cost of the permits to do this uh

23:30wastewater work? Is that known already?

23:33Are we waiting for quotes on this or are

23:35we pretty certain of the amount the 2.55

23:38million?

23:42>> Mr. Hudson, do you want to answer that

23:43or?

23:49>> Again, these are more estimates in a

23:51programming level uh funding so that we

23:53we we know, okay, we have a million

23:55dollars to spend on drainage. then we

23:57can go and uh finish designing a project

24:00and put out the bid knowing that that's

24:01what we have to spend that type of

24:02thing. So, so no, we don't have the

24:05these these have come up every year kind

24:07of similar similar numbers. We tend to

24:09index this so for inflation so we can

24:11keep up but but these are more uh

24:13programming level items and then as

24:15where comes up that this is the funding

24:17that we use to do it. So, we have

24:19historical information to base our

24:23quotes on and we can only spend up to

24:26the value of what's approved in this

24:28bond and if there's money left over goes

24:30back.

24:31>> Correct.

24:31>> So, correct. Y

24:37>> Okay. And as we So, these you know, if

24:40they get authorized the middle of

24:41October, then they can proceed with the

24:43process of going out um to bid and get

24:46quotes. um what is that time frame to uh

24:51finally have um a vendor or a contractor

24:55selected and that process done? When

24:58would we actually begin working on these

25:02um projects? When can we anticipate a

25:05start time?

25:12>> I think that depends a lot on which uh

25:14which program you're talking about. Um

25:17we're we're we continue we're working

25:19year round, right? So uh each year we

25:21come and we ask for additional funding,

25:23but we're still spending down the

25:24previous year's funding and then

25:26starting this new funding. So it's it's

25:27kind of a continual process. Um there

25:30might be some individual one-off

25:31projects. For instance, on the levy, you

25:33know, we have a slide gate project that

25:35we need to do at some point, a repair or

25:36a uh replacement, and we're

25:38investigating that, but that might be an

25:40individual one. We might bring in a

25:41contractor uh um directly on that or we

25:45may bid bid bid something out. You know,

25:47we may need to bring somebody in to help

25:48us troubleshoot and figure out what we

25:49need to do. So, it really all depends. I

25:51mean, we we uh we do a vast amount vast

25:53amount of work every year and um um and

25:57this is the money that we do it with.

25:58So, if we want to keep up and stay with

26:00our permit requirements and everything,

26:01we need a funding source and this is the

26:03funding source.

26:04>> Thanks.

26:05>> Thank you. Um

26:08why can't we write these resolutions?

26:11Um given that this is an evolving

26:13process, it runs the year. Um the time

26:16when these come in is somewhat unknown.

26:18Um but it staggers through the year.

26:21Instead of saying that we're going to

26:22issue bonds, why don't we write these to

26:25issue bonds or use surplus money so that

26:29we're authorizing it both ways? because

26:32every year we run a surplus that's

26:35pretty large, like 30 million or more.

26:39Um, and the mayor always talks about

26:41this really healthy surplus we have.

26:43Since the whole idea of the ad hoc

26:46committee was to reduce bonding on lower

26:49level items, why not write these

26:52resolutions with an and or um option and

26:56then as it evolves, they have approval.

26:59It's either going to come through a bond

27:01or it's going to come through surplus.

27:03That'll come back to you to be

27:04evaluated. If they don't have the whole

27:07plan done and a vendor or contractor

27:09selected and quotes finished until like,

27:11you know, March or April of next year,

27:14you're going to know a lot about your

27:16budget at that process. Q1 is done. By

27:18Q3, you'll have a lot of ideas on what's

27:20going on here in your budget. And then

27:23you don't have to bond all this because

27:25you would have the time. I would like to

27:26see language that is andor and gives the

27:29option of using surplus funds instead of

27:31all the bonding. Just a thought. Thank

27:33you.

27:34>> Any other testimony and opposition?

27:38Seeing none testimony once again in

27:40favor.

27:42Seeing none, once again, testimony and

27:44opposition.

27:46Seeing none, I'll now close the public

27:50hearing and resolution R26061

27:52at 7:27

27:54p.m. And I will open the resolution the

27:57public hearing and resolution R26062

28:00at 7:27 p.m. R 26062 authorizing the

28:05mayor and city treasur to issue bonds

28:07not to exceed $2 million for various

28:10improvements at the solid waste

28:12department of four hills landfill.

28:17Jeff Laflur, superintendent of solid

28:19waste. So, uh, as stated, this is for a

28:22couple projects at the landfill. Uh, one

28:23of them is the gas expansion that I have

28:25to do every year. Uh, we have to put in,

28:27uh, gas system collection systems for

28:31the landfill to, uh, eliminate uh,

28:33emissions to the to the air. Uh, the

28:36other project is a $ 1.5 million access

28:39road that goes over the closed landfill.

28:41It's going to give us new access to the

28:43new phase 4 landfill. It'll give us

28:45quick access there in case of an

28:46emergency. Uh the state likes to see

28:49that in our operating permit that we

28:51will have proper access to our landfill.

28:54If there's ever a landfill fire, the

28:55fire trucks need to get there. This will

28:57also give me uh an opportunity to have

29:00access to the yard waste areas where my

29:02trash trucks drive to. Uh currently

29:05we're driving down the hall road going

29:07up over an active landfill all the way

29:09around the back of the landfill and you

29:11know doing unneeded damage to trucks

29:14that don't have to go out to the

29:15landfill. They can go right over this

29:17new access road, have quick access, dump

29:20their loads and get back out on the

29:21road.

29:22>> So I understand the state approved the

29:24building of this road.

29:25>> Yes, sir. It's been engineered and the

29:27state gave me an operating permit to do

29:29this project. And I'm sure you have the

29:30engineering expertise to get a solid bid

29:33on what it costs for the road.

29:35>> Absolutely. That's why I

29:36>> And you have a lot of historical data on

29:38the collection system.

29:40>> Absolutely.

29:40>> Any amplifying questions?

29:43>> Yes, Alvin Morgan.

29:45>> Uh thank you. Uh I love that you had

29:48mentioned about that length of time and

29:51giving us really kind of what that looks

29:52like. Can you give us an idea of how

29:56much manpower time we are saving on any

29:59given day with them not having to do

30:01that

30:02>> that same drive

30:03>> to driving up front? I mean, we're

30:05saving uh half an hour of time probably,

30:08you know, by the time they go out to the

30:10landfill all the way around the back.

30:11It's a 300 acre landfill. So, it's a

30:14mile probably a long drive to go out

30:16back to dump and then another mile back.

30:18I mean, and you're again, the wear and

30:20tear for the vehicle is going up over an

30:22running landfill right now.

30:24>> Follow up.

30:25>> So,

30:27I'm trying to paint the picture for

30:28people of what this looks like. So,

30:31>> half an hour per trip, per truck,

30:35>> and how many trips on a really full

30:37trash day do they make?

30:38>> On a real on a a big day when we're

30:40picking up 100 tons a day on yard waste,

30:43they could go out two or three times a

30:44day.

30:44>> Yeah. And how many trucks do we have?

30:46>> Four to five. Thank you.

30:49>> Okay. Any other amplifying questions?

30:53All right. I'll now open it up for

30:54testimony in favor of R 26062.

31:00Seeing none,

31:02testimony in opposition.

31:05Seeing none,

31:08testimony in favor once again.

31:11Seeing none, once again, testimony in

31:13opposition. Seeing none.

31:18I will close the public hearing at R262

31:22at 7:31

31:25p.m. And at 7:31, I will open the public

31:28hearing on R263

31:31authorizing the mayor and the city

31:33treasur to issue bonds not to exceed

31:362,678,828

31:39for the purchase of a solid waste

31:41capital equipment.

31:45>> Good evening. Michael Rush, Fleet

31:46Superintendent. This bond resolution is

31:49to replace five pieces of equipment at

31:51the solid waste facility. Four of them

31:53are daily use collection vehicles for

31:56trash, yard waste, and recycling, and

31:58one is an excavator for the landfill.

32:01Um, these assets have been evaluated by

32:03the fleet department and are deemed to

32:05be close to end of life. So, we're

32:07seeking approval to go through the

32:09process to purchase new ones to replace

32:11them.

32:11>> And all of these are listed in the

32:13resolution itself. I believe they are.

32:16Yes.

32:16>> Yes.

32:18>> Okay. Any amplifying questions? Alderman

32:20Greg.

32:21>> Thank you. How often do these have to be

32:23replaced? Like end of life. How many

32:25years did that

32:26>> uh seven 7 to 10 years depending on the

32:29type of equipment? Um, we do move some

32:31trucks to the back line so that we have

32:33some reserve pieces for when we have

32:36downtime for scheduled maintenance,

32:38annual uh natural gas inspections

32:40because that is required under the

32:41federal government for the natural gas

32:43vehicles for over the road. Um, you

32:46know, they're a little dirty. They see

32:49salt just like all the other trucks in

32:50the city. So, if we could keep that off

32:52them, you know, we might get a little

32:54bit longer life out of them at times.

32:56Okay,

32:57>> all set. Um, just one other thing. And

32:59these are all in surf, right? They're

33:01surf vehicles,

33:02>> correct,

33:03>> Alderman Tibo?

33:04>> Yeah, I think that was partly Thank you.

33:05That was partly my question, I guess, is

33:08these ones have all fall on fell on the

33:10schedule they're supposed to fall on,

33:12right?

33:12>> Correct. They are scheduled on the surf

33:14purchase list.

33:15>> Perfect.

33:16>> Any other questions?

33:18>> Yes, Alman Ran.

33:20>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Given that some

33:22of these numbers are accurate to the

33:24dollar, are these actuals or estimates?

33:26>> Uh, this is an estimate. Um, it's kind

33:30of hard. Some of these vehicles, some of

33:32the parts come out of Canada. Um, so

33:34this number is based on the potential to

33:36have a tariff increase

33:39and it's based on us talking to our

33:41vendors, seeing what those numbers look

33:43like.

33:43>> So, it's a calculated estimate.

33:45>> It is a calculated estimate.

33:47>> Thank you.

33:47>> And the authorization will still have to

33:49go through finance for final approval

33:52and account to buy them, right?

33:53>> It'll have to go through the board of

33:54public works and then through the

33:55finance.

33:56>> Finance. Any other questions?

33:59Thank you. Seeing none, I'll open up

34:02testimony in favor of R 26063.

34:07Seeing none, testimony in opposition to

34:09R 26063.

34:13Seeing none, once again, testimony in

34:15favor of R 26063.

34:18Seeing none, once again, testimony and

34:21opposition R 26063.

34:24Seeing none, I will close the public

34:26hearing on R26063

34:28at 7:34.

34:31And at 7:34, I will open up the public

34:34hearing on R2606,

34:36authorizing the mayor and the city

34:38treasured issue bonds not to exceed $5

34:40million for the repair and renovation of

34:42two public inground swimming pools.

34:50>> Good evening, Brian Conit, your park

34:51superintendent. Um this is to replace

34:55two pools. Um we have Rotary Pool which

34:57was built in 1973. We have Centennial

35:00Pool um that the Turner Group believes

35:02was built in 1960. I do have a

35:05historical synopsis made from an old

35:08wreck uh superintendent null troutier

35:10from 1895 to 1975 that said the pool was

35:14installed in 1948 on Sergeant F. So I

35:18don't know which is true. We had an

35:20assessment done in September 17th of

35:222025 that stated both pools need to be

35:26replaced. Um they've had liners put in

35:29them both of them. Both liners need to

35:32be replaced. We've had leaking issues at

35:33both of the pools. Um talked to the

35:37vendor that replaced the liner back in

35:392018 at Centennial Pool and he said,

35:41"You won't be able to do it again. the

35:43steel walls behind the vinyl wall um or

35:46the vinyl liner cannot be used again. Um

35:49that's how decrepit they are. I'd like

35:51to mention on how heavily the pools are

35:54used. Um

35:57you know, I'm I'll sit here and say that

35:59I think it's a great benefit to the

36:01community. Is my favorite part of being

36:03the superintendent of the parks

36:04department? No. It take a lot of time, a

36:08lot of money, but when I go there and I

36:10see the benefit that the community gets

36:12out of it, I change my mind completely.

36:15I'd be happy to answer any questions on

36:17this if there are.

36:17>> And just for clarification,

36:19this is for two pools. We're not doing

36:21them at the same time. We're going to do

36:23one we thought we were going to do in

36:25the fall, but looks like spring and then

36:27the next one possibly next fall. So, all

36:29the funds won't be spent at one time.

36:31And this is to replace the pools. not

36:35really repair them.

36:36>> We're going to be advertising the bid to

36:39replace Rotary Pool. And that is a great

36:41point, Alderman Doubt, is that we're not

36:43re rating these pools there beyond that

36:46point. This is a total reconstruction,

36:49which is why the cost is so high.

36:52>> Debo.

36:53>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I got a couple

36:55questions, uh, clarifying questions. Um,

36:58so

37:00if you don't fix or if you don't replace

37:03these,

37:05how long will they last being able to be

37:07used? Like when would they have to be

37:08shut down for good?

37:09>> Alderman Tibo, I I don't have a crystal

37:11ball, but I know that Rotary Pool loses

37:15somewhere from 2 to 4,000 gallons. um

37:18let's say every two days and the liner

37:21at Centennial Pool is bubbling off the

37:24steel walls now as we speak. I don't

37:28know at one point they will become

37:30unusable but we are close.

37:33>> Okay. Um and the other one the other my

37:36other question is during public comment

37:38uh it was kind of scoffed at that they

37:40would cost 5 million. So 2.5 million to

37:43replace each pool. Is that an act? I

37:46mean, is that how much it costs to to do

37:48a pool these days?

37:50>> It says right here, I brought the

37:52assessment that was done back in 2000 uh

37:55or September of 2025, excuse me.

37:59Uh as discussed, it is likely that both

38:02replaced pools will be of similar size,

38:04depth, and a perimeter of concretes that

38:05are both similar as what's there. It is

38:08therefore our opinion that the probable

38:09construction of cost for each pool is

38:11expected to be in the range of $2.5 to

38:13$3 million in 2025. I bring that to

38:17everyone's attention too because we all

38:20know prices have gone up. Um and to

38:24speak to H&L Turner, they've replaced

38:26three pools for the city of conquered

38:28and they've also done work for the city

38:29of Manchester as well. Um so I don't

38:32know if that answers your question, but

38:34I'd be happy to answer anymore.

38:35>> Yeah. Thank you. set.

38:40You all set? Director photo, you didn't

38:41want to add anything.

38:45>> I'm all set. Thank you. I I wanted to

38:47add the engineers estimate from HL

38:49Turnover.

38:50>> The superintendent added that.

38:52>> All right. Thank you.

38:54>> We're all set.

38:56>> Thank you.

38:57>> All right. I'll now open up testimony in

38:59favor of R266.

39:13that you Commissioner Shay or your son

39:24introduce yourself.

39:26>> My name is Paxton.

39:29Uh,

39:32and I live in Nasha.

39:37And

39:40I don't really know what to say.

39:42>> Do you want to share your experience?

39:44>> Do you want to share your experience at

39:46the pools and and what it means to you?

39:49>> Yeah.

39:51I went to I don't know the name of the

39:54pool, but I went to one of these pools

39:56once and then it was really fun.

39:59and then

40:01>> centennial pool

40:04>> and I went there with my friends

40:09and then we had

40:12a picnic after I think I remember I

40:17remember and then

40:22>> what is it what does it mean to get

40:23stable

40:24>> it's fun

40:28>> do we have a pool at home?

40:31>> Not at our house.

40:33>> Yeah. No, but we do go to pools.

40:36>> Yeah.

40:37>> And And what does it mean to kids who

40:40don't have pools to be able to have a

40:42pool in the summer?

40:44>> Good.

40:45>> Yeah. It it means a lot to kids. Can I

40:48Can I join you?

40:49>> Yeah.

40:50>> Uh it means a lot to kids in our

40:52community to have access to a place to

40:54swim. Um, not everyone is so blessed to

40:58have a pool at their home and it's a

41:00place where kids gather and have fun and

41:02spend time in the sun and then maybe

41:04have a picnic afterwards

41:06and this is one of the best investments

41:09that that you're considering.

41:12>> Thank you.

41:13>> Anything else?

41:17>> Super fun.

41:19>> Thank you very much.

41:20>> All right.

41:21>> Good job.

41:24>> All right. So now still in testimony in

41:27favor

41:29seeing none additional testimony and

41:31opposition

41:39Lori Ordano Nasha um understand all the

41:43community benefits to having a pool. I

41:45really do believe in them and I think

41:47they're vitally important to our city

41:49and our kids in the summertime who don't

41:51have other activities. I don't question

41:54that at all. This is not really written

41:57correctly because it calls for repair

41:59and renovation and I think it should be

42:01the full construction of two new pools.

42:05They're going to be um reconstructed

42:08pools. Um I still question I saw the

42:11quote from the Turner group from 2025.

42:15Um that was one group. Have we gone out

42:18to bid with others? I am still very

42:21concerned about five million for two

42:23pools. I really am. And now maybe it's

42:25going to be six or seven to construct

42:28two swimming pools for a city. I think

42:31that's enormously expensive. And I would

42:34hope we would gather some bids and take

42:36a close look at that. Um, you know, I'm

42:39not doubting that they need it based on

42:41the age. Totally makes sense. But, you

42:44know, I'm really concerned when I see

42:46project cost the next one coming in. You

42:48know, I think our city and cities in

42:51general end up falling prey to some very

42:53high contractor costs because we don't

42:56necessarily have building construction

42:59contractor teams within the city to

43:01evaluate these. And we pay a lot. We pay

43:04a lot more than private business pays, I

43:07believe. Um, and I can tell you my

43:10husband constructed one heck of a big

43:11160,000 foot facility in South Carolina

43:15for heavy equipment with cranes and

43:17machinery for $20 million. Um, and so I

43:21I understand big projects, but we pay a

43:25lot as a municipality and I think we're

43:28not getting competitive pricing often on

43:30some of these big projects, which um,

43:33you know, I I I think we need to do a

43:35much better job and lean in much harder

43:38with developers when it comes to cost.

43:39So that's my concern with R266.

43:43Thank you.

43:44>> Any other testimony in opposition?

43:53My name is Bill Fero. My home is number

43:5535 Indian Rock Road. So, thank you to

43:58the DPW guy that stood up and talked and

44:01gave basis for the $5 million. But it

44:04sounds like, if I understood the math

44:06correctly,

44:072.5 to 3 million in 2025

44:12doesn't equal 5 million in 2027.

44:15So, don't you think maybe this should be

44:186 million, 6 and a half million?

44:21Thank you.

44:24Any other testimony and opposition?

44:28Not seeing once again testimony in

44:30favor.

44:32See none additional. Once again,

44:35testimony and opposition.

44:37See no additional, I will close the

44:40public hearing on R266

44:43at 7:44

44:45p.m. and at 7:44 p.m. I will open up our

44:50the public hearing on R26072

44:52authorizing the mayor and city treasurer

44:54to issue bonds not to exceed $43,500,000

45:00for the design, construction, and

45:02equipping of a division of public works

45:05garage and fleet maintenance facility.

45:08Director Cummings.

45:10>> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the

45:11record, Tim Cummings, director of

45:13administrative services, uh, here this

45:15evening to to speak uh, relative to

45:18R2672

45:20and it goes handinand glove with R2673,

45:24I'm going to ask that the PowerPoint

45:26presentation uh, get uh, brought up this

45:28evening and um, as as that PowerPoint

45:31presentation gets gets brought up um,

45:33and and before we recognize Director

45:36Photo who is going to be um, uh,

45:39introducing the the the the conversation

45:41and and presentation this evening. Do

45:44want to note for the record that we have

45:46um our uh treasur tax collector Diane

45:49Mahaland on this evening and she's

45:51participating remotely. So I want to

45:52make sure everyone is aware of that in

45:54case a question arises and I want to

45:56thank her for for being here. uh behind

45:59me after director photo speaks it will

46:01be handed off to the various consultants

46:03who will speak to the the differing

46:05elements of the of the presentation that

46:08is that is before you and their slides

46:10and and finally uh uh Mr. Chairman, I

46:13want to note that um everything that

46:15you're uh hearing about this evening,

46:17but specifically these two resolutions

46:20uh that are being laid before you uh

46:22follows and adheres to the hard work

46:24that we did and build up to this evening

46:26through the ad hoc uh process. And so I

46:29think that's a a significant point that

46:31we want to make sure we note for the

46:32record. We are not deviating from plan

46:34and everything that we've anticipated

46:36along the way. we have been working

46:38towards this evening um and building

46:41momentum and and also it should be noted

46:43that this project is uh a project that

46:46is good in good standing before the

46:48joint committee on the board of uh uh uh

46:51public works and in infrastructure and

46:53and there is monthly meetings where a

46:55lot of this project is discussed in in

46:57detail. So, with those comments being

46:59said, I'm going to ask uh director photo

47:02to to uh lead us uh this evening and I

47:05will be clicking the slides as

47:06necessary. So, I just ask that she says

47:09next so I can move it on appropriately.

47:11>> Also, I wanted to mention that uh

47:13Commissioner DPW Commissioner Greg is

47:15online with us from California. So, as

47:19well, Director Photo.

47:22>> Yes. Thank you. Good evening. Lisa

47:24photo, director of public works. On

47:26March 23rd, we provided the board of

47:28alderman with a presentation of the DPW

47:31garage. Since that was six months ago,

47:34we thought it made sense to provide a

47:36condensed version of that presentation.

47:39Joining me as presenters this evening

47:41are Commissioner Greg Mattie Greg,

47:43administrative services director Tim

47:45Cummings, Joe Sullivan the city's owner

47:47project manager from left field, Jeff

47:50Albertie, president of Weston and

47:52Samson, Rob Pruner, executive president

47:55of Harvey Construction and Scottlair CEO

47:58of Fitz Meerachi. I also want to note

48:01that our architect Jet Senna from HKT uh

48:04is also present. The picture on the

48:07screen that you see right now is more

48:10than half of the city's public works

48:12staff who build and maintain our city's

48:14infrastructure. The DPW garage and

48:17maintenance facility that we're

48:19discussing tonight is not about building

48:20a nicer garage for city employees. It's

48:23about protecting equipment that the

48:25taxpayers of Nashville already own and

48:28providing a healthy and safe work

48:29environment for our public works first

48:31responders.

48:33Today, the city maintains a public works

48:36fleet of 364 vehicles and equipment. 268

48:41of those are registered vehicles where

48:43and all of that 364 vehicles and

48:46equipment is worth about $45 million.

48:49These are the vehicles and equipment we

48:51use to plow, sweep, maintain roads,

48:53sidewalks, traffic lights and parks,

48:56fill potholes, pick up trash, respond to

48:59sewer backups, respond to emergencies,

49:03etc.

49:04Right now, 67 of 268

49:07or two 25% of registered vehicles are

49:10stored inside, leaving 201 registered

49:13vehicles in snow, ice, rain, and extreme

49:18cold and heat because our current

49:19streets garage was built nearly 50 years

49:22ago, is crumbling, and no longer meets

49:25the needs of our division. A modern

49:28facility would allow 170 registered

49:31vehicles or 64% of the registered

49:34vehicles

49:35to be kept indoors which will reduce

49:38breakdowns, extend vehicle life and

49:41improve response times during storms and

49:43emergency. It also creates a safe,

49:46healthy working environment for the

49:48employees who are out plowing streets at

49:502:00 in the morning.

49:53Public Works has been a good steward of

49:55tax dollars, saving millions over the

49:57years on such projects as the skate

49:58park, Main Street sidewalks, Adon Park,

50:02the landfill recycling buildings, just

50:04to name a few. We don't ask for a lot,

50:07and when we do, we need it. The garage

50:10and fleet maintenance facility is about

50:12the reliability of essential city

50:14services, safety, and long-term

50:16financial responsibility. It ensures

50:19that when residents need our services,

50:21the equipment required to do that work

50:23is ready and dependable. And with that,

50:26I'd like to turn it over to Jeff

50:28Albertie from Wesson and Samson.

50:39Well, good evening. My name is Jeff

50:40Albertie. As uh Lisa indicated, uh I'm

50:44president of West and Samson and I

50:46appreciate the opportunity to present to

50:47you this evening and uh I had an

50:50opportunity opportunity to present to

50:51you back in March on this project. And

50:53during that presentation, I spent quite

50:55a bit of time uh outlining the

50:57deficiencies in the existing facilities

51:00uh at the Stadium Drive site. But this

51:02evening, what I wanted to do was provide

51:04a highle summary of those deficiencies.

51:06I think that's important to set the

51:07stage for why the city needs this

51:09facility. Um and then from there we'll

51:12talk about the proposed facility which

51:13will address these deficiencies and

51:15provi pro provide the city with a new

51:17and safe facility for the division of

51:20public works and the community as a

51:22whole. So the first deficiency and I'll

51:25show you some photographs of what we

51:26observed through an independent

51:28evaluation of the existing conditions

51:30but the first was really related to the

51:32inadequate storage for the DPW fleet.

51:35the DPW fleet, which is one of the

51:37largest investments in vehicles and

51:39equipment that the city has made, and

51:41the DPW does their best to protect that

51:42equipment by storing as much equipment

51:44inside as possible. However, because the

51:47facility is wolffully undersized, that

51:50equipment has to be stacked in like a

51:52can of sardines, as you can see in the

51:54photograph on the right. And this not

51:56only makes it difficult to navigate the

51:58building, but it also makes access

52:00unsafe and inefficient for the staff

52:02when they're trying to access that

52:04equipment or move it out to uh respond

52:06to the needs of the community.

52:09Because the existing facility is

52:10undersized as uh as the director

52:12indicated, more than 80% of the fleet is

52:15forced to be stored outdoors, exposing

52:17this multi-million dollar fleet to harsh

52:20winter conditions, which in turn impact

52:22vehicle life expectancy. It increases

52:24maintenance costs. It contributes to

52:26operational inefficiencies and exposes

52:29the employees to unnecessary safety

52:31issues when accessing accessing this

52:33equipment in severe weather.

52:38Similar to the vehicle storage area, the

52:39fleet maintenance area. This is the area

52:41responsible for maintaining this

52:43critical first responder DPW fleet. This

52:46area is undersized for today's equipment

52:48and fleet maintenance operations. This

52:50negatively impacts the safety and

52:52efficiency for the fleet maintenance

52:53staff. And as you can see from the

52:55photos in the bottom right, there is

52:56little to no room to move around this

52:58equipment to perform the regular and

53:00emergency maintenance activities that

53:02are needed to maintain this fleet.

53:06This is a view of the break room that

53:08exists at the existing site. And the

53:10break room is the only space, this

53:11particular break room is the only space

53:13available to support up to 45 staff on a

53:16regular basis. And if you look at that

53:18photograph and you start counting up the

53:19chairs, you'll see that uh that that

53:22space is significantly undersized for

53:23that 45 those 45 staff. But what makes

53:26it a lot worse is that during a storm

53:28event, this room needs to support

53:29upwards of 75 staff who could be here

53:32for a 24-hour or 48 hour uh storm event.

53:36So clearly this space is in is

53:38inadequately sized. And what happens is

53:39the staff are forced to actually take

53:42breaks in the vehicle and equipment

53:43storage area, that first photograph that

53:45I showed you. So, you can imagine it's

53:47an unsafe condition and has uh very poor

53:49air quality for staff to be taking

53:51breaks.

53:52I also had an opportunity to take a look

53:54and inspect the mechanical systems or

53:57I'll say the lack thereof in the

53:59existing facility. The first photo shows

54:01a very old and outdated boiler system

54:04and adjacent to that is some of the

54:06heating components or what's left of

54:08them. This equipment is old and in many

54:10in many cases not operational. And I

54:13also spent some time when I was walking

54:15through the facility to look for the

54:16ventilation system. When you have that

54:18equipment stored inside a storage

54:20graduate, it's important to have a

54:22proper ventilation system to exhaust the

54:24fumes. And uh based on my observations,

54:26the building does not have a functional

54:28ventilation system. In fact, the really

54:31only ventilation system is to open up

54:33the overhead doors to allow fresh air

54:35in. And while that may be okay in the

54:38warmer months, you can imagine in the

54:40winter months, uh that is uh definitely

54:43not uh energy efficient.

54:45And with regard to the structure itself,

54:47in the last photographs in the bottom

54:48right at the stadium drive facility, the

54:51city had an independent building

54:53envelope evaluation completed by D21

54:55architects in November of 2025. Uh this

54:58study determined that the envelope

55:00showed clear signs of extensive

55:01deterioration and widespread material

55:05failure throughout. And the photos in

55:07the bottom right show some of the

55:09systemic envelope cracking and

55:11significant corrosion that's impacting

55:13the integrity of this existing building.

55:17And finally, one of the other uh aspects

55:19that was um evaluated was an independent

55:22assessment uh hazardous materials and

55:24identification study which was also done

55:26in October of 2025 by Universal

55:29Environmental Consultants. And based on

55:31those observations uh that building uh

55:33has issues with asbestous, PCBs, and

55:36lead paint. And furthermore, the air

55:38quality tests that were completed within

55:40that building identified elevated levels

55:42of carbon monoxide as well as total

55:44volatile organic compounds, both of

55:47which present potential health hazards

55:49and safety concerns for staff working

55:51within the existing facilities. So in

55:53summary, the existing facility is

55:55undersized for current DPW operations

55:58and the building systems and the

55:59envelope have exceeded their useful

56:01life. And these deficiencies contribute

56:03to inefficient and unsafe working

56:05conditions while providing inadequate

56:07protection for the city's substantial

56:09investment in the DPW fleet. So that

56:12helps to set the stage. I know it's a

56:14little bit on the negative side. So, I

56:15want to turn it to the positive side and

56:17talk about what is going to be provided

56:20at a high level overview of the proposed

56:22garage and maintenance facility addition

56:24at the West Hall Street site, which will

56:26address all of these deficiencies that

56:28we just discussed and provide a safe and

56:30efficient facility for DPW staff while

56:33protecting a large portion of the city's

56:35DPW fleet. This image here is an aerial

56:38photograph showing the existing DPW site

56:41located at 848 West Hollis Street. And

56:44you can see in the center, this is a

56:46view of the existing DPW offices. And

56:49what's being proposed is a an addition,

56:52a garage and maintenance facility

56:53addition to the back of that building

56:56shown here with a white outline. It's

56:58100 approximately 127,800

57:01ft² addition. It includes ancillary

57:03support site uh site items such as

57:06employee parking, assault storage

57:08structure, as well as the circulation to

57:10access in and around that building.

57:13This is a blowup of the proposed floor

57:15plan and I just wanted to highlight some

57:17of the main components of the building.

57:19There are really three main components.

57:20The first is the vehicle storage and

57:22operations area. This is the area shown

57:25in green as well as beige. This space is

57:28a significant step up from what exists

57:30today. In fact, the current facility can

57:33only house, as was mentioned earlier, 67

57:35pieces of equipment. And as you saw

57:37them, they were jam-packed in. Under

57:39this new uh scenario, under this new

57:41proposed plan, this new facility will be

57:43able to house 170 pieces of equipment.

57:46And the new facility will not only

57:48protect the equipment and help extend

57:49its useful life, but it will also

57:51provide organized and accessible storage

57:54that allows the staff to safely and

57:56efficiently access that equipment,

57:58improving the overall operational

58:00efficiency of the DPW.

58:02The next area is the fleet maintenance

58:05area, which is the L-shaped area shown

58:07highlighted in blue. This new area will

58:10provide fleet maintenance staff with a

58:11safe and efficient workplace, uh, which

58:14in turn will help to protect the city's

58:15investment in their vehicles and

58:17equipment through improved maintenance

58:19operations. This will improve fleet

58:22reliability, making sure the DPW has the

58:24resources it needs to reliably serve the

58:26community.

58:31The uh the third and final area that I

58:33just wanted to touch on is the wash bay.

58:35And we heard a little bit about vehicles

58:37that need to be replaced because of the

58:38how they're exposed. Uh so the wash bay

58:41is the light we call it a light red

58:43highlighted area to the right, the

58:45appendage off of the uh green storage

58:47area. And this new washbay will allow

58:49the DPW to properly clean and maintain

58:52vehicles and equipment, particularly

58:54following winter operations when they're

58:56exposed to road salt and other corrosive

58:58chemicals. This will help protect the

59:00city's investment in the fleet while

59:02also providing a dedicated location to

59:04appropriately capture and manage any of

59:06the wash water. In the bottom right, the

59:09blue box there, that's a proposed new

59:11salt storage structure about 10,500

59:13square feet that'll store salt product

59:16that's used to maintain the streets for

59:18safety throughout the city. And in the

59:20upper right is a city-wide automatic

59:23vehicle wash that's being shown. This

59:25particular feature is not included in

59:28the current design, but planning has

59:30been made to potentially accommodate one

59:32in the future. So, it's being shown on

59:33the plan.

59:35So, let's take a quick look at the

59:37overall massing of the proposed

59:39addition. The red arrow represents a

59:41view looking towards the proposed

59:43addition. And the next few slides will

59:45show the building elevations as well as

59:46some 3D rendering views from the street.

59:49And one of the strengths of the design

59:51is how it works with the existing

59:53topography and the natural vegetation

59:55buffer to create a facility that really

59:57fits well within the site and its

59:59surroundings.

1:00:01So this first this first view is along

1:00:03the west elevation which faces West

1:00:05Hollis Street and you can see the

1:00:07two-dimensional building elevation in

1:00:09the bottom and if you look where the

1:00:12text appeared there you can see the

1:00:14existing DPW offices and behind those

1:00:17DPW offices is the vehicle storage and

1:00:19vehicle operations area. So using the

1:00:21topography and the natural vegetation,

1:00:23I'll show you in a moment that DPW is

1:00:26able to really construct this facility

1:00:29in a way that uh really has no visual

1:00:31impact. This is a view looking uh from

1:00:34the entrance in front of the DPW office

1:00:36area. And you have to look real hard to

1:00:38see the building further in the

1:00:40background.

1:00:44Uh this next view is on the left side.

1:00:46This is of the north elevation. This is

1:00:50a view from the recycling center. And so

1:00:52again, you can see the DPW offices on

1:00:54the right. You can see the topography,

1:00:56the darker line, how it steps down. So

1:00:58the design team used that to help

1:01:00control the overall massing. And behind

1:01:02the or to the left of the offices, you

1:01:06can see the vehicle storage area. And to

1:01:08the left of that is the vehicle

1:01:09maintenance, fleet maintenance. And so

1:01:12similarly, if you look at a photograph

1:01:14with that overlaid on a view from the uh

1:01:17West Hall Street, you can see just a

1:01:19portion of the existing DPW offices and

1:01:21a very small portion of the vehicle

1:01:23storage area. So really fits in well

1:01:25with the surrounding area.

1:01:27So in closing on my piece of the

1:01:30presentation, I just wanted to talk

1:01:31about uh the benefits. And I say this

1:01:35often when I talk about uh new

1:01:36facilities like this is I could probably

1:01:38spend a whole hour just talking about

1:01:39the benefits, but I won't do that this

1:01:41evening. I'll just provide you the

1:01:42highlights. Um, and number one and first

1:01:44and foremost, it provides a code

1:01:47compliant, OSHA compliant, and safe work

1:01:49environment for city employees. It'll

1:01:52protect the city's multi-million dollar

1:01:54investment in their vehicles and

1:01:55equipment by putting a large portion of

1:01:57the fleet undercover. It's going to

1:01:59provide a much more modern fleet

1:02:01maintenance area, improving uh

1:02:03maintenance and safety and efficiency

1:02:05operations.

1:02:07uh all of the spaces will make public

1:02:09works uh much more efficient and respon

1:02:12in turn you'll have better response

1:02:14times to serve the public and putting

1:02:16the equipment and protecting that

1:02:17equipment indoors will reduce fleet

1:02:19maintenance costs as well as unscheduled

1:02:21maintenance activities

1:02:23and as I've shown you from the

1:02:25conditions of the existing facility by

1:02:27constructing this facility eliminates

1:02:29the need to invest money and band-aids

1:02:31for the existing substandard facility or

1:02:34replace a facility that gets mandated

1:02:36due to the current conditions that exist

1:02:38there today. So, at this point, I'm

1:02:40going to turn it over to Rob to talk

1:02:41about the budgeting process.

1:02:49Good morning, folks. Good evening,

1:02:51folks.

1:02:53Good morning soon, though. Um, my name

1:02:56is Rob Pruner. I'm with Harvey, and I

1:02:58appreciate the opportunity to come speak

1:03:00with you tonight and briefly explain how

1:03:02we arrived at tonight's GMP. Um, as you

1:03:06can see, back in 2021,

1:03:09there was a concept that was developed

1:03:10and that was a blue sky. Everything's

1:03:12perfect. How what's the program going to

1:03:14look like and how much it's going to

1:03:15cost? And that was roughly at that $66

1:03:18million range back in 2021.

1:03:21As things evolved, um, the DPW and the

1:03:24team understood that that that was way

1:03:26beyond the city's means in terms of

1:03:28being able to financing that kind of

1:03:29facility. So they had to work on on

1:03:31reducing the program yet still being

1:03:34able to service the city in many

1:03:35different ways. Um so we we took the

1:03:39taking another step back. We did take a

1:03:41look at what it would cost to to

1:03:43renovate um this the existing building

1:03:46on Stadium Drive. And it used to be

1:03:49years ago that it was less expensive to

1:03:51renovate than it was to build new. And

1:03:53that has changed now. Now it's just as

1:03:56expensive to build to renovate as it is

1:03:58to build new. except for the the

1:04:00downside to renovations are you it takes

1:04:03longer, you do not get the program that

1:04:05you want. Um so so we we determined it

1:04:09would probably cost about $20 million to

1:04:11replace that building. And as you've

1:04:12seen the pictures, uh there really was

1:04:15not a great chance structurally or from

1:04:18an envelope perspective to renovate the

1:04:20existing building. So it really would

1:04:22have had to been replace it in kind. But

1:04:24that would not have meet the even even

1:04:26building replacing that building it

1:04:27would not meet the uh program

1:04:29requirements of roughly 130 140,000

1:04:32square feet of space that's needed. Um

1:04:34so we determined it would probably cost

1:04:35around 46 thou $46 million if you could

1:04:38build it on Stadium Drive, but the but

1:04:40the real estate doesn't allow you to do

1:04:41that anyway. So they they we had to

1:04:43start looking elsewhere. In May of 2025,

1:04:47um the the the design evolved into

1:04:50138,000 plus uh square foot facility and

1:04:53we estimated the cost to be around $44.7

1:04:56million. Um moving forward as as the

1:04:59design kind of continued to evolve and

1:05:01decisions were made. Um in October, um

1:05:05we're sitting here and we're we're at

1:05:0643.479

1:05:08million uh for a 138,400T

1:05:13facility. And I do I apologize. There is

1:05:15an a mistake on that 317 per square

1:05:18foot. It's $314

1:05:20per square foot that that we're

1:05:22currently at. And it's important to know

1:05:24that 3 months ago we were at 45.5

1:05:27million and the DPW came to us and said

1:05:30we need to think about savings. We need

1:05:32to find ways that we can we can uh

1:05:34protect our program and the things that

1:05:36we need to service the city. Um but we

1:05:39got to bring the cost down. So, we came

1:05:41up with 50 or 50 or 60 different ideas

1:05:43on how we could bring the cost down. And

1:05:45as a result, uh the city said said yes

1:05:47to about $2 million worth of that,

1:05:49getting us to this $43.4 million.

1:05:54Um and that process was well thought out

1:05:57and I was I was encouraged by the the

1:05:59way that the committee thought about

1:06:01balancing size of the building, program

1:06:03of the building, schedule as well as

1:06:05what is financially feasible from the

1:06:07city's perspective.

1:06:09So, that's kind of where how we got to

1:06:11where we are today. And that's a GMP.

1:06:13Um, we've started to bid this out a

1:06:15little bit. Um, we will take every bid

1:06:17package. Um, and and bid it out to at

1:06:20least a minimum of three different

1:06:22trades in each trade group, three

1:06:25different electricians. We'll get six or

1:06:27eight different numbers. Same thing on

1:06:29mechanical site all the way through. We

1:06:31do have done full detailed estimates.

1:06:34So, we do know exactly where every line

1:06:35item in this budget uh kind of falls. We

1:06:38we uh we have provided for

1:06:41contingencies. The way that this works,

1:06:43this is construction management. So any

1:06:46any savings that is found throughout the

1:06:48process comes back to the city for you

1:06:50to decide what you want to do with it.

1:06:52Um and we're hopeful that hopeful that

1:06:54we're able to save some of that

1:06:55contingency money and and and make sure

1:06:57that the city is able to to take that

1:06:58back and and work with it. Um so that's

1:07:02kind of how we got there. I do want to

1:07:03just mention three quick things. one is

1:07:05in terms of cost that there is a cost of

1:07:07doing nothing. Um and and I I I say that

1:07:11with all sincerity because we're running

1:07:13at about a four to five um per month uh

1:07:17escalation clip right now and over the

1:07:19last four months it's been ranging

1:07:21around 4.7 uh%. Um so waiting 5 years to

1:07:25do to do this could could change that

1:07:27price to 52 to 54 million if I do my

1:07:31math correctly. Um based on that 43.4 4

1:07:34million. Um so so the and that does not

1:07:38include the cost of uh fixing emergency

1:07:41items, leaks, things that are going on

1:07:44with the existing stadium building. So

1:07:46there's that cost as well as the

1:07:48escalation cost in construction over the

1:07:49next 5 years if if you choose to wait.

1:07:52Um I also tariffs is a word that gives

1:07:54people hives these days. Um and and we

1:07:58account for that and we do we we we have

1:08:01tariff contingencies that are outlined

1:08:03in excuse me in our estimate. Um and

1:08:06it's important to know that we we vet

1:08:08that out with the subcontractors. We

1:08:10talk to them about what pricing risks

1:08:12are out there. Um and we gauge those in

1:08:15our estimate. It's it's all reflective

1:08:18in this detailed estimate that the

1:08:19committee has has has looked at. And

1:08:22finally, I think I think if if you

1:08:25choose to move forward with this, you're

1:08:27talking about a 50 plus year building.

1:08:29This is a building that's going to take

1:08:30a very different approach than was taken

1:08:33in the 1970s. In the 70s, there was an

1:08:35oil crisis. There was a financial

1:08:36crisis. Materials were not made the way

1:08:39they are today. So, it was a risky it

1:08:41was a risky move 50 plus years ago to

1:08:44build this building. Today, we're

1:08:45talking about stronger durability of

1:08:47product. structurally, we we've got a

1:08:49very structurally sound building. Um the

1:08:52envelope is going to protect the people

1:08:53and the vehicles inside this building.

1:08:56So, we foresee this as being more than a

1:08:5850-year investment um for the city. And

1:09:01and I think that uh you can have

1:09:03confidence in that from a both a

1:09:04maintenance and a and a construction

1:09:06perspective. So, I again, I appreciate

1:09:09having the opportunity to kind of just

1:09:10quickly outline from the construction

1:09:12perspective uh where we're at and uh I

1:09:15appreciate having this opportunity to

1:09:17speak with you. And I think I'm turning

1:09:19things over to Scott to talk a little

1:09:20bit about sustainability.

1:09:29>> Okay. Hello everybody. My name is

1:09:31Scottlair. I'm the CEO of Fitz and

1:09:33Tatachi Engineering. We're the

1:09:35mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire

1:09:37protection engineers for the for the

1:09:40facility. And I want to talk to you

1:09:41mostly tonight about something I've

1:09:43talked to you in the past a little bit

1:09:44about. It's the sustainability, energy

1:09:46efficiency

1:09:48um components of the building. Just to

1:09:50kind of make sure you understand that

1:09:52we're really, you know, driving home

1:09:54sustainability in this particular uh

1:09:57project opportunity. Um we're looking at

1:10:00high performance envelopes. We're

1:10:02getting ready for foldable voltaics,

1:10:05um, you know, high efficiency lighting,

1:10:07uh, energy recovery ventilation, uh,

1:10:10radiant heating. You know, there's a

1:10:12number of different things that we're

1:10:13doing here, but there's one sort of very

1:10:15unique opportunity that we're taking

1:10:17advantage of with this particular

1:10:18project, and it has all to do with the

1:10:20location. Um, as you all know, this

1:10:23location is at the the landfill site for

1:10:26Hills. Um, and there's been a an on-site

1:10:29methane recovery um, generation plant

1:10:33there for sort of decades at this point

1:10:35that's been running. Um, that particular

1:10:38plant's been generating energy that um,

1:10:40the city essentially gets money for as

1:10:43it's sold back onto the grid. Um, but

1:10:46that that plant also generates a lot of

1:10:48heat and that heat is really just going

1:10:50up the stack and going outside and it's

1:10:52been doing that for decades. Um but this

1:10:54particular project opportunity gives you

1:10:56a great opportunity to take advantage of

1:10:58that. And so we have worked into this

1:11:01project the ability to recover um the

1:11:04heat that's um generated off the methane

1:11:07plant. It basically heats the whole

1:11:09facility. Um and really you can think of

1:11:11that as sort of free heat. Um which and

1:11:14it's a lot. It's a big building. There's

1:11:15a lot of heat. It gets cold here. Um so

1:11:18we really you know it's a very unique

1:11:20opportunity that you don't get in most

1:11:22projects. Um, and but we are definitely

1:11:25taking advantage of it here and it

1:11:26lowers the the energy uh use and the the

1:11:30emissions on this project significantly.

1:11:33And then you just click to the next

1:11:34ones. And just, you know, there's a

1:11:36couple of graphs down here that talk

1:11:37about the amount of energy, but I think

1:11:39the best way to think about it is really

1:11:42just, you know, looking at that top

1:11:44bubble. you know, using this design and

1:11:47the way that we put things together

1:11:48here, it really saves the amount of

1:11:51energy that almost a hundred homes use

1:11:53in a year. So, um, which is quite a bit

1:11:56of energy there. And then talking about

1:11:58how much emissions is reduced, it's

1:12:00about this, it's actually like taking

1:12:01more than a 100 cars off the road. So,

1:12:04those are kind of the sort of feel of

1:12:07the numbers we're talking about here.

1:12:09And that's coming from all these

1:12:10sustainability features that are

1:12:12implemented into the project that

1:12:14everyone's presenting here. Um, as you

1:12:16know, to include obviously the methane

1:12:18recovery and the heat recovery off of

1:12:20that. So, next one. Um, and just, you

1:12:24know, we talked earlier about health and

1:12:26safety type uh improvements with the

1:12:28project. Um, just summarizing some of

1:12:31those as they relate to the mechanical

1:12:33electrical systems in the building. Um

1:12:35the ventilation side, you heard there's

1:12:37no ventilation in the other building. We

1:12:39have sort of high efficiency ventilation

1:12:41in the in the new facility. Um that has

1:12:44appropriate air changes. Um has sensing

1:12:47of you know vehicle exhaust, other other

1:12:50potential pollutants. Um we we're

1:12:53capturing any kind of vehicle uh

1:12:56emissions. Um we're recovering energy

1:12:58from the air that we're bringing in and

1:13:00bringing out. Um that's on the energy

1:13:02side. uh any welding, things like that.

1:13:04We're pick up all those exhausts and

1:13:07bring them to the outside. Um and then

1:13:09we also are implementing radiant

1:13:10heating, which um if you're not familiar

1:13:12with that, it's essentially heating the

1:13:14floor instead of heating the air. And if

1:13:16you think about a lot of the operations

1:13:18in fleet and areas like that, and this

1:13:20is specific to the fleet area. Um you

1:13:23you know, it's a kind of a high bay

1:13:25facility. There's no reason to heat the

1:13:27entire area. You heat where the people

1:13:29are, which is down at the floor. So uh

1:13:32again another energy efficient kind of

1:13:34way for us to to really provide a lot of

1:13:37thermal comfort um for the type the

1:13:40employees that are working in the

1:13:41facility.

1:13:42So I just wanted to kind of summarize

1:13:44again the uh energy efficiency and and

1:13:47you know carbon reduction type items and

1:13:50the health and safety features that have

1:13:52been built into this uh exciting

1:13:54project. So, thanks a lot.

1:13:58I think I'll pass it off to Commissioner

1:14:02Greg who's

1:14:05>> Thank you, Scott. Uh, I I just want to

1:14:08take a moment to thank Director Photo

1:14:10and the team for continuously looking

1:14:11for ways to give back money to the city

1:14:14as well as the thorough work on this

1:14:16presentation. It really has been kind of

1:14:18a joy to be part of this. And of course,

1:14:20thank you alderman for your time

1:14:21tonight. For the record, my name is

1:14:23Commissioner Greg. I'm the vice chair of

1:14:25the board of public works and much of

1:14:27what I'm presenting to you has been

1:14:28brought up by my colleagues. But for my

1:14:30part, I'm going to focus on some of the

1:14:32important numbers starting with three.

1:14:35First, we estimate that about 875,000 a

1:14:39year in mainten maintenance savings will

1:14:41be made establishing a possible range of

1:14:43about 500,000 to 900,000. So, where do

1:14:47these numbers come from? Vehicles stored

1:14:49outside of New Hampshire winters break

1:14:51down more, they wear out faster, and

1:14:53they cost more to keep running. And the

1:14:55research published on this in Fleet

1:14:57Maintenance and Government Fleet

1:14:58magazines, which are two industry

1:14:59publications for fleet managers, they

1:15:02compared municipal fleets stored indoors

1:15:04and outdoors. It found what some of us

1:15:06know to be true living in New Hampshire,

1:15:08that outdoor storage costs roughly three

1:15:10times as much over a vehicle's life,

1:15:13about 8,000 more per vehicle per year.

1:15:16move 103 vehicles indoors, which is our

1:15:18plan, and that adds up. I'll walk

1:15:20through the details in a couple of

1:15:22slides. Second, 103 more vehicles moved

1:15:25out of the weather and into a garage.

1:15:28Third, 14.7 million in city equipment

1:15:30protected that's sitting outside today.

1:15:33Over the life of this building,

1:15:34maintenance savings alone recovers 25 to

1:15:3745 million before we count safety,

1:15:38compliance, or what it would cost to

1:15:40keep patching the old one. Uh, if we can

1:15:43go to the next slide. So, here's where

1:15:45we're at today. We have 364 vehicles and

1:15:48pieces of equipment and 268 of them are

1:15:51registered. We can house 67 today

1:15:54extremely uncomfortable in the street

1:15:55apartment building. That leaves 201

1:15:58registered vehicles outside or in cold

1:16:00storage through New Hampshire winters.

1:16:0245 million in fleet value. 3/4 of it

1:16:05exposed. And the building we do have is

1:16:07nearly 50 years old with the OSHA,

1:16:10asbestous, and air quality problems you

1:16:12saw earlier. This isn't a building we

1:16:14can keep patching. If we can go to the

1:16:16next slide. So that new garage that

1:16:19we're talking about changes that

1:16:20picture. The capacity goes up to 170

1:16:23vehicles, about 2/3 of our registered

1:16:25fleet. Uh I think this says 67 on the

1:16:27slide deck. I think uh director photo

1:16:30mentioned this. It's about it's closer

1:16:31to 64% but close enough. 2/3 of the

1:16:34registered fleet. So that's about that's

1:16:36103 more vehicles indoors protecting an

1:16:39additional 14.7 million in equipment.

1:16:42It's also a modern building. Proper

1:16:44drainage so we're not running

1:16:45contaminants into storm water,

1:16:47environmental protection, and a

1:16:48workspace that's OSHA compliant. Our

1:16:51employees work in this building every

1:16:52day. So they deserve one that's safe and

1:16:54that has proper air flow and other

1:16:56accutrants.

1:16:58If we can go to the next slide. Earlier

1:17:01I mentioned the industry research. So

1:17:03here's what it says and where those

1:17:04numbers came from. The study from

1:17:06government fleet looked at a 60 vehicle

1:17:08municipal fleet over 50 years. Stored

1:17:11outdoors, these vehicles cost 38 million

1:17:13to maintain and operate. Stored indoors,

1:17:1613 million. That's where the three uh

1:17:18that's where the three times figure

1:17:20comes from. We scaled that to our 103

1:17:22additional vehicles. That straight math

1:17:24lands us near the top of our range

1:17:26around 875,000 a year. We set the low

1:17:29end at 500,000 just in case the fleet

1:17:31doesn't match the study perfectly. So

1:17:33that's how we get the 500 thou 500 to

1:17:35900,000 r range per year and

1:17:38extrapolated over 50 years we get 25 to

1:17:4045 million over the life of the

1:17:42building. Uh where do these savings come

1:17:44from? Fewer breakdowns, less unscheduled

1:17:47maintenance, vehicles that last longer

1:17:49before they need replacing, less wear

1:17:50from cold starts, and crews who don't

1:17:52start a snowstorm uh by digging out the

1:17:54trucks. If we can go to the next slide.

1:17:58About 20 years ago, the city had a

1:18:01proposal for a public works garage. If

1:18:03we had built it then, we'd have saved a

1:18:04ton of money in a like for-like

1:18:06comparison. We didn't. And here's what

1:18:08waiting would cost now. You build it

1:18:10today, 53.5 million for everything. Wait

1:18:145 years, about 71 million once you add

1:18:16construction inflation and the

1:18:18maintenance savings that we'd lose. 10

1:18:20years, about 88 million. 15, we're

1:18:22looking at about 110 million. And that

1:18:25chart's conservative. It just assumes

1:18:27about 4% inflation below the national

1:18:29average and current construction

1:18:30inflation. Waiting doesn't save money.

1:18:33It just moves the bill to a bigger

1:18:34number. So, if we can go to the next

1:18:36slide,

1:18:38here's the decision in front of

1:18:39everybody. A 53.5 million investment

1:18:42that protects 14.7 million in fleet

1:18:44assets, moves 103 more vehicles indoors,

1:18:47extends the vehicle life, cuts

1:18:49maintenance 15 to 25%, and gets our

1:18:52crews out the door faster when storms

1:18:53hit, which then gives us faster

1:18:55capability to get our fire trucks and

1:18:56first responders on the road to assist

1:18:58emergencies. It saves an estimated 500

1:19:01to 900,000 a year. And a 5-year delay

1:19:04adds at least 12 million, closer to 17

1:19:06million on our own chart. We also have a

1:19:09AAA, as many of you know, a AAA bond

1:19:10rating right now, which means we borrow

1:19:12at some of the best rates available.

1:19:13This facility has to be replaced

1:19:15eventually. Question is whether or not

1:19:17we do it on our terms at today's price

1:19:19or as an emergency at tomorrow's price.

1:19:21So, we are asking you in front of the uh

1:19:24board right now to consider doing it

1:19:25now.

1:19:30>> And that should be wrapped up.

1:19:33>> D Cummings.

1:19:36>> Yes. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh uh

1:19:39Tim Cummings, director of administrative

1:19:41services. So that concludes our formal

1:19:42presentation this evening. I I would ask

1:19:45that you uh look favorably on R2672

1:19:51uh when when it comes forward for uh

1:19:54voting and and for your final

1:19:55recommendation uh before it goes to the

1:19:58full board of alderman. I'll note that

1:19:59we are trying hard to get this project

1:20:01under construction for this fall. Um if

1:20:05we were to receive approval of the of

1:20:07the bond, we would um at the at the full

1:20:10board of alderman in um October, we

1:20:14would then have a joint committee

1:20:15meeting where we still need to get the

1:20:17contracts uh authorized and that would

1:20:19be the the particularly the GMP hoping

1:20:22to do that um at the at the end of the

1:20:24October for a notice to proceed and

1:20:26really to start the project in earnest

1:20:28in November.

1:20:30>> Thank you. Are there any one that want

1:20:32the board that wants to amp add any

1:20:34amplifying questions of the

1:20:36presentation? I know we've seen this

1:20:37several times. Okay, seeing none,

1:20:41I'll now open up testimony in favor of R

1:20:4526072,

1:20:50Commissioner Sheay,

1:20:55uh, Board of Public Works Commissioner

1:20:56Paul Sheay. I thank everyone for their

1:21:00part in this presentation tonight. It

1:21:02was very thorough and covered a lot of

1:21:03the reasons, so I don't need to say too

1:21:06much. Uh I was up here uh sometime last

1:21:09year and um and we reviewed this project

1:21:13and talked about it and I spoke on what

1:21:15we would prefer. And for me the the

1:21:18biggest

1:21:20factor in making this investment is uh

1:21:24preference to ensure that our employees

1:21:26have a safe and healthy working

1:21:28environment and a place where they can

1:21:30do their job efficiently and we can take

1:21:33care of our our people. Um, I I also

1:21:37just want to say because my son will be

1:21:39very pleased, um, and he's been very

1:21:42patient tonight that I I appreciate

1:21:45Matty Greg, uh, Commissioner Greg's, uh,

1:21:47presentation. Uh, it's very good to get

1:21:50those numbers in because that's a a

1:21:52tough thing to account for. So, it's

1:21:55exceptional that he did the the leg work

1:21:58there. So, so thank you to Commissioner

1:22:00Greg for that. And my son is very

1:22:02pleased that the number 67 appeared in

1:22:05the in

1:22:08the presentation three times and um it

1:22:11it put a little spark in him uh at at a

1:22:15a tiring hour. So um

1:22:18anyh who um thank you all so much. Uh I

1:22:21I appreciate your support for for the

1:22:23work of our our city workers and for the

1:22:26infrastructure that's required uh to to

1:22:29get the job done. And um thank you.

1:22:32>> Okay. Any other testimony in favor?

1:22:37>> Seeing no additional testimony in

1:22:39opposition,

1:22:49Lori Erdolano Nasha. So, you know, my

1:22:52concern is cost. Um, and I think the

1:22:54board has expressed that concern over

1:22:57time when we look at this project from

1:22:59the design phase and the amount of money

1:23:02needed to uh design or do planned design

1:23:06work, architectural work for this

1:23:08building. And I know we see the bond for

1:23:10435. We have an additional $3.1 million

1:23:14added to that. And with the design work,

1:23:16I think we're clearly up over a project

1:23:19total cost of around 52 million. That's

1:23:22a lot of money. And I just want to say

1:23:24this because I looked at the capital I

1:23:26looked at the ad hoc committee and

1:23:28needs. First of all, I don't know how

1:23:31this fits into the bonding plan of, you

1:23:35know, trying to minimize bonding

1:23:36annually to $30 million. Um, this would

1:23:40go clearly past that. I'm concerned

1:23:43about our budget process in general in

1:23:46this city. Um, you know, if you look on

1:23:49page 11 of the budget, that is the

1:23:52amended budget that was voted on by the

1:23:55board at the end of June. Uh, on page

1:23:5811, you had the mayor's statement of the

1:24:01estimated increase to the budget. And in

1:24:03that book or in that report at the end

1:24:06of June once it was amended, it was

1:24:082.97%.

1:24:10The real budget increase is 8 12% after

1:24:14spending down 6 million out of surplus

1:24:18to knock it down two more points. It was

1:24:20closer to 10 1 12%. Nowhere near. It was

1:24:24three times higher than what we had

1:24:27believed it was going to be. I don't

1:24:30know why it's so difficult to get a

1:24:34pretty solid number on what that

1:24:36increase is going to be by the time you

1:24:38vote your budget, but I know that I

1:24:41don't believe taxpayers anticipate the 8

1:24:4512% increase they're going to see in

1:24:47December. A lot of them are going to get

1:24:49hit with escrow issues cuz that's a lot.

1:24:5210 uh $10,000 of taxes are going to go

1:24:55up another 850 bucks. It's a lot. And

1:25:00and you know when I looked at the

1:25:01projects and I saw the fire station we

1:25:03need is that for Arlington Street I

1:25:06think a very old station that would in

1:25:08far part service um downtown. I can

1:25:12understand that need. Um that's going to

1:25:15be an expensive project and that comes

1:25:17up in the next year or so. Um I'm all

1:25:20for that. I you know it's a 1800's

1:25:23building. You've done a lot of

1:25:25development downtown with a lot of new

1:25:27construction and new buildings, taller

1:25:30buildings. Um, you have a fire station

1:25:33that's very old, very crowded. Um, no

1:25:36doubt doesn't have the workroom or the

1:25:39space for the um, firemen the way a

1:25:42modern station would have. And that's

1:25:45going to be a really important need, a

1:25:47public safety need. And I understand

1:25:49that if I were to pick a project that I

1:25:51think is an important need that I had to

1:25:54make choices on, I'd pick a fire station

1:25:56over a storage facility for equipment. I

1:25:59would um you know, I came to the last

1:26:03board meeting where

1:26:05I think two hours of the presentation

1:26:07was on a potential new art center at Elm

1:26:10Street um auditorium for somewhere on

1:26:14the cost of 32 or 34 million. really

1:26:17mind-boggling. I just don't see us

1:26:20having um the taxpayer

1:26:24um support for that in the end. And I

1:26:26know not many people show up to say

1:26:28much. I don't think they know what to

1:26:29say because they don't know what they're

1:26:31facing. But,

1:26:34you know, it's it's really concerning.

1:26:36And the other thing is I think a lot of

1:26:38our project management and I'm not this

1:26:41is not true of DPW because I think you

1:26:43have a good finance person uh a good

1:26:46numbers person in um DPW who keeps track

1:26:50of spending. That is not true in other

1:26:53projects within the city. We don't have

1:26:56the resources to track spending and that

1:26:59becomes a real problem for me when I

1:27:01look at projects overall in this city.

1:27:04Um, so you know, I I wasn't supportive

1:27:08of this from the beginning. I think

1:27:10we've done a lot to support DPW. We gave

1:27:13them a new building. We closed the old

1:27:15building and gave it to the um police

1:27:17department to do training. Um, we

1:27:20improved, you know, air quality, worker

1:27:22conditions with a new facility. And um

1:27:25we've consolidated everything over on

1:27:27Holl Street which has plus and minuses

1:27:29when you look at road traffic and all

1:27:31for those that live in that ward. But um

1:27:35you know it can't be an endless ask. And

1:27:38I don't envy what you have to decide

1:27:41here. Um I just think that some

1:27:44thoughtful decisions about how much

1:27:47you're going to throw on the back of

1:27:48taxpayers becomes an issue. I think the

1:27:51total cost and I know it showed like

1:27:53$314 a square foot based on the 43

1:27:56million but when you look at allin with

1:28:00the cost of the project it's well over

1:28:02$400 a square foot to end up with that

1:28:05facility when you look at design and the

1:28:07additional bonding money maybe $450.

1:28:10It's a lot. It's a lot and it's a

1:28:12garage. I've never been able to wrap my

1:28:15head around that cost for a garage.

1:28:19Um

1:28:21the other thing is we see a year coming

1:28:24up where you know adequacy aid from the

1:28:27state is reduced. We all I think at the

1:28:30last board meeting it was mentioned that

1:28:31we can't count on the state as much. We

1:28:33have to count on taxpayers. That

1:28:35continues to be the trend. It will

1:28:37continue to be the case here. It will

1:28:40continue to be the case with school

1:28:41funding. And God only knows what um

1:28:45the Supreme Court will decide on the

1:28:46funding case and what will happen in

1:28:48November in the election. But there's a

1:28:51lot of uncertainty there and I do think

1:28:53that overall the burden is going to be

1:28:56on the taxpayer for a lot of these costs

1:28:58and there's a downshifting to

1:28:59municipalities from the state. They've

1:29:02struggled with their own revenue issues

1:29:03up there. I I think you have to be

1:29:06mindful of that and we have to

1:29:07anticipate that that's going to be the

1:29:09case. So those are the reasons I don't

1:29:12support this project. You brought a fire

1:29:14station this year. I'd say okay 1800's

1:29:16building and a fire station that

1:29:18services downtown is a safety need is a

1:29:22immediate need is uh meets the uh

1:29:25development that we've done down here. I

1:29:27could get behind that and and understand

1:29:30that that's a requirement for a larger

1:29:31scale project, but I can't do it for a

1:29:34parking garage. Thank you.

1:29:36>> Anyone else for testimony and

1:29:38opposition?

1:29:40Seeing no one

1:29:43testimony once again in favor.

1:29:48Commissioner Lemon.

1:29:51>> Hi, Commissioner June Lemon. Uh, Board

1:29:53of Public Works. We have been working on

1:29:56this project for a long time and I

1:30:00understand everybody's concern about the

1:30:02money. I mean, I'm a taxpayer in the

1:30:05city just like everybody else. But there

1:30:08is an issue of safety here as well as of

1:30:11money. There's an issue of how much

1:30:14money are we willing to lose in our

1:30:16fleet if we do not protect the assets we

1:30:20have. And personally, I just lost a car

1:30:23this week because of the rain.

1:30:25Seriously, it was given to me. I did not

1:30:27know that the design um features

1:30:31had grommets. It had, not only did it

1:30:34have a sunroof that was leaking, which I

1:30:36was not aware of because I just got this

1:30:38car, was given to me, so I'm not out a

1:30:40lot of money, but um the grommets filled

1:30:43up, so the water did not drain

1:30:46appropriately away from the car. So

1:30:49basically, water came in and it shot all

1:30:51the electronics. For me, that's a

1:30:55$10,000 loss. Personally,

1:30:58um I don't want to see this happen to

1:30:59the city vehicles, which are way more

1:31:01sophisticated, cost a lot more money,

1:31:04and I also am very concerned. No one who

1:31:07has spent time in the current city

1:31:09garage feels like employees should have

1:31:12to work out of there, particularly

1:31:13employees who are doing very heavy duty

1:31:17work like snowplowing. So, you know, I

1:31:22didn't come up for every single

1:31:23resolution. I support all of them and I

1:31:28really support this one. I really think

1:31:29it's time that we just do this. And um

1:31:33when um Ms. Ornalano said, you know,

1:31:36it's not an what did she say? It's not

1:31:38an endless stream of money. I don't

1:31:40think we ask for an endless stream of

1:31:42money except that we have to ask for

1:31:45things that have to be done for the

1:31:47city. You know, we don't we are not

1:31:49cavalier about the money we ask for. Um,

1:31:53we have detailed discussions about this

1:31:56at the board of public works meetings

1:31:58and at the joint special meetings. So, I

1:32:01hardily recommend this project and I ask

1:32:04for your support.

1:32:05>> Thank you. Any other testimony in favor?

1:32:09Seeing no additional, once again,

1:32:11testimony and opposition.

1:32:14Seeing none,

1:32:16I'll close the public hearing on R26072

1:32:19at 8:32

1:32:21p.m. And at 8:32 p.m., I'll open the

1:32:25last public hearing on R26073.

1:32:31Changing the purpose of up to 3,183,200

1:32:37of unspended

1:32:39bond proceeds from various division of

1:32:41public works capital projects to the

1:32:44division of public works garage and

1:32:45fleet maintenance facility project.

1:32:49Director Cummings.

1:32:50>> Yes, thank you for the record. Tim

1:32:51Cummings, director of administrative

1:32:52services, and uh uh I just thought I

1:32:54might start it off this evening. Uh but

1:32:56uh director photo is online and

1:32:58certainly want to provide her an

1:32:59opportunity to speak on this as well if

1:33:01uh if need be. But I thought it would be

1:33:04uh important and imperative to note for

1:33:06the record that this particular

1:33:07resolution is not new bonding. What we

1:33:10are doing is taking existing bonding and

1:33:12just repurposing those funds. So we're

1:33:14not adding any additional debt service.

1:33:16I think that's a really critical point

1:33:18that I wanted to make explicit this

1:33:20evening. Um, so, so that's that's one.

1:33:23Two, these projects have all come to

1:33:25fruition and so they're they're done and

1:33:26completed and so uh this would be a a

1:33:30good and I submit to you an appropriate

1:33:32use uh being uh uh fiscally prudent uh

1:33:35with our with our uh scarce scarce

1:33:38dollars. Um, Mr. Mr. Chim, I also kind

1:33:41of want to take an opportunity if you if

1:33:43you will to to respond to some of the

1:33:45comments that were made uh just just a

1:33:47moment ago because I think it's

1:33:48important to note for the record that um

1:33:51this body and the general public should

1:33:53not be scared for the amount of bonding

1:33:55that we're doing. Um we spent a lot of

1:33:58time over the summer looking at this.

1:34:00That's what the whole ad hoc process was

1:34:03about. So you don't have to feel like uh

1:34:06where, you know, you need to pit one

1:34:08project against another. fire versus

1:34:10library versus DPW. The reality is the

1:34:14city of NSHA has a lot of capital

1:34:15expenditures and a lot of needs and we

1:34:17thought about it in a very um uh

1:34:20deliberative manner. We developed a

1:34:23policy. We're adhering to the guidance

1:34:24that was given and we are working

1:34:26towards and this is an important

1:34:28critical element. We're not talking

1:34:29about authorizing up bonding when we

1:34:32were doing our exercise. we were talking

1:34:33of selling up debt and we are selling

1:34:36debt in a certain way over a period of

1:34:39time to keep our tax rates stable and so

1:34:42that's those points are really critical

1:34:44so you so so those finer points are not

1:34:47missed to the general public because I

1:34:49don't want anyone to be scared thinking

1:34:51oh we're authorizing $60 million of

1:34:53bonding we're authorizing $80 million of

1:34:55bonding and suddenly the tax rate is

1:34:57going is going to shoot up no that is

1:35:00not the case what you will have is

1:35:03authorized spending for certain capital

1:35:05projects that we will sell the debt over

1:35:08a certain period of time and we need to

1:35:10balance that so we have a tax rate that

1:35:13remains stable and that was the whole

1:35:15point of why we took the time this

1:35:17summer and why I can stand here

1:35:19confidently before you and tell you so

1:35:21long as we follow the plan we will have

1:35:23a stable tax rate when it comes to the

1:35:26debt service because that is a known

1:35:29commodity we have certain debt falling

1:35:31off welay layering new debt in. We've

1:35:34we've programmed it appropriately so we

1:35:37won't see a spike in our debt service

1:35:39budget which is in our operational

1:35:41budget. Uh so Mr. Chim, I thought that

1:35:43was a really critical point for for you

1:35:45all to have as you consider the various

1:35:47resolutions before you this evening.

1:35:48Thank you.

1:35:50>> Any amplifying questions?

1:35:52>> No. All right.

1:35:54>> I have a question.

1:35:55>> Yes. Dman Johnson.

1:35:58>> Thank you. Um to Director Cummings,

1:36:00please.

1:36:02Cummings.

1:36:08>> Thank you.

1:36:10How long how are you spreading this out

1:36:14to sell the bonds? Is it going to be one

1:36:16year, two year, three years because of

1:36:18the fact that and how much is falling

1:36:21off? So when debt is falling off, we're

1:36:24adding a new debt, but it's not going to

1:36:26hurt us because there is definitely

1:36:29whatever's falling off is less debt

1:36:32because I've calculated how much

1:36:34interest on all of this except for the

1:36:367-year plan. And with everything you're

1:36:40asking for, that's over $124 million

1:36:42worth of interest that we're paying out

1:36:44on all this debt. That's a lot of money.

1:36:47Johnson, that's probably a question for

1:36:48the budget hearing because that doesn't

1:36:50have anything to do with these

1:36:51>> these particular items. We're just

1:36:54transferring money that's already

1:36:55existing in the bonding. We're not doing

1:36:57additional bonding.

1:36:58>> So maybe he can answer me about the

1:37:00what's falling off in the process here.

1:37:02That is not good because I'm just

1:37:04picking up what he said. So

1:37:06>> what's falling off and

1:37:08>> I mean this this has worked over the

1:37:10years when they built the two new high

1:37:12schools which I was involved in that was

1:37:15175 million 20 years ago. They're all

1:37:18paid off. The middle school project uh

1:37:22was was

1:37:23close to 200 million and we didn't spend

1:37:26all of that. We re we're actually doing

1:37:28another project with some of that

1:37:30funding and and that will start falling

1:37:32off. So there's a there is a schedule

1:37:35that's available that shows how all the

1:37:37money falls off from the various years

1:37:39from the various budgets. So we can talk

1:37:43more about that in budget. Alman Morgan,

1:37:46>> uh thank you. Um to director Cummings,

1:37:50can I have some help on clarifying

1:37:53just the language on this? Um

1:37:57reading 026 uh 026 073 talking about the

1:38:013 million going towards public works

1:38:03garage and fleet maintenance facility

1:38:05project. Is that in reference to 072

1:38:08right before

1:38:11>> Dr. Cummings?

1:38:14>> Uh that's correct if if I may Mr.

1:38:17Chairman. So 026073

1:38:20for the 3.1 million is uh

1:38:24monies from miscellaneous projects that

1:38:27would be repurposed for the DPW garage

1:38:29fleet maintenance facility which is

1:38:31referenced in the resolution right

1:38:32before the resolution right before is

1:38:35new debt. This wouldn't necessarily be

1:38:37new debt. It's repurposed debt.

1:38:39>> Follow up um

1:38:43>> high level. So, I'm just curious why um

1:38:47why you would choose to apply that 3.1

1:38:49million to this specifically versus say

1:38:52one of the other ones we looked at

1:38:55tonight that would have equated to the 3

1:38:58million.

1:39:00It

1:39:00>> I think these are not enterprise funds

1:39:02that we're transferring tonight. The

1:39:04other projects we talked about were

1:39:05enterprise funds, different type of

1:39:07money.

1:39:09>> So,

1:39:09>> director coming.

1:39:10>> Yeah, thank you if I may, Mr. Jim. So,

1:39:12so, uh, all great points and certainly

1:39:15we could we could look at it a couple

1:39:17different ways. I think first and

1:39:19foremost, this question wasn't

1:39:21necessarily asked, but I think it's

1:39:22important to put out there for the

1:39:23record is um, we got advice from our

1:39:26bond council that we really needed to

1:39:28separate these uh, two resolutions into

1:39:32separate this effort into two separate

1:39:34resolutions, not bundle it into into

1:39:37one. Um we essentially have these uh the

1:39:41various needs. As we all know the city

1:39:43has has a lot of needs. The DPW project

1:39:47total project cost is is something in

1:39:50the order of $53 million. You have 43

1:39:53million of hard construction debt and

1:39:55that's the hard construction cost and

1:39:57that's what this new debt resolution

1:39:59covers. But then there's other costs as

1:40:02well that this 3.1 is uh would cover. Um

1:40:06I believe off the top of my head we've

1:40:09offer authorized about about $5 million

1:40:12in in debt for pretty much design. Uh

1:40:15we'll have this uh 43 million then

1:40:18another 3.1

1:40:20um which you know is going to bring us

1:40:22up to about 48 uh to to $50 million

1:40:25which is still under the total project

1:40:27cost that we're actually going to need

1:40:29because to everyone's point we're trying

1:40:31to do this as efficiently as possible

1:40:32and we believe that you know as time

1:40:34goes on we will be able to to bring the

1:40:36project cost down um as we go on. Uh so

1:40:40we didn't want to ask for anything more

1:40:43than we needed because we are certainly

1:40:45very conscious of all the various needs

1:40:47out there and uh as everyone has alluded

1:40:50to um at the start of this evening is is

1:40:54the budget and the money for this

1:40:56project has been forefront in our minds

1:40:59and constantly when when when uh the the

1:41:03numbers were coming in we were asking

1:41:04ourselves what can we do to bring this

1:41:06project in uh you know in line and So

1:41:10through the great work of the

1:41:11consultants here, we had project numbers

1:41:14that were 23 $4 million higher and we we

1:41:16were able to bring it down. And we're

1:41:18trying to do that because we're being

1:41:20conscious of all the various needs that

1:41:22are out in the city. And we don't want

1:41:23to uh uh authorize additional debt that

1:41:26we don't we don't necessarily need, but

1:41:28we do need the 3.1 and the 43 if we're

1:41:31tracking towards a $53 million project.

1:41:34Thank you. And all of these funds are

1:41:37remaining from DPW projects only. So

1:41:40it's going to from there to another DPW

1:41:43project.

1:41:44>> You have a follow-up.

1:41:45>> Yeah. To you then. So your explanation

1:41:48is what was what I was looking for.

1:41:50Could this 3.1 million be used for say

1:41:54um towards the pools? So we're only

1:41:55taking out 2 million instead of five.

1:41:58That was my question.

1:41:59>> Bond council doesn't look at it that

1:42:02way. They try to keep thing if you going

1:42:03to transfer the money it have to be to a

1:42:05similar project.

1:42:06>> Got it. Thank you.

1:42:08>> All right.

1:42:12I'll open it up now to testimony in

1:42:14favor.

1:42:17Seeing none testimony and opposition.

1:42:27My name is Bill Faro. My home is number

1:42:2935 Indian Rock Road. This is certainly a

1:42:32very worthy use of this money, but I

1:42:37don't understand the unexpended bond

1:42:40proceeds.

1:42:41Earlier this evening, Mr. Chairman, you

1:42:44said that if we bond more than we bond

1:42:47more than we need that that extra amount

1:42:49goes back. I'm not sure what that means.

1:42:52goes back is it doesn't go back unless

1:42:55it's a motion of of this board to put it

1:42:57back somewhere. In this instance, we are

1:42:59taking it and putting it back somewhere

1:43:01else in a similar project in accordance

1:43:04with the bond council.

1:43:05>> Okay. But this 3,183,000

1:43:09whatever that didn't go back.

1:43:13It just it just sat there just we

1:43:15continue to pay on it. We continue to

1:43:17pay principal interest on that. All

1:43:19right. When you said goes back,

1:43:21>> it's you made it

1:43:23>> going to another DPW project.

1:43:25>> I understand that, sir.

1:43:26>> It's money that was not spent. It was

1:43:28not costing us anything

1:43:30>> because we never is spent that money on

1:43:33that project. That money now that's left

1:43:36in the authorization of that particular

1:43:39bond.

1:43:39>> Okay.

1:43:40>> Is being transferred to R26072.

1:43:45>> So why did you say that it could go

1:43:47back? You said in other instance you

1:43:48said it could go back

1:43:50>> because one other avenue we have as a

1:43:53board on other projects is that we could

1:43:58take that if there was money left in a

1:44:00bond

1:44:02by similar type of motion as to 73

1:44:06we could dissolve that and never bond

1:44:09it.

1:44:12>> Where would that excess revenue go?

1:44:14>> It's not excess revenue. It just

1:44:16wouldn't be ever be bonded.

1:44:17>> Well, you said you bonded more than you

1:44:20spent than you than you needed is what

1:44:21you said earlier.

1:44:23>> Yes. Let's hypothetically say you bond

1:44:26$5 million. You only spend four. This

1:44:29board could dissolve the last million

1:44:31and never bond it if they wanted to.

1:44:34>> But you've already bonded it.

1:44:36>> Doesn't make any difference. It's only

1:44:37when we bond something, we bond amount

1:44:41of money that could be spent on a

1:44:42project. doesn't mean we're going to

1:44:44spend it. It gets spent by other means.

1:44:47>> You authorize the bonding.

1:44:49>> Yes. But that doesn't mean that we have

1:44:52to spend it.

1:44:53>> But you you infer that you actually

1:44:56borrowed the $5 million.

1:44:58>> No, no, no, no, no. This money has not

1:45:01been borrowed yet.

1:45:03>> It's been authorized, but not borrowed.

1:45:07>> This

1:45:07>> if we borrow it,

1:45:08>> this this 3,18 different story. This

1:45:113,183 has not been borrowed yet.

1:45:15>> Not that I'm aware of. No, it's it's

1:45:17money that's it calls it

1:45:18>> authorized in in that bond that's being

1:45:20transferred to this bond.

1:45:22>> It calls it unexpended bond proceeds.

1:45:27>> It hasn't been spent.

1:45:30Director Cummings, you want to amplify

1:45:32on that?

1:45:36>> No.

1:45:36>> Miss Mullen, do you want to jump in? No.

1:45:45>> Has this 3 million?

1:45:47>> No. There we go.

1:45:48>> Okay.

1:45:50>> No, I think it's been pretty well

1:45:51covered. Um,

1:45:55you know, the money is going to be um

1:45:58removed from the being used for the

1:46:00other projects and just being um

1:46:04used for this project. And

1:46:09um

1:46:11as far as going from

1:46:16um sorry I'm tired.

1:46:19Um sorry from going from

1:46:25>> I'm just going to let it go at this

1:46:26point.

1:46:27>> Yeah.

1:46:27>> Is there another question?

1:46:28>> It's the way bonds work and you have to

1:46:31understand the way bonds work and I

1:46:32don't think you do.

1:46:33>> I apologize for my ignorance. Okay.

1:46:35>> All right. I tried to explain it to you.

1:46:37Let me try and ask the simpler question,

1:46:38right?

1:46:39>> Has this $3,183,200

1:46:43been bonded yet?

1:46:46>> No.

1:46:48>> I can definitively tell you that based

1:46:50on the type of motion we're trying to

1:46:51pass.

1:46:52>> All right. That it's a little bit

1:46:53confusing that it's called unexpended

1:46:55bond proceeds,

1:46:57which makes

1:46:59>> those authorized for us to to borrow,

1:47:02but we haven't done it yet.

1:47:04>> Okay. But Mr. Cummings said this is not

1:47:06new bonding,

1:47:08right?

1:47:10>> It's not new debt.

1:47:11>> It's not new debt. It's moving this

1:47:15amount of authorized funds to a

1:47:17different project. Period.

1:47:22If you don't understand that, maybe you

1:47:24ought to visit the finance director uh

1:47:27at some point.

1:47:28>> That's enough.

1:47:29>> All Mr. Director Cummings.

1:47:32>> Uh thank you. I mean, another way we

1:47:34could look at it is you could make this

1:47:363.1 million go away, right? But then all

1:47:40we would need to do is increase the 43

1:47:42by 3 million, which is another way to

1:47:45kind of get to the same ends uh the same

1:47:47end goal. And certainly if that was the

1:47:50brothers, you could do that, but this

1:47:51was a way to do it uh efficiently as as

1:47:54possible. Thank you.

1:47:57>> Any other amplifying questions? No.

1:48:00>> All right.

1:48:03Any other testimony and opposition?

1:48:05Seeing none, testimony in favor again.

1:48:08Seeing none, testimony and opposition

1:48:11again. Seeing none, close the public

1:48:14hearing in R 26073 at 8:48

1:48:18p.m.

1:48:20And Alderman Clemens, do you have a

1:48:22motion for this?

1:48:23>> I do. I motion to adjourn.

1:48:26>> Motion is to adjourn.

1:48:28I don't think we have anyone online. So

1:48:31all in favor signify by saying I.

1:48:33>> I opposed. Motion carries. We'rejourned

1:48:36at 8:48.

1:48:39All right. So,

```*