2026-10-26 - Budget Review Committee

01:59Mhm.

02:37>> All right.

02:38>> That's how it usually

02:39>> Maybe not today.

02:40>> as that turns to okay.

02:42>> There was warm.

02:43>> Ready?

02:44>> I'm ready.

02:45>> Mute, unmute. Oh, yeah.

03:17>> Here we go.

03:18>> Okay, will you call the roll?

03:21>> Alderman Elijah Michael B. O'Brien is

03:23present.

03:24>> Alderman Elijah Shana Kelly.

03:27>> Here.

03:28>> Alderman Elijah Alicia Gray.

03:30>> Here.

03:32>> Alderman Derek Teebo.

03:33>> Here.

03:35>> Alderman Paula Johnson.

03:36>> Present.

03:37>> Alderman Tim Senate.

03:39>> Here.

03:40>> Alderman Richard Dowd.

03:41>> Present.

03:43>> Okay, have everybody in attendance. Also

03:45here

03:46is

03:48Alderman Clemens.

03:54>> Cleary

03:56Yeah, I can only write so fast, so.

03:58>> [laughter]

03:59>> Alderman Cleary

04:04Alderman Revane

04:09>> [clears throat]

04:09>> And Alderman Wilshire

04:17Um

04:18Alderman Sullivan

04:25Uh and

04:27Alderman Kelly is already here. Also

04:30with us tonight is Don Enwright, CFO,

04:34Jenna McCormick

04:36of the library, I think she still may be

04:39here.

04:39>> Yep.

04:40>> Uh

04:42Fire Chief Steve Buxton and Mr. Tim

04:46Cummings, administrator service

04:48director.

04:49>> I think it's our deputy

04:50>> And Miss Gray from the The Gray from the

04:53National School Department.

04:59Okay.

05:02>> Did you get the deputy chief?

05:04>> Oh.

05:05I guess, yeah. Excuse me, I'm sorry,

05:07Adam.

05:09Assistant Chief Adam Pouliot from the

05:11National Fire Department.

05:13>> All right. First item on the agenda is

05:15public comment. You have 3 and 1/2

05:17minutes. If you want to speak, you must

05:19mention your name and city.

05:28>> Good evening, everyone. I'm Tom Kelly

05:31Board of Nashua Fire Commission.

05:34I'm going to speak to the four

05:35resolutions being presented to you

05:36tonight that were also presented in the

05:38last meeting.

05:40The Board of Fire Commissioners

05:41recognizes that every capital request

05:43competes for limited [clears throat]

05:45taxpayer resources. Our responsibility

05:47is to distinguish between

05:50what would be nice to have and what is

05:51genuinely necessary to maintain a safe,

05:54effective, and professional fire

05:56department. These four initiatives

05:58represent essential investments in

06:00public safety,

06:02infrastructure, and operational

06:03readiness.

06:05All four initiatives have uh initiatives

06:08have been

06:09approached and thoroughly balanced

06:11operational necessity with responsible

06:14capital planning and stewardship of

06:16taxpayer resources.

06:18The Board of Fire Commissioners, as by

06:21the documents contained in your packet,

06:23support these resolutions and

06:24respectfully encourage the committee's

06:27favorable consideration.

06:29Thank you.

06:30>> Thank you.

06:31Anyone else for public comment?

06:35Seeing none, moving on. Communications.

06:39Uh we have from Jennifer McCormack,

06:42Library Director,

06:44recent referral from the Board of

06:46Aldermen Resolution R-26-067.

06:51Also, further communication from

06:54Kevin Burgess, Board of Fire

06:56Commissioners Chairman, on Reason is

06:59R-26-068.

07:02Also, another letter from Kevin Burgess,

07:05Board of Fire Commissioners Chairman,

07:08Reason 26-069.

07:12And further communication from Mr. Kevin

07:15Burgess, Board of Fire Commissioners

07:17Chairman, Reason 26-070.

07:22There being no objection, I'll accept

07:23the communication and place them on

07:25file. Unfinished business?

07:28>> Uh none.

07:29>> New business resolutions. Before we get

07:31into the resolutions, if we could try to

07:33the best of our ability to refrain from

07:35asking the same questions that were just

07:37answered in the public comment or or

07:39anything that was asked and answered. Um

07:42if you want to elaborate on it, fine,

07:44but to move things along uh

07:47And if you have new things, of course,

07:48bring them up.

07:50First is R 26064,

07:52Alderman Bryan.

07:53>> Thank you. Uh

07:5620 uh 26064

07:59uh

08:01amended is authorized in the mayor and

08:03city treasurer to issue bonds not to

08:05exceed 5,173,428

08:11dollars for the purchase of capital uh

08:14equipment.

08:15>> Okay, motion. Go ahead.

08:16>> Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a

08:18motion to recommend final passage.

08:20>> Okay, the motion on the floor is to

08:22recommend final passage to the full

08:23board of R 26

08:26oh

08:2864 as amended.

08:31Discussion? Alderman Kelly.

08:33>> Um thank you. It's a weird place to put

08:35this, but I'm going to ask it. Um so if

08:37my question is to um Director Enright

08:40Oh, you're not you're not a director.

08:41Sorry.

08:42>> [snorts]

08:42>> Um

08:43So I have the bond plan that we worked

08:46through the summer in front of us.

08:47And for example, I I I looked at this

08:51trend and I thought it was interesting.

08:52So

08:54you're asking for the full amount for

08:55ERP. That's actually a million dollars

08:57less than we talked about. Um we

09:00approved the full amount for DPW garage,

09:03but then you look at like your request

09:04for the library, it's a 44

09:06million-dollar project, but we're only

09:07asking for three.

09:09Um and our colleague one of the

09:11colleagues in our chamber also asked

09:12like why are we bonding a million for

09:14fire deferred maintenance where the

09:16actual overall request is 7 and 1/2

09:19million. So why were some projects

09:21requested full and some requested

09:24partial?

09:28>> Director Cummings.

09:28>> Yeah, thank you. I know that was

09:29directed at CFO Enright, but I thought

09:31it might be better for me to answer that

09:33specific question. Uh Tim Cummings,

09:35Director of Administrative Services. And

09:37and the answer to the question is it

09:40hearkens back to something we heard a

09:42couple years ago where we heard that

09:45school building projects and then also

09:47municipal building projects, general

09:49government building projects, really

09:51there was an appetite to have a better

09:53understanding and clarity of what the

09:54construction cost number would be before

09:58we authorized funding. And so we we

10:01started out developing this incremental

10:03or phased approach for the building

10:05projects, doing design, getting a better

10:08understanding of what the building

10:10project would be once we've completed

10:11design and then authorize a authorizing

10:14the construction projects

10:16um, based off of the design as as

10:18developed. So that that is why the not

10:21only the fire station, but the library,

10:24the DPW garage, all have taken a phased

10:27approach to the to the building

10:29projects. Instead of us authorizing the

10:32uh, construction or the total project

10:34cost at all at all at once. Thank you.

10:37>> Follow, please.

10:38>> just one amplification. During the

10:40design phase, you do all the different

10:41levels of drawings to the effect you get

10:43to the construction drawings. The

10:46contract that is going to make the

10:47building uses the construction drawings

10:50to actually price out what the project

10:52is going to cost from a construction

10:54standpoint. I think that's what Director

10:56Cummings was trying to point out. Go

10:57ahead.

10:58>> I understand the design process. I'm

11:00just I was requesting why some were

11:02asked in full and some were asked for

11:04just that first design phase. And I

11:06understand we're trying to transition to

11:08that, but the point was made that we

11:09didn't want to start bonding a million

11:11dollars. So you're asking us for a

11:12million dollars in a couple of these

11:14scenarios where the total picture is

11:17you're actually asking for seven and a

11:18half or whatever. So I do think that

11:20that has to be

11:22addressed when people are asking I

11:24thought we were going to bond a a

11:25million and a half or I thought we

11:27weren't going to do this when the total

11:28project cost isn't a million and a half.

11:30>> I if I if if

11:31>> Yes, Director Cummings.

11:32>> That's an excellent point. I was

11:33actually sitting in the seat thinking

11:35about that when I heard the

11:36conversation. I mean

11:38I'm making this up but certainly we

11:41could authorize 10 million dollars over

11:43a 10-year period and do 1 million

11:46dollars of

11:47a debt selling

11:51for

11:52certain deferred capital maintenance

11:54program. I mean that is that is one way

11:57we could look to do it to your point.

12:00You know if if they are saying the

12:02numbers like 7 7 and a half million I

12:04think um

12:06um

12:07schools is probably something more like

12:10nine nine and a half million. We could

12:12ask for that all up front and know that

12:14that's for a certain period of years

12:17and we would be looking to to authorize

12:20that money and knowing that the money

12:21would be spent over over that period of

12:24time. There's a couple constraints I

12:26just want to kind of point out. One, we

12:28can only um

12:31spend the money so fast. So you

12:32certainly could authorize the money but

12:34we can only

12:35do so many projects in a in a year. So

12:38that's one thing that we need to be

12:39cognizant of.

12:42And the second is is the numbers do

12:44change and they do fluctuate and by us

12:45taking this approach it actually gives

12:47you more control and you you could

12:49actually be a little bit more

12:50deliberative in how you want to approach

12:52it but certainly we could come at it the

12:55from from from the other way and we

12:56could we could look at doing that if

12:57that's of of interest. Thank you.

13:00>> Follow up.

13:01>> Just a response

13:02I think that this is an interesting way

13:04of going about it but we also could end

13:06up bonding money for a project that no

13:08longer has an appetite and now we have

13:10to rebond that money to do the design

13:12phase because it's pushed out 10 years.

13:17>> Alderman Clements

13:18>> Thank you. Well, to that to just to that

13:21very last point. I mean if we have a

13:22design we can always implement it later.

13:26Well, cuz we have the design. Uh that

13:29wouldn't change.

13:30But,

13:31uh in my my uh point was though, even if

13:34we were to do like, for example, the

13:36whole

13:38uh fire station, if we were to

13:40completely

13:41bond that out, including the

13:44um

13:45the design, isn't it true that we

13:48wouldn't

13:50bond the we wouldn't take out the entire

13:52bond, right? We'd only take out the

13:53portion that we were

13:56financing for the

13:58uh

13:58architectural design, correct?

14:04>> Uh that's correct. I mean, there's a

14:05fundamental difference of between

14:07authorization, Tim Cummings, director of

14:09administrative services. Uh there's a

14:10difference between um

14:13uh

14:15authorizing the the the the bond and

14:17then selling of the debt, and we would

14:19only sell what we use.

14:21>> Right. So, so whether we do this in two

14:23different phases or not, we'd still be

14:26in the same

14:27situation, essentially.

14:29>> There's one of the point I want to make

14:31that uh

14:32I'll state and then have uh Ms. Enerate

14:35baptize it.

14:36Um

14:37If we authorize a large amount of money,

14:40and as soon as we start spending it,

14:43as soon as we cuz well, first of all,

14:45most of the time we pay our invoices out

14:47of cash, and then when we need the cash

14:49replacement, we issue the bonds in the

14:51most favorable time to buy the bonds.

14:54But, once we buy the bonds on a large

14:56project, there's a certain amount of

14:58time we have to sell that entire bond.

15:02So, it's safer doing it the way we're

15:04doing it than to authorize the entire

15:06amount, cuz we'll start we'll have to

15:09sell those bonds

15:12uh sooner than we want to.

15:15And she's nodding her head, if you So,

15:20any other questions? All of them clean?

15:21>> Uh thank you, um Mr. Chairman. Um

15:25>> on to what, um, Director Cummings had

15:28add, I remember sitting here in this

15:30chamber when, um, people have come up

15:32and said,

15:34"How can you ask for 15 million or 20

15:36million dollars when you haven't even

15:38done the design and you haven't done

15:39this and so on."

15:41Um, and I don't want to,

15:43you know, kind of

15:45put salt in a wound, but I think the

15:47Performing Arts Center is kind of one of

15:48those things that happened. We got an

15:50initial, this is what we guestimated to

15:53be cost. We said this is what the good

15:55fund was going to be and it ended up

15:56being a little bit higher because when

15:58actual design came through, it was

16:01proven that way. So, I don't want to go

16:03down that road again. I would rather

16:04have, um,

16:06design cost, pay for that, and then move

16:09forward with whether or not we really

16:11want to go forward. I know some people

16:13say, "Well, you've already spent a

16:13million dollars." Well, yeah, I've spent

16:15a million dollars or two million dollars

16:17or or whatever it is that I've spent,

16:19but I haven't spent the 20 million or

16:21the 9 million or the 3 million. So, um,

16:24I think it is the better way to do it.

16:26So,

16:26>> Any other questions? Alderman Sullivan.

16:28>> More of a comment, but just to play

16:30devil's advocate on cuz I am in favor,

16:32actually. I thought about this.

16:35I'd rather have one conversation as

16:36opposed to four.

16:39But,

16:40when you look at how we budget and the

16:42way that we supplemental supplementally

16:44appropriate,

16:46if I mean, what we're doing and what

16:48we've done over the past couple of weeks

16:50is we've added to the budget.

16:53So, when we come back in fiscal year 28,

16:56the denominator is higher and when you

16:58apply that for the spending cap, you're

17:00going to have more room under the cap.

17:02>> [clears throat]

17:02>> That's what we're doing.

17:04So, that

17:06that to me is kind of a

17:08uh, a byproduct of why I don't like

17:11doing this.

17:13But, you know, to play devil's advocate,

17:15I, you know, I I guess I would rather go

17:18and stair-step it as opposed to doing

17:20this because then

17:22it's going to give you a lot of room

17:23under the cap.

17:24And then, when you have the room, then

17:26you're probably going to use it. So,

17:29just playing devil's advocate on that.

17:31So.

17:32>> Any other questions?

17:36Seeing none,

17:38the motion on the floor

17:40is to recommend to the full board

17:42passage of R-26

17:46>> I'm sorry.

17:49>> Yes. R-26064

17:51as amended.

17:53All those in favor signify by saying I.

17:56>> I.

17:56>> Opposed?

17:57>> Nay.

17:58>> Motion carries.

17:59R-26067,

18:01Alderman O'Brien.

18:03>> Yes. R-26067

18:06authorizing the mayor and city treasurer

18:08to issue bonds not to exceed $3 million

18:10for the design and

18:11for the design and other ancillary costs

18:14to renovate the Nashua Public Library.

18:17Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion

18:19to recommend final passage.

18:21>> Motion on the floor is to recommend to

18:23the full board final passage of R-26067.

18:26Discussion? Alderman Tibbetts.

18:28>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, um

18:31I got to tour

18:33uh the library, which a lot of us have

18:35as well, recently. I was with Alderman

18:38uh President Wilshire uh when I toured

18:40it last week.

18:41Um and I go there weekly. I've been

18:43going there, you know, over 50 years.

18:45It's as old as I am, almost exactly. Um

18:48so, um I know how important it is. My

18:51kids go all the time. I think just

18:53touring it and going into places where I

18:55haven't gone, you know, basement, uh

18:57locked rooms, um

18:59I think unfortunately, I think the

19:01presentation doesn't even or the

19:03presentations we've had doesn't even

19:05give enough credit to how bad the

19:06building is, to be honest. Um you know,

19:09just like the DPW building, it's a place

19:12where people work. People go to.

19:15As someone said, you know, we have

19:17the unsheltered that often go there to

19:20get out of the heat or out of the cold

19:22during the day was when the library is

19:23open. So, it is definitely 100% a need.

19:28It's not a To me it's

19:30It's got a shelf life that's that's

19:33ending very soon. And and if

19:36you're going to um

19:38not want to fix it, then it's going to

19:40just close down. We're not going to have

19:41a library in the city cuz

19:43at some point you're not going to be

19:44able to use that building. You're just

19:45not.

19:46They're already down to like one working

19:48bathroom. The HVAC is a mess. I think

19:50the the stuff that will be done will

19:52will save us money. I don't think there

19:54was enough of that being said cuz

19:56whatever system that boiler or that

19:58heating The thing that's down in the

20:00basement

20:02that's not going to be there when they

20:03redo it. And I think that's going to

20:05save a lot of efficiency when it comes

20:07to heating

20:08and cooling and electricity that we're

20:10just not seeing on screen as far as, you

20:12know, what the savings would be.

20:14Um

20:15So, that being said

20:17as important as I think it is to pass

20:19this, I'm going to vote to pass this

20:21tonight cuz I think it's critical that

20:23we get this to the Board of Aldermen

20:25to vote on it. But I have one issue with

20:29going forward with it right now is that

20:32hopefully if if not me, someone else

20:34will table this tomorrow because I can't

20:39justify spending money on a building.

20:42And don't get me wrong, it's not just

20:44the building, it's a place where people

20:45are inside the building and they work.

20:47So, it's a home

20:49for people who work there 40 hours, 30

20:50hours a week, what what not. Um

20:53but with the contract of the employee

20:55workers being out there, I can't justify

20:58spending money here when I don't see

21:01that contract being

21:03finished and done. And

21:06I don't know what the contract's about

21:07as far as what side's what. That's not

21:08our job as alderman to get involved

21:10with.

21:11But I would I would want to see them

21:13both sides come to an agreement on a a

21:15workable contract for them.

21:17And then I'd be happy to vote on this

21:20going forward. So, I'm not saying I

21:22wouldn't I'd vote against it, but I I

21:24would rather see it tabled tomorrow

21:26night. That's my outlook on it. And

21:28again, it's it's I want this building.

21:30I've always wanted this building. I've

21:32been a pro

21:34supporter of this as you know for the

21:35whole time we've had it. So, that's kind

21:37of where I'm going with it. And I just

21:39wanted to put that out there cuz if

21:40somebody says to table it tomorrow,

21:41we're obviously not going to be able to

21:42talk about it. So, I just wanted to put

21:44that out there. Thank you.

21:46>> Alderman Clements.

21:47>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I I agree

21:49with my colleague from Ward 8. I think

21:52it's a worthwhile project. I think it

21:54has to be done. However,

21:56um

21:58this is the second time that the library

22:00employees have been through a similar uh

22:03contract dispute. Uh one of the major

22:05sticking points is that they're not

22:08getting retroactive pay, which would

22:11break a precedent here at this

22:13level.

22:14And I think they I don't think that

22:17delaying a contract uh should ever be a

22:21reason for somebody not to get paid. So,

22:25for those reasons, I'm going to also

22:27support the table it tomorrow.

22:30>> Okay, I have to call on committee

22:32members first.

22:33Alderman Greg.

22:35>> Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. [clears throat]

22:36So, I I understand I have the same

22:38frustrations with the Since we're

22:40already talking about this, but the same

22:42frustrations with the lack of contract.

22:44I think that we um should be having

22:46that. I'm disturbed by some of what I'm

22:48hearing from those negotiations, but

22:50saying that we don't want to move

22:51forward on the library because we don't

22:53have a contract. They both have library

22:55in the name, the library workers and the

22:56library building, but they're actually

22:58two separate things. It's like saying,

23:00"Well,

23:01if you didn't eat your dinner, then your

23:03brother's not going to get to have

23:04dessert. You know, they are

23:07Yes, they're in the same family, but

23:09these are two totally different

23:10projects. If we get a contract, we also

23:12need to have a building for them to be

23:14working in. Installing that doesn't

23:16doesn't help much. So, I think that it's

23:18our duty, for sure, to encourage

23:22those that are working on this contract

23:23to come to an agreement from the city

23:25side and make sure that we are

23:28doing right by our

23:30library workers, but I think also doing

23:32right by them is not holding up the the

23:35building. Thank you.

23:37>> Ms. Johnson.

23:38>> Thank you.

23:40First of all, I don't even know why

23:41we're talking about the contract. It

23:42didn't even come before us, and we

23:43shouldn't even be talking about anything

23:45that they're sending to us because we

23:47have nothing to do with it. When it

23:49comes to us, they keep sending us

23:51information, and we shouldn't even

23:52really be reading it because whatever's

23:55going on with them is going on with

23:57them.

23:58Um so, that's number one. Number two,

23:59I'd like to thank the director McCormick

24:02for the great um tour

24:04on Friday myself and Alderman

24:07Morgan went on.

24:09I understand the frustrations with that

24:11building and the same thing with the DPW

24:14building. They were built in the '70s,

24:15and my question was was really a

24:17rhetorical question was where was a

24:19building inspector to oversee all these

24:21two buildings that is a mess

24:23with the ventilation and the window

24:25problems and all this. Um and then you

24:27must wonder, this was in the '70s, where

24:30was the building inspection and probably

24:32private homes, and other buildings um

24:35that went on in the city.

24:37But, here is my problem.

24:39It said the amount of bonding that's

24:42going through.

24:44And I'm looking and I know and I said

24:46these three projects are worthwhile

24:48projects, but we have all these little

24:49projects that are in between that raises

24:52everything.

24:53I've got to think about the people who

24:55who paying the bills for all of this.

24:57Can they afford their taxes to keep

24:59climbing? Because you could do anything

25:01you want, you can improve all these

25:03buildings, but if people can't afford to

25:05pay their taxes, what happens?

25:08And through the chair, Mayor, I ask

25:10either

25:11um CFO Enright or Director Cummings, I

25:14just would like to get a question on

25:16these three big projects, what the cost

25:19is going to be.

25:20>> What's the question so they can decide

25:22which one of you

25:22>> Okay, I don't care either one of them.

25:24Doesn't matter to me. Whichever one of

25:26them wants to come up. The total of

25:28these three projects and how many years

25:31is going to take to do the bonding each

25:33project. So, we're starting one in 2027.

25:36We know we started DPW in 2026. Is it

25:40going to be 2027 that we start the

25:42library or the fire station or both? And

25:45what is the total cost? Is that going to

25:46be over the 25 to 35 million dollars

25:49that they said we can only bond in a

25:52year?

25:54>> Somebody want to address that? Director

25:55Cummings.

25:56>> I want I want everybody to hear this.

25:59Thank you. I appreciate it.

26:01I know I keep asking.

26:02>> Dawn Enright, CFO. Um this is all within

26:06um the guidelines from the ad hoc

26:08committee and um it is within the the

26:12plan that um that we are going forward

26:16with

26:17um and it was presented to you um last

26:21month.

26:22And um

26:24these projects were there.

26:27>> Okay, can I have the answer? Yeah. I'd

26:29like to know what is the total cost of

26:31these three projects. That's the

26:32question.

26:35I know it was presented, but now we're

26:36talking about bonding some of this money

26:39again and I'd like to know what is the

26:41total cost

26:42for everybody who's watching this

26:44tonight and it goes in the minutes.

26:47>> So, Director Cummings.

26:48>> Thank you. So, I'm going to do this from

26:50memory. Uh I believe the total project

26:52cost for the uh

26:54for the DPW garage fleet maintenance

26:56building is is total project 54 million,

26:59the total project cost for the fire

27:01station 35 million, and then the uh

27:04library renovation 45 million. Those are

27:07all total project cost numbers that

27:09we've been uh working with today. Thank

27:13you.

27:14>> [snorts]

27:14>> Follow up?

27:15>> Yeah.

27:16So, how are we spreading out this

27:17bonding?

27:19Over the years. So, it's not going to be

27:22over that

27:2325 to 30 million that we can afford.

27:26>> Councilman Cummings.

27:27>> Thank you. So, I don't have that in

27:29front of me this evening, but certainly

27:30I would refer you back to the ad hoc

27:32meeting of August 11th where we had our

27:36debt service schedule where it showed

27:38you how uh we would be uh fitting in the

27:43the selling of the debt over 5-year,

27:466-year uh type horizon, and it met the

27:50the various policy directives that we

27:52were discussing at the time, and as CFO

27:54Andry had mentioned is all being done

27:56according to plan. Thank you.

27:58>> May I just say something? I'm sorry if I

28:00don't remember a lot of this because I

28:02just lost my husband on August 6th, so

28:04some of this is

28:06it's like blurred to me, so I'm trying

28:08to get some of the questions answered

28:09now. I do apologize.

28:11>> Okay.

28:12>> Also, one thing I just wanted to mention

28:14was when we're talking about bonding,

28:17we try to keep the debt service payment,

28:20which is the interest and principal we

28:21pay on all of our bonds in a certain

28:23band, a level.

28:26So,

28:27it's not like if we pass a 10

28:29million-dollar bond, that's a direct 10

28:31million impact on the tax rate

28:33immediately. No, it's it's over time.

28:36And and so, you want to look at the debt

28:39service and keeping that within a an

28:41acceptable range, and as I understand,

28:46where we could be bonding as authority

28:48with the city of Nashville. We're not

28:50even close to that. So,

28:52we're well within the bounds of

28:55what we're allowed. In fact, we're well

28:57below it.

28:58So, we have to keep our infrastructure

29:01going. And yes, over the years we've

29:03neglected our infrastructure and that's

29:05caused us a lot of issues now. So,

29:09you can't ignore them too long or they

29:11just become far more expensive.

29:14I think if there's anything else I'll

29:17Did you already speak all of them

29:18including all of them and Cleo and then

29:19all of them and T.O.?

29:20>> Uh uh thank you

29:22Mr. Chairman. Um

29:23>> Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot Revon before.

29:27Go ahead.

29:27>> Was I okay? Sorry.

29:29Um I want to make a couple of comments

29:31here of of things that have been made.

29:34First off, I I was on that ad hoc

29:36committee and we worked really hard um

29:39and nothing happens all within 1 year.

29:42It's spread I think all the way out into

29:44the I was just again my documents all

29:45the way into the

29:47deep into the 2030s. Um and and there's

29:51delay of projects not that everything's

29:53happening at once, but um

29:55comment about the building inspection. I

29:57agree having having gone through that

29:59it's we wonder, but I can tell you for

30:02having a home

30:03um and a father who built homes

30:06what it was acceptable building code in

30:10the 1970s is not acceptable here in

30:122026.

30:14So, um I think everybody did their job

30:17in the 1970s even if it really doesn't

30:20meet the 2020s

30:22um building code.

30:24That's what I wanted to say. I've also

30:25been sitting here doing a whole lot of

30:27work and trying to crunch some numbers

30:29and and so on. And um we talk about how

30:32much every bond will cost in the end.

30:35So, I was I was looking at what my house

30:38cost

30:40after a 20-year um mortgage and um

30:44the two is, mine was probably I probably

30:47paid, um, close to 70% more than what I

30:52purchased it for. Um, now with a an

30:55interest rate of like 7.33%,

30:57we'd be looking at, um, 90%.

31:00Um, my mortgage over 20 years.

31:04If I were to do try to do a, uh, home

31:07equity or something like that, we'd be

31:09looking at a lot more than that cuz

31:11we're looking at like 8.something%

31:14um, and we're looking at close to 90% of

31:17what I paid over what I paid,

31:20um, for that mortgage. When I look at

31:22what the city's percentage is of paying,

31:24we're paying about 60%, 62%

31:28over what we were doing. So, I think the

31:30city is doing the right way. And with

31:33comments that have been made, um, Mr.

31:35Chairman is that, um,

31:37you know,

31:38why are we doing this all at once? And

31:40the problem is that we delayed too long.

31:42I'm not going to judge those who came

31:44before me, um,

31:46because I don't know what what budget

31:47constraints they were under.

31:49But if we delay it now, it's going to be

31:52even more later.

31:53And I want to speak specifically to the

31:55library. I too went on a tour of the

31:57library, and I want to say that, um,

32:02I respect all of our employees that are

32:05there. And I don't want them, just like

32:07the DPW, I don't want them working in

32:09those conditions. When I saw that we

32:11have, um, books and things pulled away

32:14from the walls because there's leaks,

32:17and they're not just trying to protect

32:19the assets that we have, we're trying to

32:20protect the employees. And one of the

32:21questions I asked was, is it safe for

32:24employees to work here? And, um,

32:26um,

32:27the director very specifically, and

32:29Director McCormick very specifically

32:31said to me that they've had, um,

32:33environmental health come in and do

32:34testing because they do care about the

32:36employees,

32:37So, doing this um, is going to benefit

32:40the employees. It's going to benefit the

32:42the children. I mean, we talking about

32:44like a hundred kids that come in I think

32:46like about a week or every week or so.

32:48We need to think of their health. We

32:50need to think of the employees health.

32:51This is something that truly needs to

32:53get done. So, we've all gotten emails of

32:56people saying you can't spend this much

32:58money and not give a contract.

33:01They are apples and oranges. I do agree

33:03that I want to see a contract before we

33:05pass this. However, that being said,

33:08this is as much for the employees. This

33:10building is much for the safety and

33:13well-being of the employees when giving

33:15them a good work environment as anything

33:18else. So, this is not an either or. This

33:21is an and.

33:23So, thank you. Mr. Chairman.

33:26>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

33:28I will agree with Alderman Tibo and

33:30Alderman Cummings that I will be voting

33:32to table.

33:34Uh

33:36>> Clemens.

33:37>> That

33:38Oh, I said Cummings. Yes.

33:40>> That's okay.

33:41>> I was going to let it go, but she won't.

33:43>> I won't.

33:43>> [laughter]

33:44>> No promotions.

33:47My apologies. My goodness.

33:49Uh

33:50but I will be voting also to table

33:52uh when this goes before the full board.

33:55Thank you.

33:56>> Okay. Alderman Tibo.

33:58>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I mean, I think

34:01yeah, I think it's naive to

34:03um say that money and money that is city

34:06money

34:07is not

34:09uh related in some way. It doesn't

34:11matter if it's related related. We're

34:12still spending money whether it's giving

34:14employees contracts or whether it's

34:17building a new library. I'm a 100% for

34:19the new library. I believe strongly that

34:21we should be be giving and I I don't

34:23know if it's pay or if it's benefits or

34:25what what it is, fair contracts,

34:27whatever they may be.

34:28And

34:29if we you think that then

34:33I mean, we probably shouldn't be here

34:34supporting our city because we're trying

34:36we're a good steward not only to the

34:37city and city buildings, but for the

34:39people that work in the city, whether

34:41they're firemen, policemen, library

34:43workers, whatever. And um I I think

34:47you know, the the the point was made

34:49earlier that this

34:51doing this right now this minute is the

34:53word was urgency. I think urgency get a

34:56contract for people is pretty urgent,

34:58too. They're they're putting food on the

34:59table for their people. There's their

35:01families, you know, and I I think, you

35:04know, I support both and I think you can

35:06support both. And if we if this

35:09you know, renovation doesn't go in next

35:12week, it doesn't start next week. I'm

35:13sorry, but that's that's how I feel and

35:16and I think, you know, I I thought they

35:17were close today in getting it done. It

35:19sounds like it wasn't, I guess. Um so,

35:22until I hear that we're on the right

35:23direction for that, I'm I'm going to

35:25vote to table it. It's simple as that.

35:27If you don't vote that way, that's fine.

35:29You can have any opinion you want.

35:31>> Alderman Wheeler.

35:33>> Fine.

35:34I don't agree

35:36that one has anything to do with the

35:38other and I don't think we should be, as

35:40a board,

35:42telling them what to do with their

35:44contracts.

35:45Holding up a project

35:48because there's no contract is not the

35:51right way to govern. I'm sorry. They're

35:53all good projects, very good projects,

35:56all worthwhile, all worth

35:58our support. But I'm not going to tell

36:01somebody, "Unless you pass that

36:02contract, I'm going to hold up your

36:03project." That is not the way to govern.

36:06I don't think your constituents are

36:07going to be happy with that.

36:09>> That's not how I see it.

36:10>> Alderman Kelly and Alderman

36:12>> Thank you. I'm going to go back to my

36:13previous point because I'm trying to

36:15make sure that I don't misunderstand

36:17this. Because what I am looking at in

36:20this budget is that we approved, let's

36:23take the two projects that are the

36:24closest and we approved

36:26a certain amount of money

36:28for looking at the DPW garage design.

36:32It's about $3 million.

36:33Then last week when I was unable to make

36:35here, we agreed to $43.3 million

36:38to finish that project

36:41in total.

36:43We agreed to do a million dollars in

36:45library design

36:47in 2025.

36:49The full project cost is $44 million.

36:52You're only asking for $3 million, which

36:54means that the library trustees and

36:55everybody's going to have to come up

36:56every year to continue asking for what

36:59we need to get this project done. And

37:01I'm concerned that that's going to be a

37:03tripping point every time. So, please

37:05tell me if I'm misunderstanding the

37:06math, but why would we ask for the full

37:08amount for DPW and not the full amount

37:10for the library?

37:13>> Director Cummings.

37:15>> Yes, thank you. Tim Cummings, director

37:17of administrative services. So, we are

37:20following the exact same model

37:23that we followed for the DPW garage and

37:25and fleet maintenance facility. If my

37:28recollection is correct, we originally

37:30asked for repurposing of about $2.2

37:33million to start the design of the DPW

37:38garage and fleet maintenance facility.

37:40Then we asked for an additional $5

37:43million

37:44or or thereabouts, and then we revised

37:47it down to about $3 million.

37:50And that was all done over the last

37:53couple of years as we worked through the

37:55design. And then when we understood what

37:58the total construction project's cost

38:00was going to be at $43 million, you saw

38:03our bond authorization request come

38:06through

38:07this fall for for that for that project.

38:11Similar type trajectory we're on here

38:13for the library and also for the fire

38:18station. With the library, we initially

38:21asked for a million dollars. Now that

38:23was to start the design.

38:25Then we are now asking for 3 million

38:28dollars to finish the design and then we

38:31will be asking for construction money

38:34for the total for the total construction

38:36project cost when we when we know what

38:39that number is.

38:41Similarly with the fire station, we

38:44are just now starting the design for the

38:47for the fire station and so we are going

38:48to be looking for a million dollars and

38:51that million dollars is going to start

38:52the initial design but also be able to

38:54work through the very specific details

38:56of actually having site control over the

38:59land to be able to have confidence to

39:01actually move forward with the design

39:03because that will be the second request

39:05that we ask is then we'll be asking for

39:07additional money to complete the design

39:10and then we will come back for a third

39:12time and ask for money for construction.

39:15I would not represent to you it would be

39:17responsible for us to be asking for 35

39:20million dollars today using the fire

39:22station as an example when we don't even

39:25have site control on the area where we

39:27would be looking to do the specific

39:30project. So we are taking this

39:32deliberative and incremental approach

39:35in trying to be good stewards of of of

39:38the projects and and and the taxpayers

39:41money. Thank you.

39:42>> All right.

39:43I'll set up with Kelly.

39:44>> I think you need to update as excel

39:46documents but yes, I'll stop.

39:50>> Let's see.

39:52Do I have anyone else in the other end?

39:55>> I'd put my hand up but I'm

39:56>> I was going to Brian.

39:57>> Did you did you did you want

39:59>> I I'm all set.

40:00>> I'll go with Brian.

40:01>> Yeah, I I would just like to say as

40:0435 year

40:06union member

40:08I support

40:10their contract and I support the

40:13collective bargaining agreement with the

40:16city I urge caution

40:19with tying a vote.

40:22And what I'm cautioning you on is an

40:25unfair

40:26labor practice.

40:29We have a legal set here to negotiate.

40:34Do you want every union

40:36in this city that comes to impasse or

40:39some problem to appear in this chamber,

40:42call you up personally?

40:44That is not your job.

40:47Our job is to sit collectively and see

40:50if we can what was negotiated can be

40:54properly funded, that we can supply that

40:57need.

40:58To jump in at this particular

41:00stage,

41:02you are putting

41:04uh a grinding, you know,

41:07a grind wheel on a chain and jumping off

41:10a bridge with it.

41:12You're not part of the process. You can

41:16jeopardize the legality of it. I wish

41:19the uh corporate counsel was here. You

41:22may hear that

41:24tomorrow night.

41:26And myself, although I am a strong union

41:28man,

41:30and I support any labor organization in

41:34their

41:35negotiations as well as they should,

41:38but I'm not going to take municipal

41:40building and tie it into that. It's

41:42apples and oranges.

41:45They need back into negotiating, and our

41:48job is to sit back

41:50and monitor.

41:52There's a whole way that they can go

41:54through. They can stop filing. They can

41:56go on strike. There's other different

41:58things.

42:00But to get us involved into that, it's a

42:02way too early and maybe

42:05maybe be illegal. Thank you.

42:09>> Oh,

42:10just

42:11one thing. I've negotiated numerous

42:13contracts, many in the school

42:15departments.

42:16There's two sides to every story.

42:18We don't know any of the details, nor

42:20should we know any of the details, and I

42:23would not

42:25anybody that called me tell me any of

42:26the details because

42:28that's not our job.

42:30So, there may be hang-ups

42:32uh in in what's being asked from either

42:35side. We don't know. We won't know till

42:38we actually get the contract in hand.

42:42But, I think uh

42:43Alderman O'Brien is somewhat right that

42:45if if we try to leverage one side or the

42:49other into moving into

42:51a contract that the other side doesn't

42:53want, we're going to be in trouble

42:57legally.

42:59Alderman T- Alderman Sennett first.

43:01Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I stepped

43:03back a moment ago because I have a habit

43:05of tripping over my own words, and I

43:07didn't want to uh

43:09wind up eating my own foot. But, I I

43:11want to thank my colleague at large,

43:12Alderman O'Brien. He

43:14articulated ultimately what I wanted to

43:16say um better than I think I possibly

43:19could have

43:20done never

43:21having been part of a labor

43:23organization, but having long supported

43:26the um

43:27the rights of workers to organize.

43:29Um

43:31I I was sitting here getting an

43:33uncomfortable feeling with the

43:35discussion, and and Alderman O'Brien uh

43:38very um

43:39eloquently articulated why

43:42um

43:43I would caution my colleagues to take a

43:45step back uh from the conversation and

43:47consider it from that perspective. Um

43:51Ooh, both things can be true.

43:54Uh multiple things can be true really in

43:56this discussion. We can support the need

43:59and the urgency uh for the library

44:02renovations. We can sit here

44:04individually and support

44:07the organized workers of the library in

44:09their pursuit of a fair contract.

44:13Um but

44:15exercising undue influence over that

44:17from this position, I think is a very

44:19slippery slope that we are

44:22um best to avoid. Thank you.

44:27>> All right, Holden Johnson's on the

44:28committee.

44:31>> Holden McNeal

44:31>> I am too.

44:32>> [laughter]

44:33>> I'm sorry.

44:34>> His name was up

44:35>> We were going all over the place

44:36earlier, so I mean

44:37>> It doesn't matter, I suppose. Um

44:39I just want to be clear that I didn't

44:41say I would vote against it.

44:43Just tabling and

44:45um I could table it for any reason. I I

44:47could ask to table it for any reason.

44:48Maybe I don't like the money. Maybe I

44:49think that the money should come down.

44:51Um it doesn't have to be for that

44:52reason, but I think, you know, my

44:54constituent constituents

44:57wouldn't be angry cuz I get a lot of

44:58constituents that don't want me to spend

45:00$43 million on whether it's a DPW garage

45:04or a

45:06uh a fire station or even the library.

45:08So, there's plenty of constituents out

45:09there that don't all go, "Hey, go spend

45:12you know, $200 million on buildings."

45:14It's just that's that's the

45:16We we think that all constituents think

45:18one way, and that's just not true.

45:20Whether it's in Ward 8 or Ward 1,

45:22they're like, you know, it's it's all

45:24over the place. I mean,

45:25you know, I just feel that when we spend

45:28money

45:29whether it's in people or building

45:32we have to go back to our constituents

45:33and say, "This is why we spent this

45:35money." And I'll tell you when they go

45:36back and say we spent we're going to

45:38spend $50 million on a library, some

45:40people don't think that. Some people

45:41come back with what we heard tonight in

45:42public comment. Oh, it's just a place to

45:44home the homeless, you know, and stuff

45:46like that cuz I hear that all the time.

45:48And that's a lot of money if that's all

45:50the library is.

45:51Cuz we're already planning other things

45:53to take care of that or to help with

45:54that. So,

45:56um

45:56you know, when we spend money, we got to

45:58go back, and I hear it I hear it from

46:00everyone. So, I mean, we even hear that

46:02that other city employees are paid too

46:04much, whether it's police or fire, and I

46:06don't believe that. Um so, I I think

46:08when we spend any dime, doesn't matter

46:11what we're spending it on, we still have

46:12to make sure we're voting the right way

46:14on things. And I want the library. I

46:16wanted the library for a long time.

46:18There's people in this chamber that will

46:19not vote for this.

46:21Whether they say, you know, I I don't

46:22want to vote for small ones, but they're

46:24not going to vote for big bonds, either.

46:25So, we know that there's there's people

46:27that aren't going to vote for this.

46:29>> Are you planning to vote for it?

46:31>> But not maybe not tomorrow.

46:33So.

46:34>> Alderman Johnson.

46:35>> Thank you. I don't want Alderman O'Brien

46:38to fall over, but I agree with you 100%.

46:41>> [laughter]

46:41>> Oh, I love you, darling.

46:43>> I love you, too.

46:45But that's why I said at the beginning,

46:48we shouldn't be talking about contracts.

46:49We don't know how they're negotiating.

46:51We hear one side, and we shouldn't even

46:53be reading those emails, either, because

46:56it's not fair. And it really isn't. Um

46:59but whether I vote for it I I don't vote

47:02for the library, I have to weigh in with

47:04all the small bonds and with the larger

47:06bonds. And I'm sorry, because I hear

47:08from my constituents, also. You know, I

47:12take care of this little ward called

47:14Ward 5. Well, it's not that little. I

47:16mean, we have a nightmare with West

47:18Hollis Street. But, you know, I hear

47:20from everybody. I send out emails

47:23every week. And so, you know, this is

47:26something you have to think about, and

47:28you have to prioritize, and I say it all

47:30the time. But I just wanted to say to

47:33Alderman O'Brien, you're right on. You

47:35were right on with your comments.

47:38>> Any other discussion?

47:39>> I have experience.

47:40>> That might not happen again with us

47:42agreeing. It's okay.

47:42>> Alderman Clemens.

47:44>> Uh thank you. Uh this wouldn't be the

47:46first time that I have not voted for

47:48building project because of a

47:51labor dispute that hadn't been resolved.

47:53Um I've done it before in the past, and

47:56I intend to do it again.

47:58Um

47:59and that's just my perception of

48:03justice, I guess.

48:06>> Anyone else?

48:08All right. The motion before us is for

48:11to recommend to the full board final

48:12passage of R-26-067.

48:15All those in favor signify by saying I.

48:18>> I.

48:19>> Opposed?

48:19>> Nay.

48:20>> Motion carries.

48:22R-26-068

48:24authorizing the mayor and city treasurer

48:26Oh, go ahead. Make the motion.

48:28>> I'll move them over.

48:29>> Well, you were doing such a fine job.

48:31>> [laughter]

48:31>> Uh before us tonight is R-26-068

48:36authorizing mayor and city treasurer to

48:38issue bonds not to exceed $1,500,000

48:43for the design, construction, and

48:44equipment of the fire training

48:46facilities. Mr. Chairman, I would like

48:49to make a recommendation

48:51to uh recommend final passage.

48:54>> Motion on the floor is to recommend to

48:55the full board final passage of

48:57R-26-068.

48:58Discussion.

49:01Alderman Sente.

49:02>> Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I think

49:04the most um

49:06poignant uh

49:08note that I took out of um

49:10Chief Buxton's remarks regarding this

49:12during the uh public hearing

49:14is that with the current facility that

49:17we have, the the cost to move it

49:20would be more than the cost of this.

49:24I mean

49:24>> [snorts]

49:25>> you know, that that's some of the

49:26concern that I had heard um from some of

49:29my constituents in Ward 7 is that, you

49:31know, we we have this, why can't we just

49:33move it? It's going to be relatively

49:35within the same

49:37you know, space, and

49:40you know, to be able to have something

49:42newer, presumably better, and with a

49:44longer shelf life, you know, at a at a

49:47better cost. That to me, that is the

49:49sell. Thank you.

49:51>> Anyone else?

49:53Alderman O'Brien.

49:54>> Yeah, I just want to just briefly say

49:56that this is very important.

49:58Uh I can say from my experience fighting

50:01fires is a highly dangerous field. I

50:03think you all know that.

50:06So, you need a training facility cuz it

50:08simulates conditions that these guys are

50:11going to go into. Off

50:13you know, females, too, you know,

50:15there's brothers and sisters on the job.

50:18And I think we held a big responsibility

50:21to make sure that we have

50:24a great fire department, a greatly

50:27highly trained fire department.

50:30If you have a highly trained fire

50:32department,

50:33you kind of beating the odds against

50:35some tragedy with a line of duty death.

50:37So, this is to me pretty important. You

50:41need to train the best to, you know,

50:44get them out of trouble and just stuff

50:46like that. So, I support this. So, thank

50:48you.

50:49Thank you, Alderman

50:50>> years ago, the alderman used to go out

50:51and

50:52try to formulate the same jobs the

50:55firemen do. I remember climbing a 24-ft

50:57ladder with a hose over my shoulder in

50:59that old cement building to fight fires

51:02up there. I found out just how difficult

51:04that damn job is.

51:06And

51:08and the mayor was with me and and I

51:10other aldermen were using the jaws of

51:11life and other things. And you you you

51:13realize just how difficult the firemen's

51:16jobs are.

51:18They need to train.

51:20And we've approved the new building for

51:22the for the DPW and that's going where

51:25the fire training thing is now. We have

51:28to move it and it is used by other

51:30departments. So, when they ask for it

51:32and uh

51:33it's part of that whole mutual aid

51:35thing. So, it's very important.

51:38Alderman Johnson.

51:39>> Thank you.

51:41This was the issue with the [cough]

51:42Creek Drive

51:43>> Sorry.

51:43>> residents

51:44that um they came to a

51:47an understanding that they didn't put

51:48the road in, that they just laid the

51:50pipe from Teak Drive into the landfill.

51:54My problem is with this, and I have all

51:57respect for our firefighters. Again,

52:00it's a small amount that we're putting

52:01into everything, but I just want to let

52:03you know that um

52:05I had asked to see all the emails that

52:09was concerning this. I asked back August

52:1231st, and I haven't gotten all of them.

52:15Mr. Perrin has tied me up up until

52:18[snorts] October 30th because I wanted

52:20to understand why did we pay an outside

52:22attorney $8,700

52:25to take on this.

52:26And so, I'm just letting everybody know

52:29that I've asked for information, too,

52:31that got hung up in this the right to

52:33know law.

52:34And I don't think that was right.

52:36So, I'm just letting everybody know it

52:38does happen to aldermen, too.

52:40Not that I'm taking any constituent

52:42sides.

52:43>> All right. Motion on the floor is to

52:45recommend to the full board final

52:47passage of O-26-068.

52:50All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye.

52:54Opposed?

52:54>> Nay.

52:55>> Motion carries.

52:57All right.

52:57>> Also before us tonight is O-26-069,

53:02authorizing mayor and city treasurer to

53:04issue bonds not to exceed $1 million for

53:08design and other ancillary costs to

53:11replace the Pine Hill Fire Station.

53:14Mr. Chairman, I would like to make the

53:16motion to recommend final passage.

53:18>> Motion on the floor is to recommend

53:20final passage of O-26-069

53:24to the full board.

53:27All in favor?

53:28>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um when I first

53:30ran for office 5 years ago, 5 and 1/2

53:32years ago, I sat down with the fire

53:34union union, and when uh two things they

53:37mentioned to me is maintenance and

53:40another fire station. And I was hoping

53:43that someday we'd have another fire

53:44station up on Amherst Street further up.

53:46Um

53:47obviously that's not going to happen,

53:48but we're going to take this at least

53:50Pine Hill and make it bigger. So, I

53:51think it's critical. I'm going to speak

53:54to both the this and the next one so I

53:55don't have to speak again. Um

53:57I think it's critical. We toured it.

53:59Some of us have toured it. It's it's

54:01where people live. It's not just a place

54:03where people work. They live there. They

54:05sleep there. They eat there.

54:07Um and you know, we have to keep our our

54:10city buildings up where people work. And

54:12that's why we're in a state we're in

54:13where we're you know, I will shame

54:15boards before me because it should have

54:18been done at some point and it just

54:19wasn't and now we're playing catch-up.

54:21You know, Alderman Bryan says it all the

54:22time, kick the can down the road. Well,

54:24that's what happened. And now we're

54:25we're trying to fix these buildings that

54:27are 50, 60, maybe 100 years old

54:30depending on what building we're fixing.

54:31And so, we uh I love the design of the

54:34new what it what it's going to look

54:35like. Um I think it's it's worth uh

54:38doing and uh the next one as far as

54:40deferred maintenance, I think yeah, we

54:43need to just like the schools, we need

54:44to make sure we keep our buildings so

54:46they don't get to a situation where we

54:48have to spend hundreds of millions of

54:49dollars to to either do a new one or to

54:52expand it or to fix it. We always have

54:54money in there to to do something. So, I

54:56believe strongly in both of these. I'm

54:58going to support both of them. No

54:59issues.

55:01>> Any other discussion on this? Alderman

55:02Kiley.

55:03>> Uh thank you, um Mr. Chairman. Um

55:07I'm obviously not on this committee um

55:10and I will support it when it gets to

55:11the Board of Aldermen assuming that it

55:13does

55:14um

55:14get through this this particular

55:16committee. Um I looked at the map and

55:19you know, I see that it's a large

55:21district. It's it's in much need. Um and

55:25I can't see why we wouldn't, you know,

55:27start to move forward to that. And

55:29again, I want to reiterate that this was

55:31part of the um ad hoc committee. We

55:34agreed on it. We've been listening over

55:35and over again for the need for this

55:38fire station, for training facility,

55:40for, you know,

55:43uh uh capital project maintenance and so

55:45on. Um and I want to make a comment. The

55:47reason I will not shame another board is

55:49simply because I don't know what

55:51financial constraints they were put

55:52under, whether it be the spending cap or

55:54something. So, I know something got

55:57pushed aside. Look at all those years

55:59that we didn't have the um

56:01our roads to be paved and then suddenly

56:03we had to play catch-up. Again, I'm not

56:05blaming anybody because

56:07I know that there are things that we're

56:09missing.

56:10Um but we're at the This is where the

56:13poop hits the fan right now is um and

56:16we're making these big bond decisions

56:19even though

56:20I have this knot in my stomach and for

56:22those who who don't really care, but I

56:25would say it anyways, I will be

56:27struggling to pay my taxes, too. So,

56:29it's not just

56:30um

56:31everybody It's not just certain people

56:33and um

56:35it is. It's going to be rough and um I'm

56:38sorry for that, but I also have to think

56:40about what the city needs and we can't

56:42kick the can down any longer. So, I hope

56:45it does get a positive um outcome. Thank

56:47you.

56:48>> Any other discussion?

56:50Motion before us is to for recommend the

56:52full board final passage of our 26069.

56:56All in favor signify by saying I.

56:59>> I.

56:59>> Opposed?

57:00>> Nay.

57:01>> Motion carries.

57:03Also before us tonight is uh - 26070

57:08authorizing mayor and city treasurer to

57:10issue bonds not to exceed $1 million for

57:13deferred capital maintenance of fire

57:16stations. Mr. Chairman, I would like to

57:18make a recommendation of uh final

57:21passage.

57:22>> Motion on the floor is to recommend

57:23final passage to the full board of our

57:2526070. Discussion?

57:30I can tell you when I years ago

57:33uh I took a tour of all the facilities

57:35and the firemen at that time they were

57:37repairing their own toilets. The Conant

57:39Street fire station didn't have much

57:41money to patch the holes in the roof so

57:43they were using buckets to catch the

57:45water.

57:47It's about time that they had the money

57:49to take care of the places they actually

57:50live in. So,

57:53if there's no other discussion, all

57:55those in favor signify by saying I. I.

57:58Opposed?

57:59>> Nay.

58:00>> Motion carries.

58:02O 26071

58:03>> Yeah.

58:04>> Also before us is O 26071

58:08authorizing the mayor and city treasurer

58:10to issue bonds not to exceed $9 million

58:14for the replacement and modernization of

58:16the citywide enterprise resource

58:18planning

58:19ERP system.

58:21>> I would like to make a motion, Mr.

58:23Chairman, to recommend final passage.

58:25>> Motion on the floor is to recommend to

58:27the full board final passage of O 26071.

58:30Discussion.

58:32Alderman Senate.

58:33>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I wanted to

58:36ask a question through you to whomever

58:38is available to answer it. Um

58:41it had started to be answered in the um

58:45in the public hearing phase. I just want

58:46to take it a step further. We had

58:48learned that of the 10 proposals that

58:50we've received um I believe it was as

58:53recently as uh today that it was stated

58:56that they'd narrowed it down to four

58:58that they would like to bring in for

58:59demonstration purposes. My question

59:02prior to that was whether or not the

59:05proposals that we have before us could

59:07be a

59:08um

59:09could

59:11be used to establish a more narrow scope

59:13by narrowing them down to I had put

59:15three to five to get us

59:18uh closer to a target cost. Um I

59:22understand that the proposals that were

59:24received drove the

59:26um drove the ask for the bond. I'm just

59:29I'm trying to wrap my head around where

59:32this 9 million came from better than I

59:35currently have a grasp on.

59:39>> Is that right?

59:43>> Don Enright, CFO.

59:45Um,

59:46so when we started the process 14 months

59:48ago, we um, we

59:51were surveying the the climate and

59:54getting information from different

59:56places of in terms of what it would cost

59:59to do this. And the first place that we

1:00:01looked was um,

1:00:03back in 2009, how much did we pay for a

1:00:07uh, a new system in 2009?

1:00:10The amount that was bonded was 7.5

1:00:12million. So, in thinking about that, we

1:00:16said, well, obviously it's going to cost

1:00:18um, more than the 7.5 million, but we

1:00:21want to be reasonable. And the we did

1:00:26some more research and we found that um,

1:00:29we anticipated that the 9 million or the

1:00:3110 million would be a reasonable amount.

1:00:33As you remember from the ad hoc

1:00:35committee, that was what we had um,

1:00:37originally um, put in the plan because

1:00:40that's what we were thinking it was

1:00:42going to come in at.

1:00:44As we talked to the different vendors,

1:00:46um, it came to light that there was

1:00:48probably a good chance that we were

1:00:49going to be able to get a great product

1:00:51for for less than the 10 million. So, we

1:00:54put in for the 9 million. And as I

1:00:56stated, as today's we have 10 uh,

1:01:00proposals on the table and we are

1:01:02looking at three to four to commit and

1:01:04do the demonstration and they all came

1:01:06in within the 9 million budget.

1:01:10>> Follow up, Senate.

1:01:13Is there urgency

1:01:15Oh.

1:01:16Is there urgency behind authorizing this

1:01:19bond now

1:01:21prior to

1:01:23you getting these products in front of

1:01:24your end users and

1:01:27determining what the best one is. Could

1:01:29this be brought back with more

1:01:31specificity

1:01:33to say that we want to authorize, you

1:01:36know,

1:01:37just say it stays $9 million

1:01:39to to

1:01:41implement and um

1:01:44you know, implement and train everybody

1:01:47on, you know, I know we're not using

1:01:50Lawson. We'll just say, you know, Lawson

1:01:512.0.

1:01:53Something to that effect. Is that a

1:01:55possibility or is

1:01:58I

1:01:59I just I feel like we're at we're at a

1:02:02position where we're we're not quite at

1:02:04the funding level yet and I'm I'm trying

1:02:06to wrap my head around it.

1:02:08>> Thank you for the question, Don and

1:02:10right CFO. Um

1:02:12could we come back? We will be coming

1:02:14back before you with a contract to to be

1:02:18able to solidify the contract. But in

1:02:21order to get to that point, we do have

1:02:23to engage with a

1:02:25with a project manager. So without

1:02:27without the funding, we couldn't engage

1:02:30with the project manager to be able to

1:02:32go forward in that.

1:02:34Did I leave anything out?

1:02:36Thank you.

1:02:37>> Hold on, Senate. Thank you. That project

1:02:39manager stage, that would come after the

1:02:41selection of the um

1:02:43of a product?

1:02:46>> Kind of simultaneously.

1:02:47>> Contemporaneously.

1:02:48>> Yeah, we're we're working at it together

1:02:52right now because there are there are

1:02:54steps in the in the selection process

1:02:57that we want to make sure that we do not

1:02:59miss and a project manager would be able

1:03:01to help with the selection process. Most

1:03:04of the um ERP projects actually you

1:03:08start with the project manager in the

1:03:09writing of the RFP.

1:03:12Um we were fortunate enough to be able

1:03:13to utilize um the RFP that was used back

1:03:17in 2009

1:03:20and um our our educated staff to be able

1:03:24to come forward and be able to do that,

1:03:26but it at this stage of the game I think

1:03:28it would

1:03:29we would be remiss to to to wait any

1:03:32longer.

1:03:34>> Follow up. Yes, um

1:03:37so this project manager would be an

1:03:39outside consultant.

1:03:40>> Yes.

1:03:41>> Okay, thank you. So

1:03:43if we authorize 9 million and they do a

1:03:45great negotiating job and get it down to

1:03:478.5 or 8 million

1:03:50we can de-obligate what's not going to

1:03:52be spent.

1:03:53>> I know.

1:03:55>> Alderman Sullivan?

1:03:56>> Yes, uh my question on the ERP uh

1:04:00I don't think I've heard it discussed

1:04:02and if I missed it, my apologies, but

1:04:05total cost of ownership for this

1:04:08software

1:04:09we know what that is.

1:04:15>> Don Inman, right, CFO. We are we are

1:04:17anticipating $9 million or less for the

1:04:21total implementation in 2 years of

1:04:24annual um service contract.

1:04:27>> Follow up.

1:04:28>> Follow up.

1:04:29>> So the contract you're going to sign

1:04:32is for 2 years?

1:04:34>> It's going to be the implementation and

1:04:37then on top of that it's going to be two

1:04:39it the cost will be covered for 2 years.

1:04:42We're anticipating having a contract

1:04:44signed for 10 year

1:04:46>> 10 year?

1:04:47>> I believe that's what we're looking for.

1:04:49>> 10 year contract.

1:04:51>> And some of the contracts we're that

1:04:53it's that's replacing we do annual fees

1:04:56on, so we won't be doing that anymore,

1:04:58either.

1:04:58>> I understand that.

1:05:00But

1:05:01what I'm saying is if you're going to

1:05:03have it for 10 years, is it going to

1:05:05cost us $9 million over the 10 years?

1:05:08>> No, it it's going to replace the um

1:05:12replace the cost that we're spending

1:05:14right now on all the different

1:05:16softwares, which is about one 1.2

1:05:19million dollars that's in the general

1:05:20fund budget today, is going to cost that

1:05:23or less annually.

1:05:25>> Okay.

1:05:27Follow up.

1:05:27>> So, if I hear you correctly, it's 9

1:05:30million dollars

1:05:32plus

1:05:33approximately

1:05:351.2 1.2 1.2 * 8.

1:05:39Right?

1:05:39>> Correct.

1:05:40>> Okay. So, when I say total cost of

1:05:42ownership, it's 9 million dollars

1:05:46plus

1:05:471.2 every year for the next 8 years.

1:05:50>> Okay.

1:05:51>> But, we're also saving

1:05:54>> Yes, you are correct. We are currently

1:05:56paying 1.2.

1:05:59>> I understand that. I just All I'm asking

1:06:01is

1:06:02that

1:06:03when we when we look at the 9 million

1:06:05dollars

1:06:06>> Yeah.

1:06:07>> it's it's 9 million metaphor. It's 9

1:06:11million dollars to buy a car.

1:06:13But, every year I got to put gas in it.

1:06:15I got to repair it. I got to do oil

1:06:16changes. Cost of ownership.

1:06:18>> Yeah.

1:06:18>> So, what I'm trying to understand is

1:06:21what's the what's the total cost of the

1:06:23lifespan of this software that we're

1:06:25going to use?

1:06:26>> We're looking at about 15 million.

1:06:28>> Okay. Thank you.

1:06:29>> For 10 years.

1:06:30>> Yep.

1:06:31>> Alderman Kelly.

1:06:32>> I have a follow up to that question from

1:06:34Alderman Sullivan.

1:06:36So, you're saying that the 1.2 is

1:06:38actually what we're paying now. So, why

1:06:40are we authorizing 2 years when it's

1:06:43already in your budget?

1:06:45>> The reason why we're having the 2-year

1:06:46overlap is because um for continuity of

1:06:49operations, there is going to be an

1:06:51overlap of some of the functionality.

1:06:54>> Okay. So, we'll be continuing the other

1:06:56contract until

1:06:58>> Yes.

1:06:58>> the term Okay. Thank you.

1:07:00>> Any other questions? Alderman Clements.

1:07:03>> Not a question, but uh I was on the

1:07:05board when we replaced last ERP system,

1:07:08>> [laughter]

1:07:09>> which was the admin system, and that was

1:07:1135 years old at the time.

1:07:14And we definitely It was older than me

1:07:16at the time.

1:07:18And uh, we definitely don't want to get

1:07:19us into a situation like that again.

1:07:22Um, so this is This is something I

1:07:25definitely support, and I appreciate the

1:07:27fact that the work

1:07:29is was being done 14 months ago

1:07:33uh, to look into it.

1:07:36And [clears throat] it you know, it's

1:07:37definitely

1:07:39something that you have done

1:07:42proactively and not reactively. And so,

1:07:45I just wanted to point that out and

1:07:47thank you for that.

1:07:49>> Alderman Teeloh.

1:07:50>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to

1:07:51say that when I did the math for that,

1:07:53it's 18.6 million, not really 15, cuz

1:07:55you're talking

1:07:571.2 for 8 years, added on to the 9

1:07:59million, so it comes out to unless I'm

1:08:01doing the math wrong, and it could be,

1:08:03it's 10:00, but 18.6.

1:08:05So.

1:08:06So, it's almost basically double.

1:08:08>> Alderman Sennett.

1:08:09>> Yeah, just to um,

1:08:11I I guess pile on to uh, Alderman

1:08:13Teeloh's point there. I mean,

1:08:15your your

1:08:17annual maintenance and service contract

1:08:18for an ongoing piece of software,

1:08:21I I

1:08:22maybe I'm wrong.

1:08:24I I deal with it every day.

1:08:26I I think that

1:08:28estimating that if it's 1.2 in year

1:08:32three, that it's going to be 1.2 in year

1:08:34eight, I think that's optimistic.

1:08:37Um,

1:08:38in my experience, which is only 13

1:08:41years, but take it for what it's worth,

1:08:44those go up every year. And And that's

1:08:47through the process of renegotiation

1:08:50with long-term vendor partnerships. It

1:08:53That That is the reality of the

1:08:55situation as I've seen it. And I I just

1:08:58want us to be aware of that as we look

1:08:59forward at this.

1:09:02Thank you.

1:09:03>> Alderman Klingy.

1:09:05>> Uh thank you uh Mr. Chairman. Um I've

1:09:07often sat here at this board and um

1:09:11people have asked the question if we do

1:09:12nothing, what would the cost be?

1:09:15So right now we know that the cost of

1:09:17just maintenance is about 1.2 million

1:09:20dollars every year. I whether it goes up

1:09:23next year, goes up the following year or

1:09:24so on. So that's kind of a sunk cost

1:09:26that we're going to be paying that

1:09:28regardless. So while I do appreciate I

1:09:31think looking at the big picture of what

1:09:33the total cost is, I think we have to

1:09:35remember that that 1.2 million dollars

1:09:37or

1:09:38whatever it is in in 5 years from now is

1:09:41still going to be

1:09:43a given if we do nothing today. Um and

1:09:47the cost of the inefficiency is what

1:09:50we're kind of looking at I think more

1:09:51than more than anything. So

1:09:54um I I love looking at that big picture.

1:09:56I think so on, but I think the reality

1:09:58of it is we're already going to be

1:09:59sinking money in whether we do nothing

1:10:02or we approve this bond. Um I just don't

1:10:05want to over inflate what the cost of

1:10:07this is cuz we're already putting a cost

1:10:09out. So thank you.

1:10:13>> You get some of that on Alderman?

1:10:14>> Yep.

1:10:14>> Alderman

1:10:15>> Yeah, thank you Mr. Chair. I mean I

1:10:16think I think generally it's it's still

1:10:19I'm I'm voting for it. So I'm not I

1:10:21wasn't putting numbers out there to say

1:10:22I'm not voting for it, but I think to

1:10:24look at it in a in a in a bigger picture

1:10:26in a global picture of cost of ownership

1:10:29I think is a good thing. I mean cuz

1:10:31that's what we're we're taking cuz

1:10:32there's

1:10:33we don't want it something to be a

1:10:34hidden cost, right? And yeah, it's 9

1:10:36million, but you're still paying the

1:10:38fees that we would pay with the other

1:10:39one. So we want to make sure that that

1:10:41if we're going back to people that we're

1:10:43aware of the hidden cost of this stuff

1:10:45because we're approving 9 million, but

1:10:47we're really approving more than that

1:10:48technically.

1:10:49Um so I think it's important that that

1:10:51that we ask those questions. And so even

1:10:53though I'm supporting it and maybe the

1:10:55people aren't, I I still think it's

1:10:57important to ask those questions. I

1:10:58think that's what our job is.

1:10:59>> I've heard for the longest time, and I'm

1:11:01talking at least years, how inefficient

1:11:04our current software packages are.

1:11:07And this is going to be far more

1:11:09efficient, and I have to believe there's

1:11:11further savings and benefits to the city

1:11:14than than we even are looking at right

1:11:17at the moment. So,

1:11:19any other questions?

1:11:21All right, seeing none.

1:11:24Motion on the floor was to recommend

1:11:25final passage to the full board of R

1:11:2726071.

1:11:29All those in favor signify by saying I.

1:11:31I. Opposed?

1:11:33>> Nay.

1:11:34>> Motion carries.

1:11:38New business ordinances?

1:11:39>> There are none.

1:11:40>> Table in committee?

1:11:41>> There's nothing.

1:11:42>> Uh

1:11:43I'd like to move public comment up and

1:11:45then put general discussion and remarks

1:11:46by aldermen together after that if

1:11:48nobody has any objections.

1:11:51All right.

1:11:53Uh public comment?

1:11:55Seeing none, we'll go right into

1:11:59combination general discussion and

1:12:00remarks by aldermen. I want to start by

1:12:02saying that

1:12:04I want to apologize to everybody that

1:12:06was in this meeting earlier, and to the

1:12:09people who were listening on TV for the

1:12:12remarks that were made by a member of

1:12:14the audience. Uh we had one of our

1:12:17employees here with his young daughter.

1:12:19That was

1:12:20not very nice.

1:12:23And and

1:12:25I think that people should condemn that

1:12:27type of activity. All right.

1:12:30Alderman Devo?

1:12:32>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I mean, you took a

1:12:33lot of the words out of my mouth there.

1:12:34Um first thing I wanted to say is you

1:12:36made a great point just a minute ago

1:12:38when we were talking about the

1:12:40uh the ERP, and I think

1:12:43and Alderman Sullivan's done this all

1:12:44the time where he says it all the time.

1:12:45It's like if we could get

1:12:48detailed savings or or a

1:12:51what's the word you use all the time? We

1:12:53do it in business cost benefit analysis

1:12:54on something, right? And we don't often

1:12:57get what the savings is and

1:12:59you know,

1:13:00and whether I you know, believe the

1:13:02numbers on the DPW garage or not, they

1:13:04were there. Like there was hey, 25 to 40

1:13:07million dollars of savings in this. And

1:13:09so, you know, when we do these projects

1:13:11or we do these big bondings, it would be

1:13:14nice to if if there was any way to do it

1:13:16and sometimes I I get it. There's not.

1:13:19But to see what the savings of something

1:13:21like this could be and then you could

1:13:22take that money off in in theory what

1:13:24the bonding is.

1:13:26But my other point was yeah, what we saw

1:13:28in the chamber was disgusting.

1:13:30And the worst you know, what was what

1:13:33was bad about it is when

1:13:35the person was told that there was a a

1:13:36kid in the audience, they said, "It's my

1:13:38right. I don't care."

1:13:40It may be someone's right to do

1:13:42something. Someone may be able to

1:13:44actually do something. Doesn't mean they

1:13:46have to.

1:13:47And that's to me an issue. And you know,

1:13:51what's almost as disgusting is we can't

1:13:52do anything about it. And I think that's

1:13:54that's also terrible. And

1:13:56I feel bad for for the employee that

1:13:58brought their their child here to to

1:14:00listen to government and to support

1:14:02their father when he was here trying to

1:14:04do his work. So, I I think that was it

1:14:07was just it was it was despicable and I

1:14:09wish

1:14:10at least they'd have some respect for

1:14:11someone like that as opposed to I I know

1:14:14you'll never have respect for us. That's

1:14:16fine. But to have respect for the child

1:14:18that was in the audience, I think they

1:14:19at least deserve that.

1:14:21>> Thank you. Any others? All in Senate?

1:14:23>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um

1:14:25just on the last piece of legislation

1:14:27that we just had up just now. Um

1:14:29you know, it's I know it's sort of off

1:14:32the cuff for me to vote no where I'd

1:14:34voted for everything else tonight, but

1:14:36I I just want to note that I I

1:14:37understand the need for a modernized and

1:14:40a more efficient ERP. I mean, I I work

1:14:43with them daily. I'm in the middle of a

1:14:45re-implementation right now. I don't

1:14:47know what program I'm going to be

1:14:49ultimately using next year. Um

1:14:51and that's where I sort of landed on

1:14:54that is

1:14:55again

1:14:56recognize the need, horrified to hear

1:14:59that AP is touching a invoice 12 times

1:15:02before it's paid. My God.

1:15:04Um

1:15:05but [clears throat] nevertheless it just

1:15:07with something like this we we had a

1:15:09discussion uh regarding an old piece of

1:15:11legislation uh

1:15:14maybe year and sh maybe not even 6

1:15:16months ago uh regarding vehicles for the

1:15:19street department and there was a

1:15:20question about, you know, what we were

1:15:22getting and

1:15:23I just

1:15:24as I consider that and I consider it in

1:15:26comparison to this, I just I want to be

1:15:27a little closer to understanding what

1:15:29I'm getting for my $9 million

1:15:31um

1:15:31before I I commit that bond. I

1:15:35that's just where I landed on that one.

1:15:37So, I just I wanted to put that out

1:15:39there uh for understanding. Thank you.

1:15:41>> Councilman Sullivan.

1:15:42>> Thank you. I

1:15:44to that point

1:15:45the

1:15:47and I brought it up in the public

1:15:48hearing. I it's a principal thing with

1:15:51me. We knew we had an issue

1:15:54for 15 months. I understand that there

1:15:57are budget constraints and there's

1:15:59there's uh a certain guideline that that

1:16:02the administration wanted all to to

1:16:04stand by. But knowing that we need

1:16:08something

1:16:09that touches every single department in

1:16:12the city to make it more efficient, to

1:16:14not include it in a budget

1:16:18to me just

1:16:20doesn't sit right.

1:16:22And I think that

1:16:23you know, however we pay for it, we pay

1:16:25for it.

1:16:27But it's a question of prioritization.

1:16:29It's a question of financial

1:16:31responsibility to stand there and say

1:16:34we need this. We understand that there's

1:16:37going to be uh some pain. If we can't

1:16:40fit it in the budget, how do we fit it

1:16:42in the budget? How do we try to

1:16:45you know, finagle and move things around

1:16:47to fit it in the budget.

1:16:49You know, we we we hear it I'm I know

1:16:51I'm not on the budget committee anymore,

1:16:52but 4 years I heard you budget your

1:16:56where where your values are and where

1:16:57your priorities are and to not include

1:16:59it in the budget to supplementally

1:17:01appropriate it

1:17:03in October, almost November into the

1:17:05fiscal year, really just it it's just a

1:17:08principle thing with me and I just

1:17:09wanted to say that.

1:17:11>> Councilman Clements

1:17:13>> Yeah, I'm I I guess I'm perplexed

1:17:16uh

1:17:17by the last comment. Um

1:17:20And the And the And the reason being is

1:17:22that

1:17:24you know,

1:17:25the

1:17:27if we were to add $9 million to the

1:17:29budget,

1:17:31I mean, that that's going to raise taxes

1:17:34by

1:17:36an enormous amount.

1:17:39Like

1:17:40that's that's going

1:17:41>> 3 and 1/2 percent.

1:17:42>> I I I I think it's more than that. I I

1:17:44think it's where every $2 million is 2%?

1:17:47>> So, 2 4 6 8 10, you're talking about 10%

1:17:53budget increase

1:17:54if we were to just for an ERP system.

1:17:58I mean, that's that's why we're bonding

1:18:00it.

1:18:03I I I mean, if we if we didn't if we

1:18:05just went out and budgeted all of this

1:18:07stuff, you'd have a 100% tax increase.

1:18:10That's why you have to bond some of this

1:18:12stuff. I don't And the other thing is

1:18:14too it it it we're not [snorts] at the

1:18:16point yet. I mean, the presentation was

1:18:18very clear. We're not at the point yet

1:18:20where we're under the gun to do this.

1:18:23We're doing it early so that we're not

1:18:25in that position

1:18:27come 2029 when the when the system is is

1:18:31obsolete.

1:18:33So, I I I'm just

1:18:36not sure

1:18:38where that was lost in the in in the

1:18:40presentation, but that's that's what I

1:18:42got out of it is that we're being

1:18:43proactive.

1:18:45We've been working on this for 15

1:18:47months. We know that the end game of

1:18:49this software is 2029. So, we're doing

1:18:52it years ahead of time to make sure that

1:18:55we get something in place that's going

1:18:58to be viable for

1:19:00the foreseeable future. I That's what I

1:19:02got out of the presentation tonight. And

1:19:05as far as the math,

1:19:07yeah, adding it to last year's budget

1:19:08would have been an astronomical ask to

1:19:11to the taxpayers. I mean, you're talking

1:19:13about a 10% increase just for one thing.

1:19:17I mean, that's crazy.

1:19:18So, I I Maybe I misinterpreted what was

1:19:20said

1:19:21about the budgeting, but

1:19:24that's why we're bonding it. That's why

1:19:25we're bonding all of this stuff.

1:19:28>> And if you had to do it in the budget,

1:19:30you would lose one hell of a lot of

1:19:31employees cuz that's the only way you

1:19:33could cover

1:19:35to come out even without adding it.

1:19:38Anyone else?

1:19:41Alderman Cleary.

1:19:42>> I thank you, uh Mr. Chairman. Um I kind

1:19:44of want to echo some of the other words,

1:19:46and I'm glad that they've

1:19:48they're coming in early on this because

1:19:50they said that there has to be an

1:19:51overlap process. And like many of my

1:19:54colleagues here, I've worked in IT as

1:19:56well, and I know that when you're

1:19:58transitioning from one to another, you

1:20:00don't just push a button and it happens.

1:20:02You have to slowly bring things in, and

1:20:05usually it's department by department

1:20:07because IT cannot handle trying to do

1:20:09all those fixes. So, I don't know that

1:20:11it's going to take 1 year or 2 years or

1:20:156 months. But whatever it's going to

1:20:17take, it allows us to be able to

1:20:19transition over and do it as such. But,

1:20:22um

1:20:23to to the other comments about um

1:20:26putting it in the budget, um

1:20:29the the ask should be, if we did put

1:20:31this in the budget, what else would we

1:20:33have to cut? Um whether it be employees

1:20:35or something else like that. That's what

1:20:37I would have wanted to know and I think

1:20:39that this is a priority

1:20:41um because we're going to lose the

1:20:43system. I think all of the items that

1:20:44were here are priority, which is why we

1:20:46did the ad hoc meetings and why we sat

1:20:49and we deliberated and talked about

1:20:52whether or not this is something we

1:20:54could afford, when can we afford to

1:20:57start it, when and so and so it was

1:21:00There's a timeline that everything kind

1:21:01of fell under. Um and I do appreciate

1:21:04though, you know, the saying let's stop

1:21:06Let's stop um

1:21:08doing the things that we're doing. Let's

1:21:10stop creating bonds and so on, but

1:21:12that's also part of the process of

1:21:13having good credit is to maintain a

1:21:16certain bond level,

1:21:17um but drop things off at the same time.

1:21:19I don't know whether or not we're

1:21:20necessarily dropping things off fast

1:21:22enough, but we are dropping them off so

1:21:24that we maintain an an even keel each

1:21:26year. Thank you.

1:21:28>> Okay.

1:21:29Follow me, Connie.

1:21:30>> Uh thank you. I I just also wanted to

1:21:32comment on the process to getting here

1:21:34and how the ad hoc committee has in

1:21:36previous years and this year really

1:21:37worked through all these projects, but

1:21:39what I was trying to get at with my

1:21:40questions that I know everybody was

1:21:41annoyed by is that we have a lot of

1:21:44perspective. We've sat in these

1:21:45meetings, we've gone to ad hoc, we've

1:21:48gone to the library trustees meetings

1:21:49and there can be people people who come

1:21:51to a public meeting who've never heard

1:21:53this and now they're wondering why we're

1:21:55we're bonding $44 million, right? So

1:21:57that's where I think there's an

1:21:59opportunity for us and I'm not saying

1:22:00why won't you to spend hours and hours,

1:22:02but how can we lay out what we've done

1:22:04to date in a little bit more clarity for

1:22:06people so that they understand that

1:22:08actually we did this step and then we

1:22:09did this step and then we did this step

1:22:11and by the way now we're here because I

1:22:13think sometimes people get one glimpse

1:22:15of one meeting and they say, "Well,

1:22:19what is this all about?" And I'm like, I

1:22:20can add up 100 hours where we talked

1:22:22about this and that's why we are here.

1:22:25Um so I just think that there has to be

1:22:27some give and take. I don't want 5-hour

1:22:29meetings for every single project every

1:22:30single time cuz a lot of us have seen

1:22:32these many times. But especially at the

1:22:34public hearing, how do we bring them

1:22:36along in terms of how we got here, how

1:22:39we might have been changing things like

1:22:41to Director Cummings' point about we're

1:22:43now doing it so that we just do the

1:22:44design first. So we have a more accurate

1:22:47but bond budget. We just started doing

1:22:49that. So not everybody follows that um,

1:22:52when they're looking at a spreadsheet.

1:22:53So if we're asking questions, sometimes

1:22:54it's to help everyone else understand

1:22:57how we got here.

1:22:59That's all.

1:23:00>> Alderman Senate, you have a motion?

1:23:02>> Motion to adjourn.

1:23:04>> Motion is to adjourn. All in favor

1:23:05signify by saying I.

1:23:07>> I.

1:23:07>> I.

1:23:08>> I actually didn't do remarks, but okay.

1:23:09>> Motion carried.

1:23:12>> 10:00, say a time.

1:23:14>> Okay.

1:23:16>> Let's say a time, 10:17.

1:23:2110:17.

1:23:24>> [laughter]

```*