And this is a special meeting of the Board of Finance. It is Tuesday, April 14th, 2026. And this is the budget vote on the mayor's proposed operating capital and special funds budgets, as well as the Board of Education for fiscal year 2026, 27.
and we have our full complement of members of the board, including Richard Friedman, Jennifer
Munger, Jeff Oswanger, Laura Berwick, Tom Doherty, and myself Mary Lou Renaldi. And again,
I ask that if you are not a member of the Board of Finance or a member of the OPM team, please turn
off your camera and your microphone because we're getting a lot of feedback because of the number
of people that have logged on. Obviously you're welcome to attend. We just need to have everybody
able to hear what the board is doing, okay? All right. So as a part of our agenda
We do make time for the public to be heard for 30 minutes in total and each speaker will have a three-minute limit.
Now, if you attended the public hearing last week and you spoke to the Board of Finance and the Fiscal Committee of the Board of Representatives,
we said here your comments.
So I asked the tune you not take the time to repeat them at this at this point.
So with that, is there anyone here who would like to address the board for three minutes before we start our process?
All right. Mary Lou, we have Dave Adams has a pandraist.
He did speak. He spoke at the public hearing.
Yeah, they if you did you did speak at the public hearing and we did hear hear your comments, but do you do have anything in addition to add?
Thank you chair. I actually mind was more of a matter of process. I know that you're having feedback issues and I would encourage you to advise anyone who is joining this meeting to only have one device.
I'm meeting you at a time that will that will kill the feedback issue.
Okay, thank you for that Dave and please everyone please mute your microphone. Turn off your camera.
I'm going to mute everyone and come back and put your mics back on. Okay. Hold on one second.
All right. That's fine. Thank you. Yep.
okay can everybody hear me yes yes okay all right so as I mentioned we are
going please mute your mic please whoever's speaking
all right as I mentioned
we're going to act on the mayor's operating capital in special funds budget as
as well as the Board of Education budget for fiscal year,
2026, 2027.
But before we start, I think it's important
to provide some context to the public and to the people
who are listening in to our deliberations tonight.
So I just want to set the stage a little bit.
So, the mayor's operating and capital budgets reflects a tax increase of 7.89% over last year.
And the members of the Board of Finance believe that this level of increase is unsustainable and causes tremendous hardship to the citizens of Stanford.
To impose a tax increase of this magnitude when people are struggling with higher food and gas prices, higher rents and other expenses just didn't seem fair to us.
In her presentation to the Board of Finance and the Board of Representatives back in March, Mayor Simmons expressed to us.
Please, please mute your mic.
Mayor Simmons expressed to us her disappointment that the administration wasn't able to get the budgets down to a 5% increase.
And we took the mayor's challenge to heart and worked very hard to reduce the budgets accordingly to try and to reach that target.
And we've been working with her to that end.
I've said many times from the very beginning of this process that the Board of Finance would have to make some very hard decisions with respect to these budgets.
We would have to retain those items and those services that were absolutely essential to the city.
I believe in many ways having actually sat through that process that the budget process this year is even more difficult than the budget process we went through with COVID.
And I say that because the increase this year is much bigger and the request for funding is much greater.
Now, as part of the budget, we have to take into account that the city is building new schools.
And we have to stockpile as it were, the funds to move west hill and rocks buried to actual construction.
And that means that we're paying for everything up front, partially through fund 57,
and then waiting for the state reimbursements at 80% for West Hill and 60% for Roxbury.
So we're talking about well over $100 million.
Now this year the city has also made a decision to do a $65 million bond offering,
which
factors will at some point during the year add to our costs.
And this is a new addition based on the fact that we haven't bonded in the past three years.
So in a perfect world with unlimited funds, the border finance would have loved to approve every budget request.
However, that's not the situation that we're in.
Unfortunately, we've had to make fiscally proven decisions
and really to balance municipal need with the people's ability to pay.
I can assure you that we have spent countless hours in budget review sessions
with the departments over the past two months
And believe that we have done our due diligence to the best of our ability.
Once we finish our votes on the expense side tonight, we will take up the revenue side on May 18th
and we will set the mill rate.
And that will conclude the budget process for fiscal year 2627.
if any other board members which we should wish to comment I would ask that they do so now.
Mary Lou.
Yes, Laura.
Oh, thank you very much.
I've got the back to.
I really appreciate all of your words and just wanted to add that the mayor's budget includes the Board of Education budget.
So they the combined to would equal the increase that you had talked about.
Right.
Right, and that's what we're that's what we're acting on tonight. The operating capital in the Board of Education if everything on the expense side of the ledger
Right
Richard and then Jennifer go head Richard go head Jennifer
Thank you Richard. I was just going to say to Mary Lou thank you for that
introduction and that level setting
And it has been for as a new member of the board.
It's been a lot of hours and making sure we make the right decisions.
But just thank you for doing that introduction and level setting.
And Jen, I know that it's been particularly difficult for you and Tom.
This is your first foray into into the budget process.
And I know it's been a lot.
So I thank you for your patience and for your stick toadiveness and I thank you for your very thoughtful
comments during the process.
Richard?
Thanks, Mary Lou and thanks for your comments.
I think maybe to put it in context.
So this is Mary Lou and I, this is our 13th budget together, Mary Lou's course, this is probably
you're 28th. 30 second. 30 second. Who's count? I was close. So at least for the 13 that I've been
on, which eight years of Mayor Martin, and now this is the fifth year of Mayor Simmons. I believe
the highest mill rate we ever increased. We ever got in the mayor's budget before we acted was
under 4%. And I don't recall a year where we passed in the rate increase over that 2.8%
on the last five years it's been under 2%. We won't be anywhere close to that this year.
And this is the first year that I can remember where it was not only over 4% it's actually almost 8%.
percent so that obviously provides its own challenges but you know the
Board of Finance takes everything into account and we try and be fair and
hopefully that will come through as we go through the evening. Thanks. Thanks for
your Tom.
Yes thanks. Thanks again Mary Lou. You know for your free
humble and your opening comments and I just want to say in kind of piggyback on
what Jennifer relate is that yeah it's it's it's my first year and also but you know I
I really appreciate the disagreements aside and I know we've got some but I appreciate everybody's
input you know I think the board here the board of finance coming into it I hadn't you know really
no expectations but I found it you know collaborative and and I really appreciate that particularly
being the new person so as we go through this process again I know we'll have some disagreements
But I think without to the person we want what's best for Stanford and hopefully this budget will reflect that.
Thank you, Tom.
Thank you.
Mary Lou.
Yes, Jeff, please.
I'll be brief because you did touch on it.
But I just want to say that I also appreciate Mayor Simmons coming forward and recognizing the work that needs to still be done and asking for a collaboration.
And so I just want to recognize that leadership.
So thank you.
OK.
All right.
So with that, let's go into the budget book.
Now, as been our practice for all the time I've
been on the Board of Finance, we take the Board of Education
first.
And I know that the Board of Ed has a meeting
and Dr. Lucero will need to attend that.
to accommodate her and to I'm sure address the the attention of many people around this
call we will start with the Board of Education on page 360
Richard.
So I'd like to make a
I'm back.
Background. And then I want to explain how we got to the number.
So the Board of Finance does not have some set of uniform rules that would apply to the Board of Ed budget every year.
There have been years when the Board of Ed has gotten to 1% increase.
There have been years when the Board of Ed has gotten over a 5% increase.
I believe the last 2 years, the increase has been over 5%.
So we take, we try and take into account what's happening in the Board of Ed budget.
And I think there's a lot of expertise on this board in terms of the guts of the Board of Ed budget.
And also, of course, we have to fit it into the rest of what's going on at the city at the time.
And, for example, two years ago, the board of Ed hit its, what had been turned the cliff or the fiscal cliff that it had been talked about for several years.
before it happened, and this board recognized, this board recognized that the board of
Ed had put forth a pretty tight budget, and 5% was what it was, and I believe we made a
pretty small cut that year, and they ended up with about a 5% increase. And so, you know, we
We look at the situation as we're presented with it, and we don't apply some art and
fast rule.
So this year, let's start with the components of the cut.
The superintendent came in at over 5%, we looked at the components of the cuts that she had made.
She had determined that the district could make them without in her judgment impacting the education
of the children. And so we started with the superintendents budget. So that's a 6.2 million dollar
reduction. We've made other reductions in the amount of 2.3 million. We have reduced the
budget by 1.6 million because that's the adjustments that were made for OPEB and the health
I can't remember a year where those numbers were not revised downward after the board of
it, set their budget this year was about 1.6 million, and then we understand from the
mayor that there is a high likelihood that the state will provide additional funding,
school funding to presumably all districts, certainly Stanford would be one of them, and based
on the numbers that have been talked about, we believe that we will adjust what we don't
want to happen is for because we're, because we're in a situation where the mayor came in close
to 8%, what we don't want is a situation where the additional funding comes through after we
the budget, and that would produce the surplus in the board of Ed budget, but would not let us
adjust the mill rate to reflect that additional funding that comes in after we set the budget.
This is a short session this year, so we don't know now what that potential revenue is,
but we will know by the time we set the mill rate. So we've made an assumption of $2 million,
That will be reduced from the board of ed budget if it comes through from the state in a greater amount the board of ed will take the balances surplus if it comes through in a lesser amount or it doesn't come through at all
We will make the board of ed whole for that for that two million dollars up to two million dollars.
So if you add all those numbers together,
6.2 million, 2.3 million, 1.6 million,
and 2 million, that's a $12.1 million reduction.
I view that effectively is a $2.3 million reduction
to the superintendents budget.
I know that's not how it will be headlines
in the newspaper, or talked about around town,
but that's how I view it.
And so I will move to make a 12.1 million dollar reduction to the board of the budget.
Okay, is there a second?
All second it.
Okay. Discussion?
Richard, could you maybe talk a little bit more about the two million again?
Just kind of some of the steps, right?
maybe make it a little bit simpler for some of us, so the actual reductions are
10.1 million dollars, right? Those are those are the reductions.
There's been a lot of press and there's been a lot of discussion in Hartford about providing
additional school funding beyond what's being provided right now in the state budget,
which I believe is no increase at all from last year.
The, the,
there've been total numbers talked about
about 150 million at the state level.
So we made an assumption that maybe two million of that
will be coming our way.
And do you think it's a conservative assumption?
I believe that's a conservative assumption.
Yes, if it does come through and we don't reduce the budget, then what will happen is it will end up coming directly to the board of ed.
It will create a surplus in their budget for 2,02627 and we will not be able to use that money to offset the tax levee.
If we take it out now, we can offset the tax levy, but of course we're running, there's always that chance that that money doesn't come through or that it comes through an lesser amount.
And if it does, I'm making a commitment that we will make the board of ed, and I believe I speak for the rest of at least my caucus that we will make the board of ed full up to $2 million.
So we will find the funds on the city side after the mill rate is said if that state funding does not come through.
And is the state funding allocated to special education?
It could be allocated in any number of ways.
It could come through a special ed funding, it could come through and it could come through in the alliance grant.
I think it's highly unlikely that it's going to come through directly in ECS, which would come directly to the city.
I can't remember the last time our ECS number changed.
But there's a number of different ways it could come through to the board of ed.
I mean, we're indifferent to that.
So we're indifferent is to what line it comes through to the board of ed.
But the point is, it's almost, it's almost certain that if it comes through, it will come directly to the board of education and not to the city.
All right, thank you.
And the timing of this is estimated one if we haven't arranged.
They have to, yeah, they have to decide by the end of the session.
And I think the session ends the first,
or it ends in the first or second week in May
and we vote on the middle rate in the third week in May.
So this happens to be one of,
it's the every other year where we can actually contemplate
something like this in a long session we could not.
All right, thank you.
And I think that's, you know, one of my comments
is that we're really underfunded from a state level
on many fronts. And we are trying to do as much as we can at a city level. And I, you know,
I've been trying to emphasize that we need to, as a city, kind of speak out to the state
and really push to have more. I really feel it. There's just putting us in a, in a, a, a
appreciate the clarity. Thank you.
And Richard, just so everybody understands some of the other cuts that we, that you mentioned,
are really savings that we're already aware of.
So savings in the health care, savings in other areas.
So they're not really cuts. It's just reducing the budget to to actualize those savings.
correct. 1.6 million. We were told when the Board of
Ed came and presented to us that the their health care
consultant and the city's actuary had recalculated the
numbers for their OPEB contribution and their health insurance
premium to the state partnership plan. I believe when their
budget was set there was an estimate of 15% and I think the
actual number ended up being closer to 12. And that 3%
different propagated through the board of ed budget and created a 1.6 million dollar reduction
in their cross charge and their direct charge, cross charge from the city for OPEB and direct
charge from the state for the partnership plan, the health insurance plan. So that's just adjusting
their budget to what they're actually going to be paying.
Okay. Any other comments?
All right,
please go ahead. I was not quick enough on the Mike to do that. Yeah, I was just like to say now
this is I guess my 14th Board of Ed budget seven on the Board of Ed to seven seven when
you're in Board of Finance. And I think this is incredibly challenging and there will be very
difficult decisions ahead. But I also think the magnitude of the reduction could have been greater.
And so while many people have written to us and spoke eloquently at the public hearing about key initiatives.
Those are going to be the decisions left to the Board of Ed to make those specific difficult decisions.
And while I hope as many of those items can be in the next budget for the Board of Ed, I'll call out a few.
I hope the athletic directors will be there.
I hope music and the disruption for elementary.
I hope our arts through our high school and our band.
I hope others as well because there were some wonderfully
eloquent people that spoke, but I think there's a recognition
that this is the best we can do at this moment in time,
given the challenges we've been faced with.
So thank you.
All right, so there is a motion on the floor,
which has been seconded for a cut of $12.1 million to the budget of the Board of Ed.
If there are no more speakers, we'll take it to a vote.
Is anyone opposed to or abstaining from this motion?
Okay, hearing none, then the motion carries unanimously.
And the new number, Bill or Tony, is...
With that 121, the board of ed would be three, five, nine, nine, seven, five, one, three, three.
All right.
Then we'll go back to the to the front of the book.
And we'll start on page
page 21, which is the director of administration page
25.
I'd like to just take something kind of collectively a little bit out of page order.
Sure.
The mayor has added a number of new positions to the budget and they were provided to us in a spreadsheet.
And I think the most expeditious way to make these reductions is to do this in one group.
So I'm going to list them. I'm going to list them by the page number.
I think I have the page numbers right and the amounts.
And when I'm done anyone on our boarder who wants to pull something off the list and have it voted on separately, just speak up.
And that's what we'll do.
But let me just get through the whole list first, page 120 program 2143 collections, collections
driver 2, that would be, and this is all from full-time salaries, that would be 80,896 dollars.
Page 253 program 3521 suppression firefighters, this is eight positions that would be a reduction of 529,440.
Page 271 program 3810 Director of Health Epidemiologist, that's a reduction of 110,588.
Page 277 program 3820 Public School Health Public Health and there's 142 weeks.
That's a reduction of 78-84-4, page 295 program for 4010 legal department, a system court counsel. That's a reduction of 161-500.
same page, same program, legal department,
parallel legal.
That's a reduction of 89632,
page 301, program 4020,
human resources, leave of absence administrator.
That's a reduction of 98422,
page 308, program 1200 economic development,
project manager, reduction of 123803,
page 425,
25 program 2139 parking C traffic violations officer. They're actually two of these. And the total is 142 151 42 152. And I so move with the with the with what I said before, which is at this point anyone who wants to speak up about any of these
individually we can take them up individually.
All right, is there a second and then we can talk about it?
All right, seconded by Laura. Okay, Tom.
Yes, I move that we take out the the firefighters.
And and talk about that separately and have a both separately.
Okay.
All right, so we'll move forward with everything else, but the, but the,
But the firefighters. Yes. Um, so we ask something. Sure. Richard, can you please repeat
the second one? I missed the 253 page 233 reduction in salaries for one. Was that one we're
taking separately anyway. So it's it's 529440 that's the amount.
Thank you. Any else?
Okay, is there
anyone opposed to or abstaining from this motion and we're taking all of those positions
with the exception of the the eight firefighters are
adhering none then that motion carries
unanimously and we can move to program 3521 suppression firefighters this is for eight
positions in the amount of 529,000 for 40. Comments? Tom? Yeah, yeah, yeah, thank you, Mary,
though. Yeah, I, I wanted to, yeah, you pulled us out directly, because I, I think, when,
I had a good meeting with Chief Morris about these eight firefighters, and I think this is going to
a couple of things. I think it's going to, you know, because emergency activity is up, I think
it's proven for us to add these firefighters. And, you know, when he's adding these firefighters,
it's just not, he's just not adding people, he's adding people that are going to be interfacing
with the, the public. Yeah, these are very specific job positions in the rescue company
And I think they're public facing and it's just not adding administrative or anybody else or he just doesn't say adding people he's very specific and what these guys do and I think it's important that we we consider you know how the city has changed and the number of people in it.
You know, from the, he talked a little bit about in the 1980s we had 38 firefighters assigned
to downtown, and today we have that same exact number, and you're with, you know, structural
fires going up over the course of the last 10 years, 30, some odd percent with some serious
buyers, you know, increasing also over the course of time, that activity has gone up and I think
we need to meet that demand. And you take that increase activity and then you look at the
changes from downtown over the last 40 years or even 10 years. The downtown is infrastructure
is completely different. There's much more complex. We've got high rises versus single building,
single homes. And it's just much more complex and a much more difficult, particularly in an emergency.
And as our city continues to grow, we get more people, more high rises, more traffic.
You know, all the things that these firefighters have to contend with, I think it's prudent that we add these eight.
new members of the firefighters. Because as I said, you know, Chief Morris has got a good plan
and putting them right on the street directly supporting the people. And I know probably a better
idea would be open up a new firehouse with all the equipment and the people to go along with that.
But again, I credit Chief Morris with understanding the physical constraints of the city of Stanford
and really kind of being creative in trying to reconcile the safety of its people with its fiscal
limitations. And I think that's why that this is a, you know, a good way to do just that.
And because we are continuing to grow, I just don't want to be left behind because if you don't
pass it this year, we're going to have probably, you know, there are thousands to 3,000 more units
on the market full of people that we're going to have to protect and we're not increasing our infrastructure and our support for them.
So, so I'm I'm I'm for keeping this into the budget.
Okay. Other comments?
Jennifer?
Thanks, Mary Lou.
I just like to echo Tom's comments about continuing to
to think forward-looking and really that this is more about the city of Stanford safety.
And the positions that we did cut are, well, you know, it's hard to cut them.
They are some office positions.
And these are people that are out to try to save the city of Sanford.
And the infrastructure is increasing.
There's going to be 3,300 additional housing units.
We know that for a fact or we know that's been proposed.
And it's just a serious request for the city about safety.
And what I wouldn't want is for us as a city to find out.
And that this shows up when we really need it most,
and placing the two men across the companies
is a more economical way to, I think,
provide that safety across the city.
There was also one other mention that Chief Morris
did make in his presentation,
was about the IOS insurance rates,
and if we don't keep up with those minimums
that we do have a potential of having to pay more, which we obviously do not want to create another
expense. So I think they were thoughtful in about managing what they can bring to this board
from a cost perspective. So I would be very supportive of keeping this one in the budget this year,
given that it's a public safety matter.
Okay, thank you.
Anyone else?
All right, so Tom, do you,
I guess we have to vote on a motion to Mary.
I just want to make some very brief comments.
Yeah.
I also met with the chief and with the assistant chief
robust, we had a very lively discussion.
Public safety positions are always a very difficult decision.
And what weighs quite heavily on me is the total cost.
It's a very high bar for me to get over.
What we have here in the book is just the salaries, but we know that we know that
we know that public safety, we've seen the pension.
We've seen the pension obligations for both public safety unions and their significant and I think what exacerbates that is the fact that the neither of those pension funds is particularly well managed and it makes it makes these kinds of decisions very difficult to make.
So, I think the housing that's being added to the city is the safest kind of housing that there is.
That's been demonstrated definitively, right?
Part of modern apartment buildings are six times safer than single family homes.
And so, I will not support keeping these positions in the budget.
Okay. Anyone else?
Okay. So, a motion was already made and seconded to make a cut to program 3521 suppression firefighters in the amount of 529,440. Is there anyone opposed to or of staining from this motion?
Because the motion carries with a vote of four in favor and two opposed with no abstentions.
Okay, we'll go to the book and we'll start on page 23 and we'll go through page 5 page and as you as you have as you want to make a motion just stop and and
Let me know that you know what you want to do on that page, and we'll make the cuts on the pages with the purple headings.
That's normally where we make the cuts. That's really the.
Mary.
My nice suggests that we if people we can skip pages, right?
So, just who's got the lowest page number, call it out, and if we, someone makes a mistake and we skip them, we can always go back.
Okay, all right.
So I think that would be, that would be a lot of fun.
Yeah, I think that would be a lot faster than paging through the book one at a time.
Okay, all right, just pay attention, everyone.
where you want to go. I have a reduction on page 32. Is there anyone with a page before that?
Okay, so my motion is under salaries on page 32. It's a reduction of $45,000 for the payroll account.
We understand that there may be some reorganizational changes in that department, and we're
going to fund this position for half a year, and this way if there's new management coming
into the payroll department, they will have a say in terms of the hiring of the payroll
account.
So, I move a cut to the salary account on page 32, the controllers office in the amount of $45,000.
Is there a second, seconded by Jeff comments?
Sorry, Mary Lou, you said there was new information about an organizational change.
You know, we were told when they when they came before us that they were anticipating some some
possible retirements and some changes in that department and we believe that having
if there is going to be new management that that that individual has a say and you know who's going to get hired in this in this position.
So we're going to fund it, but at half a year rather than the full salary for the full year.
Laura?
I just wanted to point out that this is a new position that we are adding to the budget at half a year.
Okay.
And it's based on feedback internally that the things are not being posted properly.
payroll is a huge piece of the city budget, and we feel that it's critical that they have the
resources to do it right. Right.
Okay. It's been moved in seconded. Is there anyone opposed to
or abstaining from this motion?
Right. Hearing none, then the motion passes unanimously.
Right. Moving on from page 32. Does anyone have a motion?
I have 151,
page 51. I would like to cut 200,000 from software maintenance.
Is there a second?
I'll second it.
All right, comments,
rationale.
They didn't spend anything close to their full budget, or they're not going to be spending anything close to their full budget this year, Mrs. Fleer.
Okay. So, it's been moved and seconded. Is there anyone opposed to or abstaining from this motion?
then the motion passes unanimously.
I have a motion on page 86 unless there's someone
prior to that.
Mary Lou. Yes, Jennifer. Page 71.
We had under the program 1023
or
tax collection. We had two new positions here. Unless I was mistaken and it was already
included in that larger sweep in the beginning.
I wanted to make a motion
to put that.
Jan, I think those were reorganizations of departments. If you look on page 69 on the right
And this is really confused things.
It throws me out all the time.
The Assistant Tax Collector moved from 10, 22.
I'm sorry, from Assistant Director of Tax collection.
And then Bill, you better do this.
I'm missing it up.
There were five solidations.
I think there were two departments.
And yeah, there were moves.
There were a lot of moves in between revenue services
and tax collection.
So there's a lot of pluses and minuses
the net difference between the two call centers. I believe is only about like 30,000 or so.
But there's no new positions being added. There's no new positions. No. Right.
Okay. Thank you. And Jen, I understand where you're confused because the the manager of revenue
services fail to come before us. So yeah, it wasn't here to explain it to us. It wasn't here.
playing that shift and it looks like two new right so we're we were all a little confused so
okay so do you want to withdraw that I will withdraw that motion then thank you
okay all right anything else before page 86
okay I would like to make a motion then on page 86
to cut a 33,000 out of the seasonal account and that is the increase year over year.
Last year it was a $45,000 budget. It increased to 78,000 so we're just bringing it back to the $45,000 total.
And I so move.
Is there a second? Seconded by Jeff? Okay. Is there any comments? If not, is there any
what opposed to or abstaining from this motion?
Okay, hearing none, the motion has passed unanimously.
I have one on page 87 on the same department.
Under vehicle maintenance, I'd like to propose a cut of $200,000.
This is the first year that all of the vehicle maintenance expenses are being consolidated into one department.
And I had a discussion with the operations team that's managing that, and they feel that they will be able to manage to a $200,000 reduction.
Okay, is there a second to Laura's motion?
Seconded by Richard.
Okay, any other comments?
All right, hearing none.
We'll take it to a vote.
Is there any one opposed to or a standing from this motion?
All right, hearing none.
that passes unanimously.
Okay,
next page is very low. I have something on 94, unless someone has something before that.
Okay.
That's,
well,
137 Henry Street.
Contracted services security line that line was going up approximately 140,000 dollars this year.
And that was to dramatically increase the time that facility is open, so I'm going to propose a $100,000 cut to that which still provides more resources than they previously had the prior year.
So I so moved that.
Okay, is there a second to that motion?
All right, seconded by Jennifer.
All right, any comments or questions?
All right, hearing none, then we'll take it to a vote.
Is there anyone opposed to or of standing from this motion?
All right, then the motion is carried unanimously.
Okay, next pages.
I have something on 100.
Okay,
30,000 dollar reduction to contracted services, ground maintenance,
That's the amount of the increase.
So that takes it back to last year.
All right.
Is there a second to that motion?
Seconded by Laura.
Comments and questions.
I thought that 30,000 was for the snow removal.
And why are we cutting it?
I thought that was for law and flowers.
No, that's it's snow removal.
I guess the reason that we're cutting it is that we're spending $70,000 to remove snow from a garage and I think that the city's got to look at that garage and figure out a different way to get the snow out.
In the year prior, they spent $40,000 to remove the snow and it's just, it's not a sustainable number.
I don't know whether it needs to be bit out or a different method used.
I know the plows can't get in the garage, but maybe we need to buy a snow removal equipment and have someone come over and do it.
don't know but it just seemed like it was ballooning and that there needs to be someone to
look at that and figure out a better way.
And it's not related to the expenses related to
the salt and what we needed for the city. No. All right.
It's been moved and seconded. Are there
any other comments?
All right. Hearing none
is there anyone opposed to or abstaining from
this motion. I love staying. All right, so it's the motion is carried with five in favor and one of
extension. Okay. Moving on from page 100.
Sorry about that. I'm juggling hundreds.
And that's
on page 178.
Okay, so there anything before that? If not, we'll go to page 178.
Go ahead, Laura.
I would like to cut, you know, the second sort of the back. 117,961 dollars.
Okay, and that is for, that's out of salaries.
that's our salaries, that would be the new position of the urban forester.
And there is money in the existing budget for, I believe, a tree maintenance person.
And I think that,
I'm sorry, Elded, did you have to,
Yeah, I just want to follow. She can repeat the number again. Sure. One hundred thousand.
One hundred seventeen thousand nine hundred sixty one dollars. It's equivalent to the salary for the urban
forester. Thank you, Mom. I don't know if we was second Mary love happy to talk about it. I'll second it.
Go ahead. There is the reduction of a tree maintenance specialist and to the extent that the city
that that physician is necessary. I encourage them to come back for an appropriation for it.
The concern that I have is that a lot of the services and urban foresters can provide
can be provided by outside contractors at minimal to no charge. If a company is coming to spray
a tree for disease, they will diagnose it for you if you pay for the treatment for the disease.
If a company is coming to plant a new tree or to sell us a new tree, they can advise us as to which trees are necessary to be purchased.
So I'm just thinking that some of these could be outsourced at little to no cost for the city.
And so that's the rationale for the cut.
Okay? But if they need someone to actually do the work that we would consider,
we would consider an appropriation to fund a tree maintenance specialist.
Correct.
Okay. Any other comments?
All right. Then we'll take it to a vote. Is there anyone opposed
to
61 on page 178.
All right.
I have one very new on page 204 unless anyone has one prior to that.
204, that's operations administration.
Correct.
Go ahead, Laura, please.
Yeah, I've got to take out a stipend of $21, $22,165.
And that is associated with the, with the deputy director of operations who has been running
vehicle maintenance, additional work outside of the job description, since we're hiring
for vehicle maintenance that positions posted my understanding is that they're being interviewed
for my expectation is that by the start of the fiscal year we would have a person in place
and that will no longer be necessary.
Okay, is there a second to that motion?
The seconded by Richard?
Okay, any other comments?
Questions?
All right, hearing on, we'll take it to a vote.
Is there anyone opposed to, or abstaining from this motion?
Then the motion is carried.
Really quick, is that about 22, 165?
Yes, 22, 22, 22, 22, 25.
Thank you.
Okay, I have one on page 221
and this is a bottom line cut to public safety health and welfare the police department.
I'd like to propose a cut of $250,000 as a bottom line cut to be applied however the police department wishes.
My rationale is this is a $50 million, $400 and $3,000 budget and I'm confident that they can absorb this cut and still provide the services that we expect.
Is there a second?
Seconded by Jeff. Is there anyone who wishes to comment further?
If not, then we'll take it to a vote. Is there anyone opposed to or abstaining from this motion?
Okay, hearing none, then the motion is carried.
Okay. If there aren't any other motions prior to that on page 244, I'd like to propose.
Who's a $250,000 bottom line cut to public safety health and welfare, the fire department. Again, this is a $51,668,000 budget. And I'm confident that the department can absorb this cut very easily. Is there a second to the motion?
Mary, did you say what the cut was?
Yes, $250,000.
The same is the police department.
Our second.
Okay.
It's been moved in second it.
Comments, questions.
All right, hearing none, then we'll take it to a vote.
Is there any way to pose to abstaining from this motion?
I will abstain.
All right.
So the motion is carried with five in favor with one of
attention. Okay, moving along. Very little. I have something on 200 and 90 and less
someone has anything before then.
290 Health Department Programme 3910 Human Services,
the Emergency Shelter line. We certainly heard about the dramatic increase in demand for
emergency shelters. And very sensitive to that. It shows an increase of $310,000. So I'm going to propose a $50,000
coverage, hopefully provides still very meaningful increases to that line and should anything exceed that. Certainly, I'm sure the board will consider additional funds down the road.
So I'll move that.
Okay.
Is there a second?
All right.
Seconded by Richard.
Questions, comments?
All right.
Seeing none.
We'll take it to a vote.
Is there any one opposed to abstaining from this motion?
All right.
Hearing none.
And then it passes unanimously.
On page 326.
Unless there's something before that.
Okay.
this is a budget close to my heart, this is the Board of Finance. Originally, I had requested
an additional $125,000 on the professional consultants audit line because we had exceeded
the cost of the budget by a million dollars. But hearing that we are more on track in terms
finishing the budget, the audit's on time and with less cost, I'm going to make a motion
that we cut a hundred thousand dollars out of this account. That still leaves the money to pay
for the outside auditors. It's actually higher than last year and I think that the control is
department can get this done at the lesser cost. And I so move. Is there a second?
It's been
seconded by Jen. Questions, comments? Is there anyone opposed to abstaining from this motion?
Okay, then the motion has carried unanimously. Okay. Next.
Very low I have something on 349 unless someone has anything to buy.
I have something on 331 or 330.
Program 5050 is just the town clerk.
I like to make a motion to make a bottom line cut of $50,000.
It's looking at the total sum of the requests for this year, running up about 156,000.
And I know there's a lot to be done, but there's a few projects that I'm hoping that
be extended over a longer period of time or into another year, just to continue to save some
money in here.
So again, I'd like to make a motion for a $50,000 cut bottom line.
Is there a second, all right, seconded by Tom, discussion?
Laura?
Jen, I appreciate you looking at this.
And I'd like to modify your request down to 25,000.
The only reason I'm modifying it down is that it is an election year.
it's a gubernatorial election and I know they do a lot of work getting ballots out and I don't
know they may need some of that money to ensure a smooth election. So I'm proposing a lesser cut.
Okay, is there a second to the amended motion? Seconded by Richard?
All right, any other questions or comments?
All right, hearing none, then we'll take a vote on the amended motion.
So the motion is to make a $25,000 bottom line cut to the town in city clerk.
Is there any one opposed to or of stating from this motion?
Okay, then the motion is carried unanimously.
Okay.
Moving forward to the next proposed page.
Mary, though, I think I was back on 349 unless someone has anything else.
And that is the community grants.
Under Youth Services, it looks like a dramatic 100% increase to these services core.
while that's something I program I support. This is unfortunately not a year we can double that.
So I proposed to bring it back down to where it was last year at $100,000. So I so moved that.
Okay, is there a second?
All seconded. Jeff, I'm sorry. You you're cutting.
Yeah. Yes. The line nine I might believe the mayor proposed. Oh, you're cutting the 200
of the mayor got it. Thank you. Yeah, it's going to 100 from 200,000. Thank you. Yeah,
not about 100,000. Okay, questions, comments.
All right, hearing none. We'll take it to a
vote. Is there anyone opposed to abstaining from this motion?
Okay, then that passes unanimously as
Okay. Next.
On 350, which is the cultural and environmental
non-city agencies.
I'd like to handle this the same way as the
position reductions, which is that I will read a list of proposed cuts.
If anyone wants to pull something off a list and discuss it and vote on it separately,
just speak up when I'm done.
We looked at this page quite closely.
We always do.
We did not apply a uniform rule.
We looked at every line.
In some cases we left the increase and some cases we remove the increase in some cases we reduce the increase.
So let me start from the top and I will read these.
I think this is an order of how they appear in the book.
Richard, if I may ask, if you can just read them slow, so I can never change them.
I will read them slowly.
Ferguson Library Reduction of 100,000.
Person to person 10,000, these are all reductions.
Stanford Museum, 56 to 80,
and just stop me if I'm going too fast.
Stanford Historical Society 2000
DSSD 20,000
Multicultural Council 400 United Way of Coast
on the Western Connecticut 680
Boys and Girls Club Yearwood Center 25,000
Stanford Partnership
1800, Stanford Arts and Culture Grant 8000,
Lumos 2020,
Stanford Center for the Arts 2,000,
Neighborhood Community Grants, 3210,
88 Advisory Council 433,
St Joseph Parenting Center 10,000,
and
sound waters 3640,
Mary C. Rich Clubhouse 25,000, CLC 50,000, building one communities,
1800,
my architecture workshops, 400,
family centers, 400,
corners, 400,
row and center of
and
future five, a thousand, and I still move.
All right, is there a second to that motion?
All right, seconded by Laura.
All right, discussion.
Am I allowed to make a motion?
Very low.
If you just want to pull something off a list,
it will take it separately.
Great, thank you.
I'd like to pull off the list,
It's a Boys and Girls Club year with center, which is 581897, and then the Mary Rich Club
House team center, which is 581939, separately we could.
All right, so the Boys and Girls Club is 25,000, and the Mary's Sea Rich Club House
is also 25,000.
Correct.
all right so let's let's vote on everything else and then we'll come back to those two.
So with the exception of those two items, is there anyone opposed to
abstaining from this motion?
Okay, okay hearing none, then it passes unanimously. Let's go back to
Yeah, so I know I'm keeping track of the list do we have a total there's Richard you have a sum total of yeah I can give you a sum total without those two
Yeah.
I see it.
274463.
So when you have bill.
274463.
Yes.
Okay.
That's what it is.
Thank you.
And Richard, I would like the first five cuts that you read.
If you can repeat it again, please.
Sure.
Ferguson Library 100,000.
Got it.
First and the person 10,000.
Stamford Museum 56 to 80,
Stamford Historical Society 2000,
DSSD 20,000.
What's the first two?
Thank you.
Okay.
So I guess I'd like to make a motion to.
We voted on everything else, right?
Correct. Yeah. So now we'll go ahead and talk about the boys and girls club first. Okay.
I'd like to make a motion to keep this at their initial request and not cut.
And these two are actually, while they're separate, but they're both for the same program.
for that what they're requesting and the total request is the 100K between the two of them
50 each and I just wanted to show the support for that this is not just another enhancement
on another program that this is actually being directed toward a very
Specific solution to a capacity problem with the Boys and Girls Club. They have a current weight list of 100 families that they're trying to support.
And the list is currently existing and they're really trying to solve this problem of where to put these 100 families, these 100 children.
They have committed to do a one-to-one match, so they're only asking for the 100.
Again, between the two of them, and they're looking to go raise the other 100.
Their proposal is that they're going to partner with the police at the PAL Center,
which is located in the Southwood Square.
So this is already existing building that already has an after school program, but is not completely filled.
And with the brand name of the Boys and Girls Club coming in and partnering with the police and partnering with this building to be able to take in this additional 100 families or children that need both the after school.
You know, after school assistance, especially to give them structure, to give them an opportunity to, you know, be somewhere safe, because we know after school care is probably one of the hardest care in the city with all of us working parents.
And so having a place for for your kids to go is especially when it's run by the boys and girls club, knowing that they do a lot of support around.
different community actions, and I really would like the board to think about how they are
trying to initiate this program immediately and what these funds they can immediately
take in another hundred kids right away this summer. And the funds are going to go to
obviously some of the staff part-time, one full-time, and keeping the program running.
So my motion is to keep both the 50 for the Boys and Girls Club and the 50 for the
Mary Rich program even though they're listed separately.
It's all for the one program.
So Jen, the item is already there, so you can't make a motion to keep it.
So what we have to do, so we'll vote on the original motion to cut, okay, and then obviously
you if you're against that you vote against the cut. Okay. Okay, does that make sense? Does that make sense? Yes. Yes. Yes. No,
I think flopped up on the screen. I had a look. Okay. Okay. All right. All right. So we're going back to the
original motion, which is a $25,000 cut to the boys and girls club, your would center and a $25,000
cut to the Mary C. Rich Club House.
Okay, and it had been moved and seconded, Laura.
Jen, I completely appreciate all of your sentiments about the Boys and Girls Club,
their phenomenal organization, as is every single organization on this list that we've cut,
and I think this has been extremely hard for us to go down and to make these kinds of cuts,
knowing the people that they serve, the good work that they do, and the need in the community.
But when I look at Boys and Girls Club, combined between the Yearwood Center and the Mary
Sea Rich Club House, we are funding $400,000. It's a $50,000 cut between the two of them.
And considering all of the cuts that have been to all the other organizations, I hate to
every single of these cuts, but unfortunately to get to a tax rate that we think is or that
I think is high, but feasible, they have to come from somewhere. And the other option would
be to cut city services, which I think would be harder on many people. And again, these have
been gut-wrenching decisions, especially with these organizations. So I fully appreciate what you're
saying, but I'm going to support the original cut.
You know, Richard, Richard, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
I was just going to say, I, I, I understand, and this was a very difficult one
seeing all the cuts for all of the, not for profit organizations.
And I really tried to look in other places of where we could cut back.
And I felt that we could, you know, support some of these initiatives and knowing, and again, I don't want to cut any of these either your sentiment Laura, but knowing the initiative that this is right on our doorstep, I felt it was something we could, that it could take on today, given that we've given that we've done so many other cuts.
So, but I appreciate your comments.
So Richard may remember this because he was around, I think, when it happened, the Mary
C. Richard Clubhouse started as a $25,000 private donation by the Rich family.
And several years later, I mean, the request is, you know, $225,000, almost $226,000.
And this is what happens in the city.
We start out with a program and before you know it, it's running into the hundreds of thousands.
So I think that we are very supportive of the voice and girl's club, as a matter of
we just gave them $175,000 at the meeting last week to do a playground. So I think we have shown
our support for the work that they do, but I'm in favor of retaining the cuts as was motioned.
All right. Anyone else? Yeah, just to just follow up on some of the comments. Yeah, you know,
It's a great place that has a lot of potential.
And that's why I'm really hesitant to take any money
as a way from there, budget.
So I've talked to a number of people about this.
And I would love to keep it intact also to move forward.
OK, anybody else?
Yeah, Mary Lou, I'll just interject here.
I'm really supportive of this organization and I won't belabor that this comic could go anywhere
this evening, but we were to miss it, I didn't bring it up specifically around this page
that we're dealing with so many of these organizations or organizations I would love to support
more fully. And when you look at the comment, I believe Richard made it, but you know, just
pension shortfalls. I think it was north of eight million dollars this year out of the city
operating budget, maybe closer to nine million. Just imagine if our pension management was
on track and we didn't have to divert that eight or nine million dollars from the operating
budget just to meet the amortized shortfalls, how much more we could do with that money on an
basis. I know it's a problem we all are wrestling with, but I just thought I'd bring that up here.
It's not that I'm not supportive. I wish we could do more. Thanks. Okay.
All right, so there is a motion on the floor.
I'm sorry. I'll reach it. I'm sorry, please.
I'd like to offer a friendly amendment to reduce the cut from 25,000 to 15,000 for each
of these two.
So instead of a total kind of 50,000, it would be a total kind of 15,000, instead of 50,000,
it would be a total kind of 30,000.
And I so moved.
So for just to be clear, so I can, for me, the notes, it's a Mary Bridge Club House
in center, 15,000, and then boys and girls club, 15,000, okay, thank you.
All right, is there a second to the amended motion?
All right, seconded by Jennifer. All right, any other comments?
All right, is there anyone opposed to or abstaining from that motion,
all right, then the motion has carried unanimously?
I would just like to go back to page 343, just to kind of put a point on Jeff's comment.
As this board knows, every year for the past five or six years, we've had the pension boards that the Board of Trustees come in and we hear from the actuary about the performance of the various pension funds.
And every year we have issues around the police and fire pension fund, because it seems to be underperforming every year.
The fire pension fund we now have to put in an additional 4,486,
in 146 because the fund is just not performing at a level that it should be.
So the city has to kick in money to prop up the fund.
The same with the police department, their pension fund.
We have to kick in another 5,120,000, 190,000.
I mean, that's over $9 million right there that I agree with Jeff.
We could have used for a myriad of other things.
And instead, if these pension funds were managed better,
we would have those excess funds to do other things in the city.
And we have, it's a cautionary tale every year
to the trustees of those two pension funds.
And I hope that our concerns are heard
and that some changes are made as quickly as possible.
Okay, and all by the way, this board
certainly considered a cut to these pensions,
but we thought it wouldn't be fair to the retirees,
but believe me, it did cross our mind
because we were very concerned about
the status of the fire in police pension fund.
Okay.
Moving on.
Jennifer and Mary Lou. Jennifer, yes.
I did thank you and I don't want to talk too much on this and I
I think I just want to speak for I you've talked about the fire pension and the police
pension being so expensive and I think we just make it to realize the difference between
what the fire and the police do versus what the custodians and the teachers do and that pension
is there because what the fire and the police have to risk their lives to do is they need those benefits
for those future years, you know, they're coming on to the departments, and they're staying
there 30 years, they're paying in, and while they might be higher, and I don't think the
performance is terrible, it is a higher pension, because of those health benefits,
because
realize sometimes that these people are going into, as first responders, they're going into
places that we wouldn't want to go into and, and I'm not trying to disc credit teachers,
pensions, religious pensions, I'm just trying to explain, I recognize that they're higher,
and because they're expecting that when they're done and they're retire, and if they
health issue because they've been out there for us all of these years. They're expecting that
pension. So, you know, they run into places that have sickness, diseases, COVID, they worked
every day. So I just want people to kind of think about there is a reason why
And there's a lot of reasons, but that's one of them is why these pensions have that higher because of what they do.
So Jen, I wasn't talking about eliminating the pensions, but you were there at that meeting where the custodians was funded at slightly over a hundred percent based on their investment decisions.
service was funded in the very high 90s close to 100% the police pension fund was in the
70s the 70% I don't have the exact number in front of me and the fire department was
slightly higher and that's purely based on investment decisions. I'm not suggesting in
Anyway, that we don't fund the pensions, I think.
What everybody saw based on the actuarial numbers is that better investment decisions have to be made in order to make these pensions whole so that the city doesn't have to kick in millions of dollars every year.
You know, we have to think about the pension fund as kind of a three-layered stool. You know, there's the retirees and they expect the pension and they should get it.
you know there's the taxpayers who have to fund it and there's the city that has to pay the
difference. That's my point, not that they shouldn't have a pension. Believe me, I'm not saying that.
No, I know you're not. I know you're not, but but and I don't want to take up
this meeting for for this discussion, but I don't know how long the other two pensions
Like when they were collapsed and brought in to the bigger umbrella because they got that's why they're you know
Now they have a shorter range of when they have to of what they're funding is so you know the pension of the fire and the
police have been
You know 30
40 50 years and so they've
The other pensions of the other pensions. They're all about the same so
Yeah, sorry. I apologize. I did not mean to open up Pandora's box, but, you know, the underperformance is a continued issue, the types of investments and the riskiness, the liquidity, I think is a concern, but finally, I would be
management fees. And when you're talking about a difference between 0.85 and 0.2, it doesn't sound like a lot,
that however, 100s of millions of dollars that makes a difference when compounded year after year after year.
And I believe one of the pension funds promised said, oh yeah, we're at 0.85, but we also have some other underlying funds.
would get that to you. I haven't seen that. Maybe it was sent. Maybe I missed that email.
But I just think this is an issue that has to get addressed for the benefit of everyone,
including most importantly the firefighters and police officers work currently serving who
hopefully can count on this down the road. If this is not addressed, this gaps only in a
bigger and bigger, and that only puts the overall pension system under more strain.
So, sorry, again, I opened up Pandora's box.
No, no, I think it was part of the budget review process, Jeff, and I think your comments were very worthwhile.
As I said, I wanted to put a point on them.
Okay. Let's move on then. We were on page 350 where else I'm on 425 and listen when
has anything else.
I would like to cut contracted services in the parking fund by 1,284,593 dollars.
Okay. So there's second of that motion.
Seconded by Richard. Go ahead, Laura.
That is the amount of stamp forward that has been funded up to this year by the state.
My understanding is the state may extend it, in which case the program would come back.
It has been brought to my attention that this is in the parking fund. It is not part of the general fund.
But a couple things happen in the parking fund, if the parking fund runs a shortfall, then the general fund has to make up the difference because there are salaries and other expenses that have to get paid out of the parking fund.
And when the parking fund operates at a surplus, the excess dollars go to capital memory occurring, and those go into improvements in the city parking garages.
And we have many issues in our parking garages, they're old, and we need the capital to be able to replenish them.
And so for that reason, I think it's important that the parking fund really support the programs that are absolutely essential.
and I think this is a terrific program. It's very nice to have. It's just a million 284,000
and change more than what we can afford.
And this is another instance where we instituted a program
that state funded and then after a couple of years the money goes away and then it falls on the
city to fully fund it and I agree with Laura. It's nice to have but I think it's a big hit to the
like it.
Okay. A million, too. It's a lot of money. There's just no way around it. And
whether it affects the mill rate or not because it's in the parking fund. That's really just
an accounting issue. Doesn't matter what fund it's in. I mean, it's eventually the city is going to
as Laura said, eventually we're going to either have to cover a deficit in the parking fund or we're
capital work in the garages through the general font. So.
Okay, Jeff. Yeah, thanks very low. I agree with the Lauren Richard. I know Laura said it, but our, our parking garages need a lot of capital work. I mean, they're, let's put it this way. I don't believe many of them are a source of pride right now and they, and they, they need.
a continued care and the thought of diverting anything from that is a concern.
So I'll support the cut. Thanks.
There's no other comments.
We'll take it to a vote.
Is there any one opposed to or abstaining from this motion?
Then the motion has carried.
Okay.
Maryly, my next one is on 481.
Okay.
I would like to make a general cut to conferences and training in the amount of 20,000.
I see an increase across the city of 22,950.
In a year where we're struggling with a 6.2% increase in city expenses,
When I worked in the corporate world, those were times when conferences and supplies and everything
was sort of hiring freezes, things were sort of batting down.
And this is really symbolic, it's not a lot of money.
But I think it's important that the city cut whatever extras of expenses there are
to try to keep the budget and expenditures as low as they can.
So I'm going to offer a $20,000 for conferences and training.
All right.
Is there a second to the motion?
Seconded by Jeff?
All right.
Comments, questions?
All right.
Hearing none will take it to a vote.
Is there any one opposed to or of standing from this motion?
And hearing none, then it passes unanimously.
Is there anything else?
Yeah, I'm very new on page 482 similar to my last comments.
I'd like to cut office supplies by $30,000.
Okay, is there a second of that motion?
Seconded by Tom.
Okay.
There's no other questions or comments.
We'll take it to a vote.
Is there anyone opposed to or abstaining from this motion?
right, hearing none, and that passes unanimously.
Okay. Um, is there anything else in the operating budget book? Any other motions?
If that's it, if that's it, Elder, can you give me what you're or Bill, can you give me what your total is?
Yeah, one minute one minute so can sure take taking time very little. I'm just going to step away from less than a minute while they're calculating that.
And me is what we want to take a five minute recess before we go into the capital book.
We're going to give everybody a bio break and we'll come back in. It's 841. Let's come back at 846.
We'll see you then. Okay.
Okay. Is everybody back? Let's see.
We just need tone.
What do I have?
That with the 89 was included in the 2015 term.
So, Richard, okay, we don't need to wait.
What, Richard?
Yeah, we have the number 16 million, 687, 459.
Can you give it to me without the Board of Ed?
Yes. Well, the Board of Ed is 12, one.
Well, one. Okay. I can just do it right here. Yeah, yeah, I can do it. So we have 14 million
587459
4 million
Wait, you have
You want me to
Oh,
It's 177 459
Without board of ed
Without board of ed, you have, I'm sorry, you have form
1,687,459.
I don't quite ask by so much.
Richard, that includes the car.
Oh, that includes the parking fund.
There's really, there's three components, right?
It's the board of ed 12 million 100,000.
Right?
I'll call it all other general fund.
three million one six zero seven one four three million one six zero seven one four
four yeah and then the parking fund is one million four two six seven four five
all right so I am off
by um hold on did you change your friendly amendment
Richard to the year was. Yeah, I did. I'm off by 142,152. So, um, that sounds like the, uh,
I just picked. Yeah, that's the, the two program expansions that were in the parking fund.
There were, uh, right. So, wait, those would come. Oh, you're right. Those would come out. Oh, now,
Yes, so now we match exactly, so you have the total we have 16 million
687,459
including parking fund, including
Board of Education, including the city and the city. All cuts.
What was number?
It's 16 million, six hundred eighty seven, four, fifty nine.
One, six, six, six, eight, seven, four, five, nine.
Yep. Yep. That's what I have. Yep. Yep. All set.
Okay. Great. Yep. Very good.
So shall we go on to capital and we'll follow the same process.
We'll start with the with the book and call out pages where you want to make a cut.
Yeah.
Hold on a second.
I just okay.
Oh, yeah.
I'm not first.
I'm just pulling my book out.
Just give me one second.
I don't know.
Laura, did you have something on page 28?
Sorry.
I'm a little budget.
I'm putting notes in my thing.
Okay, yeah, I just think on page 28.
Thank you, Mary Lou, I'm making notes here.
I'm going to just grab my capital book.
Thank you.
Page 28,
which is Board of Ed Safety and Security.
I'd like to propose a cut of $100,000.
The rationale is that there's 513,000 still available.
And we're giving them an additional 300,000 to spend.
All right, is there a second?
All right, seconded by Richard.
Okay, any comments or questions?
All right, hearing none, then we'll take it to a vote.
Is there anyone opposed to or abstaining from this motion?
Okay, then that passes unanimously.
Next.
page 40, if no one has anything before that. It's the Bart Larboretum Greenhouse.
Let me just
book.
It's in the book for a million dollars. I'd like to propose a cut of 250,000.
And we asked for their estimates,
and on the greenhouse, and the estimate on the greenhouse
is about $3.5 million, $2.5 million of that is hard cost, and a million of that is general
conditions contractor profit and various contingencies. And that's, you know, a lot of that is real,
but that seems like a very, very conservative estimate. And I think they can make do
with easily with 250,000 less. Okay. That's a motion. Is there a second?
I'll second it. Okay. Discussion.
Right hearing none, then we'll take it to.
I was just going to ask Richard, could you explain one more time? The rationale or the background between the the million and cutting them just 250 is because they're estimates you fill up there.
So they have a total estimate for the greenhouse of three and a half million.
And of that estimate, two and a half million is actual construction cost line items.
Electrical, mechanical, right, site work, concrete, steel, all those line items.
That's two and a half million.
the other million is let's go to my notes.
General conditions are 10% that's that would be
250,000. Now that it's more I'm sorry. General, I have a total soft cost is a million dollars.
So general conditions and profit is about half a million and then they have various contingencies,
design contingency, big contingency, escalation. That's another half a million dollars. So
all that adds up to a million dollars.
And that's high. I mean, from in my long experience,
that's high. Those all those items. I mean, there are real general conditions on the job, right?
The general contractor has to have someone there every day that have to have a port of
they need a mobile office, all those expenses, the general contractor does have to make a profit.
And then there are contingencies in their change orders, but I think all these numbers added up are very conservative,
and I think there's $250,000 that could be reduced.
Okay, any other questions or comments?
There's a motion to cut $250,000 from the Bartlett Arboretum Green House.
Is there any one opposed to abstaining from this motion?
Then the motion is carried unanimously.
Okay, next.
I'd like to make a motion on page 41 to cut 300,000 from the Bartlett Arboretum
civilian.
Okay.
I think the green house is in the core mission of the, is in the core mission
of the Yarboretum, and we have now funded it to, I believe, a total of over a million and a half,
a pavilion I don't believe is in the core mission of the Yarboretum, and so I'm proposing to
cut the whole item.
And I'll second the motion. So we can have
discussion.
All right, questions, comments,
all right, then we'll take it to a vote. Is there any one
opposed to or of stating from this motion? It's a $300,000 cut to the Bartlett Arboretum pavilion.
I'd
like to, are you going, are you going to abstain or, yeah, I'm going to vote now.
All right, anybody else?
All right, then the motion is carried with five and
one in opposition. Eric, can you please mute your.
Okay, thank you. Okay. Next.
Mary Lou, I have something on 46. Okay.
And I'm going to be proposing a reduction of the request of $350,000 by $100,000 to bring the amount to $250,000.
So $100,000 reduction, and I can give you the rationale.
OK, is there a second to this motion?
All right, seconded by Laura.
Go ahead, Jeff.
Thanks.
There with me, it may be lengthy.
So I believe there is support for the library branch
or for a library branch on the east side.
However, we are concerned about the total cost to build the project.
We're concerned also about the timeframe to open and ongoing operating costs to properly support the branch.
Think if you look at the main library in the Harry Bennett branch, both have incurred almost $4 million in capital expenditures over the past five years.
The air conditioning is currently being replaced in the main branch and plans are underway to do the same at Harry Bennett.
But I believe there is support for spending up to, but not exceeding an additional $2 million of city capital funds, inclusive of the funds being approved tonight.
And that would be an addition to $3 million, the $3 million of federal grants already committed.
I believe we strongly urge the library city to instruct the architect that the maximum project budget is $5 million and to design the building accordingly.
With the money being approved tonight, we would like to see preliminary design and initial
architectural plans in order to determine realistic costs for opening the branch.
However, at this time, we don't expect to see detailed construction drawings because prior
to investing in construction drawings, I believe we would urge the library and city to look
other alternatives. So they know what the costs are relative to other options. Perhaps one could be in a residential building development, or
leasing and leasing alternative where federal money could be used to fit out that space just so everyone is aware of other options.
The analysis, analyses, I should say, should include the following, what are the upfront capital costs?
What's the timeframe for opening the branch, including any legal approvals needed to move forward under each scenario?
I think it should be noted that the Parks and Recreation Commission has come out against the proposed location.
So, we urge the city and library to resolve any issues, including deed restrictions, before engaging an architect and expanding serious dollars.
I'm going operational cost estimates should also be included, including proper maintenance of the branch.
As I previously referenced, I'm pages 44 and 45 of this capital book, so just prior to this.
The city is funding significant additional HVAC capital expenditures for both the main branch and the Harry Bennett branch.
over time, proper maintenance and replacement have just not been done at those branches.
And that's a point to really focus on.
That all of my prior comments being said, I think we can...
We believe this next phase can be done very expeditiously, and without too many soft costs. So this should be more than enough money to complete this next component.
To be able to move forward to project, which again, I believe there is support for branch on the east side. So apologies for the length, but.
I so move and it has been seconded.
Okay, any questions or comments?
I'm very sorry.
Mary Lou, yes.
I've got a question at Jeff.
And again, are you mentioned five total $5 million?
$3 million?
Grand, then, $5 million?
$2 million that we've found.
I mean, realistically, I don't know.
Is that something we can build for $5 million?
Well, I think if we don't give a target,
we won't the past experience on other non-related library projects which show us that scope
can creep and grow. So if we give a target and we say come back and give us some real professional
look at what you could build for that, then I think we'll all know. Otherwise I think if it's a
little unbounded, it just could come back at something much higher and take much longer
and no one here on this call will be involved in that when that bill will be
supported.
I think we all would like to see something happen sooner than later.
And this is a satellite branch.
I mean, we do have the main library, we have the Harry Bennett facility, which is, you
know, rather significant as well.
And this would just be a smaller facility on the east side, which I think we're all in favor
of.
Okay.
Thank you.
Jennifer.
I was just going to say that I'm really glad that the board decided to support the life
the east side library and I think our decisions to kind of figure out and come to a reasonable agreement
or a proposal, I think makes the law a sense. So just wanted to say, you know, I'm full in support.
And glad we could at least move forward from here for the for the East Side Library and for the community,
because we did see a tremendous amount of support at the public hearings. So glad we could do that for the community.
We obviously heard their comments and took it to hard. Richard, thanks,
Joe.
Yeah, this board has gone through this process for least two years, maybe three.
I know I've invested a lot of time in this. I know Jeff has invested a lot of time in this.
I think the board always supported the library on the east side.
we were just very concerned about the cost.
I believe the first time this came to us,
the cost wasn't really fully baked,
and we were told it could be $8 to $10 million.
In round numbers, $5 million at $1,000 square foot
is the $5,000 square foot branch, that's the wheat branch.
That's how big the wheat branch is.
And I'm assuming that the south end branch is smaller.
The Harry Vennet branch is 25,000 square feet, and I think it was built a long time ago
when books were in libraries, which they really aren't that as much anymore, but I think
reasonable people could say that that branch is too big, and we're literally paying the price for
that. I mean, you can see it two pages, I believe, two pages forward in the budget book.
it's millions and millions and dollars to keep these libraries going and I know I think of the
Harry Bennett branch is a new building and time passes and things get all fast and they need to be
prepared and maintained and the libraries not really a nonprofit it's really it's a city agency
effectively, and so to the extent that it expands its real estate footprint becomes our responsibility
to keep it in good repair, and I think that's why this board wants to keep the cost of some
reasonable number.
Okay, anyone else?
Okay, so it's been moved and seconded. Is there a motion?
Is there anyone opposed to abstaining from this motion,
right? Hearing none, that passes unanimously.
So we are funding a $250,000 item for the east side library as well as accepting the federal funding in the amount of $3 million.
Okay. Let's move on then.
I have an item on page 53.
Before you get that, I've got page 48.
The eighth on theater.
As I went through that,
yeah, I like to make a motion to eliminate $500,000.
Because as I see it,
It looks like that they have a lot of the funding at the ready already, and they have a line of credit.
As I compare, this facility versus some of the other parks and places up north,
I don't think it gets the traffic and the usage that the other places do,
and I know we've cut those also.
So I like to make a motion to cut the $500,000 out of the A-bomb theater.
Is there a second of that motion?
All second.
Seconded by Jennifer?
Discussion?
I think what I, my rationale for this one is really,
some of our decisions that we've made is about the buildings of private building.
it's not owned by the city. And while I value that this, the avon at what it brings to
the town, it's not this or that or it's not as worthy and I really do value it. But where I
have a really hard time is that this is a private building, it's not owned by the city. And I have
to make these decisions for these other areas and other organizations that don't have any money
or don't have the opportunity to raise funds or have a line of credit.
And the avon does have a line of credit to get this money.
And I just feel like in this time, as we've been saying with this budget,
it's really difficult to be able to give money away just to give money away.
we should give it to where it's really neat and I wish I could, but I feel like I can't cut
these other things and then feel like I can give when they can fund their own money and it's
a private building.
Anybody else? Laura? Yeah, Jen, I hear your concern and these are always hard
decisions to make. But just to give you a little bit of history, we have out of the capital budget funded things like the Stanford Center for the Arts, the Palis Theatre, Stanford Museum and Nature Center last year and sound waters just to name a few.
And I'm sure if I went down the list of other organizations where we don't own the buildings, the city has made these kinds of investments.
I view this as sort of a gem of downtown.
It's a historical building and it does when patrons come to the theater.
It does spill out into the community and it adds value back into Stanford.
And that's how I got comfortable with it.
The other thing that made me comfortable is just the amount of donations that they have raised
to do this.
They're putting a significant investment back into Stanford.
And so, as a percent of the total project costs, this is small, so that's how I would justify it, but I hear your concern.
Yeah, I don't. I recognize your comments, it's just, they have the ability to get the money elsewhere.
And some of these organizations don't.
How do I, how do I, how do I, you know, I, I just think it's really hard to do that in this environment where we're cutting now for profits and we're cutting a lot of other items and it's it's hard and I don't I don't disagree.
I love the Avon and I and everything was, you know, the way it was presented is just I don't know how we allow that how we give them 500,000.
So, if I could, I'd like to make a motion and instead of cutting the full 500, we'll cut 400, give them a $100,000.
Is there a second of that motion?
I can second that motion.
Okay.
Unless there's any objection, we can take that amended motion to evote.
Yeah, Mary, look, I just would speak to this.
I mean, I, Laura spoke nicely and I understand Jen's work, Jen's coming from for sure, you know,
for me as someone who is part of fourth generation, Stanford family, there's just such
little left of old time Stanford and this is just one small gem and I think it's important
as a city invests in the forward growth of the city. We do what we can when we can when
when it something presents itself to keep and memorialize some of old-time Stanford
and I wish there was more of it to be able to do, but there just isn't a lot left to it.
So I'm supportive of the original proposal. So I won't be in favor of reducing it.
Thanks.
Okay, so we'll take the amended motion that there's a motion to cut $400,000 from the
Stamper Historic Abon Theater renovations.
It's been moved in seconded.
Is there anyone opposed to, or of stating from this motion,
okay, so the motion has failed
by a vote of two in favor and four opposed. Are there any other motions?
There was the first motion.
Okay. So there was a motion to cut the entire 500,000.
Yes. Okay.
So let's take that to a vote. Is there any one opposed to or
from this motion.
Okay. And that motion failed with two in favor and four opposed. Okay. Are there any other motions on this page? If not, I have one on page 53.
And this is the, the Harbor Lighthouse, they're asking for $50,000. And they have a,
A survey and planning grant of $20,000 that they received and they have a community funding project grant of a half million dollars under consideration by the federal government.
And I hope that they get it, but I don't think this is a project that the city should be participating in in terms of adding funding to it.
So I make a motion to cut the entire 50,000 and I so move.
Is there a second,
second and by Richard?
Okay.
Comments, questions.
All right, hearing none, let's move to a vote.
Is there anyone opposed to abstaining from this motion?
I'm going to have a post.
Okay, so it passes with five in favor and one opposed.
Okay, next.
very little on page 56, affordable housing.
Okay. First and foremost, I want to state that I am very much in favor of affordable housing and of the city funding affordable housing.
There are multiple mechanisms within the city to fund affordable housing.
The biggest one is probably the affordable housing trust fund, and then there, which would
have linkage from the building department as well as the in-loop from developers who choose
not to put affordable units in their buildings, and we have learned that there is potentially
some money in the grants department that could be used for affordable housing. I would like to
make a motion to cut the full $3 million from the capital budget which would then not put it to
bombs just so that everybody understands there's currently $2.1 million in the affordable housing
trust fund with another two million in the budget from linkage, which is building permit fees
that have been set aside for affordable housing. So once this budget passes, they'll be for
1.1 million in the affordable housing trust fund. I know that one of the projects that is listed here, St. John's Tower, has made a request already to the affordable housing trust fund for the $2.1 million that we currently have.
And I know this is another $2 million of request from charter oak for Sanford Manor.
I believe that with the money that's in the affordable housing trust fund plus the money that is potentially available from grants
will be able to satisfy the requests of the city chooses to add some additional funding towards affordable housing.
So, at this point, it's really just shifting out of bonds and into other city funds, but it is not a statement that is anti affordable housing.
And I would also add that should there be additional affordable housing projects that come up during the year.
And if there is not money available,
me, affordable has a trust fund,
I believe that this board would be favorably inclined
to review them on a project by project basis,
and to add bonds to those projects,
to the extent that they are presented to our board,
they're deemed to be worthy,
and they could be just evaluated in that way.
So, Lori, your motion is to zero out this account per $1 million, okay?
Is there a second to this motion?
All seconded.
Okay.
Questions, comments?
Richard?
I think if we have, I also support the city funding affordable housing.
I think it doesn't put in enough.
And but if we have other sources of funding available and we can avoid bonding and in this budget cycle or in any budget cycle for that matter, we should.
And I agree with Laura that if we're active, the cover is actually bare and there's a project that needs funding.
They can come to us supplemental capital appropriations
or given regularly during the course of the year.
And if there's a worthwhile project and the administration
can make their case for a supplemental appropriation,
I would be happy to consider that.
OK, anyone else?
All right, hearing none, then we'll take it to a vote.
Is there anyone opposed to or abstaining from this motion?
all right, hearing none, and it passes unanimously.
Okay, next.
I have a motion on page 71, if there's.
I'm sorry, Mary, Luke, and I do page 69.
You can do anything you want, Tom. Go ahead.
You're wonderful.
I'd like to make a motion to eliminate the $75,000 for this particular project and running through
the plans for electrifying our fleet, you know, they were under-term in this time as far as time
frame and amounts and lens. I don't think we have a critical mass of electric cars and trucks
right now. So I think this is kind of put in the car before the horse. I think we should get
a better sense for what the plan is. You know, I see this is a part of the Stanford 2525 plan,
which again, is a ways off. So I suspect, particularly in this year, that we can hold off until
we get a better specificity around what the plan is and then move from there.
So I have a question either, Elder or Bill, is this $75,000, somehow linked to get the
state grant.
In other words, do we have to put money in in order to get the 180,000 from
the state?
recognize that we have a thousand in the balance, right? Right,
as far as you know, there's no linkage.
Yeah, I don't have that information. Mary Lou, I don't, I don't see that it's a match.
Okay. I have to, unfortunately, get back to you if there is. Okay.
If you get us the information in the next, you know, 15, 20 minutes or whatever, because we could always just
kick it to the end and take it back up.
Yeah, let me see if I have the project now,
I'm at it as number all, I'll do that.
I'll let you know.
Let's do some research.
I'll get back to this page.
All right, Tom, do you mind holding off on this?
Just so we get there.
That's right.
Okay.
Okay, so on page 71, I have a cut.
I'd like to cut $200,000 from this $300,000 request.
I mean, this money is number one to hire an administrator
to develop and manage a system for the BMR.
So, A, I have a problem with adding new headcount and B, I think that we should be able to buy software or hire an outside vendor for $100,000 to do the same thing.
So, I think a $200,000 cut is justified and we could accomplish the same thing at a lower cost and I so move.
It's very long. I'm going to I'm going to refuse myself on this one so I'll be absent from the meeting during the vote.
Okay Richard, so noted.
Okay.
Is there a second to my motion?
All right, seconded by Jeff.
Any questions or comments?
Okay, then we'll take it to a vote.
Just a quick comment.
I do think that we have a bit of a mess with the BMRs.
a letter was just sent I believe today. On the BMRs and the importance of the city being able to
to figure out sort of to have a database or a collection of information of what they are
and to allow applicants to come to one place as opposed to going to multiple buildings.
I'm hopeful that with a hundred thousand dollars in that fund that will be able to hire
either consultant or a person within a city to be able to on a project base is not on a permanent
basis to be able to put something together for us so that we can make heads of heads or tails
and create one common place for people looking for apartments to go as opposed to as we heard
multiple buildings on multiple weightless. Right. I agree, Laura. I think there are other options.
Unfortunately, the city's answer to everything is to add headcount and to hire.
So I, you know, but this, this may be reasonable.
I'm, I'm, I'm opposed to that. So it may be hiring someone, but hopefully on a project
basis to put this together to be able to turn it over to city staff and to use.
So right, right, I just, yeah, I just can't see hiring another head to do this.
Okay, any other comments?
All right, so there are five of us present in voting.
Is there anyone opposed to or abstaining from this motion?
Right, hearing none, then the motion carries with five in favor and zero opposed
with one member, reducing himself.
Okay.
Tracy, do you want to tell Richard to come back?
Oh, you're back.
Okay. He's back. Okay.
All right. What's next?
Page 73, Citywide Fields. I'd like to make a motion to reduce this by 250,000, which is half of the item.
Okay. Is there a second of that motion?
All right. Seconded by Jennifer. Okay.
We're going to have 50,000 pays for the significant study, and if it's not enough, then
we'll just have to fund it over two years.
Okay. Any other questions or comments?
I would just hope that the study focuses on the football fields and soccer fields and baseball fields.
There's a point in here that's talking about a phase ability study for a pool, which I think we are already working on a pool at the west hill.
So can we, can we think reasonably and let's, that would be great if we can focus on, you know, what we have currently today and how do we make it improve it and work on that.
So the cuts of good decision, A.
We're all right.
All right.
Is there any other comments?
All right.
We'll take it to a vote then.
Is there anyone opposed to we're abstaining from this motion?
All right.
Then the motion is carried unanimously.
Okay. Next.
Mary, Lou, I have something on the 74.
Okay.
it's a city building study. It's proposed a 200,000. I'm going to propose that it
has eliminated sort of cut up 200,000. Okay. Is there a second of that motion?
I'll
second it. Okay, Jack. Go ahead.
My rationale is listen, I appreciate the city wanting to get its hands around all the
But extraneous buildings that the city manages, but there's going to be room within the
safe debt limit to actually put money into fixing some of these buildings.
And so I'd really prefer to see new requests come in to fix some of the long-standing
issues that we can get to plans, but bring in more consultants right now.
If I just want to be in favor given where we are with the overall budgets, so.
Okay.
It's been moved in seconded questions, comments.
All right, hearing none, then we'll take it to a vote.
Is there any one opposed to or abstaining from this motion?
Right, hearing none, then the motion is carried unanimously.
Okay.
Anything else?
I have something on 77 if no one else has something.
Okay, go ahead with that.
Thanks, yep.
So there's a line item here.
And I'm going to propose that we reduce the gas fired HVACs by $200,000.
Okay.
Is there a second?
There's second in that motion.
All right, seconded by Richard.
All right, go ahead, Jen.
I just been thinking, you know, I want to be sensitive to our future goals.
Being more energy efficient.
But if we have more years of life that we can seek out of the systems we have, we should.
And if the city wants to bring in a case by case specific project to us,
file means do that during the year.
Okay. There's also there's also $285,000 in the budget in the year to date balance and available. So.
Okay, any other questions or comments.
All right, we'll take it to a vote then is there any one opposed to abstaining from this motion.
All right, so the item is carried unanimously.
Okay, next.
Page 78, Nathan Wider, sprinklers,
I'd like to propose a cut of 500,000, which is the entire
amount.
We have put a lot of money into Nathan Wider recently, and I think this just has to wait.
I mean, it took us many, many years to completely sprinkler the public schools.
And I think this is just going to have to wait.
What is that, Richard? Like a hundred-year-old building? Maybe more?
It's the old clone in.
Yes.
I mean, it has tenants in it, right?
We're keeping it and we're using it and we just put a lot of money into it.
We just approved a lot of money.
Okay.
So is there a second of Richard's motion?
All right, I'll second it.
All right.
Any other questions or comments?
All right.
Then we'll take it to a vote.
Is there anyone opposed to we're abstaining from this motion?
All right.
Hearing none, then that motion passes unanimously.
Okay.
What else?
Mary Lou on page 83.
the ADA compliance for City Facility.
We know that this is really important, but there's $343,000 in the budget already. I'd like to propose a cut of
225,000, which is half of the funds, which will leave $568,000 in the account.
Okay, is there a second to the motion?
All right, I'll second it.
Okay.
Questions, comments?
All right, hearing none, then we'll take it to a vote.
Is there any one opposed to or if stating from this motion?
All right, hearing none, then that passes unanimously.
Okay. Next.
Mary Lou on page 89. I'd like to cut Hatch Field by $525,000. I support the renovation
of the Hatch Field playground. I think it's an incredible asset for the people
who live in that building and in the neighborhood. I expect based on numbers that we've
seeing that with a $2 million state grant that there will be sufficient funds to redo that playground.
The number we just got for the yearward center was 175,000. I realized they're doing more renovations than just your wood.
If there, we had asked and I believe the answer was no that there was no city match needed for the state funds.
If that is not the case, then they certainly can come back because we don't want to lose the state grant.
But our expectation even based on the hefty amount that we spend on city parks is that for $2 million, they can do the renovation of this park, given it size.
Okay.
Just to be clear, you're cutting the city's port.
The city portion of 525,000 accepting the state grant of $2 million.
Is there a second?
Second?
Seconded by Tom.
And let me add Laura that they're also talking about putting a spray pad, a new spray pad in and we heard from city managers that these pads are problematic.
They don't work and we would encourage them, you know, not to do that and to save some money by eliminating that because the maintenance is just killing us.
Okay. Any other questions or comments?
All right. We'll take it to a vote. Is there anyone opposed to or abstaining from this motion?
All right. Hearing none, then it passes unanimously.
Okay.
I have something on page 109 unless there's something
before that.
Okay, this is for unaccepted roads rebuilding and painting.
I'd like to make a motion to cut the entire amount 1,750,000.
Is there a second of my motion?
All right, seconded by Jennifer.
You know, the city has so many accepted roads that have to be paved.
And I think that has to be the primary focus.
I also think that there should be some participation
by the residents who live on those streets who probably knew.
I think they had to know when they bought their property
that they were buying on an unexpected road.
So I would say that the city should investigate.
like they do with sewer assessments, the possibility of residents adding something to the cost of
these on accepted roads. So I would ask the city to come back with a better plan other than to fund it
totally with city dollars. And that's my motion.
Is there a second?
You've had a second.
I've had a second.
I'm sorry, Jennifer.
It's getting late.
All right.
Any other questions or comments?
I agree with you, Mary.
I mean, I certainly don't accept.
I wouldn't expect the residents to pay for all this or even most of this or even half of this.
It's going to be very expensive.
But the WPCA, I believe the residents pay 10 or 20%.
they paid over a long period of time.
But I think there has to be some recognition
that as he said, the residents knew,
and if they didn't know they should figure it out
on their first day in their house,
that their road is not in good condition
and there's a reason for that.
And that certainly this board has some expectation
of participation by the residents,
something more than token that as part of the cost of these projects.
Okay. Any other comments? Then we'll take it to a vote. I'm sorry. Yeah, I would just say I think there is
past precedence if you look back in the city's history many years ago. I mean there's mechanisms
that were in place for private roads to quote unquote sell the road to the city that may be a
little bit different than unexpected roads. But it provides some guide path there for everyone's
sake. So just like people towards that and I guess my only other comment would be this may
provide some additional capacity for the city to pave tier one roads and I would hope that the
administration would come back with some supplemental, on those should we have the capacity because
we certainly need to be doing more paving of up to your one accepted roads. Thanks.
And filling pottolds, we have a lot of them. Okay. All right. Seeing no, whether hands will take
it to a vote, is there anyone opposed to or of standing from this motion?
All right, seeing none, then it passes unanimously.
Okay. Any others?
Page 122 Public Safety Complex Assessment.
I'd like to make a motion to reduce this.
I'd like to make a motion to reduce this in the amount of two and a half million dollars, which would be the state grant and the capital non-occurring portion by the city.
Let me just get a second Richard. Is there a second to this motion?
All right, seconded by Laura. Okay, go ahead, Richard.
So when this was, when we got the, when this was submitted to the board, the estimate for
this complex was about $60 million.
And this board has spent, and there's certainly if it follows the police station construction,
there will be no participation by the state or the federal government in sharing that cost.
So $60 million is the equivalent of building a new school, and this board has invested a huge amount of time over a long period of time,
just to fund the three schools that we're talking about.
So this is like adding a fourth school and I just don't think it's realistic for the city
to start down the path of designing this building, whether it's with our money or with the state's money.
When I just don't see how we could ever approve anything even remotely close to that amount.
When we're limiting the library for example to $2 million and we just built a new police station in the last 10 years.
It just doesn't seem feasible realistic or even remotely realistic.
Okay.
Any other comments?
Okay, then we'll take it to a vote.
Is there anyone opposed to or of stating from this motion?
Okay, then the motion has carried unanimously.
Okay. Any other cuts?
Yeah, I'm sorry. Oh, go ahead, Richard. Yeah, one 24 specialty police vehicles. This is a command truck. I'd like to cut this in the amount of 375,000.
We don't have sufficient capital down occurring funding and this one just has to wait.
Okay, is there a second?
All right, seconded by Tom.
Any other comments?
Questions?
I agree that if we can differ this one.
Yeah.
Another time.
Is this the one they talked about sharing a truck?
Yes.
Yeah, I just don't see that.
I don't see that happening either.
So I think this is a good call.
Okay.
All right, is there, we'll take it to a vote, is there anyone opposed to or abstaining from this motion?
All right, seeing none, then the motion has passed unanimously.
Okay, next.
Page 129.
The fire apparatus, the tanker truck.
I think this one needs more information.
The chief said told us that turn of river was going to pay half.
I'm not really sure how turn of river is going to pay the half.
What I would hate to see is turn of river borrowing the money and then looking for additional
appropriations from the city to pay it's debt service when, you know,
our debt services are our rate of borrowing is a lot less than what
turn of river boroughs. I'm also wondering if this could just be put
off for another year. We just approve not to long ago a very expensive
fire apparatus. I know there is another water tanker in this location. It
feels a little bit like it's a luxury to have the second one there. Maybe we could put it
off for another year and they can come back when they figured out exactly how they're going to
fund the balance of the cost of the truck.
Okay. Was there a second to that motion?
It's not all
set the second to that motion.
Okay, I'll second it. All right. All right. Any other questions or comments?
I'm very low. I would just say to Laura's point, if the folks at Chernower have a fundraising plan or some other plan ready and, you know, months from now, sure, bring it forward. We've looked at supplemental appropriations.
I'm not going to make sure they're they're in good financial status. Well, so thanks.
Okay, Jennifer.
Yeah, I would just say that I think the next degree that they should come back
for the next time and just I think lay out clearly.
The needs in the funding and that you know, explain to I think this board why it's in this
capacity and not just a luxury. So I look forward to seeing them come back.
Okay.
Laura, you moved to cut the whole 800.
Yes. Should I just move to cut the filter?
No, that's, you know, I was going to say I didn't remember what you had done.
I'm not sure what I'm not sure at this point would.
I did either so 800. Thank you.
All right, so there's a motion to cut the entire amount on page 129, which is the water tanker.
Okay, we'll take it to a vote then. Is there anyone opposed to or of standing from this motion?
All right, seeing none, then the motion is carried unanimously.
Okay, next.
I'm very glad something on 138 was someone has something before.
I'm going to propose a $500,000 reduction to this line item.
Currently is a $2.5 million request so that we bring it to $2 million.
So I'll move that.
Okay, is there a second?
Seconded by Richard.
Okay.
And rationale is the list and there's endless need here, but I think this is a significant amount when I look at prior years it is more than some years it's on task with some years.
If their significant needs, that can't wait to the next capital budget cycle, people can bring that forward.
But it would be kind of nice to have a predictable moment that doesn't very dramatically up and down when we're...
We're talking about upgraded upgrades or replacement of the fleet, though we can properly budget for it. So that's all right.
Okay. Other questions or comments?
All right, hearing none, then we'll take it to a vote. Is there anyone opposed to or abstaining from this motion?
All right, hearing none, then it passes unanimously.
I have an item on 139 and this is for Citywide Technology Replacement and Upgrade. I would
like to make a motion to cut $250,000 from this. There's a request for $1,972,000 with
a balance already there of $578,000 that they have not yet spent. So I think a $250,000
cut is definitely in line. Is there a second to the motion?
All right, seconded by Jeff.
Questions or comments?
We're adhering on, then we'll take it to a vote. Is there anyone
opposed to or of stating from this motion.
Okay, the motion has carried unanimously. Okay, next.
Earlier, I have something on the next page. I think it's 139. Okay.
What? 40. 40. I just said, I just said 139. I'm sorry. 40. Yep. Sorry, next page.
I'm going to propose a $300,000 reduction. And that would bring it in line with what the
planning board but forward. We didn't spend a lot of time on this item, but the planning board did.
So that's my rationale, so I'll also move that.
All right, is there a second to this motion?
All right, seconded by Laura. All right. Any other questions or comments?
And that that was to cut the whole thing.
Jeff.
No, cut 300,000.
No, 300,000. Sorry. Thank you.
it, yeah, it'll bring us down to a net 900,000, which is what the planning board approved, and then the
administration, up that, okay, two million. So it brings it back there, and then of course,
if there's a, you know, something that was unforeseen, I mean, we'll always pick it up during the
year if I was needed.
So. Okay. Any other questions or comments?
Or at hearing none, then we'll take
to a vote, is there anyone opposed to abstaining from this motion?
All right, seeing none, then it passes unanimously.
Okay, I have something on page 141.
There's a request for $425,000 under capital non-reoccurring.
I think we can reduce that slightly, so I'd like to make a motion to cut 125,000 out of this number, bringing it down to 300,000.
Is there a second of my motion?
Seconded by Jen.
Any other questions or comments?
All right, seeing none, then we'll take it to a vote.
Is there anyone opposed to or abstaining from this motion?
right seeing none then this passes unanimously. Okay, anything else?
Okay, if not then that concludes.
Well, we do have, yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. We have to go back to that item age 73, right?
69 69 69. Yeah, so I wasn't able to confirm if that was a match, but looking at the description,
And the original request for 300,000 that at the department level was to do the highway division
at McGee Avenue facilities, but the facilities building and the park maintenance building.
Looking at the description, for the 360% of it would be grants and 120 would be the portion
and that we found
that that's a match.
Well, the planning board took it down to 75.
Yeah, I was going to say that they did reduce it to 75
because there is a 125,000 dollar balance
in the project that was approved in fiscal year 24
that was all bonds.
So I believe their thought process
was that they can utilize some of that
to get to the 300,000.
One other thing to put out is that on the originally Quest $125,000 was to put some charge and stations at fleet.
So obviously, they can't do all four locations with these requests with the plan and boards cut.
That's all the information I can give you at this point.
So, you're saying that the city funding is somehow linked to the state grant, am I understanding you?
It is linked to do those three locations that I mentioned.
But as far as if it's a match or not, I don't have that answer for you.
Tony, thank you.
Mary, with the year-to-date balance, um,
that's already in the count being able to be used towards the, towards a matchup that was required.
Well, that's what that. That's what the planning board thought. Yeah.
That's why they reduced it from 120 to 75.
Yeah.
I mean, obviously we'd love to take a banjo of whatever state money we get.
We get so little of it.
But I'm all in favor of reducing the city's amount if we can.
So what's the pleasure of the board?
Tom, you made a motion to 155,000.
There was a second I believe.
I did.
So.
So we check it to a vote.
Any other comments?
All right.
Is there anyone opposed to or of standing from this motion?
I'm a post.
All right.
So anyone else?
All right.
So the motion passes with the four in favor and two opposed.
I would just add that if we have misinterpreted that they can always come back and and represent it.
All right.
Okay.
All right.
Have we covered everything? Is there just anybody have any more motions left?
Let me just confirm the amount. 11.544.
For the total cuts? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
For the capital. Yeah, for total capital cuts.
Total, we have 12.
We have 12 million, 575.
That's what I have as well.
$12,000,000 and $5,75,000.
Do you want to go through the list we can just read it for you?
Sure, just run down a list.
I'll do it by page of...
Yeah. Perfect.
By page 28,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Yeah.
page 40 is a 250,000 reduction.
Yeah.
page 41,300,000 reduction.
Yeah.
You're not to say reduction.
Okay, age 46, 100,000, age 53,000, age 56, 3,000, age 69, 75,000, age 71, 200,000, age 73,
$3,250,H-7,4200,H-7700,H-7700,H-7700,H-8000,H-8800,H-8000,H-8000,H-8000.
525,000 page 109, 1,750,000 page 122,200,000.
Oh, that's it.
That's it.
And you have what?
12575.
Yes, yes.
Okay.
All right.
Okay.
We may have some totals.
Are you or are we good?
I mean, you're sub, I don't have this sub total, so I couldn't confirm it anyway.
your sub-totals are what cap-down recurring versus bonding versus
yeah, yeah, say horn answered. Yeah, you know, the total budget, the total is
60 million, 607,500. The bond portion is 28,464, I'm sorry, 28 million, 464,000, and 21 dollars,
and cap-down recurring is 7,230,000. Those are the important numbers.
7,230, 7,230, is cap number current?
Yes.
Okay.
And that, do you have the reduction on that?
The original amount was 10,249,000.
Oh, so that's all.
Okay.
So that's about a $3 million reduction.
Okay.
Thank you.
Okay.
All right.
So we all tick and tie.
Okay.
Well,
I think we finished our work for tonight.
I want to thank everybody for their attendance at all these meetings, your patients and diligence,
and your cooperation in working together to make this as pleasant a process as it can be under the circumstances.
So thank everybody for helping us get this done together.
If there is nothing else before us, I'll accept a motion to adjourn.
Move by time is there a second.
Seconded by Richard, we are adjourned.
And I want to thank Elda and Bill McGuire and Tony Romano for their help
and shepherding us through this process tonight and during the entire budget process.
So thank you guys appreciate your help.
And OPM team, we have the whole OPM team here in the office.
It all, all I'm sorry, all the OPM team.
Thank you.
We'll go out and have a drink.
Thank you.
All right, everybody.
Have a good rest of the evening and we'll still convene again when we do the revenue side.
And I guess we have a regular April meeting, a May meeting actually before then.
So we'll see each other then.
All right.
Good night.
Have a good day.
Thank you.