[0:10] general in this case

[0:10] .

[0:11] >> all right.

[0:12] Good evening everyone.

[0:18] Will call the tuesday MAY 31st

[0:19] twenty twenty two meeting of

[0:20] the finance committee to order

[0:21] all members of the committee

[0:23] are present will stand please

[0:24] stand for the pledge of

[0:39] allegiance.

[0:44] One nation.

[0:45] Next item on the agenda is

[0:48] public comment and this is open

[0:52] to residents and folks that own

[0:53] property in the city of

[0:53] waukesha.

[0:54] So if there's folks that are

[0:55] here for public comment tonight

[0:56] ,please come to the center

[0:57] microphone and if you'd give us

[1:00] your name and address and then

[1:01] you have three minutes to

[1:03] address the committee so anyone

[1:14] here for public comment?

[1:15] >> hi everybody.

[1:16] I think I've talked to all of

[1:19] you privately on the phone.

[1:20] My name is christina taft.

[1:22] My address is three three five

[1:23] oh wait this will help him.

[1:26] >> I know my address but my

[1:27] address is three three months

[1:30] old replumbed my address is

[1:31] three three five s heartwell

[1:34] avenue emulsify resident and my

[1:35] husband and I own two

[1:37] businesses in the downtown

[1:38] waukesha.

[1:39] >> I'm here tonight to show my

[1:42] support for the behavioral

[1:43] health responder program for

[1:43] verber.

[1:46] I'm sure you're aware we

[1:47] witnessed issues in the

[1:49] downtown area that are caused

[1:50] by mental health or addiction

[1:53] often in addition to the mental

[1:54] health or addiction issue.

[1:55] The individuals are homeless.

[1:58] our police department does a

[1:58] great job responding in various

[2:01] ways but they can only do so

[2:01] much by themselves.

[2:05] After all, being mentally ill,

[2:06] addicted or homeless is not a

[2:08] crime.

[2:10] I love the idea of having a non

[2:12] law enforcement behavioral

[2:12] professional to respond to

[2:16] mental and behavioral health

[2:20] crisis as we in full support of

[2:21] this program to aid our police

[2:21] department and our community

[2:24] and we hope you are too.

[2:25] I'd also like to thank you for

[2:28] considering the central city

[2:28] storefront program.

[2:32] I believe the program can help

[2:33] many building owners get the

[2:33] older buildings up to code as

[2:36] our businesses and downtown

[2:39] activities grow we take pride

[2:40] in the historic charm of our

[2:40] downtown buildings.

[2:43] However, as you MAY guess,

[2:44] retrofitting the older

[2:44] buildings with modern amenities

[2:47] can be pretty pricey.

[2:48] I own one building downtown and

[2:51] leased the there for our

[2:51] business.

[2:54] We recently had quotes done to

[2:54] determine the cost of

[2:55] sprinkling for both buildings.

[2:58] One building was quoted at one

[2:59] hundred and forty thousand

[3:02] dollars and the other at

[3:02] 270000.

[3:05] Those quotes do not include

[3:06] repairing the street and

[3:10] sidewalk after lateral adequate

[3:11] for fire suppression is

[3:14] installed.

[3:14] There would be in addition

[3:17] additional cost to those things

[3:17] .

[3:18] I wanted to share some real

[3:19] world numbers with you as you

[3:21] determine the funding for this

[3:22] program and how the funds would

[3:25] be dispersed.

[3:26] I would ask you to please

[3:27] consider doing a hybrid grant

[3:29] loan program for that so we can

[3:30] get a lot of those things up to

[3:32] code and and make the downtown

[3:36] businesses and buildings

[3:37] interior a little bit more

[3:37] modern while still keeping that

[3:40] historic downtown chen, thank

[3:40] you.

[3:41] >> great.

[3:44] Thank any other members of the

[3:45] public wish to speak before the

[3:49] committee ceiling.

[3:50] And again sir, if you'd please

[3:54] give us your name and address.

[3:54] Good evening.

[3:58] My name is keith klasky one

[3:59] zero zero nine lynn drive

[4:02] waukesha five three one eight

[4:02] six.

[4:03] I'm one of the owners of house

[4:09] of dennis pub downtown waukesha

[4:13] and would like to speak in

[4:14] favor of the behavioral health

[4:17] responder program.

[4:21] Everyone in the downtown area

[4:22] has their own stories about

[4:26] some of the homeless and and

[4:28] mentally challenged people that

[4:32] have decided to be in the area.

[4:33] So I'm not going to go into

[4:36] that.

[4:37] I would just like to say that

[4:41] having a family member that had

[4:44] mental challenges who is at

[4:45] this point deceased, I think

[4:49] that it would have helped us a

[4:52] lot as the family to have a

[4:56] program like this in place.

[4:57] >> I'd also like to speak in

[4:59] favor of the central city

[5:00] storefront program as with

[5:04] everything else contract costs

[5:04] are are skyrocketing.

[5:08] >> we're currently in the

[5:09] process of beautifying our

[5:11] interior.

[5:12] our initial quote changed by

[5:16] about 68000 dollars by the time

[5:19] they decided to give us a final

[5:20] quote because of their

[5:23] subcontractors and what they

[5:24] decided the pricing should be.

[5:28] >> that's made us have the pull

[5:31] back by about a third of what

[5:32] we wanted to do inside the

[5:32] building.

[5:35] >> we continue to discuss

[5:39] working with putting in a

[5:40] kitchen weekly.

[5:43] We get people asking if we can

[5:46] do sit down dinners at the pub

[5:46] .

[5:47] The edge of the building

[5:51] doesn't help because we would

[5:52] have to actually raise the

[5:54] ceiling in the basement in

[5:55] order to put in the hood system

[5:58] necessary to vent.

[6:03] We are grateful for any support

[6:06] that we can get from the city

[6:07] to do these kinds of projects

[6:10] to update these older downtown

[6:11] buildings but we would really

[6:14] like to see it include grants

[6:17] and as well as low interest

[6:19] loans to help us move move the

[6:22] buildings long term to safety

[6:24] code and beautification.

[6:27] >> thank you.

[6:34] Thank you very much.

[6:35] Good evening.

[6:38] I know some of you I'm laura

[6:39] lau.

[6:40] I'm a circuit court judge for

[6:42] waukesha county.

[6:43] >> I'm here for the mental

[6:44] health responders program and

[6:47] the possibile of that being

[6:47] something that waukesha could

[6:48] use.

[6:50] >> I've been in the court

[6:51] system for just about 22 years,

[6:54] 18 years is circuit court

[6:55] commissioner and coming up on

[6:57] four as a circuit court judge,

[6:58] I'm assigned only to criminal

[6:59] courts.

[7:01] >> so that's all I do for eight

[7:02] years I did emergency mental

[7:06] commitments so had a lot of

[7:06] definitely a lot of hands on

[7:10] with people that are having

[7:10] mental health issues.

[7:11] >> tell you a little bit about

[7:13] me because gives you some frame

[7:13] of reference.

[7:14] >> I'm waukesha chadbourne.

[7:17] My parents were born in

[7:17] waukesha.

[7:20] I graduated from north.

[7:22] My dad was a csc operator at

[7:24] waukesha engin my mom was a

[7:25] typesetter at the waukesha

[7:25] freeman.

[7:26] >> I share that with you

[7:29] because we went through some

[7:29] periods where if you've lived

[7:33] here for a long time the uh the

[7:33] factories in the foundries

[7:36] closed and we had a housing

[7:40] challenge and our family and we

[7:40] survived on surplus cheese and

[7:43] thrift store bread for several

[7:44] several years.

[7:47] >> I tell you that because I

[7:48] think my daughter is also a

[7:49] lawyer and it's been said to

[7:51] her she goes must be nice being

[7:52] born with a silver spoon in

[7:53] your mouth.

[7:54] >> and I think if you don't

[7:55] know if somebody is a journey

[7:55] you kind of don't understand

[7:56] where their passions lie.

[7:59] >> in addition to that, we've

[7:59] had some mental health

[8:00] challenges.

[8:03] I lost my husband who is a vice

[8:04] PRESIDENT At wuxia state bank

[8:06] to suicide.

[8:07] So those are things that have

[8:10] touched my life.

[8:11] >> I've been on non-profits for

[8:14] over 30 years and waukesha just

[8:15] finished as the PRESIDENT Of

[8:17] the nami board.

[8:18] >> I'm here because I

[8:22] understand and I've seen how

[8:25] waukesha has changed over you

[8:26] know I'm fifty nine you know,

[8:27] fifty nine years and the

[8:29] challenges that we have and as

[8:30] we're growing as a community

[8:31] and we have a definitely

[8:32] different socio economic

[8:33] situation that's coming into

[8:37] our community, it's wonderful,

[8:40] you know that we have nami who

[8:41] has the two people we have

[8:42] sunny and matt who are the you

[8:44] know the boots on the street

[8:45] during working hours.

[8:49] >> however they don't work

[8:49] nights.

[8:50] >> they don't work weekends and

[8:53] I I'll give you an example.

[8:55] >> christina had someone GOD

[8:56] bless her friday we had coffee

[8:57] that night she had someone that

[9:01] was basically kind of wandering

[9:01] around one of their businesses.

[9:05] >> she stopped to talk to that

[9:06] person, ended up driving him to

[9:08] the hospital which is something

[9:09] that she's been doing which you

[9:12] know, you really just can't do.

[9:13] >> it's not safe.

[9:15] And so she and I spoke

[9:16] afterwards and then we see

[9:17] capped him.

[9:20] He has over three screens and

[9:21] seekamp and I've actually had

[9:23] him in court before and he's

[9:24] not a criminal.

[9:27] >> he's somebody that has a

[9:27] mental health challenge.

[9:31] >> and so I think I don't have

[9:31] the solution for this.

[9:32] >> I really just became aware

[9:34] of this issue.

[9:35] >> but we've got to do

[9:36] something where we're bringing

[9:39] in people that you know, have

[9:40] that training.

[9:42] >> the police are overwhelmed.

[9:43] >> they're absolutely

[9:44] overwhelmed about 20 seconds.

[9:46] Ok, so you know, I really think

[9:47] that it's important that we

[9:49] incorporate someone our

[9:51] legislature passed a law like

[9:54] the emergency medical commands.

[9:55] >> now you have to have a

[9:56] mental health professional like

[9:58] that goes that's by law.

[9:59] >> I don't think we can wait

[10:01] for something like that.

[10:02] So I'm interested if you're

[10:03] going to put a task force

[10:05] together or anything like that,

[10:06] I would be more than happy to

[10:09] lend any assistance that I can.

[10:10] >> thank you.

[10:10] Thank you.

[10:12] Any other public wish to speak

[10:15] this evening?

[10:16] All right.

[10:17] Seeing none of them.

[10:20] We're going to move down to the

[10:21] last item on our agenda this

[10:21] evening.

[10:23] We have a number of folks staff

[10:24] and directors that are here for

[10:27] item number e which is

[10:28] discussion and possible action

[10:31] on the proposed plan for the

[10:31] arpa funds.

[10:32] >> with that I'll pass it to

[10:38] MR. Laner.

[10:39] Thank you.

[10:50] I'm getting logged in here so I

[10:51] just have a brief update from

[10:54] our previous meeting going over

[10:55] some of the changes that I made

[10:58] based upon the feedback I have

[10:59] a couple of slides and then I

[11:02] have a spreadsheet that I can

[11:03] share with you that shows the

[11:06] updates and then obviously we

[11:07] can have any sort of discussion

[11:09] we have additionally we have

[11:10] folks here to present

[11:13] additional information about

[11:13] economic study related to

[11:17] nootka park and so that was

[11:18] just recently completed and it

[11:21] kind of gives you a bigger,

[11:22] broader view of that project as

[11:25] well.

[11:26] So I only have a few slides but

[11:27] I just wanted to let you know

[11:29] kind of the direction that we

[11:32] that I went with the outline

[11:33] and of course just remind

[11:34] everybody that this is this is

[11:37] an outline it's not a cement

[11:38] and stone plan.

[11:40] It just kind of gives us a

[11:41] green light to start working on

[11:42] things in more detail and

[11:44] obviously things change if

[11:45] there's different priorities

[11:46] that come up along the way we

[11:48] will make adjustments as we go.

[11:52] >> so just in terms of what

[11:53] changed from the previous

[11:55] meeting based upon the feedback

[11:59] I we added an additional five

[12:00] hundred thousand to the storm

[12:00] water projects.

[12:03] Those are projects that are

[12:04] within our ship currently and

[12:07] as we were talking about it,

[12:08] number one, it's it's one of

[12:09] the called out eligible

[12:11] expenses and number two, we

[12:15] have a long term study related

[12:16] to stormwater issues that we

[12:19] are working through the city

[12:23] and so this would just dedicate

[12:24] more funds to those issues and

[12:27] addressing areas that are prone

[12:27] to flooding and things like

[12:28] that throughout the city and

[12:31] just add a little bit more and

[12:34] get those things done a little

[12:35] more quickly than we otherwise

[12:38] would have plus obviously not

[12:39] showing debt for those

[12:39] projects.

[12:42] I added a line for capital

[12:43] projects and so this would just

[12:44] be something to that would be

[12:47] non debt revenue that we could

[12:50] apply to whatever capital

[12:51] project that we chose that's

[12:54] within the sipi currently it

[12:58] could be a road project, could

[12:59] be any sort of project that we

[13:00] would like to do.

[13:02] I'm related to that and again

[13:03] it would just offset any sort

[13:05] of debt that we'd have to issue

[13:06] for those projects, increase

[13:09] the the central city storefront

[13:10] program to eight hundred

[13:10] thousand.

[13:13] It was previously five hundred

[13:17] thousand and so those are the

[13:18] some of the things that I did

[13:19] in terms of updating the

[13:24] funding remove the electric

[13:25] vehicles project and I want to

[13:28] make sure that folks know that

[13:29] we didn't do it because we

[13:30] don't think that there's value

[13:35] in but in working with john

[13:39] from the city garage there is a

[13:40] lot of federal funds that are

[13:43] coming in to electric vehicles

[13:44] in other ways, specifically

[13:47] carbon reduction grant program

[13:51] is one that is out there and

[13:52] there's just and there's other

[13:56] grant funding programs that I

[13:56] think that if we're going to go

[13:59] down that road it would be a

[13:59] better vehicle for that.

[14:03] I do think that it's something

[14:04] that we do need to continue to

[14:06] explore because it is where a

[14:07] lot of the vehicles are going

[14:11] and that we should get a handle

[14:14] on stuff like cost of ownership

[14:15] and the utility for our

[14:15] purposes and stuff like that.

[14:19] But we have removed that from

[14:20] this arpa outline and are

[14:23] exploring other grant programs

[14:26] for that the broadband network

[14:29] again it's we think that

[14:30] there's a lot of value there

[14:34] but the the the cost of running

[14:35] the the system the operating

[14:38] cost really we put a burden on

[14:42] us from a tax levy standpoint,

[14:43] an operating budget standpoint.

[14:46] I'd like to find a ways to

[14:47] generate some additional

[14:48] revenue from it so I wouldn't

[14:50] call that a dead project.

[14:52] If we can find partners where

[14:54] we can offset our operating

[14:55] costs in some way and we'll

[14:58] continue to explore we have

[14:58] been talking to the school

[15:01] district pretty regularly but

[15:03] we haven't found a way to to to

[15:06] get there on operating costs so

[15:07] we wouldn't want to put that

[15:10] burden on our operating revenue

[15:13] and so that we took out for now

[15:14] and then we took out the

[15:16] streetscapes project on white

[15:20] rock avenue as well.

[15:24] So just really the summary if

[15:25] you look at it you could break

[15:27] it down into broad categories.

[15:31] We have two point two million

[15:32] going into public safety

[15:33] programs, some stuff that we

[15:34] already approved and then an

[15:36] additional things that we

[15:36] outlined previously.

[15:39] We have four point four million

[15:43] going into capital projects and

[15:44] one of those is the manocha

[15:45] project which is a revenue

[15:48] generating project in the long

[15:48] term we have one point five

[15:49] million going into economic

[15:52] development, one point seven

[15:53] million going into affordable

[15:55] housing and eight hundred

[15:56] ninety one thousand going into

[15:59] sustainability efficiency

[16:00] programs.

[16:01] And so I'm going to switch my

[16:04] screen here and just kind of

[16:05] show you what that looks like

[16:06] on our spreadsheet.

[16:11] So you know what and I I failed

[16:14] in terms of I did not introduce

[16:15] my sidekick tonight.

[16:16] >> this is britain, a future

[16:18] city administrator.

[16:19] he's just come in to fill

[16:20] figure out how it feels to sit

[16:25] up here so no pressure be so so

[16:28] we have on the spreadsheet

[16:29] those are the changes I've I've

[16:34] outlined them down here in

[16:36] terms of what we change and

[16:41] what we added increased but

[16:44] it's the same dollar amounts

[16:48] the allocation numbers in terms

[16:49] of when they were being

[16:50] allocated changed just a little

[16:53] bit based on some feedback.

[16:56] But other than that we did we

[16:56] have the error shade project

[16:57] that's still here.

[17:00] The mindiola project that the

[17:01] led conversions, the snow

[17:04] melter as I mentioned the store

[17:05] the central city store front

[17:08] activation project which we

[17:11] increased the project the

[17:12] economic development project

[17:15] the we already discussed public

[17:16] safety here the pds or changes

[17:19] babri else responder again and

[17:20] so on.

[17:24] And so based upon that feedback

[17:25] those are the changes that I

[17:27] made and I know that you

[17:28] requested some additional

[17:31] information regarding some of

[17:32] these things and I know the

[17:35] folks that did the economic

[17:36] development study around

[17:37] minicar here mindiola excuse me

[17:40] adeola are here to present

[17:45] their information as well and I

[17:46] don't know if you want to go to

[17:47] the presentation first I can

[17:49] ask answer questions.

[17:50] It's up to you guys.

[17:51] Yeah I guess I'd bring it back

[17:53] to the committee and I think

[17:54] just in the interest of folks

[17:55] that are here tonight maybe it

[17:57] would be ok to shift to the

[17:58] minneola presentation and then

[17:58] we can kind of take questions

[18:01] from there because I know that

[18:02] something that we asked for.

[18:04] >> so ron, if you wanted to

[18:05] come up and kind of take us

[18:06] through the mindiola project,

[18:08] the floor is yours.

[18:13] Thank you, kevin.

[18:13] >> thank you.

[18:14] Paul ryan piper in the

[18:16] committee.

[18:17] >> I'll I'll do a preamble to

[18:20] the presentation to kind of

[18:21] walk you through what we know

[18:23] to try to cover and do as

[18:24] concisely as possible.

[18:28] >> I had asked jennifer andrews

[18:31] community development director

[18:32] to speak tonight give us some

[18:35] background on when we really

[18:36] started talking more seriously

[18:39] about developmental a complex

[18:43] over minneola and back in 2000

[18:44] there was I should say in back

[18:47] in 2020 there was a study that

[18:47] was done by uw.

[18:51] >> I am planning urban planning

[18:55] department and I think that

[18:56] does a nice job.

[18:57] >> and jennifer is going to

[18:59] briefly nick on that how the

[19:02] discussion started with

[19:03] revitalizing sunset drive

[19:06] especially that center corridor

[19:10] section of sunset drive and we

[19:11] I think we all agree needs some

[19:14] of the attention and and most

[19:14] importantly what was identified

[19:18] with that is that this type of

[19:19] complex development would be

[19:19] excellent.

[19:22] Catullus for revitalizing that

[19:22] area.

[19:25] So I will start with with

[19:27] jennifer to touch on that study

[19:29] from ibm and then we have MR.

[19:33] Brian dowling from johnson

[19:44] consulting, the recently

[19:45] completed the economic impact

[19:46] study which takes that uw study

[19:46] a step further.

[19:47] And here the focus is on the

[19:48] actual complex and what impact

[19:49] that complex would have

[19:53] financially for the community

[19:54] and then certainly be here to

[19:56] entertain any questions.

[19:57] The wrap it up as far as the

[20:00] park timing, whatever.

[20:01] >> I do want to add that we did

[20:04] have a letter of support from

[20:07] the waukesha pewaukee

[20:08] convention visitors bureau as

[20:12] well that came out kind of

[20:13] eleventh hour.

[20:15] >> so if you didn't catch that

[20:16] ,I apologize for that.

[20:17] >> so certainly there's a lot

[20:19] of excitement from that area as

[20:20] well.

[20:23] >> so with that jennifer, if

[20:27] you could come on up jennifer

[20:28] if you could just introduce

[20:31] yourself for the folks at home

[20:32] that became jennifer andrews

[20:33] and the community development

[20:35] director for the city waukesha.

[20:36] And when there is discussion

[20:39] about moving minor league

[20:40] baseball into mindiola park

[20:43] that part of sunset really came

[20:46] to the attention in the

[20:47] forefront of the redevelopment

[20:48] authority.

[20:48] >> and so although baseball

[20:51] didn't move forward, there was

[20:51] a secondary plan of developing

[20:54] the park into a soccer complex

[20:55] and in the meantime the

[20:58] redevelopment authority became

[20:59] more engaged in how can we

[21:02] improve the area and bolster

[21:03] some redevelopment in the area

[21:06] recognizing that there had been

[21:07] some vacancy and some continued

[21:09] decline in long sunset drive

[21:10] between grand and prairie.

[21:13] >> so in anticipation of the

[21:14] parks project in the

[21:15] redevelopment of mindiola park

[21:18] which I thought was an economic

[21:21] driver we engaged with uw to

[21:22] look at the area and provide

[21:23] some suggestions back to the

[21:25] redevelopment authority and

[21:26] they provided a report and we

[21:27] had a nice discussion during

[21:29] covid over zoome about their

[21:30] report but basically they

[21:33] outlined zoning updates that

[21:34] could be made adaptive reuse of

[21:37] particular buildings and they

[21:38] also identified street scaping

[21:39] and wayfinding as an

[21:41] opportunity for city investment

[21:42] to start to enhance the area

[21:45] and by doing those things

[21:46] believing along with the

[21:49] improvements mindiola park they

[21:50] believe that that would attract

[21:50] investment.

[21:53] New businesses, new to

[21:54] redevelopment projects to the

[21:57] area.

[21:58] >> so after we went through

[21:59] that project we community

[22:01] development redevelopment

[22:02] authority jointly with the

[22:05] parks department engaged

[22:06] brandon dowling in johnson

[22:09] consulting to do an economic

[22:09] development an economic impact

[22:12] study for us.

[22:13] >> so we're just trying to put

[22:14] the pieces together to see how

[22:17] much impact this could have and

[22:20] also what kind of businesses or

[22:21] development we should be

[22:21] focused on to attract to the

[22:22] area.

[22:24] >> what makes the most sense if

[22:25] this is going to be a soccer

[22:28] complex and so we engage

[22:29] johnson consulting and

[22:29] brandon's here tonight and he's

[22:30] going to walk through his

[22:32] presentation.

[22:34] We did do this in front of the

[22:34] redevelopment authority as

[22:34] well.

[22:37] So I know a little bit familiar

[22:37] with that but that's a little

[22:38] bit of the background of how we

[22:41] got here to this part of the

[22:45] presentation with the economic

[22:45] development studies.

[22:52] >> so brandon, not sure if I

[22:55] have control here so I'm going

[22:56] to talk loud.

[22:58] That's ok with you all.

[22:59] >> maybe one and one second.

[23:02] And sir, could you please

[23:03] introduce yourself for sure

[23:04] that my name is brandon darling

[23:10] and with johnson consulting I'm

[23:11] not sure if I have.

[23:11] >> sure.

[23:13] Yeah, I just want to be able to

[23:14] brand and I think I think brad

[23:15] can come out and see if we can

[23:16] get that up on the screen here

[23:17] .

[23:18] >> it's on my screen.

[23:21] I don't not advance it guess

[23:22] what it from here instead of

[23:25] that I still want to sit in

[23:29] front of that please sit it's

[23:29] fine.

[23:30] Ok fine brenda and that

[23:30] microphone right there to your

[23:34] to your left there should be a

[23:35] look that's that's good.

[23:36] >> thank you.

[23:36] All right.

[23:39] Well good evening and thank you

[23:40] again for having me here today

[23:42] again brandon darling johnson

[23:43] consulting I am a principal

[23:46] with the firm just a little bit

[23:47] about us and who we are.

[23:50] We were started about

[23:51] twenty seven years ago.

[23:52] We specialize in market

[23:54] financial feasibility studies

[23:55] particularly for public

[23:58] assembly type fagon venue.

[23:58] So convention centers,

[24:01] conference centers,

[24:02] recreational facilities,

[24:06] stadiums, arenas as well as the

[24:06] mixed use developments that are

[24:09] usually sprouting around those

[24:09] .

[24:11] And so I led our effort on this

[24:13] economic impact study that

[24:14] we're here to kind of share a

[24:17] brief summary and help share a

[24:18] little bit of our findings from

[24:20] that analysis.

[24:21] Pretty familiar with the area

[24:22] we're based out of chicago just

[24:25] recently a few different venues

[24:26] here regionally the marquette

[24:29] university athletic performance

[24:32] facility as well as the new

[24:33] stadium in franklin.

[24:36] So we we helped with both those

[24:37] market and financial

[24:38] feasibility studies for those

[24:39] venues.

[24:40] So just jumping right in I

[24:42] thought I kind of give a brief

[24:44] overview of our scope.

[24:48] >> it was in essence really to

[24:49] assess what the concept and

[24:52] program was put forth for

[24:56] minneola park and part of our

[24:57] work was really jumping in and

[24:58] understanding what the market

[24:59] opportunity the demographic in

[25:03] the area is and leveraging that

[25:04] and understanding sort of what

[25:04] the regional and competitive

[25:08] marketplace MAY look like and

[25:10] then from there really

[25:11] articulating what the overall

[25:14] economic impact could be.

[25:15] So this is should be nothing

[25:16] new.

[25:19] The overall concern of what the

[25:20] redevelopment for mindiola park

[25:23] would be so this is sort of

[25:24] what we analyze from a number

[25:26] of fields and the overall scope

[25:26] .

[25:28] You know, one of the things I

[25:30] think we shared early on is

[25:31] sort of the limitation of the

[25:34] site and in terms of the number

[25:35] of fields and size of fields

[25:38] and so you'll see in a lot of

[25:39] our numbers I would say we're

[25:39] probably culturally

[25:42] conservative just by way of

[25:43] background some of these other

[25:43] facilities and you'll see in

[25:46] the case studies are much

[25:47] larger size and scope in terms

[25:47] of acreage.

[25:50] >> I think you all have about

[25:53] 20 acres of some sort you know

[25:54] ,traditionally we could see

[25:55] these in the range of eighty.

[25:57] We just finished one on 380

[25:57] acres.

[25:58] >> so sports tourism is in

[26:01] itself kind of bringing

[26:02] visitors towards the sporty

[26:05] sports events has really boomed

[26:06] kind of growing from the

[26:09] original recession in 2008 and

[26:10] continuing to grow year over

[26:13] year.

[26:14] Just a snapshot of some of the

[26:15] key characteristics and I'll

[26:17] highlight this graph a little

[26:18] bit real quick on the right and

[26:21] kind of qualify why we look at

[26:22] these three areas, if you will,

[26:25] the orange the baby blue and

[26:26] the navy blue the thirty minute

[26:28] hour and a half for our

[26:28] effectively your three segments

[26:33] that we analyze the thirty and

[26:33] it being sort of your primary

[26:34] target market.

[26:35] What we found at a national

[26:36] level is mom dad caretaker are

[26:37] not going to travel greater

[26:40] than that four weekday

[26:40] practices and games and events

[26:44] the hour and a half is more

[26:45] sort of your regional draw

[26:48] daytrippers and for our is

[26:49] likely your overnight larger

[26:52] tournament demand.

[26:53] So you're just looking at sort

[26:54] of the historical and the

[26:56] projected population growth

[26:59] fairly consistent on a national

[27:00] average.

[27:01] You know, one of the things i

[27:02] think is unique as you all MAY

[27:04] know is the density that you're

[27:05] able to pull from in particular

[27:08] just from an hour drive time.

[27:08] Right.

[27:09] That's a pretty significant

[27:10] number when we look at these on

[27:11] a national level mainly given

[27:12] the major metropolitan areas

[27:13] that you all are our

[27:18] neighboring and the other is as

[27:21] median household income these

[27:22] types of venues really lend

[27:26] themselves to disposable income

[27:27] given if you're, you know,

[27:30] catering towards sports tourism

[27:31] really from a travel

[27:33] standpoint, you know, this

[27:34] venue I think is going to be

[27:37] largely local recreational with

[27:38] the ability to host smaller I

[27:41] would say regional tournaments.

[27:42] >> and so you'll see this in

[27:44] some of our projections one of

[27:45] the areas and it kind of speaks

[27:48] to what jennifer talking about

[27:49] hotels when we analyze the

[27:52] market there is about eight

[27:53] hundred and twenty one there's

[27:55] about another 300 I

[27:56] understanding coming in the

[28:00] pipeline just overall that's a

[28:01] little light especially if

[28:01] you're going to be bringing the

[28:04] number of visitors that we

[28:05] think this facility would be

[28:05] bringing.

[28:08] So in terms of identifying the

[28:09] types of development that MAY

[28:10] make sense in terms of that

[28:11] redevelopment, some form of

[28:15] hotel component we think would

[28:19] be ideal and then obviously

[28:19] sort of the family

[28:20] entertainment.

[28:21] So these things have evolved to

[28:23] be replacements for vacations,

[28:27] if you will, until it's much

[28:28] more than just the venue

[28:28] itself.

[28:29] it's also sort of what there is

[28:31] to do in a town and the

[28:32] experience that they have and

[28:32] that's really what increases

[28:35] that trip from one trip to

[28:36] visiting a venue, you know,

[28:38] five years in a row if you will

[28:38] .

[28:39] Another avenue that we look

[28:42] into the statistics on the

[28:43] hotel side, you know, if you

[28:46] look at the overall occupancy

[28:47] 70 percent and above is doing

[28:47] excellent.

[28:50] So you guys have some growth

[28:51] opportunity in terms of the

[28:54] accuracy as well as the adr and

[28:57] that's the average daily rate.

[28:58] >> those are two strong

[28:59] indicators for us in terms of

[29:01] you the viability of something

[29:02] like this because in many

[29:05] markets I shouldn't say many

[29:06] but when you're closer to

[29:09] larger regional markets the adr

[29:10] is what could impact the

[29:13] success meaning you know, if

[29:14] the hotel room rate is too high

[29:16] it's going to limit your family

[29:17] in the visitors ability to kind

[29:18] of stay there for multiple days

[29:20] like four tournaments and

[29:21] things like that.

[29:22] >> so when we look at the

[29:24] average in the occupancy we

[29:25] think both are opportunities

[29:31] for waukesha.

[29:32] Another element was we dug a

[29:34] little bit in terms of regional

[29:35] audit, in terms of some of the

[29:36] facilities.

[29:38] A lot of these came through for

[29:39] research and our primary

[29:39] database at johnson consulting

[29:42] as well as our discussions with

[29:46] several regional and local user

[29:47] groups to understand sort of

[29:50] where everyone was playing and

[29:51] what are the elite venues.

[29:54] So effectively these would be

[29:55] the venues that you would be

[29:56] competing with for some of

[29:57] these events.

[29:58] >> these are the four really or

[30:01] three I should say including

[30:02] minneola and the future

[30:03] improvements or proposed future

[30:05] improvements.

[30:06] We did sort of benchmarking

[30:09] around those three segments to

[30:10] kind of give a sense of where

[30:11] you all would sit against some

[30:13] of your key competition in the

[30:14] marketplace.

[30:17] As I mentioned before, I think

[30:18] ,you know, one of the strength

[30:19] is just a pure density from the

[30:21] the site itself and we'll get

[30:22] into that a little bit later

[30:25] and what we did a sort of a

[30:26] market penetration summary for

[30:28] you all to kind of see what we

[30:29] think we can it'd be able to

[30:33] attract and again, I think, you

[30:33] know, highlighting sort of the

[30:34] footprint as you could see it's

[30:36] one of the smaller of the

[30:36] three.

[30:39] So the overall size is going to

[30:40] be a limitation.

[30:43] But I think through many of our

[30:44] discussions as you'll see here

[30:47] in some of these ballpoints we

[30:48] talked with wisconsin youth

[30:51] soccer association so it's the

[30:52] state association really

[30:55] understand sort of state wide

[30:56] where things are from a demand

[30:57] perspective and honed in in

[30:59] particular to the waukesha

[31:03] area, you know, sharing a

[31:04] little bit of what the proposed

[31:05] plan was with them to

[31:07] understand.

[31:08] You know, is this something

[31:09] that could be utilized for

[31:10] statewide kamps tournaments,

[31:11] clinics in particular for the

[31:14] younger age group so you know,

[31:15] you're some of your fields

[31:18] would be smaller than a fall

[31:19] 2011 if you will, but you're

[31:22] still fully capable of hosting

[31:23] fairly decent size younger

[31:26] youth and amateur's are seven

[31:29] via sevens on those fields.

[31:30] We talked to several in

[31:31] particular one in milwaukee

[31:34] wave group that you know really

[31:37] are looking for additional

[31:38] services in the marketplace.

[31:42] So I would say two or three at

[31:45] the least that we talk to were

[31:46] interested in some sort of I

[31:50] would say a partnership or

[31:50] understanding how they can be

[31:53] but we would call it anchor

[31:54] tenant meaning they would, you

[31:57] know, sort of allocate specific

[31:58] dates and schedules.

[31:59] You know, one team would have

[32:01] monday, wednesday, friday

[32:02] certain time period because of

[32:05] the limitation of supply of

[32:06] surfaces in the greater

[32:06] marketplace.

[32:07] That's been a challenge for a

[32:09] lot of these organizations and

[32:10] it's been a hindrance in their

[32:11] opinion to some of their growth

[32:13] as well because you know,

[32:15] there's only so much to to grow

[32:18] with the table on the right

[32:19] kind of dives in a little bit

[32:21] of what we characterize as

[32:22] market penetration opportunity

[32:23] and this is particularly for

[32:24] your market and those three

[32:28] segments again on a national

[32:28] average we typically see

[32:33] anywhere from 30 percent on a

[32:33] 30 minute time ours.

[32:36] Fifteen percent and seven.

[32:37] And so if you look at the beige

[32:40] no, we're taking effectively in

[32:41] that 30 minute we're taking 30

[32:41] percent of that number and

[32:44] that's that number is the

[32:44] taking population and applying

[32:48] that towards the percent of

[32:49] population that participates in

[32:52] soccer and the various funds

[32:53] that could be held there and

[32:55] giving us a total number and

[32:56] then from there we're assuming

[32:57] only 30 percent that number.

[33:00] So again across the board I

[33:01] think you'll find a lot of our

[33:01] assumptions and numbers are

[33:03] fairly conservative with

[33:04] intention.

[33:08] You know these these things are

[33:08] sort of early on when we're

[33:09] involved and so there's a

[33:12] there's a whole host of things

[33:12] that can can can be modified

[33:14] and change the direction of

[33:15] that.

[33:16] And so, you know, large part

[33:19] based on a lot of our

[33:19] discussion and research and

[33:20] really diving into some of the

[33:23] data that we have in-house, we

[33:24] think that there's certainly a

[33:27] fairly significant amount of

[33:28] demand for the proposed

[33:30] development.

[33:31] So what that man really means

[33:35] looking at this sorry you're a

[33:38] little happy there.

[33:39] This is the diagram on the left

[33:39] to give us a little

[33:41] illustration of sort of how and

[33:42] the methodology of how we

[33:45] arrive at these economic impact

[33:46] numbers.

[33:47] >> you had the venue itself.

[33:49] You have folks that are coming

[33:50] in here directly spending their

[33:51] money.

[33:51] You have the indirect and

[33:54] induced in one way.

[33:55] We like to categorize that and

[33:58] you'll see some of these rates

[33:59] for each of those areas

[34:01] indirect induced an increased

[34:02] those are from in-plant.

[34:03] It's a nationally recognized

[34:05] multiplier that produces and so

[34:06] we apply that base off the

[34:09] direct number that we produce

[34:13] and so the way we like to

[34:14] categorize it as a direct spend

[34:17] is if I'm a parent and I'm

[34:18] taking my children to the

[34:21] sports complex, we are paying

[34:22] five hundred dollars for the

[34:25] tournament that weekend that is

[34:26] a direct spend to the city.

[34:29] If we were to go to the local

[34:30] pizzeria and I buy pizzas for

[34:33] the whole team that's a sort of

[34:34] an indirect spend to the

[34:37] community so that those dollars

[34:37] at that pizza place wouldn't

[34:38] happen if it weren't for that

[34:40] tournament that I was in town

[34:40] for.

[34:41] And the induced is really the

[34:44] server that now had sold

[34:47] fifteen pies that day that

[34:48] because there was a major

[34:49] sports event in town and so

[34:52] their tips are greater than

[34:53] they would normally be if it

[34:53] were not.

[34:55] >> but for that event that

[34:56] happened and so that's just a

[35:00] sort of a discretionary way to

[35:01] kind of explain each of those

[35:03] definitions.

[35:08] The next is really kind of a

[35:09] high level and again really

[35:11] conservative estimation of what

[35:12] we think demand and events

[35:14] could happen at this repropose

[35:16] park including the addition of

[35:19] additional fields we talked

[35:20] about early on and really

[35:23] looking at what the overall

[35:24] year five number is that we

[35:26] hone in on you'll see that

[35:26] quite a bit.

[35:27] Year five is what traditionally

[35:30] we see on a national level to

[35:30] be stabilization.

[35:31] These things take a little bit

[35:34] of time to get on the you know,

[35:35] wisconsin youth soccer

[35:35] association.

[35:38] they've booked events two years

[35:39] out, if you will, for their

[35:40] camps and clinics and so it's

[35:42] going to take time post

[35:43] development for you all to land

[35:46] on that.

[35:47] But they do over time have a

[35:48] ramp up period and that's what

[35:49] you'll see across the board and

[35:52] a lot of our projections

[35:56] ultimately it is our projection

[35:57] in previous just from a total

[36:00] about roughly 17000 total

[36:04] spectators and participants

[36:05] when we look at that from a

[36:08] event day standpoint and that

[36:09] in itself accounts for, you

[36:12] know, several days on the camps

[36:13] and clinics that are in town

[36:14] for a greater than just one day

[36:16] and not just day tripping.

[36:17] So again in that year five

[36:19] we're looking approximately

[36:23] 25000 folks in that's really

[36:24] we're projecting would produce

[36:27] approximately 6200 room nights.

[36:31] >> so again, when we look that

[36:32] and we talk about additional

[36:32] and ancillary potential

[36:35] catalyst development, we could

[36:36] see where the hotel MAY be an

[36:42] opportunity for you all to seek

[36:43] in the last but not least is

[36:46] really sort of a summary of all

[36:46] this.

[36:47] So understanding kind of what

[36:48] those visitors and those date

[36:50] nights and room nights look

[36:54] like applying our average daily

[36:55] spend if you will, for lodging

[36:57] and meals and and it's

[36:57] incidentals we're projecting

[37:01] approximately in year five an

[37:02] economic impact of three point

[37:05] two million which would produce

[37:06] again utilizing those numbers

[37:09] from a multiplier standpoint

[37:09] approximately nineteen full

[37:13] time jobs and the equivalent of

[37:14] about 47000 in tax revenue from

[37:17] those sales.

[37:18] >> so again these are all

[37:21] annual numbers so so we sort of

[37:22] hone in on that year five.

[37:25] But again, as you it's hard to

[37:26] see why in year one it's

[37:27] lighter and it grows and it

[37:29] grows.

[37:30] >> that's all indicative to the

[37:31] overall demand that we're

[37:32] projecting for the facility and

[37:33] that I felt like it was a

[37:36] really quick summary.

[37:37] So please if any questions or

[37:40] anything you'd like me

[37:41] elaborate.

[37:42] I'm here to do the right thank

[37:42] you brandon.

[37:45] I guess we'll certainly bring

[37:45] it to the full committee to see

[37:46] what questions they MAY have of

[37:47] you.

[37:49] >> but I guess a couple that I

[37:51] have off to to start is when

[37:52] when a study like this is done

[37:55] in a facility is built, how are

[37:56] power numbers like this

[37:56] validated?

[37:59] >> how do you come back after

[38:00] five years and give a

[38:01] presentation to the council and

[38:05] say hey, we were right, we were

[38:05] wrong?

[38:06] >> I mean how we only when the

[38:07] right no.

[38:08] Well what it's a great question

[38:09] what does the validation

[38:11] process and something like this

[38:12] look like?

[38:13] >> yeah no that's a great

[38:13] question.

[38:14] We get that quite a bit and

[38:15] more in the private financing

[38:16] world sort of I guess where

[38:19] your question is is sort of

[38:20] what is our variance in some of

[38:20] our projections and so a lot of

[38:22] that is actually going back and

[38:23] looking at what we had

[38:24] projected and how it all

[38:26] effectively had performed post

[38:27] development and ultimately

[38:30] we've traditionally been within

[38:31] that ten to fifteen percent

[38:34] variance on numbers.

[38:35] And so I guess that's a long

[38:38] way of saying we have

[38:39] continually do go back and look

[38:40] at our numbers sort of post

[38:42] development if the development

[38:46] actually proceeds forward, I

[38:47] would say, you know, again

[38:57] we're doing feasibility studies

[38:58] .

[38:59] We're fairly early on.

[38:59] We like to call ourselves the

[39:00] the tip of the development

[39:00] spear.

[39:01] Right.

[39:02] And there's a lot of steps and

[39:02] zoning and design and capital

[39:03] cost have to come next.

[39:04] So you know, I would say

[39:05] roughly anywhere from 20 to 30

[39:05] percent of these venues are

[39:06] actually moving forward from a

[39:07] development standpoint because

[39:07] they're so early on.

[39:10] >> but we do go back and

[39:11] actually fact check our numbers

[39:12] and I another question,

[39:13] brandon.

[39:14] >> so the three point two

[39:15] million of economic impact

[39:17] that's based upon the project

[39:20] being fully built out that was

[39:21] highlighted on one of the

[39:22] earlier slides, is that

[39:22] correct?

[39:23] >> that is correct, yeah.

[39:25] That's kosuga.

[39:28] And then lastly the 47000

[39:29] dollars in tax revenue I mean

[39:32] the city doesn't the city

[39:33] doesn't get a cut of the of the

[39:36] of the sales tax.

[39:37] >> so was that forty seven

[39:37] thousand dollars is that

[39:38] strictly sales tax?

[39:40] That's purely yeah.

[39:41] >> it's a five percent of the

[39:41] state yeah.

[39:43] Ok all right.

[39:44] Other questions for for brandon

[39:45] from the committee on the

[39:54] presentation alderman lemcke,

[39:55] was there anything in your

[39:59] study to project property tax

[40:03] growth because that's where the

[40:06] city you know, revenue would

[40:07] come from the increase in

[40:09] property values around new

[40:10] hotels, new construction,

[40:13] something like that.

[40:15] So as MR. Piper said, we don't

[40:18] get any of sales tax revenue of

[40:18] the state of wisconsin would

[40:21] get that and whether complexes

[40:25] in madison or eau claire,

[40:25] oshkosh, they get the revenue.

[40:27] >> it isn't going to change for

[40:29] the state standpoint where the

[40:32] pie is and waukesha is

[40:33] concerned about, you know, how

[40:35] is it going to revitalize our

[40:36] district plus any of the

[40:37] tournament money that we could

[40:40] get from the parks department

[40:40] that would help.

[40:41] But I was just kind of looking

[40:44] at the redevelopment side what

[40:45] growth that's going to help the

[40:48] city of waukesha property

[40:48] taxes?

[40:48] >> sure.

[40:49] No, that's great question.

[40:52] Our our whole analysis was

[40:52] absent of sort of what would

[40:55] happen with property tax.

[41:02] Other questions for brandon

[41:03] brandon.

[41:04] >> thank you, joe.

[41:04] I thank you.

[41:07] I wanted to make sure I mean we

[41:08] mentioned in terms of taxes we

[41:10] do get a cut of the hotel motel

[41:10] tax.

[41:11] So I mean as part of the state

[41:14] law we get a cut of the hotel

[41:14] motel tax.

[41:17] so that was mentioned briefly

[41:18] the thing so if there is new

[41:21] hotels built then that would be

[41:22] additional revenue to the city

[41:23] as well as to the convention

[41:26] and visitors visitors bureau

[41:27] which also helps to bring more

[41:29] group folks in to.

[41:30] >> thank you, kevin.

[41:33] Before we at brandon go into

[41:34] any other questions from the

[41:37] committee, brandon, thank you.

[41:37] Thank you.

[41:38] I appreciate it.

[41:39] Certainly up to you but you MAY

[41:41] want to stick around.

[41:41] Who knows?

[41:42] We MAY have some other

[41:43] questions later on in the

[41:44] discussion but I appreciate we

[41:45] appreciate coming in and

[41:46] presenting your material so

[41:46] thank you.

[41:47] >> thank you.

[41:48] Appreciate it.

[41:49] Kevin, how would you like to

[41:52] proceed from this point?

[41:53] Well, I would just from my

[41:55] perspective I'd like to get

[41:56] some feedback from the

[41:57] committee if this outline looks

[42:00] acceptable with what we've done

[42:01] or if you'd like some

[42:04] additional adjustments before

[42:04] you consider it for approval,

[42:07] that's really where we're at.

[42:08] There are there was some

[42:11] questions about some cost

[42:12] benefit of the snow melter.

[42:15] So like that hasn't been

[42:15] completed yet.

[42:16] We haven't been able to do all

[42:19] the data on that.

[42:20] So in terms of doing the labor

[42:26] costs of moving snow and that

[42:27] analysis still needs to be

[42:28] done.

[42:31] But but we do want to try to

[42:32] answer the questions that you

[42:35] had and reflect some of the

[42:36] changes that the committee was

[42:36] discussing previously.

[42:39] >> so I guess one question I

[42:40] have is the you know and I know

[42:42] you we remove some items and

[42:43] things like that.

[42:46] I guess the the million five in

[42:47] capital projects at the very

[42:47] bottom.

[42:49] >> could you could you

[42:50] highlight that a little bit

[42:51] more in terms of what your

[42:54] ideas are for that one point

[42:55] five?

[42:56] And I guess my point is and

[42:57] I'll certainly leave it to the

[42:58] rest of the committee is I

[43:01] don't know how much in terms of

[43:02] firm recommendations this

[43:03] committee wants to give the

[43:05] council versus kind of leaving

[43:06] something rather open ended.

[43:06] Yeah.

[43:09] So I was hoping that maybe you

[43:10] could provide a little bit more

[43:13] color around that one point

[43:13] five million.

[43:14] >> yeah so that's exactly what

[43:16] the that was intended to do in

[43:17] some respects is that this is

[43:20] an outline so it's like a set

[43:24] in stone plan but with that one

[43:25] of the discussions that was had

[43:28] at the last meeting was you

[43:29] know we have a skype with a

[43:30] bunch of capital projects and

[43:32] it's why not not issue debt for

[43:33] that and use these funds to

[43:36] help offset the future tax

[43:37] increases that are going to be

[43:38] resulting of the debt that we

[43:40] have to issue.

[43:41] And so between this the one

[43:42] point five for capital project

[43:43] we could be used for any

[43:44] capital projects that we have

[43:47] on the books and plan for a

[43:51] road you know, a park facility

[43:52] ,whatever the case MAY be we

[43:55] could just use this instead and

[43:55] then the other one point five

[43:59] for stormwater.

[44:00] We have planned stormwater

[44:00] projects nearly every year

[44:03] every other year.

[44:04] So again that would be

[44:04] offsetting that debt that we'd

[44:07] have to issue to do those

[44:08] projects.

[44:10] So you'd essentially not

[44:14] borrowing for the three million

[44:15] those of those capital projects

[44:16] you wouldn't have to borrow for

[44:19] the major equipment in the in

[44:22] the snow melter and I still

[44:23] can't believe that's a thing

[44:26] but it's a cool thing and you

[44:30] wouldn't be borrowing for the

[44:31] m_nika project either.

[44:34] >> so all of those would be non

[44:38] debt, you know, funded projects

[44:41] that would not that would help

[44:42] us do the things that we want

[44:43] to do without impacting the

[44:45] taxpayer.

[44:46] All right.

[44:50] Well, what I'm going to do is

[44:51] I'll bring it back to the full

[44:53] committee and I have certainly

[44:54] open it up to the committee for

[44:56] questions on anything related

[44:57] to the to the updated

[45:00] spreadsheet and then I'm going

[45:01] to see kind of how the

[45:02] conversation goes and then we

[45:05] can we can do one of two things

[45:06] and again, I'm not ready to lay

[45:08] this out completely that we

[45:09] either can approve some of

[45:12] these items like we have with

[45:15] the modular vehicle barrier

[45:16] system that we did recommended

[45:19] that one the council and to the

[45:20] org changes.

[45:21] >> those are two items that we

[45:21] already have recommended to

[45:23] council.

[45:24] So that is certainly an avenue

[45:25] for us to consider this evening

[45:27] is if there's items on here

[45:28] that the committee feels like

[45:29] it's a good idea, we're ready

[45:32] to move forward and vote on

[45:32] those things.

[45:33] We could do that tonight and

[45:34] recommend those kind piecemeal

[45:35] to the council.

[45:38] I said or we could ask for some

[45:39] additional information and

[45:42] bring it back for a third time

[45:43] to the committee and vote on it

[45:44] as a package.

[45:46] So I just wanted to give that

[45:47] to the committee as some food

[45:48] for thought as to how we can

[45:49] proceed tonight.

[45:51] >> we do have agenda is that we

[45:51] could do it either way.

[45:54] >> we could do this piecemeal

[45:55] and take some take some action

[45:57] on some specific items so

[45:58] again, just from a committee

[45:59] standpoint, let's let's think

[46:01] about what we're comfortable

[46:02] with this evening and then I'm

[46:03] going to pull it back and see

[46:06] if anybody has any questions on

[46:06] what's been presented in

[46:07] alderman lemcke, you put your

[46:09] hand up.

[46:13] I think I mentioned the last

[46:14] time we had spoke that I would

[46:17] like she had a good portion of

[46:21] the funds that we're getting

[46:22] from arpa since they are tax

[46:25] dollars coming from the federal

[46:25] government that the city of

[46:26] waukesha proportionately has to

[46:29] pay back because it's all debt.

[46:32] >> we're getting a share back.

[46:34] >> I'd like to see some of the

[46:36] debt that we are going to be

[46:37] putting together.

[46:39] >> for example, mindiola park

[46:40] that looks like it's going

[46:44] through pieces at a time which

[46:47] I'm not against the capital

[46:48] projects on the roads and for

[46:51] example and this is just an

[46:52] example of where I'm coming

[46:52] from the dredging of the

[46:55] saratoga lake.

[46:56] Those are all things that we

[47:00] have in the cfp now where I'd

[47:00] like to see a good portion of

[47:03] these arpa funds used so that

[47:04] the federal government is

[47:08] paying some waukesha tax payers

[47:08] bills that the taxpayers are

[47:11] then going to have to pay the

[47:12] federal government so it's not

[47:14] increasing the tax burden is

[47:15] skinning the cat from one piece

[47:18] or the other.

[47:20] >> so I just don't want to see

[47:23] 10 million dollars of add on

[47:26] and in that we have to pay the

[47:27] federal government for and I'd

[47:30] like to see some of it come

[47:31] back now I'm in favor of the

[47:34] habitat for humanity just about

[47:35] everything's there and I just

[47:37] want to know if like the

[47:38] mindiola that we have allocated

[47:41] and the storm water projects,

[47:42] the capital projects if if that

[47:46] amount of money three million,

[47:47] four million dollars was in the

[47:49] cypriote that we could allocate

[47:50] to that and not have to spend

[47:50] it.

[47:53] >> so then we're making some

[47:54] new purchases but not all the

[47:57] those specifically stormwater

[47:58] the capital project line and

[48:01] mindiola are all in the ship

[48:02] currently those are all in the

[48:05] five year plan.

[48:10] The that's what I mean that's

[48:11] that's your that's the answer

[48:11] to your question.

[48:12] >> those are all in the five

[48:13] year plan.

[48:17] Thank you.

[48:17] Other questions from the

[48:21] committee what's been presented

[48:25] so far?

[48:26] >> all right, let's try this.

[48:28] What I'm going to do is let's

[48:29] start from the top of the list

[48:32] because this is the second time

[48:33] that we've seen a lot of these

[48:37] items and I would just want to

[48:37] go through one by one to make

[48:40] sure that we can show our

[48:40] bosses that we've thoroughly

[48:41] vetted this list and talked

[48:43] about it, which is important

[48:44] and then if there's no

[48:48] objection I'm going to kind of

[48:49] treat this as kind of the

[48:51] capital budget portion of our

[48:52] finance discussion where we

[48:53] start where I'll start asking

[48:55] for some motions on some

[48:56] certain items and if the

[48:56] committee is comfortable with

[48:59] that particular item, get a

[49:00] motion, get a second, we'll

[49:02] vote on it and then we'll take

[49:04] this to council in kind of

[49:07] perhaps some bits and pieces.

[49:08] >> but I think that that that

[49:08] gets this moving along.

[49:11] It gets the council viewing

[49:15] this and asking some additional

[49:18] questions and let's let's do

[49:18] that.

[49:19] So I'm going to start with the

[49:20] habitat for humanity project

[49:23] project.

[49:24] This item was presented at our

[49:26] last previous meeting that a

[49:27] total of a one million dollar

[49:27] allocation.

[49:28] >> were there any additional

[49:30] questions from the committee on

[49:34] this item?

[49:35] >> was there a motion alderman

[49:38] mcilvanney, the motion to

[49:41] approve or move forward habitat

[49:42] for humanity airshed project

[49:45] second by alderman bartel's ok,

[49:46] so just for everybody watching

[49:49] at home what we're going to do

[49:50] is we're going to vote on these

[49:51] one by one so far so the motion

[49:53] has been made to recommend to

[49:54] the common council an

[49:57] allocation of one million from

[49:58] the rpa for the habitat for

[49:58] humanity project.

[50:00] We have motion and a second is

[50:04] there any discussion on that?

[50:05] >> and denise, we're going to

[50:06] do voice votes on these so you

[50:07] don't have to keep track of in

[50:07] granicus.

[50:08] That's all right.

[50:12] Yeah, we'll just do we can do

[50:12] voice votes on this.

[50:13] >> that's fine.

[50:15] All right.

[50:16] >> so the motion we've got a

[50:17] motion and a second for the

[50:19] million dollar allocation

[50:20] habitant and all those in

[50:20] favor.

[50:21] >> please raise your hand and

[50:22] sign I I any opposed.

[50:23] >> all right.

[50:30] That item passes mindiola park

[50:30] revenue generating capital for

[50:31] one million dollars.

[50:33] Is there a motion on that

[50:37] particular item?

[50:41] >> alderman lemcke I would like

[50:42] to make a motion to accept the

[50:45] million dollars arpa funds that

[50:46] would go to the S.O.P in 2023

[50:49] towards a projected project.

[50:56] >> is there a second second

[50:57] alderman mimic elderly?

[50:57] >> I'll second that.

[51:01] Ok, so we have a motion and a

[51:02] second for the one million

[51:04] dollars for mindiola.

[51:05] Is there any further

[51:05] discussion?

[51:07] Alderman battelle's how many

[51:11] years out will we be looking

[51:12] for a completion of the park to

[51:16] the plan in the in the plan we

[51:19] have it spread out over I think

[51:23] two years twenty twenty four

[51:24] and twenty twenty five is that

[51:24] correct.

[51:26] Run yeah.

[51:27] >> yeah twenty twenty four

[51:30] twenty twenty five.

[51:31] >> so that would be the full

[51:35] build out of it and of course

[51:38] it's a big number so that's

[51:39] contingent upon you know

[51:42] competing priorities but um

[51:46] obviously the faster you do it

[51:47] the more gets to stabilization

[51:48] and you start to talk about the

[51:50] types of numbers that the the

[51:54] folks the consulting folks

[51:55] we're talking about that brian

[51:55] was talking about.

[51:58] So but right now we have we

[51:59] have a planned out over 24 and

[52:05] 25 and what was the total

[52:06] estimate for the whole thing?

[52:09] >> for the whole thing I think

[52:10] it's seven million in the city.

[52:13] Am I right in my I'm I'm

[52:14] guessing I should never guess I

[52:16] should go look it up.

[52:17] >> ron has the sheet right in

[52:20] front of them for the record,

[52:24] thanksgiving in the budget

[52:24] right now.

[52:28] >> and again we're evaluating

[52:29] the site as far as updating the

[52:35] master plan, do cost estimates

[52:36] because of the volatility of

[52:38] the climate that we have?

[52:40] >> as you all know, the total

[52:42] is eight million nine hundred

[52:43] and fifteen thousand.

[52:44] >> that's what we have

[52:49] projected through 2025 and

[52:53] we're doing it in phases a lot

[52:54] of inventory.

[52:56] Oh, I'm sorry.

[53:01] >> sorry so if during the

[53:01] process this whole eight

[53:05] million or so doesn't go

[53:08] through what happens to the one

[53:11] million dollars tonight.

[53:13] >> so I mean again this is just

[53:16] an outline so we would what we

[53:17] would do with this particular

[53:19] project is that we would update

[53:20] this ship to include the arpa

[53:23] funds as part of the project.

[53:23] The one million dollars gets

[53:26] you another full size field

[53:27] completely built out and with

[53:31] the success that we've had with

[53:32] the one that we've done, you

[53:34] know, we would generate revenue

[53:35] from the one otherwise.

[53:38] You know, you could do you the

[53:40] whole thing you do one more you

[53:40] could do half of it.

[53:43] >> ok, that's I was looking for

[53:43] yeah.

[53:47] >> thank you is a display ad a

[53:48] tad to that as I indicated in

[53:51] the communication today this is

[53:51] an opportunity to help defray

[53:55] part of the cost of the overall

[53:57] build out and get another field

[53:58] in operation earlier than we

[53:58] had anticipated.

[54:02] So we look at this as an

[54:03] excellent opportunity to not

[54:03] only get another field

[54:06] operational but also save save

[54:09] some money or get funding from

[54:10] a source outside of traditional

[54:13] bonding.

[54:14] And I would also add there's

[54:15] some value in doing it

[54:17] incrementally too because you

[54:18] get to learn you get to know

[54:18] what works.

[54:21] You get to figure out what the

[54:22] teams like and what they don't

[54:25] like and things like that.

[54:26] And so I mean getting it in and

[54:29] getting it operational at peak

[54:29] efficiency for lack of a better

[54:31] description is also not a bad

[54:31] thing.

[54:35] Yeah, I just wanted to add I

[54:38] don't think it's been mentioned

[54:39] yet tonight but the arpa funds

[54:43] currently need to be spent by

[54:44] the end of 2024 so that the

[54:47] first portion of the million if

[54:48] it is spent prior to that would

[54:51] be covered.

[54:52] >> the arpa funds just wanted

[54:55] to make that node and it

[54:56] included the first time we

[55:01] discussed us back on MAY 10th

[55:03] that we will be ready to go.

[55:05] >> this project is in the

[55:06] position that we can move on it

[55:07] and get moving on this project

[55:10] and 23 and certainly have it

[55:11] completed by twenty four to get

[55:14] this additional field built.

[55:15] So we're one step closer to a

[55:18] complex and I think the other

[55:21] thing a bit that onto brandon

[55:23] indicated is it MAY not be the

[55:26] biggest complex but we're

[55:27] looking at high quality in turf

[55:29] is what it so it's imperative

[55:33] that we push for the turf

[55:36] fields that will draw a crowd

[55:37] guaranteed when you know you

[55:41] can play they will come and we

[55:44] definitely are in a position we

[55:46] have a niche that we can fill

[55:49] so we have thirty fields now

[55:52] but we could have facility it

[55:54] has five or six fields that are

[55:56] high and quality that could be

[56:00] used for multiuse and again if

[56:01] we go to the route of building

[56:04] the full sized fields you can

[56:05] carve out a lot of smaller

[56:08] fields on that full size so you

[56:09] have a lot of flexibility.

[56:10] >> you can paint temporary

[56:12] lines for example if you want

[56:13] to use a tournament we can get

[56:16] eight fields of you eight kids

[56:17] on one turf field, one full

[56:20] size is to give you the scope

[56:21] so you can you can run some

[56:24] good sized tournaments

[56:24] especially with the younger

[56:25] kids, the tournaments that

[56:28] require full size field play or

[56:32] somewhat limited but not

[56:35] certainly be relegated not

[56:36] having tournaments for full

[56:39] size play when you have quality

[56:40] so you'll get high end quality

[56:43] type tournaments that would be

[56:44] attracted and that's the that's

[56:47] the word that we got, you know,

[56:48] from the wisconsin youth soccer

[56:51] association etc. That there's a

[56:52] niche there for their olympic

[56:52] development program camps.

[56:55] >> you in also tournaments.

[56:57] So again bigger is not

[57:02] necessarily always better in

[57:06] lemcke I'm glad I have run and

[57:09] kevin in and this is just more

[57:10] of educating myself.

[57:13] Um, when we talk about a major

[57:17] sports complex like this that

[57:17] benefits the entire city, would

[57:21] this be something that impact

[57:24] fees could be allocated towards

[57:28] ,you know, like in my

[57:32] particular district it's

[57:33] projected just from what I can

[57:35] see coming up in the next five

[57:36] years we're going to have about

[57:40] 500 new units.

[57:41] So if we have a and if we have

[57:43] an apartment complex coming on

[57:44] with a hundred units, does that

[57:47] mean that when they apply for

[57:48] permits for that particular

[57:51] apartment complex they pay 100

[57:52] impact fees, one for each unit?

[58:02] Where do they pay one impact

[58:03] fee for the whole complex?

[58:05] Well, the impact fees, jennifer

[58:06] to the two.

[58:07] >> yeah ok.

[58:08] But it's per unit boxton per

[58:08] unit.

[58:10] So if we have a subdivision I'm

[58:11] just going to ask the question

[58:14] whoever knows can answer we

[58:14] have a subdivision coming on

[58:17] very down in my valley we have

[58:18] fifty new condominiums going

[58:18] in.

[58:22] We have about 120 flats coming

[58:23] on just off of highway eighteen

[58:25] across from oakmont we have a

[58:29] new proposed that's in the

[58:30] works right now with maybe

[58:33] three hundred and

[58:33] twenty townhomes and fifty five

[58:37] single family homes just in

[58:38] those in my district alone in

[58:40] the next five years we

[58:44] anticipate about 500 individual

[58:45] units and if I remember when we

[58:49] did our impact fee raise four

[58:52] for AUGUST the parks is going

[58:53] to get about twenty two hundred

[58:55] dollars on each one of those

[58:56] units that's about a million

[58:59] two hundred and fifty thousand

[59:00] dollars of revenue that the

[59:00] city could use.

[59:03] >> I'm thinking towards

[59:04] mindiola park because in my

[59:07] district we have enough little

[59:08] neighborhood parks with

[59:11] meadowbrook howell oaks and you

[59:15] know the oliver sports and all

[59:16] of that.

[59:16] I don't think a need for

[59:18] another park needs to going in

[59:18] there.

[59:19] But I'm thinking, you know,

[59:22] that I understand MR. Bartlet's

[59:23] fee fear as is mine.

[59:26] I don't want to spend six

[59:27] million dollars of the

[59:27] taxpayer's money towards

[59:30] mindiola park over the next

[59:31] five years.

[59:32] But if it can come from the

[59:33] people who are moving in buying

[59:34] that lot or moving into that

[59:37] apartment complex from

[59:41] something like that, then if

[59:42] that fund can be used there

[59:45] again it's a way of not having

[59:46] the taxpayers foot the bill for

[59:49] mindiola and and making making

[59:52] the project can be a draw for

[59:53] redevelopment and such.

[59:56] So if we earmarked those impact

[59:57] fees just in my district I know

[1:00:00] there's a lot more and it would

[1:00:03] soften that blow of having to

[1:00:04] spend six million dollars on

[1:00:04] mindiola.

[1:00:07] We got a million from the arpa

[1:00:08] ,we got a million in two fifty

[1:00:11] and impact fees from my

[1:00:11] district.

[1:00:13] >> you know it has a funding

[1:00:16] source as long as we didn't

[1:00:16] have to invest in new park

[1:00:18] because I think my personal

[1:00:19] opinion is waukesha is very

[1:00:23] generous with their park system

[1:00:27] and and you know, if we can

[1:00:28] fund it without having to

[1:00:30] increase the taxes that the

[1:00:34] people pay, I'm in favor of the

[1:00:35] majority of it.

[1:00:39] So if if that would be a way of

[1:00:42] obtaining spending the money so

[1:00:43] you so you know where the money

[1:00:45] is going to have to come from

[1:00:46] or you're going to have to be

[1:00:47] spent rather than proposing a

[1:00:50] new park or a new pool or a or

[1:00:51] something like that then I'd be

[1:00:54] much more in favor of voting

[1:00:54] for this.

[1:00:57] That looks like it's coming

[1:00:58] anyway but there we go.

[1:01:00] That's my thoughts.

[1:01:02] I can comment on it if you like

[1:01:04] me to.

[1:01:05] Yes, definitely impact fees was

[1:01:09] one of the things that was

[1:01:10] factored in in the study for

[1:01:13] minneola because it is a

[1:01:13] community asset, a community

[1:01:17] park and so part of our funding

[1:01:20] strategy is obviously to look

[1:01:21] for alternative revenue sources

[1:01:24] which we qualify impact fees as

[1:01:28] as that you know, nontax based

[1:01:29] and and that's why we got

[1:01:32] excited about this opportunity.

[1:01:33] Arpa there's a that's one that

[1:01:36] we didn't count on, you know,

[1:01:37] three or four years ago

[1:01:37] certainly.

[1:01:40] And to try to find ways to stay

[1:01:44] out of using geo bonding or

[1:01:45] things of that that type of

[1:01:47] mechanism.

[1:01:48] >> so impact fees is part of

[1:01:49] the mix.

[1:01:51] We haven't quite determine how

[1:01:53] much impact fee the use for

[1:01:55] that but we'll certainly have

[1:01:59] more of that detail for you as

[1:02:02] we get through the process.

[1:02:04] >> you know we have JULY one is

[1:02:06] our self-imposed deadline that

[1:02:07] cfp submitted and sort of

[1:02:11] better defined it but that was

[1:02:12] factored in that there would be

[1:02:14] a piece of the puzzle would

[1:02:14] come from impact fees.

[1:02:18] >> how much that hasn't been

[1:02:18] determined yet.

[1:02:21] And as you indicated in lemcke

[1:02:22] that those numbers have changed

[1:02:23] all too.

[1:02:26] So that changes that landscape,

[1:02:26] MR. Laner.

[1:02:30] >> yeah, just to add on to that

[1:02:33] the way the impact fee

[1:02:34] ordinances work is that they

[1:02:35] have to be spent either in the

[1:02:36] neighborhood where they are

[1:02:38] generated from or on a

[1:02:41] community park facility and we

[1:02:42] might have to look at our

[1:02:43] ordinance to make sure that

[1:02:46] we're eligible to do that.

[1:02:47] I think we are already but

[1:02:48] that's an adjustment that we

[1:02:49] can make and so you can use

[1:02:53] them for either area and then

[1:02:54] there's also a time limit with

[1:02:55] impact fees you have to spend

[1:02:57] them within seven years on a

[1:03:00] new item.

[1:03:01] You can't spend them on

[1:03:01] maintenance you can't spend

[1:03:02] them on.

[1:03:03] You have to build something new

[1:03:04] with them.

[1:03:05] So that's how that's how it

[1:03:06] works so you can use them

[1:03:08] locally in the specified area

[1:03:09] or you spend them on a

[1:03:11] community facility.

[1:03:13] >> just one other thing to add

[1:03:16] on to kevin's comment is that

[1:03:19] the keep in mind minneola park

[1:03:20] is largely undeveloped.

[1:03:21] that's why it does that's one

[1:03:23] of the qualifiers for impact

[1:03:23] fees.

[1:03:27] >> so a one one field alone as

[1:03:28] you know as we've discussed is

[1:03:31] over a million dollars a full

[1:03:31] sized field.

[1:03:32] >> so we have undeveloped

[1:03:35] largely undeveloped community

[1:03:39] park and that typically shines

[1:03:39] really well for impact fee use

[1:03:43] for community wide use.

[1:03:44] So it was part of our strategy

[1:03:46] when we elton john cameron, et

[1:03:50] cetera on identifying all the

[1:03:51] different parks, that big lawn

[1:03:54] chart that is part of the study

[1:03:59] minneola is part of the mix all

[1:04:07] romanian run refresh my memory

[1:04:07] .

[1:04:08] We have an existing turf field

[1:04:11] at mindiola right now.

[1:04:11] >> correct.

[1:04:15] And that was put in when I was

[1:04:19] there the tail the

[1:04:20] twenty twenty we opened in 2021

[1:04:22] last year.

[1:04:23] >> ok, can you give me a

[1:04:26] ballpark if you know of roughly

[1:04:27] what kind of revenue that field

[1:04:31] has generated in on an annual

[1:04:31] basis?

[1:04:34] >> well we have we have one

[1:04:37] full season on our built but

[1:04:39] the field is to give you an

[1:04:42] idea prior to the turf field

[1:04:43] and our total revenue was nine

[1:04:45] hundred and twenty seven

[1:04:47] dollars for in the old park

[1:04:49] with the grass fields in

[1:04:53] twenty twenty one rentals the

[1:04:54] loan was over thirty eight

[1:04:56] thousand so we went from nine

[1:04:57] some dollars to thirty eight

[1:04:58] thousand plus we were able to

[1:05:04] move our program over an entire

[1:05:05] youth program utilizes the turf

[1:05:08] field now for games and that

[1:05:09] program was expanded to almost

[1:05:12] 3500 kids in that program being

[1:05:13] brought in in 2001.

[1:05:16] >> edita and so conservatively

[1:05:21] the turf field attributes one

[1:05:24] hundred and twenty six thousand

[1:05:25] its first year and the numbers

[1:05:28] are looking very good right now

[1:05:29] we're projecting to be about

[1:05:29] one hundred seventy five

[1:05:32] thousand four for this year.

[1:05:33] We haven't seen what's going to

[1:05:36] happen in the fall season yet

[1:05:37] but spring was very good.

[1:05:38] >> thanks, ron.

[1:05:41] Those are good numbers and ron

[1:05:44] just also to remind the

[1:05:47] committee that when the first

[1:05:48] part when the first field went

[1:05:49] in there was a special revenue

[1:05:50] fund that was created to

[1:05:51] capture the income that was

[1:05:52] derived off of that off of that

[1:05:53] field.

[1:05:55] >> correct.

[1:05:59] >> that's all the funds in the

[1:06:00] general fund.

[1:06:00] >> but I thought there was I

[1:06:03] thought there was something

[1:06:03] specific that the city created

[1:06:04] to capture the revenue from

[1:06:07] that field to recoup some of

[1:06:08] the operating costs and perhaps

[1:06:10] some of the replacement in the

[1:06:12] future for that project as we

[1:06:14] did to turn fields one time

[1:06:15] would frame baseball.

[1:06:16] We did create a turf

[1:06:18] replacement fund or it's a

[1:06:19] maintenance one can be used for

[1:06:22] more turf replacement but that

[1:06:26] cost shared with carroll

[1:06:30] university in the city and it's

[1:06:31] ten thousand dollars a year

[1:06:34] from carol and 10000 from

[1:06:35] proceeds that we derive from

[1:06:38] frame baseball goes into that

[1:06:39] fund.

[1:06:39] >> so there wasn't there wasn't

[1:06:40] something similar done with

[1:06:43] mindiola not at this time but I

[1:06:43] think that's something we would

[1:06:46] look at certainly for you know,

[1:06:47] the bigger picture the bigger

[1:06:51] project is to have I call it a

[1:06:54] turf replacement fund.

[1:06:55] >> we made a little broader

[1:06:55] than that.

[1:06:57] You know, maintenance.

[1:06:58] But the idea that primarily

[1:07:01] would help you know, the free

[1:07:02] again cost down the road for

[1:07:05] turf replacement because you

[1:07:06] know, one of the one of the

[1:07:09] things that we've talked about

[1:07:10] I mean you and I and you and I

[1:07:11] and kevin have talked about the

[1:07:13] concern that I have is just the

[1:07:14] ability for the city to

[1:07:14] maintain the park

[1:07:16] infrastructure.

[1:07:17] We have given levy limits and

[1:07:17] the limitations on the

[1:07:18] operating budget.

[1:07:21] I mean that it's a big topic

[1:07:21] but that's been my overarching

[1:07:24] concern with with the parks

[1:07:28] that we've had.

[1:07:31] >> I guess my question for this

[1:07:32] is is if if we have the first

[1:07:33] one and the second one gets

[1:07:37] approved, you know, from a

[1:07:37] standpoint of just maintaining

[1:07:38] it, I mean are you are you

[1:07:40] comfortable that we've got the

[1:07:41] room within the operating

[1:07:42] budget within your operating

[1:07:43] budget to maintain these assets

[1:07:44] and or does it make sense to

[1:07:47] start setting up specific funds

[1:07:48] for these larger assets to make

[1:07:52] sure that, you know, repairing

[1:07:55] bleachers and repairing

[1:07:56] bathrooms and repairing the

[1:07:56] field don't pull away from the

[1:07:59] other funds that you're going

[1:08:00] to need to maintain a you know,

[1:08:01] to maintain the park shelter at

[1:08:06] horeb for you know, part one.

[1:08:07] Yes, we're very confident that

[1:08:11] our experience turf field is

[1:08:14] it's enable us to reprogram a

[1:08:15] chunk of our maintenance

[1:08:18] activities to other facilities

[1:08:22] in parks because the turf no

[1:08:25] longer we have to mow no long

[1:08:26] trimming no longer we control

[1:08:29] fertilization, no longer

[1:08:30] irrigation.

[1:08:34] So that's a pretty hefty list

[1:08:37] that now no longer has to be

[1:08:38] done and we can redirect those

[1:08:39] hours and manpower to other

[1:08:41] areas in the city.

[1:08:42] So it's been a maintenance

[1:08:44] benefit for us and that's

[1:08:48] that's why we were very bullish

[1:08:49] I guess is the term on turf

[1:08:50] fields.

[1:08:52] We're just seen the impact of

[1:08:53] ability and on the revenue side

[1:08:56] and rentals but we also had a

[1:09:00] very favorable response on the

[1:09:01] maintenance side and so there

[1:09:04] is some grooming involved but

[1:09:08] other than that replenish some

[1:09:12] of the infill material, there's

[1:09:12] a relatively simple machine

[1:09:13] that does that and then once a

[1:09:16] year we bring in a service to

[1:09:20] do a or complete reconditioning

[1:09:21] of the field in the school

[1:09:22] district.

[1:09:24] Does does the same with their

[1:09:27] three stadium fields and there

[1:09:28] we look to piggyback with the

[1:09:31] school district working with

[1:09:32] that.

[1:09:32] >> but overall the cost man

[1:09:35] hours is way down and we

[1:09:36] anticipate that that's the way

[1:09:36] to go.

[1:09:39] Try to avoid, you know, the

[1:09:40] grass fields and in the upper

[1:09:44] midwest this spring as if there

[1:09:45] was ever an indicator this

[1:09:47] spring is a good one about a

[1:09:50] very, very difficult to get

[1:09:51] into games and the pressure of

[1:09:55] especially a varsity level or

[1:09:55] high school level type play

[1:09:58] very difficult but with her

[1:09:59] fields playing baseball for

[1:10:02] example, was a savior in many

[1:10:02] respects.

[1:10:06] >> we're getting games when no

[1:10:07] one else was and that makes all

[1:10:10] the difference and that's the

[1:10:11] best part from a revenue side

[1:10:13] is word of mouth.

[1:10:14] If people have excellent

[1:10:15] experiences they tell others

[1:10:21] and then they come back other

[1:10:22] other questions or discussion

[1:10:23] on the mindiola item from the

[1:10:28] committee I'm going to I'm

[1:10:31] going to be a vote on mindiola

[1:10:31] .

[1:10:33] I just I just cannot I just

[1:10:36] can't bring myself to support

[1:10:36] it.

[1:10:37] I just I'm worried about kind

[1:10:40] of the overall size of the

[1:10:42] project and I've not been of

[1:10:43] this isn't anything new.

[1:10:44] >> I've not been a big

[1:10:45] proponent of it in the in the

[1:10:46] five year plan.

[1:10:48] But if the item is passed

[1:10:51] tonight, I want the committee

[1:10:52] to know that this my intention

[1:10:53] is for this to go to the

[1:10:55] council is a package and I

[1:10:56] don't want to get into picking

[1:10:59] this apart council if the

[1:10:59] council wants to do that,

[1:11:00] great.

[1:11:03] >> but I do feel that this

[1:11:04] needs to go to the go to the

[1:11:06] full council as a package even

[1:11:07] if there are one or two

[1:11:08] dissenting votes on a

[1:11:10] particular item as we go

[1:11:10] through it.

[1:11:11] And if we get into other items

[1:11:12] and there's other dissenting

[1:11:14] votes we all have every right

[1:11:15] as a member of fifteen to pull

[1:11:18] that item out and talk about it

[1:11:18] additionally at council.

[1:11:19] >> but I wanted to be very

[1:11:21] clear as to why I was going to

[1:11:22] be a no vote on this particular

[1:11:23] item at finance but also

[1:11:25] stressed kind of how I envision

[1:11:26] this going to the council for

[1:11:29] further consideration.

[1:11:30] >> so all those in favor of the

[1:11:31] mindiola project please sign it

[1:11:37] by saying I I all no byone know

[1:11:38] so that item does pass four to

[1:11:40] one.

[1:11:41] Ron thank you.

[1:11:42] Brandon, thank you for coming

[1:11:43] in this evening.

[1:11:45] Appreciate the committee.

[1:11:45] >> appreciate your time and

[1:11:46] efforts.

[1:11:48] I want to jump down because I

[1:11:50] know MR. Lainer has a has a

[1:11:53] commitment that he has to go to

[1:11:54] so I wanted to kind of jump

[1:11:56] down to capital projects that

[1:11:57] one point five dollars million

[1:12:01] and offer a recommendation to

[1:12:02] the committee to see if there

[1:12:05] would be some openness to

[1:12:05] consider putting in some of

[1:12:06] that dredging into this

[1:12:10] particular item.

[1:12:14] So I would hold off on that

[1:12:15] because there's a lot there.

[1:12:18] So we have a study that says

[1:12:19] how much it's going to cost to

[1:12:21] dredge the saratoga lake.

[1:12:25] >> but we are exploring

[1:12:26] different alternatives with the

[1:12:30] dnr and other things and so I

[1:12:33] would not advise to the

[1:12:34] dedicate money that project

[1:12:37] right now until we fully

[1:12:38] explored all of those options.

[1:12:39] >> that's just my suggestion

[1:12:39] for you.

[1:12:41] That's gavin.

[1:12:42] >> we're here to take your

[1:12:42] input so that's fair.

[1:12:45] Ok, all right.

[1:12:46] >> so I'll move back up to the

[1:12:47] top of the list.

[1:12:49] The the we energy's led

[1:12:50] conversion for three hundred

[1:12:50] eighty thousand dollars.

[1:12:53] Was there any further comments

[1:12:53] or discussion on that item?

[1:12:56] >> I'll make a motion to

[1:12:57] approve that item as presented.

[1:13:00] >> is there a second boils a

[1:13:00] tie.

[1:13:03] Alderman mannion has the second

[1:13:05] so we have a motion and a

[1:13:07] second on the we energies led

[1:13:08] conversion all those in favor

[1:13:11] sign I I and you want to post

[1:13:12] all rights that that's been

[1:13:16] allocated the city portion of

[1:13:19] the led conversion for 511

[1:13:20] thousand dollars.

[1:13:21] >> any further discussion on

[1:13:22] that item?

[1:13:26] I'll entertain a motion

[1:13:27] alderman mcilvanney motion to

[1:13:31] approve and move forward.

[1:13:32] City led the conversion as part

[1:13:34] of funds there are second

[1:13:35] second by alderman mannion any

[1:13:39] further discussion?

[1:13:39] All right.

[1:13:43] All those in favor sinai high

[1:13:46] that item is approved.

[1:13:51] The snow melter is is there a

[1:13:54] alderman lemcke I would like to

[1:13:57] defer that one until we get the

[1:13:58] the economic impact and labor

[1:13:59] studies done.

[1:14:02] If we haven't already.

[1:14:02] >> thank you.

[1:14:05] Any objection to I I I have

[1:14:08] some general briefing

[1:14:09] information.

[1:14:10] >> it's not a full a full study

[1:14:13] but comparing the fuel costs to

[1:14:17] melting the snow which is at

[1:14:18] your question was the fuel

[1:14:18] costs of just running trucks

[1:14:21] back and forth.

[1:14:22] The fuel costs alone are

[1:14:25] approximately equal.

[1:14:26] >> there are a little bit

[1:14:29] cheaper to run the trucks but

[1:14:30] once you throw in the cost of

[1:14:32] maintenance and wear and tear

[1:14:34] on the trucks that puts it over

[1:14:34] the cost of the fuel for

[1:14:36] running the the the equipment

[1:14:37] that doesn't look at any of the

[1:14:40] costs for man hours driving

[1:14:44] trucks back and forth and the

[1:14:45] man hours to run the equipment.

[1:14:48] >> but you look at the man

[1:14:49] hours to melt the snow with the

[1:14:50] equipment it's less than

[1:14:52] running ten trucks back and

[1:14:53] forth all day.

[1:14:56] So that's generally speaking if

[1:14:56] you want more detailed

[1:14:57] information we can prepare that

[1:14:59] as well.

[1:15:00] >> I alex, my sense from the

[1:15:03] committee is that I think we

[1:15:04] were looking for a I mean we

[1:15:05] appreciate the information this

[1:15:07] evening but my sense from the

[1:15:08] committee on this was we were

[1:15:09] probably looking for a little

[1:15:11] bit more yeah.

[1:15:12] >> what averaged rawat's you

[1:15:14] know, back and forth and that

[1:15:15] sort of thing that's just taken

[1:15:16] into general numbers.

[1:15:18] I just wanted throw that out

[1:15:19] there if you know I appreciate

[1:15:19] it.

[1:15:20] >> so I think if there's no

[1:15:22] objection from committee, I

[1:15:23] think it my sense is that we're

[1:15:24] going to have a little bit of

[1:15:25] wiggle room as we finish out

[1:15:28] the ten point eight.

[1:15:29] >> one last thing if in

[1:15:30] particular alderman lemcke

[1:15:32] maybe some education as to why

[1:15:33] we can't just put this on a

[1:15:36] grass field and let that melt

[1:15:40] by itself that you know, they

[1:15:41] said you can't do that.

[1:15:42] And I said well wait a minute,

[1:15:44] if it's in the street, why

[1:15:45] can't it melt but it can't melt

[1:15:46] on grass in a pile.

[1:15:48] >> so I just ma education on

[1:15:49] why that's not allowed.

[1:15:49] >> thank you.

[1:15:52] Sure we can get that for you

[1:15:52] too.

[1:15:53] It has a lot to do with the nra

[1:15:56] and just think about the amount

[1:15:56] of trucks driving in over grass

[1:15:57] and things like that.

[1:15:59] You'd be a big a big mudhole to

[1:16:00] begin with right away but yeah.

[1:16:01] >> so the snow melters not a

[1:16:04] snow it's just a not right now

[1:16:07] but very good.

[1:16:08] That's my one.

[1:16:11] It's my one joke of the year at

[1:16:11] the finance committee.

[1:16:12] >> they appreciate that.

[1:16:13] So we're going to we're going

[1:16:15] to we'll put the snow melter on

[1:16:16] hold and we'll have kevin work

[1:16:19] with staff bring that back at a

[1:16:19] future finance committee

[1:16:20] meeting as we as we kind of

[1:16:22] round out arpa, the central

[1:16:26] city storefront activists

[1:16:26] activate activation for the

[1:16:28] 800000 dollars there motion on

[1:16:32] that item.

[1:16:36] >> alderman lemcke, I'd like to

[1:16:40] make them a question, you know,

[1:16:41] a statement as to how I feel

[1:16:42] about it before I vote.

[1:16:44] Thank you.

[1:16:45] >> note we can we can take a

[1:16:46] half step back.

[1:16:47] Rick the floor is yours.

[1:16:48] So I think it's a good idea to

[1:16:51] offer storefronts help on

[1:16:55] upgrading for sprinklers.

[1:16:56] >> it makes the occupants of

[1:16:59] the building safer.

[1:17:00] So it's a public safety as well

[1:17:04] as it is a increase in value of

[1:17:07] the property.

[1:17:08] For example, if they if the

[1:17:11] property sells with sprinkler

[1:17:12] versus no sprinklers it's going

[1:17:12] to sell for more.

[1:17:15] So therefore the property tax

[1:17:16] is going to be greater.

[1:17:19] >> I don't like the idea of for

[1:17:20] example, if a sprinkler system

[1:17:23] costs eighty thousand dollars

[1:17:24] making a grant to the person

[1:17:27] who is going to receive the

[1:17:27] benefit.

[1:17:30] >> in other words the store

[1:17:31] owner but I wouldn't mind a low

[1:17:35] interest loan with a five to

[1:17:38] seven year payback and maybe

[1:17:42] some grant money maybe 10 15

[1:17:43] percent because I want the

[1:17:46] funds to keep coming back, you

[1:17:47] know, but I wouldn't be in

[1:17:51] favor of saying here's one

[1:17:51] hundred thousand dollars to do

[1:17:52] your sprinkler.

[1:17:55] >> I could say here's ten

[1:17:56] thousand dollars to do your

[1:17:59] sprinkler in an eighty thousand

[1:18:01] dollar loan over five years at

[1:18:02] very low maybe one percent

[1:18:03] interest just to get it paid

[1:18:05] back.

[1:18:06] So I would be in favor of

[1:18:09] something like that and I like

[1:18:10] the fact that they raised the

[1:18:13] amount of the central city

[1:18:14] store storefront to make more

[1:18:17] money available for the

[1:18:18] program.

[1:18:19] >> so that's just my thoughts.

[1:18:21] Thank you.

[1:18:22] I guess kevin, I'll turn it to

[1:18:23] you.

[1:18:26] Is there I mean is this is this

[1:18:29] particular item that the staff

[1:18:29] would like a little bit more

[1:18:30] time on to kind of.

[1:18:33] >> well, I can I can give you

[1:18:34] the detail that we have today

[1:18:37] and you you mean if you approve

[1:18:38] it as part of the outline we

[1:18:40] can flesh out the details of

[1:18:41] the program so as we as it's

[1:18:42] currently constructed and

[1:18:45] jennifer can help me if I mess

[1:18:46] up any of the details is that

[1:18:48] we have it as a very low

[1:18:48] interest.

[1:18:50] i think it's one percent loan

[1:18:52] program revolving loan program.

[1:18:55] >> and so the idea is is that

[1:18:56] you give people the opportunity

[1:18:59] to improve their their

[1:19:03] commercial space at a very low

[1:19:04] rate lower than I am able to

[1:19:05] get from any bank or anywhere

[1:19:06] else and then you're able to

[1:19:07] pay back to us over time and

[1:19:10] then that regenerates and so

[1:19:11] it's revolving so we're able to

[1:19:14] reinsert money back into, you

[1:19:15] know, the central city to keep

[1:19:18] that money going.

[1:19:22] No objection to doing a part

[1:19:23] grant, you know, helping folks

[1:19:24] out doing that.

[1:19:26] We were just how we construct

[1:19:27] the program.

[1:19:28] But the idea was is to keep

[1:19:29] that money coming back and

[1:19:31] having a little bit of earnings

[1:19:32] so we could keep reinvesting in

[1:19:32] it.

[1:19:35] >> so that's the way the way we

[1:19:39] have the program set up as it

[1:19:39] was proposed is a revolving

[1:19:42] grant program with like a one

[1:19:45] percent rate that would help

[1:19:46] keep regenerating.

[1:19:47] >> and there are there are

[1:19:51] nuances to how we structure

[1:19:54] that we can you know, we can do

[1:19:55] a bunch of different ways when

[1:19:56] we develop the actual program

[1:19:58] documents can remind you remind

[1:20:02] me that was that the who was

[1:20:03] what body was going to approve

[1:20:06] those was not going to be done

[1:20:07] by redevelopment redevelopment

[1:20:10] authority would approve the

[1:20:11] would approve the loan at the

[1:20:11] application.

[1:20:14] >> yeah and if there was a

[1:20:15] grant component as well that's

[1:20:16] what we would that's what we do

[1:20:21] on one it'd be I mean like if

[1:20:25] you we did the the covid stuff

[1:20:26] you know we had a little loan

[1:20:29] committee that did that that

[1:20:30] worked out pretty well but we

[1:20:30] had the existing redevelopment

[1:20:33] authority it seemed like a good

[1:20:33] match for that and they already

[1:20:34] do some of that stuff already

[1:20:36] with some of the facade grants

[1:20:37] and things that we have.

[1:20:40] Yeah, I'm I'm not you know, I'm

[1:20:41] not completely against the idea

[1:20:42] of having some of this be a

[1:20:42] grant.

[1:20:44] I think that that is something

[1:20:45] that we could be open to.

[1:20:47] But I also like the loan

[1:20:48] program idea because it does to

[1:20:49] your point kind of regenerate

[1:20:52] funds that can loaned out.

[1:20:53] I guess my question for the

[1:20:55] committee is are we comfortable

[1:20:56] approving this and kind of

[1:20:59] letting redevelopment authority

[1:21:00] work out the details?

[1:21:04] I'm comfortable with that

[1:21:04] because I've I have experience

[1:21:05] with redevelopment authority

[1:21:06] and and they have experience

[1:21:08] with these particular programs.

[1:21:09] But I just wanted that sense

[1:21:10] from the committee this

[1:21:10] evening.

[1:21:14] So alderman battelle's I'm

[1:21:14] comfortable with the grant and

[1:21:20] the the loan portion also have

[1:21:24] the if we could pass that on to

[1:21:26] them, I don't think that we

[1:21:28] needed to say that right now.

[1:21:31] So the one question I had those

[1:21:35] kevin went to 800000.

[1:21:35] What was the 800000?

[1:21:39] The rationale behind that?

[1:21:40] I mean is it a number of

[1:21:43] storefronts that have expressed

[1:21:46] interest in the past or no.

[1:21:48] >> I mean literally it was just

[1:21:50] trying to make the numbers work

[1:21:51] and reflect you guys had had

[1:21:55] talked about I'm trying to put

[1:21:56] more money into it and I think

[1:21:57] that that is a good idea

[1:21:58] especially with the most recent

[1:21:59] estimates that folks are

[1:21:59] getting.

[1:22:01] You know, so you heard them

[1:22:02] firsthand what's going on in

[1:22:06] the marketplace and so if

[1:22:07] you're you know, we have two

[1:22:10] potential applicants here.

[1:22:11] I heard up to three hundred

[1:22:13] thousand dollars worth of loans

[1:22:15] and grants going out the door

[1:22:15] for two stores.

[1:22:18] >> so that was just as great

[1:22:22] divvying up the numbers that's

[1:22:23] where I was able to get to was

[1:22:25] eight hundred thousand ok,

[1:22:26] because I was on the same

[1:22:29] thought as you when hearing the

[1:22:33] dollars that were we're seeing

[1:22:34] here for some of these quotes

[1:22:35] and I was going to take the

[1:22:37] deferred item of the snow

[1:22:41] melter and put that into 800000

[1:22:45] but because I would think the

[1:22:46] downtown needs need some help

[1:22:49] and if we have the money we

[1:22:53] should do it and that's why I

[1:22:54] really like the idea of the

[1:22:56] loan and and the grant and

[1:22:57] redevelopment authority I think

[1:22:59] can run with this.

[1:22:59] Thanks.

[1:23:03] Ok, so I guess before I

[1:23:04] entertain emotion I'll just

[1:23:07] going to ask the committee is

[1:23:08] there any objection from the

[1:23:09] committee that if this item is

[1:23:11] passed that we allocate the or

[1:23:12] we recommend the council the

[1:23:15] allocation of the 800 thousand

[1:23:16] dollars and we let the

[1:23:16] redevelopment authority sort

[1:23:19] out the difference between a

[1:23:19] grant and the loan program?

[1:23:20] Is that fair?

[1:23:23] Alderman lemke?

[1:23:24] >> one of the reasons I

[1:23:26] outlined my parameters, you

[1:23:27] know, like a one percent loan

[1:23:30] and either a ten or fifteen

[1:23:31] percent grant is so that we can

[1:23:34] make it available to the most

[1:23:35] amount of people and as the

[1:23:35] chair of the redevelopment at

[1:23:38] least this year, I wanted to

[1:23:39] let the committee here know

[1:23:41] what my thinking was so that

[1:23:45] the rda could that's where I'm

[1:23:46] coming from, you know, I mean I

[1:23:47] don't think I would do a zero

[1:23:50] percent interest and I don't

[1:23:50] think I'd be in favor of any

[1:23:53] more than a fifteen percent

[1:23:54] grant because it is improving

[1:23:57] the property value and the

[1:23:58] owner of the property

[1:24:01] theoretically when they sell

[1:24:02] the building would be able to

[1:24:05] get that back not fully but a

[1:24:06] good portion of it in increased

[1:24:06] value.

[1:24:09] So but I want to make it an

[1:24:13] encouragement to to get the

[1:24:14] upgrades done for the public

[1:24:14] safety.

[1:24:20] Thank ok.

[1:24:21] So we don't have a motion yet.

[1:24:24] Alderman mannion, if the

[1:24:25] devil's in the details as they

[1:24:29] say and I would feel more

[1:24:32] comfortable voting on this item

[1:24:35] if we actually knew what the

[1:24:40] redevelopment authority's

[1:24:41] decision would be or how this

[1:24:41] was actually going to be

[1:24:43] structured.

[1:24:44] >> I'm kind of on board with

[1:24:45] what rick just said and what

[1:24:47] alderman lemcke just said with,

[1:24:48] you know, a small amount

[1:24:51] possibly as a grant and a low

[1:24:52] interest loan for the rest.

[1:24:53] I think my preference would

[1:24:56] actually be to see it stay as a

[1:24:56] loan program completely.

[1:25:00] But I could live with, you

[1:25:01] know, a small grant program but

[1:25:03] there's no guarantee that just

[1:25:04] because the CHAIRMAN Of the

[1:25:07] redevelopment authority is in

[1:25:08] favor of that that that's

[1:25:09] actually what the redevelopment

[1:25:11] authority is going to go with

[1:25:15] and that's my that would be my

[1:25:16] concern and my reservation and

[1:25:19] voting voting for this and

[1:25:20] saying let's just turn it over

[1:25:29] to them to manage any other so

[1:25:30] I guess I want to I want to

[1:25:31] take again taken of a half step

[1:25:34] back, alderman bartel's floated

[1:25:38] the idea about the spot in the

[1:25:40] snow melter.

[1:25:41] I'm going to ask the committee

[1:25:44] from kind of a is that

[1:25:45] something that we would

[1:25:46] consider putting into that or

[1:25:49] are we still inclined to wait

[1:25:49] to get some additional

[1:25:52] information on the snow melter

[1:25:52] ?

[1:25:57] >> and I bear with me a little

[1:25:57] bit, folks.

[1:25:58] >> I mean this is kind of

[1:25:59] uncharted territory as we hand

[1:26:00] out these funds.

[1:26:03] >> so I'm just kind of breaking

[1:26:04] from my normal convention and

[1:26:05] how I do this type of thing.

[1:26:08] >> but I just want to try to

[1:26:08] get some consensus.

[1:26:11] >> alderman lemcke, at this

[1:26:11] point I'm not in favor of the

[1:26:14] storm shelter at all using arpa

[1:26:15] dollars I wouldn't be adverse

[1:26:18] to putting that dollar amount

[1:26:19] into the storefront activation

[1:26:22] because that's public safety.

[1:26:26] We're all the public who visit

[1:26:29] a place downtown for example, a

[1:26:30] restaurant or you know, I go

[1:26:41] into nice ash I'm not promoting

[1:26:42] them but I go into their

[1:26:43] basement, ok, and play cards

[1:26:44] down here every once in a while

[1:26:45] I make a tremendous cost to

[1:26:46] make that it's all sprinklered

[1:26:46] underneath there and I would

[1:26:49] not feel comfortable going into

[1:26:53] the basement of a downtown

[1:26:54] establishment or even some of

[1:26:57] the places without sprinklers.

[1:27:01] So I feel confident in public

[1:27:01] safety.

[1:27:02] They're having the sprinklers

[1:27:04] and I and I'm I'm in courage in

[1:27:09] the city to try to help in a

[1:27:09] way of encouraging it.

[1:27:10] You can't force them unless

[1:27:11] they're put in a new business

[1:27:12] in.

[1:27:13] So I wouldn't be adverse to to

[1:27:17] making it in and again with the

[1:27:19] rda I think that every member

[1:27:20] of the rda would would keep the

[1:27:24] grant portion you know in the

[1:27:27] ten to fifteen percent because

[1:27:28] the only ones that we really

[1:27:29] approve of anything different

[1:27:32] in grants is somebody who is

[1:27:34] below the poverty level to to

[1:27:35] increase their house.

[1:27:36] >> everything else is kind of a

[1:27:39] payback type of a situation.

[1:27:39] >> thank you.

[1:27:43] Ok, for any other discussion on

[1:27:47] this I guess one question I

[1:27:48] would have is and jennifer

[1:27:51] kevin maybe put you on the spot

[1:27:52] a little bit to alderman and

[1:27:53] point.

[1:27:55] I mean what you know is there

[1:27:58] kind of a is there some math

[1:27:59] that exists now in terms of

[1:28:00] what you know, what should be

[1:28:02] given out as a grant versus a

[1:28:03] loan or is that something that

[1:28:06] the that the rda potentially us

[1:28:06] would have to would have to

[1:28:10] figure out or do you have some

[1:28:11] type of a kind of a recommend

[1:28:12] kind of a high level

[1:28:14] recommendation keep the

[1:28:14] conversation moving along.

[1:28:15] >> I don't have a

[1:28:17] recommendation tonight but we

[1:28:18] can certainly hold a special

[1:28:19] redevelopment authority meeting

[1:28:22] this month to make sure that we

[1:28:23] get a program vetted and

[1:28:26] approved so that we can start

[1:28:26] taking applications fairly

[1:28:30] quickly and so we want to get

[1:28:31] back together and think about

[1:28:34] that a little bit before I make

[1:28:34] a recommendation.

[1:28:37] >> but um, we're open to doing

[1:28:38] that so it moves along quickly.

[1:28:42] >> ok, alderman bartles, if I

[1:28:45] could get the committee to

[1:28:48] agree to move the uh the

[1:28:49] deferred snow melter into this

[1:28:54] 800000 I am fine with whatever

[1:28:58] the committee decides as far as

[1:28:58] having the finance committee

[1:29:01] decides a redevelopment that's

[1:29:02] not a showstopper for me.

[1:29:04] I'd rather get more money into

[1:29:04] this.

[1:29:08] >> um, so whatever that emotion

[1:29:12] people that that is emotion.

[1:29:16] >> so your motion is to combine

[1:29:17] the snow melter and the in with

[1:29:19] the central city storefront

[1:29:19] activities activision for a

[1:29:22] million for a total of one

[1:29:23] million 250.

[1:29:24] >> it's my math right.

[1:29:30] Denise ok.

[1:29:31] >> yes, that's my motion.

[1:29:32] All right.

[1:29:33] Is there a second to that

[1:29:35] motion on my elderly second

[1:29:38] sentence second that snow is

[1:29:39] snow melter.

[1:29:40] >> so we have and we have a

[1:29:42] motion in a second to increase

[1:29:43] the central city storefront

[1:29:46] activation to one point

[1:29:47] twenty five million dollars and

[1:29:49] then in a sense removing the

[1:29:50] snow melter from consideration.

[1:29:53] I'm going to support that too.

[1:29:54] I've been I mean, alex, I know

[1:29:57] you're not probably married to

[1:29:58] the snow melter, but I was kind

[1:29:59] of on the on the fence a little

[1:30:01] bit with this item as well.

[1:30:02] >> and I agree with the

[1:30:02] consensus of the committee that

[1:30:04] i think that this would

[1:30:05] probably a little bit of a

[1:30:07] better use of funds.

[1:30:09] >> MISS Andrews, you had a

[1:30:12] comment just one clarification

[1:30:16] before you voted can just make

[1:30:17] it clear if the program is

[1:30:18] going to the final decision on

[1:30:20] the program details is with

[1:30:21] redevelopment authority or if

[1:30:22] that needs to come back to

[1:30:24] finance for council just so we

[1:30:28] know the process well, I'll

[1:30:29] take it back to the to the

[1:30:32] maker in the second or in terms

[1:30:32] of what what your what your

[1:30:38] gentleman's preference is.

[1:30:43] So let's let's do this because

[1:30:44] I think I think there's some

[1:30:46] there's some merit to having

[1:30:47] the finance committee being

[1:30:48] able to report to council kind

[1:30:49] of how these dollars are being

[1:30:50] allocated.

[1:30:51] >> so if it's if we're

[1:30:51] comfortable with the committee

[1:30:54] as we can, we can make a motion

[1:30:55] to approve or to allocate the

[1:30:56] one point twenty five dollars

[1:30:58] million ask the redevelopment

[1:31:02] authority to have a meeting to

[1:31:03] kind of shake out the details

[1:31:06] and I guess this is the part

[1:31:07] where I want to get some

[1:31:08] consensus and have perhaps

[1:31:10] jennifer or rick come back to

[1:31:11] the finance committee with more

[1:31:13] of a matter of report around

[1:31:14] that item or does the finance

[1:31:17] committee want to approve what

[1:31:20] the redevelopment authority did

[1:31:21] ?

[1:31:22] My sense is that we've given

[1:31:22] the redevelopment we've given

[1:31:24] jennifer and brick enough

[1:31:25] direction in terms of what the

[1:31:26] finance committee is thinking

[1:31:29] that I'd like to give them a

[1:31:30] little bit of latitude to make

[1:31:30] a portion of it a grant program

[1:31:33] and then report back to the

[1:31:33] finance committee.

[1:31:34] But I'm open to what what the

[1:31:37] committee's thoughts are on

[1:31:37] that.

[1:31:38] >> alderman lemcke I would

[1:31:40] think that give the authority

[1:31:41] to come up with something at

[1:31:44] the redevelopment and then

[1:31:45] we'll bring it back to finance

[1:31:46] for the approval of the final

[1:31:48] plan once the plan is out

[1:31:49] there.

[1:31:50] I don't want to see the finance

[1:31:52] company that's the finance

[1:31:53] department committee go through

[1:31:56] each individual application.

[1:31:57] We don't want that.

[1:32:00] But I'm fine with now we have

[1:32:03] eight hundred one million two

[1:32:04] hundred and fifty thousand

[1:32:07] dollars of a chunk and then

[1:32:08] we'll come up with a program

[1:32:11] subject to finance companies

[1:32:11] approval of that program and

[1:32:15] then once you give approval and

[1:32:16] an agreement done on how that

[1:32:18] money is going to be allocated

[1:32:21] then we can go with the program

[1:32:23] like we do for, you know, all

[1:32:26] our other programs that we have

[1:32:26] .

[1:32:27] So yeah.

[1:32:30] Kevin, I'm sorry.

[1:32:31] I don't I don't want to be a

[1:32:32] bureaucrat but I'm going to be

[1:32:36] a bureaucrat for a second.

[1:32:37] >> I would I what I would

[1:32:38] recommend just have the council

[1:32:40] approve the rda program because

[1:32:44] technically finance committee

[1:32:45] doesn't have any authority over

[1:32:45] what already does and if

[1:32:48] there's any sort of dispute

[1:32:49] that's how it's going to end up

[1:32:49] there anyway.

[1:32:51] >> a nominal idea.

[1:32:52] >> right.

[1:32:53] So why don't you just have the

[1:32:56] council approve the rta program

[1:32:57] not the not the day to day

[1:32:59] operations of it but what they

[1:33:02] come up with.

[1:33:03] >> all right.

[1:33:04] So the motion the motion before

[1:33:04] the finance committee that is

[1:33:06] to allocate one million two

[1:33:07] hundred and fifty thousand

[1:33:07] dollars of arpa dollars towards

[1:33:11] the storefront activation and

[1:33:11] asked the redevelopment

[1:33:12] authority to create a program

[1:33:14] that will be done approved by

[1:33:14] council.

[1:33:15] >> everybody on the everybody

[1:33:18] understand the motion.

[1:33:19] >> all right.

[1:33:22] Let's do a voice vote all those

[1:33:26] in favor sign I I opposed.

[1:33:26] >> all right.

[1:33:27] That passes unanimously.

[1:33:29] Kevin, thank you.

[1:33:30] >> joel can I just get who is

[1:33:33] the second year on that frank

[1:33:33] all right.

[1:33:34] Good discussion, folks.

[1:33:34] Thank you.

[1:33:37] Kevin, thank you for that

[1:33:37] thought.

[1:33:41] >> that'll bring us to project

[1:33:42] innovate in the amount of 750

[1:33:44] or 750000.

[1:33:45] >> I'll make a motion to

[1:33:48] approve a second on that one

[1:33:49] second by alderman lempke.

[1:33:50] Is there any discussion on that

[1:33:52] item?

[1:33:53] All right.

[1:33:56] All those in favor sign I I

[1:34:00] anyone opposed that item passes

[1:34:00] five to nothing.

[1:34:01] >> the police department

[1:34:02] organizational changes have

[1:34:05] been approved so we'll move on

[1:34:05] to the behavioral health

[1:34:08] responder partnership in the

[1:34:09] amount of four hundred five

[1:34:10] hundred and thirty five

[1:34:12] thousand dollars.

[1:34:13] Is there a motion on that item?

[1:34:18] alderman lemcke make the motion

[1:34:23] for five hundred thirty five

[1:34:26] second by alderman mac elderly

[1:34:33] we ok brad oh I make a motion

[1:34:34] to approve the behavioral

[1:34:37] health responder partnership of

[1:34:38] five hundred and thirty five

[1:34:41] thousand dollars using our

[1:34:42] monies for a year 2022 three

[1:34:46] and four I second of motion in

[1:34:49] a second on the behavioral

[1:34:50] health partnership any further

[1:34:53] discussion.

[1:34:54] All right all those in favor

[1:34:57] saini I anyone opposed that

[1:35:00] item passes.

[1:35:01] >> next up is the two hundred

[1:35:05] thousand dollars of support for

[1:35:06] the waukesha housing authority.

[1:35:07] >> I'll make a motion to

[1:35:08] approve is there a second

[1:35:12] second by alderman lemcke any

[1:35:16] further discussion on this item

[1:35:16] ?

[1:35:18] Right all those in favor sign I

[1:35:21] I and want to post all right.

[1:35:24] >> that item passes and I will

[1:35:24] pause for anybody watching at

[1:35:25] home the reason that we're

[1:35:27] moving rather quickly is these

[1:35:28] items have been before the

[1:35:29] finance committee one day not

[1:35:32] one the two time.

[1:35:32] So please don't think that

[1:35:33] we're moving quickly.

[1:35:35] These items have been pretty

[1:35:36] thoroughly vetted at a previous

[1:35:39] meeting next up is the

[1:35:40] community access ahead for

[1:35:42] 85000?

[1:35:46] >> is there a motion on miguel

[1:35:47] elderly motion to approve the

[1:35:50] 80s for community presence?

[1:35:51] Is there a second second by

[1:35:54] alderman battelle's so we have

[1:35:55] a motion and a second on the

[1:35:58] community access program.

[1:35:59] >> any further discussion or

[1:36:02] questions from the committee?

[1:36:03] All right.

[1:36:05] all those in favor sign I I

[1:36:09] anyone opposed that item passes

[1:36:10] moving on to the peer to peer

[1:36:13] drug overdose counseling for

[1:36:15] fifteen thousand dollars.

[1:36:20] >> is there a motion all in

[1:36:23] elderly motion to approve the

[1:36:24] peer-to-peer drug overdose

[1:36:24] counseling?

[1:36:26] Is there a second second by

[1:36:27] alderman lemcke?

[1:36:28] Any further discussion or

[1:36:33] questions on this item?

[1:36:34] All right.

[1:36:37] All those in favor sign I I and

[1:36:38] you want to post all right.

[1:36:41] >> that item passes moves along

[1:36:42] to the fire department special

[1:36:45] services vehicle for the amount

[1:36:45] of one hundred and sixteen

[1:36:46] thousand dollars.

[1:36:47] >> is there a motion on this

[1:36:48] item?

[1:36:53] Alderman lemcke that was the tv

[1:36:56] that can be used at various

[1:36:57] different special events.

[1:37:00] I make a motion to approve the

[1:37:01] fire department special

[1:37:04] services utd all right.

[1:37:05] Is there a second second by

[1:37:08] alderman battelle's any further

[1:37:08] discussion?

[1:37:09] We have a motion and a second

[1:37:10] any further discussion on this

[1:37:14] item and all the person albon

[1:37:15] slavitt if you have any

[1:37:15] comments or questions, just

[1:37:18] throw your hand up.

[1:37:18] I'll call on you.

[1:37:19] All right.

[1:37:20] We have a motion and a second

[1:37:22] all those in favor sign I I and

[1:37:25] you want to post all right.

[1:37:28] >> that item passes the modular

[1:37:29] vehicle barrier system has

[1:37:32] already been approved and used

[1:37:36] in our most recent memorial day

[1:37:37] parade that moves us along to

[1:37:40] the affordable housing fund for

[1:37:41] five hundred thousand dollars.

[1:37:43] is there a motion on this item

[1:37:43] ?

[1:37:44] >> alderman lemcke?

[1:37:47] I'd like to approve the

[1:37:51] affordable housing fund

[1:37:52] increase of 500000 dollars

[1:37:54] using R.P.M. Funds.

[1:37:59] >> is there a second second by

[1:38:01] alderman elderly any further

[1:38:05] discussion on this item?

[1:38:06] All right.

[1:38:10] All those in favor sign I I and

[1:38:11] you want to post all right.

[1:38:14] >> that item passes as well.

[1:38:15] >> and that brings us to our

[1:38:17] final two this evening.

[1:38:19] The last one is the storm water

[1:38:20] projects and the amount of one

[1:38:22] point five dollars million.

[1:38:23] >> I'll make a motion to

[1:38:23] approve.

[1:38:25] Is there a second second by

[1:38:25] alderman lemcke?

[1:38:26] >> any further discussion or

[1:38:31] questions on this item?

[1:38:32] >> all right.

[1:38:35] All those in favor sign I I and

[1:38:36] you want to post all right.

[1:38:40] >> that item pass and last but

[1:38:43] not least the capital projects

[1:38:44] item four items I should say

[1:38:46] for one point five million.

[1:38:48] >> is there a motion on this

[1:38:51] item?

[1:38:52] I'll make a motion to approve.

[1:38:55] Is there a second second by

[1:38:56] alderman mc elderly any further

[1:38:59] discussion on this item?

[1:39:03] >> alderman bartel's so is this

[1:39:03] because we kind of discussed

[1:39:07] this and it was a no go on

[1:39:07] dredging?

[1:39:10] Is this kind of we use it for

[1:39:11] anything that comes up in the

[1:39:11] yeah.

[1:39:14] >> serape?

[1:39:14] Yeah yeah.

[1:39:17] We'd find the right project at

[1:39:18] and put it towards that towards

[1:39:19] that project.

[1:39:22] so road project it'll be

[1:39:23] identified in mississippi you

[1:39:27] know arpa funds for capital ok

[1:39:27] so if there's something for

[1:39:30] police or fire or something

[1:39:31] like that we could probably put

[1:39:34] it toward yeah I as long as the

[1:39:35] capital it was qualified as a

[1:39:38] capital project so something

[1:39:39] that we would use this instead

[1:39:41] of borrowing for it would be to

[1:39:45] go right and kevin that would

[1:39:46] be I mean you developed a

[1:39:49] capital budget so the use of

[1:39:50] these dollars would be at your

[1:39:50] discretion subject to approval

[1:39:53] by the by the committee at

[1:39:53] fair.

[1:39:54] Yeah, exactly.

[1:39:55] And we'll have it you know,

[1:39:56] just like in when you have the

[1:39:57] summary sheet for any capital

[1:39:58] project and you see the sources

[1:40:00] of funding, you know this

[1:40:01] source for most big ones are

[1:40:04] going to be ten year debt.

[1:40:04] Right?

[1:40:05] So instead of having ten year

[1:40:08] debt it'll be arpa funds, you

[1:40:09] know, one point five and we

[1:40:10] might split it up between

[1:40:12] several projects but probably

[1:40:13] it's going to cover a portion

[1:40:16] of one of our bigger projects

[1:40:17] that we're going to do next

[1:40:17] year.

[1:40:19] >> ok, martell's when I was

[1:40:20] only asking because I just I

[1:40:23] don't want to go to tennis

[1:40:24] courts or pickleball or

[1:40:24] something like that.

[1:40:27] It should go toward something

[1:40:31] for yeah I think idir yeah I

[1:40:31] got you.

[1:40:32] I think the direction you're

[1:40:33] getting from the committee

[1:40:34] kevin is that we'd like to see

[1:40:35] it more around kind of a

[1:40:36] broader infrastructure project

[1:40:39] I gottschalk's yeah i

[1:40:39] understand.

[1:40:40] All right very good.

[1:40:42] We have a motion and a second

[1:40:43] on that item.

[1:40:44] >> is there any further

[1:40:44] discussion?

[1:40:45] All right.

[1:40:47] All those in favor sign I I

[1:40:50] anyone opposed that item passes

[1:40:54] all right gentlemen, I

[1:40:55] appreciate the very thorough

[1:40:58] discussion this evening on

[1:40:59] these arpa dollars.

[1:41:00] I know we owe it to all of our

[1:41:02] bosses to make sure that we've

[1:41:03] vetted these items and I know I

[1:41:06] can confidently telling my

[1:41:07] bosses that we certainly have.

[1:41:08] So I appreciate the time

[1:41:08] tonight.

[1:41:10] Kevin and staff and the

[1:41:11] directors that are here.

[1:41:12] >> I appreciate your time in

[1:41:13] this item as well.

[1:41:14] >> anything inclosing on arpey,

[1:41:17] MR. Laner?

[1:41:17] >> no.

[1:41:22] But as you can tell, I have a

[1:41:23] guest who's going to be up past

[1:41:25] your bedtime so and I have to

[1:41:26] go pick up some other kids and

[1:41:29] get my wife at the airport.

[1:41:30] I'll be leaving and leaving the

[1:41:31] carry over discussion to denise

[1:41:33] and have a good evening.

[1:41:34] >> thank you.

[1:41:34] Great.

[1:41:37] Thank you, kevin.

[1:41:38] We'll start go back to the

[1:41:39] start of the start of the

[1:41:40] agenda and that is item number

[1:41:41] four which is approval of

[1:41:44] minutes for the 10th of MAY or

[1:41:45] any changes to those minutes

[1:41:45] from the committee.

[1:41:46] All right.

[1:41:48] Those minutes are approved

[1:41:49] through unanimous consent.

[1:41:50] We'll move into the balance of

[1:41:52] our business items for this

[1:41:52] evening.

[1:41:53] Item number five a is a review

[1:41:55] and act on receiving grant

[1:41:56] funds from the united way in

[1:41:57] the amount of nineteen thousand

[1:41:59] three hundred eighty three

[1:42:00] dollars for the waukesha police

[1:42:00] department.

[1:42:03] Immediate emergency shelter

[1:42:10] program chief goehring in the

[1:42:11] department is looking to

[1:42:14] receive we already received

[1:42:15] funding grant funding for

[1:42:18] nineteen thousand three hundred

[1:42:19] eighty three dollars for the

[1:42:21] immediate emergency shelter

[1:42:22] program.

[1:42:23] Just briefly what the program

[1:42:26] is answering your questions if

[1:42:27] you have any is it's another

[1:42:28] tool in the toolbox where we

[1:42:29] can funding for those

[1:42:30] individuals that immediate

[1:42:33] needs shelter where they

[1:42:34] normally don't have the means

[1:42:34] to do so.

[1:42:37] So for example, domestic

[1:42:38] violence we only get into

[1:42:41] immediate shelter, get them

[1:42:42] into a hotel for that evening

[1:42:45] so we can get set them up with

[1:42:46] the woman center some other

[1:42:48] facilities that can help them

[1:42:49] and a longer care program in

[1:42:52] the future.

[1:42:53] >> other situations would be

[1:42:56] individuals that might be

[1:42:57] homeless and we put them in a

[1:43:00] shelter for that are the whole

[1:43:01] town for that evening.

[1:43:04] But with a long term plan of

[1:43:04] getting them either to a place

[1:43:07] for where they're going to get

[1:43:08] help, we work in locating

[1:43:11] family or things of that nature

[1:43:15] to get them out of that weather

[1:43:16] is very cold weather where

[1:43:18] they're not going to be harmed

[1:43:22] by by the weather.

[1:43:33] There's no one second here now

[1:43:37] there's very strict rules of

[1:43:38] engagement with this.

[1:43:41] For example, we can't have

[1:43:42] people that try to repeat

[1:43:44] offender with with the funding

[1:43:48] so people have warrants

[1:43:49] obviously they have to go right

[1:43:49] to jail.

[1:43:51] They would not be able to use

[1:43:52] it.

[1:43:53] Repeat offenders would be

[1:43:56] vetted.

[1:43:59] But again, having that funding

[1:44:00] ,being able to take them, we

[1:44:01] remove them from a place of

[1:44:04] harm, get them into a hotel for

[1:44:05] the evening and then work in

[1:44:07] with the facilities are closed

[1:44:11] during those hours where

[1:44:12] they're not operating in most

[1:44:15] of the shelters in treatment

[1:44:16] facilities for people that are

[1:44:19] either substance abuse, mental

[1:44:19] health or economic usually

[1:44:22] during business hours this is

[1:44:23] going to meet those that

[1:44:27] vacancy when business hours and

[1:44:30] that when they're not operating

[1:44:30] .

[1:44:31] >> so any questions regarding

[1:44:32] that?

[1:44:32] Yes, sir.

[1:44:34] Alderman lepke.

[1:44:35] Thank you, chief.

[1:44:38] This wouldn't be a situa and I

[1:44:43] I am compassionate for the

[1:44:43] homeless but this wouldn't be

[1:44:46] for an example a zero degree

[1:44:50] day round up all the homeless

[1:44:51] and put them in a hotel

[1:44:51] overnight.

[1:44:53] >> it would be a one on one and

[1:44:54] again, you know, for example,

[1:44:58] not taking someone who has been

[1:44:59] homeless three hundred and

[1:45:00] sixty three days a year and put

[1:45:02] them in a shelter for one night

[1:45:03] where it's not going to solve

[1:45:05] their situation.

[1:45:06] The immediate purpose are the

[1:45:10] the main purpose of this is

[1:45:13] with the intent.

[1:45:14] We already have a plan in place

[1:45:17] to get them into a facility for

[1:45:17] future.

[1:45:21] There's some frequent there's

[1:45:22] some individuals let me

[1:45:23] rephrase I say this are some

[1:45:25] individuals that do not want

[1:45:25] any type of treatment.

[1:45:26] >> right.

[1:45:29] That that are very happy living

[1:45:40] out there homeless.

[1:45:40] >> those are different.

[1:45:41] These are situations where like

[1:45:42] I said maybe domestic

[1:45:42] situation.

[1:45:43] Ah, or a person who might be

[1:45:44] homeless says I want shelter

[1:45:45] and want to get into a

[1:45:45] facility.

[1:45:47] I want to get help.

[1:45:52] That's when we purpose and use

[1:45:52] this funding for that.

[1:45:53] But again, there's very strict

[1:45:56] guidelines and you have to meet

[1:45:57] all the guidelines and they

[1:45:58] have to sign document

[1:45:59] accordingly and we track all

[1:46:03] that data for example maybe my

[1:46:04] house burned down at eleven

[1:46:07] o'clock at night and I don't

[1:46:07] have anywhere to go.

[1:46:08] >> that's a great example.

[1:46:11] Oh and I appreciate you said

[1:46:12] that because that's another

[1:46:14] great example of where a family

[1:46:17] would be in need like a fire is

[1:46:18] a great example where we know

[1:46:21] that family or where families

[1:46:26] 15 hours away to come out to

[1:46:27] support we'll put them in a

[1:46:29] hotel for the evening and get

[1:46:30] them with their family so they

[1:46:33] can move forward.

[1:46:36] >> thank you.

[1:46:37] >> but there their questions on

[1:46:41] the side I'm I'll make a

[1:46:41] motion.

[1:46:43] >> oh, I'm sorry, alicia.

[1:46:44] >> I just wanted to make sure

[1:46:46] that I spoke in favor of this

[1:46:48] house burning down.

[1:46:48] >> yes.

[1:46:51] There are other things that can

[1:46:52] happen in the middle of the

[1:46:53] night and I know that a lot of

[1:46:55] people that were in my building

[1:46:56] did take advantage of that

[1:46:59] hotel in one of the things that

[1:47:00] a lot of people don't consider

[1:47:01] is that when do when things do

[1:47:03] happen in the middle of the

[1:47:04] night, that's not all of it

[1:47:05] necessarily.

[1:47:07] >> it did take a couple of days

[1:47:08] for things to get set up where

[1:47:12] people could actually go

[1:47:12] somewhere and sometimes that is

[1:47:15] what's going on and so I think

[1:47:16] that this sort of allows for

[1:47:19] that little bit of leeway while

[1:47:20] the logistics get worked out

[1:47:22] whether that's family coming

[1:47:23] from a distance or a shelter

[1:47:27] situation getting set up those

[1:47:28] those longer term plans so that

[1:47:30] that kind of fixes that

[1:47:31] immediate needs.

[1:47:32] >> so I don't I definitely want

[1:47:34] to say that I'm in favor of

[1:47:37] this very good.

[1:47:38] I'll make a motion to accept

[1:47:39] the grant from the united way

[1:47:40] in the amount of nineteen

[1:47:42] thousand three hundred eighty

[1:47:43] three dollars and with a second

[1:47:45] I'll speak very briefly to it

[1:47:46] second by second.

[1:47:46] Great.

[1:47:49] I just for for the sake of the

[1:47:50] committee and the public that

[1:47:52] might be watching the issue of

[1:47:53] homelessness is one that I am

[1:47:54] very close to as well.

[1:47:56] >> I mean I'm serving a more

[1:47:57] than one board around waukesha

[1:48:00] county that is that is devoted

[1:48:00] to to ending homelessness in

[1:48:05] waukesha county and I really

[1:48:05] view this this particular grant

[1:48:06] program as something that's

[1:48:09] going to augment a lot of

[1:48:09] existing services.

[1:48:12] We have added shelter capacity

[1:48:13] in the city and I would like to

[1:48:16] see additional shelter capacity

[1:48:16] are added around the county.

[1:48:18] >> that's a conversation for a

[1:48:20] different day.

[1:48:21] >> but to the chief's point,

[1:48:24] there are times when the

[1:48:24] shelters that we have in town

[1:48:25] are full.

[1:48:28] There are times when to the

[1:48:29] chief's point that the

[1:48:29] individuals that man these

[1:48:32] shelters don't have the ability

[1:48:33] to take on additional folks at

[1:48:36] 2:00 in the morning because

[1:48:37] they're they're stretched their

[1:48:40] their staff is stretched to the

[1:48:40] point where they're managing

[1:48:41] the existing shelter staff and

[1:48:42] they just don't have the

[1:48:44] capacity to add somebody at in

[1:48:45] the middle of the night.

[1:48:47] I also like what the chief

[1:48:48] mentioned in that this is this

[1:48:51] is not a program that is an

[1:48:51] end.

[1:48:52] This is a gateway to getting

[1:48:54] these individuals that want

[1:48:55] case management and some

[1:48:58] direction to become homed

[1:48:59] instead of homeless as putting

[1:49:03] them on that particular path

[1:49:04] versus I think to some of our

[1:49:04] other questions tonight about

[1:49:06] just, you know, perpetually

[1:49:07] housing someone in the middle

[1:49:10] of winter so you know, there

[1:49:11] are a lot of different

[1:49:11] organizations in the city that

[1:49:14] are trying to take, you know,

[1:49:15] bites out of this very big

[1:49:15] problem.

[1:49:18] And I really do view this as

[1:49:19] another another bite out of

[1:49:22] this particular problem.

[1:49:23] and I know through my

[1:49:23] experience with not only the

[1:49:25] council but some of my other

[1:49:26] work in town that the that the

[1:49:27] police department is a very

[1:49:29] good relationship with the

[1:49:30] organizations that are also

[1:49:30] taking bites out of this

[1:49:31] problem.

[1:49:33] >> so it's a long winded way of

[1:49:34] saying that that I support this

[1:49:37] but it's also a way of me going

[1:49:38] on the record and saying that

[1:49:40] there are organizations in town

[1:49:41] that are doing very good work

[1:49:41] around this.

[1:49:42] There are shelters in town that

[1:49:44] are doing very good work around

[1:49:45] housing people and this is

[1:49:48] simply a way for us to add to

[1:49:49] that capacity.

[1:49:49] >> so thank you.

[1:49:52] Any further discussion on this

[1:49:52] item?

[1:49:53] >> all right, denise, I think

[1:49:55] we can go back to granicus now

[1:50:02] so speaking of which, joe, I

[1:50:03] think we can go back to

[1:50:05] granicus now when it appears on

[1:50:13] your screen please vote that

[1:50:13] item passes unanimously.

[1:50:14] >> gentlemen, thank you.

[1:50:17] Thank you very much.

[1:50:18] >> it looks like you're up

[1:50:20] again so we'll move item to

[1:50:22] item number five b which is

[1:50:22] review and act on a pilot

[1:50:25] testing for the flock license

[1:50:26] plate reader cameras in the

[1:50:29] city of waukesha chief.

[1:50:30] >> yes, thank you very much.

[1:50:33] So what we'd like to do is

[1:50:34] pilot a 60 day program with

[1:50:36] flac.

[1:50:37] >> it's not like an optical

[1:50:37] camera.

[1:50:40] It is a license plate reader

[1:50:44] camera and we'd like to do in

[1:50:45] the six day period has put the

[1:50:48] key locations in the city

[1:50:48] specifically thirty near

[1:50:51] businesses and locations where

[1:50:56] people come in to city out of

[1:50:56] the city.

[1:50:57] And what's the purpose of these

[1:50:58] cameras?

[1:51:00] Well is basically where the

[1:51:03] cameras are not so flack will

[1:51:07] store the data for thirty days

[1:51:08] and the 31st date automatically

[1:51:11] disappears.

[1:51:12] >> the only way that the person

[1:51:13] can access that data is if

[1:51:14] there's a nexus to crime.

[1:51:15] What we want to do those

[1:51:18] cameras is multiple things.

[1:51:19] The license plate reader

[1:51:22] cameras is retail thefts in the

[1:51:23] city.

[1:51:26] >> a lot of our stolen autos

[1:51:27] are coming from the east of our

[1:51:31] city into our city handles like

[1:51:32] license plate reader cameras

[1:51:34] actually alert our officers as

[1:51:35] to vehicles coming into our

[1:51:35] city.

[1:51:38] >> we have the major key points

[1:51:42] in our city have those cameras

[1:51:43] that in itself is a safety

[1:51:46] issue for the public and

[1:51:47] officers because if we can

[1:51:50] engage with a perpetrator in a

[1:51:51] stolen car at the outskirts of

[1:51:52] the city before they get

[1:51:55] downtown, that is a win for us

[1:51:59] other things that the cameras

[1:51:59] do is they have artificial

[1:52:03] intelligence where we can go to

[1:52:06] a business for example, car

[1:52:07] that's a business that sells

[1:52:10] cars and they have katic

[1:52:11] inverters are stolen.

[1:52:14] They can actually have sensors

[1:52:14] .

[1:52:15] I can tell when the car is the

[1:52:16] catholic voters being cut out

[1:52:18] of the vehicle.

[1:52:19] I'll turn the camera towards

[1:52:22] where the incident is occurring

[1:52:23] and automatically alert the

[1:52:24] police that that's occurring.

[1:52:29] Um, and would be for possible

[1:52:31] force multiplier for other

[1:52:32] things.

[1:52:33] We want to get our wal-mart's

[1:52:33] our targets, our home depot,

[1:52:36] the hearts in the cities to

[1:52:39] purchase these cameras to be a

[1:52:40] force multiplier in curbing

[1:52:44] these organized retail theft

[1:52:44] groups that come into the city

[1:52:48] and steal thousands of dollars

[1:52:51] that these businesses write off

[1:52:51] but impacts multiple businesses

[1:52:55] and our city in that

[1:52:58] information that intelligence

[1:52:59] that data coming from license

[1:53:02] plate readers cameras before

[1:53:03] multiplier in reducing and

[1:53:06] mitigating people coming to our

[1:53:07] city to commit retail thefts at

[1:53:13] those locations.

[1:53:17] >> alderman make elderly.

[1:53:18] >> good evening, chief.

[1:53:21] So you're explaining that the

[1:53:22] the the focus of these cameras

[1:53:23] on these cameras unlike the

[1:53:26] currawong, the optical cameras

[1:53:26] we have now are just video

[1:53:29] recording cameras.

[1:53:30] The search functions aren't

[1:53:31] there as would the flock

[1:53:34] cameras in alpers.

[1:53:35] It's more of a you can do a

[1:53:38] study or some research to find

[1:53:38] out you're looking for.

[1:53:39] >> right.

[1:53:41] So you can actually put in blue

[1:53:45] vehicle with sticker at the

[1:53:49] rear bumper in search and

[1:53:50] they'll narrow it down to

[1:53:51] vehicles that matched that

[1:53:51] description.

[1:53:53] >> that's correct.

[1:53:55] >> and then with the the active

[1:53:58] cameras they're taking pictures

[1:53:58] of every vehicle that travels

[1:54:02] through not just a criminal

[1:54:02] profile vehicle.

[1:54:05] >> they are taking pictures i

[1:54:06] just want to be preemptive with

[1:54:06] that.

[1:54:07] >> they are taking pictures of

[1:54:09] every vehicle but law

[1:54:10] enforcement can access that

[1:54:13] data unless there's reasonable

[1:54:13] suspicion associated with it.

[1:54:16] There has to be some

[1:54:17] investigative means for us to

[1:54:20] have access to it and it's very

[1:54:21] so when an officer tries to

[1:54:25] access that data they have to

[1:54:25] fill out certain things and

[1:54:26] that's audited.

[1:54:29] It's tracked and it gets

[1:54:29] associated with an

[1:54:32] investigation so someone just

[1:54:33] can't go in and type in and say

[1:54:35] I want to look at a license

[1:54:36] plate and I can tell you from

[1:54:37] my previous life and milwaukee

[1:54:41] police I can tell you one

[1:54:44] instance it was domestic type

[1:54:45] situation where an officer got

[1:54:49] himself or herself in trouble

[1:54:52] by had a relationship.

[1:54:53] Want to see where that person

[1:54:53] going to vehicle put the plate

[1:54:56] in that and we're able to see

[1:54:57] that and there's immediate

[1:55:00] discipline that was associated

[1:55:00] with that behavior.

[1:55:04] >> so there's very strict

[1:55:05] measures in how to use it has

[1:55:08] to be associated with a crime

[1:55:09] as we associate with some type

[1:55:12] of investigation and it is

[1:55:16] audited so any search goes in

[1:55:17] there we'll be able to see why

[1:55:18] was searched, what to search

[1:55:20] for and then we can match that

[1:55:20] with someone.

[1:55:22] >> officers go to work.

[1:55:23] >> they have what's called a

[1:55:25] hotlist and a handler shows

[1:55:31] nordenson vehicles that could

[1:55:31] be in their area of operation

[1:55:34] or where they're working.

[1:55:34] >> right.

[1:55:37] So what the license plate

[1:55:38] reader does for that officer

[1:55:39] stuto officer seen it.

[1:55:42] >> you'll be alerted he stole

[1:55:46] vehicles at ah just stroll

[1:55:47] through this location at this

[1:55:49] time.

[1:55:50] >> the other thing that this

[1:55:54] alpers cameras can also do for

[1:55:56] us is see we have a

[1:55:58] presidential visit and we want

[1:56:04] to we can actually see for

[1:56:05] location anything that looks at

[1:56:09] suspicious packages is what I'm

[1:56:10] talking about.

[1:56:13] If a big place and sister for

[1:56:14] a long period of time alert the

[1:56:17] officers, there's an object

[1:56:18] that was sitting there that was

[1:56:21] not there for a longer period

[1:56:22] of time and that is an extreme

[1:56:24] situation awareness for us

[1:56:24] especially in presidential

[1:56:28] dignitary type visits.

[1:56:29] So it's a multitude of things

[1:56:36] but I can tell you this it's a

[1:56:37] tool that has very strict

[1:56:40] policies and procedures of how

[1:56:44] we utilize this tool and it is

[1:56:45] not the facial recognition.

[1:56:48] There's no fake facial

[1:56:48] recognition at all in this

[1:56:51] alpers cameras and like I said,

[1:56:54] after 31 days that data's gone

[1:56:54] .

[1:56:59] I'm glad there's a lot of

[1:57:00] oversight on this because the

[1:57:01] phrase I'm with the government,

[1:57:03] I'm here to help is a good

[1:57:03] phrase.

[1:57:06] >> civil liberties are always

[1:57:07] the balancing act we have to

[1:57:08] have and as I understand it,

[1:57:11] you currently have alpers in

[1:57:11] mobile form on squad cars

[1:57:14] driving around but I think for

[1:57:15] me the oversight we had to make

[1:57:16] sure that any data that's

[1:57:18] gathered by anybody needs to

[1:57:19] have the proper oversight and

[1:57:22] audit done so we're playing by

[1:57:22] the rules.

[1:57:25] >> thank you all.

[1:57:29] >> I've been lucky.

[1:57:30] >> so for example, I'm just

[1:57:32] going to pick this out of the

[1:57:32] air.

[1:57:33] Let's say you have a red car

[1:57:36] with a white bumper sticker on

[1:57:37] the back involved in a hit and

[1:57:37] run on moreland boulevard.

[1:57:40] So you have a complaint from a

[1:57:41] citizen, the person who was hit

[1:57:44] it was a red car with a white

[1:57:45] bumper sticker.

[1:57:46] Would you be able to go into

[1:57:47] this system and say I want to

[1:57:51] look for all red cars with a

[1:57:52] white bumper sticker on that

[1:57:55] with that exact and then and

[1:57:56] then that would get you to a

[1:57:57] license plate and be able to

[1:57:59] then investigate?

[1:57:59] >> that's correct.

[1:58:01] Ok, then I'd be in my in my

[1:58:03] previous career we've been very

[1:58:06] successful with just the basics

[1:58:07] part of license plate readers.

[1:58:11] This one here has more up to

[1:58:12] date and more technology

[1:58:15] advanced technology where we

[1:58:19] could actually exactly or crack

[1:58:22] in the rear quarter panel

[1:58:26] window they'll be able to

[1:58:27] narrow down two vehicles that

[1:58:28] match that's precise

[1:58:33] information.

[1:58:34] Alderman older person kelvin

[1:58:36] slaven.

[1:58:36] >> yeah.

[1:58:38] So I just have a quick question

[1:58:40] sort of on the flip side this

[1:58:41] is really only targeting the

[1:58:43] vehicles themselves so not the

[1:58:44] driver.

[1:58:45] So let's say there's a driver

[1:58:48] who has a registered vehicle

[1:58:49] with a specific license plate

[1:58:51] and they have a history of x,

[1:58:52] y, z criminal behavior.

[1:58:55] You aren't necessarily tracking

[1:58:56] that license plate to kind of

[1:58:59] follow that person around,

[1:58:59] right?

[1:59:00] >> I mean that seems obvious

[1:59:01] but I just want to make sure

[1:59:03] that that's clarified that it

[1:59:04] clarifies what we're looking

[1:59:07] for is crime.

[1:59:10] So unregistered vehicles we're

[1:59:14] not tracking those type of

[1:59:14] things.

[1:59:15] We're tracking retail thefts.

[1:59:18] We're tracking stolen vehicles

[1:59:19] ,tracking robberies.

[1:59:19] You're tracking hit and runs.

[1:59:22] We're tracking those type of

[1:59:26] crimes and we're not tracking

[1:59:26] individuals.

[1:59:30] >> we are using the license

[1:59:31] plate reader information as

[1:59:34] intelligence to provide a lead

[1:59:35] to assistance of further

[1:59:41] investigation any other

[1:59:43] questions for chief all

[1:59:48] romanian for my technology hat

[1:59:51] on for a minute and ask a

[1:59:55] couple of questions unnecessary

[1:59:56] totally finance related but

[2:00:03] could be how do these things

[2:00:07] communicate back to home base

[2:00:08] and are they living on the city

[2:00:10] network of a self-contained

[2:00:11] where's that data being stored?

[2:00:15] >> flagstaff's the data cosper

[2:00:19] camera is about twenty eight

[2:00:20] hundred dollars per camera.

[2:00:22] That includes storing the data

[2:00:23] associated with that has no

[2:00:26] network ties into the city at

[2:00:26] all.

[2:00:30] >> ok, are they cellular level

[2:00:31] connecting back to flock.

[2:00:33] >> yes.

[2:00:37] Ok thank you for that.

[2:00:39] >> I am I only ask that just in

[2:00:42] case you think that questions

[2:00:45] out from left field we we in

[2:00:46] the I.T. Board spend a lot of

[2:00:49] time talking about cameras and

[2:00:50] data storage and the expenses.

[2:00:50] yes.

[2:00:53] With that particular item in

[2:00:54] the optical cameras one of

[2:00:57] those items that we've dealt

[2:00:57] with over the years.

[2:01:00] >> so I just wondered if this

[2:01:01] was similar or not.

[2:01:04] >> you bring up one good point

[2:01:05] like to so one of the things we

[2:01:06] do want to do with these

[2:01:07] cameras is we want to do the

[2:01:11] six pilot testing, get the data

[2:01:12] no cost to the city at all.

[2:01:16] But we want to do is leverage

[2:01:17] our data to be a force

[2:01:18] multiplier.

[2:01:18] >> we go to these businesses

[2:01:20] and say you retail thefts are

[2:01:20] here.

[2:01:23] >> our guard is capturing us.

[2:01:25] You would you be interested in

[2:01:29] obtaining this license plate?

[2:01:32] We MAY come to you as a console

[2:01:33] and see these five points in a

[2:01:36] city are definitely worth us

[2:01:39] putting these license rear

[2:01:40] cameras at these locations

[2:01:41] because we'll be a force

[2:01:43] multiplier and reducing

[2:01:44] implicating transit crime

[2:01:49] that's occurred in our city.

[2:01:52] >> alderman lepke, my business

[2:01:53] has a camera in it that is

[2:01:57] focused on the intersection of

[2:01:58] highway 100 and capital drive

[2:02:01] and it just sits there 24 hours

[2:02:02] a day and his focus is on that

[2:02:05] intersection and a company pays

[2:02:06] me thirty dollars a month just

[2:02:07] to have that camera there so

[2:02:09] that there's evidence accident

[2:02:10] on that corner.

[2:02:11] They can go back there with a

[2:02:13] complaint from citizen that

[2:02:14] there was an accident here and

[2:02:17] they can get a video of that.

[2:02:18] >> they sell the information to

[2:02:21] the to the authorities, you

[2:02:22] know, so they can get paid.

[2:02:25] But it's a good idea to have a

[2:02:26] camera there that does nothing

[2:02:29] but just sits there in case

[2:02:30] something happens not to spy on

[2:02:33] everybody but just to like

[2:02:36] somebody steals the catalytic

[2:02:39] converter off of a of of a lot

[2:02:40] you know, somebody says we saw

[2:02:44] a blue sedan with a broken out

[2:02:48] window search for that to maybe

[2:02:48] lead to a crime.

[2:02:52] Our business replaces two to

[2:02:53] three catalytic converters a

[2:02:55] month and that's just one

[2:02:56] little gas station.

[2:02:59] >> so that is a huge crime

[2:03:02] opportunity to put it in big

[2:03:03] parking lots to maybe catch

[2:03:06] these catalytic converter

[2:03:07] thieves because they are

[2:03:10] impacting a tremendous expense

[2:03:11] .

[2:03:12] >> the average catalytic

[2:03:15] converter is two thousand

[2:03:16] dollars for a customer if yours

[2:03:19] gets cut out of your car.

[2:03:19] >> so catch these people.

[2:03:20] They just use an electric

[2:03:23] sawzall and they're gone in

[2:03:24] about three minutes.

[2:03:27] So I'm I'm in favor of this

[2:03:27] program.

[2:03:28] >> thank you.

[2:03:30] Very good.

[2:03:31] >> any other any other

[2:03:32] discussion?

[2:03:32] I'll entertain a motion to

[2:03:35] approve the item is presented

[2:03:38] alan mcilvanney I'll second

[2:03:39] I'll make a motion to approve

[2:03:42] the item as presented alderman

[2:03:42] elderly is the second any

[2:03:44] further discussion on this item

[2:03:45] ?

[2:03:49] >> it's not my very good one

[2:03:50] appears on your screen please

[2:03:59] vote that item passes

[2:04:00] unanimously.

[2:04:00] Thank you.

[2:04:01] Thank you gentlemen.

[2:04:02] Thank you very much.

[2:04:03] do you have a good night?

[2:04:04] >> brings us to item number

[2:04:06] four which is review and act on

[2:04:07] the approval of a mowing

[2:04:08] contract for tall grass and

[2:04:11] weeds on private property.

[2:04:14] >> MISS Andrews, thank you for

[2:04:15] being thank you for being

[2:04:18] writing a thank you for being

[2:04:19] patient this evening.

[2:04:19] >> jennifer, this is just a

[2:04:22] renewal we have a contract with

[2:04:26] a landscape contractor to mow

[2:04:26] on private property when

[2:04:27] there's a violation in the

[2:04:30] private property owner has not

[2:04:31] taken care of that we assess

[2:04:33] that cost back to the private

[2:04:34] property owner as well.

[2:04:35] >> this is a renewal of the

[2:04:36] contract.

[2:04:45] They performed very well over

[2:04:46] the last three years is for

[2:04:47] three years and there's no

[2:04:47] price increase.

[2:04:48] >> so ok, very good.

[2:04:48] Thank you jennifer.

[2:04:49] >> alderman lemcke correct in

[2:04:52] assuming that gorath over help

[2:04:56] that I pushed it am I am I

[2:04:57] correct to assume that the

[2:04:59] ordinance is that grass cannot

[2:05:00] be longer than eight inches and

[2:05:06] if a person refuses to cut it

[2:05:07] they get a little notice on

[2:05:08] their lawn that says you must

[2:05:10] cut this within three days and

[2:05:11] if they don't do it then this

[2:05:14] contractor would come out and

[2:05:15] mow that grass to be billed to

[2:05:18] the property owner.

[2:05:19] >> yep, that's correct.

[2:05:22] Thank ok any any other

[2:05:25] questions for jennifer?

[2:05:26] I'll make a motion to approve.

[2:05:29] Is there a second second by

[2:05:30] alderman bartel's any further

[2:05:33] discussion on this item?

[2:05:34] >> all right.

[2:05:36] When it appears on your screen

[2:05:40] please vote that item passes

[2:05:40] unanimously.

[2:05:44] Thank you, jennifer.

[2:05:45] That'll bring us to item number

[2:05:46] four d which is a matter of

[2:05:48] report this evening and that's

[2:05:49] capital carryovers by fund

[2:05:52] funds for four ten four

[2:05:56] twenty four thirty six three

[2:05:57] six five which is clean water

[2:06:03] and return flow deniece ok yeah

[2:06:07] so these items again are being

[2:06:08] presented as a matter of report

[2:06:11] and attached to your agenda is

[2:06:12] a separate document for each of

[2:06:15] the funds with the carryovers

[2:06:16] because these capital funds are

[2:06:19] considered nonlawyer corpsing

[2:06:20] statutorily there's no action

[2:06:23] needed on your part this

[2:06:24] evening but we do like to

[2:06:27] present this once a year around

[2:06:31] this time what I was going to

[2:06:32] do is just make a few global

[2:06:35] comments about carryovers and

[2:06:36] then if you'd like me to go

[2:06:37] into the individual sheets I

[2:06:39] will but I start with just a

[2:06:40] few global comments and we can

[2:06:45] go from there.

[2:06:46] >> so the capital funds are

[2:06:49] considered non lapsing because

[2:06:50] these projects often are

[2:06:53] multi-year projects or there

[2:06:57] MAY be a large capital purchase

[2:06:58] for some kind of fleet

[2:06:59] equipment where we purchase in

[2:07:01] one year but we don't receive

[2:07:02] the the item until the

[2:07:05] following year and then then

[2:07:06] we're required to make payment

[2:07:10] on and I think this year in the

[2:07:14] last in the previous year this

[2:07:14] was especially true due to

[2:07:18] covid and some of the supply

[2:07:18] chain issues.

[2:07:20] So we're going to see some of

[2:07:21] these carryovers be maybe a

[2:07:24] little bit higher than maybe

[2:07:25] they had been in the last

[2:07:28] couple of years.

[2:07:29] The other thing is as we know

[2:07:32] we've been tackling a lot of

[2:07:33] large capital projects over the

[2:07:37] last few years, many of which

[2:07:40] are going to come to an end

[2:07:41] come to completion by the

[2:07:44] summer of 2022.

[2:07:49] >> so this ah this is just

[2:07:51] we're going to be carrying over

[2:07:52] those funds so that we can

[2:07:55] complete those projects and

[2:07:56] then we'd be looking if there

[2:07:57] are any savings in these

[2:07:59] projects we'd be looking to

[2:08:00] apply some of those excess

[2:08:04] funds balances perhaps to some

[2:08:07] projects in 2023 or reducing

[2:08:11] our spring borrowing in 2020 or

[2:08:12] three.

[2:08:13] >> so right now this is

[2:08:15] carrying over the amounts to

[2:08:19] complete a lot of projects.

[2:08:20] Right.

[2:08:20] Denise, thank you.

[2:08:22] So just in summation and we

[2:08:26] have the sheet on our um on our

[2:08:27] we have our sheet attached so

[2:08:30] you've got a summary sheet for

[2:08:31] each of the each of the funds

[2:08:32] and like you said, this is more

[2:08:34] of a matter of report because

[2:08:35] these are capital capital

[2:08:39] projects that have been

[2:08:39] approved by the finance

[2:08:40] committee in the council.

[2:08:41] Just to your point like due to

[2:08:42] timing and some other things

[2:08:43] aren't didn't quite get done or

[2:08:44] getting carried over into the

[2:08:45] next fiscal year.

[2:08:46] >> that's correct.

[2:08:47] Was there any questions from

[2:08:50] the committee on any of the

[2:08:50] specific funds?

[2:08:51] Again, we've got the summary

[2:08:53] sheets and I know we've all

[2:08:54] reviewed well.

[2:08:56] >> all right, denise, thank you

[2:08:57] .

[2:08:57] so there's no action needed on

[2:08:58] that because it's a matter of

[2:09:00] report that'll bring us to

[2:09:01] communications.

[2:09:04] >> denise, anything nothing on

[2:09:05] my end.

[2:09:06] >> ok and referrals any

[2:09:09] referrals?

[2:09:10] The committee.

[2:09:10] All right.

[2:09:13] All I mean mannion if this

[2:09:17] counts as a referral but if it

[2:09:17] might it's more of a request.

[2:09:21] But that's kind of what a

[2:09:21] referral is.

[2:09:24] >> I was wondering, denise,

[2:09:25] maybe if you could put your

[2:09:28] head together with kevin and

[2:09:29] provide for the finance

[2:09:32] committee a little bit of a

[2:09:35] report around the potential

[2:09:39] impact of rising fuel costs on

[2:09:41] the city and if there is a plan

[2:09:44] to mitigate that or deal with

[2:09:47] that or what that impact is

[2:09:48] going to be long term in our

[2:09:51] budget this year.

[2:09:55] >> yeah, I'll make a note to do

[2:09:55] that.

[2:09:56] >> I know we've been in

[2:09:59] discussions with some of the

[2:10:00] guys in fleet but but yeah that

[2:10:03] that is a concern for all of us

[2:10:07] so I'm sure it is you know, I

[2:10:08] just think it might make sense

[2:10:11] to bring that to light and

[2:10:11] provide some some data.

[2:10:12] >> maybe I'm the only one

[2:10:14] that's interested in that.

[2:10:15] But I think it would be an

[2:10:19] interesting item to bring

[2:10:20] forward to the finance

[2:10:22] committee.

[2:10:22] >> yeah, yeah.

[2:10:23] We can certainly do that.

[2:10:24] Thank you denise.

[2:10:26] Yeah I would I would agree with

[2:10:26] dan.

[2:10:27] I think that you know maybe in

[2:10:30] our next meeting or two if you

[2:10:31] can have just a little bit of

[2:10:31] an update on that because I

[2:10:34] I've also heard anecdotes that

[2:10:35] you know, diesel fuels at three

[2:10:37] four, five dollars a gallon,

[2:10:40] six dollars a gallon, some yeah

[2:10:41] .

[2:10:42] >> I have a funny feeling

[2:10:42] that's going to start to impact

[2:10:45] our budget at some point.

[2:10:46] >> so we appreciate you putting

[2:10:47] some put some effort into that

[2:10:49] any are there any other

[2:10:50] referrals from the committee

[2:10:52] this evening and our next

[2:10:54] meeting, denise, is JUNE 14th,

[2:10:57] JUNE forty six pm.

[2:10:57] All right.

[2:10:58] So our next meeting of the

[2:11:00] finance committee is JUNE 14th

[2:11:02] ,6:00 pm and if there's no

Finance Committee on 2022-05-31 6:00 PM

Agenda

Transcript