 We'll call the Capital Improvements Commission to order. It is four o'clock. Call the roll. Mayor Ryan Sorenson is here. Alderperson Mitchell. Alderperson Flicky Paneski. Alderperson Perella. Planning Commission member Jerry Jones. Citizen member Sarah Wies Harrison. Nick Dussault. All right. For those in attendance, if you're able to stand, please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under guide, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Next item on the agenda is approval of our minutes from our April 25th meeting. Is there a motion to approve? Motion by Alderflicky Paneski, and by Jerry Jones. Any discussion on the minutes? Seeing none. All those in favor, please stay die. Aye. Any opposition? Minutes are approved. Next, RO number one, 2223 by administrator submitting the Capital Improvements requests for the years 2023 through 2027. Motions, comments, questions, thoughts, concerns, ideas. All right. We'll hit the buzzer. We'll start with Alderflicky Paneski. Go ahead, but hit them. There you go. Thank you. I would like an explanation, again, of the program that says yellow dash previously approved in the same year and then the blue, which is previously approved in a different year so that I got that clear in my head. Minister DeRolf, do you want to take that one? I will do my due diligence to answer again. So this explanation dates back to when Daryl Hufflin started and basically the yellow previously approved in same year basically means that if it's yellow, that year it is when it was going to be approved. The blue previously approved in a different year means that it may have been, if we look at one of these, where you see a blue, let's say it's a blue in 2024, it could have actually been in the program in 23 and it was pushed out to 24 or it was in say 25 and was pulled into 24. It basically means that it was approved in a prior year and it moved according to when it was actually implemented. So again, the yellow and the blue just basically are to show that there's movement within, as we've talked about projects have been kicked down the road. These are to show you that these have either moved or they were moving within the capital improvements program. Alderpenisky follow-up? Yes. So in 2023, there were 14 little yellow marks. In 2024, there are 16 yellow ones. So those 16, when we approved the budget, when we approved this plan today, we're approving items for 2023, but not 2024. When we get to 2024, we have to approve those again. That is correct. What we are focusing on, this is a five-year capital improvements plan. The commission or committee should be focusing on 2023 with the understanding of what's in 24, 25, 26, and 27. With a five-year plan, we are trying to show the council and this committee what is in 2023 because we're trying to stay within a budget and we're trying to show the committee and commission and council basically what our proposed spending is for 24, 25, 26, 27. So basically it's to allow the committee and commission and council to better understand where the departments are looking to have additional projects in the future. So if the committee, commission, council were to say, well, where's this road? Or what are we doing next year? Or what are we doing the year after? You have an understanding of where those projects can land and what the spending will be for the future years. So again, we're just trying to show in a five-year program where that additional spending is going to be. So if a council member was wondering, well, where's my road? Well, if it's in the five-year program, we'll be able to show you where that road is proposed. If Director Beeble during the five-year program says, you know what, this road is actually in worse shape or a sewer project popped up or a granting, a grant project popped up, then we would move and juggle around the other four years. We're really focusing on 2023 for the approval, which will also allow us to better understand our financial borrowing for that next year. So if it's yellow, we approve something and if it's, if it's, pardon me, if it's blue, we approve something at a given year, but it carried over to the subsequent year and the subsequent year? It could have been approved, meaning it was in the program. It could have been in a prior year and it was pushed out or it was in the program in a year further out and it was pulled in sooner. It means that the blue means that it moved. And the reason for the yellow and the blue is just to be able to show the committee council commission, all of the groups, that there was movement within that line item. Okay, so for this year four projects moved. They were either pushed ahead or pushed back. Pulled back, yes. Pulled back. Okay, so when we get a phased project, phase one, phase two, phase three, we'll pay for it this year if it's phase one. If we go to phase two, it shows up as blue in the subsequent year? No, because it's not moving. It's not moving. It's there. It's there. It's been approved. If it didn't move, it stays in its approved year. It would be yellow then. Okay, so simplify. We approve something that's the first of four project sequences. If we approve it today, that means we've approved two, three and four likewise. You've, no, you're approving it in concept. You're only approving 2023. So in 2024, when we have capital improvements, that phase two would be in its place, and then the committee commission council would have to approve it as phase two for that year. Thank you. Thank you very much. Nick. I have two questions. My first one was last week when we meant we talked about the constraints that are inhibiting the fire department from improving. And one of those was lack of expansion space in some of their departments. And I was driving down 25th street and I saw fire station number three is at the right code. And there seemed to be a big lot of land next to that one. And the discussion that we had last week was that's an important fire station for training and other things. And my question was there seemed to be quite a bit of land there for expansion, particularly on the north side of the fire chief. Yeah, that is true. There is a land between James imaging and fire station three. However, obviously we don't own that that would be. So this proposal that's on there for 2023 of that two million was to look at potential sites, whether it's that area, other options. Again, as administrator Wolff had explained last week, we are trying to look at all avenues and take the best option that allows us to look into 30 years into the future and make sure our needs are met there. So that's not fire department land. Correct. It is not. Okay. My second question is we've got a lot of small projects here with capital improvements over time. Why isn't the library on one of these capital improvement plans for for repairs and replacement of roofs and other things that are I see that for the the police department and other things were there. They have needs over time at the funding for that. But I didn't see the library on it. I saw other things like the Indiana Trail project. And I like books. So I was wondering why the library is not Garrett. Do you want to provide any input? Well, traditionally, some of the larger projects come to the city CIP projects. Some of them we fund through our reserve as well as through donations. So we have a foundation. Some of those smaller repairs we do ourselves, depending on what they are. For instance, during COVID, we had front doors replaced that were pull handle doors. And we got the electric ones that open up for you. And so this process, since it takes a couple years, we just decided to do that since it's a smaller project ourselves. So there's some things that we usually the larger facility type things we bring to this to this group. The library is not a larger facility issue. We have facility issues. Yes. But so sometimes we bring it to that. And this is actually something Todd has been talking to the library board about and how to kind of come up with a plan on how to work with the library. So we've been actually discussing this very, very big problem. So next year we can perhaps see the library as part of the long range planning. Correct. And I believe I've been on this committee for five or six years. It's gotten substantially better. And I appreciate the work that everyone has done because it's more detailed and more laid out in the class seem to be done. Thank you. One of the points that I've brought up is that next year you'll actually see a 10 year plan. And that way we can actually again, we only focus on the next year, but it allows the committee commission and council to understand the needs of the city outwards. That's that's incredibly helpful and prudent. Correct. Again, it's hard to it's hard to focus on today and not understand what needs we have for tomorrow in the future. Because if we don't we as a city in my opinion from my own personal personal preference, I don't want to make a decision today not realizing the ramifications and needs of, you know, two years, three years, 10 years out. If we spend too much money up front, something else may pop up that we weren't aware of. I wanted to kind of piggyback off the library portion of that also. My understanding is that we are not funding anything this year for the library. Correct. Finance director. Thank you. We are looking at bringing forward a resolution to council actually later this month to fund two projects at the library that are no longer in the CIP because they are bringing being brought forward to 2022. That includes exterior wall maintenance, which is going to cost about $100,000 and then also a fire alarm panel replacement for $100,000. That resolution will be going to council for approval later this month. Got it. And then my second I wanted to caveat too is as a citizen I was a little bit disappointed. I kind of looked at the metrics of the meet public library and just some rough facts. There are over 30,000 memberships at the library and roughly 13-14,000 people that walk through those doors every day. And for us not to incorporate the library feels to me as though we are not giving back to our community, which I can see that the numbers plainly see that it is a necessity in our community. Thank you. Aldera Perla. It seems that I'm going to add to the choir because in fact I really appreciate the other members bringing up this subject. When at last meeting Garrett explained the expense that he was asking for, I was actually surprised. I thought wow, how is that possible that one of our I mean that that is the only expense brought up to this committee about the facility for the library. Now I want to reiterate like everybody else. I think that the meet library is perhaps the heart of the city. I consider it one of the major assets of the city, honestly. And so I do to think that we don't give the library enough attention in terms of money, especially considering that obviously it is a facility that belongs to the city. So I wasn't aware actually of the other two projects that are going. So are those projects that we will completely cover for or there will be contributions from the library to cover those projects? And I know that is beyond the agenda of today, but it may have an impact on our decisions today too. The two projects that are bringing getting brought forward to 2022 are going to be completely funded not by the library foundation. There is 50,000 that will be towards the fire panel from the Friends of the Library Foundation. So I have a question which is not as rhetorical, but why does the foundation need to cover for that type of expense? I mean infrastructural expense at the library. Who wants to take that? Thank you. Right now I've been working last year and this year working with Garrett, Maeve Quinn, and Debbie DeAmico on better understanding the relationship with the city and the Mead Public Library. The Mead Public Library receives funding from different resources, the city, the county, and other groups. They get levy dollars. They also get donations. So by state statute they are a unique, I hate to say unique. They are a unique gem. They are part of the city, but yet they also have the ability to operate on their own. They have their own committee commission and they take direction from that group. Similar to transit as an example, who gets city funding, state and federal funding, they have their own commission that is the decision arm, even though they're part of the city. So transit, as an example, they are responsible for their facility. They can get state and federal funding and they take care of it. The city does contributions, but technically transit is its own entity. The library is its own entity, but they are part of the city. So we have a collaboration where, as I'll use the roof as an example, because these are projects that were prior to myself, the agreement prior to me was that the library had to put a certain portion of money away each year for repairs like the roof. So the roof was estimated at 300 plus thousand and each year for so many years they put away to put away up to 50 percent of it and then the city would borrow the other 50 percent and that's kind of the collaboration that they've had. The library has been very generous in doing projects on their own because, as Garrett said, the capital improvements project and program, you literally have to plan years in advance to get approval and then it comes down to which what's more important. So because of the funding that the library has and with Debbie's assistance in juggling the dollars per se, they've been able to raise money for carpeting, do the front door project, they've done the heating and cooling with the city. So the city does contribute, but we don't pay 100 percent of the needs that they have, but we also need to open up our communication and have a better, I call it the bridge, building the bridge so that we better understand what their needs are for the future because again there's a lot of needs within the city, thus the 10-year program, that we know we're going to need to do, but we don't know what they are. I hope that answers your question. Can you follow up? So you did answer my question and I really appreciate it. I guess the way I look at it is that the decision we make today or that we make, within this committee for the capital improvements of the city, also in some ways demonstrate the city's priorities, obviously, and also the city's approach to the services of the community and the philosophy behind it. So it is true that for example what the library is able to contribute may, because they have been good with budgeting, they have been reserving some money, they can contribute to some project, major infrastructure projects. However, we all know that those monies could go to fantastic additional programs, to books, to assets in the library. So the question would be, do we as a city give enough attention to this asset? Do we contribute enough? So I understand that maybe they, at this point, they will be able to contribute 50% of the roof, but should they? And it is an open question. Anyone want to answer that? I guess I'll jump in again. The water is getting warm anyway. I guess what I would recommend for the capital improvements committee is also something that I think is also a direct need for the council to better understand. We only have so much revenue coming in and again, the library is an example and let's use transit. Let's go back to transit as an example. Transit has a union, transit has certain wage expectations, transit is as important because it touches everybody, every constituent, even visitors, just like the library is a gem that helps so many people in our community and outside our community and we need to remember that. It is a resource library where the library actually does receive additional funding being a resource library, but what I do need the council committee and the capital improvements committee to understand is this is a bigger discussion than we can have just in capital improvements. This is more of what we want to do moving forward as a city because if we move dollars around and we say this group is more important than this group, we still only have so many dollars to play with and we have to remember that if we put more money and we're also going into a wage study that's going to affect everybody, if we put more money to one group over the other group, we need to understand the ramifications of that. We are running our budgets so tight that we are really at risk of reducing our services and we are short-handed in so many areas and then we also look at the cost of economics with supply costs going up, I'm sure book costs are going up, everybody's having costs going up, our overhead costs are going up and realistically just like, and I'm digressing, but just like our personal budgets at home, our budgets are getting tighter and tighter at home because our revenues are going down because of the value of the dollar. So I agree with everybody that the library is a gem, it is very important, we have a lot of gems and we're very fortunate in our community to have our lakefront, our marina, our transit system that travels all over our community and outside our community, our water system, I mean we have so many things as a city, but what we forget is we only have so many dollars in the checkbook to spend and then we need to prioritize that, so my recommendation to the group would be that we move forward this year with the understanding that the council and the departments are going to help better understand with our strategic planning what are the priorities of the city and then how can we build that bridge with the library to say, will the city be allowed to assist in getting involved with the library so that we can work together on our efficiencies and effectiveness with the dollars that we have to be able to get these things done. The money that they've put aside for their half of the roof isn't going to save the world per se because they're putting this year and I believe it was last year, they put $27,000 towards the roof, correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the 20 fund anymore, you gave us that to put in, plus I put in the 10,000 previous, if anybody wants to see how I've done that, I'd be more than welcome to sit down with them at any time. But I believe we're about $8,000 away from your half. Yeah and then I also ran calculations on what the roof would cost today versus $2,025 and I guess $400,000 and the calculation that I came out with is about $390,000. Yeah so the bottom line is the longer that takes to get these projects done, the more it's going to cost and that's one of the pet peeves that I have that my department heads have heard me preaching is we have to have accelerators in here to take into consideration the cost increases because $100,000 five years ago is not $100,000 today and $100,000 today it's not $100,000 in five years. So we have to better understand that and have contingencies. We tend to go over budget on projects quite often and these are just some of the opportunities for improvement in the future. All right thank you for those comments. Alder Flicky Panesky. Thank you very much. Let's get away from the philosophical concept what if the library building ended up in a heap of bricks for whatever reason tomorrow? That comes off of the city's balance sheet does it not? Does the transit department if their building ended up in a heap of bricks? That comes off of the city's balance sheet. So in my mind the city owns those buildings is that accurate? So if the city if the city owns the buildings the city should use capital improvements to improve those buildings so they don't end up in a heap of bricks. I don't care if it's transit or library or police or fire. Thank you. All right any other discussions on the RO presented in front of us? Any motions? Alder Mitchell. Thank you chair I would move that we approve. All right there's been a motion to approve is there a second? Motion second final discussion comments seeing none all those in favor please state aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Aye. Chair votes aye that is approved thank you. Next motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. There's been a motion and second all those in favor of adjourning please state aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Chair votes aye we are adjourned at 427. Thank you.