►
From YouTube: Finance & Budget Committee Meeting 3-21-2023
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
Right
so
I'm
just
calling
us
to
order
okay
and
is
there
any?
Is
there
any
public
comment
that
we
have.
A
D
E
F
A
Okay,
so
now
we're
called
to
order.
Thank
you
all
right,
so
jump
to
get
on
there.
So
we
were
not
able
to
approve
the
minutes
at
the
last
meeting.
Hopefully
Miss
rosinski
did
you
have
any
public
comment.
We
we
already
sort
of
jumped
over
that.
But
if
you
have
any
public
comment,
you're
muted.
H
Can
unmute
now
sorry,
yes,
I,
didn't
what
I'm
here
to
say
is
I
really
don't
want
us
to
be
passing
more
debt
and
more
bonds
when
it
says
on
resolution
1923
we
have
so
much
debt.
This
would
be
another
million
dollars.
We
found
10
million
dollars
since
the
budget
was
passed,
we
had
14.1,
and
now
we
almost
have
15
million
and
I
think
that
we
really
need
to
be
a
hundred
percent
transparent
financially
with
people
before
we
start
issuing
a
possibility
of
another
17
million
dollars.
A
Thank
you
all
right,
very
good.
So,
with
respect
to
the
minutes
from
the
prior
meeting,
they
were
attached
both
to
the
prayer
meeting
and
reattached.
Now.
Does
anyone
have
any
comments
with
respect
to
those
minutes
from
the
February
14th
meeting.
A
Okay,
very
good,
so
the
resolution
before
us,
which
we're
we're
moving
to
discuss
and
vote
on
because
we
because
of
of
not
having
a
quorum
in
the
last
meeting
a
test.
Maybe
you
could
clarify
further,
but
it
is
my
understanding
what
this
resolution
does.
First,
it
does
not
approve
a
a
new
Bond
issuance.
It
is
not
it.
It
is
sort
of
anticipating
that
we
could
have
one
later
in
the
year,
which
was
your
your
current
view,
but
it
is
not
the
approval
of
the
bond
issuance.
A
But
if
we
do
not
pass
this
resolution,
then
to
the
degree
the
general
fund
advances
money
to
the
capital
fund
or,
whichever,
whichever
other
fund,
to
make
payments
and
I,
think
there's
one
significant
one
that
might
happen.
Maybe
this
big
could
take
us
through.
Then,
when
we
do
get
to
a
bond
issuance,
we
could
only
reimburse
the
general
fund
for
any
advances
that
have
happened
within
60
days
of
that
Bond
issuance.
A
So
I
would
you
know
we're
going
to
want
to
do
more
relative
to
what
is
the
exact
timing
on
an
eventual
bond
issue
and
what
is
the?
What
is
the
appropriate
amount
for
that
Bond
issuance?
And
why?
A
But
this
is
just
an
agreement
that
in
the
you
know
it
when
we
do
have
a
future
Bond
issuance,
that
we
would
be
able
to
advance
repay
any
monies
that
have
come
out
of
the
general
fund
back
to
the
general
fund,
because
I,
even
though
we
did
have
a
a
surplus
and
we're
still
evaluating
this
year's
position,
I
think
that
some
of
these
Capital
payments,
if
they
are
not
reimbursable
to
the
general
fund,
would
would
have
a
very
large
impact
on
available
Surplus
in
the
general
fund
and
likely
we
we
want
to
be
able
to
use
that
surface
to
fund
other
matters
like
pension.
A
Like
whatever,
whatever
it
you
know,
other
sort
of
operating
expenses
or
other
matters,
so
could
you
please
just
please
be
verify
that
my
understanding
is
correct
of
what
this
resolution
does.
I
I
Geo
Bond
and
ycd
has
been
doing
this
because
obviously
the
budget
is
passed
in
November
of
December
of
a
year
of
the
CIP
and
other
funds,
so
obviously
the
department,
Lara
pigs,
Public,
Works
parks,
recreation
and
other.
They
start
spending
money
from
January
and
in
the
evanston's
history
most
times
where
we
shoot
the
bond
with
late
summer
August
and
then
settlement
in
September,
except
one
times
already
I
think
for
the
we
did
it
in
May
June.
So
what
happens?
I
Is
we
have
the
projects
which
are
to
be
funded
out
of
the
bond
funds?
But
we
don't
have
the
bond
money
until
late
in
the
summer.
So
that's
where
these
reimbursement
resolution
comes
into
the
picture.
Typically,
we
do
it
in
January
February,
because
you
can
I
think
you
mentioned
that
you
can
go
60
days
prior
to
the
data
presentation
and
you
can
reimburse
only
up
to
that
date.
I
So
in
case
this
vote
is
delayed,
and
so
okay,
if
you
do
it
in,
say
May
June,
you
can
go
60
days
back,
so
whatever
the
money
we
have
spent,
which
are
originally
supposed
to
be
funded
out
of
jio
funds
from
say,
January
to
April,
we
cannot
reimburse
out
of
the
Geo
bonds
if
we
issue
it
in
the
future.
So
that's
the
one
thing,
so
it's
a
procedural
thing
what
we
call
the
reimbursement
resolution.
I
The
second
thing
is
I
know
many
years
concerned
that
is
this
an
approval
of
the
bond.
No,
whenever
we
issue
the
bond,
you
can
go
back
into
the
City
of
Evanston
history.
We
have
to
do
an
audience,
particularly
it's
a
like
issuing
the
debt,
so
it's
yeah,
so
it's
obviously
two
reading
introduction
of
the
band
ordinance
and
then
finally,
the
adoption
and
with
the
finance
and
budget
Committee
in
place.
Obviously
that
would
come
to
the
finance
and
budget
committee
first,
any
bond
issue.
I
It
would
be
discussed
and
if
the
finance
budget
committee
fills
in
the
future,
that,
yes,
we
need
to
reach
the
bond
and
then
what
amount
of
bond
issues,
then
that
recommendation
would
go
to
the
city
council
in
the
form
of
an
ordinance,
and
it
takes
like
at
least
two
to
three
month
process
working
with
our
financial
advisor
Bond
Council.
So
this
is
in
no
way
you
are
approving
any
bond
or
that
issue.
E
I
think
you'd
have
to
agree
that
we're
certainly
Paving
the
way
for
it
with
something
like
this
and
the
you
know
the
other
part
I'm
really
struggling
with
attach
is
you
know
just
the
the
whole
preface
being
hey.
We
suddenly
found
10
million
dollars
it.
It
seems
to
me
again
and
again
and
again
that
we
have
very
little
understanding
of
what
our
surpluses
really
are
in
the
go
in
in
the
the
in
the
general
fund,
let
alone
the
other
funds,
so
I
mean
if
you've
already
found
10
million.
E
I
I
Trends
I
mean
we
have
the
trends
even
present
and
last
particularly
about
the
major
revenues
like
transfer
tax,
the
pprts
sales
tax
and
all
that-
and
we
read
these
things
from
the
financial
institute,
others
I
think
I
have
shared
even
a
couple
of
other
cities,
news
which
were
in
there
I
think
with
the
chair
and
the
others,
and
the
second
thing
is
that
being
said,
we
presented
one
slide,
I
think
in
the
last
meeting
that
okay,
what
are
the
potential
options
like
these
23
budget
was
balanced
with
the
use
of
10
million
dollar
as
a
fund
balance.
I
So
that's
not
a
true
Revenue.
So,
whatever
Surplus
you
talk
about
it,
we
have
to
take
out
10
million
dollars
because
we
balance
the
general
fund
and
when
I
say
we
meet
the
silicons
ill
adapted
23
budget,
with
a
use
of
10
million
dollars
of
fund
value.
That's
the
one
thing
second
thing
is
annual
shelter
project,
the
animal
shelter
project
I'm.
Sorry,
it's
like
an
approved
by
the
city
council
with
a
roughly
one
and
a
half
million.
If
we
get
half
of
that,
it
could
be
around
750.
I
police
and
fire
contracts,
which
would
approximately
cost
us
around
three
and
a
half
million
to
four
million
more
than
what
we
have
budgeted
and
then
obviously
apps
May
contract
on
that
line.
I
Any
public
safety
pension
which
we
decide
to
give
beyond
what
we
have
budgeted
right
now
out
of
general
for
transfer
to
the
Insurance
Fund
policy.
You
know
I
mean
we
looked
at
the
budget
policies.
Insurance
Fund
have
been
running
negative
and
if
you
can
see
that
in
our
audit
report
the
audit
will
bring
up
okay
management.
What
are
you
trying
to
resolve
this
negative
cash
balance
and
fund
balance
insurance?
I
Our
policy
says
that
we
should
keep
at
least
one
third
of
the
outstanding
claims
of
the
previous
audit
as
a
positive
cash
Surplus,
so
which
is
roughly
around
two
and
a
half
million
against
that
we
are
running
a
negative
cash
of
one
and
half
so
I
need
four
million
dollars
there
and
then
finally
yeah.
This
is
more
recommendation
of
in
the
finance
committee
and
the
city
council
looked
at
it
to
go
back
to
a
20
of
the
fund
balance
policy
from
16.66.
So
when
you
see
this
kind
of
surplus,
you
it's
good
thing.
I
Yeah
I
mean
absolutely
you
know,
and
we
are
focusing
more
and
on
more
on
the
revenue
side,
we
have
increased
some
of
those
revenues
and
during
the
budget
process-
and
we
are
looking
at
and
reading
at
IML
igfoa,
the
other
Banks
about
the
overall
economic
environment
and
their
impact
on
our
some
top
five
to
six
Revenue.
But
that
being
said,
look
at
the
money
which
we
might
need
in
23.
in.
E
10
million
years
I
just
can't
you
know
it
over
and
again,
we
always
seem
to
have
these
swings
in
in
what
our
Surplus
really
is.
So
it's
very
hard
to
ask
people
to
vote
on
things
when
we
really
I.
Don't
really
think
we
have
much
of
a
handle
on
that.
The
other
comment
I
would
make
is
at
one
point,
I
think
it
was
Laura
Biggs
who
talked
about
well.
E
That
worked,
but
now
we're
in
a
very
different
environment,
we're
in
an
environment
where
you
know
our
debt's
rolling
off
in
the
two
handles
and
we're
rolling
debt
on
in
the
five
handles
to
me.
If
we
keep
reflexively
incurring
more
and
more
debt
every
year,
it's
like
okay!
Well,
you
know
wash
with
this
and
rub
with
this
ad
we're
gonna
go
Brooke
if
you're,
starting
if
you're
continuing
to
you
know,
because
the
coupons
are
so
much
higher
now
and
we're
going
to
be
issuing
debt
into
an
environment
where
we
don't.
E
You
know,
there's
a
lot
of
uncertainty
in
this
environment.
I
I,
don't
I,
don't
know
how
that
math
works
anymore.
So
you
know
to
just
always
be
like.
Oh
we'll
just
issue
more
debt.
It's
just
going
to
the
city.
Ultimately,
because
you're
going
to
have
Debt
Service,
that's
you
know
going
to
offset
any
benefit.
E
A
It
is
a
higher
chance
environment
and
that's
putting
more
pressure
on
us
to
have
good
projections
that
we
can
use
to
understand,
what's
going
on
primarily
within
the
general
fund,
and
that
will
reflect
a
higher
degree
of
interest
for
sure.
I
would
say
that
almost
any
bond
off
rate,
be
it
a
city,
be
it
a
corporation,
a
major
part
of
that
Bond
offering
is
just
to
refinance
your
maturities.
That
is,
that
is
largely
what
goes
on
with
most
Bond
offerings.
Oh.
A
E
H
F
E
A
A
I
mean
I
I
that
we
went
through
that
in
the
meeting
last
time
and
I
think
it
is
still
to
be
determined
even
with
some
of
the
cost
increases
that
Mr
Desai
just
went
through
what
the
best
number
is
to
think
about
what
our
current
projection
is
in
the
general
fund,
in
particular
for
2023.,
that
that
work
needs
to
be
that
work
needs
to
be
needs
to
be
done,
because
it
just
appears
by
looking
at
the
line
items
that
there
could
be
some
upside
in
other
areas,
but
and
I
and
I.
A
E
A
A
You
know
we
did
go
through
in
the
meeting
last
time
and
there
were
some
very
good
reasons
why,
primarily,
it
was
revenue
generated
why
the
revenues
in
the
last
part
of
the
Year
exceeded
exceeded
the
projections
that
were
were
used
in
September
October.
So
we
absolutely
and
we've
discussed
as
a
group
need
to
continue
to
refine
our
forecasting
tools.
A
So
at
any
point
in
time
we
have
a
better
view
of
the
current
year
and
we
have
a
better
view
of
the
near-term
years
and
we're
working
on
multiple
streams
in
order
to
do
that,
so
I
I,
don't
I,
don't
disagree
with
you
at
all
that
the
level
of
precision
in
our
forecasting
needs
needs
to
be
better
and
I.
Think
we're
developing
the
tools
to
make
that
better
and
the
communication
to
make
that
better,
and
we
will
continue
to
make
to
make
to
make
progress
and
shouldn't
have
that
degree
of
variance.
A
But
you
know,
inflation
has
had
a
big
impact
on
our
revenue
streams,
which
is
good
and
our
expenditures,
and
our
expenditure
and
expenditures
have
lagged
right
that
that
is.
You
know
what
we've
talked
about
a
couple
times,
that
if
you
look
at
2018
the
ballot,
the
budget
was
largely
in
balance
and
we
were
right
at
our
refund
fund
levels
and
then
in
in
our
suggested
fund
levels
and
then
2021
22
20
was
pretty
flat.
I
mean
Clayton
took
us
through
this
last
time,
21
22.
A
What
you
had
was
revenues
that
were
highly
reactive
to
inflation
and
costs
that
were
less
so
because
of
contracts
because
of
open
positions
because
of
projects
that
got
delayed
ended
up
creating
the
couple
of
years
of
large
surpluses,
but
as
we
have,
as
we
have
seen
at
least
using
the
current
numbers
and
again
we
need
to
re-look
at
revenues.
A
23
is,
you
know,
has
turned
into
a
a
negative
10.
before
some
of
these
changes,
but
again
I'm
hopeful.
It's
not
10.
I'm
hopeful.
The
revenues
can
go
up
more,
so
we
have
to
do
all
that
and
we
have
to
get
better
forecasting
and
we're
working
on
all
that.
A
E
A
I'm
not
proposed
to
talk
about
you
know,
expenditures,
I
would
I
would
say
that
you
know
the
the
you
know.
The
city
council
has
has
approved
certain
expenditures,
including
the
new
Public
Safety
contracts,
and
those
are
real
costs
that
are
going
to
have
to
be
funded
and
they
approve
the
animal
shelter.
And
you
know
anybody.
G
So
I
just
want
to
say:
David
I
mean
expenditures
include
in
this
resolution.
It
says
that
we
are
approving
issuing
obligations
which
I
noticed
the
word
bond
is
left
out,
but
we
all
know
that
means
a
Geo
Bond
of
up
to
17.7
million
dollars.
That's
an
expenditure,
that's
like
a
million
dollars
a
year
in
finance
and
interest
fees.
So
that's
an
expenditure
you're
so
willing
to
just
say:
okay,
sure,
of
course,
and
by
the
way,
I
think
we're
all
here
on
the
finance
and
budget
committee.
G
We
all
understand
this
is
not
a
hearing
a
bond
hearing,
so
we
didn't
need
that
explanation.
As
Leslie
pointed
out,
this
is
giving
direction
to
staff
to
say
sure.
If
you
need
to
issue
that
amount
come
back
and
we'll
have
a
bond
hearing
for
17.7
in
absolutely
no
way
can
I
say:
I
am
in
favor
of
leveraging
that
kind
of
debt
on
our
Evans
and
taxpayers
at
17.7,
which
is
saying-
and
here
in
item
number
three.
It
is
saying
that
we
would
allow
up
to
that.
We
would
approve
up
to
17.7
million
dollars.
G
Now
that
is
going
to
be
about
an
expenditure
David
of
about
a
million
I,
don't
know
million
to
a
million
five
a
year,
yeah
interest.
So
when
you
amortize
that
so
I
just
you
know
that
expenditure,
it's
funny
how
you're
willing
to
you're
willing
to
just
say.
Okay
to
that,
and
that
really
concerns
me
and
while
I'm
here
I
just
have
a
question.
What
did
we
vote
on
in
terms
I
know?
Last
year
we
voted
like
we
included.
Was
it
18
million
for
a
bond
for
the
23?
Was
that
the
amount.
G
Now,
for
this
year
for
I
think
in
the
capital
Improvement
for
23,
there
was
part
of
that
included
issuing
a
bond
for
this
year
and
I'm
just
asking
what
that
amount
was
I,
think
it
was
18
but
I'm,
not
I,
know
it
reduced
from
somewhere
in
the
20s.
G
Let's
start
talking
22
bonds
I
mean
that's
really
confusing
for
people
a
bond
when
you
say
a
22
bonds,
it
means
we
issued
one
and
we
didn't
so
I
wish.
We
would
stop
referring
to
22
bonds.
We
didn't
issue
any
Bonds
in
22
which
I'm
very
proud
of,
and
we
saw
a
significant
reduction
in
there
in
our
debt
for
the
first
time
in
many
years,
because
of
that
and
but
I
think
it
was
18
million.
If
I'm
not
mistaken,
is
that
right,
Lord?
You
know
I
think
we
voted
to.
G
I
G
We
understand
that,
but
it
tells
right
here
in
item
number
three:
it
says
that
the
maximum
the
obligation
to
be
issued
is
to
be
issued,
for
the
projects
is
17
million,
seven
hundred
six
thousand
dollars,
so
we
would
be
approving
we
would
be
giving
not
approving
we
all
understand
this
is
not
a
bond
hearing
or
that
we're
approving
an
actual
Bond.
It's
giving
directions
itself
to
say
yeah
if
you
need
to
take
out
leverage
17.7
million
on
the
taxpayers
for
the
next
20
years.
G
You
know
at
a
fee
of
over
a
million
dollars
a
year
to
finance
that
we're
fine
with
that
and
I'm,
not
fine
with
that
and
I
think.
We
have
to
be
really
clear
on
that.
I
also
am
not
fine
with
that,
because
the
lack
of
transparency
now
granted
some
money
I
know
comes
in
when
you
look
at
accrual
or,
however,
we're
doing
our
the
accounting
for
various
funds
that
come
in
from
January
that
were
for
December
payments,
but
I
agree
with
Biz
McMillan
I
mean
we
said.
First,
it
was
a
seven
million
dollar
Surplus.
G
Then
we
pushed
a
little
harder
and
all
lo
and
behold,
it
was
14.1
and
then
now
we're
hearing.
Oh,
we
actually
have
somewhere
around
25
million.
So
when
we
approved
I
think
it
was
18
million
I
can't
I.
Don't
have
that
at
my
fingertips,
but
I
do
remember,
I,
don't
know
if
we
voted,
but
I
thought
we
did
vote
as
part
of
the
CIP
project.
Cip
budget
bonding
out
a
certain
amount
for
this
year
and
I
think
it
was
18
but
I.
Don't
if
you
find
it.
G
Let
me
know
so,
even
with
that
we
approved
18..
If
that
is
the
number
that
we
approved
to
issue
a
bond
for
this
year
to
cover
our
CIP
budget,
that
was
with
the
understanding
that
we
had
14
million
in
Surplus.
Now
we
know
that
it's
at
least
you
know
somewhere
around
the
ballpark
of
25..
So
with
that
I
can't
say:
okay
to
the
same
amount,
17.7
that
that
that
wouldn't
be
right.
G
I
B
G
So
yes,
so
I
would
like
to
see
it
reduced
by
at
least
the
amount
that
we
have.
You
know
like
now,
the
additional
Surplus
that
has
come
in,
because
when
we
voted
on
the
amount
to
allocate
and
bond
for
our
CIP
budget,
I
would
like
it
to
be
reduced,
at
least
by
the
amount
that
we've
now
the
additional
Surplus
that
has
surfaced.
That's
what
I
would
ask.
J
Please
yeah
I'll
I
I,
don't
want
to
interrupt
the
flow
Wisconsin
reducing
mode,
but
I
do
very
quickly
want
to
just
interject,
because
there's
been
a
lot
of
I
I
want
to
take
a
set
to
level
set
and
one
first
acknowledge
staff,
I
I
I
understand
what
councilmember
Kelly
and
Committee
Member
McMillan.
Their
concern
is,
but
one
thing
I
want
to
highlight
is
I
appreciate
staff
coming
to
us
with.
You
know,
revision
to
the
budget
and
updating
surpluses,
whether
it's
from
7
million
to
10
million
or
whatever
it
is
I.
J
Think
that's
important.
You
know
some
of
us
have
been
around
for
a
while
and
I
think
we
can
appreciate
that
there
may
have
been
previous
administrations
who
wouldn't
have
been
as
transparent,
particularly
with
such
large
surpluses.
So
I
just
first
want
to
highlight
I
appreciate,
hitesh
and
Clayton
and
the
whole
team
for
coming
forward
and
making
sure
that
we
have
a
clear
understanding
of
where
our
books
are.
So
that's
that's
one
two
I
I
do
want
to
understand.
J
J
Why
is
the
line
of
credit,
not
something
we
can
tap
into
and
if
you
know
and
I
think
I
I
recall
what
your
answers
are
going
to
be
and
if
so,
if
it's,
because
of
interest
rates,
are
lower
on
the
bonds
right
now,
even
though
interest
rates
are
going
up,
is
that
what's
the
point
of
the
line
of
credit,
then,
if
not
for
a
situation
like
this.
I
Okay,
so
to
answer
your
question:
yes,
one
thing
is:
if
I
go
over,
say
right
now,
line
of
credit
might
cost
me
around
I.
Don't
know
5.7
5.8.
If
we
issue
the
bar
for
20
years,
which
is
a
fixed
rate
bonds,
could
settle
around
4
4
25
I,
don't
know
so
that's
the
big
difference
that
150
basis
points
line
of
credit
and
there
are
two
lineup
credit
is
a
kind
of
variable
rate.
I
So
if
the
rates
go
up,
we
ever
go
up
like
if
they
go
up
by
100
business
points
in
next
six
months,
then,
unlike
the
bonds
good
thing
about
the
line
of
credit
keeping,
there
is,
and
in
this
kind
of
circumstances
where
the
rates
are
high,
we
haven't
issued
the
bonds,
but
the
city
council
has
approved
the
projects
in
22
in
23.,
and
so
obviously
the
staff
has
moved
forward
with
those
projects
when
we
make
the
payment
for
those
projects.
I
Where
does
that
money
come
from
because
those
projects
in
22
or
now
in
23
are
intended
to
be
funded
out
of
the
bond
proceeds?
We
haven't
issued
the
bond
last
year,
so
obviously
we
are
missing
out
that
10
million
dollar
now
in
23,
if
we
don't
issue
the
bonds
for
next
two
months,
four
months,
six
months
or
never,
but
still
the
projects
are
approved
as
a
part
of
the
budget
by
the
city
council.
So
what
we
do
is
in
case
yeah.
I
The
market
is
still
bare
and
we
need
the
funds
and
we
have
a
cash
flow
situation.
I
can
tap
in
as
a
last
resort,
even
after
using
a
little
bit
money
from
general
fund
and
other
funds,
as
a
temporary
loan
to
the
CIP
The
Last
Resort
would
be
I
have
to
tap
into
that
and
use
that
money.
Until
we
fill
that
okay,
we
have
a
now
reasonable
bond
market
where
we
can
go
out
and
issue
the
parts
for
a
full
20-year
fixed
loan.
E
I,
you
know
I
guess
I
still
come
back
to
why
on
Earth
do
we
feel
like
we
have
to
have
these
enormous
surpluses
you
know
and
if
we
do
have
to
use
short-term
debt
and
short-term
debt
on
it
on
a
interim
basis
before
we
know
exactly
how
much
long-term
debt
we
need
to
issue
the
bonds,
then
fine,
but
I,
think
we
should
have
a
much
much
much
deeper
understanding
of
what
our
surpluses
really
are.
E
I
J
Would
ask
and
all
committee
members
those
who
have
spoken
if
we
can
give
yeah
if
we
can
move
through
the
order
and
then
go
Circle
back
for
a
second
round,
so
I
I'll
pause
there
for
now,
I
want
to
let
councilmember
nusma
guy
I
do
want
to
follow
up
with
a
few
more
questions.
I
I
I
will
say
that
generally
I
am
not
supportive
of
issuing
new
bonds
or
even
beginning
to
set
the
framework
for
the
issuance
of
new
bonds.
J
If
there
is
the
possibility,
either
to
as
council
member
Kelly
is
calling
for
to,
you
know,
reduce
the
you
know
the
maximum
possible
issuance
or
not
issue
the
bonds
at
all.
But
my
support
for
moving
that
direction
would
hinge
on
having
a
deeper
understanding
of
what
are
the
cost
projections
out
there
and
you
know,
do
we
have
the
The
the
Reserve?
Do
we
have
the
balance
to
cover
those
costs
and,
and
what
extent
do
we
have
that
balance
to
be
able
to
do
that?
So
that's
what
I
would
be
hinging.
J
A
Okay,
council,
member
nuzma.
B
Thank
you,
Mr
chair,
it's
kind
of
a
procedural
question
here
to
start,
are
we
if
we
approve
this
ordinance,
are
we
bound
by
this
ordinance
to
spend
the
money
on
the
funds
that
are
included
in
or
on
the
projects
and
in
the
amounts
that
are
included
in
this
packet.
B
We've
seen
a
resolution
rather
right,
so
we
would
approve,
you
know,
bonds
being
issued
up
to
17.7
million
dollars.
We
could
spend
that
money
assuming
we
do
issue
the
bound
the
bonds
we
could
spend
that
money,
for
whatever
we
wanted
exhibit
a
in
our
packet
is
how
we
are
at
this
point
planning
to
spend
that
money,
but
that
could
change
going
forward
absolutely.
B
Right
and
so
how
many
more
infrastructure
projects
are
there
on
our
to-do
list
and
how
much
would
that
cost
yeah,
you
know
I
know,
there's
a
lot
more
that
we
need
to
do
than
we
are
currently
contemplating
right
here.
So
just
to
have
that
kind
of
perspective.
Maybe
that's
a
a
Laura
Biggs
question.
D
B
D
There
are
a
lot
of
big
open-ended
questions
right
now
in
the
capital
program,
because
we
have
several
facilities
that
need
substantial
work
and
we
haven't
really
got
a
An
approved
plan
on
how
we're
moving
forward
with
some
of
them.
But
we
don't
have
an
approved
plan
for
funding
for
others,
which
is
something
the
staff
has
been
working
to
get
that
information
together.
D
But
this
year
after
we
went
through
all
of
the
several
meetings
with
city
council
to
down
select
projects,
it's
still
less
than
what
was
shown
in
the
capital
program
for
each
year
of
the
next
five
years,
and
we
are
working
also
on
a
project
to
try
to
get
a
longer
term
Capital
Improvement
program,
so
that
we
can
try
to
smooth
some
of
these
out.
But
I
mean.
G
I
B
Infrastructure,
the
real
true
emergency
needs.
You
could
spend
easily
two
or
three
times
this
amount
of
money
doing
stuff
that
everyone
would
love
to
see
done.
But.
D
Yeah,
so
we
went
through
this
exercise
with
city
council
as
part
of
the
budget
process
where,
rather
than
staff
down
selecting
all
of
the
projects
we
sort
of
put
out
there.
What
we
thought
were
the
most
urgent
needs
and
asked
city
council
to
provide
priorities
and
then,
over
time
we
nibbled
that
down
to
what
is
the
current
capital
program,
based
on
what
the
city
council
set
as
the
priorities
right.
B
So
the
council
has
already
set
those
priorities
and
you
know
approved
that
Capital
Improvement
plan,
so
the
task
now
for
the
finance
and
budget
committee
is
to
help
figure
out
how
to
pay
for
it,
and
we've
had
some
constructive
conversations
here
that
are
relevant
to
that
discussion.
We've
had
some
other
discussions
which
are
important
to
have
about
controlling
costs
and
improving
our
our
projection
capabilities,
but
are
not
really
part
of
this
discussion
in
front
of
us
tonight.
B
So
I
guess
you
know
I'm
prepared
to
vote
in
favor
of
this
resolution,
knowing
that
it's
not
a
commitment
to
issue
these
bonds.
We
still
have
an
opportunity
to
you
know:
do
some
value
engineering
and
cost
cutting
when
and
if
it
might
be
appropriate.
We're
not
obligating
ourselves
to
spend
this
money
right
now,
but
we
are
leaving
ourselves
open
the
possibility
of
kind
of
paying
ourselves
back,
and
if
we
delay
this
action
we
won't
be
able
to
pay
ourselves
back
as
much
so.
B
This
is
knowing
that
this
is
the
same
in
a
type
of
resolution
that
we
passed
last
year
and
then
ultimately
didn't
issue
bonds.
B
You
know
I'm
prepared
to
to
move
this
forward
and
and
vote
on
this
tonight.
So
I'll
leave
my
comments
at
that.
For
the
moment.
Okay,.
F
Hand
was
raised,
yes,
I.
Think.
A
lot
of
the
comments
made
is
future
work
and
I.
Think
it's
very
important
and
I,
especially
like
Miss
McMillan's
comment
that
we
made.
Even
though
it's
higher
basis
points,
it
may
be
prudent
to
do
short-term
funding
until
we
really
get
our
handle
on
the
long-term
funding.
So
I'm,
fine
with
that
and
I
agree,
we
do
need
to
pass
the
resolution.
F
The
one
thing
that
gives
me
pause
is
in
section
two
and
three,
where
it
says
reimbursement
the
city
reasonably
expects
to
reimburse
and
pay
the
expenditures
with
the
proceeds
of
an
obligation.
I
think
that's,
okay,
but
then
it
says
the
man
section,
three,
the
maximum
principal
amount
of
the
obligation
expected
to
be
issued
for
the
projects
is
17.7.
I've
read
this
about
four
or
five
times
and
when
I
see
the
word
expected,
it's
almost
like
we're
blessing
this
the
17
and
I.
F
You
know
I
was
just
wondering
if
I
know
it's
semantics,
but
the
maximum
principal
amount
of
the
obligations
could
be
issued
of
17.6.
I
would
feel
much
more
comfortable
with
that
than
the
word
expected
because
expected
makes
it
sound
like
it's
a
it's
a
foregone
conclusion
that
it's
going
to
be
17-7.
So
that's
my
comments,
but
I
do
feel
we
need
to
move
forward
to
get
the
flexibility
for
these
projects.
That
I
believe
were
approved
by
the
city
council
already
and
need
to
be
paid
for.
F
F
You
know
I'm
just
brainstorming
that
the
maximum
principal
amount
of
the
obligations
to
be
issued
just
take
the
word
expected
out
to
be
issued
for
the
projects.
You
know
because
expected
sounds
like
we're
gonna,
do
it
and
I
don't
know
if
that
would
give
everyone
else,
a
little
more
clarity
and
a
little
more,
maybe
there's
another
word
that
we
may
we
may
issue
up
instead
of
what
expected
may
be
issued
for
the
purposes
up
to
this
you
know
17.6.
A
I
F
E
F
B
I'd
like
to
say
I'd
like
to
speak
to
the
motion
on
the
table.
Please
excuse
me
I'd
like
to
speak
to
the
motion
on
the
table
and
if
I
could
offer
a
friendly
amendment
to
to
Committee
Member,
righteousness,
Amendment
or
motion
I
think
if
we
limit
it
to
section
three
and
just
strike
the
word
expected
that
gets
to
what
you,
what
you're
trying
to
do.
I
I
D
I
think
so,
I
think
my
understanding
and
hitesh
knows
these
better
than
I
do.
But
my
understanding
is
that
you're,
more
or
less
setting
a
cap,
it's
not
going
to
be
more
than
this.
So
if
you
were
to
you,
know,
set
the
cap
at
at
10
million
dollars
and
stuff
happens
with
the
budget,
and
it
turns
out.
D
We
really
wish
we
could
sell
12
million
dollars
worth
of
bonds,
even
though
what
we
have
in
the
budget
is
17
million
dollars,
you
won't
be
able
to,
because
you
will
have
said
we
can
only
reimburse
10
million
dollars
of
the
thing,
but
I
think
as
long
as
you
put
a
dollar
amount
there
and
say
that's
what
we're
doing
we're
saying
that
we
can
essentially
reimburse
this
much
I.
Think
it's
okay,
whether
the
word
expected
there
is
or
is
there
or
not
right.
I
G
H
B
Committee
members
righteousness
is
motion
to
strike
the
word
expected.
Okay,.
B
G
G
You
know
budget
it's
when
we
were
voting
on
our
budget.
There
was
the
capital,
Improvement
and
I.
Remember
I
tried
to
get
it
down.
Initially
it
was
going
to
be.
You
know
we
were.
The
recommendation
was
to
pass
a
budget
where
we
would
bond
in
somewhere
in
the
20s,
and
it
came
down
and
I
appreciated
that,
and
it
came
down
to
something
I
just
want
to
know
what
that
amount
was
that
we
voted.
D
G
D
One
second
here,
let
me
just.
D
Okay,
so
if
you
can
see
this
spreadsheet,
this
actually
was
many
pages
long
that
listed
all
the
projects,
but
the
summary
is
here
in
this
table,
so
let
me
expand
it,
so
you
can
see
it
better
and
what
this
shows
is
the
green
line
was
the
projects
that
had
other
funding
other
than
Geo
bonds
and
just
needed.
Some
matching
blue
line
was
projects
under
contract
where
2023
Geo
bonds
had
been
expressed
as
a
funding
source.
The
red
line
was
the
immediate
Life.
D
Safety
purple
was
high
priority
goals,
yellow
other
projects
requested
by
city
council.
So
ultimately
it
was
this
13
million
258
000..
This
does
not
include
projects
that
were
approved
by
the
library
board
separately,
which
was
nine
hundred
and
fifty
thousand
dollars.
That
is
not
managed
by
the
staff
in
this
meeting
and
there
were
an
additional
four
million
dollars
of
projects
that
we
recommend
bonding
for,
but
are
not
abated
by
property
tax,
but
are
abated
by
the
water
fund.
G
So,
but
on
these,
so
so
okay,
so
it's
13
million
I
thought
13
million.
There
was
another
document
that
I
was
referring
to,
but
okay,
so
13
million
plus
the
22,
which
don't
exist
so
the
3
million,
so
that
comes
to
about
somewhere
in
the
ballpark
of
17
million.
Yes,
that's
the
amount,
and
that's
the
amount
that
you're
asking
for
now
maximum
to
issue
and
I'm
saying
since
we
voted
on
that-
and
we
approve
that
not
knowing
that
we
had
an
additional
at
least
10
million-
that
it's
really
not
right
for
us
to.
G
G
We
should
be
able
to
get
a
little
closer
to
estimating
our
Surplus
budget,
but
we
voted
on
that
with
the
understanding
there
was
14.1
million,
so
this
should
be
reduced
again.
This
cost
us
this
will
cost
the
residence.
G
A
C
F
A
All
right
so
now
we're
left
with
the
resolution.
As
we've
discussed,
there
can
be
additional
work
to
determine
the
exact
amount
of
eventual
bonding
that
we
need
to
do
and
that'll
come
out
of
our
forecasting.
A
G
So
may
I
just
make
a
comment:
I
just
want
to
be
really
clear
to
staff.
I
mean
a
couple
things
and
David
your
whole
point
about
the
16.6.
You
know
in
our
Reserve
fund,
mostly
when
I
talk
today
with
s
p
and
other
people
with
the
rating
agencies.
It's
our
incredible
debt
to
our
pensions.
It's
not
our
16.6
Reserve
fund.
That's
really
harming
us
most,
so
I
just
I
once
they
have
to
understand
that
I.
In
no
way
there
was
at
least
10
million
more.
G
It's
probably
going
to
be
more
before
the
year's
over
in
Surplus,
and
that's
not
right
that
we
would
for
a
moment.
We
did
vote
on
that
and
thank
you
Laura
for
bringing
that
up.
But
that
was
with
the
understanding
that
we
had
10
million
dollars
less
available
to
us.
So
I
hope
that
in
no
way
shape
or
form
will
we
leverage
17.7
million
dollars
of
debt
against
our
residents.
That
is
a
huge
expenditure.
I
I
How
about
we
have
to
fund
the
Insurance
Fund,
another
four
million
to
stay
compliant
with
our
budget
policy?
How
about
the
additional
cost
on
the
animal
sharing
plot?
That
would
take
away
right
there,
your
10
million
dollar
council
member,
so.
A
I
A
G
G
The
problem
is,
you
pass
a
budget
and
you
stick
to
it
and,
and
so
I'm
just
very
concerned
that
in
fact,
we
didn't
have
all
the
figures
before
us,
and
so
now
we're
talking
about
telling
staff
we're
directing
staff
to
say
yeah
if
you
need
to
go
up
to
17.7,
even
though
you
know
this
is
the
budget
we
passed
budget
smudge
it.
You
know,
I
mean
I.
A
J
Youtube
increasing
expenditure
council
member
Kelly,
we
we
are
spending
more
on
those
contracts.
G
A
C
Council
member,
when
I
councilmember,
Burns
councilmember
Kelly.