Regular Rescheduled Consolidated Committee of the Whole Meeting 3/30/2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H03ejN8kGa8
Automatic captions; not audio-verified.

[3:41] Committee of the whole for the city of Highland Park, March 30th, 2026. Council member Tapia has joined us.

[3:49] Thank you. And um you want to take away some mayor. Since you're reconvening, you

[3:56] should just call the role for the record.

[3:58] We need to call the role again for the record. Thank you.

[4:00] Council member center. Council member Bman here. Council member Ross here. Council member present. Council member L here. Council member Bloomberg

[4:08] here. Mayor here. We have a quorum. Thank you city manager newer for taking the next part of this conversation. Right. Thank you

[4:17] mayor. Um just for public information just do want to share with uh the public that we held um this rescheduled regular meeting of the committee of the whole.

[4:25] We started at 4:30. We had a tour of the public service center which includes the departments of public works and community development and then we also

[4:33] toured um fire station off of Halfday Road as it pertains to this overall project. Um, also just want to take a

[4:41] moment to thank all the um, elected officials, the mayor and council members um, for scheduling time to meet with

[4:49] director Bannon, director Matthew and I um, to talk about this project as well in preparation for this meeting. Um, so

[4:58] the content of those private conversations pretty much mirrors what we're going to present in public um, this evening. We have followed up on

[5:06] some of your questions and so hopefully we've addressed most of what you've asked for. Some things that um require additional work and follow up with our

[5:13] team will be coming forthcoming. But this is an overview of what we're going to cover at this uh meeting.

[5:20] And then just pause you for one second and we could take care of business and approve our minutes from our prior meeting which I forgot to do. I'm sorry

[5:28] I did that to you. Uh but if I could have a motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the committee of the whole from February 23rd, 2026 and

[5:36] the joint special meeting of the committee of the whole with the historic preservation commission held on March 9th, 2026. So moved. Second.

[5:44] All in favor say I. I.

[5:46] I. Okay. Thank you. All right. Back to you. All right. Back to our regular. Okay. Um so just kind of looking ahead.

[5:53] These are the policy questions that we're seeking your feedback on this evening. Um, one, we're going to present information about the Route 41

[6:01] pedestrian bridge. Um, we talked about this at a previous committee of the home meeting. Hopefully, everyone's u remembers this project. We are looking

[6:09] for your feedback this evening of whether or not there's an interest to do the full redevelopment reconstruction of that bridge at an estimated cost of more

[6:17] than 10 million or to do the rehabilitation estimated cost of 2.4 million. The timing of this, as shared at the last committee of the whole

[6:25] meeting, is just very sensitive because if we are going to do the 10 million, we need to provide information um because

[6:33] we've got IT funding that's involved and the letting is tenatively scheduled for April. If we're not going to do that, we

[6:40] want to give notice um the of the intent that we cannot use those funds because those funds can only be used for construction, not rehabilitation. So, we

[6:50] need to provide that notice and then we would move forward with rehabilitation per the council's direction. We're going to present as indicated previously other

[6:58] revenue options. If there's something that you want us to look into further, um we will go back work with our team. We have a special workshop on May 18th.

[7:06] So, we'll come back at that meeting um and present follow-up information. And then um just for the purpose of kind of

[7:15] discussion tonight, we are looking at an estimated $40 million infrastructure investment project. Um and so uh we're

[7:25] presenting some different options in terms of financing that um and looking at some revenue options as well to

[7:32] offset expenses. So again, looking for your feedback as it pertains to that project. So, first we're going to want to walk through some assumptions just to

[7:40] make sure we are on the same page. Um, fiscal stability and public safety are two of the city's top priorities. Um, so

[7:48] this is on every single page in the budget. Um, it's on all the PowerPoint presentations that we give. So, you can see the bubbles there on the bottom

[7:56] right side of the screen. So, this is really of utmost importance certainly to the mayor and council, certainly important to our staff. So you thinking

[8:04] of those two priorities in mind, we are always looking at every initiative um through that lens. City of Highland Park

[8:11] is a home rule unit of government and so as it pertains to um certain aspects. We

[8:17] are not tax capped. Um so policy is set by the mayor and city council. We're not limited as a non-home rule unit is as it

[8:27] pertains to um tax caps. And then there's other provisions for home rule units of government, but as it pertains to kind of public projects and paying

[8:35] for them, just that's an important notation. Um, we are also very proud to be a AAA uh bonded community. And so,

[8:43] um, what does that mean? So, one, that is a testament to the city's fiscal stability, um, sound financial planning,

[8:51] sound policy that is set by the mayor and city council. um it's credit to for the fiscal management um that our staff

[8:58] conducts. And what that means for debt issues is we also get lower borrowing rates. And so that's important again

[9:05] just to maintain that AAA bond rating as we move forward in our day-to-day. Um use of reserves. Um we have a policy on

[9:14] the use of reserves. Um we're going to uh just share components of that policy later in this presentation. Um but

[9:21] pursuant to council policy we have been drawing down our reserves and how we quantify or how we describe it is very

[9:29] strategic and thoughtful. So every year we are drawing down our reserves pursuant to our policy um for specific projects in accordance with our policy.

[9:40] again to get to the point of maintaining minimum fund balance, but again using those reserves so we're not dep uh

[9:47] dependent on property taxes or um uh or other areas. We do have a 10-year

[9:54] capital plan. Um we established that several years ago because we were were we were working off of a five-year plan and what was happening when we were

[10:02] doing long range planning is we were taking projects and we were saying, "Well, we're just going to do them sometime in the future." And so they were just kind of like thrown into this

[10:10] unknown abyss. Um and so we put together a 10-year plan and we balanced that plan. And so as it pertains to the

[10:18] public service center and fire station project. Um so in 25 and 26 we had

[10:26] contemplated doing plans for the public service center fire station project. So hiring architect, engineering firms,

[10:34] construction management firms, doing the needs assessment, getting a cost estimate, and then construction was tenatively planned in 27. We have 17.5

[10:43] million in 27 right now for this project. And that number was developed based on the balanced budget over that

[10:52] time period. And so at the time when we did that, um, you know, we had shared again, we don't know how much this project is going to cost. We're going to

[11:00] do the needs assessment and we'll approach an increased budget amount at that time during the planning process

[11:09] which is right now. So again, we started in 25. Right now we're having those important policy conversations as we take a look at funding paying for this

[11:18] important public um public facility projects. And then u director Bannon is going to talk about some of the capital

[11:25] projects. Um but just very briefly as we take a look at our capital projects again we have a 10-year plan but every

[11:32] year we are doing budget development and budget planning and reviewing our capital project. We are prioritizing

[11:39] capital projects and we have um just you know very simply um a priority level and

[11:46] so we will look at projects based on public safety needs. we look at projects. Um, if we have grant funding

[11:54] that we have obtained, then that kind of helps prioritize when we do that project because we've got now some additional

[12:02] revenue that's not ours to help pay for that. We'll also prioritize based on utility impacts. So, if we know that a

[12:09] street needs to be resurfaced and we know that we need to upsize, for example, the water man, well, we'll take a look at a totality of that um

[12:18] infrastructure investment rather than just resurfacing a street and then coming back three years later and then doing the utility work underneath. And

[12:25] so looking at those um cost efficiencies um and overall project efficiencies as we move forward. Um, and then we will

[12:33] talk um about the the uh public service center [laughter] and fire station project. Yes, ma'am.

[12:40] I think I may have been writing something, but I don't remember hearing you talk about the pension obligations between the AAA and the use of reserves.

[12:47] Yes, thank you. I did buy that. Um, so our pension obligations, um, Christie is going to go through our pension

[12:54] obligations, but, um, one thing that's very important to note as part of kind of our assumptions is several years ago,

[13:02] the mayor and the city council established a policy where we were funding um, we were almost kind of getting caught up on funding of our

[13:10] public safety pensions and paying a consistent amount each year to get us to that statutory requirement of being 90%

[13:18] funded by 2040. And what we were doing is getting ourselves on a plan, one to save money because the plan that we were

[13:25] on, we were going to experience eventually significant spikes in our pension obligations in the latter years

[13:33] when um the state was telling us you had to be fully funded. And so we have now consistently made uh pension payments to

[13:40] our public safety pensions in the amount of $9.5 million. We've got a graph that we're going to show you there. And so again, it's being fiscally responsible,

[13:49] making sure that we're paying our obligations and putting us on a consistent [clears throat] path towards fully funded um rather than kind of

[13:57] kicking it down the road and experiencing higher spikes later on.

[14:00] And that's been a critical part of our ability to maintain our AAA bond rating.

[14:04] Yes. Thank you. Okay. Um all right, with turn over to Director Bannon, who will walk us through the next part of the presentation.

[14:15] Thank you.

[14:18] Okay, so we have several uh a variety of projects planned for 2026 and these are just some highlights. I just want to point out the lead service line phase

[14:25] one, phase two. Uh phase two is still uh coming together. Uh we estimate approximately 16 million, but that is funded by IPA loan. So that is uh more

[14:34] so there are [clears throat] some upfront costs, but basically it' be a pass through. So we pay the contractor when the IPA pays us. But once those projects are complete, then we will have

[14:43] to start paying back those funds at 0% interest. Uh the Sheran Road sidewalk project is scheduled for this year for an April letting. So we hope to have that project up and running very soon

[14:51] here. Uh we have our resurfacing program that we did. We're doing 3 million this year. Uh Sheridan Road utility project Edgecliffe to the north end is on the

[14:59] council agenda tonight for approval and a variety of other other improvements planned for for 2026.

[15:08] We also have in our tenure several projects that are not currently funded.

[15:12] So this is just you know some highlights of of our tenure uh that that right now are priority twos which means in our spreadsheet that they are not currently

[15:20] funded. Uh I know the ped bridge is number one on there. So we have the $2 million in grant funding. It um that is uh scheduled. It's a it's November

[15:29] letting for that one. So, uh, but because we have to let it [clears throat] in November, we need the the design engineers do need to know now to stay on schedule either for a full

[15:37] rebuild or a rehab. So, if we choose the rehab option, then uh there's a different permitting process we have to go through. So, uh it still may be a

[15:46] project that goes a year or two down the road on that side of things. So, it depends on which lane we pick here, but we're getting down to the point where we have to we have to pick a way

[15:55] and the rehab is 2.4 million 2.3 million.

[15:58] It is. Yeah. approximately slide

[16:00] [clears throat]

[16:01] 2.4 2.4 so versus 10.3 for a complete redo.

[16:08] Yes. Yeah. And then you know we I know we have some of the some of the the pluses and minuses of that of course 2 and a half million [music] much more reasonable but also not ADA compliant

[16:16] and and some other some other challenges. Yep.

[16:19] Yep. Uh and then just uh we have some infrastructure work in the uh Ravenia business district that we were looking at water manes and some utility improvements to go along with some tiff

[16:27] improvements. uh that's currently not funded. Uh I know we've talked about Waverly. Waverly is uh needs water man.

[16:33] Uh there's two bridges on Waverly. So that that's an expensive project to get that done, but it's definitely needed.

[16:38] Uh our annual reservicing program. I know that a couple years ago at the city council, we looked at our we were calling it our PCN, our pavement condition number. We wanted to get it to

[16:46] 70 or above and we estimated $5 million a year in reservicing for five years to get us to that point. This year we're doing three and that's and that's just

[16:54] based on our budget and maintaining uh you know maintaining our our budget. uh uh targets. So uh again, Revenia East

[17:02] train station lot. Uh there's a generator replacement at the uh at the North Reservoir that we visited today uh or near that area that needs to be

[17:09] replaced. So uh again projects that we are eyeing and of course uh continuing to apply for grant funding to see if we can get some of these done. Um as we

[17:17] look beyond 27 to 28 into the 10 year, again there's a ton of projects, but just handpicking some of these. You talk about the intake pipe at about $18

[17:24] million that uh we received a couple grants. Uh Congressman Schneider, you know, so 1.2 million and another one for about a million, which is fantastic. Uh but it's $18 million 18 million.

[17:35] 18 million $18 million project. So we were using some of that to see if we could do design and get that ready to go so that in the event we can fund it or get additional funding, we can move

[17:43] forward with that type of project. And that's to address the water intake for the water plant where we provide water to six municipalities including our own

[17:50] and have seen at time to time freezing over and and need to go further into the lake.

[17:55] That's correct mayor. So for all the water we pump about half of it is here at H Park. The half is other to our outside other municipality. So, uh, we

[18:03] have some reservicing projects that are, uh, that we've, uh, submitted for, they're in the budget, uh, that we're looking for funding with Lake County on.

[18:09] That's that lab project there for Central, uh, you know, into our into our, uh, into our city here. That's an important one. Summit Avenue as well.

[18:17] Uh, and then we have some facility types of projects like the Port Clinton expansion joint that's estimated 1.5.

[18:23] So, um really just just showing some of the projects that as we make uh sometimes tough decisions in our 10ear process, our tenure capital, these are some of the projects that are not going.

[18:34] So, just to reiterate, these are not in the budget and they're also not prioritized. They're just shown in descending order of cost.

[18:42] Yes. Yeah. And I should point out that a lot of these, you know, per fund. They are a lot of these are budgeted across multiple funds. So, for example, you know, the Sheridan Road Edge Cliff

[18:50] project that's on for tonight, that's a water main project. it's a sewer project, it's a resurfacing. So that that hits all those different accounts.

[18:56] So to section them off by by account is is tough because they cross a lot of these. Some of these are TIFF funded projects, but along with some, you know,

[19:04] some others. So the Richfield alley on the uh on the funded projects is something that would be uh you know, also TIFF funding plus some general fund

[19:12] and some sewer and stuff like that. So right and then our grants um this does not include uh the 1.2 2 that we received

[19:21] for the water uh for the intake pipe. Uh but we're approximately $50 million over the last about 10 years. Great job.

[19:29] Thank you.

[19:36] Okay. Um so we have a core project team that has been working on the public service center and fire station project.

[19:43] Um we started we put together this team uh [clears throat] early last year. That team was responsible for putting

[19:50] together an RFP um and the selection a competitive selection of an architect and engineering firm. I want to recognize um Andy Dogen who represents

[19:59] Williams Architects. So we've been working closely with Williams and also Gowalt Hamilton as we've been doing some needs assessment as it pertains to this

[20:07] project. And then on for consideration this evening is a proposed as a recommendation to hire Kimosi Construction to serve as the

[20:15] construction manager. and we've been keeping the mayor and council um apprised of the we went through an RFQ process, an RFP process, interviews, and

[20:24] then came to the recommended selection this evening.

[20:28] Um so, very briefly, the two project sites that we're talking about are off of Halfday Road, total about 8.3 acres.

[20:35] Um these pro these buildings are a little bit younger than I am. Um and uh you can see gray hair. I do color it. Um

[20:44] so old old buildings um with very little renovation. Um and when we take a look at the needs of our department,

[20:53] hopefully everyone will agree there is significant needs in terms of um renovation or redevelopment of these two

[21:00] important projects. There was a renovation to the public service center in 2000 that was actually to relocate community development department into

[21:08] that building. um they were located offsite at some um uh office space in the community and so they relocated to

[21:17] that building for more synergy um and then didn't have you know those lease payments. Um so as the council knows

[21:25] this area is surrounded by either flood plane or flood way and so this is a good illustration just to show the challenges

[21:34] with these two sites. Um so Gowalt Hamilton has been working closely with us as we've done some preliminary [clears throat] planning of um where can

[21:42] we build if we need to expand and what does that mean for compensatory storage and so um we do have an agreement with

[21:50] the park district of Highland Park who if you recall we spent many months negotiating those agreements with them.

[21:57] Um, so there's a provision in our con in our agreement with them that does provide for the ability to have storm

[22:04] water management on that facility. Um, and it's to provide for, uh, storm water relief for the area. And

[22:13] so, um, certainly, um, we have some storm water needs as part of this project that we have. And then what our

[22:21] preliminary recommendation would be is to increase that capacity by about 10% again to provide some level of relief um

[22:30] in light of the flood plane and flood boys in this area. Um so this slide should look familiar.

[22:37] We presented during the budget process each year. Um want to just share that in terms of overall total city expenditures

[22:44] of 142 million um our largest goes towards personnel. So that makes sense.

[22:50] We are a customer service organization and so over 270 employees um 36% of our

[22:57] expenditures goes towards our people um in the work that they do to serve the public. Um we are a public service

[23:04] organization. We also I think have the right um we have the right balance of how much we contract out versus the

[23:12] staff that we have inhouse. And so we contract out where we have the greatest needs to do so. that does provide us um

[23:20] it allows us to be fiscally responsible because we're not paying, you know, pension obligations and insurance and and all those costs. Um it also saves on

[23:29] staff space because we don't have those additional personnel that are taking up our office spaces as well. And then we use those contract services during peak

[23:36] periods. The other important element you'll see is public works is our largest operating department. So they make up 43% of our expenditures. We

[23:44] group um fire and police together under public safety. They make up the second uh most component of our expenditures.

[23:52] Um but you're going to see in a moment that public works is certainly um a public safety department as well. Um

[23:59] this is a department that works 24 hours a day if needed, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. And so um we don't have a slide

[24:08] for fire because when we say public safety, people generally think police and fire and certainly that makes sense.

[24:14] Um, and we're grateful to those first responders. Um, but public work, hopefully everyone brushed their teeth this morning, used water. That's public

[24:21] works providing water to your home so we could um, do everything that we need to to get ready in the morning. And again,

[24:28] they are providing response um, during all weather conditions um, all year.

[24:36] So when we take a look at project needs, this is just a snapshot of why this public facility project is being

[24:44] recommended for um redevelopment uh renovation of that of that property. Um I'm not going to go through this in

[24:52] great detail, but I just want to share a couple of important points. Um so one, we do have we are maximizing our spaces

[25:01] to the greatest extent possible. You saw during the tour for example, we are eliminating a lot of our paper and putting everything on laser feed. That's

[25:09] creating an efficiency for the public so it's easy access to public records. It's also creating a lot of efficiency for our staff as well. So that creates opens

[25:18] up some areas where we could relocate some personnel in um some of those um you know traditional storage areas. Um

[25:26] we also have um challenges for example where we have the majority of our equipment just stored outside and so if

[25:34] there is a uh snow event for example our staff are coming in and they're cleaning off the trucks so they can then just then serve the public you know

[25:42] thereafter. And so that is creating a delay that other municipalities that have their equipment stored in house are not experiencing because they're able to

[25:50] come in and just immediately serve the community. It's very similar that if they're responding in the middle of the night to a water main break or a sewer

[25:58] break, the time is of the essence for us to get out and serve the public. And so we do have um some challenges um in that

[26:06] regard just because of the limitations that we have with these um buildings.

[26:10] And then um you can see the kind of the other areas there. So very important. I know that when we look at um you know

[26:18] the public service center and even the fire station and the public may be like I've never been in that building um and that's common. We have a lot of people

[26:25] that come to city hall and they say I've been a resident for 30 years. I've never been in city hall. But the city is working every single day for the public

[26:33] and that's an important element in terms of the service that we're providing to the public. Um particularly out of the public safety departments that we're talking about this evening.

[26:44] So, we worked um with the Williams team um to do a needs assessment for our three departments. Um and so you can see

[26:52] on this chart we've got the number of staff in all the departments um 29. The fire station houses anywhere between four to six personnel and public works

[27:01] is 90. Some of the personnel um are in the office all day long. Um, some are

[27:09] field employees where they come in, they have to do paperwork, check on things, and then they're out in the field. Um, but that's the total number of personnel that we have, our existing square

[27:18] footage. You can see reflected in the third column there. And then the first thing that we did is we worked with each department to identify the needs

[27:26] assessment. So, what employees do we have? How are employees working? How many times do they meet with the public or different contractors or developers

[27:35] that come in? And so what are those meeting spaces? Um how does everything work in terms of break rooms for example, number of restrooms that we

[27:43] have? And then we got to the original proposed square footage. I would say that original proposed square footage is

[27:50] based on needs. We're not really looking at um you know I'd like a TV room in my office or something like that. So this

[27:58] is really based on needs of the apartments.

[28:00] [clears throat]

[28:01] Um but then what we did that final proposed square footage is we looked at okay where can we shave down to just

[28:10] make sure that we've got the absolute core needs that we have for each of the departments where can we share space

[28:18] with space with other areas and that got us to that final square footage. So, a couple things that you can see. Um, the

[28:26] fire station obviously is a significant jump. The majority of that is in the Bay Area. Right now, we just don't have

[28:34] adequate space to store the equipment that we need for the fire department to respond to the community. Um, and then we also provide service to Highwood and

[28:42] Fort Sheridan as well, as well as the mutual aid that we provide. Very similar public works. You can see the square footages. As we take a look at the

[28:51] maintenance garage right now, we've got employees working on equipment where there's other trucks driving all around them. That creates an unsafe condition.

[29:01] Um, and it's not ideal in a in a public works garage in that environment. Um, vehicle storage um is important and we

[29:10] talk about garage space um but that also has a cost to it because when we are storing equipment in the Midwest

[29:18] inclement weather, we are looking at significant degradation of of the vehicles and equipment. It's reducing the overall life of those that

[29:27] equipment. And so that's an important element [clears throat] as we take a look at trying to have um those vehicles um protected from the weather elements.

[29:35] One, so we can respond to the public as expeditiously as possible. Two, to save cost for overall life of the equipment.

[29:42] And then you can see the office and shop space there as well.

[29:47] All right, turn it over to Christie for financial considerations. Thank you. Hi, Mayor and City Council.

[29:56] Okay, we're going to go over some um financial considerations and um feel free to stop me and ask any questions or we can wait till the end.

[30:04] Great. Thank you. Um okay, first debt policy. So the city presently does not have a statutory limit on the amount of

[30:10] debt that we can issue since we are as gate said a home rule um unit of government. If the city were to have

[30:18] such a limitation um our ability to issue debt could not exceed 8.625 of our

[30:26] city's um EAB or equalized assessed value. Um and then below these were the numbers um

[30:34] in the 2026 budget um which is um 2025 fiscal year that our net debt expected

[30:44] [clears throat] is 60 million.4 60.4 million sorry um which is only a 2.13% [clears throat] ratio versus if we were to ever have a limit it would be at 8%.

[30:56] Um so that's current borrowing that's not correct addition. Okay. Not yet. That's not future. Okay.

[31:03] Um the city does limit long-term debt um to capital improvements which are for

[31:10] assets with an estimated life expectancy of at least 10 years um that can't be financed [clears throat] from current uh

[31:18] resources or revenues. The maturity date for recent debt that we have issued um

[31:25] will not exceed the reasonably expected useful life of the capital improvements um that are financed. For example, we're

[31:33] we won't finance capital for 30 years if it's only going to last 10. Um and then the city does not use long-term debt for

[31:42] operating revenues or operating programs.

[31:49] Okay. uses of reserves. So, um this budgetary goal policy has been in

[31:58] place um I went back to at least 2012 and um the reserves are established to

[32:06] um one possibly provide settlement of any pending negotiations.

[32:12] um provide temporary funding for unforeseen needs of an emergency or non-reoccurring in nature which we tend

[32:21] to um express as excess funds can be used for planned capital improvement projects. Um and then the third is to

[32:31] permit um budget adjustments in the event of unanticipated revenue shortfalls. And lastly, use of reserves

[32:41] um can be used for meeting unexpected small increases in our um delivery to uh our costs to deliver services.

[32:54] This is an illustration of the historic and future estimated fund balance for

[33:02] the general fund. As we can see in 2023 the fund balance um was about 124% of

[33:11] the minimum fund balance target. The minimum fund balance target uh established for the general fund is as a

[33:19] p it's a percentage of operating expenditures is 35%.

[33:25] So then we can see in 2024 those are actuals our fund balance um through

[33:32] strategic drawdowns um for specific projects in those years is 95 and a half percent.

[33:41] We are in the middle of our 2025 fiscal audit. So I we don't have actuals yet for 25. Um at the May workshop I we will

[33:50] have actuals and the 25 fund balance estimate is estimated at 72%. And then

[33:57] for the budget and our five-year plan for the general fund, you can see that we are getting closer to the minimum fund balance target of 35%.

[34:10] So use of reserves is um getting minimized.

[34:16] So between 24 and 26 we've we've dropped 40% or we are estimating to drop 40%.

[34:24] And I thought we used 10% as sort of like a standard uh just to make sure that the credit agencies weren't

[34:32] concerned that we were going too deeply into our reserve. Have we had any kind of feedback from them?

[34:37] Um yes. Well, not Moody's won't specifically give feedback [clears throat] on that, but our municipal advisor um did say

[34:47] they're not specific to a 10% fund balance draw down. It's more of what is the purpose for the draw down.

[34:54] So back to the four reasons, right? Like is it strategic or are we just drawing down because we need, you know, we mean the funding for

[35:01] I'm so happy to hear you say that. So as long as we're sticking to those four reasons and we're we have a a cogent plan,

[35:09] we shouldn't be as concerned. Okay, that's important.

[35:14] I have a question. So the the 10% was always the benchmark. The 10% was the benchmark, but we've had a we've been

[35:22] using it for capital improvements. Like, we're sticking to our policy. So, we're okay.

[35:28] So, we're draw down more than But but that explains why the runway for drawing down reserves is suddenly much

[35:35] shorter because it was like a Yeah. at instead of two years for Yeah. for 40%.

[35:42] Calling that out because I was like, wait, how did we suddenly get to that? Right.

[35:47] I think the 10% always was on a benchmark of the AAA rating, right?

[35:51] But you're saying if it's within one of those four buckets, we're okay.

[35:55] Well, and if we've got a rating agencies look at more than just maybe this 10%, you know, fund balance that was given in the past.

[36:03] Um they look at a lot of other factors and it's mainly if we can substantiate why we're doing it, right? Um,

[36:11] and the key is you're using it for those four one of those four purposes, not for operating expenses.

[36:17] You want to show that you're operating budget is balanced. Yes.

[36:21] And then this is separate and apart from operations. Yeah, definitely. Thank [clears throat] you.

[36:27] So, getting into the public safety contribution scenarios a little bit.

[36:30] This was presented at this is public safety pension contribution, right?

[36:34] Yes. Which is police and fire pension, right? But the word pension isn't up there.

[36:38] I want to be clear that it's for the pension fund contributions. Thank you.

[36:43] Um this was presented at the 2025 workshop. We are in draft form for having final numbers at the spring

[36:51] workshop in May for 26. Um but that being said, um this is shows a

[36:58] trajectory of the um where the city is headed right now per um the policy that

[37:06] mayor and city council have had us on since uh 2022.

[37:12] And um the light blue is where we have strategically contributed $9.5 million

[37:20] to police and fire pensions. um since 2023 and we are it's also in the 2026

[37:28] budget to do nine and a half uh million if we were to adjust that at all [clears throat] and I'll on my next

[37:35] slide there is a statutory minimum that the city has to contribute per the state of Illinois um to the pensions. So those

[37:43] numbers will be on the next slide. If we were to stray from the $9.5 million um

[37:53] planned contributions, we would see as the years get closer to 2040 in the dark

[38:00] blue or the dark gray that the spike in the amount of money we would the city would need to contribute to fund those

[38:08] um pensions [clears throat] skyrockets. It could be almost $16 million by 2040.

[38:14] And so that would detrimentally impact our ability to invest in infrastructure and Yeah. Go ahead.

[38:23] I'll go home.

[38:24] [clears throat and laughter]

[38:27] So pension funds with the city for police and fire pension obligations, we fund those mainly through property tax,

[38:36] state income tax, which is local government distributive fund, and um a little bit of personal property

[38:43] replacement, which we refer to as PPRT revenue.

[38:47] So this is going back to 2023 where we started the $9.5 million consistently city contributions that 9 and a half

[38:56] million through the 26 budget and 27 estimate if we go that route. Um there

[39:03] is in the actuary report there's um a determined contribution that the actuary

[39:10] provides for the city to be 100% funded by 2040. And of course the pension boards want us to aim for that. Um so up

[39:19] through 2026 the city is contributing more than the actuary determined contribution for that 100% by 2040.

[39:28] And then the last column is the statutory minimum by the state to be 90% funded by 2040. And those are the

[39:36] minimum um amount dollars that we would have had to contribute. Now 2027 budget is based off

[39:45] the 25 actuary report which is in draft form right now. But right now the numbers look as though it would be a

[39:52] $9.9 million city contribution if we went by what the actuary um determined and about $8 million for the statutory minimum.

[40:03] Do you have the current funding numbers percentages? Is it 55 for police and 62 for fire or are we a little

[40:12] I don't have them written down, but I think we're about 50 I think you're right.

[40:17] 55 for police and 62 for fire. And we've benefited over the last couple of years from the market doing as well as it's

[40:26] been doing. That's not a guarantee given what's going on in the world and how things are moving going forward. And I think it's also important to look at how

[40:34] we compare to our peer communities, which for the most part are in the 80s and 90s. So, this has been a game of

[40:42] catch-up that we've been playing for as long as I've been mayor. Um, and I think it's something that the rating agencies

[40:49] also look at to see how we are doing in terms of meeting this need. Um, so it does have an impact on our AAA bond

[40:58] rating. It also sends an important message to our personnel that we value them and their security of their future

[41:05] retirement. One last piece you see state income tax LGDF. I don't know if you've been hearing what I've been reporting

[41:13] out from the different councils of governments that we are participating in. But the current state budget the governor has um again cut back on LGDF.

[41:24] So, this was originally supposed to be a 10% amount that we received from the income generated by our residents since 2011. They've been taking little slices.

[41:35] They increased it somewhat over the last few years and we made that decision as a group to have that delta definitely go towards trying to bring up our pension

[41:43] funds, but once again giving us a little bit of a challenge. They're now cutting back on the portion that we should be

[41:50] getting. So those funds are less available basically to fill the hole that we've been trying to [laughter] fill.

[41:56] Yeah. So right now um the LGDF it are well statewide the share for

[42:03] municipalities is 6.47 and in the state budget it's proposed at 6.28%.

[42:09] From the 10 from the 10. Well, yeah. It hasn't been 10.

[42:13] It hasn't been 101 since 2011. And we've been fighting for it non-stop. And they're like, "Oh, well."

[42:20] And it's been 6.47 for a while, but now now they're cutting back. So even fewer dollars that should be ours are

[42:27] available to us to put towards our pension fund obligations.

[42:31] And so where do you make up that difference? Property taxes or other revenue sources?

[42:41] I think they accept. Okay. Now, on to debt scenarios.

[42:46] Um, we looked at um a couple different options um proposing that if we were to

[42:54] issue $40 million of debt. We looked at different bond terms um if we issued 15 years, 20 years, or 30 years. Now, the

[43:03] last several um bonds that the city has issued have either been 15 or 20 years

[43:09] um just for reference. So, um as discussed um earlier, if the shorter the

[43:17] bond term, the higher property tax increase we would need in order to be above fund balance target for the

[43:25] roughly the next nine years. Um we're looking at 11% for 15 years, 10% for 20

[43:32] year um bond issue um payback and at 30-year term um but this is from the current 8% to 9%.

[43:43] It's not an additional percent 2% 3%. I think it's also important to note that the last kind of

[43:51] monster [clears throat] debt that we issued was for the water treatment plant renovation which was $35 million and that is a 30-year debt.

[44:00] It is because it was big and it was when was that? Like 20 Well, the project was big. We issued debt um

[44:09] three like three different times. I think it was 10 million, 10 million and 5 million.

[44:13] Right. So, it was a it was but it was a it was a big chunk and it was a while ago. So, think about what we're looking at now compared to that. We again went

[44:21] with the 30-year again to diminish the annual hit to the property tax.

[44:27] And just for the water plant, that is paid out of the water fund, right?

[44:30] Um so that's kind of a self- sustaining fund. We share that cost of debt service. Yes.

[44:37] To some extent, but some of it is still on the property taxes, isn't it? Because it's not for the water. Not for the water. It's all enterprise. Okay.

[44:45] Yep. All enterprise.

[44:49] So [laughter] that's what I have. I think that's what Christie has.

[44:52] Come on. And then the last column is the in the average of um the $500,000 question.

[45:00] Sure. Yep.

[45:01] Quick question. Um when you just showed us the pension stuff, you did that to make sure everybody is aware of what

[45:08] we've been doing. You didn't do that like to present that perhaps we should reconsider what we're contributing, right?

[45:15] No. But it also not yet not yet workshop that'll be when we do our major budget workshop in a few months. But I think it's important

[45:23] to note as we've talked about in the past, we did do an increase in salary and that increase in salary now has to

[45:30] be reflected as we look at our pensions because they're mirroring the increases. Yeah.

[45:36] So it's not like you can just go, well, we've got this covered now. We're looking at an increase liability that needs to be addressed as well. Yes.

[45:44] And that wage and that wage adjustment for public safety was really for parody.

[45:47] I mean, right.

[45:49] But still for transparency, we may have to adjust, but that's something we're going to do at the workshop. We're not talking about doing that.

[45:56] Right. But my whole concern was, you know, it's all in essence an obligation.

[46:02] And how do you meet that obligation without overburdening the residents? And so how do you move forward in a planful

[46:09] way with a project of this magnitude when you have other things that need to also be addressed? Pensions are sort of

[46:17] the driver and then from there we see what we have that's available to continue to move on other projects.

[46:25] So consistent with what we do every year in preparation for our budget and planning workshop in the spring and this year again it's going to be on May 18th.

[46:33] Um, so we'll present a financial report at that meeting and get feedback from the council on our policies, on

[46:41] financial considerations, just making sure that we are um reflecting the policy direction of the mayor and city council. So, we'll talk about property tax, we'll certainly talk about pension.

[46:51] One thing that we just want to make sure the council is aware as we take a look at just different revenue stream options, we do have the ability as a

[46:58] home rule unit to increase our sales tax rate in quarter increments. And so just for reference, for example, if we go uh

[47:08] if we increase it a half percent, and some communities, for example, when they're looking at capital projects, they may say we're going to increase it

[47:16] a half percent for five years, for example, and just put a sunset. So everybody knows it's not you know

[47:22] forever and so um so a half percent estimated for the city is about 2 million in revenue and so

[47:30] annually annually each year right so again over five years additional that would be 10 years of additional revenue that could

[47:38] be dedicated towards a project the other important things we're certainly um sensitive to any kind of taxes on our

[47:46] residents um we use the placer AI data to take a look at on the Route 41 corridor, for example, where the

[47:53] majority of our sales tax revenue is coming from because of car sales. Um, we don't know exactly sales, but we can

[48:01] tell based on zip codes, there's more than 70% of people outside Highland Park that are frequenting that corridor. So,

[48:09] we can break down by sharing that burden outside of Correct. Right. Um, and we can break down by community so you see exactly

[48:17] where people are coming from. But that's just a kind of a good talking point as we look at being sensitive to the impact on our residents. And then consistent with, you know,

[48:25] just one point that would not the way we've drafted the rebate agreements for several of these deals, just you know, that would not be part of what we would rebate.

[48:35] Okay, good. Good to know. Good point.

[48:37] We get 100% of the Quick question in terms of increasing sales tax, how [clears throat] does that

[48:44] affect what we get back through the LGDF? Nothing. LGTF is income tax.

[48:50] Is income tax income that you generate as a community.

[48:54] It's a percentage of the total income. Good question. Question.

[48:59] Um and so consistent with past years, well again we we go through our annual fee resolution. So we want to make sure that we're benchmarked compared to other

[49:07] units that things are fair because again um we do a great job of diversifying our revenue [clears throat] and the majority of our revenue comes from charges for

[49:16] services. people are getting a service and paying for it. So, we're reducing the impact of the property tax and we have seen the effect

[49:25] of that because as the city of Highland Park, our property taxes are our property tax rate is the lowest among the Northshore. So, that's another

[49:33] important talking point. And then um so this slide should look familiar. So, we're asking your policy feedback um on

[49:40] these three topics. Any feedback that you want to give us most critical is getting that um first bullet point. some feedback and then just want to um this

[49:49] slide should look familiar because on February 9th I think it was the committee hall we presented the route 41 bridge consideration. So again just as a

[49:58] reminder in terms of cost 2.4 is rehab versus approximately 10.3 is reconstruction. The 2 million of ITAP

[50:06] funds cannot be used for rehab. Um we've tried but unfortunately that can't be.

[50:11] So the rehab is 100% of city costs that if we go that route when we take a look

[50:18] at just overall um you know service life 25 years compared to 75. The other important element is the existing bridge

[50:27] um the pathway is six feet wide. It's three feet in either direction. Um and

[50:34] so it's not ADA compliant. It's not bicycle friendly. The new path um would be 14 ft. Um, and so that would be

[50:42] greater. It's also obviously a bigger project, so right away acquisition and everything else.

[50:48] But the money for this would be on top of what we're also trying to figure out for public works and the fire station.

[50:58] I looked up the numbers for what the pensions are funded at right now. Police is at 55% and fires at 62. Okay.

[51:05] And that's as of the 24 actuary report. Good. I read your reports every month.

[51:10] [laughter]

[51:12] Andreas and then Tony. Yeah. Can you define not bike friendly?

[51:17] [laughter]

[51:17] Can you define not Can you define not bike not bike friendly?

[51:21] The current bridge because of the uh the width it's recommended you walk the bikes across because it's it's not safe to ride.

[51:29] But even with the rehab, the rehab version would be 10 ft. And so we would create a more bike friendly environment. The brand new bridge would

[51:37] be 14 if we did brand new 14, right? But This says I says not bike friendly, right?

[51:42] I mean, you're saying it's going to be a little more bike friendly.

[51:47] You can walk your bike across and you're saying for the reconstruction you can ride your bike across.

[51:55] Usually I speak loud enough for it doesn't it doesn't matter. But um yeah, I mean I think uh 10 ft is as wide as we can go on the rehab version of this.

[52:03] Um it'll be much approved over the six feet that's currently there. Oh, but why is it not bike? Why is it not bike friendly at 10 feet?

[52:12] I mean, I ride it right now.

[52:14] Fall over, you're still within the 10 ft.

[52:16] I think for safety purposes, we don't want to say that when there isn't sufficient width if people are walking with their families and kids drain in the middle, right?

[52:24] We would remove the drain in the middle.

[52:26] So, if you think typical sidewalk square is 5T, so if you said a 5ft width, 5 foot width, uh you'd have two lanes of

[52:34] traffic there. Mixed paths are usually at least 8 ft. I was going to say the new one that was put in on I thought was 8t. Yeah, 8 foot mixed use path.

[52:42] All right. So, that seems to be okay for ground level. I Okay. On I mean, I'm not comfortable calling it not friendly. I mean, if we're spending

[52:51] $2.5 million on rehab, it's maybe it's bike okay [laughter] or not bike. I don't know.

[53:01] Right. It's not bike fabulous but bike okay or whatever.

[53:05] [laughter]

[53:06] Think about it, right? $200 million, but it's not bike friendly. Yeah. Doesn't make sense. Take it out. Take it out.

[53:11] Okay. We can Well, I mean, there's a reason why that's there. So, I mean, if it's if we're not going to, as the city manager said, you can't call it a bike friendly if it's not meeting the current

[53:19] standards, which will be 14T foot bridge deck. Uh, be a wider environment.

[53:23] Someone someone could ride a bike while someone's pushing a stroller next to it if you're in a situation where you have to get off your bike while somebody's coming across. So, that that that

[53:31] creates a a not bike friendly environment. Uh because but even on your eightfooter at ground level you're not you don't have that

[53:38] width. So I'm not quite sure you have trapped in between these two things.

[53:43] I see what you're saying. You can go on the grass. Um Tony and then Verissa. I I will just say the the statement not bicycle friendly appears to be an industry term.

[53:53] Is that a term of art?

[53:54] And that's why you've included it on the slide. I think the reality is that you can ride a bicycle on a bridge. Um my

[54:02] question is [cough] when you say the [clears throat] reconstruction is approximately $10.3 million to get a $2 million federal grant and there's an

[54:10] additional 100 to $500,000 for lighting and aesthetics. Uh first of all, are you saying there's an additional $100 to $500,000 cost on top of the 10.3?

[54:21] So now it's 10.8 potentially potentially it will depend on what the what we decide we want it to look like.

[54:27] If we said, "Okay, we're going to go for the full reconstruction of the of the bridge." We have a bunch of aesthetic elements that we can incorporate that would make it I see.

[54:35] City of Highland Park with our logo, you know, is a nice kind of [cough] element that would be aesthetic lighting. You don't have to have lighting. I'll paint you a poster. Go ahead.

[54:44] Oh, sorry.

[54:44] I was just going to say, but the $2 million federal high tech fund grant, does that bring the approximate cost down to about $8.3 million for the city?

[54:55] That is correct. Okay.

[54:59] Doesn't really change my mind. But just want to be clear for clarity. Sure. Really?

[55:04] And my my question is just the not ADA compliant part of it. Um versus [cough]

[55:10] I mean obviously I'm in favor of the 2.4 rehabilitation, but I just wanted to know why it's not ADA compliant.

[55:18] Uh because the the current grades uh of the current bridge, those would remain and so those would stay too steep. too steep for current

[55:26] standards. If you the we don't have a picture of the the full bridge, the the proposed bridge, but yes, you can see the big blind and it kind of really stretches out and that's because they

[55:35] can slowly make that grade uh to meet the ADA complian. This one will not have that. It'll be the same grade. Okay. Yumi and then Andreas.

[55:42] Um yeah, thank you. Oh, sorry.

[55:47] Yumi and then uh thank you. Uh have a seat. 14

[55:55] feet is really too wide. Um yeah, really that's a big

[56:02] really wide. Um, and my question is, could um rehabilitation include

[56:12] um redesigning the uh redesigning the the rail to, you

[56:20] know, or or you just replacing the the fencing that was Well, I'm looking Isn't Isn't this uh

[56:28] uh I'm I'm trying to remember because I don't use it often, but I have family members Right. it it uh uh you know

[56:37] could you could it could it be could could there be subtle design changes made to it to make the bridge um you

[56:45] know sort of a little I mean it would be our project so we could add what it's going to cost

[56:52] you just can't change the structure the width the slope that that'll right the slope will remain the the the way

[57:01] that the center drain if you're familiar with the center drain that's there. Now, I apologize. We the previous presentation and all the pictures and everything, but uh the center drain

[57:08] would be gone. We would remove that deck. The the the parapit or the the walls would be removed. There'd be a new we would widen it 10 as wide as we can

[57:17] go on those existing pillars because that's we're building on.

[57:19] So, you could you could be replacing those. So, in theory, it actually could be less expensive to do

[57:27] possibly. uh what I'm thinking, but I I it's just it will be part of the the the redesign, the rehab. Yeah. Rehab rehab. Okay.

[57:35] And I do want to also say that I have a uh sort of extended family member, my

[57:43] sister-in-law's mother, who who lives in view of of of of the bridge, who who says that she sees people using it all day long. Um

[57:51] uh the the um yeah I I um I it's interesting because I

[57:58] my originally a little bit hoped you know that maybe we you know re rebuild

[58:04] it but I think um you know 14T is just huge and unnecessary. Um 10 feet seems fine to me.

[58:14] Okay.

[58:15] Um and and I I I think that uh you know it's It's a good size bridge. Uh that's all I

[58:24] wanted. And just I that one little piece of of if you're the railing the railing. I I think we could do a nicer job. [cough and clears throat]

[58:32] Annette and then Andreas and then we'll wrap.

[58:34] So um the only thing I wanted to bring up I was in favor of the 2.4 all along.

[58:40] I don't like the fact obviously it won't be AAA compliant but this is just huge for us and I really feel it has to be

[58:48] done and the sooner the better. So my question was one of the things that came up and I'm really glad John walked in right now was we [clears throat] were

[58:56] speaking about the funding and the way the money would work and [clears throat] over time because it was going to have a

[59:03] 75 year life versus at one point we said 20 years now we're up to 25 it was actually someone said the word cheaper

[59:12] when we were talking about it now to me because I'm you know I see 2.4 and I see 10.8 eight because that's really what

[59:20] we're talking about in terms of concrete terms. How is this is this cheaper is my point.

[59:27] Not only in whole numbers of 2.4 but because of last time's discussion is this cheaper or was the were the arguments that were made last time.

[59:37] So there's the amortization and the depreciation that gets included in that calculus. But I think the important

[59:45] piece is how we began this whole conversation and that is what are the externalities that are impacting the economy currently. What are the

[59:53] absolutely critical obligations that we have in terms of pension fund liabilities? What did we just look at?

[1:00:00] What are we trying to achieve in terms of what's needed at the fire station and at the public works building? And how much of a burden are you going to place

[1:00:08] on your citizenry? You could argue all it's kind of it's kind of like stereo speakers, right? There's always going to

[1:00:15] be a better stereo speaker and it might last you longer and the sound will be better, but can you afford them right now or is this going to get you what

[1:00:24] you're trying to achieve and maybe down the road there's a better answer to it?

[1:00:29] I just feel like at the moment I see you at the moment. I'm just so concerned about overburdening our residents with a

[1:00:38] property tax increase that we already know we need to do for the pension funds. We already saw what we need to do

[1:00:45] for the fire department and for the public works department. How much more do you want to layer on and increase the costs to the people?

[1:00:54] I just wanted to understand the comments that were made last time because I I it's just too much money period. The

[1:01:01] other thing I really want to commend our city manager because I pushed very hard about the county and the county being a

[1:01:09] part of this and taking the $2 million that they really don't know what they're going to do with it and bring it over to this project.

[1:01:16] And they were just like and they said, "No, thank you. We're not doing like we're just going to throw a whole new bike lane down Lake Cook Road,

[1:01:23] narrow Lake Cook Road, and we can't give you any money for the bridge." Yeah, that was so I just want to say thank you to staff for doing that. But I also I would never give up on any funding resource.

[1:01:33] [clears throat]

[1:01:34] Yeah.

[1:01:34] And so if there's any way we can still be in touch with our uh compatriots over there, I think we should continue to do that.

[1:01:41] You had a comment or did you already make your comment?

[1:01:44] Okay. Andre, you mean? And then we're going to wrap up. Yeah. The not ADA compliant, you know.

[1:01:50] So from an inclusion perspective, when you hit [clears throat] a dilemma like this, right, that's not a good bullet either. Not ADA compliant.

[1:01:57] Not at all. So but we we recognize that we have this huge difference and we got to look at the multiple things. So that

[1:02:05] I think gives makes us obligated to then say okay the bridge is not ADA compliant

[1:02:12] but we still have to be inclusive to help people with some form of disabilities or whatever to get across 41 on a regular basis.

[1:02:22] So we should not just say well you know we couldn't afford it. We'd like, well, if they can't use the bridge for these, how else can we how else can we get them over there? And

[1:02:31] a conversation we had with I had with the mayor is, you know, now, especially with the CCHI building over there and this ketch on the other side. Yeah.

[1:02:40] Well, they can't in the summer, they ride bikes, but if we can't make it ADA compliant there, how can we then look at an alternative like increasing the number

[1:02:49] of shuttle um access, right, using our shuttle?

[1:02:52] So, we provide an alternative, right? That's an accommodation, right? I'm so glad you brought that up.

[1:02:57] And that should be part of the conversation.

[1:02:59] I agree. Absolutely. You mean or commitment to that.

[1:03:02] Um my question is if we're it's presented as a eitheror here, um if if

[1:03:09] you were to rebuild the bridge and and I still at this point favor the the $2.5 million version given all the expenses

[1:03:18] we have. Um, but if you were, you know, to Council Member Rder's point about the 75 years of uh, service life, you know,

[1:03:27] if you were rebuild it, but it is um, you know, a a narrower

[1:03:34] uh, less expensive bridge. Um, you we wouldn't, you know, is is there a way to rebuild it for

[1:03:42] less? for less where I mean we're tied to the 14 ft because [clears throat] I assume it's a bit like I do where you either you know conform to our warrants or or you don't get the money.

[1:03:54] Um but so that's my question.

[1:03:56] I don't know that you can build something new that's not ADA component you can rehab. Oh that's true.

[1:04:01] So it's the entire that that is true. You can't that Yeah.

[1:04:06] Yeah. Um, I want us to kind of get to a decision point because we got to wrap up and grab dinner and then have our

[1:04:12] meeting at 8:00. Are people comfortable doing the 2.4? That's the consensus that I'm hearing. Yes.

[1:04:19] And and I agree with you, Andreas, in terms of what else can we do in terms of the shuttle and how can we make it easier for people to get around if they can't use the bridge

[1:04:27] and please a slightly nicer looking bridge if we can.

[1:04:30] Sounds like we're heading in that direction.

[1:04:32] I would just say with the 88 compliance that that's very important. um also work with other organizations that can maybe look at other alternative

[1:04:39] right are there synergies in terms of others who might have Yes. real quick.

[1:04:43] Um, I know we're not in the design phase at all of this, but and we've talked about the fact that this is a gateway to Iowa Park. So, I think whatever way

[1:04:51] you don't want my hand painted poster saying welcome to H.

[1:04:54] I think we got we do need to invest something in the aesthetic look there. Absolutely.

[1:05:00] So, let's get Wait a quick minute. Just the point is that you could change the the um the slope if if if you built a new bridge. I

[1:05:10] mean it wouldn't that be enough to I think based on what he's saying with the pilings being at the angles that they're at you kind of have to work with

[1:05:18] what you've got and it's the bridge deck that would be replaced. That is correct, ma'am.

[1:05:24] Okay. Um you had did you you I don't think the other questions can be answered at this point.

[1:05:30] Yeah. If there's other feedback I mean we're preparing for the April or for the May 18th workshop. um if there's feedback and then we have a good conversation um as part of the tour.

[1:05:40] Right. So, right. Okay. Great. Did you have questions then?

[1:05:43] Well, it was how much debt are you comfortable with? And I don't think we have the answer to that question yet.

[1:05:48] And other revenue options we also need to talk about, I think, but we have more information, but at least the bridge question [laughter] has been answered.

[1:05:56] Um so with that, I'm seeking a motion to adjurnn this committee the whole second. All in favor say I. I. Thanks so much.

[1:06:04] And our council meeting will start at 8.