Committee of the Whole Meeting 09/14/2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HgNr4Pl3fI
Automatic captions; not audio-verified.

[4:16] this committee of the whole meeting for the city of Highland Park City Council to order. Um it's September 14th, 2026.

[4:24] Will the clerk please call?

[4:25] Council member center present. Council member Barkman here. Council member Ross here. Council member Tapia. Council member Lure here.

[4:32] Council member Bloomberg. Mayor Ro here. We have a quorum. Um, may I have a motion to approve the minutes of the consolidated meeting of the committee of

[4:40] the whole that is held August 14th, 2026? Some move. Second. All in favor say I. I.

[4:46] I. Council member Tapia has arrived, Ashley. Um, thank you. And I will say present as I was not here, but thank

[4:54] you. Um, our scheduled business tonight, we have two items. Place of remembrance budget review. Thank you, city manager.

[5:02] Great. Thank you, Mayor Rotary. Good evening, everybody. Um the first item is um the place of remembrance design review. As the council certainly knows,

[5:11] we have been working with our consultant team on um the proposed design for the place of remembrance which is at the

[5:18] Rose Garden adjacent to city hall. Um we have a staff report that's included in the packet and um we are seeking the

[5:24] council feedback this evening on the um the budget for the place of remembrance

[5:32] specifically at the Rose Garden. Um so included in the packet and we provide to the city council [clears throat] information about various design

[5:40] parameters and whether or not they should be included um as part of the overall design structure and for budget management purposes. So I'm going to

[5:48] introduce Emily Tob, assistant city manager, who's going to walk through um this PowerPoint presentation and again we're looking for your feedback and then

[5:56] we'll continue to coordinate with the design consultants and then put the project um certainly out to bid and keep the public apprised as well.

[6:07] Well, mayor and council, we just wanted to again provide as city manager Newkerk said, there was a comprehensive staff report which had much of the background

[6:15] and the history of the project and the PL related to the place of remembrance.

[6:20] So really we're focusing on these two items tonight where the we're looking for policy direction on inclusion of the

[6:28] water feature as it informs the design and then information about dis or direction on disposition of the sundial bench that is currently in the space.

[6:38] So again though we did talk about this at the last committee the whole meeting really wanted to [snorts] look provide a refresher on what these the renderings

[6:47] look like with and without the water features. So there are two water features in the current design. One at

[6:54] the council ring space and then a remembrance loop that is the [snorts] bigger loop. Now we do believe this

[7:02] design though this is how it was envisioned has design integrity and really focus without the water features

[7:09] as well. So again, this is the renderings of both some in a summer and a fall rendering or an autumn and a um

[7:17] summer rendering for both without the water features as well.

[7:24] So again, as we've provided estimates and updates throughout this entire process, the design, the current estimate is with both water features is

[7:34] a $3.257 257 million which is the construction estimate for the Rose Garden. The staff report [clears throat]

[7:41] contained background information on the consultant fees that has that that was included as far as the

[7:48] comprehensive budget that included those consultant fees is the history of it.

[7:53] But this is just the construction budget. So we really wanted to take you through what that impact would be to remove the water features.

[8:02] So um as we discussed these water features, they really were primarily driven by the design and again by recommendations as we move forward.

[8:13] However, we did look at al alternative options such as a smooth marble and information, but really as far as

[8:21] inclusion of those that it the water feature really was recommended for the sensory experience included the audio

[8:30] and the full sensory experience. So replacing with just the visual of some kind of a smooth marble is not a

[8:37] recommended approach to if so if we were to remove the water features we do recommend doing that without the

[8:44] inclusion of such of kind of a marble it would be more we would recommend either including the water or without the water.

[8:54] [snorts]

[8:55] We also have been working with our consultant team, the designer and the construction manager to value engineer

[9:02] wherever possible in other places of the project. So we've for example we've looked at included in the report was

[9:09] information on same benches and looking at um different options for those benches including going from a fully

[9:17] custom bench to a um fully fab not fully but a [clears throat] prefab bench that so we're looking at

[9:25] those type of options whenever we can to reduce the impact of different options in there. However, again, those primary

[9:33] budgetary features is that water feature. So, there's really two ways to look at it there. We could remove the council ring. We could remove the

[9:41] remembrance loop. We could also reduce the remembrance loop to just water at one end, but that does not have the same

[9:48] significant budgetary impact. So, again, with no water features at all, we'd be looking at a $738,000

[9:56] approximate reduction in the budget. And with just removing the council ring, it's about a $600,000.

[10:04] I'm sorry, the council ring only, removing the remembrance loop, that would be about a $611,000 reduction.

[10:13] And that remembrance um loop is um keeping the council ring only is about $127,000.

[10:22] I'm sorry, reversing that. So again, we just wanted to provide that and look for your feedback as far as whether you'd like the inclusion these water features included.

[10:32] Emily, can you go back to the slide that shows the image and then just make sure everyone knows the definition of what the council ring is on the

[10:39] So the council ring is the smaller piece where the Can you show it? I can just point to it.

[10:45] [cough]

[10:53] I can try though. I'm not tall enough to make the top of That's the castle. Okay.

[10:58] This the council ring is the smaller section up here. I didn't.

[11:03] And then the remembrance loop is this bigger piece right here. And when we're talking about reducing the remembrance loop to only at the end, it would leave

[11:11] just this section and remove the entire loop all the way through.

[11:17] And the end where you would have it is where the names correct would be. So that would be probably no pun intended but the place for deepest reflection.

[11:27] Yes.

[11:28] And would be where the meaningful inclusion of the water would be at that at that end as well would be the end being

[11:37] this bottom the closest this bottom piece right. Okay. Where the water would be.

[11:42] Yeah. This [clears throat] is where the names. So it wouldn't flow the total circumference. It would just be a still pool at the bottom.

[11:50] However, inclusion of any water does require the water infrastructure including the water vaults and all the infrastructure to make that happen.

[11:59] Which is why just having just keeping the small loop does not have that a significant budgetary impact because you

[12:08] still do need the piece of the infrastructure for the water.

[12:11] [clears throat] And the council ring is more to echo the Jensen Jensen elements that are at the Rose Garden at the moment and throughout Highland Park. So

[12:20] that's the council ring significance. So if we didn't have the council ring with water in the middle, would we then just

[12:28] have the Jensen Jensen piece in there or what would you bench which we now know is has no

[12:37] prominence as my reading was that it's just it's been referred to but I think it came in after all of this. That's like a separate conversation.

[12:46] Yeah.

[12:46] And we can certainly have that conversation. I think right now we have to focus on water, no water, right? But I'm asking if we didn't do water there, you would have something.

[12:55] That's what I'm asking, right? Although we Oh, Erica, I'm calling you. [laughter] Um, as chair of historic preservation,

[13:03] there are council rings that are just rings and not necessarily something in the middle. At Jez Jensen Park, there's the big boulder and the water and the ring, right?

[13:13] But then in other landscapes that he did, there's just the ring. Am I correct?

[13:18] Yes. It's just stone. Yeah, right. And years later, it still looks great. Yeah.

[13:25] Which is a question I have. Thank you. That's my question. Okay.

[13:33] So, can you go back to the the table with the dollar amounts? Oh, sorry. Please. Thank you.

[13:43] So, I'm going to push for water somewhere. I have heard from so many people and I know in our survey of the

[13:49] community that was a a critical part of the design um and in the years that we've been talking about this

[13:58] everywhere I've gone I'm sort of like what is the impact of water I think there are ways to do it I appreciate

[14:06] these numbers I'm not sure how accurate they are and with the value engineering conversation it sounds like they are going to be revisiting these numbers if

[14:14] I remember or I brought as the design continues as we will get more numbers as it goes out to bid but

[14:23] these are the construction the initial construction manager estimates. So they are based on conversations with the

[14:31] water feature consultants. So there there certainly was some discussion with some consultants to inform these numbers.

[14:40] Right. And I think there's a huge difference between a pool and something involving pumps. Um, if you're not flowing, but rather sitting, there's

[14:49] still some movement. But the comparison to the Revinia fountain was completely inaccurate. The Dolores Cole Kaplan one

[14:56] with the the Bellagio pumps, that's vastly different from anything that's going to be put in at this place. So, in terms of maintenance and costs of

[15:05] repair, there obviously is some maintenance, but I think it's worth having. Um, and it would likely be

[15:13] filled what 6 months out of the year and then we would have it not be in the wintertime so as to protect the infrastructure.

[15:22] The the full water feature though is is comparable to maintaining a pool. Um, so we're looking at like weekly

[15:29] maintenance. Um, and then, you know, and then further pump maintenance and things like that. So, so just so we're clear in terms of

[15:37] um, but let's be honest, weekly maintenance would probably be scooping leaves out.

[15:43] Um, well, it's Yeah, I mean, it's doing different things. It's checking the pump, the filter, maintaining it. Yeah.

[15:50] But by a by a pool consultant or I guess a water consultant, there would be. Yes. Then that you also

[15:57] have to um test and adjust the chemicals on a weekly basis. They equated it to having a pool. Mhm. Okay.

[16:04] Yeah.

[16:08] John, couple questions. The 3257 includes both water features currently. Is that correct?

[16:16] Correct.

[16:17] Okay. Um I mean right we're trying to manage and reconcile

[16:25] forces that are against each other in terms of budget meaningfulness right what the community wants etc. Um

[16:36] for me I agree with the mayor's comments that some water feature is meaningful.

[16:41] We've been hearing that from the community. I think some subset of us feel the same way

[16:48] to me. Understanding as well that these impacts are

[16:56] uh not yet fully flushed out. The order of magnitude is probably somewhat close.

[17:05] And the most sort of prudent, cost-effective way to still have a water feature is by doing the console ring

[17:12] only, which frees up $600,000 plus thereabout um for either cost overruns and other

[17:21] elements of this project, or to effectively plan and execute the

[17:29] secondary place of remembrance and think through how to appropriately tie in the design that we are doing here with what we're ultimately going to do in Port

[17:38] London. So with that all said, I am in favor of the council ring only to get the important water feature which is a

[17:46] more cost reasonable method to getting that in there and uh

[17:54] with the understanding that there's you know other elements of this project that we have not fully thought through yet. Thank you.

[18:01] Thank you. Um, I'm going to call in council members and then I want to hear from council member.

[18:06] Yeah, I actually going to echo council member centers's um thought process. I I think it's very important to listen to

[18:15] the community and the water element is very important. I mean, of course, a full water element is very attractive,

[18:23] the most attractive of them all, but the cost order magnitude is pretty significant.

[18:29] [snorts]

[18:29] So I also go for the where there is water but with the biggest savings which

[18:36] would be uh you know only the council rate. Thank you.

[18:41] Yeah. And and I would also add I still have concerns about the maintenance. Uh nothing sadder than a water feature that

[18:48] doesn't work and this has to last for a very long time. It has to be maintained on a regular basis. Make it through harsh winters every year after year

[18:57] after year after year. So I'm not making the argument against the water feature. Mhm.

[19:02] But I want it on the record that we really if we're going to go there, we have to really understand the maintenance cost, right?

[19:11] Uh really, right?

[19:12] Because that's going to it's not just we might save 611,000, but how much cumulative expense there will be on the

[19:20] maintenance of that? We have to take that into account, right? And of course there will also be maintenance of the entire site. So proportionately, I [clears throat] don't

[19:28] know where that lies in terms of the [snorts] entire situation.

[19:31] Um, so I'll start with my I did have a question about if there was a realistic number um for how much the maintenance would be if it really is the 20 to

[19:39] 60,000 a year that was in the report or if that's off. Um and then another question I had on the maintenance was is

[19:48] it going to be public works um department that's going to be maintaining it if it's like 100 to 200 [clears throat and cough] hours of labor

[19:55] a season. I just because I know there also have so much else going on. So I was curious who would be maintaining the answer.

[20:03] So we would be looking at having um a contractor do the overall maintenance both of for a water feature as well as

[20:11] with the property maintenance. And then we it would be um managed by our public works department and then we would have our staff fill in as needed.

[20:20] Okay.

[20:20] Um so and those costs we're still refining those costs and what they would be but it really depends on kind of the scope of the project as well. Okay.

[20:28] Understand.

[20:29] Okay. That's helpful. Um and I I'm also in favor of water feature um in terms of

[20:37] um you know whether we do not necessarily the whole water feature. I think that's is a lot to spend even though but I do think that some portion

[20:45] um should be included. Um but then I also looked at you know like it was mentioned by um council member center

[20:53] about Fort Clinton and I know we have an estimate on that. They set aside like 200,000 but we also don't know that cost

[21:00] with the installation. So I think that's also a piece that has to be flushed out as well. Absolutely. Absolutely. Ross.

[21:08] Uh sure. Thank you, mayor. Um, yeah, I I um I sort of repeating what I said the last

[21:17] time we were in committee of the whole um I didn't see how [clears throat] the the uh remembrance loop, I guess, is

[21:26] what we're calling it. Um added to the design. It didn't speak to me. It didn't it didn't,

[21:34] you know, I I I just felt like it was just an add-on. didn't feel like it was contributing. Um, and I'm very hesitant

[21:45] about the, you know, about a water feature just because of, you know, the the

[21:53] maintenance and the cost. Um, but I also hear the comment about a water feature

[22:01] being important to community in the survey, I guess. And um I I'm I'm willing to, you

[22:10] know, still consider it at the council ring only, but I could also be convinced

[22:16] to, you know, not not have it. I uh I mean, you know, I'm willing to to to

[22:24] still look at it. I I do agree that we have to take into account all of the costs um that we're going to incur. And

[22:33] also, maybe this probably isn't the moment for it, but I can throw it in here anyway, that I I do feel, and some

[22:43] point I'd like to discuss it, that there should be a a complimentary sculpture uh

[22:49] to the Portland uh square piece that in dialogue with with uh the the Rose

[22:57] Garden. Um I think we all have sort of come on board. So that that that's a piece that I feel like is is going to be an

[23:04] additional cost and um I I think that is for me just a really important feature that you the these these two places dialogue with one another.

[23:15] Absolutely. Yeah.

[23:17] Through the sculpture I think is the most reasonable way to do that. Thank you.

[23:22] Okay. Okay. Well, um I actually let me say what she said, but in any event, in many ways, I think we can't

[23:31] have it all. And um frankly, every time I read through our explanation and

[23:38] history of all of this, um we say we we considered $2 million and then that we raised it to $2.5 million. Actually, I

[23:46] recall very clearly this group saying we should be able to do it for under two million. and talking about the figure of $1.5 million

[23:55] and I remember us heading up to three million so I think we can debate that but I I just I don't think we bring that

[24:02] up and I do we do we are looking at three right now but we are not at all discussing the other realm which I do

[24:11] think was our starting point and actually when we went up to two and two and a half we also pulled it back a little bit so I really feel I have to

[24:19] bring that up and I also feel because of those limitations, we're not going to get everything we want. And as much as

[24:26] I'd like to do it, I I I feel like there's a very good feeling about it when I see the Can you bring up the

[24:34] picture again? The trees and the stone really um are kind of coming together.

[24:41] And I know this is the beginning of a draft of a proposal and I'm sure there will be a lot more, but it's one thing

[24:48] if we have the full water. I do think it ties in, but just to have something

[24:54] stuck up there so we can appease and have something. It doesn't speak to me that it all congeals. It's sort of like,

[25:02] okay, we'll throw in that piece and we'll throw in this piece. Some people wanted that and I I'm not for a minute downplaying their desires, but I don't

[25:11] think we can have it all. And I would rather do it well with what we can and I do think that based on where we live and

[25:18] our climate coupled [clears throat] with the great expense that this is, I would rather

[25:25] us do it better then. So, I'm not completely closed to having the small water portion, but I'm definitely

[25:32] leaning away from having it because I don't think it fits in with it. And as

[25:39] just the small green and additionally, um I want these two areas to have a

[25:46] tiein and uh I I think there are additional costs coming down the pike. I think I'm not questioning for a minute

[25:55] the costs the the numbers that are up here. I think we asked staff to go back and find out what it's going to cost to do this. So, I'm going to rely on the

[26:03] fact that you checked it out. And that's why we know it's 3/4 of a million dollars to have this water feature in

[26:10] there. And that's 34 of a million that actually brings us almost in without the maintenance. and and that I really would

[26:18] have liked to see because full maintenance is not simply cleaning up.

[26:23] And in our climate, there are always going to be additional things I think that go wrong with water. It's hard and it's expensive. And I love a water

[26:32] feature. I mean, I have my little plug-in because I love a water feature.

[26:37] So I don't disagree, but I I would like it to be cohesive both as one a

[26:44] freestanding and as a part of whatever we do in Port Clinton. And we are not putting in water in Port Clinton. And

[26:53] and so if we're putting in some How do you know?

[26:57] Well, there you go. Um and if someone wants to donate an extra million or so to us, I think that's wonderful. But

[27:03] frankly, I think that, you know, we did, you did a wonderful survey of all these other communities and the range of prices of these things.

[27:12] And I'm not sure we have to spend $3 and a4 million. And again, that's without maintenance and it's without everything we need in Portland. I think we're

[27:20] looking at $3.5 million here. And it's not to say that you can't put a price on

[27:27] this. So, I would just like it to work and work well. And in the same way as you advise us that if we can't do water,

[27:35] don't try to pretend with something that mirrors water.

[27:39] Yeah, that's, you know, it just I don't want to say it's tacky cuz I know that wasn't the intention, but it's almost like I feel like we're throwing in a a dab of water

[27:48] so we can check that off our list rather than having this a place that maybe we just we just sit. Actually, Yui had her

[27:56] hand up in the Yeah. I mean, I I guess I'm a little concerned, too, that um I mean, it could both be,

[28:04] you know, I see two sides of the the coin on the the council ring water feature [clears throat] that it it could be, you know,

[28:12] something, you know, lovely that you discover at the back, but at at at the same time, you know, I I don't know that

[28:20] it's going to get a huge number of visitors. Um and that that it it's it's

[28:28] it's so far in the back that is it uh what do you call um your return on

[28:37] investment? I mean just in terms of you know people really experiencing it it's it's at the back. So that's a a little

[28:44] concern to me. And also uh the like you said uh your consultant said that it's like maintaining a pool and and that goes for the the council ring piece too.

[28:55] Was it more more the overall scope of the water features or was it it once you

[29:02] reduce down to the council ring is it is it a lot easier to maintain? Probably not. the numbers.

[29:09] No, you still do need to have the cons the um or we need to have the contractor come out on a weekly basis for one water

[29:19] whether it was one water feature or two, you would still need to have someone come out to do that maintenance. And just to clarify, the council ring is is at on the western side. So the St.

[29:31] John's side is so it's it's closer to the entrance as you were to come into the site. You'd actually you'd come upon

[29:39] the council ring first before you went to the pool area.

[29:43] The the council ring is at the beginning of your I'm sorry I'm getting very I I I'm embarrassed.

[29:51] Do you mind if we hear from Erica who Yeah. Could could is that okay?

[29:59] Erica feel free to jump.

[30:02] I'm sorry. So, I wanted to bring you stepping up because the camera's behind you and the microphone stand.

[30:19] Hi, I'm Erica Weider. Thanks for letting me speak. I would like I'm on the Historic Preservation Commission. I'd like to sort of re [clears throat]

[30:29] represent what's what's there. What's there right now is a historically landmarked rose garden which has definitely seen better days and we've

[30:36] been reassured that there will be the kind of roses in this new you know an echo of the roses that's going to be how it's represented. I would like to

[30:45] respectfully suggest is that the the mark on the land that is the existing

[30:52] uh water [clears throat] it's a an existing pool the round mark where it used to be a fountain

[31:00] where it used to be a fountain that that is worth restoring and I think that I don't know how the process I know you've been speaking to lots of you taking the

[31:09] prices apart and if you ask a contractor to build around thing, you're going to get a a different price than perhaps restoring a the existing round thing.

[31:21] And that mark is significant. That mark is is is landmarked. And it's from Jensen, you know, it's from a design by Jensen's son-in-law.

[31:32] Can we have a both? And can we have that mark be the echo of of of a landmark

[31:38] that's part of the the past and also serve as a as a significant mark moving

[31:46] forward into this this place. The other thing I'd like to say which I I sort of snarly said about the the gems walls, a

[31:55] stone wall will look wonderful. It will age. It will patina. It looks great a 100 years from now. I don't know if the

[32:03] bench is prefab or or built built as mill work. It ain't going to look wonderful in 100 years.

[32:12] It ain't.

[32:15] Can you point out where that the current Well, I don't know because I've never I've never asked. We haven't done the overlay. See an overlay, but it's close.

[32:22] It is close. I'm sorry. Close to what?

[32:25] Where it currently is. If if we had an overhead view and we think of that um that this you enter from St. John's sort

[32:34] of the uphill end on access with mostly on access with the the middle of this

[32:41] building is a mark that is that existing pool that the So it it's pretty close.

[32:49] Mhm. Yeah.

[32:50] It was intentionally designed to echo where the council ran. So there so we already own one. We don't need to build a new one.

[32:58] Right. Right. Right.

[33:00] And it's it's it's ours and it's real and it has significance because we landmarked it. Right. Right. Sure.

[33:07] Thank you. Thank you. Okay.

[33:09] Yeah. So can you go back to the price table, please? Of course.

[33:15] uh you know in respect to uh council member Little you know her concern that it might be a dab of water you know a

[33:23] concern that it might be too symbolic to too too performative if you say would you agree I mean [clears throat] I

[33:29] I don't it's hard for me to gauge but when we those looked at the plants more

[33:36] carefully would it look like a dab wire or would it look like something meaningful not the whole thing but

[33:44] something that you can interact with. I just want to make sure is that an issue or not?

[33:47] It's not an issue and the people who have been designing this have designed other places of remembrance

[33:54] and have been taking the community input into mind when they design this and

[34:01] continue to be very sensitive to what we're trying to achieve and how we're trying to get there. So the sense is

[34:10] that if it's reduced to just that it can still absolutely being okay I just want to put that on the table and

[34:17] and I want and I want to be really clear they have it's not just design they have this whole interactive social work

[34:27] communication with people who were impacted like they're bringing a lot of substance to these conversations. Um, and that's why they got to this point

[34:35] where they were like, "Okay, we hear you. We may not be able to do everything that was discussed. Here's how we still try to get you what you want."

[34:44] Okay. And then the second point I want to make is, you know, obviously the costs are [snorts] concerning. We have to look ahead to other costs, which

[34:52] there always will be, but I think that the counselor only brings down the the

[34:58] price from 3.25 25 by $600,000 which is a pretty significant drop and we still get a water feature. So as we

[35:07] navigate the dilemma I to me it sounds like a pretty good way to manage dilemma where we still get a significant drop

[35:13] under now we're at 2.4 2.6 right 2.6ish tickish, which is under three, which is sort of starts to take your breath away a little

[35:22] bit. And and we still can get a water feature that we declared or the community has declared is important.

[35:29] And remember, we do have a million and change from donation that we've received. Is it 1 million and then

[35:38] 75,000? Correct. Okay. Yeah. So, we minus So, you can take that off of the current estimate. Now, now you start getting into a million something, right?

[35:48] Which okay. It starts to feel kind of gets us into the original ballpark that council member Little mentioned, right?

[35:58] Any other members of the audience want to comment on this? I know you're here for interacting and you come to our working group meetings. We don't usually

[36:04] have participation at Korea the whole, but I value what you have to say given your participation over the past year plus. Sure.

[36:14] I'll just, you know, say that um personally I'm different to the water.

[36:21] um what council Ross was saying about the sculpture and tying in

[36:29] um that to me is the more important piece because I thought from the working group one of the most important things was

[36:37] uh being able to go to the Rose Garden, being able to go to Port Clinton and feeling and feeling there's some connection

[36:44] somehow. Um, and you know, I thought along it was a little surprised that that piece of art, whatever that might

[36:51] be, wasn't being initially discussed for the Rose Garden to tie that in once it was determined that it was a sculpture

[36:59] in Fort Clinton. So to me, I feel like you could do something with whatever that piece of art is

[37:07] to almost make it the focal point of the rose garden because half of the year it

[37:15] could look so much dreary when the flowers aren't blooming and you know just based on the climate that you would have a beautiful piece of art

[37:23] as the focal point. So I think based on the financial constraints and everything, it would seem to make sense

[37:30] to me that what you're discussing reducing by 600,000 it gives you a little bit of play for that additional piece of art and to potentially tie in.

[37:40] So I think you're in my mind, you know, if you're getting that other piece of art, you you you certainly hit the nail on that.

[37:49] Okay. Good. Anything? Okay.

[37:54] I had a question for cheerleaders. Is that okay? Erica, we need you again.

[37:58] Can I ask you a quick question? When you made this presentation about restoring basically the circle, which I love that,

[38:07] did you envision that it had to be water in there? Or for example, if we had a

[38:14] piece of art in there that then was mirrored at Port Clinton so that all year there is something that's the focal point in the ring.

[38:24] But in in your vision in terms of restoration, in my experience, it's going to be more

[38:31] successful getting people to love water than it is to get people to love the same sculpture.

[38:36] Okay, that's helpful. Okay. So that that's good.

[38:41] Um if I may Oh, just one other thing and again I uh forgive me I did not get a lot of sleep

[38:50] last night. I'm not feeling my best. the the the if uh if

[38:57] we go with a water feature, but in in the council ring and decide,

[39:04] you know, I guess I want to think about if if if we just we or a future council decides that it it isn't practical, you

[39:13] know, to keep water there that that it be designed in a way that, you know, it it look good

[39:21] without water, right?

[39:23] And and because it it could be that a a different council has different priorities for how they and and uh it

[39:31] turns out that it's not the most sustainable thing for us. Um it it should look good regardless.

[39:40] Um so Chair Reer had um brought up kind of the aerial view. So this is from our GIS map just so you can see. And so for

[39:47] our next presentation on this um topic, we can do an overlay that was referenced. So just so you can see what the current design is and how it would

[39:55] align with the current footprint of the uh property. Um so one will provide you that. I know we're still working on the maintenance costs, but again, we're just

[40:04] looking for this um feedback this evening just so we can kind of narrow down on exactly the scope that we're talking about. Um, in terms of council

[40:13] member sorry, I don't think we know that off the top of our heads.

[40:21] Okay, we can provide that information.

[40:23] Um, in terms of design, so investing in water at the

[40:30] full scale of um everything that you would see here does require underground construction and pumps and everything.

[40:38] So although at any time, you know, a property owner could just turn everything off and make things dormant or fill in a, you know, a pool with

[40:47] something. I mean, that's certainly possible, but just understand there's a lot of underground infrastructure that would come with construction of water

[40:53] features. Um, and then in terms of next steps, I just want to the other thing I just wanted to share is make

[41:01] sure we're all aligned in terms of the RFP for the sculpture at Port Clinton.

[41:05] So, we have the RFP um that's um currently on the streets getting proposals. The way that that RFP was

[41:12] drafted was for one sculpture, but with the possibility that we would want an additional sculpture for the rose

[41:21] garden. So, it wasn't an affirmative. We are definitely doing two. It's one and then maybe two, but definitely if there is two, we wanted it to be compatible.

[41:30] And so the idea was once we evaluate and we know what the sculpture is and how big it is and what does it look like and so forth at that time the council can

[41:39] have a conversation of do we want to do something comparable at this location.

[41:43] So that's how we've left it. Um and then we can certainly have that future policy discussion at that time unless you want to give us direction now to say

[41:52] definitely go back and we want to um that's certainly an option that you would have as well. And I just want to know for the council ring back to

[41:59] Erica's point the seating around it would be stone.

[42:04] Correct. [clears throat] They're propo the proposed seating of the stone. The wood is for the niches.

[42:10] Okay. So that's for the seven niches but not for the council ring. The council ring is proposed in stone. Okay.

[42:17] And it needs to have the ability for people to sit and face inward if you're actually doing a council ring. It's not just a round wall with a bunch of water.

[42:29] So, we can talk with the group more about that, but is flat benches says yes, right is the the ability for people to sit. That's

[42:38] [clears throat]

[42:39] okay.

[42:41] Um, are people comfortable then giving direction that the water would be strictly the council ring related and not having it at the end? Okay.

[42:53] [clears throat]

[42:54] Yeah. hear me? You okay with that?

[42:57] Um, yeah. I I Yes. I mean, I'm I'm I'm a little

[43:05] concerned about a water feature for all the reasons that have been discussed, but um I think

[43:13] um I mean it I'm comfortable with it at this point. Okay. Okay. [clears throat] Sounds good.

[43:22] Erica, I just wanted to clarify that my suggestion. Chair leader, do you mind coming here?

[43:28] Just because the people people at home can't hear you from back there. Sorry.

[43:35] I wanted to clarify that that my suggestion would not be to have to restore the the the pool and add a bench.

[43:44] It's to use is to just restore the pool. There are there are seven niches with benches in them. There are lots of places to sit.

[43:53] I think there are enough places to sit and that we should just restore it to to to the pool that it was.

[43:58] And I just was clarifying because we know council ring as Jensen had intended was literally everybody is an equal sitting in a circle.

[44:06] Yes.

[44:07] Able to converse. So that's why I didn't want to miss that element if that was important.

[44:11] But I I believe that we've got enough places to sit.

[44:14] Okay. That's great. And it saves money to not have to create concentric whatevers. Yeah.

[44:20] Yeah. I mean [clears throat] that's that's I just wanted to clarify.

[44:25] The only cont the only contrary to that is that if you're going right the the seven niches each represent one of our lost people.

[44:35] If you're going more just for general respit rest bit you might want to sit out.

[44:42] We're not here to design this thing today. No. Okay.

[44:46] I would throw it away so quickly. It's all up to Okay. Like so people are comfortable with it, comfortable with the ring. But I I still

[44:54] have reservations based on cost and I'd still like to see from staff, you know, real estates of maintenance and everything else.

[45:02] Absolutely. But subject to that. Okay. The little one. Sounds good. All right. Thanks.

[45:08] All right. Next, we just briefly wanted looking for direction on disposition of the sundial veg. what's referred to as

[45:14] the sundial bench. That was not original to the design. However, it was added by Marshall Johnson, I believe, about two

[45:22] years after the opening of of the um the park. So, so that goes back to when?

[45:31] 1944.

[45:33] So, it has been there since 1944 and was definitely there when the property was landmarked. So there are we four

[45:41] different options as far as what could happen to the bench. The first one is the most comprehensive disassemble, catalog and rebuild with the replacement

[45:50] because it is there are some broken and missing stones right now. So the integrity of the stone is not fully there. The second option would be to

[46:00] disassemble and reinstall as is. So without replacement and fixing the kind of the broken stone missing pieces.

[46:09] The third option would be to remove it um as and then reinstall as is at a later date and does not include a specific sighting for the arch of that.

[46:20] And then the last would be to just remove it and not reinstall. the S swa our designer has identified a place on

[46:28] the site right now to kind of move the bench that where it could be integrated into the location but outside of the

[46:36] actual place of remembrance so moving it near close to stupy cabin so to kind of keep it

[46:43] but that's on the original rose garden right well it's on the property so but it would be outside of the place

[46:51] of reme where it is it's sort of puts up to the path over to the library right now. So, it's Yeah. picture. Yeah.

[47:00] Yeah. Can we please have a sight thing of that? Because I mean, one of the main things that we spoke about when we talked about the preservation

[47:08] designation [snorts] and and keeping in keeping with the landmark, I don't care if it's two years later, this was there.

[47:16] It was.

[47:17] And and the idea of moving it because of our new plan kind of flies in the

[47:23] face. in my estimation [snorts] of keeping the preservation.

[47:29] And so, I mean, I' I'd like to see where it is and where it's proposed to go. And

[47:37] [clears throat] so, if there's a way to kind of move that map portion, it's in the back by the where the Jensen council

[47:46] ring was supposed to be and was not built. There was like a little pond back there. If you guys could keep No, it's it's further back. It's further.

[47:58] Is that where that red circle is? It's that [laughter] way. East. It's further east. I walk by there all the time.

[48:07] Huh?

[48:07] I'm still trying to picture it because I walk by there all the time.

[48:10] It's you you'll know it. It's Nobody goes back there right now truthfully because there's not much going on back there. So,

[48:18] it's closer to it's like in there sort of tucked away. I don't have one. We We did.

[48:26] It was in the last report.

[48:28] It was [clears throat] in the last report.

[48:31] We could all run outside and take a look. Other side.

[48:39] It's over there.

[48:41] Um, literally you guys could pull up on the internet. There was a gardener's newsletter that had a picture of the bench that Amanda actually found.

[48:52] Yeah, it'd be nice to see it if you're making a decision about it.

[48:56] One challenge is obviously the stoopy cabin has its own sort of vibe, for lack of a better word. And so I don't think

[49:03] throwing like a random bench over by the cabin does anybody any favors. Um, and I'm almost a

[49:11] I'm almost inclined to say that for the moment we can, you know, remove it, restore it, and then see how this place

[49:19] gets cited and and place it once we sort of see the land, if that makes sense.

[49:26] How significant is this batch?

[49:28] Like, I know it's Nobody can even figure out its provenence. Like, nobody knows where and and we've asked like the really old people in town who know this stuff, and none of they were all like, I don't

[49:37] know. I mean, like, so I think, you know, was it part of the Marshall Johnson plan apparently because he gifted it? Um, and Amanda maybe is

[49:46] looking for this crazy newsletter that we read about from 1944. It'd be so helpful to see this.

[49:54] I would love to for us all to understand like the true significance of this and not just make estimations on, you know, they're true significant because $50,000

[50:02] to restore a bench, right, feels like a lot of money, right?

[50:06] I'll say that the bench when it was installed, we did find a reference in the men's garden club journal

[50:13] newsletter. So, we did uh that we did identify that reference that it was originally built um for the first

[50:21] treasure of the men's garden club and it was dedicated to my family. [laughter] Do you want the bench? Huh?

[50:29] You said you want the bed. Oh, here. Amanda has a picture.

[50:36] Ashley, I emailed it to you. I don't know if it's I can pass my computer around.

[50:44] You guys want to see it? Perfect. Thank you. You see? Yes. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's it.

[50:50] So, the bench is what? The whole the wall and the dial, correct? It's the entire It's the wall, right? It's like a rectangle.

[50:58] It's the wall and the dial. Got it.

[51:02] So the restoration will be the wall and the dial.

[51:06] There are some pieces missing. You can see on the left hand side there. So yes, it would be restoration would be fixing that as well as putting the entire thing back on site.

[51:17] Right.

[51:18] Is this fall under any jurisdiction of the historic society? Not that these guys could find, right?

[51:24] You guys did some research and nobody could seem to figure out much about it

[51:31] other than Marshall put it there in honor of the church in 1944.

[51:37] But how does the historic preservation feel about it?

[51:41] They do research. Sometimes there's nothing right. I mean, yeah. So, how how do we interpret that then?

[51:51] [laughter]

[51:52] They are kind of jealous.

[51:53] It's it's it's a nice subject. We we own it, right?

[51:57] Can we reuse it in a in a way that you know serves serves purpose in this new iteration? Yeah.

[52:06] Is or is it stupid expensive to move it around and restore it? I mean this is right there is such a right.

[52:16] So that's why I'm kind of like if we restore it but hold on to it then we have more context for what we have and

[52:25] where the appropriate place would be. It could be absolutely appropriate to have it at the very end of the place of

[52:34] remembrance, right?

[52:35] And have that sund dial refer back to the lives lost. And you could have a sund dial in the middle of the council

[52:43] ring and a sund dial over at Port Clinton and and lean into that. That's some spitballing at the moment. But, you know, there's spitball.

[52:51] Thank you. [laughter] But that's why I'm kind of like it's the least costly other than just getting rid of it, which I don't think is a wise

[52:59] idea. But I do think we need more context. But we know that we can remove it, fix it up, and then reinstall it and

[53:08] have a better sense of what we're working with than off these drawings. Yeah.

[53:14] To your point about waiting to see what the whole thing's all about, why would we spend money restoring it without knowing what can't we just wait?

[53:25] It's brace and remove the arch, demo the bench, and then reinstall it at a later date. So, I mean, I get what you're

[53:33] saying. We wouldn't necessarily restore it. We would just protect it and then figure out a place for it in the future for 21,000. or 21,000 versus 54,000.

[53:45] Yeah. No, but why wouldn't we wait? Do you want to just leave it there?

[53:49] Yeah. Until because sooner or soon enough we're going to have the layout and we should be able to answer the question. Does it fit somewhere?

[53:59] [snorts]

[53:59] Well, we know it's there or we know it doesn't.

[54:01] We [clears throat] know for picture if you want the plans that we have and and where it currently lines up. It's kind

[54:08] of neither here nor there. It's not got much context to what we're planning. And most particularly if you are having the

[54:16] names at the easternmost portion, you don't want like some random little broken bench kind of hanging out. Maybe

[54:25] you do. I don't know. But yeah, you know, if the spirit of the uh place

[54:32] of remembrance is indeed to remember what happened and to those that we lost and we're creating something new in response, right? Everything that's been

[54:41] put is in response to the loss in the community meeting. To me, to appropriate something that was created for a completely different reason and then try

[54:49] to find meaning for it for this very different situation doesn't feel right.

[54:56] Okay. Well, I mean, that's just my reaction to you.

[54:59] No. And and and once again, we're trying to thread this needle of being respectful of a landmark garden, right?

[55:06] And coming up with concepts that are appropriate for what we're trying to achieve with the place of remembrance.

[55:15] Follow. Sure.

[55:16] It I I follow that logic. But with that logic, I would if we think we should save it, let's save it and put it

[55:24] someplace else that is meaningful and not put it in the place of remembrance, which is a sacred place with its own meaning and and and that. So if it's

[55:32] we're saving it because it, you know, it's a a relic or an artifact that we like, let's find another place for it.

[55:39] I've been there all day. I mean, since the beginning of this, I'm like, I'm sorry, Rose Garden, and thanks so much for the memories. let's be clean and

[55:47] move forward with fresh eyes. But again, trying [clears throat] to find that balance for everybody's input. But I'm I'm with you. I'm like, let's take it out and see what we want to do with it.

[56:00] That's the $21,000 option. See? Yes.

[56:03] Well, to the mayor's point, um it may not fit, but um

[56:10] the remembrance is coming after a landmarked place.

[56:15] And while this may not have been part of the original landmark, it was brought in by the same people two years later and I

[56:22] know it may just look like a bench or if anything a decrepit old bench.

[56:27] Um but um you know I have no problem waiting in terms of refurbishing it. But

[56:34] it it it really flies in the face to me of of not respecting the landmark that was there before. And so I don't want to

[56:44] take away from what we're putting in now, but I also think that we owe it to what was before to keep it and keep it

[56:53] on site. Um, and yet I wanted, no pun intended, water to flow.

[56:59] And so if it doesn't work in that spot, I don't have a problem moving it on the site. But I I think we made a commitment

[57:08] because we all recognized how importance important it was that this was a landmarked piece and that even though

[57:16] we're going to move forward with the the memorial, we still made a commitment to keeping the preservation of the past there too.

[57:25] So maybe we can talk about a temporary removal and and an effort to bring it back. job.

[57:34] Yeah, I mean I hear you, but we're talking about the site, not a random object that happens to be on the site.

[57:43] Those are two different things.

[57:44] And the random object was not part of the original landmarked plan, I think.

[57:48] Although, no, wait, it was landmarked in '90s.

[57:52] So, it was already there. It had been there for 50 years. Okay.

[57:55] And when it was built, you're right, it wasn't there. But within 2 years of building it, whether that's because they found out they needed benches or not, in

[58:03] 1944, they put it in way 50 years before the landmark.

[58:08] So given that we have um our

[58:12] [clears throat]

[58:13] budget to talk about as well, can I urge you to maybe consider option C, which is the least expensive, brace

[58:20] it, remove it, see where things are with a a promise, Girl Scout promise to try to bring it into the place. Are people

[58:29] okay with that versus either [clears throat] leaving it there and having it not be contextual within what's been planned or

[58:37] more like are you guys okay with temporarily? [laughter] And then just a quick question on this

[58:44] um what if and it was mentioned in the report if it doesn't necessarily survive the the removal. That's a good point.

[58:52] Yeah. What happens? We were sad. We'll save 21,000.

[58:58] I know that was mentioned as a possibility. Oh, was it?

[59:03] Yeah. If it might not. So, you always had that. Okay. All right.

[59:10] I mean, team, we got to move on. So, okay. We do have to move on. I I I propose option C. Anybody with me on option C?

[59:19] Okay. You are.

[59:21] You're not. I I I almost rather just Andre's uh council member Tapia's

[59:28] suggestion of just leaving it be for the time being. Um I I actually find and [clears throat] I have to revisit it in

[59:36] person. [cough] I really do. Um because I'm just looking at a, you know, photograph, but there's something a little lovely about it.

[59:46] The bench.

[59:46] Absolutely. Not trying to kill it, just and I I hear also the point about just somehow this feeling of eraser of of you

[59:56] know the past and I I yeah I' I' I'd almost rather just you know leave it leave it be for the time being.

[1:00:04] Okay, we'll let those guys know. So that seems like the majority is leave it or leave it or leave it. Three to three. Three to three.

[1:00:12] Well, I'll go [laughter] I'll go with leave it if it makes it easier and cheaper. So for now Okie dokie.

[1:00:18] [laughter]

[1:00:19] All right. Thanks. Thank you. Thanks everybody who comes to all these meetings to talk about this place in our conference. We appreciate you tremendously.

[1:00:28] Okay. Budget. Let's go spend. All right. Let's talk about the budget. Okay. All right.

[1:00:36] You can do this in a half an hour.

[1:00:38] Well, we will we will go as fast as possible. We want to just make sure that we're certainly answering all your questions. Um this PowerPoint

[1:00:46] presentation will be shared with everybody. Um, for public information, we've been working on the city's budget since the spring um, and planning for

[1:00:55] the proposed fiscal year 27 budget. Um, one of the first things that we do as a city is we review the city's mission and priorities um, as a staff, also with the

[1:01:04] city council based on feedback that we received from the public and we make sure that the mission and priorities that serve as a foundation for our organization moving forward um, reflect

[1:01:14] the policy feedback. And so I'm not going to read these, but um in the spring uh the council affirmed the mission and um and updated the

[1:01:22] priorities accordingly. So we'll be moving forward with those. Um this is highlights of the proposed budget schedule. This is on the city's website.

[1:01:31] And so you can see where we are at right now with this budget workshop. The proposed budget um we're proud to say is

[1:01:39] balanced. And our finance director, Christie, is going to provide highlights um of the budget. Um the city council

[1:01:46] did receive a copy of the draft budget and we're going to provide highlights of revenue um and capital this evening. Great.

[1:01:54] And um look for your your feedback. Um but just in light of kind of time constraints um for public information, we are meeting one-on-one with each

[1:02:02] elected official um over the course of the next couple of weeks and we're going through the comprehensive budget. um we

[1:02:09] prepare a comprehensive Q&A um based on those one-on-one meetings and then we'll provide that to the city council. It is

[1:02:17] certainly available upon public request as well just to make sure that we're all aligned in terms of um questions and feedback and policy moving forward. And

[1:02:26] then this is everything that we're going to cover today. Um so go over revenue tax and fee changes that were um discussed with the city council in the

[1:02:34] spring and then we have a comprehensive capital discussion focused on 27 as well as our 10-year plan. So with that I'll turn it over to Christie.

[1:02:42] Thank you. Thank you.

[1:02:46] Good evening city council members. It's an honor to continue presenting the 2027 budget with you all. Thank you.

[1:02:55] Okay. Grand to we're talking revenue and capital tonight. So 2027 grand total revenue. We have right now proposed 109

[1:03:05] million in operating revenue which is 7% higher than 2026 along with total

[1:03:12] revenue which includes nonoperating revenue at 163 million which is 26% higher than 2026. Now

[1:03:21] you're thinking oh yeah 26% higher is a lot. It's a big number. That's really driven by our nonoperating um revenue

[1:03:28] and that m majority of that increase is due to right now planned debt issuance

[1:03:35] of $20 million in 27 versus 26. Um we're expecting an additional I say additional

[1:03:44] 26 versus 27. in 27, $5 million of grant revenue for our bridges. And um 27 also

[1:03:53] includes an increase in anticipated home sales tax revenue that has previously

[1:04:00] been um approved by council to increase from 1% to 1 and a.5% in starting January 1st, 2020.

[1:04:11] The charts on the bottom show us where our revenue is sourced from and what funds um the revenue is

[1:04:19] going to. General fund is our biggest fund. Um we've got general fund and water sewer um contributing most of our

[1:04:30] um revenue and sources charges for services and of course [clears throat] our big debt financing that is anticipated along with property taxes

[1:04:38] and sales taxes um are our biggest sources.

[1:04:45] This gives us an idea of revenue changes between 25 and 26 which that's on the left hand side and um 26 to 27.

[1:04:57] The [clears throat] significant drivers of the 27 operating increases are um a rate increase for

[1:05:06] water and sewer sales that um were discussed during the May um council

[1:05:14] workshop and um also anticipated higher sales tax revenue and um

[1:05:22] property tax um which is consistent with our 8% increase in our 10-year um plan.

[1:05:30] We do have lower contributions and donations anticipated for 2027 because right now in 26 we do have about $300,000 um in contributions and

[1:05:40] donations that we don't anticipate um are unknown for 27 right now. Our 2027 operating revenue increasing 26%.

[1:05:49] There's our um 19 plus million for bond proceeds um and 7 million in capital

[1:05:57] grants and reimbursements which most of that is for um our bridges um that we will be doing in 2027.

[1:06:10] Does today's announcement about the 10ear treasuries change any of your bond related calculations?

[1:06:18] Um, I haven't gotten there yet. Um, I can tell you that our financial advisor or municipal adviser for our

[1:06:26] debt issuance did not reach out to me like urgently today um with concern. Um, okay.

[1:06:34] So, but it's definitely something we need talking about. Yeah, please. You bet. Thank you.

[1:06:39] Um, so general fund being our biggest uh fund that the city has is um we're looking at

[1:06:48] It's really operating and total revenue both $57 million um

[1:06:55] combined. So our biggest difference or drivers is um 27 is about 10% higher

[1:07:02] than 2026 pretty much driven by sales tax um revenue increases which um [clears throat] is state income tax.

[1:07:12] We're expecting more and then sales tax in addition to the home roll sales tax that um was approved. We're also looking

[1:07:20] 27 total revenue is impacted um by actually lower capital grants being received in

[1:07:28] 27 because in 2026 our general fund revenue um has $2.3 million budgeted for

[1:07:35] um grant revenue that we're not um expecting in 27.

[1:07:43] All right. Any questions on general fund revenue? Water and sewer fund revenue.

[1:07:50] We're looking at um total revenue of 36 million, operating revenue of 22

[1:07:57] million. The biggest um total revenue increase of the 37% higher

[1:08:04] year-over-year is really the um significant driver is the debt issuance.

[1:08:10] We're not really, when I say not really issuing debt, it's not part of the 20 million for the um streets and uh

[1:08:18] facilities capital projects, it's really the PA um loan proceeds that we're anticipating. Okay.

[1:08:25] Is what's those are specific to removing the lead service? Yeah.

[1:08:32] Um any questions on water sewer?

[1:08:36] I do have a question. Um, we know this whole situation with DuPage County and Chicago sourcing [clears throat] and now

[1:08:44] looking for other sources. Is that any kind of a a do we have the capacity to add any more customers and b is that any

[1:08:52] kind of opportunity for us as Ron's [laughter] mayor? We do have capacity I mean Don

[1:09:00] Jensen's here you can speak to that but we do have capacity to add additional customers. We have been in discussion with some neighboring communities about that possibility as they explore the

[1:09:08] rashes. So, but it's our it's our immediate neighbors. I mean, it's not it would be extremely expensive for

[1:09:16] Yeah. DuPage County to Oh, but no, because they have that place in Northbrook that they bought for $80

[1:09:23] million that they are now going to use to draw water from North Northshore water.

[1:09:31] It's possible. They just have other options. Yeah, we're fabulous. We are fabulous. We are open to it. Okay.

[1:09:39] Um and we have discussed with them, but the Who are we having conversations with?

[1:09:43] Just curious to know like DuPage, DuPage County Chair.

[1:09:48] No, no, other other communities, other neighboring communities that have reached out and just exploring their options. U we can talk because it's negotiations.

[1:10:00] Okay. Yeah. Okay. Local commission to page.

[1:10:06] Sorry to page water commission. Thank you.

[1:10:09] Um so this is going to be um about our 2027 tax and fee changes. They were all

[1:10:17] presented um at the spring workshop. So let me know if you just want me to speed up or slow down. Um but we've got a lot

[1:10:24] of them. We've got two slides worth of um proposed fee changes and um

[1:10:33] of course we talked about the home roll sales tax council approved August 17th.

[1:10:37] We move finances move forward with getting that the ordinance to um Illinois Department of Revenue. So we should be set for January first start on

[1:10:45] that. Um and then we have annually we update the ambulance transport fees. Um, can you tell us how much you expect from

[1:10:53] each of those, please? Cuz just saying 1% to one and a half%.

[1:10:58] I anticipated an an additional $3 million in revenue for 2027

[1:11:06] total or um just for our home sales tax piece. We we get about five I would say

[1:11:13] 5 to 6 million maybe. Let's just call it 5 a.5 million. And if we're raising it half a percent, um I anticipate $3 million.

[1:11:23] The other fees, it's not so much fees for revenue increases. It's more to um offset some of our expenses, not even

[1:11:30] all of our expenses. So you'll see all of them. It's really nominal increases, but again, it's just keeping up with what our expenses are.

[1:11:37] Yeah, that's great. Yeah. And note for the home sales tax that 3 million that an additional that is budgeted is also

[1:11:46] being set aside for capital future capital needs not to actually spend in the general fund.

[1:11:52] Right. And we have identified projects on the 10-year capital improvement plan.

[1:11:58] Yeah. Okay. We also talked about um alarm [clears throat] system fees. This is like fire and security alarms, increasing the annual applications, and

[1:12:07] the penalties for false alarms.

[1:12:13] Um, we talked about auction sales, um, increasing the special permit from $15 to $50 and then increasing the

[1:12:21] violations or the penalties for all of Chapter 112 from the 10 to $200 range up to $100 to $500 for violations of that.

[1:12:32] Yes.

[1:12:34] Um permit to obstruct right public rightway is under billing billing building code um once a section under

[1:12:43] 170 and um these are the 26 fees and proposed 27 2027 fees.

[1:12:50] Can I ask that maybe we show these and then I don't think you need to go through each of them because we received them in the packet and they are going to be online with the budget and I Yeah.

[1:13:01] Okay. I mean, I'm No, we're guessing this crew has done their homework and if they have questions.

[1:13:06] Yeah. If you have questions, stop me on So, we have demolition tax. Perfect.

[1:13:11] Um, [laughter] thank you. Um, dog license fees, dog tags.

[1:13:19] That's a highlight, by the way, for third graders. I always ask, who's a dog? Come get your license.

[1:13:25] Um and then these two are just increasing the min minimum penalty the range

[1:13:32] we talked about lab analysis fee increasing from 20 to 25. That's for the water. Yeah. Water testing.

[1:13:40] Yep. And the charitable games application fee.

[1:13:46] This is very general. It's going to be the very first line of the annual fee resolution and it's the minimum penalty

[1:13:52] from $25 to $50 on anything where it's not expressed in in in our ordinances.

[1:13:58] If you're just a generalized law, it's

[1:14:00] [laughter]

[1:14:01] going to cost um outdoor dining fee for use of on street parking. Current fee is 300. Um

[1:14:10] the council supported back in 2025 for 20 for the 27 budget increasing it to 500.

[1:14:19] I have a question for this. Yes, at least two of us.

[1:14:23] Um, four and payment and old still seems low. And in May of 2008,

[1:14:32] it was significantly higher. And I understand sort of that this moves, but I I still kind of

[1:14:41] wonder [snorts] and I understand how and and thank you to the housing commission who had long extensive conversations about this. I'm

[1:14:50] just curious to know if this is something that this council wants to revisit to see if it is effective and

[1:14:57] doing what it needs to be doing or if this number is correct. It just seemed to me um not quite where it needed to be.

[1:15:05] Yeah.

[1:15:06] And I'll speak in my role as leazison to the housing commission.

[1:15:09] Perfect. Um, you know, the housing commission has some bigger concerns in general just about the policy and, you

[1:15:19] know, it was done a long time ago. A lot has changed in the the world of affordable housing and how development is happening Highland Park. Some

[1:15:27] unexpected ways. Uh, for example, one is these beautiful uh condos that are going

[1:15:33] out that are beautiful, but they're actually generating fewer housing units because it's by percentage of number of units in general.

[1:15:43] That's right.

[1:15:44] So, there's some bigger questions here about what is fair and equitable to achieve our objective of affordable housing.

[1:15:51] And there's some good ideas out there.

[1:15:52] For example, maybe we that per unit calculations is outdated. It may should be a square footage calculation for the footprint that that new condo is taking.

[1:16:03] Well, let's say that is considered among other policy questions that are there.

[1:16:08] Well, this payment in L thing or fee and L thing is is out of context because this FE and L is about a compensatory

[1:16:17] casting because of the unit thing. that if we're going to rethink the unit thing by square footage, for example, then who

[1:16:24] knows how many units we might get if we do it by square footage. Mhm.

[1:16:29] And therefore, that's going to be a cascading effect on well, what is the feed concept because we don't know. So, I think just looking at feed on its own

[1:16:38] without looking at the bigger policy questions and I think it the example I gave about square footage as an example to explore is only one of several other

[1:16:46] things. I think there's just too many moving pieces that are interconnected that to look at this and make a decision on this without looking at the bigger

[1:16:54] picture is really important. And and the other thing I would say is, you know, the property owners did a memo. There was a presentation by staff, but there

[1:17:03] was never a dialogue about the memo with the the property owners who are their stakeholders. And from what I remember

[1:17:11] from it, our staff carefully did a thing. So, I respect their that they studied it carefully, but my takeaway is

[1:17:19] it was a uh like a rebuttal, a point by-point rebuttal of everything that they had pretty much. Okay. And maybe

[1:17:27] it's justified, but you can't do a rebuttal and not have conversation. And I didn't feel good about that. I felt

[1:17:34] good that they took the initiative. Of course, it representing their interest, but I think there was some really good ideas. And I didn't feel good that the

[1:17:41] city response so far has simply been no no don't agree not right not right no no right and the spirit of this was to on their

[1:17:50] part is to get a conversation going and then really really look at things so I think that's a second thing that there's energy by the housing commission

[1:17:58] there's energy the property owners I think this is a good moment to actually news for you next committee of the whole you want to be here because we're going

[1:18:06] to talk about housing well then let me make a proposal that We tabled this completely.

[1:18:12] The next the next committee the whole meeting [clears throat] and if you recall so we we did do a response to the

[1:18:18] uh POA position paper. What we wanted to do was really start with the council. So you had everything and you could set the

[1:18:25] policy discussion because we don't want to be engaging in all these meetings with the POA if the council's like I don't really want you to look at ABCD.

[1:18:34] So that's why we want we want to get council feedback in terms of what elements of our affordable housing program would you like us to look at and

[1:18:41] then certainly then that's a major project. We can certainly wait on this.

[1:18:46] It was reviewed by the housing commission just in terms of of the fees for fiscal year 27. But if you prefer to wait we certainly can. The other wrinkle

[1:18:55] is the state of Illinois's build you housing plan that is coming from the governor's office. That's not going

[1:19:04] away. So that also is going to be dictating to us a lot of what we can and cannot do. Um they sent us uh an early

[1:19:12] copy from their office and our housing group at um community development took a look at it. And so that now is also part

[1:19:20] of sort of for lack of a better phrase the stew of this conversation.

[1:19:24] So there's a lot to talk about around housing as we should. Um but I am in agreement that if you guys can just sort

[1:19:33] of hold off on this decision point. I know you are trying to firm up and finish this budget. This is one line. Um [clears throat] so that's I think where

[1:19:41] everybody is. So I'm going to speak in my league on role as um from POA also

[1:19:48] and um a lot of thought went into this white paper and I agree with council member Tapia that um our response was

[1:19:57] not a dialogue and they've requested on several occasions and I do agree also Gita that we don't want you know to just

[1:20:04] be potart look responding to papers on the other hand um it just didn't have the right feel I think there's a lot of

[1:20:12] really good [clears throat] ideas just thinking outside the box that came out of that and I would much rather embrace

[1:20:19] this as a whole rather than looking at one aspect of it which are the fees and and to make any kind of judgment on

[1:20:27] this. You know if anything it came up a few months ago and we said well we didn't want to even open it up again to what they were presenting and now we're

[1:20:35] thinking about raising the fees by almost 25%.

[1:20:39] So I I just don't think this is the way to do it. It's looking at one piece of a much larger problem about affordable and

[1:20:46] inclusive housing and I'm glad we have from different groups different thoughts coming out but we because we do policy I think have to

[1:20:55] look at this as part of the policy and this is just one component and it's a small component but it sure as heck would change things and then we wouldn't

[1:21:03] want to revisit it for another couple years. So I'm this is off the table in my book. So, thanks to the housing

[1:21:10] commission for their careful study at this. Um, I think Marissa, you want to answer?

[1:21:15] Um, I just I agree with waiting. I also had a question as to I I saw the different price points and they at one point went all the way up to what 250,000.

[1:21:24] So, I would just like to discuss this also further and kind of see um and that's fine by waiting and having a whole discussion more question. Yeah.

[1:21:34] You same. Okay. I mean, same.

[1:21:39] However, I I will say that we've historically been a leader in

[1:21:46] inclusionary housing and and um think it is something that I continue to support,

[1:21:53] but I uh also yeah, I I I it does make sense to make it part of the the the bigger picture

[1:22:02] conversation. We're almost about to hit 60 years of being the leaders of Yeah. And just to kind of a something

[1:22:11] for us to consider, right? And there's no mad intention here, but if we went through this right now in the wake of

[1:22:20] the POA having come to us with a comprehensive memo, and our only response to increase was this. I mean, like what

[1:22:29] are you, you know, which is why we're going to talk about it in our next meeting. So, um, we are partners.

[1:22:36] Exactly. There's, you know, and we're partners with everybody housing to this community. So, let's work as partners. Okay. Okay.

[1:22:44] We'll continue on. And then rental registration. We're good. Keep going, Christie.

[1:22:50] All right. Property tax survey. This just shows um we did the most recent property tax, which is tax levy 25

[1:22:57] collecting now in 26. We are still one of the lowest um in our neighboring communities for our municipal rate on the tax bill.

[1:23:08] Uh probably I like that point that you made that it was an average of 13% excluding Highland Park.

[1:23:14] Yep. John, remind me 100 basis points equals what in additional property tax revenue?

[1:23:21] Depends on um $100.

[1:23:30] [cough]

[1:23:31] It's like in aggregate total revenue to the

[1:23:34] [clears throat]

[1:23:35] not to the individual. Can we get back?

[1:23:38] It's in today's assignment, but we don't have it at the top of our head. So, we will get back to you. Thank you. Because I think we answered that.

[1:23:46] I thought we did. I know we talked about it some year. I just don't know off the top of my Thank you.

[1:23:53] Okay. So, um, here is the 2026 tax levy request for

[1:24:00] the 2027 budget. We are still looking at an 8% combined year-over-year change um

[1:24:07] increase with the library and the city, levying $21 million for the city and 7 million for the library.

[1:24:16] And this year, this year, this tax uh levy year, we're looking at about $150 per taxpayer

[1:24:24] increase based on an average $500,000 EAB home value.

[1:24:32] We've got the water and sewer fund five-year rate plans. um 27 we and

[1:24:39] and out till 2031 looking at a 3 and a half% rate increase for water rates and sewer is at a 5%. These were the same rates discussed in our spring workshop.

[1:24:55] This is updated. We had a few more from the spring workshop um because we were able to get a few more 2026 rates. Um

[1:25:02] and you can see 20 Highland Parks 27 proposed water rate is still

[1:25:09] one of the lowest um in our area do it for $275 though.

[1:25:14] I'm sorry. What how does WE do that for 275? I don't know.

[1:25:22] It's a question. That's something I know.

[1:25:25] Do you do you know and Mike Forest you're asking John?

[1:25:30] Yeah. [laughter] Do you know how does one met do it for too for so little?

[1:25:36] Do you know how do you have any inkling why can do it for so little the water rate? I'm not understanding your question.

[1:25:44] We haven't assessed their budget.

[1:25:46] They want to know how their water rate is lower than ours. It could be that they supplement it.

[1:25:50] The biggest element is um is capital. I mean we don't pay any more than they do in terms of salaries. I'll tell you

[1:25:57] that. Um but uh communities have had that that have paid off their capital investments are going to have lower

[1:26:05] capital cost as as uh our finance director can attest. So I I would think that'd be the major thing. No. Um our

[1:26:13] our cost to our residents is uh significantly lower the fact that wholesale as the mayor alluded to

[1:26:20] earlier half of what we produce. Um and we have a 15% search charge on that. So, and that covers uh our our fixed costs, our our service and that sort of thing.

[1:26:33] Uh as well as our our variable cost, electricity, chem chemistry, that sort of thing. So, I would imagine

[1:26:41] that those are the factors that you want to consider. Um larger utilities have an economy of scale. You know, they got the

[1:26:48] staff is is not necessarily any larger to produce the same amount of water. uh when we converted to membrane treatment

[1:26:55] in 2013, we did that knowing that we would have an increase in per gallon cost of electricity for instance

[1:27:04] superior pathogen barrier in in light of the 1993 Christmas event in Milwaukee

[1:27:11] and the subsequent concern throughout the basin the Lake Michigan basin. Um so that that's a factor. uh towns that have

[1:27:20] been adopted a newer technology have a lower energy cost per

[1:27:28] I could go on for yeah thank you for you asked Dr. water for the [laughter] So that's why I asked.

[1:27:35] But I think it's important to note also that that we're not making money off of that. We're using that to invest back into our water distribution system.

[1:27:45] All right. [snorts] We have made it to capital. All right.

[1:27:48] Um so capital expenditures for 2027, we are budgeted right now at 49.5 million.

[1:27:55] Streets, bridges, water facilities, sewer. Those are our biggest capital projects for 27. Um the funding debt

[1:28:04] financing and it goes down from there just for the 14 million. [clears throat]

[1:28:10] Over the next 10 years, we're looking at $222 million in our 10year CIP.

[1:28:19] If I could just say on the debt, the debt is the maximum amount of debt we would issue. We have not determined exactly how much we will need based on

[1:28:27] um the projects in the budget. So we will refine that number but we budgeted very conservatively in terms of the total debt issuance.

[1:28:34] How much how much more could we issue if we wanted to without putting credit rating at risk?

[1:28:43] Well, it's it's hard to say in totality because what what we want to make sure is what revenue do we have to offset and

[1:28:52] make sure that we're paying our debt obligations. And so, right now, we're looking at an 8% tax increase if the council wanted to increase that. We

[1:29:00] could issue more debt, but we just want to make sure that we've got revenue in order to pay all of our obligations.

[1:29:07] Does property taxes generally go to debt service and public safety pensions or alternate revenue streams, but is there some other revenue stream that's going to be

[1:29:15] the increase debt service on the issue with your act certain specific sources of [clears throat] revenue, right? I gota correct. Okay. That's how bond ratings are.

[1:29:23] What's that? That's how bond ratings. Yeah.

[1:29:26] Okay. and and we've been super careful [cough] because we [clears throat] we want to protect our AAA bonding and we want to make sure that we're not issuing too much debt and we're still playing

[1:29:34] catch-up with our public safety pension funds. Unfortunately, I asked that for a specific reason which I'll ask in a minute so keep Okay, [laughter] thanks. Um well, that

[1:29:42] that's all I have on um the funding and the expenses for capital. Um Ron is going to go through our planned projects and

[1:29:50] Okay, very quickly. Five minutes or less. very quickly.

[1:29:56] So, I think maybe if you're comfortable, we could bypass some of the historical SL slides and just really get to what's

[1:30:03] the heart of the budget if you're comfortable in that because you've seen all those slides before. We have them in just for reference. Okay. Okay.

[1:30:09] If I could just quickly introduce the team. Uh and that Cardiff is the assistant director of public works. Joe O'Neal the deputy director of public works. Don Jensen our water plant superintendent.

[1:30:18] Perfect. Thanks for joining us tonight.

[1:30:20] Anastasia is our city engineer. She's not here tonight, but she obviously oversees much of the capital. Thank you.

[1:30:25] All right, so we're going to skip past this. We try to align our capital so that if we're doing streets, we have infrastructure that goes with that.

[1:30:31] Sometimes that has been a little bit of a a juggle to do that. Um in 2027 and 26, we're working on of course the place

[1:30:39] of remembrance, our lead service line removal program, the Sharon Road sidewalk, which is both the sidewalk and the Jen Jensen landscaping, which is

[1:30:47] coming next year. for next year. Uh fire station 34, uh parking lots, we have four bridges, Beach, Judson, Wade, and

[1:30:55] St. John's that you'll see reoccurring here uh throughout this because we go by fund. And so each of the funds touch

[1:31:02] that that project. Uh some 2028 plus projects. We have uh the Rebinia business district uh streetscape

[1:31:10] improvements and and some infrastructure, Park Avenue West, and possible path extension. Green Bay Road is still on our agenda and so we have

[1:31:19] the uh water plant intake pipe is there as well. Thank you.

[1:31:23] Projects in our storm sewer as we said the bridges show up again. Um we have Vine Avenue scheduled Crescent Court scheduled for next year. We're in design

[1:31:32] starting design now. Same thing sanitary again. You see these bridges our forestry capital uh you know we have four certified arborists. Uh we do

[1:31:41] $100,000 uh tree planting program about 3 350 trees each year. Our move HP uh

[1:31:48] you know was uh also used for the shared growth sidewalk. We do have $2.4 million in grants and we are covering those rest. We have parking lots planned like

[1:31:57] the east Rivvenia business district, excuse me, Ravenia uh train station lot.

[1:32:02] We did the west side this last year. Our plan is to do the east side. Same thing.

[1:32:05] Get it done before food truck Thursdays and before farmers market and everything else. And we have some planned uh purchases for equipment and fleet items.

[1:32:16] Water distribution, you're seeing the lead service line at the bridges and some water plant improvements. Uh some forite bulk tanks and membrane compressors.

[1:32:25] For facilities, uh we have uh several projects planned. Uh the parking deck expansion joint at St. John's. We're doing the first street side now. Next year will be the St. John's side.

[1:32:35] Amongst that, some some LED lighting at the PD, some tuck pointing at city hall and other miscellaneous facility projects.

[1:32:46] We have about, you know, 43 over $43 million in grants. Uh we do about about 10 years, so some of those have dropped off. Uh we were about almost 50 million.

[1:32:54] Now we're starting to drop off a little bit, but still 43 plus million dollars in grants.

[1:32:58] Our CBD maintenance, we continue with that. We street sweep and sidewalk sweep every week, usually Fridays. Early early start. Yep. We uh we do our rounds on

[1:33:08] street lighting and picking up garbage, everything else, street planting uh program, the holiday lighting program, which is year round. Uh which does

[1:33:16] create some challenges with getting those replaced, but we're working through that. We usually do those in off hours as well, just because the traffic and and trying to uh avoid the

[1:33:23] disruption. Uh we are planting trees and we have some uh plan for the CBD. We do about 5 to 10 each year along with a pruning cycle. Uh, and then of course our our trash pickup and checks there.

[1:33:35] And just some some pictures of our our CV. Can you go back? Yes.

[1:33:40] I sent you the picture of the bottom of the arch, how it's crumbling. I know it's expensive and not structural, just

[1:33:47] aesthetic. Um, somebody wrote to us and said, "This doesn't look so great." I didn't know where we are [snorts] with

[1:33:55] We should have some work for that this year. Joe O'Neal's head that up.

[1:33:59] Yep. We're gonna we are looking get an engineering firm here to look at it structurally, physically, just do a complete evaluation on it. Fantastic.

[1:34:06] Um and then can put together a repair process for it. So we price it out and then piece meal it in. Great.

[1:34:14] It is difficult next to the train tracks that are the vibrations that get out. Yes.

[1:34:20] uh our communication plan for CIP. Uh of course we do letters, we do open houses, we have our website, uh we put out sign boards, we do door hangers, and uh in

[1:34:29] the in the case of Sharon Road sidewalk, we're doing daily updates to the people affected in that for that project.

[1:34:34] Here's just a screenshot of our CIP map, which has all our projects. It is informative. If you're looking for a certain project, it's sectioned off by streets and bridges and [clears throat]

[1:34:42] things like that. Uh we did our street survey this year. So we do that to get a basis for how we're going to do our reservicing program. Again, we have to

[1:34:50] align that with infrastructure. So we did do that survey this year prior to our streets getting done this year. So So those those grades that we've gotten

[1:34:58] are a little were a little better than what they show. Uh but again, they we generate a PCN number, a pavement condition number, and that's used along with the infrastructure needs. So we do

[1:35:06] have those situations where, hey, this street needs to be replaced, but wait a minute, it also needs water sewer. makes it a much more expensive project and we have to sort of align that with the with

[1:35:14] the available funds. So this is the rating system they they give us. Uh based on that 50% of our streets are

[1:35:20] rated good to excellent, 30% marginal to fair, 20% poor. So we obviously concentrate on those poor streets unless of course we can't get it done for

[1:35:29] whatever reason there's something with infrastructure that's needed then we align those. But those are still our priorities and that's what that PCN number gives us. It gives us an

[1:35:36] objective number to go by uh to to concentrate our efforts. [clears throat] Uh 2025 budget on streets were 5 million. Our 26 budget three and then in 27 we're just a little over three.

[1:35:50] Question. So um for the street resurfacing, I think I mentioned this before. Is that communicated out to residents? Because I know people

[1:35:58] constantly are complaining about their street. So, do they know that there's some type of uh categories as to how their street is

[1:36:05] once once well we don't put out just everybody but once we have the streets designated that will be done they will receive a letter saying you know this is

[1:36:12] what's coming up street reservicing program is coming and they kind of give you the the guidelines to okay and then for the general community we include information in the Highlander so

[1:36:21] people know when we do the evaluation the testing and then here are all the streets that are in the budget okay in our in our it is on the website so you can go there and see what your

[1:36:30] street has rated. Our newest numbers, I have to see if the newest numbers are on there because we're still working through those a little bit, but we have that on there. We can click it and you can see what your street is rated.

[1:36:38] Okay, on two quick questions. How what's the benchmark on the street ratings? 75.

[1:36:46] How do we rate compared to some sort of benchmark out there like Northshore or Illinois? It's that's always [laughter]

[1:36:54] I know this has come up before. It's always very difficult because we don't have necessarily the you know the data for our neighbors um

[1:37:02] and they may and they may rate theirs differently. I think a lot of people use the company that we use so it may be apples to apples in some ways but it's very difficult to it would be

[1:37:09] interesting to find out not a big priority but especially if they're using the same company at least the benchmark can be provided by that consultant right or that provider. And

[1:37:17] then my other question was what's our net increase of trees if we're planting 350 a year how many do we lose? We lose

[1:37:25] a similar margin to that. We're usually a little plus on the tree side of things, but we uh we do take down 250 to 300 trees each year as well.

[1:37:32] But our canopy, remind me, our total coverage canopy is is significant. And we can share that map with the council.

[1:37:38] Again, if you look at the canopy, it's like all green. Our proudly a true [clears throat] city. Yes. 46 years. Yeah.

[1:37:46] Yeah. And our canopy does rate at least we it rates better than our neighbors.

[1:37:50] I guess behind my question was the sustainability of this beautiful [clears throat] canopy. Are we do we feel that we are we're doing just the right things to keep it this way over a long period of time?

[1:38:01] Um yes. [clears throat] Yes. We we [laughter] believe that we are. Yes.

[1:38:06] Excellent program as far as tree removal and tree replacement. Um the council's always been very supportive of the forestry section and public works in

[1:38:14] general regarding that and uh really has helped uh you know to make the town as

[1:38:21] green as possible. So it's uh it's great. Awesome.

[1:38:27] We have by far the best Arbor Day celebration of any of our Yeah. Joining the previous city forester before he was deputy director. So I

[1:38:35] forestry expert. So nice.

[1:38:39] Uh so this is a tenative street list based on the amount of funding that we're projecting for 27 and based on the PCN number that we talked about. So, I do want to caution that we have not done

[1:38:47] done all of our due diligence to just, you know, to review and say, "Hey, does this street need need water man? Does it need something?" Then we put it off. But

[1:38:54] in this case here, this is uh our regular street reservicing, which is about two and a half. We do a grind and then overlay. This is our smart streets.

[1:39:03] These are streets that have a good base, but the surface is bad. So, then we do a little less. And so, we can we can improve the surface because it already has a base. That's that's uh sufficient.

[1:39:14] And then this is our list of streets that are concrete that we've been changing over to what we call composite, but basically asphalt over concrete. And so that's been very successful for us.

[1:39:21] The concrete streets create a great hard base. So you already have a good base.

[1:39:25] So as long as you don't have infrastructure issues underneath, we can go through there, grind it off, and do uh improve the surface.

[1:39:31] The neighbors on Highland Place would like to know when they would be attended to. They are not on there.

[1:39:37] They're not I will check, mayor. I have to check.

[1:39:40] Uh unfunded projects. So, these are projects that we currently have in the budget, but that they've been removed, reduced, or deferred. The Port Clinton redevelopment uh scope kind of unknown,

[1:39:48] so to be determined. We have the public services building at 39 million. That is in our tenure, but not not funded as a priority, too. Uh the intake pipe that

[1:39:56] we've talked about for Don Jensen. Now, Don has done his due diligence. He's gotten two different grants, but our grants are still well short of the $18 million that we need. So, we're working

[1:40:04] with that to see what we can get done with the grants received.

[1:40:08] So, they call and proudly go, "We got you 1.9." And I'm like, we need a few more dollars. [laughter] So, uh, so you know, other projects, uh,

[1:40:16] you know, Waverly, uh, is a water man, uh, reservicing project or reconstruction project.

[1:40:21] Um, several projects, water tank [cough] repairs, [clears throat] St. John's train station east right next door here. Uh, public works training

[1:40:29] tower improvements for fire and and public works. Uh in addition, additional projects that are not uh that are in the

[1:40:38] budget but not uh currently funded or have been deferred. So can you go back? What's the Port Clinton fire pump update?

[1:40:51] No, just updating the fire pump in the park. Yeah, it's still operating and working.

[1:40:56] Okay. So I [laughter] not to worry, but it is it is have replaced out here shortly. Yeah, John.

[1:41:04] Yeah, thank you to you and your team.

[1:41:05] Amazing job as always. Thank you. You guys are the best. Uh I know we're trying to eat dinner as well. But real quick, first item on your unfunded list, Port

[1:41:14] Clinton redevelopment. I know it's a topic that many of us have talked about that we feel is important. It reconciles with what we're doing for the place of Remember. I would love

[1:41:23] [cough and clears throat] the city staff to really figure out if there's a way to get creative with moving around some dollars, whether that's additional debt,

[1:41:30] maybe a slightly increase on the property tax levy, maybe delaying some more some of the preventive maintenance projects to free up something. We don't know what it's going to be, right? We

[1:41:38] get that. We still have to do that work around it, but let's find something that we have a line item in the budget for so that we can actually execute that project.

[1:41:47] Absolutely. Yeah. And so what we'd like to do as part of a major project work plan is have a committee the whole conversation to understand what your

[1:41:54] vision is. I mean we've I've talked one-on-one with you. Some people have really grandiose ideas. Some people have just hey let's put you know just kind of

[1:42:02] these things in there and just activate the property. So want to make sure we've got your feedback and then we can budget and plan public engagement do all that.

[1:42:09] Perfect. Maybe work with the department.

[1:42:11] Shoot. I'm going to throw one in here but to piggybacking on on John's question. Um are are we in in in this

[1:42:18] process are we talking to um the owners of you know Clinton Port Clinton and I mean because they

[1:42:27] need to be a partner to this 100%. So we generally like to start with the council and get your policy vision first before we go to the public because

[1:42:37] they may not be aligned and so you can set the tone for that policy and then and then of course the public engagement is absolutely essential.

[1:42:45] Yeah. Okay.

[1:42:49] Amazing. Thank you all. U thanks to the senior staff and to Christy and to Gita and everybody for putting this together.

[1:42:56] It's always great to talk about the budget because it reflects our priorities. Appreciate it. Please for a motion to address. So move. All in favor say I.

[1:43:05] Thank you.