Written by the reviewer from the ASR + docket; [verbatim-ASR] = quoted machine transcript; [paraphrase] = reviewer's wording, not a quote.
0:00 All right, so we'll call Committee of the Whole to order.
0:06 All right, so Committee of the Whole, we'll call Committee of the Whole to order.
0:17 The only, we have two items on the agenda.
0:20 The first is the approval of the minutes of the December 5th Committee of the Whole
0:25 I'll move to approve those without the necessity of a reading.
0:28 Motion's been made and seconded.
0:34 And that motion passes.
0:36 The other thing we have is a resolution to take effect immediately, just to appoint
0:42 a member of the community to the Ward 4 seat for the remainder of the four-year
0:47 term ending December 31st, 2027.
0:51 This is our council colleague Cindy Marks resigned effective the end of 2025, so the
0:57 appointed to this Ward 4 seat would fill the rest of that four-year term.
1:04 So we do have, we received, we put out a call for applicants to the public and we
1:15 had, I believe, eight applications.
1:21 So typically what we have done in the past is, and I anticipated for this go round, is
1:27 that we would have, that we would tonight choose which of the applicants we would like
1:38 We have next Monday's meeting reserved for Committee of the Whole to interview
1:44 any of those applicants and then potentially then appoint at the next full council
1:49 meeting which would be the week after that.
1:54 So before we proceed, any comments on that process?
1:59 So we can, I don't have the language in front of me, but we often, yeah, move to
2:11 enter exec session for the purpose of considering the appointment of a public
2:18 Did I get that close enough Ernie?
2:21 All right, so I will move to enter exec session for that purpose.
2:26 Motion's been made and seconded and I do need a roll call.
2:31 Everyone remembers but me.
2:32 Okay, so I'll go ahead and do that.
2:41 All right, we'll head to the conference room and I will include Director Vargo and
2:45 council staff in that motion.
38:47 All right, so we've exited executive session, right?
39:18 And so with that, I will move to ask the clerks to schedule, let's look at and say,
39:29 30 minute interviews with the following candidates.
39:34 Jason Frederick, Matt Bixenstein, AJ Pixie-Mello, and Sydney Leiter-Canaday.
39:40 Do I have a second?
39:45 Motion's been made and seconded.
39:51 We don't vote to leave executive session, right?
39:55 Because we can't take a vote in executive session, so we just come out of it.
40:00 I got that one down.
40:01 Okay, so and I'll just say in terms of discussion on that, we really appreciate
40:06 everyone who took the time to put their name forward and submit materials.
40:11 We are very fortunate and liquid to have a number of a lot of engaged folks who
40:16 are willing to serve the community.
40:17 So we thank everyone who took time to do that.
40:20 Any further discussion on the motion?
40:23 Hearing none, all those in favor?
40:25 And that motion passes.
40:28 Okay, we do have a few minutes left.
40:32 Without objection, I thought we could take a little bit of time to discuss our
40:39 upcoming schedule for the City Hall space considerations.
40:51 So on the docket tonight, we have in Committee of the Whole, we have some
40:56 things referred that has been going on with the City Hall space considerations.
41:01 On the docket tonight, there's communications for both me and Mayor
41:03 George with the updated schedule.
41:05 In that original communication, I encourage council members to be
41:09 thinking about questions that you would need the administration to answer in
41:15 order to make an informed decision.
41:17 I thought if we have a few minutes left tonight, this might be a good
41:19 opportunity for us to kind of discuss that a little more as a group of if
41:26 folks have those in mind of some things that, and I realize I'm
41:29 throwing this at you without this being, but I thought since we have
41:33 that time, we could maybe talk about that a little bit.
41:38 So with that, does anyone have anything top of mind in terms of, so just
41:45 clarification if you haven't seen that communication, we did change things
41:49 around a little bit so that because the bond council was not available, the date
41:54 we originally had them scheduled, so they are scheduled for the same night
41:59 that the administration is scheduled to present their argument for using the
42:06 Warren Road building as the solution and then also have the bonds council to
42:09 talk to us about debt load capacity and the proposed bonds legislation.
42:16 And then we would have two additional weeks to continue those discussions
42:24 So with that, does anyone have top of mind things that you want to make
42:29 sure are covered in that administration presentation?
42:38 So before answering that, I guess I want to understand or make sure that the
42:45 process overall, I'm glad to hear the update you're sharing tonight, thank you,
42:51 that do we have a structure that is going somewhere and going somewhere in a
42:58 I'm sure the answer is going to be yes, at least to the first.
43:01 But as I recall, what we had done, I found it very helpful to first of all
43:05 both, you know, the administration presented a plan, then council engaged an
43:10 advisor to present a supplementary view.
43:14 I found that very helpful and I want to hear more from both, but especially
43:22 if the council advisor is going to continue that work to get to the next
43:26 layer of detail or degree of precision in the cost estimates, etc., right?
43:33 I found the kind of three-column, three-option comparison that that advisor
43:39 presented to be very helpful.
43:41 I also recall there could be, in theory, there could be a four or five
43:44 column, say, for simplicity use of the three.
43:47 But so in an iterative conversation, it would be great if we continue
43:53 that, we pick up where our council deliberation left off, that certainly
43:58 should include the administration's briefings.
44:02 I think you may have a better working sense than I do right now of kind of
44:07 where, how that comes together.
44:10 But so the questions that I would want to hear addressed by the
44:14 administration might vary a little bit depending on where this is headed.
44:18 So we're going to time things to be on time for the bond council, but
44:23 then at some point, if a decision is going to be made in 2026, maybe it
44:28 is, maybe it isn't, what's the, are we talking April, March, June, whatever
44:35 the answer is, would be helpful for us to understand how much time we have
44:38 to be deliberative and also get expert advice, which again, I thought
44:45 was very invaluable.
44:48 Yeah, so we do have the amended schedule I have on the docket tonight.
44:54 It's kind of redlined, is there?
44:57 So the February 17th date is the date that the bond council requested that
45:01 we pass the bond legislation in order for them to go and get the rating
45:06 since we're getting, they want to do a rating this year.
45:08 So in order to meet that February 17th for the bonds, if we were to
45:15 essentially do what the administration is asking with the $16.5 million in
45:21 bonds for this year, then we would need, in order to do that, we would
45:27 need to pass it by the 17th.
45:30 So essentially, it doesn't mean that we couldn't do that plan, but if
45:35 we're doing it, if we're funding it through the bands, that's the
45:38 deadline that we would have to fund it by in the bands legislation.
45:44 That makes sense, given the dialogue.
45:47 There's also kind of, there's steps in between all or nothing.
45:52 Right now, we have nothing.
45:54 That's not quite true because there's operating and consulting contracts
45:58 that I'm sure continue the plan development work.
46:02 But in terms of paying for bricks and mortar, right now we've
46:05 Now, there could be scenarios where we say we're not going to put 16.5
46:11 back in, but we'll put some lesser amount in.
46:14 And that would be, I think, critical to understand.
46:18 My instinct is to take our careful time on this so that we know that
46:25 we're, the different options are pretty radically different.
46:31 Small modification, very large modification, or move half of our
46:36 operations to a totally different, so we better, I'm not in the
46:42 mood to rush this, let me put it that way.
46:43 And I know the bond council has its strong recommendations or good
46:48 They're not handcuffs, though.
46:50 If we said we needed to do it differently, we could probably work
46:55 with them to have more options than just get it all done by the 17th.
47:03 And if that really is, the answer is get it done by the 17th.
47:06 And in my mind, we could just come back in 2027 also.
47:11 So I think, and that's something certainly we can double-check with
47:16 Director Mahoney, I think the 17th is in order to go out for
47:23 the rating and then get the bans in time for everything, because
47:29 it's not just this expenditure that's included with that.
47:33 Right now, they're, I asked them to draft it without that
47:36 expenditure, so they would need to be adding it back in or
47:39 without that number, and they would sort of prepare it both ways
47:44 so that when they present to us, they can show us this is
47:46 with the $16.5 million and this is without.
47:50 So that's one point.
47:51 The other is, yes, so when we had our council consultant present
48:03 and the administration's consultant from Weber Murphy Fox
48:07 present, in that presentation, they suggested the cash flow
48:11 outlay would actually be more likely that you, in a typical
48:16 process, whichever option we go with, whether it's a small
48:19 addition on please, whether it's a big addition at this building
48:21 or the Warren Road building, that you would typically have
48:26 more like a $1 million to $1.8, I think it was, something
48:30 like that, $1 to $2, let's say, million dollars for a
48:33 design architect, and this year in 2026, and then we would
48:38 actually have the larger capital outlay, the building costs
48:43 in 2027 and 2028, depending which option we went with.
48:47 So that's also something to understand, is so whether, you
48:52 know, if we're going to do anything, we would probably
48:55 have some sort of design architecture, and I'm looking
48:58 at Vice President Baker to confirm this, but that's my,
49:01 my takeaway was, if we do anything, we would need some
49:04 money for a design architect.
49:07 Yeah, that's, and so I apologize, didn't know we were
49:11 gonna be talking about this tonight, and, you know,
49:13 read the letter from the administration on Friday,
49:16 when it was put on the docket, and then absorbed it
49:18 over the weekend, although we'll say people with
49:20 young kids know that the last two weeks has been,
49:23 you know, yeah, a lot of time to reflect on city hall
49:28 renovations, and so, you know, I, the thing I'm really
49:33 gonna need to understand is to Council President
49:36 Keppel's point, you know, if you're, whether we buy
49:43 the Warren Road building or not, or we do an addition
49:47 at City Hall or not, you need a design.
49:53 You typically need a criteria architect to even go
49:55 into the design build process.
49:57 That's nerdy jargon for all of you, but what that is,
50:00 is that you at least need a basis of design,
50:02 a very early design, to then get pricing,
50:07 and even when you're in design build,
50:09 you get, you get a criteria architect,
50:11 and then the firm you hire kind of brings that design
50:15 up to the level of allowing for construction,
50:19 but you still need a basis of design,
50:23 a criteria architect, and that's where I think
50:27 we need to see more about, you know, and Liberty's
50:32 proposal is certainly interesting.
50:35 Liberty is also the entity that's selling us the
50:38 building, and so I think third party verification
50:42 is very important to me, you know, as we go through
50:45 this process, and so that's where I placed a lot
50:49 of weight into what PMC and Webber Murphy Fox
50:52 put together, you know, so I think we'll see
50:58 what the administration has to say, but I do think
51:02 that the options that we put together and work
51:06 with PMC and Webber Murphy Fox on,
51:08 all had the same assumptions and kind of,
51:11 it's apples to apples as you can get,
51:13 and I think if you play with one of the options
51:17 and you change the assumptions with them too much,
51:19 you kind of lose the ability to then analyze them together,
51:25 and so that's the challenge I think that we're gonna
51:27 face here is what's the criteria design,
51:33 and so I think, you know, we may be heading
51:37 to a point where, you know, this is the design year
51:41 and we appropriate funds to design,
51:43 but design what I think is the challenge,
51:47 and that's what we're gonna have to work
51:48 with the administration on.
51:51 There, Councilman Evans.
51:53 Yeah, thanks, Chair.
51:55 I agree with my colleagues on this,
51:57 and yeah, my biggest concern with, I mean,
51:59 I think this can happen certainly in the timeline,
52:01 but is agreeing with Councilman Baker
52:04 that I do want to see us have those consultants
52:07 take a good look at whatever is presented in detail,
52:11 because they did a lot of great work for us,
52:13 and I think they were providing us
52:16 with really solid information,
52:19 so I do want to have them the opportunity
52:19 to have them do that, but also realizing
52:22 that we don't control their time,
52:23 so making sure that we can have their availability
52:27 somewhere in that window so we can get that feedback
52:29 from them before making any decisions.
52:33 Thank you, and I think that's a good point
52:36 with doing the schedule as it's outlined
52:39 that would give us the presentation on January 26th.
52:44 Partly, we wanted to have the new ward four council member
52:50 on board prior to getting those presentations,
52:54 and then have the bond council,
52:57 and then we'd also have the second and the ninth
53:01 that we could also see about bringing
53:03 our consultants in as well,
53:06 so that would give us some time.
53:12 All right, well, that's good.
53:13 I thought it was a good opportunity for us
53:15 just to kind of go through that timeline
53:17 and make sure everyone understands what's happening,
53:21 and again, encourage you to reach out
53:24 both to me and Vice President Baker
53:27 and also to the administration with questions
53:29 and the things that you want to make sure
53:31 that are covered as we continue these discussions.
53:35 All right, with that, without objection,
53:37 there's no further business to come
53:38 before committee of the whole, and we are adjourned.