So Austin, I nominate you to lead the meeting. All those in favor, yes. Good morning, everybody. Good morning. This is a meeting of the design subcommittee of the Jones Library Building Committee. We are meeting pursuant to a permission given by the governor in 2020 virtually. And Christine is now on the Zoom, I hope. There you go, fabulous. Christine, we just were in the process of calling ourselves to order. So I'm now going to defer back to you. Wonderful, thank you. I'm sorry about that. I'm having a computer, so I had to switch to a different computer, but I should be good now. So you, you did call to order or? I just said we were meeting, but I didn't ask people to, you know, say they were here. So up to you. Do me a great favor since you're so good at that. Would you just continue through to make sure everyone's here and then I'll start with the minutes. Absolutely. Sharon, Sherry. Here. George. Here. Austin. Here. Christine. Here. Thank you. So now turn this over to our distinguished chair, Christine. Yeah, one with computer issues. Anyways, okay, everyone. We, you've all received, and the meeting was kind of a while ago, but March 4th, we have the draft minutes. And I'd like to hear if someone would like to approve them. So moved. Great. And is there a second? Whoop. I'm sorry, who was the second? Second me. Thank you, George. Okay. So are there any issues or changes, any suggestions that anyone sees on these minutes? And I'm hearing none. So let's take a vote and approve these minutes from the design subcommittee for March 4th. And I'll ask for Sharon. Yes. And George. Yes. And I also approve them. And I think that's it, right? So we have three of three. Thank you, Angela. So I'm just going to vote to approve them as they say, irregardless. Yeah. Do you vote now? This is the, do you vote on these? I don't know, but I'd like to vote. So I vote anyway. Okay. Yeah. I just wasn't sure if the committee is actually only three people and you're sort of a special person or... No, the committee is four people. Okay. Ex officio does not mean non-voting. It just means you're a member by virtue of your office. Okay, by virtue. Great. So we have four or four. So they approve. Thank you. And we'll move to item three. We have Collier's project leaders. And we have Craig here. And I'm going to pass this over to Craig to talk about the, we also got this document questions and categories for public comment. And I just want to say that this is not necessarily driven by this group. This is, in my mind, far more about the outreach committee, how they're going to handle it. But this is just so the design committee has looked at them and voiced any concerns. But like I said, this will go to the next outreach meeting because they're acting on this fairly soon. And then we have item B, introductions. I'll leave it to you, Craig, to do however you want to do this if you want to do introductions first and then get into the public comment or however you want to do it. Because I know we have some new, well, I'll call them special guests, but they're going to be around for a while. So Craig, are you there? I am here. Thank you, Christine. So yes, I'll take your suggestion and do introductions first. So I've taken over as Collier's project leaders, project manager on this project. My name is Craig DeCarlo. So I'll be with you guys from now through the completion of the project. And I'm very excited about it. Seems like a very cool and impactful project. So that's one that I'm looking forward to working on. Also with us today. So Fine Gold Alexander Architects are back on the job. And so today we have Ellen Anselon and Josephine Penta with us. Is everyone already familiar with Ellen and Josephine? No, we are not. Okay, well, I'll turn it over to them to just say a word or two to say hello. Good morning. And we have Jim Alexander here as well. So Ellen Anseloni, I started on this project eight years ago and we're still here. Josephine Penta and I have been and Jim has been as well. I'm now the principal on the project and Josephine is the project manager and Jim is heading into retirement but he's still involved with us very much so. Thank you very much. So Jim, sorry, I didn't realize you were on Fine Gold Alexander. I would have brought your knee up as well. I'm the Alexander. Wonderful. Still, it all makes sense now. It's funny how that happens, but anyway, gone but not forgotten, as they say. Anyway, yeah, I'm still in a role since the beginning and hope to be able to give some support to the team. That's basically my role, so. Fantastic. All right, so then the next item was the, or is the list of questions and comments. I can pull that up if you'd like, but in general, the idea is, we work with the town library and the design team to develop this list of questions and answers. And the goal is to help frame the discussion with the public about where on their product, their comments and feedback will be most impactful. So it's not a formal document, it's rather just kind of a discussion framework. There are some things that have been committed by the town to MBLC. And so those are the things that we can't change because they'll be partially funding the project. And so those commitments are very important to keep but there are many opportunities for the public to give their feedback and have an impact on the project. So Christine, would you like me to open up that file to share it or save that for sort of more of the outreach subcommittee? Well, we don't have the outreach subcommittee here today. It's just us. So if you wanna share it and Sharon, if you wanna pipe in at any time, because I know the two of you have worked on this document together. Oh, is this the right one? Yes, all right, revised yesterday. So it's broken down into, can everyone see my screen? So it's broken down into a couple of categories. The first being the things that we do not think can be changed at this point. So just setting the ground rules. And so that's the size of the building and the size of the addition, the height floor to floor because we're trying to, that'll be something that's determined by lining up with the current floors. The general scope of demolition and the addition, something that's fixed at this point, the general design and massing of the 1928 building and the budget. So those are kind of the parameters. Those are the things within, we can't change those, but within that there's lots of opportunity. So to kind of help people understand where those opportunities are, we have the next category, which is some aspects of the project that the public can influence. And so we talk about the general design and massing of the exterior, additions, the sustainability, we already have, I believe the town has some goals already, but there's always opportunity for pursuing different either rating systems or different concepts. So we'd like to hear from the public about that. General layout of the interior spaces. So there is still some wiggle room. Nothing is set in stone yet, but there are some adjacencies that the MVLC requires. And there are some things that will, just by virtue of the size of the building and size of the addition, the relationship to the existing, there's some things that will just have to be one way. General scope of conservation renovation is something that the town has indicated an interest in hearing from the public, what is most exciting and important to them.  And we gave, like, what does that mean? So we kind of pitched out an idea, an example of what that might mean, you know, accommodating certain activities, certain people to look and feel of interior spaces, specifically if the public has an idea about like how they want a certain aspect of the project. So to be very, you know, as specific as they want to be. The amenities, that's another one. We kind of want to pump the public for information. How do they want to use the space? What do they need to make the library most useful for them? And then some ideas about the grounds and exterior, sort of, you know, the use of the outdoor spaces because the library does kind of expand out. It's not just within the walls, but it expands out to the whole site and, you know, engaging the community, engaging the sidewalk. And then to sort of get the creative juices flowing, we came up with just kind of a list of questions. You know, how should the library feel? What do you like to do there? What are the most important spaces to you as an individual or you as a family or you as a group within the town? What would make you want to come more to the library? What would kind of keep you away as an individual? What do you hope for the future for the library?  In the past libraries were kind of, but now they've become more of a community asset. And so there are spaces inside the library that are more active. What is your favorite thing about the current Jones library? What is your least favorite opportunities for the design team and the project team to kind of respond to those? What have you seen at other libraries that you would like to see at the Jones library? And then kind of lastly, but not least, so what would be a fun kind of crazy idea that you'd love to see at the library, not necessarily something that we're definitely gonna do, but just kind of opening things up, any other ideas that people have. So that's it. And again, this is kind of a working document that can be adjusted if there are questions or further refine. Christine, you're muted. Thank you. Thanks, Craig. Does anyone have anything, any comments on this? Any concerns? So my thinking is that this is going to the next outreach meeting and they're going to, I mean, Craig, tell me, are they gonna refine this? Is this sort of like a draft? Are they just taking this as a guidance document to run with as they frame out there? I think May 1st is their first activity they're trying to have. Yes, so I think that the current status is that we're running with this as it is. It has been added to, it has been, the idea is to sort of circulate this around town and then, especially at that May 1st, kind of feature these things to help the public understand where things are. And I believe that this is the version that we're going with. I guess, just to, that's Jim, I just had a couple of comments. One was on the general, the second aspects of the project they can influence. I think, yeah, the general design and massing of the exterior, I guess the question is gonna, and also about adjacencies. The question is gonna be, who's going to, how is the outreach committee going to give direction to all of us about all this stuff? Are they gonna vet this out? Because some adjacencies are, we have a lot of things coming from the library staff, for example, about adjacencies and what they want. And now we're gonna have, of course, a list from the public. Is it up to us to decide how that's gonna work? And then say, here it is, guys. Somebody's gonna have to pull the slammer down, right? And we gotta build a building. Right, so I believe the way we discussed it at a recent library building committee meeting was that the outreach committee is gonna collect all the information, roughly categorize it, and then turn it over to this design subcommittee. To the design committee to make the final, oh, good, okay, great. And that's a great question, Jim. Hopefully we'll have a little more insight on this. They're just really trying to plan and figure out what they're going to do. Austin, I recognize your hand is up. Thank you, Christine. Again, thanks, Craig and Sharon, for the work on this document. First of all, I just wanna be clear. Is this document, this is a done deal or is this document still open to change? I believe it has gone out to at least one, oh, I'm sorry, Sharon. I bring it from one user group or one interested party within the town. Yeah, so I feel like this is a, I like how Craig called it a working document. I think of it as a living document. It has been sent out kind of as a starter for people who are coming on the first. And it can, what am I trying to say? It's meant to help people who are, this event on the first is really geared towards people who have not contributed comments yet or who have not really been paying attention up until now. And so it's hard to start from a place of, go from zero to 60 in three seconds. So here is a starting document saying, this is what you definitely can't play with. And here are some ideas of things that can be influenced, but that being said, I'm totally with FAA, I completely understand where, what we have been through these past eight plus years. And like when you were talking about the adjacencies, Jim, the staff are really looking for functionality. So we wanna hear from the public and this will give us an opportunity to respond. If some people say, well, we really think that this room should be right next to this room. It'll give us a chance to say, well, this is why it can't or this is why it can. But an answer to Austin's question, I feel like it absolutely can be changed, modified, clarified, absolutely. Well, may I just ask a couple of questions about it, Christine? Yes, go ahead. So, if I'd like to have a cafe in the library or to have no big meeting room in the library, is that a thing that's still open for conversation or is that not open for conversation? So just my responses, I think in all cases, regardless of what it is, it will depend on what they're asking for. The cafe space has already been set aside. It's in here, it's in the program, it's what the MVLC recommended and approved. I think that ultimately, if the trustees want to consider selling food and drink in the library, then that's up to the trustees to decide. The reason I asked the question, I don't have a stake in food and drink in the library. I just am wondering whether or not what I'm gonna call the program, the MVLC program should be added to the things that are not changeable. Because right now it doesn't look like that is not changeable, it's like it's changeable. I think we shouldn't have a big meeting room or I think we shouldn't have a theme space or I think we shouldn't have this or that. So that's what I was just trying to get at. Those examples are just examples. So should there be something about the MVLC approved program is an element that cannot be changed? Yes, I would agree with you, Austin, it cannot be changed. We tried to cover that in that little first paragraph, first sentence, but I think you're right. Maybe a few specific, a specific. A specific, yes. It's gonna be in there, but. I can certainly add that to the document. And just a couple of other things, thank you. I just would like an example of what general design and massing. What is that? So I would like to, I don't think it should have a modern look. I think it should be a colonial look. I think it should be built out of straw. Is that what we mean by general design and massing of the exterior of the additions? That's my interpretation, yeah. Yes. Yes. Okay. The word massing is a little tricky, I think you're right because somebody's gonna say, oh, we only want a two-story addition. Correct. But then it goes back to the MVLC in the program and the size and the square footage. So it's tricky. I know, but people are gonna say things like that and then we have to. I'm fine, I just wanna sort of say it out loud. I don't understand the general scope of conservation. I don't, do you mean environmental conservation? Do you mean historic?  It was meant for historic, I think. The, Craig had included that phrase in one of the original drafts and I took it to mean the historic conservation preservation. So I think there are still levels that still need to be decided. So the public can. Yeah, I just have no idea what this means, the general scope of conservation and renovation. So if I insert the word historic, is that more clear? Well, again, I'm not sure what you're getting at. The balance of historic preservation and renovation, is that what you mean? But again, we're in a place where we've got, restrictions, we're gonna go to the master's historic commission. The language didn't communicate to me and I don't know what it is that you're trying to get at with that particular. I think you've hit the nail on the head on the balancing act that we're gonna have to play with sustainability, with historic preservation, with all of it, because it's gonna come down to money and what we can do versus what we want to do and how much it's all gonna cost. But that doesn't mean the public can't talk about it. Does that make sense? Well, again, I'm thrilled that we're gonna hear everything.  Yeah. However, once you commit to the public can influence this, then you're saying to people, these things are open. I don't know whether or not the scope of historic preservation is open. Is it? No. Right. I didn't think so. We were pretty committed. What if we change the word can to may or possibly or soften it a little bit because I think what, I don't wanna get too much in the weeds here and sort of start projecting on what the comments and the public will say. I think what Sharon was trying to say and what Craig has tried to develop here is like a starting point. I do agree with you, Austin, that some of this could be misleading and set a tone that people think that they have more impact on areas that they really do. We wanna be transparent here. But Craig, I wanted to ask maybe something that would be helpful, because to me a lot of this is gonna be driven again by the outreach. And they're gonna have their first thing on May 1st and they're gonna collect comments. And I think that's when we're gonna have a better idea when we receive that, not that it's votes, but like, oh, look how many comments were about this aspect or this aspect or wow, we didn't even think about this kind of comment. Is it possible that we could have a timeline showing schematic design like that sort of on a phase thing on when the public will have the most chance to have that we will have time to contemplate and the designers will be able to incorporate these concepts and ideas from. So is there a way that we can build some more structured time-wise because I don't wanna get into details right now. How about we wait for some of this until after we get what we get from May 1st? Because they're gonna have further events. I think to speak to your first point, I think it's a good one that the earlier those comments come in, the more likelihood of having a meaningful impact on the project they'll have. And so I'm thinking maybe some kind of really rough, loose timeline, not loose timeline, but sort of a general timeline and then maybe a graphic or some words to explain that now is the right time over the next six to eight weeks is the best time to get the comments in and have them impact the project. And then over the next four months after that, we can still be taking comments, but then at some point, yeah, the public commentary won't have a big impact on the project. So yeah, I'm thinking that that would be a valuable addition to this document. And does it kick in again later as an opportunity for the public? Like for, I don't know, furniture or paint cut, like, you know, is it all front loaded now or will there be other opportunities to solicit ideas or comments from the public at all? That's a very good point. So the exterior of the building and general interior concepts come early on, but then, yeah, like the exact paint colors, finishes, that's something that will come a little further down the road. So yeah, that could be almost like two bumps, like get the information now for big picture whole project concepts, and then another opportunity later to solicit more feedback on, especially when that item, so the look and feel, that's something that can be affected by the lighting, the material choices, interior design aspects. So I like that idea of kind of showing maybe multiple opportunities for input. And could you create something like that, Craig? Because I think it would be helpful to the outreach committee also. Yes, I could probably do that. And I guess. Jim, yes? Yes, if I could. Yeah, because remember, I think what we have in the overall schedule we're supposed to be what, a shovel in the ground in about a year, right? We have a schedule that we submitted to Craig and he can just adapt that. Yeah, because that's, I mean, getting this early input, I guess if schematics have a total of eight weeks, we have a lot of things to resolve with both the library requests and then we'll have these to layer on top. We're gonna need that feedback very quickly. I mean, we gotta move. Don't we? And then yes, and then we'll include the NBLC review as well in that. Yeah, there's a lot to do in eight weeks. So if this input is going to be meaningful, we will need to, we'll have to have it within a few weeks, I think of this May 1st date, I would assume. And when are we officially starting?  How does this affect the schedule? So that's good for Craig to figure out. Great. So Craig, if you can do that and be, you know, cause I know you'll be at the outreach also. So it will be important to them how quickly they can sort of package up these public comments and get them to us. That we can figure out what else is needed or refined. Does anyone know when that, like I know the May 1st is an event. Is there a date that's been picked out for a follow-up at this point? Not yet. Okay. So that's why this would be helpful to have time so that outreach can figure out how they're gonna get as much in as they possibly can in the next six, eight weeks. So just to bring this back to this document. So am I getting that Sharon, are you sort of the owner of this living or working document? Yeah. And a draft is posted on the town's website. And as I updated it, it will be updated on the town's website too. And how do you, besides what you're hearing in meetings, how like does either design or outreach update this or make a change or have something added to it? Well, I think so I'm not on the outreach committee. I was helping with setting up working with staff on the actual May 1st event, which is how I got involved. So I envisioned this document actually going over to the outreach committee, and then for them to use it in their advertising or updating it as need be. So are we counting on Craig as being the messenger for this? Sure. Craig? Yes, I can certainly share this discussion and sort of the thoughts that we've had here with the outreach committee. Okay. Jim, I see your hand is up. Jim, but his mic is off.  Here we go. I liked your idea though. Maybe we say May influence in terms of that second heading is to keep it a little more, not quite can influence, can and may, I guess I don't know, does it make any difference? Because the trouble with the massing is, if we're not gonna reduce the program, the massing, we don't have any more land, it's kind of fixed. But I guess it's a question again, how much and how much, how who's gonna edit the stuff once we get the answers. So that's, I won't say any more about that. I just let it go, Jim. And we'll just, when we get the info, we'll just filter through it with the group. Yeah. Yeah, I don't think of this as being an FAA issue until the full building committee makes it your issue. Yeah, okay, fine. Agreed. I think we'll know more after the May 1st event when we see sort of what the public is. Hi, Christine, I'm sorry. I think we'll know more after the 1st, May 1st, when we get those comments. So kind of, you know, here we're trying to be all holistic, capture everything and, but I think as the timeline moves and the events happen and we collect the comments, this will get more clarified. So is there anyone in this group on the design or aren't the consultants that want to have anything changed right now while we have this document and Sharon? We're fine with it. We're fine with it, Christine. We're fine with this. We looked at it with Craig a couple of times. So we're good. Fantastic. Austin, I see your hand up. I just have one question about if you could get down to the next page. I just wanted to make sure I understood. So what activity did you use to do at the Jones Library? I don't understand. You mean it references things that I no longer do? Or do you mean what activities do you do at the Jones Library? Or how about what you want to continue doing or? I didn't understand. The first sentence just references like I've stopped using the Jones and I didn't think that's what was meant. So that's just a minor editorial suggestion. We'll clear that up. Sure. Great. Thank you. Anything else that anyone sees that needs to be tightened up or adjusted? Okay, I don't see any hands. At this point, let's move to item four with FAA. We have A, design status and then B, mass historic commission process. And I believe Ellen, you're going to. Yes. So what we thought we would do, we talked to Craig about this the other day is we'll just give a quick status. Justine, we'll run through the plans, just to get everybody familiar with where we are. And then we will touch on mass historic and then we can talk about some next steps. Great. Justine, do you have the share your screen? Oh, one other thing that we have organized very quickly actually with George is having the building laser scanned on Monday. It worked out perfectly being the holiday. And then we're going to take that scan and bring it into our existing Revit model. So we're really excited that we've got this organized so quickly. Thank you. And thanks for your help, George, on that. Yeah, thank you, George. That's a fast turnaround for all of us. So it works. And hopefully they can get it done one day. We've been joking that it's a marathon day at scanning for them. Yes. All right. Do you want to start on the first floor, Justine, and then go down? Sure. It just might help folks to... Of course. One up too far. Perfect. Okay. So I think everyone probably have seen these plans quite a few times. So I'll just quickly run through them just to highlight everything that you're seeing in light gray are the existing walls that are currently there and the new walls are indicated in a solid black. So we have our entry here with our original staircase. We sort of kept the main circulation path along the north-south axis and is currently running along the entire building footprint. We have the main stair and elevator along this spine here and that's spanning three stories. We have the youth children's area in yellow highlighted here on the west side of the building. And we do have an entry point for them, a separate entry that we've kept along the west side here. And we have our material return area here along with staff entry that we've kept along the east side of the building. The young adult is located here in this orange color. And then we have our adult section which is broken into two separate levels. And we have non-fiction back here. It's part of the addition. And can you point out the Cirque-desk? Sorry, you were just gonna do that, sorry. Yeah, oh, that's okay. We have the Cirque-desk sort of in the central area of the entire footprint which is here and very visible from the entry point and really from almost every part of the library which was an MBLC request. And we do have a bank of toilets here as well as part of the main public space. I think that's most of the main features of the first floor. I guess we'll quickly take you downstairs just to go back. So again, we have light blue, the main circulation space that's spanning along this spine. You will see on a couple of levels we do have an extra set of steps here because we're trying to meet all the existing heights of the original library. So we have that on two separate levels. And again, we have a bank of toilets trying to stack them as best as possible along the every floor of the library. And we do have this rare entry here which allows the opportunity to enter the large meeting room in the off hours of the library. So this large meeting room houses currently a little bit over 200 seats at the moment. And it does have a small kitchenette and co-closet adjacent to it. To the right here in yellow, we have the special collections which we did separate out the exhibits of the special collection to be next to the Burnett Art Gallery here. And again, with the footprint of the original building in light gray, you can see here what is new versus what is existing. We do have ESL program back here with the tech services as part of the addition at the ground level. And then back in the original portion, we do have facilities and mechanical spaces that support. And Josephine, we have a service entrance by the tech services. There is, yeah. We sort of kept one of the egress stairs where you currently have a set of stairs which is right here that's running or spanning all floors of each floor of the existing library and new. And we kept this service entry here. Josephine, this is an old question. So forgive me for re-asking it. If I'm in a wheelchair and I'm at one end of this library and I want to go to the other end of the library on this ground floor. Yes. How do I do it? So this elevator is a two-sided front and back access elevator. So you can use that to get from one section to the other. So I'm in a wheelchair. I've got to go into that elevator, push a button. It's going to come up. The door is going to open. I go at the other side. Yes. Okay. So there is access. There aren't a ton of spaces in this front area to access, but that is the idea at the moment. Is that high or lower, Josephine? I forget. This goes down. So the portion is higher. So it steps down here. And then we do have in the special collections area, we do have this ramp as well. Yeah, I was thinking not just about patrons, but at some point the library may have a staff person. So that's, I was just thinking about people from the public, but thank you. Yeah, we did look at ramps at a couple of these levels and it just proved to be a little too long ramp to get that to work. So that was the idea at the moment. And the library is fully accessible in, and we are using the elevator to do just that in some locations, Austin, is to make that vertical distance up. So if there aren't any other questions, we can go up to the top floor. So again, as we noted earlier, the adult collection is split up. So we have nonfiction on two floors in the same location, which is back here in the new part of the new north side of the addition, but we have the adult fiction broken up in this space here on the west side. Again, this is the main stair and elevator that spans that circulation spine. And we do have again a couple of steps down to again reach the existing elevations of the original building. We have an adult reading room at the front area here and currently a small meeting room slash computer lab in this space, if you can see my cursor. And we have administrative area back here along with another bank of toilets, public restrooms. And I'm not seeing anything else. Our main two egress stairs, aside from the main stair again, are one located here where the original stair is. And then we have one here in the original building. And this is gonna be egress to get you from the top floor all the way out. Josephine, may I ask a naive plumbing question? So the toilets stack up, it looks like they're not like above each other. And if that's, does that cause any issues in terms of plumbing in the building? We tried hard to stack where we could. Yeah. Unfortunately, our other stack that is on the first floor and ground level really is right here in this location. Yeah. So we didn't want to lose all of that light coming in and views out and wanted to keep this as open as possible. So we do have a existing wall here where we can fur out and have a nice chase, luckily, that will supply us area for plumbing, but we will have to work that through in our coordination with MEP systems as we move forward. This bank of toilets actually has shifted a few times. We did have it in this area here at one point. So we did look at a couple of different locations for it. Thank you.  And I think Josephine was gonna show us a couple of the renderings that we had. Yes, I can pull those out. I have one question just on the ground floor, thinking about the bathrooms when Austin brought them up. I know that meeting room, there's always been an issue about wanting to have access after hours.  After hours, would a meeting when you set up to 200 people there, did they have access to restrooms? Yeah, so what we did here with this south side egress at the meeting room, we have an adjacent bank of restrooms here. And the idea was that we would probably have a security gate somewhere along this area here. So it would sort of close it off to the public, but they'd have access to the restrooms for during that meeting meeting time. I see the dotted lines now. Thank you. Yeah, I was wondering how that would work. Thank you. Does anyone else have any questions on this part? I think we'll move to the outside. I don't see any hands. Thank you, Josephine. No problem. Josephine, you had one more floor, right? The little... Yeah, the top level, just the small space here. It's the boardroom and staff break room. And again, we've got that stair that's going down to the egress to access this floor. There's no elevator to that. There is this existing elevator that we did keep in this current set of documents. So handicapped or could workers could get up there? Correct. So I'll jump to the perspectives. So, Ellen, I'm not sure if you wanna speak to the perspectives. Yeah, sure. And I'm sure you've seen these before. So we've developed these based a number of design meetings. And we're designing this with some clues to the existing, trying to use a similar color masonry for the exterior cladding, similar roof shape we have contemporary dormers on. Do you have the other... Is there one more of the outside Josephine that we have? And this is a back view showing the, this is all new back here, what you're seeing. Again, using a similar roof, massing shape to help scale the project down. And the materials we can still, we still so early in design, we can talk about materials in color, but our idea is to blend with the existing. And then this is one of our interior shots showing how open and airy. I believe this is the second floor, Josephine. It is, yeah. Yeah, second. So it's the adult space. It gives you an idea of how much light we're trying to get in there with the skylights to create this light lofty space. I might just add too, you can see on the right, where we're trying to keep aspects of the existing building within and so they're exposed into the new library addition. And I think that's it, isn't Josephine for our slide deck? So that's what we have for our slides of the design as a status update. If, and if, does anybody have any questions? And if not, Jim is gonna talk just briefly about the mass historic commission process because we've had, we've done a fair amount of that. And we've already talked to them about this project, but does anybody have any questions on the design? I don't see any hands, Ellen. Great, excellent. So Jim, do you wanna give us a brief? Sure. I just had one little question about, will these be mounted out for the May 1st exhibit? How will they be on easels in an area or how will that happen exactly? Do we know? I think what they were looking to do is actually post pictures of ideas of already renovated libraries, like of teen spaces and that kind of thing, kind of to generate people thinking about it. That was the thought. Oh, okay. Nice. Yeah, good. Mass historic, Jim. Oh yeah, maybe just a few comments on that. You know, one of the things we need to do and I think it's covered, we've got a couple of documents that are controlling this. One, of course, is the agreement with mass historic, the easement, which is on the building. So there's one thing. We now also have the historic structures report, which is valuable. It gives a lot of history about the building. It also identifies clearly that the addition from 92 is not historically significant. And so it does a number of things that are helpful, and it does not actually, it makes a strong case for keeping as much as possible of the, excuse me, interior woodwork as possible since some of it is fairly unique, which we are trying to do as much as practical. It's a lot of the fireplaces, some of the trim and casings on openings and things like that. So both those documents, I think that we can work with. They all point to, of course, still the need to go to mass historic for a complete review since state money's involved. So we've done the first step by filing with them already, notice of the project proceeding. I think the thing we need to generate though, and part of it will come out of May 1st and adjusting certain things, but is to get to the local, the Amherst Historic Commission because having an endorsement and approval from them goes a long way, I think, toward affecting the state. So as soon as we, and they really, the state wants to see, as we've been told several times, a fairly serious presentation of the final schematic design. So if we were sure nothing was gonna change, we would go there right now. We know because of staff comments and other things, we need to make quite a few interior changes. And those could affect, say, the historic building. So we just need to be sure that's under control. And that we get the local team supporting us goes a long way. And I listened to the presentation made by the historic structures people to the local commission. I think we can build on that. And it seemed to me that the strengthening of the discussion was a lot of it about the interior. And keeping as much as we can. Now the guidelines do not normally make us do anything with the interior particularly, but I know the locals are gonna be interested in that. On the exterior, we just have to make the presentation and make the argument that we're doing a reasonably compatible addition to a historic building given the size. That will be a challenge. I mean, NASA historic according to ourselves and consultants is concerned about the overall size of the building. So we just have to really go in and maybe beg forgiveness because that's what it's gonna be and push it through. We're doing everything we can to mitigate that, I think at this point. So it seems to me the next step is to finalize the schematic, go back to mass historic and make an application, make a presentation and deal with the comments as best we can. Right. And one of the fine line things we have to walk on is the need for the existing building to be safe in terms of having these tiny rooms blocked off, MBLC will not agree to that. Their focus is on a library is security for the patrons and the staff. And so what they really push for and Sharon knows this is a sight line to all these different spaces. And that was one of the key pieces of locating the CERC desk where it is. It's really the visual overseeing of the library. So that's something we can certainly solve, but it's something that we have to be really delicate about. I think that's a good point, Ellen. I think one of the things as an example we can point to is the whole idea of keeping the existing stairway in the entryway and keeping the feeling of the entrance similar to what's there. We originally did not intend to do that. It does create a bit of a bottleneck and blah, blah, blah. But we've solved that by pushing the CERC desk further into the library. So that hallway is really just a passage. It isn't a gathering place. There's nothing blocking it particularly. So we've already made a great effort to preserve as much interior details as we could and still make this a functioning library. And luckily the historic report also talks about that. The fact that we need to have a 21st century functioning library. So, and there'll have to be compromises. So that's what this will be about. Thank you, Jim. So just to go over one part you said, you said finalize the schematic and then go back to Mass Historic. When would we go to the Amherst Historic Commission and ask for their backing? Where does that fit in? It should be before we go, I think, to the state. Because the state, you know, this will be somewhere controversial for the state people. So we need to have good local support, I think, to make this a little easier. So as soon as we can get the schematic roughly, and I'm not saying we have to cross every T on the interior, but we do need to make sure, you know, we can accommodate the interior changes with the scheme that we have. Because we are keeping some exterior walls of the existing building in the interior, which does make a few, you know, compromises. We have to put big openings through one of them and things like that. So the sooner we can get to the local commission, which also, of course, has the jurisdiction over the easement, right Sharon, I believe. So we need to make sure they're satisfied. So do we have to have schematic finalized, finalized by the building before going to them? I'm just thinking like Craig with Timeline trying to fit this in. Well, that's why I think it's important that we do this group of revisions to the schematic as soon as we can. So, you know, cause I think getting summers coming and then people on vacation do commissions meet. So we need to, Craig, fill in that schedule with when does that commission meet? How do we get on their agenda? It's not too early. If we had to get on their agenda in say June, well, that gives us all a firm target. Then we could go on to Mass Historic and do that stuff. And I think even before that, before we see the historic groups, we will need to get a review by MBLC just to get their blessing. Which we can do. Yeah, we know them well. So they're very flexible on when they can meet with us. So we'll just have to put a date, Craig, in our calendars for that. So that happens MBLC, and then we would go to local staff. I think that's the safest route. Probably the best route. Yeah. I agree. Okay. And the only town employee we have here right now is Angela. And Angela, if you could just put a note to self, that would be something to look into the historic commission when they have set meetings. I know some committees are more set meetings than others and others are more on the fly. So we can get that information to Craig or who the chair is. Any other information from our designers? No, I just think if we can, maybe the larger group decides this is just, when, as Jim's saying, when do we actually start? We need some feedback from Sharon and her staff. And then once we get that, we can really get the engines going, right? Because when we do have that, because we're so, we've been at this for a while and we've designed this building pretty well, but there's things that we're gonna adjust and we know that. So the eight weeks for a schematic is a decent amount of time, but it goes quickly. So we really wanna hit the ground running and use everybody's time well. So that clock has not, is it just starting right now? Or what's the? I would say we will wait till we get Sharon's comments and then we'll start. And that seems fair. And that seems fair on eight weeks. Yeah. Right. They're abouts. We're not gonna be by the minute, but they're abouts because we really can't hit the ground running till we get that. Just one other quick comment. There is some obviously, because of the historic stuff, can be some confusion about different things. And I know that it's confusing to everybody, even us. But one aspect is historic tax credits are a lot different than the approval from Mass Historic to do this addition. The historic tax credits raises it to a whole other level. So we are not currently discussing that. Now, they dovetail together with certain approvals, but it's a lot of paperwork. It's a whole different structure. And so I don't know where that is, but we are not talking about that this morning. Correct. And I think if we are gonna do, if that's part of the plan, that Craig can blend that into our schedule. Yeah. That's a different schedule. Yeah. Okay. So if we're done with that, I just for, Oh, Austin, I see your hand. Sorry. Thank you, Christine. Thanks very much for the walkthrough. So Jim, Ellen, Josephine, based on your experience, what is the time parameters for approval once we get to the state level? So what is the, you know, this is the quickest we can imagine it. This is the slowest that we can imagine it. And how, if at all, is that time parameter built into the existing schedule? Well, just to say in general, the problem with the Mass Historic, of course is they have 60 days, supposedly to respond to everything, but the problem is they, you know, they sort of do what they do and you need their approvals for certain things anyway. So it's a little hard to pin down, but I think we, you know, the sooner we get in, I mean, normally it falls within the production schedule, right? For the building, like we have to do the working drawing. We have all that time. So I would say it probably isn't a driver, but if we had a major problem, we need to find out, you know, as quickly as possible. That's, I guess, that's why the schematic thing puts it all out there. Once and for all, everybody's put their stake in the ground. Now this is what's gotta be approved and we all need to work on that. So that's why it's important to do that. It could draw, it could often rolls over into the DD phase, the next phase for the final approval and that's okay. As long as we're not in any big trouble. The nice thing is we hopefully will be instituting informal reviews at Mass Historic again. That is very helpful. And I don't know if we ever got really any comments back, Sharon, from the submission particularly. I don't know. No. Cause they're looking for full-blown. Yeah. They're looking for serious stock, yeah. Serious. Yeah. So that's really the key. Can I ask you, so going back to the historic tax credit, so that that's a really important piece of this puzzle because we need that funding, we're relying on that funding. And so you said it was separate from Mass Historic approval, but are they happening concurrently? Well, they are dovetailed in the approval. The process is just a little more, it's more complicated in terms of, structure as you know. So if you're going to go that route, it's good to start out with that in mind. The approval will generally be the same. So they do dovetail. I don't mean to say they're totally, the work we're doing would be the basis for tax credit approval. That was my question. Yeah. Great. Thank you. The standards should be the same. Okay. Thank you. Sorry, I misspoke that. No. And may I just say, Christine, just to be clear, lest there be any confusion, historic preservation is a high priority for this project. It's not that we're gonna have an adversarial relationship with the Amherst Historical Commission or the State Historical Commission. We are all on board with the idea that historic preservation will be a high priority for this project. So I just want to make sure everybody, we remind ourselves of that, that it's not like we're gonna try to do something and mass historic is gonna say, you people aren't prioritizing historic preservation. They may disagree with us on details about what it is that we're gonna do and what their impact is on historic preservation, but we're all on the same team when it comes to this goal. Right. Agreed, Austin. Absolutely, Austin. And I think our concerns a lot that we're expressing today is just more about timeline and process and having everything flow and not get hung up on things. I think the whole relationship with all the historic is just about compromise because very often it's money and that controls a lot of those decisions. So, and we will know more as we keep moving forward. So, moving forward, we have another design meeting scheduled on the 29th, at the same time a Friday at nine. Earlier that week on a Tuesday, we also have a general Jones library building committee meeting. Keep in mind.  What do you see should be on the next design committee meeting? Is there anything we should be looking at or preparing for? And is the timing the 29th good? And we also just to remind our few days later, the first outreach thing will be on May 1st. Personally, I think the timing is fine. Two weeks, hopefully we'll have some more information and some more direction. Fine, find old Alexander. We'll have a little bit of time to start incorporating things. I think it will be another meeting that's similar to this one, kind of a general overview in nature. Could we have a little bit on timelines or schedules? I think that would help everyone start to... Certainly. It's just a lot of pieces floating around right now. Yep, absolutely. I wonder if it would only, if it helped, would it, I don't know if I hate to postpone, but would it be better to push this meeting until after May 1st? Or is that just, I don't know, a few days after when stuff came back or is that too soon? But I'm not sure what we should do between now and... I was thinking, yeah, I wanted Ellen. I'm hoping that we can get some feedback from Sharon and her team and bring that to the next meeting for discussion.  And we can just talk about those items at the next meeting. We won't have time to incorporate them as my guess, but I think it would be a good discussion for the group. And we all meet after this call, by any chance? Ellen, Jim, Craig, and Josephine and me? No, okay. I have another meeting I was supposed to be at at 10, so I'm gonna have to join that one. But I can later today, I can meet at one. I'm not available at one, but... When are you available, Josephine? I hear noon. What's that? I don't, yeah. I'm out for a few hours today at lunchtime. How about 11? Got a meeting at 11. Ah, it's not looking like today is gonna happen. How about next week? That is probably easier. I'm on vacation next week, so I wanted to do it today, otherwise y'all are waiting for me. Let's try to do it today. You know what, let's do it right after this. I'll just, I have a coworker at the 10 o'clock. She can handle that, so let's do this. Okay, thank you. Just so we can get it. Thank you. You don't need me for that, right? I have a 1030 issue. Yeah, I don't think we need you, Jim. Sorry, Jim. We always need you. No, you don't. No, you don't. Eleanor, Eleanor will get after me. Yeah, if we need Jim's info in anything from him, we know where he is. Yes, exactly. All right. So if this takes care of Sharon's input, then it would not happen on the next meeting on the 29th. So should we shift the meeting to after the May 1st? Any idea? I don't know how quickly the outreach maybe Austin or Sharon, do you have any idea about this Craig? How quickly do you think they'll be able to get comments to us from that event? That's a... Don't know, really, because we don't know how many comments we're gonna get. I mean, we could have three people or we could have 300 people. We just don't know at this point. But Craig and Sharon, I mean, we can communicate with the outreach people. So if May 1st is a Sunday, if we pushed our meeting a week from, instead of the 29th to Friday, May 6th, that would give them five days to collect the comments to give them to us. We're under a tight thing. We're talking about like six, eight weeks here. So I'm wondering like, how quickly is five days enough? Does anyone, Sharon... So imagine even if 30 people come, they're gonna be leaving comments on sticky notes and post, you know, post-its and flip charts. So all of that has to be typed. So I appreciate what Christina's saying. Maybe it makes more time and makes more sense to me on the six. Ellen, what do you think? That's fine with us. I just want us to, you know, I think you guys want us to get going, right? So, and I think, and Sharon, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think we're gonna have decisions about what you want today, right?  Oh, I have decisions for you. Okay. Can I? Oh, I know. So I'm guessing Christine, we're not gonna have, we're gonna, I think the final comments from Sharon, we should review with the group. And I would like to do that on the 29th. Okay, great. So we can, then we can actually start. And then you can start so then we could have another design meeting two weeks later on the 13th and we would definitely have the comments by the outreach by then. Right, that makes more sense to me. Okay. And Craig, that's why the timeline of all of this will be helpful because then we'll see how the time starts shrinking on the backside. So all right, so at this point, we'll stick with the 29th at 9 a.m. And then we'll set aside, we're saying our next meeting will be on May 13th on Friday at 9 a.m. And at this point, I don't have anything for item five for things I did not anticipate in 48 hours, except my computer not working. But I'll move to item six, public comment. And let's see here. I see one hand up, Bob Pam. And I think Angela is talking permitted. Are you there, Bob? Yes, I am. Hello, welcome. Thank you. I have, let me say this in two parts. First, in terms of the things that cannot be changed, you have a document. There is something that says design and massing of the 1928 portion. It really should say the design and massing of the addition to the 1928 portion. We're not changing the design and massing of the original. That's just a simple edit to that document. The other questions that I have relate to the design, I have, the design that we in town have seen over the last two or three years has not changed essentially. And so some of us have had thoughts on that. I prepared a set of comments a year ago. They have been available to the library staff. And they involve for the most part exterior kinds of issues. The two biggest questions had to do with the fact that there is a difference in floor level which you're addressing with a elevator with several stops at the same floor. That will work for most people. It'll be very inconvenient for people who are handicapped and probably very difficult for those who are blind but that's one issue. The second issue has to do with the driveway on the east which is one vehicle width and no way out. So you have to back in or out each time. It is complicated if there is more than one vehicle coming in and out or trying to. And it is clear that the design is now making the rear entrance very substantial and important. So the enormous schematic issue is we originally designed the rear portion to stick out on the east because of the Kinsey garden that is disappearing as an issue. So the question is, is there something that we can do which would allow for access that goes through or allows a turnaround or does anything which eliminates that issue? I've got other things but those are in documents which are available and can be talked about at another time. Thank you, Mr. Pam. This leads me to ask a question to some higher powers here. We have this outreach thing coming on May 1st and a lot of people won't be able to attend that either, you know because they have other things they have to do. How is there another way that the outreach is going to have people be able to submit their question? Like sort of what Mr. Pam was talking about, you know, how would he go about making sure that these comments get put into the mix? I think there's, so we do have Angela, one of the town's community participation officers. She can talk about what's available on the town's website. I think there's still a space on the library's website where people can insert comments as well. Okay. So there's a place on the library website where anytime right now people can go and at some point we will like put a date and collect and like what happens to them that have been entered so far? Are there a lot of them or? So yeah, so we've been collecting and kind of, you know, mushing together and sharing as part of our thought process with the architects. Okay. And Angela, is there somewhere on the town website? Sure. So I know that there have been conversations with Anika Lopes and Alex LaFave with the communications manager for the town, Brianna Sunred. They are working to create a Engage Amherst page dedicated to this project. And so the Engage Amherst page accepts anonymous and people can also sign in and create an account and give feedback. And then there are lots of different outputs for that. There are pie charts, which tell you which topics, was it programming, was it aesthetics, was it exterior, was it interior? And then it also kind of gives us spreadsheets of each individual comment. So it's easy to kind of push out in lots of different reports and present to you. And we can put a deadline on that. We can put a shutdown date on that webpage. But I would encourage people to call us. I'm happy to take phone calls. And then I just type those up and I send them off to Sharon Sherry and she collects them and can share them out with you as well. So however people feel most comfortable, we really wanna hear from everyone. I'm sorry, you were muted. I didn't hear what you said. No, my, is there a way if people are in the library or can they call the library? Is that the same thing as you just say? I have a comment about the new building construction. Absolutely, they can talk with any staff member here or they can come into the office and chat with me. They can leave us notes. They can be anonymous, absolutely. Email, however. Very good to know. Okay, all right. Well, I think, is there anything else that anyone, I don't see any other public hands up. So just coming back to the panelists, does anyone have anything they need to say before we close out the meeting? Oh, Austin, I see, yeah. It's not a, maybe it's a need, maybe it's just a desire. I wanna just say how thrilled I am to be in partnership with FAA and Colliers. Again, the opportunity to see Jim and Josephine and Ellen and seeing those schematics, we are indeed, the town of Amherst is indeed lucky to have this group as our partners in this project. So it's great to see you all again and look forward to the work that we will do together. Thank you, Austin. We're thrilled to be here for sure. Great, yeah, thank you. You guys have been at this actually for a long, long time and same thing with Sharon and the Board of Trustees, the library trustees, it's finally moving. So this is exciting and thank you for your time today. I'm gonna join this meeting and we'll see you on the 29th. Thank you all, thank you for your time and hard work. Great, thank you all. Angela, yeah, Angela, is it possible for everybody else to leave and then me just chat with the architects? That would be great. All right, have a good weekend, everyone. Thank you, Karen. Bye. Bye bye, thank you. Sharon, I just need to stop the recording. Thank you.


So what should Americans demand of Congress in light of the Twitterfile revelations? Unfortunately, if a tool of centralized speech control can be abused by government, it's a virtual certainty that it will be abused eventually. We should follow the advice of Julian Assange and the cypherpunk movement that shaped his thinking, which maintained that technology, not government policy, is the only effective check on authoritarian tendencies in the long run. You cannot trust a government to implement the policies that it says that it's implementing, and so we must provide the underlying tools, cryptographic tools that we control as a sort of use of force. The good news is that many people are gradually waking up to the dangers of allowing a company to maintain centralized control over the public conversation.


of this financing is only restructuring, I guess to the extent that you're stretching out existing debt and trying to minimize the cost of it, you want to do that in as low an interest rate environment as you can get, because there will be a cost of stretching out of debt that only went out 10 years and now we might be going out 13 or 14 years with that original piece of debt. And so just again so I understand that interest rate, the current interest rate then would be locked in. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Marcus? So I guess my question is a little bit more plain English. It sounds like we're paying $136,000 and today dollars to do exactly what for the citizens of Sheboygan. Okay. What you're doing is you're managing the difference of where the combined tax levy is going to go. If you were in need to issue $4 million over these four years for capital projects and the difference would be the highest point on page four where you would look to the 2026 and you're at $4.9 million. Every year your levy goes up when you issue debt. If we did absolutely, if we didn't do anything at this point and we just went forward with the 21 CIP, then we'd go back to page two. Carol? Yes. This is Todd. I guess another way to help Marcus understand is when you referenced the $4 million, that was a model that you and I put together basically looking at the next couple of years in CIP. If we estimated at a $4 million spend in CIP year over year, this is what it's going to look like respectfully. Am I correct? I think you can add some clarity to my question then. If we were to do this proposed thing of $4 million borrowing over the next three years in 22 through 24 and our debt service goes up to the highest of $5.6 million in 2026, what would that look like to the average taxpayer in Sheboygan versus with this new plan? Marcus, I guess your question is a little bit different. The issue is what Carol and I are working to do is that we're trying to balance the cost to the levy, which allows us to manage our operating cost. Our operating cost, our revenue continues to drop. We have to be very careful in the year over year of dollars going from the levy to pay our operating cost to pay our bonds. When you look at that, that's where we're trying to kind of balance it year over year versus having those spikes that Carol showed you in some of those pages where it went up to like 5.9 and things like that. The city can't continue to have increases in CIP and increases in operating costs to pay the GEO debt year over year when our revenues continue to decrease. Would that be correct, Carol? Yes, that would be correct. One of the reasons why the existing city purposes debt does have that high of an annual combined levy is because the city does use 10-year notes to fund its CIP and if you did that with a two-and-a-half or $3 million debt every year, you may not see those kind of spikes develop, but when you get into doing $4 million, $5 million each year, it becomes more and more difficult to keep that debt within a 10-year amortization without that happening.  You're in $900 and over in a million dollars. See, because again, your heavy is very heavy on the back end. You can keep doing that. It's just going to put more pressure on that tax levy number. That tax levy requirement to tax forward is going to be greater and greater every year, so it really comes down to how you want to manage that levy if that's an acceptable number to be up at, you know, $5 million six, with even this type of a structure continuing, then that would be what you would expect to happen. If you do want to lower that number, then the advanced refunding is the tool that allows you to lower that number. And either way, you're stretching your get out if you refund with advanced refunding or if you wait in the future and you do it with current refunding, the whole goal of the refunding would be to stretch it out if you do want to bring down that combined debt service number. Except, and Todd, so what I'm trying to understand in 2028, when our borrowing costs just on, and I'm looking at page four, down a bit. So what would be your plan for, thank you, 2028 all of a sudden now we're losing quite a bit of money instead of saving it. Would that affect borrowing capabilities in 2028? Or would you just be kind of waiting to see what would happen? Do you see what I'm asking? Chair, I believe I understand what you're, what you're asking. I believe that what to answer that question is what we are planning on doing is having a better balanced balance sheet by that time. Right now we're focusing on being able to increase our operating costs so that we can afford additional debt because we know that year over year, and that's where the team and I, Daniella and Carol, when we met, we talked about different models if we were to look at $3 million or $4 million of CIP because it's traditional that the city borrows, you know, in that range and we wanted to know how is that going to affect us moving forward because we did take on some larger projects as we know. But we also know that using the last couple of years as an example that we've lost and put the pandemic aside, our operating costs continue to rise year over year. So obviously we can't keep increasing debt and have our revenues continue to decrease. So we're trying to balance it and then come up with a better plan moving forward and how we're going to be able to control that. So by doing what we're doing by advancing some payments to pay some of this off, as Carol had talked about, looking at a model of $4 million, you saw that it actually softens the year over year of payments. And that's what we're recommending at this time to allow us to better review the years coming because we do know from a facilities management and obviously our roads and just internal operations, there's some investment that the city is going to need to review. And we're trying to set the stage to be able to do this as best economical, best stewardship. I hope that answers your question. Yeah. And for me, it basically comes down to this just intuitively doesn't make a great deal of sense to me, but I think it's because I don't really have a sense of the full picture and the forward looking picture. So from my perspective, my trust is in you and your analysis and Carol's analysis. And so I'm comfortable with this. It's just it's not as interesting or as comfortable, I guess, is the word I would be looking for as stuff that we've done in the past. If you understand what I'm saying. Well, the decisions in the past were much easier because of the fact that we were looking at just refunding or to reduce our interest percentage. That's an easy win. Looking at this when Carol and I first were looking at it, we were looking at these were items that we wanted to roll in in the future, but it didn't make sense to wait for the future for the call feature. So that's why we decided to go with the taxable because the interest rates are so low, the taxable or non taxable didn't make a difference. But it made sense to roll them in now because ultimately we would want to later and they to roll them in later would be a lower geo bond that doesn't make sense to go through the whole process. Again, the concept that I need the finance committee to understand is from Carol's presentation, we're trying to buffer the increase in levy expense, if that makes sense. Yep. Marcus and then Birch. Thank you. So this question is probably the best answered by Todd. Are you trying to hold our ability to not raise taxes anymore while still getting all of the operational expenses through and paying this additional debt and that's why you want to spend $136,000 today to spread that out over the next couple of years? I think that's a two part question. Am I trying to hold taxes? I think the city always tries to hold taxes, but we also have to be realistic that taxes are going to continue to go up because if we don't raise taxes, we're not going to be able to cover operating costs year over year. And I think our tax, our constituents understand that costs do go up. What I'm trying to do is I'm trying to minimize the cost against our operating budget because our costs are going up faster than our taxes are if that would be a better way for you to understand. Our revenues are not going up as fast as our costs are. So what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to balance our costs so that our operating budgets can afford it without having to make reductions in service because a reductions in service is not going to be, that's a slippery slide. Does that help you? I got a follow-up. Okay. Thank you. So I was always under the impression that the debt here didn't apply to the amount that we could raise taxes if we needed to according to the state statute. Is that correct or not correct? It's not correct. There's a difference between the two subject matters that we're talking about. We have our debt that goes against our operating costs, our levy, but then there's our operating costs. So we have to be careful with that. But we have our revenue. Revenue is a little bit different. We also have the fact that we have our net new construction and our expenditure restraint that the state and government hold us to. As an example, when we did our net new construction last year, we should have gone up 26 cents to the per thousand versus 15 cents. The problem that you have is because we only went up 15 cents, our operating income only went up that much. So that means that we gave up some of the levy to be able to pay for bills and pay for our overhead costs. If we continue to do that, obviously our costs continue to go up, and that means that we're not going to be able to borrow money for capital improvements or road construction or facilities, and it also means that we're not going to have money to pay for our overhead costs, our wages and benefits. And we have to remember respectfully that we are a service industry, so the majority of our cost will be wages and benefits because of the services that we provide. Does that help you? We're getting into a rabbit hole here. Okay. So, Burt, you have a question, and then I think we do need to kind of move on. Go ahead. It's actually two parts. I have heard the term operating costs. Is that day-to-day expenses that the city has as a side from capital improvements? Is that what you say when you say operating costs? And that's back to our levy. When I look at the annual budget, I look at operating costs, everything that is coming out of the revenues that we have. So we have our wages and benefits, yes, but if you look back at what Carol was showing us, we have our geodebt that comes out of our levy. So what we don't want to get into, and we can sidebar this and talk about this further later, what we don't want to do is give all of our operating costs, the amount that we use from the levy, our general fund, we don't want it to all be going to pay our debt because there's wages and benefits, each department has their budgets, kind of concept. Okay, let me interrupt. When you say operating costs, do you include the geodebt? Yes. The payment on the geodebt is included in operating costs when you say operating costs. Yes. Thank you. My second question is when we get to the parentheses on this table, does that affect our bond rating? Will this affect our bond rating? The parentheses that you're seeing in those years, if you look at what the effect of that is, okay, that this schedule tells you the effect of those parentheses. So in the year 2028, you look at the year 2028 on this schedule and you go to the far right-hand side. Yes. We'll see that your levy, your tax levy is going from 4.6 a year before to 4.49 a month. Right. So what this demonstrates to the rating agency is the city's ability to issue debt as it has in the past as 10-year notes on a capital improvement plan of at this point approximately $4 million a year and stabilize the tax levy so that you have a declining tax levy. So that is a positive thing. If you did not do it, you go back to page 2 and you look at that same year, right? And that year is a 4.1, which is favorable. But look at what's happening in the years above it. If the levels above it are acceptable in terms of a levy, then you would not need to refinance. It really comes down to how you want to manage your levy and what is acceptable in terms of a tax levy for your debt. But in terms of through the rating agency, they would look at the page 4. And in the years where you see the negatives, because that's where you're now filling in debt that you didn't have filled in there before. And this would be the impact of all of that exercise of putting debt in there and adding it to a future CIP. So Carol, would you agree that the plan, the way we have presented it, would show Moody's that we're actually being very good at our future endeavors? I think what we would be showing to Moody's is the fact that the city is taking on all of its capital improvement borrowings within 10 years and has call features on it for the purpose of making decisions as it goes into future capital borrowings. Because at the time you're doing your financing like now, we could be talking about $3 million, we could be talking about $4 million or something totally unrelated going forward. But having a plan is what's important to the rating agency is how are you planning for your future. And the fact that you've been doing all of your advertising, all of your borrowings within 10 years, it's not unreasonable to say at some point that the project that you're borrowing for certainly can be advertised over a longer period of time in terms of useful life. But this is just a one-time approach to manage that levy and having a plan to manage your levy. So I think that it's all about what's your plan when it comes to a rating agency. I think that we have a very good story. Thank you. I think we really need to move along. I see that we have two possibilities here. One is that we can bring forth a motion to bring this forward to the council at our March 1st meeting. The second thing we can do is explore whether or not we want to talk about this more. My sense is that we'll interfere with the plan that Cheryl has put together here. So I think I just need to briefly, because we have another agenda item that's going to take some time. Quite frankly, I think that this is a new concept for us. And Carol, I always appreciate your explanation. But I think that the material is quite dense and is kind of intuitive. So I, committee members and Todd, let me ask you first, what harm do you see in us perhaps getting a more simplified description of what this is and taking a little bit more time, or is time of the essence and we really need to move forward? I believe I'd have to ask Carol if this can hold over for additional discussion. I guess it's potentially partially my fault that we've muddied the waters because I was the one that asked Carol to present more of a model where we looked at 4 million as a potential spend year over year for the next couple of years trying to show the committee that we are being strategically planning for future spends in the upcoming years and how this would be affecting us. Because I think that that's something that we all need to better understand. I agree that the GEO debts that we've been looking at in the past couple of years has been what I call WYSIWYG because of the interest rates being as they have been where we've been able to save very easily year over year. So I can only ask that the committee respect the program that we put forward, but if Carol, if you feel that we can wait several weeks for them to go through this again, I guess I need your guidance on that, Carol. Sure. Well, if we were to wait, the presentation tonight would allow us to stay on the same timeline as the city's capital improvement borrowing so that everything would be in the same rating process, same official statement. But if we were to wait a couple of weeks to review this more, the financing can still take place. It would just take place on its own separate timeline with its own separate official statement. The rating process would be very short, but that's really what would happen between looking forward with it on this timeline. If we didn't, then we would be talking about a separate debt issuance, whatever, you know, that becomes, you know, the timeline that is comfortable and answered all the questions. Okay. So at this point, I am willing to move forward just as a committee member. And I think what I'm going to do is ask for a motion to authorize the city to issue sale of approximately 3,660,000 in taxable bonds. And let's see if there is someone willing to make that motion. And a second, and then we can further discuss it or just see where we're going. So do I have such a motion? I'd make the motion. And is there a second? I'll second that. All right. Thank you. My position at this point is that I am comfortable going forward. I'm beginning to understand a little bit better. You know, exactly what we're looking at here. But let me hear from other committee members. Let me start with you, Marcus. I have some concerns with the, with spending $300,000 in the future so we can spend an additional $130,000 today so that we can balance the debt for the next 10 years. It doesn't seem like it's a smart move. And I'm really struggling with the explanation I got tonight. So I don't think I can support this. Jim? Jim, you have to unmute yourself. Sorry about that. I was having a cough before. Todd, I'm not going to make my remarks as anything derogatory towards you. You've only been on this job now since last July. And I know over the next year or two, you're going to look for every possible efficiency of a better way of doing things for all of the departments. To me, though, to me, by doing this, we're taking our, I guess we're excusing ourselves for additional, you know, we're saving, we're saving on, you know, these costs. But, you know, I guess where it gives us, I guess I'm trying to say is that it just gives us another excuse to continue spending money the way we have been in all the various departments. And I'm uncomfortable with that. And again, you're new to this job, and I know your evaluation of all of the departments going forward, you're going to look for every last dollar in efficiencies in a different way of doing things. But I'm somewhat uncomfortable with this for that reason. Trey, is there anything you'd like to add? Not particularly comfortable either. I share a lot of the thoughts that have been communicated by the other council members. That's why I've been rather quiet. I'm trying to absorb all the information in front of me and make sure it makes perfect sense, which there is a picture being painted, but it's perhaps not 100% there yet. The biggest thing for me is if we could get an A to Z explanation at the full council meeting, if this moves on to that, of exactly what's going to happen, what the future implications are, what they are, if we don't do this, that would be appreciated. Okay, thank you. Bert? I am in favor of this. My caveat is this is a whole big elephant to swallow, and we never got small pieces along the way, and I don't like that no matter where I am. However, I understand the concept of advanced refunding. The fact that interest rates are so low right now makes a lot of things very palatable because of the interest rates. Among them are the differential in the taxable and the non-taxable. I also appreciate leveling out the operational expenses against the tax levy versus the geo debt. It appears as if it would not bother our ground bond ratings, significantly decrease our bond ratings. So I think the forward planning of this is probably very prudent. However, I think the lesson to be learned here is you can't just bring an elephant on a committee. You just can't keep doing it. So I would still vote in favor of this, and I guess I question the prudence of taking, of discussing this in full counsel if we can't digest it as a committee. My other concern is it does make sense to wrap this with the other debt because it's less expensive if we go to market once for all the bonding. But again, if this was in process, you just got to give us more ramp up time. So I'd still vote for it. Chair? Chair? I just wanted to make one real quick question just to help everybody. Please understand that there were several geo debts in the past couple of years, and Mary Lynn, you probably remember these and Jim, that we took interest, we made interest only payments. So we borrowed interest ahead of time for different areas like tids and things like that. So we borrowed money just to make interest only. So if that was palatable, I don't quite understand and maybe I need to work on our presentation moving forward. But the rabbit hole that we kind of fell in is the fact that what I asked Carol to present was the ability to look at the next couple of years of CIP at the $4 million amount and how it would affect us. It's just a model. That's why we're doing what we're doing is to allow us to better level our costs for the city so that we have a better ability to afford it year over year. We're going into some troubled times and I'm asking the committee to support this because it's balancing and leveling our debt going forward. Thank you. So I think I'm going to add, unless there are any other comments, I'm going to ask for... Did I get a motion? All right. And we can... At this point, I'm going to ask for a vote. It can still, I think I incorrect check, proceed to council even with a negative vote. And there might be an opportunity to slice up the elephant to use Bert's analogy in such a way that it is a little bit more comprehensible for all of us. So with that in mind, would all those in favor of the motion please state aye? Aye. I have two ayes. All those opposed? Nay. All right. And the chair votes aye. So we have a three to vote. And what I would suggest is that, and I don't know just how chunky our agenda is going to be on March 1st, but if we can have perhaps, and Todd, you and I can work on this, perhaps just a clearer presentation of what's going on, because it is a new concept for all of us. And we'll take it from there. How's that? Everyone okay with that? Okay. Very good. So I am going to go back to 3.5, which I had mixed up previously, but just not a good day for me. This is a resolution approving the investment policy for the city of Chicago. Todd, you want to go ahead with that? Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. 3.5 is brought forward for the committee to review. In assisting Daniella and the finance department, I took over the comptroller responsibilities. And in doing so, it was brought to my attention that the policy that we had in the first place, our investment policy, dated back to 1995. And for those of you in attendance, I think that's a very, very, very, very old program and policy. And so the first thing that I did was get Chuck and Thomas involved so that we could update it. And in meeting with our investment groups, we started to look at what do we need to do as far as with the economy the way it is. And I'm asking that we follow state statutes. And as the policy's written, it gives us the ability to expand if needed. Again, it's an as needed policy, but it gives us more flexibility in the market to find ways to make the city some money during an economic downturn. So I'm hoping to get support in this. It has been vetted significantly, and it fits what our banking organization and our bonding association feel is needed to be economically viable in a poor situation like we are today. If you have questions, let me know. Okay, questions for Todd or Thomas or Chuck, whoever is going to be taking them. Marcus. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to know, is there any risk of us losing money with any of these programs? We've been losing money since the economy went down. So please understand that when interest rates go down, the ability to make money in the market goes down. So again, they can call it when the interest rates drop. They can call it and cause us to lose investment, but we need the ability to be flexible with whom we, who we're bonding with, who we're working with, and the length of term that we can go out. So obviously right now in the market, as you guys probably know, if you can go out further, there is risk that you're tying money up, but there's risk staying in a short market because seriously, there's no money to be made in a short term market right now. And we're talking, I mean, if we can borrow money at less than a percent, the interest, the ability to make money in a poor market like this is less than a percent. So again, this is looking at state statutes. It's also looking at, you know, where we were in 1995, which is a lot different than where we are in 2021. Again, it's a policy for us to follow and manage the investments that we have. You know, we are so constrained in state law in what we can invest in in the first place. We cannot buy game stock stock, whether we want to or not. So, you know, is there the possibility that what we can invest in goes down? You know, we're basically limited to investing in bonds from entities that look like us. Is there the possibility that we invest in a bond holder that doesn't pay what, you know, doesn't make their payment? I mean, that's always a possibility. Any time you don't stick money in your mattress, there's the possibility someone doesn't make the payment they're supposed to or the bank folds or, you know, any of the things that can theoretically happen.  So, you know, there's sort of risk, state law, very much constraints, how much risk we can take on even if we wanted to be very, very... I don't see very much reason for us to be more conservative than the state of Wisconsin is. So, I am quite willing to match their criteria. I also think that having an investment policy from 1995 is very offensive. So, we should do something about it because we should review it every five years, minimally. So, I would move that we adopt the investment policy as proposed. Very good. Is there a second? Second. All right. Any other discussions? I have a question for Thomas. Thomas, I'm reading here that we're, you know, I guess the maximum we can have at a bank is FDIC. So, that would be what? 225,000 would be the max per financial institution. 250. And then the other... Can you go into the statutes a little bit of exactly what we are allowed to invest in? I presume it would be CDs. What else does the state allow? Absolutely. So, I believe FDIC limits are 250. I believe it's $250,000. Yeah, it's 250. And what we've done in the investment portfolio or in the investment procedure is we talk about keeping the average balance within that FDIC insurance limit. So, you know, when we're making payroll, you can end up with a lot of money moving in and out as we're trying to make sure that our checks don't bounce. A lot of the things that the city buys as an institution are quite expensive. And it's not unheard of for us to be writing a check for more than $250,000. So, what we're trying to talk about is the average, sort of the average daily balance, keeping it within that insurance limit, recognizing there's going to be a day or two here or there. I mean, we're significantly higher than that as we've got to set up for those things. One thing the finance department has done is they've gone to monthly check runs. So, again, you know, when you're setting up to batch process those checks, there is more exposure there. But you're also limiting the amount of time. Let me pull off the relevant statement. We believe you. Unless somebody else doesn't. But, I mean, I want my six o'clock. Basically, it's CDs of different duration, right? It's CDs. It's other municipal bonds. It's things of that sort. You can invest in U.S. Treasury bonds. You can invest in the local government, Wisconsin's local government investment pool. The one restriction that we've put on ourselves, which is, I suppose, more conservative than the state, the state will let you invest in municipal bonds that are the highest or second highest rating category. And we've said we think the highest is enough so balancing that interest rate return and that risk. Okay. Thank you. Chair. Any further discussion? Chair. Are you not all in favor, State Ayes? Aye. Did you want to say something? I'm sorry. I was just going to add that this policy is for all of our investments. Presently, we have investments through Wisconsin Bank & Trust where I move money almost daily for operating costs. As Thomas alluded to, we do have one other investment firm that we use. And I just wanted the committee to understand that that firm did not have an actual investment policy from the city of Sheboygan. So again, this is one of those urgent items that I've tripped over that needed to be updated. So I appreciate their support. There's no further discussion. All in favor, State Ayes? Aye. Chair votes aye. Before there's a motion to adjourn, I just want to extend, and I think I can do this on behalf of the committee, Todd, our deep gratitude for the energy and the imagination is not exactly the word I would use, the innovation and the innovation perspective that you are bringing to the job to solve and address problems that probably haven't been solved and addressed maybe even before 1995. So our action tonight is not a reflection at all. I think I can speak for all committee members here of your willingness to really take hard looks and be very energetic about representing not only the best financial interest in the city, but all the other things that we do, which is pretty complex and extremely important. So with that, do we have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Chair votes aye. Thank you all. What a meeting. Stand up now and walk around before you get into your next meeting. Thanks all. Good night. Good night. I see you got your vaccination badge first. Yeah, we got our second one last Tuesday. Did you get your second or first? This is my first and I'm so excited. Oh yeah, we got our first.