Finance Committee - Regular Meeting

Committee meeting to order. First up is roll call. The entire committee is present this evening. We will move on to public comment. Is there anybody from the public that wishes to address the finance committee on anything germane to the city Manitowoc? Second call for public comment. Third and final call for public comment. Anybody on zoom for public comments? And was there any previously received public comment? Okay. I will close public comment. First up, have a presentation. Brad Begumit is here to go through the city's 2026 debt financing plan.

Brad? Before Brad jumps in the exact presentation he's going to read off is attached to agenda item twenty six zero zero seven two on there. And typically, historically, we'll we'll go through what we're anticipating, borrowing for our capital improvement program and then also some debt refunding and other types of things. So I'll turn it over to Brad.

Okay. Thank you. So this presentation is really in relation to the resolution that's later on your agenda that would authorize the borrowing, the city's financing for 2026. I'll walk through this and then answer any questions. Just in terms of a timeline with the committee's authorization and approval tonight of the resolution, the resolution would go to the common council for its February 16 meeting.

The city staff and Baird staff are taking steps towards the issuance. We've developed a financing plan. We're gonna prepare the official statement, which is a disclosure document, secure a bond rating for the city. We're gonna market the notes, and then we plan to finalize the March. So in the March, Baird would underwrite the notes, and we would have, the award certificate, which finalizes all of the rates and terms, executed by city officials.

And then we would close on April 20 as the anticipated closing date. With the resolution you're considering tonight, it's the same process the city's followed for the past several years. It really provides greater flexibility in that we are not limited to just one day to to market and issue the bonds. That not limited to one day coinciding with the city council meeting date. We have the flexibility as long as the parameters are met to finalize the pricing and the terms of the bonds and notes really on any day after the resolution is adopted.

So by way of summary, the estimated borrowing amount here is $21,000,006.85. And these would be general obligation promissory notes. Now I wanted to just point out there's multiple purposes that are wrapped into that twenty one million six eighty five. There's a refinancing or a refunding of debt that was issued back in 2018, and that's 5,815,000. And that's a refunding for savings.

So we're exchanging that higher interest rate debt with lower interest rate debt that's anticipated with this issuance. There's new money being funded for, your CIP program, and that's $7,240,000. There's another refinancing of $320,000 for a project that was funded back in 2024 for the marina, and so that not a new money piece that was previously authorized project. And then there's another new money issuance for tip number 22 projects at 1 and a half million dollars. And then finally, there's a refinancing of NAN's note anticipation note short term financing that was issued two years ago for TID 22, and that's $6,810,000.

So the again, the new money piece of this, $7,000,002.40 and, 1,500,000.0 for CIP and TID 22. The rest is refinancing debt that was previously issued. So the benefit here to wrapping this all into one larger issuance, first, administratively, it's easier to manage moving forward and at this initial outset, but there's also really a cost benefit. You know, where the larger bond, you know, individual principal payments are gonna receive more attention from the marketplace that that tends to lead to lower interest rates. But also just from an issuance cost standpoint, issuing one note issue rather than say four or five, you're going have efficiencies with the issuance expense.

So the overall structure of the entire note issue when it's brought to market gonna have annual maturities beginning in 2027 with final principal scheduled for 2046. We anticipate having a first call feature on 02/01/2034. So that means the principal maturities in 2035 through 2046 can be called or refinanced at the city's option. And then the first interest payment would be budgeted for 02/01/2027. The estimated rate based on current market is 3.9% for the combination of the issue.

The summary of the parameters is below. The maximum or not to exceed borrowing amount included in the parameters resolution be 22,500,000, not to exceed interest rate of 5%. The maturity schedule ties out to the structure I've just went through. Each individual maturity can change by up to $2,100,000, and that's so we can meet the debt service targets, the budgeting targets on an annual basis of the city so we can move payments around right up until the time that the awarding the approving certificate is signed. And then the authorized signers of the awarding certificate, the purchase certificate, is the mayor and the city clerk, and they would both be required to sign in order to finalize the rates and the terms.

Oh, one other, parameter that's not on the summary that I wanna point out. With the refunding of the twenty eighteen notes that or bonds, which was done it's being done for savings. There's a minimum savings threshold in the resolution of $50,000. So if we if we don't meet at least a $50,000 savings, we'd have to pull that issue from the, the overall note issue. In addition, you have the city will have the flexibility that even if the savings is greater than $50,000, but it's advantageous to pull that refinancing, you'd still have the authority to do that.

So if the savings is 65,000, we may say, you know, we wanna wait until there's greater savings. You can pull that from the resolution right up until the time of pricing and finalize with excluding that 2018 refunding component. So is considerable flexibility. So on the following page, I'll just go through some of the specifics on the financing plan. The following page is page four of my presentation shows the remaining principal and interest of the bonds that were issued in 2018.

The yellow highlighted column on the left is our callable principal payments are eligible to be prepaid at the Citi's option. The right hand two thirds of the page shows the remaining principal and interest payments on the 2018 bonds the call is implemented. So you have your budgeted principal for this year, which was paid two days ago, and then you'd have your remaining budgeted interest payments. The issue that replaces the 2018 is detailed towards the right hand side of the page. It's $505,815,000 of notes.

And you'll see under the heading that says TIC or TIC, that's the interest cost that's projected for the refunding component. So the 3.4% is replacing debt that the city is scheduled to pay at 4%. The difference between that is generating Savings is estimated on the right hand column just comparing prior debt service to new debt service. That right hand column with the exception of 2026, you'll see it's about ten to fifteen thousand dollars annually all the way through 2038. I just briefly mentioned that 2026, that savings figure that's showing at $126,000, it's not really savings because the city has already budgeted and collected taxes on it.

So we're taking that 01/26, which is in the debt service fund of the city, applying it towards the refunding principal amount so we can reduce the principal to execute this refunding. So overall, the gross savings would be is projected at just under $159,000. Putting that in present value terms, 100 just under $130,000. Left hand side of the page towards the bottom, I do have an interest rate sensitivity table. And you can see this is really sensitive to changes in rates.

So if interest rates drop, for example, by 0.2%, your present value savings approaches $200,000. The and and like as it moves the other way, you know, you're gonna see reduction in savings. So that's why we wanted to make sure we have the authority in this resolution to just pull this issue completely if the savings isn't there when it's time to finalize. On the following page then, I have the detailed financing plan for the city's port the CIP portion of the financing and the marina refunding portion. So all of this is levy supported.

So the left hand side of the page shows levy supported payments that the city has already committed to through the issuance of debt in prior years. Center of the page is the repayment schedule for the new issue. And then the right hand side of the page, there's a couple of columns. First, we have placeholders in here for future financings of $7,250,000 annually. They're just placeholders.

You're not making a commitment to to to do any of those financings. But from a planning standpoint, we wanna be able to present what debt service levy would look like moving forward, under that scenario. So that's the right hand column. And you'll see that I've structured this where annual principal and interest payments would increase by about 205 to $210,000 through 2031 or '2 2032, I should say. And then they level off.

So and that's inclusive of the additional future borrowings. So we can get the city can get to a point where your debt service payments level off at at this at the level of seven million two fifty of future financings annually. And finally, the last page is really related to tip number 22. There's the the note anticipation note on the far left hand side is being refunded with this issuance, and that's detailed on the right hand side of the page. That component is $8,000,003.10, and it's providing the additional 1,500,000.0 for new projects.

The note anticipation on the center of the page, 3 and a half million that was issued last year, that's remaining outstanding, and we'll take a you have up until 2027 or I'm sorry. 2020 2027 is the final payment year. So the intent is that we will refund or refinance that issue next year at about the same time. The right hand column then on the far right reflects the long term principal and interest payments that are assigned to TID '22, but I wanna point out that does not include the NAN that was issued last year. So that there there's gonna be an increase in those long term payments once we factor in that refunding.

So overall, a lot of moving parts here, but we're trying to put together a financing that's very efficient and cost effective, also generate some savings for the city through a refinance. Glad to answer questions.

Okay. Thank you, Brad. Sean, did you have anything to add before I open up to the committee?

Nope. Okay.

Then I'll open up to the committee if there's any questions or need clarification from Brad or Sean. Pretty straightforward as we've discussed in the past years and lays out the plan pretty good. Okay. Not seeing any questions. Thank you, Brad.

Alright. Thank you.

Alright.

Moving on to the next agenda item is our consent agenda. Is there any item that committee member wishes to have removed from the consent agenda this evening? Seeing none.

I approve the agenda. I move to approve the agenda then.

There's a motion to approve the consent agenda, second by Alder Schlei. There's no discussion on consent. So all those in favor? Aye. And opposed? Okay, consent is approved. And then we will move on to our discussion and action items tonight. First up is 26Dash0076 is the hearing on denial of taxi cab driver's license application for p Murphy. So Peter Murphy, if you'd like to come forward to this table. And deputy chief Pusel, Anne McKenzie.

Okay, mister Murphy. And as I explained to you, we're gonna it's been a while since we've had one of these, so we're gonna work our way through it this evening. So, first, before we get started, I'm gonna have the city clerk, which is Mackenzie Reid back there, gonna swear you in for your testimony this evening. So this is your opportunity to address the committee and give us your case for to basically, your appeal for the denial of your license.

License for was was it's some old cases. And and I'm trying to get my my job driving license because I worked all my life. And I know I made some bad choices in life, and I made some, yeah, I made some bad choices in life. And and so this by me having my cab driver license will supplement my income that I'm having now. And I have been doing very good here in Manitowoc. The cousin, if did y'all get those papers from the from them. So, yeah, I have been doing really good here, and I I have really changed my life a lot. Yeah. I have made made some bad choices, and I, but that's just not me today. And but we haven't and I've been I was a welder for twenty some years.

But, also, I had screwed up a lot of those jobs too. But I think I I'm

the correct procedure here. So then I can open it up to the committee if the committee has any questions of mister Murphy at this time for questions or clarifications on his testimony. Okay, I don't see any from the committee. Yes?

Thank you, Chairman. Do you mind if I just quickly run through sort of the standards that the committee is judging the appeal on?

Absolutely. Just real quick to give a little bit of

an overview in case you've forgotten from the last time or you're new to it this time. In essence, our ordinance does not allow for an applicant to have an arrest or conviction record to hold a taxi cab license. However, that's subject to some Wisconsin statutes that say you can't discriminate against people on the basis of many things, including an arrest or conviction record, which seems a little strange. Because we say you can't have it, and then the state says you can't discriminate based on that. There's a later part of the statute that says, oh hang on, it's not discrimination if the charge and the conviction relates to, substantially relates to the license that's being applied for.

Okay? So if something that the applicant was found guilty of, the city can deny for that. But if we choose to do that, which is what has happened here and why we're all here, the applicant does have a chance to prove, or at least to state his or her case, that they've been remediated, that they no longer are a threat in the ways and the relationship between between what they've been convicted of in the past and the relation to what's happening, what they're applying for today. So that's what you're judging on. This is, in certain case it wasn't clear to you, the ways in which you've been rehabilitated from the convictions or arrests or whatever is in your past is really what the committee has to focus on.

So I just want to make sure that everyone has that basis, that knowledge, so we can continue. And I didn't mean to interrupt.

Thought that

would be good.

Thank you. So, Mr. Murphy, with that being said from the attorney, is there anything you needed to add to your testimony this evening? No,

not really. It's just that those cases are so old, you know, and and the only thing I can see is that's just not me today. You know, I am a change person. And, you know, I really don't. Okay. You know, I just you know?

And then going back to the committee, Alder Reckleberg?

Question for our attorney. If we were to decide to issue the license, is that under the same statute as the liquor one or is this got a different statute? What I'm referring to is we've all seen 111.335. Does that apply to this as well?

It does. It's the same family of statutes. That's correct. Yes, that's the same sort of standard.

And I did notice the letter of support from Lighthouse. And could you just elaborate on that just a little bit? Or

you Well

you attended some classes or something according to my understanding. Yes.

I'm I'm really heavy into the narcotics and numbness community. And I am trying to help people save lives from dying off drugs, and I'm really heavy off into that. And and I help with a lot of recovery houses. The women houses, I'm involved with core treatment services. And I help with the lighthouse with Chris Bunnell and them. And I do help with meetings, you know, involved in running meetings. And just in involved with a lot of people lives that's on drugs because I have been there. And that's where a lot of my charges and stuff come from.

Thank you. Okay.

Alder Sly?

Just a quick question. What's the term on a tax cap license since I've never been on a tax cap hearing before? Don't know.

Two years.

Thank you.

Thank you. It says that each license shall expire on December 31 of the second year after issuance.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Deputy chief Pusil, you have an opportunity to ask the if there if you have any clarified questions of his testimony before we get to your testimony.

I don't have it.

Okay. Mackenzie, if you can swear in deputy chief Pusil.

Do you confirm that the testimony shall provide them with knowledge shall be the truth, the whole truth, and not the most truth? I do.

Do you have an opportunity to address the committee as well?

So, basically, because of the way the ordinance is written, much as attorney Mitch had said, I was prohibited from recommending approval of this license based on the the items that I listed in here.

Okay. Mister Murphy, do you have any questions of the deputy chief this evening on his testimony?

Well, I'm kind of nervous right now anyway. You have to excuse me. Yeah. Because I'm usually running my mouth real heavy everywhere else I go. But really don't know what's going on here. You know? So no. Is she the one that with with the charges, talking about the charges that I have?

Yes. Based on the I'll just list the charges that that I have on here. There was a disorderly conduct in 2023. There was a resisting, obstructing. There's a forfeiture in 2021.

In 2018, there was an OWI second offense. In 2018, there was also a DC, disorderly conduct, and then a resisting obstructing. In 2017, there was disorderly conduct. And this this predates CCAP. So in 1995, there was a possession of cocaine, second or subsequent. And then in 1993, there was a you were convicted for a manufactured delivery of cocaine, less than three grams. Is that accurate?

I guess. I don't remember. I mean, I have so, yeah, I dealt with a lot of cocaine back in the days. But yeah.

So based on all that, the way the ordinance reads, I am prohibited from from approving the license? Well,

I know when I came to this town I tried when I was in treatment about two and a half years ago. I was on paper, but I was I had I put myself in treatment, not because I was on paper. And this town didn't even know I was on paper when I came here and because I was homeless in Green Bay. So I came here and I was putting myself in treatment because I wanted to change my life. And they didn't even want me in this town.

So because I understand that because of the way my record is. I understand it. So I had to fight to even be in this town because they didn't even want me here. So so core and the treatment service, we had to go through some changes to get all that transferred here. And then when I came here, I was on paper for yeah. They put me on paper for arguing with my boss over there. I'm drunk. Get out of my mind. And so they put me on paper for this one. They come to put me on paper for this one. So so so I came here. I said, okay. Well, you know, I I I I wanna change my life. I know I want I really want to do better. So that's why I came to this town so I can, you know, get away from that crap.

So, yeah, I came here on paper. So I did my paper. I didn't have no driver license. I had all this stuff messed up. I had to get intox a lot. Yes. I had to do the intox a lot thing when I got here and all that. So I had to go through a lot of changes just to be in this town even, you know, it changed my life, and that's what I wanted. And I wanted to be around some good people. You know? I wanted to be around some different people, and then that mess I was around down in Milwaukee. So so I think I did really good. I got my driver license when I got here. I did the entire thing. That thing cost me so much money.

I don't have money like that, but I did the right thing. And that thing cost me so much money. And I got my driver license. I got myself straightened out. And yes, I'm just trying to do the right thing. Okay. And it would help me out a lot if I could just get the Cavalier license because I was a welder for twenty years. I can't weld anymore. My body is so beat up and doing drugs and gangbanging and doing this and doing that. I could barely walk. And so so yeah. And this job will will help me out because this is probably the only thing I can do. You know? I need surgery in my hips and in my knees, but I have to lose weight in order to do that, and that's very hard. And so yeah.

So that's what's going on with me right now.

Okay.

That's about all I could say about the situation.

Okay. Let me open it back up to the committee if they had any questions of the deputy chief.

No questions to the deputy chief. Well, I guess in relation to the operator's licenses that we have far more experience with here, do we have any kind of an option during the two years of the license if there are any violations where the license can be revoked as an operator's licenses. Do we have that option here?

Believe there's a thirty day

I don't have the full statute in front of me.

So here is how I would if you wouldn't mind. So I don't have that information in front of me. I certainly can get that back. But what I would ask is that we redirect the I think that's a very good focus. But I think that we need to redirect and find that what we're trying to find out today, what your decision is legally, is to find out whether the appellant has been rehabilitated.

You first have to find that the city has proved that there was a nexus between the behavior that he was convicted of and the application for which it's sought. And if he's met that burden, if Pusel's met that burden, then whether or not the applicant has rehabilitated himself. That's what you're focusing on, not if something goes bad, right? Because you have to find for the applicant applicant if you find that he has been rehabilitated. That is state law.

So it's just as simple as that. And again, I like where your head's at, and I can get you that information after. But that's not what the committee is charged with. And quite frankly, we can't grant the license based on the answer to that question anyway.

My apologies. I should have prefaced the question with this is not a concern of mine in case it was a concern for anybody else on the day of this year. But as far as I'm concerned, I'm going off of the recommendation of Lighthouse, those and what I've heard about Mr. Murphy from them. And I believe everybody deserves a second chance. He's According to this, he's been clean since his last offense. And there have been no further offenses other than going back to 2018, which is quite a while ago. So I guess my thought is I'm going to recommend that we approve the license. Is

that a motion?

Yeah. I'll call it a motion.

Second.

There's a motion to approve the license based on statutes

one eleven three thirty five

and a second.

I second it.

Okay. Just so we're on the right statutes. Thank you. For clarification. Discussion on the motion.

Yeah. I would just like to put out that I'm also, leaning with approval of, again, said you moved here to Manitowoc to change your life. And if you look, there's nothing that's happened in Manitowoc. This does seem to be something that he's left behind. And with Lighthouse's letter and all that, I agree that this should be something we should approve.

Thank you. Any further discussion from the committee? Just I'm gonna chime in briefly here. I agree. I looking at the record, looking at the letter from Lighthouse, obviously, they believe strongly.

They use words like integrity, leader, maturity, personal integrity. Those are some pretty strong words to describe describe one's character and also to live up to. And those are those come with second chances. So that's a a great thing to have organizations stand up and say about you, mister Murphy. So the burden becomes now on you to uphold those with the granting of this license. As we often see in front of this group at council, we have neighborhoods come in and say that they don't want these treatment facilities in their neighborhoods.

And

we often tell them that we want them in the neighborhoods, and we often get some pushback on that as not in my backyard. If we're willing to push back on the neighborhoods and say that we want these treatment centers to make our communities healthier and safer, we have to be willing to allow the individuals that come out of the treatment centers back into the community as contributing members of society. And that starts by approving licenses for certain jobs and programs. And that starts tonight with you, by you coming in appealing this decision for your taxicab license. So I put a lot of stock in Lighthouse because we've gone to bat for them, and they're going to bat for you.

So with that, I will gladly approve your license this evening.

Over Schlei? As long as we're on the subject, you mentioned the not in my backyard. Just for the benefit of anybody listening here or out there in TV land. It's already in your backyard. I live in a real nice neighborhood, and we've got drug arrests in my neighborhood. We have people who are on probation in my neighborhood. And it's a citywide problem. It's not just certain neighborhoods or certain areas of town. And I applaud the people who are going to these treatment centers, Mr. Murphy included.

And I'm glad to see it here in Manitowoc. I'm really, really happy to see it here in Manitowoc. So I'll leave it at that. We'll go from there. Thank you for your time.

So again, the motion in front of us is to recommend approval of a license pursuant to Wisconsin Statute 111.335. All those in favor? Aye. And opposed? Okay. Does that's

it's you've directed the clerk to issue the license, but it goes on consent to the common counsel.

Okay. Correct. Just as it goes on as more of a notice to counsel that it's issued. Yeah. So there's no final action at counsel. You don't need to

have anything final action, but it does go to counsel.

Okay. So this will just go on consent. I'll take care of it. We won't have to do anything with it. Thank you. Great. Alright. Mister Murphy, thank you for coming in. Thank you.

Thanks, everybody. Do I need

McKenzie will probably get you something in the mail and she'll talk to you on your way out catch up here on the agenda Alright. Next up is 26Dash0077. Resolution authorizing the issuance and establishing parameters for the sale of not to exceed 22,500,000 general obligation promissory notes. Alder Reckleberg.

Yeah. Now that he's left the building, I moved to deny. No. I'm just kidding. I have a sense I would move to approve the resolution 20Six-seven77.

Second.

There's a motion to approve with a second by Alder Dunbar. Discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? Aye. And opposed? Okay. Pass that for signatures in a couple minutes. Then we have twenty six dash zero zero seven eight Scope of engagement regarding proposed issuance of 22,500,000 city of Manitowoc, the general obligation promissory notes.

I'll just add I'll just add. This is the contract between Corals and Brady and and the city. They're basically our bond counsel, so just make sure that everything as the underwriters do their, due diligence and everything like that, they're basically the legal department looking at to make sure everything's good.

To approve.

The motion to approve and a second by Alder Schlei. Discussion? Okay. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. And opposed? Alright. That passes as well. Twenty six dash zero zero seven nine is an application for retail toxic retail class b intoxicating liquor license beverage, for Isami Sushi and Asian Fusion.

It

is. Isumi. Isumi?

This one is just switching, and they currently have agents. They're expanding this. They currently have their, one that allows them to do beer and wine. This would allow them also serve

in a

full liquor, just enough grain.

So yep. And we currently this one is if approved, we would technically still hold four tavern license available for others.

That'd be the most we haven't had on file in a long time available.

It has been.

I'll make a motion to approve.

Motion to approve. Second. Motion to approve. And Second. Discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? There's no objection that'll go on consent. Then we have twenty six dash zero zero eight zero. We have a request from the tourism department for issuing a credit card with a limit of $10,000 for online advertising cost. Courtney?

Alright. Just Courtney's coming up to kind of give specifics. The background is per our credit card policy. Any issuance of a new credit card requires, finance committee and ultimately common council approval. This one would, be for the request of 10,000, which would ultimately our current liability in the credit cards is a 137,000, so this would bring us to 147,000 if all the credit cards were maxed. But I'll let Courtney speak on the intent of the card.

Thank you.

Yes. So we have done meta ads, which is any Facebook and Instagram ads since we've began. We've expanded that program over the last few years. And 10,000 for just general visit Manitowoc was in the 2026 budget. That's in addition to anything we would do with events.

So the Lakeshore Holiday Parade, fourth of July, any of those other events, the Farmers Market, now that that's in our department, are in addition to that out of those individual special revenue funds. The new piece for '26 was a, Google ad campaign throughout the tail end of last year. Erica and I worked, on interviewing a variety of different companies to outsource that, then that wouldn't have been a credit card charge, but, we did budget $10,000 for that. So, all said and done, well over $20,000 for the year for online payments. We've looked into different options for, Facebook, and Instagram, so the meta section and the Google section, and kind of lining up within our policies.

Credit card payment is the easiest, preferred, safest, method of payment for us. However, with our current credit card expenditures on my card, ordering supplies, travel, and then, Rayanne's is really exclusively used for her travel to and from conferences that we are going to be running into an issue, especially in those higher months maxing out our credit cards. So in talking with Sean, having a tourism advertising credit card that is only tied to our Meta and Google account, and we would not use it for anything else, seems like the best option, moving forward and allow us flexibility in, making sure we're advertising the best way in a particular month, not the one that's going to potentially max out our credit card that we can really trust with the data saying and do what we should be doing to attract the most visitors to our community.

Okay. Thank you, Courtney. Any questions? Alder Dunbar and then Alder Rick.

Yeah. So just make sure I get this. This isn't so much requesting extra more, but this is simply giving you a vessel to make the payments because Zuckerberg doesn't take checks from Sean.

Exactly.

Right? Where well, that's all I say. Just the vessel to use the what you were budgeted.

Exactly.

Yep.

Alder Reckenburg? I don't know if you a then we'll And to we'll we're

And we're we're

doing I'm just I'm And going to approve it anyway. It's just I'm wondering that if because I know on ours, you could put certain categories that are authorized in. If it wasn't there, for example, if I went to a restaurant and restaurants were not approved, they would not accept it. Is there a way of limiting to the advertisement for those things or not on your system?

More than likely it is. I can't speak specifically to it. But I know also to be honest, I'm not in it administratively. I'm going

to vote for it anyway. I just was wondering.

Yeah. I would envision envision we can put some parameters in place to to specific the specific vendor or the description that comes across or anything like that on there. And that was the intent was either do that way or ultimately set it up in the systems that they have. And then she doesn't know this yet. Would just take the card. But

Any other questions? I think the alder Dunbar's point, and you'll see it coming up, I think, in two from now when the police departments come up. They're using the card to expend budgeted dollars. They're spending those dollars currently. They're just finding creative ways to be able to do it. So they're actually going to save some efficiencies instead of trying to find creative ways to do it by having just the upper limit.

Absolutely. Instead of breaking a $50 payment across four cards, just give them a card to

do it. Exactly.

And I was pretty sure that's what it was. Just want to make sure it's stated that way.

And ultimately they're responsible for their budgets. Alder Recklenburg.

No other questions. I would move to approve them. Mr. Chairman.

Okay, motion to approve and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor? Aye. And opposed? Okay. I'll put place that on consent as well. I guess, Courtney, this one's for you too. The 26Dash0081 request from Ron Cali High School to rescind invoices, and there's two invoices listed.

Yes.

They were back on. So this situation, the events were approved in October 24 for September of the following year at the same time that the events were approved by the special event committee because we can approve events three sixty five days out per our policies. We were also working on an agreement with Roncalli to put in place which events we would waive fees for, which ones we wouldn't, and outlining all of that. That was approved in February after the event was approved and the fees were determined to not be waived. And on one document in our office, we did not change the status of that, which is the document that others do look at to process invoices.

So these two invoices were sent out incorrectly for their September 2025 event when after the fact we did waive the fees and per the agreement in place the fees should be waived. Does that make sense?

So in short we screwed up and charged them for something we weren't supposed to charge.

Correct.

Okay. Motion to approve this. Second. Motion to approve with a second. Any discussion? Seeing none. All in favor? Aye. And opposed? Thank

you.

Okay Place that on consent as well. Thank you, Courtney. Then we have 26Dash0082. Request from chief of police to issue an to increase credit card limits from 2,000 to 5,000 for the assistant chief, deputy chief, and training lieutenant.

Sean?

Yeah. Chief Reimer, did you include an email on there that I included that kind of explained the rationale behind the deputy chief and training lieutenant? Deputy chief is the primary procurement person for the police department, so constantly running into maxing out. And then similar to kind of how you each of you alluded to when we're talking about it with tourism, then they're trying to find another car just to make purchases. Training lieutenant's the same with conferences.

I just guided them to be do the assistant chief at the same time because that position would have been at 2,000 or the other two would have been. So we just now have a consistent 5,000 for the three main people of purchasing for the police department outside of the chief of police. So it's kind of about it. Same thing used for it's as you guys alluded to using for budgeted things that are budgeted. It's just the payment method in lieu of check now credit card.

Motion to approve. Second.

Motion to approve with a second. Discussion? Alder Slyke?

My only question is, is 5,000 gonna be enough? And I'm asking you, chief Fusil, because it says here you're the prime purchaser. Is 5,000 gonna be

enough? Yes.

Okay. And the reason I asked that question is because interest of transparency, I missed this when I was reading the agenda today. I did not see this at all. And before I got to the bottom of this, I thought, wow, this is really embarrassing for the police department. And down at the bottom, it says sort of ironic or embarrassing. And it is. So I just wanted to make sure that we were giving you enough. So thank you very much. And thank you for your time.

Alder Reckenburg?

Yeah. The other thing too is and it happened on a going a 19. Bit long as they know ahead of time, I would just make a payment to the credit card company, which then brought down your outstanding balance. If you run into that, I don't know what kind of arrangements Sean would have, but you can say, hey, I'm going to hit my $5,000 and by the way, in three days, we're going to go to Illinois for a training session. You could perhaps make a payment against that already.

So now you're back, you got a $5,000 credit limit again, just for future reference. Thank you.

Over time,

Mark? Real small, this will be

more something

for you, Sean. Maybe just something now, I mean, is a thing, stuff is going up. So maybe as budget comes around when we see these people's budgets increase, maybe we should try to take note of credit cards that are within it and maybe they'll need a 20% increase on their line because their budget went up 20% and instead of doing this months later, that maybe some just at budget time as we see stuff increasing to potentially save time and do it all at once.

Sure. I'll make note of that. Thank you. Appreciate it. Right.

The $2,000 isn't what $2.00 used to be.

So Exactly. That's what I'm saying. So when we're doing the budget, we just get a list of, hey, we're increasing all these amounts just to keep up with it. Boom. Done. We sign it once instead of this trickles maybe over a year of increasing.

Any further discussion? All those in favor? Aye. And opposed? Okay. I'll put that on consent as well. 26Dash0083 is Mackenzie, and the agreement with Open Meeting Technologies LLC for meeting management software for council meetings.

Thank you. So this was budgeted for. It's part of the whole AV upgrade being scheduled for this room. So the intent is to roll that out at the same time as all of the other upgrades. This is the software that Manitowoc County uses to provide, like, a visual representation of how, electeds are voting on certain matters.

So on one of the screens, you'd see, the votes being captured in real time as well as the, text of the agenda item that is being voted on. I did reach out to Granicus because we use that for our meeting and agenda software, and they do offer a similar feature. However, theirs is substantially pricier and doesn't seem to be able to be trimmed down for what we need. What we are looking for are just really basic voting features and having that be displayed. Theirs are much much more intricate, I think we'd be paying for services that we wouldn't be utilizing to the fullest. So I'm happy to answer any questions.

Before because is there any there were a lot of options listed on on the sheet here, and it looks like the one we picked was the meeting management one. And you said this kinda mirrors what the county is doing. Is there any differences what we'll see between what the county is doing for their meetings and ours then in present you know, in information wise, is there gonna be any

I I don't believe so. We toured the county and got I spoke with Jessica over there about what they're using. She mentioned that they're using the most basic tier of this software, which is what we've been quoted at as

well. Okay.

So haven't been onboarded on it yet. So I don't know if there's, like, a newer version that it might look slightly different, but we're going with the same package.

Okay. Older Reckleberg? Yeah. That's exactly what I picked up on. They've got, you 45 lines there, and they're going six or seven where there's a dollar sign that we're purchasing. And my only question was, are we getting what you want and need? And I mean, if there's another line that needs to be checked off, we can come back to that or something. But I just my only concern was, of course, there's a lot of lines, but there was only certain ones checked off. Are we getting what you want?

I believe so. The good news is we could always add to it in the future if we really like it and want to utilize more features. But, again, when I spoke to the county, they they're using kind of the most basic feature just to capture those votes and have them displayed, which is what, we're aiming to do as well. So I feel pretty good that this is gonna

Is that in

meet our needs?

Where they put on the screen the actual resolution or motion or yep thank you

alder schlei and then alder Dunbar

thank you mister chairman so open meeting is this going to supplement granicus or actually replace it?

Just supplement. So you'll still access your meetings the same way through I Legislate. This will just be an additional component to the council meetings.

Great. Thank you. Clerk Jember?

Yeah. Just had a question here.

When I

was looking through it, right, we see there's the year one total onetime setup in licensing. And then at the bottom there, it has a three year option. Are we planning the three year option? Or how is that working exactly?

So from a budgetary basis, it's the one year. So there's no impact on the budget. Actually, just so for full transparency, we budgeted around 10.5. And if you notice, it's coming in at 8.99% for one But the intent is from a cash basis to do the three year option.

Right. So it's about a 25% savings.

Correct.

Comes from what would be about $20,000 down to 16,000 whatever it is if you broke it out. That is really why

I was wondering

if we had the option to do the 3% to save the 25%.

Most softwares these days as it says are anywhere from 5% to 7% increases year two, year three, year four. So I'd rather solidify the three year to save the costs.

Right. I mean, just straight up it is, right? Because one year is eight and then it's $4.00 per. So, just straight up math. It would be 20 over three. We could do it for. So, that was going to be my only question. We able to find the money to do the three year option to make sure we're saving what we can.

The other question I had Mackenzie is in that line item it says includes three subgroup committee licenses. Are we looking at rolling it out for committees outside of council Or since we're spending a lot of dollars to upgrade this room, are we looking at, like, plan commission, committee of the whole? I'm just trying to think where there's larger bodies that have a lot of information that's presented.

The direction that I've been given is that this is for counsel right now, but we can always add other subcommittees if the appetite

is there. Let's get one right first before we go crazy. Okay. I think that's a great idea. Okay. Okay. Any other questions from the committee? Okay. I would need looking for a motion. Motion Second. Motion to approve with a second by Alder Schlei. Discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? Aye. And opposed?

If there's no objection. Then we have Adam. Okay. Adam, 260084, US Department of Housing and Urban Development HUD Community Project Funding Grant for $265,000 with $0 local match. What did I say?

265.

Oh, that'd be backwards. 625,000. I think you need a reading glasses. Let's make sure They might.

Thank you. This for those of you who were not aware, back when we had a previous developer looking at the Tinsel factory property, we had approached senator Baldwin's office for some financial support. At that time, we had requested, I wanna say, $2,000,000. Unfortunately, they did not give us the full award, but they did award us, the 625,000. Unfortunately, that developer has stepped away, but that money is still there.

So what we have done is we've gone through the rather extensive HUD process to get to this, step. So there's about 20 odd forms that we had to fill out and provide information. And we've left it generic enough that as a new developer comes in, we'll be able to go back and kinda customize customize it to them, but we want to get at least it this far. So that is basically where we're at. Again, if we get another developer on board and things work out, we'll amend things.

And then the other big thing that we have to do is an environmental review of the property. It's an extensive federal process. On the bright side, we can utilize the grant funds to hire a consultant to do that, aspect of that, of the grant process. So, again, just really accepting this. It we have till I wanna say it's 2034 or something like that. It's a very long term grant, so we're not in a rush to spend the money, but this just gets us right.

Okay. So we'll look for a motion to approve as presented. Motion by alder Reckleburg, seconded by alder Dunbar. All those in favor? Aye. And opposed? K. I'll pass that for signatures later on. And we have 26Dash0085, which is the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation Brownfields grant for $250,000 with a $250,000 local match.

Alright. And this particular one, as you know as you saw earlier in the bonding discussion, we have spent a fair amount of money in River Point, so we're always trying to find other people's money to spend at River Point. This is, basically a cleanup grant that would help pay as we continue to do the Chicago Street corridor and the Riverbank work. So we were successful in this application. This the $250,000 match would either, a, come from, hopefully, the EPA grant that we just submitted last week that the council had previously allowed us to do.

And failing that, the other money that we're spending out of the tick tax increment finance district is would cover that $250,000 match. So, again, just accepting this so that we can continue with that project.

Any questions from the committee? Okay. I look for a motion to approve as presented. Second. Motion by Alder Recklenburg, second by Alder Dunbar. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. And opposed? Okay. I'll pass that for signatures later. And then we have 26Dash0086, which is a resolution authorizing submission of the fiscal year 2026 w w d and r federal recreation trails program grant to support the River Point Trail District.

Alright. Not surprisingly, still looking for more money for River Point. This particular program has traditionally been rolled in with the Knowles Nelson stewardship fund. If you recall, we were successful with this program for the, bridge over the Little Manitowoc River a couple of years ago, and we've had some other funding come through this process. Talking with parks, they didn't have a specific project lined up for this year, so I'm gonna take a bite at the apple see if we can get a $100,000 for this.

Again, with the already budgeted TIF funds, and the other improvements that we're doing at River Point, that's more than sufficient to cover the cost of this trail. Rough cost for just the trail is around 200 to 250,000. So we'll be utilizing the TIF funds for the required local match if we are successful on

this one as well.

Thank you, Adam. Any questions for Adam?

Aye. Motion to approve. Second.

Motion to approve, accepted by Alder Reckleburg. Discussion? All those in favor? Aye. And opposed?

Pass that for signatures in a little bit. The next three items we have are for closed session. So I'll read our lengthy notice, and we'll go into closed. Notices hereby given that the above governmental body may adjourn into a closed session during the meeting as authorized by section 19 dot eight five one a of Wisconsin statutes, which authorizes the governmental body to convene into closed session for the purpose of deliberating concerning a case which subject matter of any judicial or quasi judicial trial or hearing before the governmental body. Which is specific subject matter that may be considered in closed session is 20 six-eighty seven to your operator license for m Garcia.

Notices hereby given that the above governmental body may adjourn into a closed session during the meeting as authorized by section 19 dot eight five one e with Wisconsin statutes, which authorizes the governmental body to convene in a closed session for purpose of deliberating or negotiating the purchasing of public properties, the investing of public funds, or conducting other specified public business whenever competitive or bargaining reasons require a closed session. Specific subject matter that may be considered in closed session is 26 dash 88, Potential purchase of River Pointe Drive Lots 1 And 2. It notices hereby given that the above governmental body may adjourn to a closed session during the meeting is authorized by section 19 dot eight five one g of Wisconsin statute, which authorizes the governor body to be meeting in a closed session for purpose of conferring with legal counsel for the governmental body who is rendering oral or written advice concerning strategy to be adopted by the body with respect to litigation in which it is or likely to become involved. Specific subject matter that may be considered in closed session is twenty six dash zero zero eight five eight nine l twenty five dash zero zero one one eight Brown Building Center in claim against the city for greater than $5,000 the motion to convene in a closed session was made by all their person.

Second. Reckleburg and second by Schlei. Aye. Recleburg? Aye. Schlai? Aye. Dunbar? Aye. And Brei? Aye.

All right.

We are in closed session. Those are the documents I need. All set? Alright. We are back from closed session. The first document we have is 26Dash87, the two year operator license for M. Garcia. Look for a motion from the committee.

License pursuant to Wisconsin stat 111.335.

Second. There's a motion and a second. Discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. And opposed? Alright. I'll place that on potential purchase of River Point District Slot 1 And 2.

Mister chairman okay. I'm sorry. I move to approve staff to accept and sign the offer to purchase and enter into negotiations on a term sheet.

So there's a motion. Is there a second?

Second.

Discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor? Aye. And opposed? Okay. We'll pass that one for signatures. And our final document is 26Dash0089 is the Brown Building Center claim against the city. We're taking no action on that this evening. So that concludes our business tonight. I look for a motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

Second. Alright. We are adjourned. Thank you.