City Council - Regular Meeting

Y how are somebody shorts and t-shirts.

Good. How are you?

You there. Yeah. Well, um Hey, heat.

All right. All right. requires no active. Okay. So, okay. Okay.

All right, we will call committee the hold to order. Um, I'll first move to approve the minutes of the February 2nd meeting without the necessity of reading. Second.

Motion's been made and seconded. Discussion hearing none. All those in favor? I. And that motion passes. All right. So, uh, we are on. We have, um, continuing the conversation tonight about the administration's proposal for city hall. Um, potentially moving to Warren Road. And, uh, I believe we have presentation from planning department. So, turn it over to you, assistant director boss. Thank you, Madam President and members of council. There we go. So, I have a uh analysis of alternatives that we'll step through here just looking at all the different options. Um so I uh just by by way of context um I was not direct directly involved in this uh project. So I've um have a lot of other things that I've been responsible for. So this thing over the last uh two three weeks I've uh come in and just tried to take as much of an objective view of kind of the body of work that's been done over the last 12 months going all the way back to Shawn Linger. um all the way through uh the last couple months on these things and trying to present it's basically it's a summary analysis of of the different alternatives um priorities. We'll get into all these um different criteria. Um but there's there's four basic kind of steps as I as I make my way through here. We'll talk about the priorities, review the priorities and the evaluation criteria that kind of fit underneath each of those. um to two main priorities. Um we'll look at limitations and assumptions that have allowed us to kind of continue planning uh that went into some of the space study analysis and the

other fit analysis um for some of the new uh buildings and then uh look at the uh alternatives that have been proposed um throughout the process and then I'll basically go through each of those alternatives looking at the priorities and the criteria for each of those. Um just to offer a note upfront that this is a summary very high level analysis. Um I spent an awful lot of time going through the space study, the plans, the various fit proposals for um the board of ed and other buildings going back to 2024. Um, I will tell you that I I I counted the space in every room because I will tell you in some of the in some instances of the work from Weber Murphy Fox, not to denigrate their work, some of their uh their summaries and their math was wrong. Um, and so the space requirements that I present here um are as accurate as I believe them to be. Um, they are the space requirements that are for the functional space. This is another area that we were kind of getting sideways. Um, we were getting space totals and departmental totals that included hallways and bathrooms. It's not functional space when you're talking about a meeting room or office space or open area that that a department can configure to their own requirements. So, this is the the the totals that I'm presenting in here. By and large, they do match what was in the Weber Murphy Fox totals u by department. Um, but I just want to give that disclaimer. This is a highle analysis. Um, and and in most cases we're talking hundreds of square feet, thousands of square feet, not like 10 square feet, five square feet. Um, and so I will go through this uh methodically and I'll I'll try to keep moving, but uh help if I can if I could get through it

and then I will answer any and all questions uh that you that you might have. So I appreciate that. So the two priorities and then the kind of the the at least for under priority one they're I will call them sub priorities. They're not really evaluation criteria but the first uh priority was to provide the police and the court with an increase of renovated space to meet their contemporary needs. Um I think we recognize that uh the current space that police the police are in is inadequate. Current space that the court is in is inadequate. um between the judge's letter and then the the chief's priorities and talking to the police chief, these are the main things that they're looking to get out of any renovation or any kind of effort moving forward um on here. And so you've got the the variety of the police priorities there. And then from the the the letter from the judge, she was looking for expanded lobby seating to separate uh the probation and magistrate spaces and to get an additional hearing room. um that's there. The second priority um is subordinate to the first one. So while achieving priority one, we're looking to consolidate. And when I say consolidate, I'm talking about the points of public service access. So how many buildings does a person have to go to see finance to see building to see planning? Those departments and divisions that are that are public facing that have a role as a public facing entity and when I say finance I include tax and water and all their sub functions um that are out there. Um but really it also to improve the functionality of administrative space. Um and a lot of that is uh some departments need more space. Some departments don't need as much space as they have. Uh building is one example of that. As we digitize records, people don't need these massive storage rooms that they've had. Um and that that's a

continued effort that uh we'll continue to see space efficiencies over time. Um and so these kind of five evaluation criteria when we get to priority two in the analysis I will go kind of point by point through each of these with a lot more data um for each of them. So with any planning effort there's limitations. There's things that you you have to do. There's things that you can't do. Um and then there's assumptions. And so the limitations that we're dealing with um at least from my perspective on this is that two constraints the things that you have to do we have to provide sufficient space for the police and the court. Uh whatever we do that is something that we have to do. Uh the second one that regardless of what we do we have to renovate the current city hall building in any new location if if we were to move towards that option. Um there isn't a Hall of Justice or another city hall building in Lakewood that would accommodate all of our space requirements. Um and so we got to renovate this building and if and if we're going to move somewhere, we got to renovate that building. There's two things that we can't do. Interrupt even temporarily public service delivery. So, uh, when we get down the road in planning and you start talking about phasing, um, and that renovation of concurrent renovation of buildings, um, you there may require a third location or a temporary lily pad for administrative departments to sit down so they don't lose that, uh, that continuity of service. Um, and then obviously we thing we can't do, we can't exceed available funding. Um, you can't put the city's bond rating at risk or or ask for an unbalanced budget. There are four key assumptions that I've worked through. Um and any option and the these allow us to continue planning um so police court and the main portion of it uh designated to remain in this current location. Um that's consistent

across uh the options um and that is necessary as well. Um council offices and auditorium are assumed to be in the same building. We don't want to separate council offices from wherever the auditorium is. um public works service elements. So, streets, public property, fleet, those they remain in that back building. There's no it's no intention or anything to move them to a separate location. And then the minimum functional space requirements, which I'm going to get into in the next slide, but just so you can see, these are kind of the minimum floors that we're looking at getting out of. For the police, it's 30,000 square feet. For the court, it's 6650 square feet. That does not include lobby space. That is that's functional office space and hearing rooms. For the administration, it's 19,600 ft². And right now, I have set aside the council office in the auditorium. I've kind of set that to the side. Um and and we'll talk about we'll talk about that a little bit. The council offices right now in the space studies fluctuated between like 550 and 700 some square feet. um it wasn't a huge consideration when we're talking in the macro of thousand thousands of square feet. Um the auditorium that's a pretty significant consideration at 37 just over 3700 square f feet and so and we can talk a little bit more about that in terms of where that auditorium sits if it stays here or if it moves to another location and how I got those minimum functional space requirements uh for the police department. uh two uh kind of broadly recognized organizations, International Association of Chiefs of Police, they have a police facility design guidelines and Kala uh the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies do have standards although both of these agencies do not have specific square foot requirements uh for fun for uh facilities. They focus

on functional requirements, safety and operational efficiency. However, dig a little bit deeper. There is standard industrying industry planning practices um that are that are used to meet Kala's requirements for those facilities. And that's what I've I've put up here. So, for for general administrative personnel, it's somewhere between 150 to 250 square feet per person. So, those are like um anybody outside of not a sworn officer. For sworn officers, it's between 300 to 500 square feet or higher. That standard we used uh especially for the sworn officer standard, that's for what they would consider a large department, which we follow under those uh guidelines for both organizations. Um so when you consider the number of police personnel, which I know there's been discussion on this, um I used approximately 126 total personnel talking with the chief. That's the number of people that are consistently within this building. We have neighborhood officers, we have other people that work in the annex, work in other locations out in town, but we decided to go forward with 126. Um, even that, you do the quick math there in terms of those minimum standards, which all they are is a planning factor. Um and so based on the uh space study those factors we decided to establish a minimum it's a floor of 30,000 square feet. If you can get police more we should get police more but that is a bare minimum standard uh for this effort for the court recognizing that they have 6,300 square feet right now currently and they need additional space. Um, we looked at using the space studies and the different options that were out there and the ones that got them what they were looking for were right in the neighborhood of 6,650

square ft. So, I established that as a minimum uh footprint for the courts. Also, uh, under that we are moving forward knowing that to expand the lobby and the seating area without too much effort, uh, you have to relocate the council office. that's kind of a a lesser included uh piece within that functional space. Even though I'm not counting the lobby and the seating area as exclusively for the use of courts because one of the options we're going to use it too if if we were to stay here, but it's not a bad uh consideration in terms of expanding that lobby and that seating area for the administration. The space study provides options again that that shift from our and this is functional space again just over 20,000 square feet and they had a couple options that went from 183 all the way up to 211. So you you look at those things, you take kind of uh the different uh departments and divisions and what they got, who got less, who got more, and and it's basically an average that drives you towards somewhere around 19,600 square ft that to to provides that kind of minimum goal or that adequate amount that you should be shooting for. So those in terms of that assumption moving into uh looking at the an alternatives those are your minimum standards uh that I would recommend looking at the alternatives that we have um there are four really four with one with two subsets there's a status quo so you can always do nothing you can always kick it down the road there's option one stay in place with small side addition. That's the thousand square foot approximate footprint going out the side here. Um that would also require you to retain the annex. Option two, stay in place. You build that large front edition. Uh this is the front edition that was

proposed by Weber Murphy Fox. 5400 square foot uh footprint kind of adding on to the front of the police department uh and going out towards Detroit. That would also require you to retain the annex. Option three is to relocate the administration and that would allow you to divest the annex. Um the two options underneath there, there's the Warren Road Board of Ed building, but there's also the Bell Avenue Community Health Center that we own. There's a second and third floor of that building. Um and so we'll talk a little bit about that when we get to that option. Another option that as I was going through this that has not been developed, um but I I can't speak against it. I can't speak for it. um is that you could blow out the entire front of the building. Um and you could you could build any number of functional uh square footage probably. You could probably double the size of that. It would probably double the cost. Um it would double the impact in terms of construction, but that would probably be the only way that you could get rid of the annex and stay in the same location is to is obviously to build a larger addition. So did not develop that. Not an architect. Don't have the data or the time to do that. But I do want to recognize that as an undeveloped alternative that it's hanging out there. So when we start getting into comparing these alternatives against the priorities, we're going to start with priority one. And so to provide the police and court that increase of renovated space that meet their contemporary needs. So based on the assumptions, those minimum goals of square footage um the chart that I put up there. So that is that's it's a summary of basically the numbers from the space study um functional space numbers from Weber Murphy Fox that are summarized there. You can see police courts and then as you work your way down the administrative departments. It does not include the council office or the council auditorium. Um and then the distribution of that administrative

space between the different buildings whether it's CH to city hall here the annex and then as you get into option three to to a new building. Um, and so the status quo right now as the space study laid out in the and the proposed kind of plans and I guess you know I understand that they're preliminary uh but how they would recommend cutting up this building uh to provide that the status quo does not provide obviously uh what we need for police and courts. Option one did not provide what we need for police and courts. And so, right off the bat, based on my analysis, you can go ahead and eliminate the status quo and option one. They don't meet priority one. That's our number one priority. Um, and so you can move on looking at just option two and then option three. So for looking at the alternatives now under uh versus priority two um so we've achieved priority one uh not by knocking out the other the first two alternatives um the five points that I'll dive into here and I'll I'll try to go through each of these charts as they get they get kind of detailed um as I work my way kind of top down the it'll build on the right side. And so this is really looking at those first two criteria. Um, and so you're looking at the departmental locations and the functional space available now into the future as well as the points of and accessibility designed for public service access. Um so what this this chart on the right has done it was it was a chart from uh the priority one slide with another box there kind of below the total going down. Um that box identifies the points of public service.

The number of departmental meeting spaces, the number of common meeting spaces and the number of restrooms. Those are just objective metrics that were from the fit plans from the space study uh floor plans uh to kind of give you some reference between the the difference between those what we have now versus those different options. The final two lines new building space uh that then translates to flex and future growth. Um this is important uh for a variety of reasons uh because it it accommodates where council office and the auditorium can go. Um and it also goes towards some of your questions from some of the early hearings about how adaptive are we going to be? Can you change different spaces? Uh you know when new requirements come up or unforeseen requirements come up, is there space uh to adjust? Um and so just working our way down through option two um here in that that first red box. Um the administrative space is it's it's at basically just under the goal. Um but the one thing I would highlight as you kind of go all the way to the bottom there there's very low potential in that for growth or adaptation without taking space away from the police. That's just the way it is. Um, if you if you stick to that 5,400 square foot addition on the front of the building, you're giving police uh just about everything that they need in terms of their requirements, but you're also consolidating the administrative departments all on the second floor of this building and you're also putting the council leaving council auditorium but putting the council offices in the back. So, so in terms of the numbers of you know the I guess what would fall out of that in terms of the departmental meeting spaces um they're fewer um common meeting spaces um little little you know an increase of one um the points of public service retain this

remain the same you're still asking people to go to the annex for tax and water and then asking people to come through the court entrance and the lobby to get up to the administrative apartments on the second floor here. So, there's really no change in terms of that. We're not we're not achieving any kind of uh functional improvement uh through that effort. Um in terms of restrooms, I know this is a minor thing, but uh from my perspective, it's not. Um you're losing the male and female bathrooms on the first on the ground level because that then becomes part of the police department. And so in terms of city hall consolidating all those employees onto one floor, um you have a male and a female bathroom at the annex and a male and female and one gender neutral bathroom here for everybody on this floor. So that that is a net reduction in terms of access uh of restrooms. Minor point, but it's it's objective. It's something to look at. Um and then the uh the council office auditorium like I mentioned would be up here be colllocated under option three. Um the current fit plan it does you know and I assumed the administrative requirements moving to a new building would be generally the same across either new building that you would move to. Um it's not like uh going to the board of ed building and then going to the community health center. One division or one department would say I need a thousand more square feet because of that building versus this building. They're the same. I'm kind of looking at them as neutral in terms of a third site. Um the current fit plan falls under that goal. But in one of those examples, if you drop down to the bottom, there is a significant potential for growth and adjustment. Um, I'm sure there are needs um that have been unforeseen. You know,

that that the design process that went through the the um the the space study and all that, it was a space study. It was not a full-blown design process. Um, and so that board of ed building has the highest potential for growth um and adjustment. That's important. Um that option option three allows for the devestment of the annex and it consolidates the administration down to a single point of service. Um so that that includes that it's accessible through a new lobby with a focused reception. So no longer is somebody coming to the court lobby uh or the police lobby looking for the administration, looking for finance, looking for planning and then having to be redirected either across the street, whatever. They know if they know where city hall is, they're coming to city hall. Then they can find uh it's truly oneop shop. They can find any administrative department in the same building through the same lobby. Um there are more common meeting spaces, at least in the fit plans that have been developed. There's multiple restrooms in the same building. There's more genderneutral bathrooms uh that have been planned. Um, and then for this one, the council office and auditorium could either stay here if you wanted it to stay here or it could move to that option three, that new building with with that uh flex space. There is enough space to accommodate a council office. In fact, the fit plan accommodates a council office. It accommodates a hearing room and and with that the uh the spare space that's available, you could recreate this auditorium within reason. I'm not, again, I'm not an architect. I haven't studied it in detail the floor plans of that new building, but there is sufficient enough space uh to probably squeeze a 3,700 square foot space maybe in there somewhere. Um, it's a challenge. Uh, that that is a big assumption that I'm throwing out there, but you could always

leave the space here um as well with that option. So, building on to this, let's talk about everyone's favorite topic, parking. Um, so this is another eye chart. I know if you start from the top and kind of work your way down, um, it identifies the total number of spaces on the site on the property itself. And then as you move your way down to what I highlighted, I kind of tried to highlight it as, uh, a that's the total spaces in that area. Now, one thing to note, there are 22 visitor spaces currently marked here at city hall. Both sites and option three can accommodate 22 visitor spaces being marked. Um, but it's it's well understood that there is a there's a huge difference of on-site parking uh between option two and option three. For this analysis, I treated um option three and option two. All the options I treated them the same that have the same standard that would apply to any proposal coming through our office in terms of parking requirements and zoning. So you can take advantage of parking uh municipal parking that's within 1,000 ft. Um I broke it down most people don't like to walk,000 ft. Uh so I broke it down to 500 ft 1,000 ft. Um in terms of the municipal spaces that are available and you can see um not a lot of municipal parking lots around city hall right now except for city hall because it's got a ton of parking. Um, but when you move to the downtown area, there is there's a lot more municipal parking. Um, especially under that the far right column, that red 269, that's the parking garage for downtown development. Those are the spaces that are not specifically accounted for through the planned number of residential units that could take up spaces. So, those are the spaces that are basically open and unallocated in that parking garage that could be used uh if they need to be used.

So you get the total spaces on line A. Um the other unique aspect of this building here in our current location is that because it's colllocated with the public service annex and police, um you've got a number of service vehicles that are parked in those open spaces. Um and so while there may be 271 spaces that are out there, there's uh on average every day there's 85 city vehicles sitting out in those spaces. So that leaves 100 about 186 open spaces. That's still a ton of spaces. Um and so you can see that going across to the right in terms of the uh the totals that are available or would be available in terms of the on-site and municipal parking at the other locations. And then as you kind of work your way down to this column from B to C, it accounts for all of the employees that drive here every day uh for work. And so you have 74 approximately 74 administrative employees. There's about 35 public works or service staff based on their shifts that that go to that annex every day. There's about 55 police between the ad admin and shift uh guys that drive here every day. You have your, you know, around approximately 1 to two folks for the council office and 34 folks for the court. So worst case scenario, worst day, everybody drives at the same time. That's 200 cars showing up here um every day for 186 spaces. So, what I heard I think in one of the hearings uh last week or the week before people talking about residents complaining about parking at city hall, that's why. Um it's because there's a lot of people trying to park here every day. Um and even though there's a ton of spaces, um there's a lot of demand. Our average daily visitors from what I I got um is about 33. And so that's not 33 people all at the same time. Um but but

that's pretty significant uh to consider that in terms of the 22 visitor spaces that are marked here. Um whether they're adequate or not, those spaces are shared with the court and with police. Um and so when you then go across the way there um looking under option three, if we just move the administration, that's 69 uh drivers potentially worst case. that would be relocated from this site to a new site. Um it would relocate that average daily visitor traffic um to a new site away from this site. Um and so again this is not a hard uh you know yes or no analysis, but it gives you context. It gives you numbers for context in terms of the parking demand of what exists now versus what could exist if the administration were to relocate. Uh either stay here or relocate to another location. Um what's to be determined is if the council office and auditorium would relocate to a new building. Um, and obviously the big concern there would be um, uh, be council meetings and and we had a discussion earlier this morning and I am not an elections expert, but if you if that auditorium were to continue to be used for elections, where would the elections be held? So, it just it is one of those things that you kind of put a pin in knowing that you're going to have to figure it out at some point. Um, if you lose this space currently at this location because this this is used for elections. Um these size spaces are few and far between outside of schools. Um and so just a consideration in terms of council office auditorium either staying here or moving to a new location. Almost done. Last uh piece here would be

the uh uh this is that delivery time frame complexity cost sustainability and community vision. I'm not going to get into cost and there's there's a lot of discussion on cost. There's a lot of discussion that's going to have to be on cost and those numbers are estimates. Um just like everything else. I just I'm not a proformer expert. Again, I just wanted to keep this at a macro high level. Um and so the delivery time frame that we got from Weber Murphy Fox for a new addition was 24 months. That's eight-month design, 16-month build. if if you accept that um the complexity uh talking with our building commissioner and his concerns for that there's obviously anytime you have new construction and I'm living it every day at Winterhurst uh there's a higher potential for variables um when you have to dig in that ground um and so that comes with new construction um there's also the complexity that uh just like any other option priorities may require a temporary location shift. So if we want to get the women's locker room now, that means that dispatch has to move, which means engineering has to move, which there's there's a sequence. And then when we've looked through that sequence, that's that's a phasing complexity that apply to both of these. Um, and then there's also it's that baseline sustainability vision. Everybody talks at least we've heard adaptive reuse versus new construction. those considerations. Um, and then the centralizing the location of administer services in terms of the city's geography. Um, and having a central location kind of in the commercial hub of the city itself. Um, now I assumed the renovation concurrent renovation to existing buildings would be less time than new construction. Right, wrong or indifferent?

All of these options are complex in terms of construction and phasing of trying to do concurrent renovations at two different buildings and trying to keep your concurrent services going. They're both complex. Um and so just trying to highlight that trying to dive any deeper than this is is a difficult uh task. And so my last slide just we use these in terms of a decision decision template or whatever just to show you kind of a summary of everything and I just walk through. Um and so you kind of on the left side top to bottom you've got the priorities you've got the criteria that I walk through and then moving from left to right the status quo option one option two option three board of ed option three community health center. So eliminated status quo and option one with priority one doesn't have the space for uh police and courts. Option two, option three does have the space. Um you can see the red number there under option three board of ed that goes up to 35,000 square feet. That that is if this auditorium and council office move to the new building and then the police can assume this space. That's the difference that they could they could sit between those two numbers based on that decision point. Um, when you get into the priority two uh analysis there, I eliminated the community health center. It it has no room to grow unless you kicked the uh child care out of the first floor, which is not something that I was willing to assume. Um, that is just it's a valuable uh asset in that location. A lot of people depend on that. Um, so that is not something that I was willing to kind of move beyond. Um, in terms of that space, it is a smaller building. It's about 8,900 square feet per floor of

functional space and it would be difficult to squeeze everybody into that building. Um, and still have room to grow and adapt in the future. Um so then as you work kind of down through the other the points of access, the parking delivery time frame, collectity cost, sustainability, community vision, um you can see how the different comments and and just my my take on it. That's that's basically what it is between yellow and green. Um yellow has some issues, green has some issues, but it has what I believe to be an advantage over yellow in terms of how I scored it out. And so, so in short, I appreciate your time. Um, I know it's a lot. Uh, it was a lot of work. I can tell you that. Um, and so this is why I've had to push off a lot of emails on a Hillyard and Concord and a lot of other issues. um that that uh but this is important stuff uh to go through and have an as much of an objective analysis uh to get after that why uh why from uh from what I can observe since Sean Ler started this process why we've kind of been aligned in that direction. Um and so I'm just here to summarize it and I can help hopefully answer questions. So I appreciate the time. Thank you. Um, Assistant Director Boss, uh, appreciate your hard work in putting this all together. Um, colleagues, questions, I'm I'm absorbing. I want to thank Assistant Director Boss um for doing this um because I do think it it lays out um some helpful guideposts um I I am

reviewing it for the first time today. So I I appreciate um you know kind of the analysis. The one thing I you know I'm I'm curious about the future flex growth 18,000 17,000 square feet. I mean everything I've come to understand as not an expert in this field is that um you know a admin office kind of square footage per employee um not on the police side right so accountants lawyers planners um is is is going down um Lakewood has strong tax base we can grow our tax base with kind of creative development, but we don't have a lot of green field, you know, Strongsville style industrial parkways to grow our tax base.

So, what I'm and and this is just off the cuff here,

um trying to understand why we would need 18,000 extra square feet of space at this moment, uh or in the next two years. Uh to me that seems like a lot. Um that's what I'm seeing as I'm I'm digging into this. I I do think and I didn't even think about community health building. Um you know, I do think it provides an interesting flex space for a more immediate um plan to expand police. Uh maybe to send some departments over there. Um parking is a challenge in that part of town. I experience it. two times a day dropping my child off in that building. Um, and also it's it's mo it's it's medical office building which is different than traditional you know office uh like like the city would would need. Um I do think it provides some ability for flex or option space as you move forward. Um, and I do think there were some assumptions on both sides, which I think you needed to make as it related to, you know, the construction up front, bathrooms, um, you know, on if you were to do an addition up front here like at city hall versus going to the new building just because we don't have a detailed design of that, right? Um I do think that there are a lot of things that with as it relates to both access and bathrooms and flow uh that you know perhaps you know someone who's an architect uh or a design professional could remedy right so I think there are kind of known unknowns in my point not known um and so I think that's where I I do this is extremely helpful though and I think it helps put into context a a lot of what we're and thank you for getting the CLEA numbers for police officers. You know, I see, you know, 250 uh 300 a square foot per per officer, I think is

industry standard. I do think that in Lakewood, we might, you know, understand that we might not always exceed uh or or hit industry standards in the sense that, you know, we don't have green fields to develop in and we we can't design things in a way that communities that have that will be able to. Um, but I anything we can do to get our officers what they need and closer to the industry standard is is a good thing. Uh, and I think I support and I s suspect my colleagues do as well. Um, it's it's it's the extra square footage that is interesting to me and it's also kind of the the lack of clarity and the assumptions that we would need on on a front edition. That's my initial take on a lot of data that I need a couple more days to sit with. Thank you.

Thank you.

Um are there currently I I remember some discussion about with the liquid child care center potentially expanding up into the other floors? Was wasn't that discussed? So are are those spaces currently in use or do we have tenants on the second and third floor? Thank you. Through um through council president. Um so the third floor is currently occupied um by the Cleveland Clinic and um there may be negotiations to um extend that um the lease. First floor of the daycare is interested in the second floor. Um we've also had some other um nonprofits that are interested in the second floor, but it's currently vacant.

Okay. All right. So that could be um to assistant director boss's point about regardless of which option there's going to be some staging and potentially shifting people around. And you know we talked about some of these previous ones too of um you know it'd be my preference not to wait until if if we did go with the Warren's road solution not wait till that's all done and moved out before we start solving the police problem. We need to stop start solving the police problem as soon as we can. So, you know, we could move um you know, planning out potentially. I know some planners indicate they could work from home. I know not all departments can work from home, but some people can at certain times. Um so that you know that's it's good to know that we have that space uh option available. Um council members, other questions, comments? Council member Hamilton Steiner.

Thank you. Um, I I did just want to reiter reiterate if council were to if the if the auditorium were to move um and this space were to be utilized by the police and or the courts um it could potentially disenfranchise voters who would already or already disenfranchise. So it covers right now Lakewood City Hall precincts 4E, 4 I and 4J um vote here. So I just think that's for me that's important. Um and so I just want to make that point. I think it's also worth noting is with any of these solutions like we haven't um you know the just for the purposes of the apples to apples and the very high level you know we don't have a design on um when we Murphy Fox did the build out here to the point too is there is the other we haven't explored an option too of you know expanding enough here so that we could get rid of the annex you know so that's also an option But also whatever renovation happened here, you know, there could still be even if this isn't an auditorium, it could still be a large enough space for people to vote in. So there are, you know, it's still going to be a publicly owned building. Um, so there could be other solutions there, too. So um, all right. Any other Councilman Boick?

Thank you. Thanks, uh, to the administration. Thanks. I see Liberty out in the audience as well. appreciate you guys continuing to engage with us. Um, and u, Director Bington, Mr. Boss, thank you for the analysis. Um, you you know, it is helpful and also I I appreciate putting the assumptions out there in case, you know, we can get some consensus around some of the assumptions and maybe we we circle back to others and and and adjust. Um, so, um, in some ways I'd like to go back to the there's a square footage, um, slide. If somebody could do that in the middle of the presentation, maybe this was it, right? The different options. So, this is helpful. Um, I guess what struck me is maybe the reading of option two is a little too literal. What I recall from my colleagues who pre prepared that and I appreciated their work with with another consultant was just to establish the spectrum um and the site plan was a blob and I hope nobody's actually planning to build a blob um if option two were to be chosen and and so the point being that it was it was a conceptual midpoint between status status quo. Small annex was almost status quo. Option three is two campuses move. Um, you know, option three A or four would be move and new construction, which we're not analyzing because maybe that's not a practical consideration, but that would be a good comparison point for all the costing um because we, you know, taking on a historic property to renovate that, you know, is is not not simple. But anyway, option two 2 A or 2B or 2C could be

further developed to pardon me to overcome some of the uh um points that um were made throughout the presentation. Um and and to put my cards on the table, that's kind of where I lean is making this campus work in my mind. Um, I know the administration um um you know is is um vigilant about the value of being in the downtown location. There are some my my as I've said more than once, my head's in the other direction which is you have a center of activity here in a part of town which normally wouldn't have the same level of activity in the downtown. You can command commercial rents. I certainly wouldn't want to displace the medical tenants and floor three of our our building. That was a good point to to include in the analysis, by the way. I didn't think of that. But uh you know, you you've got you've got some advantages for the tax base of the government by um prioritizing the downtown for private commercial tax paying tenants and residents of all kinds. So, you know, may that's just that's just my perspective where I begin the conversation. Maybe that's a great perspective. Maybe that is not look forward to continuing to analyze this. Um, you know, the last thing I would say is I mean, what's buried in this analysis is also that all right, we're all saying that we need to do it and we need to do it now. And maybe I'm talking like the old guy, but I've been around since 2008, and the building's been around since longer than that, and we've been making it work, and we've been maintaining and investing in it. I think there are there is call for more bathrooms so that just the usability of the for employees and and visitors is

better. So we could certainly invest it, but um I think the urgency is is of course um the the changing mix of police personnel and certainly police is overdue for some some investment in their capital facility, their whole working conditions. But if we had to make it work for five more years, would we really shut down? If if we couldn't afford it, wouldn't we be okay operationally? I think we would. And that may not be um kind of the first preference of the team internal to city hall. But I guess I'm coming from it from the perspective of city government was on hard times for years and years. We tighten our belt. We prioritized saving as many jobs as we could. and then retaining employee compensation and benefits as much as we could. And then we've added to that and improved that in recent years as we've been able to afford. So at least we've accomplished that even if the capital investment hasn't been um what anybody hopes for. Our vehicles I think are all we're pretty on top of our vehicle investment or other equipment. So the building is the last one is a valid conversation. But I I'll push back a little bit on the the concept that we we're in some kind of emergency and we need to we need to lunge towards some solution. I'm in favor of of more of this kind of thoughtful analysis that we've been getting into. So I appreciate it. Thanks.

Thank you. Um Oh, Council Member Bixenstein.

Um and thank you for the uh thoughtful analysis. As someone who's newer to this process, I I do really appreciate that, assistant director boss. Um my my question is this, and I I appreciate all that's gone into um the parking um with regards to Warren Road congestion. Um you know, that that stretch is is really busy. You know, basically from Speedway to the Marks Plaza and anybody who's tried to make a left out of the um post office knows that can be a challenge at times. Now, ideally in in a city like Lakewood, you have plenty of people accessing city hall at that location um through other modes of transportation and on foot as well, but I was just wondering if you thought um there'd need to be any um special traffic engineering to accommodate uh that as a city hall location uh just based on the congestion of that that block of Warren. I I I didn't delve into that level of analysis, but I wouldn't uh I wouldn't doubt that especially with with this level of use kind of moving to that location, we would want to take a look at it in terms of volumes, especially with and I did I didn't really touch on the availability of shared parking. I know we've had some discussions with the post office on options of share parking there um and trying to spread that parking demand out as much as possible in that area, but um but that's not I I wouldn't think that that would be out of the question in terms of taking a look at turning movements and volumes and stuff like that and seeing if there's any improvements to be made in conjunction with like a relocation.

Thank you. Um I had a question in the slide that shows the timeline. Um as the yeah um so am I reading this correctly that there would be eight month 8th month of design for option two for the Warren Road building but less than 16 months. Is that what that is meaning? That's just what for construction

based on my analysis looking at it is that um you would want to do renovations concurrently if you could possibly do that and generally renovating an existing building um my assumption is you could take it would take less than new construction um of that scale and scope of 16 months but it would still be eight months of

I I would think yeah the eight months would would remain the same and that's when you're doing design efforts at two different again two different sites um and trying to get those things locked in as much as possible. I don't think the design process would change a whole lot. Most of the time you're just it's you're trying to confirm that allocation of space. The resulting architecture and engineering that support that um is a major component of it, but most of it you're trying to is the scale and scope of an addition is you're trying to to get the box right before you add anything to it. And so that I think my assumption was that that the design effort we would we would approach both with the same methodical time frame to make sure we get it right.

Okay. And then I guess um so I'm I guess there's there's quite I sent um quite a few additional questions that are beyond the scope of um Assistant Director Boss's presentation tonight um to the administration. Um so just uh council members just our original timeline that I we had put out um because we had uh finance department had asked if we could get the bans done by the next full the legislation uh we were expecting to potentially refer it out to pass at the next full council meeting. Um so if we were going to do that we would need to refer it out tonight. Um, but I'm certainly I feel like there's still quite a bit more discussion that needs to be had on this topic uh before we be prepared to do that. And um the mayor and I spoke after the last council meeting that we actually could um push the band legislation out until the the first meeting in March or the second meeting in March. First meeting in March. Okay. So um with that we'll plan to schedule another committee of the whole um you know we have quite a few beyond everything that was prepared tonight of questions in terms of the cash flow and timeline like to the point about the design process here if it's um you know why we're taking out 16.5 in debt this year if most of this year is going to be design um what all is included whether the auditorium when council moves. That's a big discussion too in terms of the technology that would be needed in the new location if it were to move. Um if that's included in the price estimates. Um so there's just a lot more questions I think that

we'd have. So I'm going to um we're coming up on time for tonight. Uh, but I would encourage council members as you think through this, continue to send the questions to the administration so we can um we may have kind of a marathon session at to to keep us on track to get to that March meeting. Um, I think we have uh I think there's room on the schedule to last meeting in Monday in February. So, we'll we'll get No, there's not. Marine saying no, there's not. Okay. So, we'll figure it out. We might have to have a special committee hole. Yeah, Councilman Bul,

thank you. Points well taken on the on the um committee deliberation. Um I I support having a more chance for analysis. Um I wanted to add one other thought to the options here. Could there be a phased option two, three, or whatever number we're talking about where we do act with some uh time urgency for the police locker room and other facilities to at least begin to meet that immediate need. I think that's the best answer that comes to mind for the question I put out um for the meeting. You know, what's the time urgency? So, so that would be something to me that would be uh an appealing option. Um because I understand that all these pieces are linked, but um the needs aren't as acute in every corner of you know some of these are improvements as opposed to critical deficiencies for example. So if we could um have the best of both worlds where we have a thoughtful comprehensive design and an analysis prior to design but but at the same time if there's some agreement that we do need to work on a core portion of that maybe we resolve to do that. Yes, that that'll be complicated. I heard what Mr. Boss said about this facility moves there. But you could in you could rent for two years office space for the administrative staff that's always intended to be temporary for example you know you know that could be I in in ideal world found somewhere in the city and the point is it's just swing space for some people displaced while work was being done so police personnel moved around. That's a concept, not a not a not a vetted plan on my part, but that's the

kind of thing that comes to mind, which would then allow us to um move in a timely basis for for at least one of the immediate needs and yet still be thoughtful with everything else. So, I I do want to at least express um acknowledgement of that need in the in the police locker rooms. Yeah, agreed. And I think um you know we've talked about that before of has has the administration done any do we have any sort of design in mind for if if this if we were to go with the war road solution have we done any design work on what the renovated police space would look like? Do we have

through President Keell? Um no all we have is what Weber Murphy Fox has provided as a very basic fit plan. We have not gone any further. All right. Um, any final comments before we wrap up committee of the whole for tonight? Right. Um, so with that, that's uh concludes committee of the whole. Without objection, we are adjourned.

Uh, finance will start about five minute break. Yes. Okay. probably not.

Yeah. Yeah. Gotcha.

Yep. Right on. Just the merits.

Did I get lost? Oh, that's awesome.

Your This is particular.

Doesn't matter which Oh, wow. Yeah. Yeah, just serious work.

This is the second copy of this thing. Yeah, I'm sure there's a replacements. Yeah, I'll go ahead and call uh the February 9th, although it feels like January 800th uh meeting of the finance committee to order uh at 7:04. All the committee members are here and all my council colleagues as well. Um so the first order of business is the review and approval of the December 15th, 2025 finance committee meeting minutes. Uh is there a motion to approve? So moved. Uh second. All those in or any discussion? All those in favor say I. I. I.

Uh. So moved.

Uh and then we have a couple items uh that we want to get through the night. Uh the first one is ordinance uh 042026 uh which is a transfer and advances ordinance. Uh as you look through it, it looks like we are doing one of our standard transfers of uh funds out of the general fund and into uh Winterhurst and Office on Aging uh as well as some wastewater improvement and um and into the debt service funds. Um, and additionally some it looks to be federal funds uh out of the general fund or I guess help me understand that. Director Mahoney, it looks like what we're doing is maybe fronting some of that money or paying ourselves back.

Are you talking about the the advances out? Yeah, the advances out from those are to pay to pay ourselves back from what we did at the end of 2025. So those are from the all those funds at the end of 25 we um needed to advance due to timing differences of receiving some revenues and now um once now those revenues have been received and we can pay back the general fund. So that's what that's doing.

Great. Thank you. Um and then the other ones seem to be um standard procedure and I to help me understand these funds on the debt service payment at least uh we're essentially transferring out of the general fund and and for those wastewater treatment plant improvements is that from ease from residents uh as it relates to like storm water and sewer and then we're putting it into a fund to then pay the debt.

Uh yeah. Yes. So, the first transfer, the 325,000 to Winterhurst and Aging, that's simply to help fund those funds um that they can't uh that they need the extra funding just to keep keep operations. The debt service payments are um from the wastewater treatment plant. uh those were fees and those help pay the debt service on you know the sewer improvements and things like that. Likewise uh from 512 to 511 that's that's just similar um from fees uh receeded by the residents and the property tax uh receded to help pay the debt service for sewer improvements.

Okay, I think I understand. Any questions from committee members? Council Book. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Uh, thanks, Director Mahoney. The um just a a couple of questions in the same vein. So, for the CDBG funds writ large, um, have those check checks now been received? In other words, the federal government has paid us or were they were not received at the end of December, but now they have been received. You have got them in hand now. Got it. Okay. Um secondly, and and if the if we hadn't, we'd not see that on this and maybe show up in the second quarter. Is that the idea? Uh that's correct.

Okay. Thanks. And then for um wastewater for transferring from fund 512, wastewater treatment plant improvements to fund 511, isn't that capital to operations or what are we you needing the monies in 511 for? That's that that pays for both 301 and 511. Those are um to pay some of the debt service from uh sewer improvements. So they're they're both similar just um one some is paid from the debt service fund and some is paid from the wastewater treatment plant fund. Okay. It's not uh materials or employees. No.

Very good. And then finally, since I never can recall one year to the next, for the transfers to office on aging and winhurse, can you compare these levels to what they were 12 months ago? Uh, I believe they're identical. Okay. Have we been trending up down? I I I I seem to think it's largely level but somewhat up compared to the last five years. But again, I don't trust your records better than level, but I can double check that for you. Okay. I I I'm just curious.

So, the idea being if there's if there's some need for us to be costconscious, are we doing that? The question would be how? And that's that's a that's just a simple question not driving at anything in particular. I just am trying to understand what the trends may be over time. Yeah. Yeah. For example, uh Winterhurst I I do believe that's identical in the last, you know, recent years, but the only increase if that was needed would be because of the increase in utility costs. That's basically what that's paying for.

Okay. Interesting. All right. Thank you. That's all I had. Any other um questions from colleagues? No. Um at this point then I'll I'll make a a motion uh to favorably refer ordinance uh for 2026 back to full counsel uh for approval. Second. Uh it's motion's been made and second. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. I

I uh the next item on our docket is ordinance 052026. Um this appears to be equipment leases in the amount of $2,375. Um and then there is uh an associate exhibit A that lays out the amounts for each equipment lease. Um can you kind of high level explain this? Um Director Mahoney.

Uh sure. So, I I know lease is a funny word, but basically it's a loan for um to pay we pay for the cost of these vehicles um over five years. Um it's just a fancy word for basically a car loan. So, uh this is the way to fund uh the list that's that's there um for fire, police, uh refugees, streets, sewer. So is this a a one do do the numbers on exhibit A represent a one-year for the what the payment will be for the entire year for these for so for example for the fire medical squad our note payment is $385,000 for this year?

No that's the cost of the squad. So that would be paid out over five years but we have to take a lease out currently. So we need council to to approve the lease for the whole amount of the squad. Okay. So so we will be effectively paying 1/5 plus interest of it. Correct. This year. Uh correct. Okay.

Well, we don't pay until we actually So, you know, the timing of a squad or a truck or police cars, we draw down those funds. uh they actually earn interest for us uh once we sign the lease, you know, not as a small amount of interest. And then once we actually acquire each of those uh vehicles, we draw down those funds and then that's when the we also so need to pay back those funds too. Okay. So these are the um I guess one, two, three, four, nine, 11 new vehicles we're buying this year then.

That's correct. Okay. Um, thank you. And I think these were also represented in the budget just for colleagues as we went through it. Um, any questions or comments from members of the committee? Council person Stig. Thank you. I'm just interested in what that um interest rate is that we're earning on that. Do you have any idea um what we're earning? I the last I I think it's around 3%. Okay. Not your average 1% savings. A little better. Thank you. Uh any other comments or questions from other members of council? Uh Councilman Evans.

Thank you, Chair. Um is this about um I I know year by year things are going to be different. Is this about average what we're spending per per year on new vehicle leases or does it vary widely? It it it it doesn't vary wildly. This is a little less. We used some cash to pay for a few things this year. Um, again, trying to be conscientious for how much debt we're taking out. So, uh, this is a little a little bit less um maybe about a half a million dollars to a million dollars less than we have in other past years. We also don't have, for example, a big fire engine, you know, that's a million and a half dollars. So, so that helps for this year.

Thank you. And we're not going to be like Lorraine County and send a letter out how Enterprise is going to come and seize our cars. You're so silly. Sorry. I don't know how that happens. Great. I'm thankful for the great administrators we have in this city. Uh council person Hamilton Center. Thank you. Uh thank you, chair. Um, so just for my own knowledge, when we say lease, is it a lease like if I were to lease a car and or is it it's le they're using lease that's being used like it's really a loan? I don't know why they call it a lease. I It's just a but we'll own them ultimately. Yes. Yes. Absolutely. Thank you. That's the point. I Thank you. And it's not none of these are enterprise.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah. I I think and director Vargo could correct me if I'm wrong here. I think the idea is is that like in in a debt capacity like we take debt through notes and and um bonds and in this instance it's a way to get debt and not go through those vehicles, not go through notes or bonds. Um so you can basically finance it that way but it's just a different way. And then the the collateral for a note or bond is literally our income tax revenue or whatever it might be. The collateral for these are the vehicles. I think that's the And we pay these a lot quicker than a a bond. Five years versus 30 years.

Uh Council Bulock had a question, I believe. Yeah. First, uh Councilman Hamilton, Councilwoman Hamilton, Senator, I've asked that in the past myself. I think the reason they call it a lease is to confuse everybody, but essentially a car loan, traditional car loan. Um may maybe you just covered it, Mr. Chair. I missed it. So, uh, I just want to clarify this is not being rolled into proposals is not to roll this into the long-term debt financing. No, it will not be or or even notes, right? No. Paid off over five years. Okay. Right. Thank you. Yeah.

Um, great. Thank you. If there's not any other questions, I will go ahead and make a motion to approve ordinance or to recommend approval of ordinance 052026 to full counsel. Second. Uh there's been a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. I.

I. Uh. So that is favorably referred. The next ordinance is ordinance 372025A. Um, which is I believe payrade classifications. Um, and from my my review, public information officer goes from level 31 to 33. Um and then there are I believe some associated uh license and certifications which I believe mimic the CBA updates.

They do. This was presented before all the um CBAs were finalized and so to keep everyone on the same level uh requesting to to mirror the CBAs. Great. Um, question I have is why we remove the master municipal clerk and certified municipal clerk from this list. Um, out of curiosity, it was just in there twice. Okay. So, it's it's already listed somewhere else. Um, oh, I see it. Yes. Okay. Right. Yeah, it's just a few above it.

Great. Um, any questions for my uh colleagues on the committee? Any questions from the rest of my colleagues? Uh, I think it's pretty self-explanatory. Um, so I will go ahead and make a motion to recommend favorable approval of ordinance um 372025A to full counsel. Second. Uh, there's been a motion second. Any discussion? Actually, Mr. Chair.

Yes. So, um, Director Mahoney, I think if I follow what we're saying is reason we're seeing another proposed, uh, ordinance, salary classification ordinance so quickly after we just approved one on December 15 is the administration wants to make even for non-bargaining unit employees. Is that what we're saying? That's correct. And to make payroll's life easier, too, instead of trying to keep track of certific two different certificate two people one in a union one and not in a union with the same certifications having two different rates it's more complex than needed okay appreciate that

uh also I I um pay grade 38 has city architect city engineer we currently have a city engineer I know in my past on planning commission we had a city architect has that position just been vacant for the past couple We we do not have a city architect and is there a reason um through President Keell? Um I don't know what the exact reason is. I know that there used to be one on staff um a couple a few years ago. I don't know if it was two or three years ago and it was just wasn't replaced. So I I don't have an answer why it wasn't replaced.

I can shed some light because it was before your arrival. We we did have a city architect that was a brand new position. um for that individual at that time. Um she had left and it was determined that the workload um and the requirements just weren't no longer necessary to have a a city architect on hand. It's still there in case we do need one at some point, but um there there just wasn't the uh the functional need for it.

Thank you, uh mayor and um Director Bington. going through our exercise today. I think it would have been nice to have a sing architect. Um but understand, you know, it's uh you know, we have a limited amount of positions and we fill what we can. Uh so I certainly understand. Uh so there's been a motion and a second. Uh all those in favor or any further All those in favor say I.

I. U. So moved. Uh the next item uh is a communication from uh some of my colleagues uh Councilman Bulock, Council Person Hamilton Hamilton Steiner and Councilman Evans. Um for ease of of docket clarity, I will go ahead and make a motion to receive and file that communication. Um um there's been a motion to second. Any discussion? Uh all those in favor say I. I.

I. Uh it is helpful to have on the docket for what we're discussing though. Uh and the next item is uh ordinance 33 2020 5A uh which is a um an ordinance that seeks to adjust some of the appropriations I believe uh from the budget in 2025. Uh, and I believe that there is a proposed substitute that is in Granicus. Uh, but I will defer to um the sponsor that's on the committee, Councilman um Bool, to kind of walk through um what's in front of us.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Um so, first is for 2026. The 25 on the ordinance is just the numbering. Uh so the proposed the intent of the proposal is to carry out uh what was in the communication that we just received and filed and and that listed some of the council budget priorities. The ones that had the highest numbers of support from council members over the last two committee of the whole meetings that were council retreats in 24 and 25. So what um so now I've I've had the chance to talk to assistant director swallow and to director Mahoney. So like to do is propose a a substitute amendment and um council members you should have that in your email. I don't know if it's in Granicus or not. Is it?

I believe it is in Granicus. So I'll send it to you.

Always have too many screens open. So let me see if I can get the proper thing in Granicus open. Okay. Second attachment. So, substitute amendment. Does everybody see that? Um, and there's a clean cleaner copy than this, but the included the comments to explain is a word document comment. This is a PDF copy of a word document comment. So, broadly speaking, the the the thought by the law department was um use the whereas clauses and that would get would would help us to accomplish city council's intent assuming that there is consensus to support this. Um and then secondly, um director Mahoney, the finance department said uh you could also use the whereas clauses to answer the question of where the funds would come from. And so following that advice um is what the amended substitute here before you would do. And what that means is in the ordinance itself, the the substitute amendment would strike all of the words in section one, the new proposed words in section one, which were a way to pay for the proposed new priorities without um violating the structural balance requirements. So we want to respect the structural balance requirements. This was an attempt to do it. However, the substitute would say, "Forget about that. We've got a different solution," which I'll explain in a second. And then if you scroll down through the attachments exhibits A and B, the the proposed substitute would simply restore the original number. Okay? So

the original number that's already in place in the budget that we passed on December 15 last year is the proposed levels that we would stick with. All right. So that's what that language would do is it basically proposes to remove the amend the the amended language. Then we go to the new whereas clauses and if you look at the second one first that's a little simpler. Um uh it would it would propose that the funds to pay for the council priorities would be from the economic development reserves of the city. That's the economic development fund. There's a chart that director Mahoney shared with us during the budget process that projects that to be at 1.5 million at the end of this calendar year, which is the same as this budget year. And the total amount of potential spending proposed or additional amounts not to exceed would be 570,000 minus uh 50,000 we already proposed for composting. So 520,000. So in other words, if we if we were to adopt what's before us in this approach, you'd have ample funds in the $1.5 million economic development reserve to absorb up to not to exceed another $520,000. Okay. Um and then finally, what's the additional proposed spending? Well, that's in the first whereas clause and you can see it listed right there, the amounts and the purposes which we should talk about now, I think. But what what those amounts and purposes are is what was proposed in some of the those the material I shared in in December and it's it's an attempt to reflect what the council budget priorities process

identified. Um, one final thing is amounts not to exceed. So what this would do if we were to agree support this is to make available funds up to those amounts. But that's not the same thing as compelling that all of those funds are spent. In fact, it's probably likely that in in many of the cases you'd spend less than that amount. It's just up to this amount administration is available for expenditure for the listed purpose. And um and then the method by which we would actually expend the proposal here would simply follow our customary procedure is really administrative function. So things that are in the planning department. We'd work with director Bington and her team etc. Right. And the hope would be that we'd be in good faith partners just as we're doing already doing that with the composting proposal and councilwoman Steiner has been working with the planning department on the early stages of that. We appreciate that or I do. Um, but it's not city council saying for sure you have to spend $50,000 on this by date certain. So, does that make sense that at least that much? So, I'll pause there. Yes. And I'm I'm interested um in uh Director Mahoney's kind of analysis of this approach. Um, sounds like it was collaboratively um, gotten to by you and Councilman Bulock, but just curious if you could elaborate on that. Um, well, I I just wanted to save the integrity of our structurally balanced budget and um this could be a way I I'm not saying I agree with what council is proposing to spend on some things, but um I mean we do have reserves uh that could cover

these if the uh if it was presented as a proper public purchase. Um, so that in essence, we're not really changing the budget, but council is just displaying their desire for spending on certain things, I guess. Um, and uh, uh, Councilman Bulock and I had discussed also that this would be much better achieved if, um, through the budgeting process. So we have promised in June to I will remind you to include your requests in with the budgeting process uh rather than separate.

Yeah. And I I I do think that there is as as much as I'm sure you you'd love to have council in in the weeds of you preparing your budget as you're bringing online new software um to manage city finances. Uh I do think that there is an opportunity in June because that's I know when those things start to kind of establish priorities and perhaps um even a a hearing, a committee uh hearing to talk about those things um kind of more high level and then offer the opportunity for in person, you know, kind of one-on-one meetings. But I do think that, you know, we certainly have a cadence on this city council of how budgets go. Um, I think it works. Um, it's obviously worked for a long time. City functions, do what we have to do. Uh, I do think there's maybe a little bit more of an opportunity always to improve and have a little bit more collaborative of an approach. I think it's going to take it's on us too. Um so we have to meet um the finance department in that respect um and you know establish and reiterate what our priorities are um and and have no surprises, right? Um you you should know our priorities early. Uh and we should let you know what we will or won't approve. Uh and so then there's no surprises when we come to that point. Uh but we are ultimately the budget setting entity for the city. Uh that's what the charter gives us. Um, but if if this is an approach that and I I hear what you're saying, uh, Director Mahoney, I, you know, I do think the way that Councilman Bulock proposed it, we could have gotten there in a in a more prescriptive way. I do think what he's done has created a little bit more of a suggestive approach than a prescriptive approach. Um, and I think that, you know, can bear fruit uh in a collaborative way. um you know but I and we had some discussions you know in

December when he brought some of these proposals forward that I didn't necessarily as one of seven didn't necessarily disagree with the intent of some of his funding the funding priorities he was bringing up but maybe just the way we were doing it. So I think now we're creating a pathway maybe to have a more constructive uh conversation going into 2027 because we're only three or four months away from forming that budget um because it's always budget season. Uh so any other comment? I'm sorry, Councilman Bulock, you were in the middle of your thought and we kind of jumped in. So if you'd like to continue to expound Yeah. any any uh comments or questions from the committee, colleagues, uh council person or council president Kell,

thank you. Um, and I do appreciate um, Director Mahoney and uh, Councilman Bulock working on this um, to have a have a solution that we can actually sit and look at and process and um, understand is is helpful. Um, I just wanted to add to the the the conversation here in terms of um, meeting in talking in June about council budget priorities. And I think, you know, we've been trying to do that over the last several years of having our retreats. We have had early in the year. Um, right now we're we had most of these Monday nights tied up with city hall discussion. We're going to try to squeeze in, we got to find a place to squeeze in another one before the next um full council meeting. We'll also have charter stuff coming up soon. So um but it is my hope that we can do a retreat um before that June process so that we can kind of get that all together in in one swoop and present to the administration um as we have but maybe in a little bit more collaborative way. So

yes, uh, Council Keell, I think that that that the part of kind of developing the consensus on council priorities has been tremendous um, under your leadership. I think that what I'm committing to do as part of this committee is to kind of take that and and really try to work with the administration to integrate it more into the budget document um, in ways that and I've always been amazed at the way we do budgets. Every city's different, every public entity is different. Um, you know, so I'm excited to get into the weeds uh with this, but but not make anyone in the administration's life miserable because it's hard enough. Uh, they do a great job. Uh, but I do think there are opportunities for us to improve and maybe collaborate a little bit more. Um, any other comments? Councilman Evans.

Yeah, thank you, Chair. Um, I just want to thank everybody as well, Councilman Bulock and, uh, Director Mahoney for for working on this. Um I I think it's it's really important that um council's budget priorities are, you know, were taken into account much earlier in the process. Um and I'm glad we're having this conversation so that we can um start that uh conversation much earlier than we have in the past. And I think the work what we're looking at with these budget amendments um today I'm supportive of as a kind of a first step um to looking at how we can uh how can we can be more proactive in in in making the budget reflect um council's priorities even before um we get to amending our official budgeting process yearbyear. So um thank you to my colleagues who've worked on this. I appreciate it. Uh, thank you. And then, uh, Councilman Bulock, I think, um, you know, as I understand this, uh, you know, we're not changing the general appropriations, but we are identifying a legislative intent to spend certain amounts from the economic development fund. And that's what this proposed substitute, which we need to um add in. So uh I guess to continue that conversation I will go ahead and make a motion to substitute uh with the version that is entitled substitute amendment that's in granicus. Is there a second?

Second. Um so now that it's um moved and seconded. Any discussion? Um no. Uh all those in favor I I I uh so now that the proposed substitute is what's actually before us. Um it's my understanding that this in the appropriations ordinance will express an intent to use a restricted fund on these delineated items. But Councilman Bulk, if you can walk through kind of the the next series of of uh ordinances that you think would would accomplish your intent and then we can maybe take them in order. Yes. Uh thanks, Mr. Chair. Um

so I think you mean next items on the docket after this one. So um I think they need to be discussed together.

Fair enough. There's so there's two components to our budgeting um as director Mahoney and director Vargo probably constantly remind us but we always appreciate getting the refresher. So we have appropriations which obligates money to be spent but then contracting authority that allows it to be spent by certain departments for certain purposes. And so the two work handin glove. So what you have what we're currently discussing is the first piece the appropriations which we're saying we're not appropriating anything but we're we're signaling potentially uh a priority of spending up to amounts not to exceed from previously appropriated economic development reserves. So anyway that's that part. But then how do you know which department's spending how much for these different purposes? The answer to that comes in the following two contracting authority proposed amended ordinances. One for uh the planning department uh which has its own separate contracting authority ordinance and then one for everything else which is material supplies professional services um etc. So if you uh look at the next items or scroll ahead you'll just simply see the the numbers. So yeah, or ordinance 342025A and I believe ordinance 35 36 2025A are that that point. Uh the first one is the general contracting authority. The second one is planning departments contracting authority

which is where most of that um those changes appear alongside the already approved composting. So, Director Bington is one of the more busy uh directors in city hall, and we we don't want to break her record. Um we appreciate your good work. So the um the other one though 34-2025A has um a a variety of things and I think the only thing that appears here is the proposed additional spending for the black club program. Um so communications and then the the subtotals and the totals are carried forward and then advertising and printing services. Okay. So that's simply an attempt to break out the intended categories of what might be entailed there. Um and I think originally I' um it it would be in the now un amended appropriations ordinance. I' I'd flag that to be under the city council budget as opposed to some other department. But since we're not um following that structure right now, um that would be a point for open discussion. So does that first? So that's at least one that initial question addressed. And then if you look at 36-20 25A, that's the contracting authority proposal for the planning department. And it lists my screen loads here. Um you got the totals and then you've got

the different broken out items for yeah, Lakewood Alive, um public art and pedestrian bike safety improvements are a new proposed amount. Now the um the amount here doesn't square I think I have a typo in the um the appropriations uh whereas clause it needs 150,000 plus 60 or 160,000 plus 50,000 was the intent vice versa. So this is 210 and in the warehouse clause we have 200,000. So that needs to be um corrected. a typo in in my drafting, but at any rate, does I hope that makes sense to council member. So, the idea would be you'd retain this if you retain the levels in the proposed whereas clause. If you want to change the levels in the proposed whereas clause, we needed carry out carry forward those same amount changes in the other two contract.

Yes. Um any discussion or questions from colleagues? Um Dr. Money, as I understand it, um you may this may not be um the way you do it, but you you think this accomplishes the the intent of what Council Bulock is attempting to do here? It does demonstrate the intent. Yes. Great. Yeah. And and I think what Director Mahoney is saying without saying is that all all we can do is authorize more funds um and the administration can spend them or not. Um is that accurate?

That's that's correct. That's true of the whole budget. You know, you could appropriate a million dollars for streets and if we don't need the million dollars, we wouldn't spend it. U Mr. Chair.

Yes. So that is definitely the spirit in which we're working here and also that gives us some flexibility to for example on public art on public art maintenance funds which are needed because we've been creating these great murals but some of them are peeling and so forth and we haven't ever budgeted for maintenance and repair or replacement. So we don't know today what the actual cost is. So it's a up to $30,000. So that is perfectly appropriate to give us some opportunity after the cold weather breaks if it ever does to identify and then get a better amount. So that's a perfect example. Now director Mahoney, there could be a different example which I won't bother to think of now where council would say the mayor and his or her design are authorized and directed to expend X for purpose Y. And the administration prepares those ordinances for us from time to time. often it's road projects um for example but that language comes through so that's not what we're proposing here but there are cases where council could direct that's not what we're I think called for here

yeah I'm I'm not sure council's role is to appropriate the funds and and administration is to maintain and spend within what council appropriates I'm not clear if there's a a directive from council I I don't think That's I don't know.

Okay. Well, it's an academic point for now because we're we're working in a collegial manner, but the the budgeting function is important and it's council's primary in in the budget. So, that's what we're doing here. Thanks. Um and so, uh Council Book, you raised a good point, which is that these numbers don't match. Um so, is it and I think it's because you have 210 in the planning ordinance for bike and um pedestrian safety improvements and then you have 200 if you add them up. Um which number are you intending to go through? Which one should we

The the intent was 210. It would be 60,000 for traffic calming which is um coequal with the amount we've already approved. Do you want to make a motion to amend the substitute ordinance to add that 10? Okay. So I'll move to amend the amount 200 excuse me the amount 50,000 that appears. Can I look up? Yeah. And uh whereas clause two in the in the second whereas clause related to traffic calming and replace that 50,000 with 60,000. Um second uh motion's been made and second. Any discussion? All those in favor say I.

I. So now we have the substituted amend amended ordinance that amends the appropriation. Uh we're earning our

interesting. Um, so I I I you know, I think Councilman Bulock has has done a good job and I want to thank him and his colleagues uh that brought this forward of of taking forward some of council priorities and and putting them and at least giving the administration birth to um wider birth to implement them um in this fashion during this calendar year should should the um occasion arise. Uh I believe he wanted to have some discussion about whether we wanted different numbers or different priorities. I'm comfortable with what he put in front of us. So I don't have any suggested changes, but is there any discussion from my colleagues? Mr. Chair,

yes.

Um I have a technical um thing to point out. I spoke with Director Mahoney about this but then forgot to follow up. In ordinance 36 2025, the list of authorized officials is um I think needs to be updated to match the list of authorized officials in all the other budget ordinances. And so this might be a good opportunity to do that because when it was originally passed at the end of 2025, this was the last ordinance that didn't correct that. So this might be an opportunity to do that. So when we get there, you're saying to amend um 362025A um to add in Do you have the list of what the additional

It would be whatever is exactly in ordinance 34205. It would replace purchasing manager with procurement officer. Add in the director of human resources, director of human services. I think that's it.

Okay. So um because I want to dispose of these in order I think for for order I will when we get to that point I will make a motion to to do that. Um so for the substitute amended amended appropriation um which is ordinance um 332025 uh as substitute and amended. I will make a motion to favorably refer this back to full counsel uh for approval. Second. Uh there's been a motion and a second in discussion. Uh all those in favor say I.

I. Uh so moved. And then for um ordinance 34205A. Uh, I will also make a motion to favorably refer this to full council for approval. Second. There's been a motion and second. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. I.

Uh, and then for ordinance 36, 2025A, I will make a motion to amend. Yeah. to strike the language in section one and then have it say that the mayor, the director of law, the director of finance, the director of public works, the director of planning and development, the director of human services, the director of human resources or the procurement officer uh be added to that section one and in the um title and in the title. I'll second that motion. Uh the motion's been made and second. Any discussion or Mr. Chair? Madam Chair, thank you to the clerk for her eagle-eyed work to catch that.

Yes. Um then uh the motion's been made and seconded. Any discussion? Further? No. All those in favor say I. I. Uh so then I will make a motion to favorably refer the amended ordinance 36 2025A to full counsel for approval. Uh is there a second? Uh second by council person. Any discussion? Uh, all those in favor say I. I.

I. Um, no more business before this committee. Uh, although I I believe we scheduled something later to go over the audit um the administration's um proposal on the audit committee uh and then also uh the can host cannabis funds. Uh we will be having a meeting uh finance committee following up on those two points. Uh so no further business coming before this meeting. We are adjourned. Thank you. Oh yeah.