Finance, Budget, Audit & Bonding Subcommittee - Special Meeting

me into order at your leisure.

Okay, thank you. It is 602. Welcome to the town of Bloomfield finance subcommittee meeting. Call this meeting to order. U looking online or any counselors in the room. We have councelor Mike Oliver. We have Mayor Tony Harrington and myself. And just waiting to see if anybody else is going to join. We'll give them one more minute before we get started. Okay. Well, we'll move on at 604. Whoever joins joins. Thank you all for joining. Once again, calling the meeting to

order. Roll call has been done. We'll start with old business discussion and status update regarding the fiscal year 2024 and 2025 audits. Yes. Thank you, Director Hill. Thank you. Um am I Can you hear me? Yes, sir. We hear you. You see me? I can't see you. Oh. Um we're in conference room two. I believe the other folks can see us. That's not Denise Robbita. No. Okay. No, I'm I'm really Mike Gman tonight and Mike is Justin. So,

thank you. I apologize. Um well, thank you uh uh uh Deputy Mayor. Um the FY24 audit uh is still ongoing. Uh we've made significant progress since I last reported having submitted 27 of the then remaining 24 items uh to our external auditor CLA. Of the 13 items remaining, the most significant is the trial balance. Uh that feeds into several other items. Um we're working to complete that. That will be done and submitted next week. Uh which will then feed into five other things that get submitted. Um two of the remaining thing two of the 13 remaining things are statistical tables uh and the management discussion and analysis which both of those are the last things that we submit. So um since I last reported uh we've uh made very good progress. We're we're very close to having everything to CLA um so that their work uh can begin in earnest uh after that. Um we're in close communication with them. Uh cuz you may or may not know and appreciate that uh all 169 local governments across Connecticut are in the midst of an audit right now. Most are working on fiscal year 2025, but some like us are still working to complete fiscal year 24. And I believe I understand correctly that there are a small number that are still working on their either fiscal 23 audit or their fiscal 22 audit. Again, we continue to work closely with CLA to complete our 24 audit as soon as possible with our target uh continuing to be the end of next month, September 30th. Um but given that the entire state's in audit now, uh I do have some concerns that that may slide a little bit just based on the availability of uh staff at CLA. Uh, but if you know

Vanessa and Michael and the team at CLA, um, they are very active across Connecticut and do a very good job of scheduling their resources to meet their clients needs. And I expect that they will continue to do the same for the town of Bloomfield. As you will see in a few uh minutes in the fiscal year 25 2025 financial report, I've made a conservative assumption regarding the amount to be added to our unassigned fund balance from fiscal 24 operations. There continues to be movement in our fiscal 24 uh financials as work completed during fiscal 24 required research and correction. This conservative approach to year-end operation operating performance should provide confidence that the numbers presented can be met or exceeded. We will know definitively in the coming weeks when the FY24 audit is completed. Uh I'll pause there before I move on to 2025's audit uh to in case any uh committee members have questions. Um I did, but you answered a couple of them as far as um your projection on getting the remaining five items of the 13 over and then the others and pretty much the five versus the 13. Um I think it's answered regardless. You're shooting for September 30th to have everything to CLA for them to start doing what they need to do. Um, and I believe from the last inquiry that there may be about 20 towns and cities that were in the same position that we are. So, if we could ensure to work with CLA so that we don't get pushed back um to your point of being in the midst of what is going to be a state audit either ongoing or starting particularly because they know we've been in the midst of pulling this together and feeding them information. Hopefully, they will allocate those resources to keep us going so we can um complete this. And at the same time, I know that you guys are

working on this year's financials as well, so that we can be as close to the December 31st date on the current um audit year. So, um I guess I'd like to ask and there I'm sure there'll be other questions. How is that looking while you're trying to reconcile 24? What is 25 looking like? So, uh before I move on to 25, I will respond of course, but just a slight correction to your comment about 24. We're gonna have everything to CLA next week and then have it completed by the end of September. But okay, if I didn't say it that way, that's what I meant. Thank you. But thank you for clarifying in case it wasn't clear for anybody.

And as I've as I've reported to committee previously, as we've been working on 24 and you know, it's extremely valuable for current staff to have all the insights that we've gained. Uh after our uh the last committee meeting, we did bring in some temporary help that was uh was and continues to be helpful. Um as you know, I you know, at a budget modification ask in fiscal 26 for senior accountant, which is what the temporary staff that we've brought in uh who they are and what their experience is. So that's that's been value in helping accelerate uh through these last uh few weeks. Um, but as we've been working to complete 24, we've been, as I phrase it, bringing along 25 with us. You know, we're we're doing have done and continue to do a significant amount of research into how the town has previously managed its finances. And as we one understand it, two adjust or correct as necessary. We're also we're doing that for 24, but we're also looking at 25 to correct or adjust anything in 25 that we see in 24, which uh I believe is going to help us compress our audit schedule for fiscal 25. You know, the normal cycle is that fiscal year ends June 30th. State statute requires by December 31st to to file the audit. So, that's a six-month period. Um, we pre-close before June 30th. And then after June 30th, during July, we typically close the the fiscal year out. Um, making any adjustments that need to be made in that what we call the 13th period, 12 months, and then the 13th period for adjustments. Um, so where we are now, it is the end of August. Um, and we would have closed 25 last month. Um, which it's not technically closed, but it's

close to being closed. Purchase orders and everything for fiscal 25 was much more orderly than fiscal 24. Um, but we're already two months into the fiscal 25 audit cycle. So, um, given our work in 24, bringing 25 along, the projection for completing the 24 audit, uh, and then, you know, once we get everything to CLA next week, uh, we'll still have a couple of items, um, and answering questions that they have for 24. The couple items are the management discussion and analysis that I mentioned previously and the statistical tables. But as we wrap those up after submitting everything to CLA next week, we will begin working on 25's audit audit prep uh to provide prepare to provide those uh deliverables to CLA um so that they can then begin our fiscal 25 audit work. Now there is some uh separation between those two. you know, while we have the ability to do things relative to the fiscal 2025 audit, um once we get everything submitted to CLA next week, um their audit standards, uh I believe it's their audit standards won't allow them to to be crossing fiscal years, meaning working on 25's audit and 24's audit at the same time. said uh slightly differently and maybe in something closer to English. Uh they've got to CLA has to finish the 24 audit before they open up 25 for us. But when they open up 25 for us, uh once the 24 audit is done, we will immediately begin populating um what I expect will be the same 99 deliverables uh that we had for fiscal 24. All of that is uh to suggest that my current projection or hope is that uh

we'll be able to file the fiscal year 2025 audit by the end of February. Right now, that's two months beyond the statutory deadline. We know that the state OPM allows us six extensions, six months of extensions uh through the end of June. Um so if we're able to hit February and if not March um for the first time we will be for the first time in four years the town will be within uh the allowable extension period. uh with that being an intermediate step for the fiscal 26 audit looking way way down the road with lots of work to happen between now and then uh being on time by filed with the state by December 31st 206.

Right. And thank you for mentioning that we have been a few years running um being behind uh on the audit but has not had a negative impact on our bond rating. But it does bear repeating so the public understands that we do have a bit of a trend and also it bears repeating that since um you and your team have come on you've been able to significantly identify gaps and have been able to course correct. So thank you for explaining what that looks like for the public. Um I do believe that um council clar's on there. He may have some additional questions, but I did want to say thank you for reiterating that so that the public understands. And I will ask one more question. What do you think? Um yes, we have up to 6 months with six extensions being a little behind uh or after that time frame. Now, what do you believe that looks like or what have you heard possibly look like as an impact to our upcoming uh bond rating? you know, I I I I don't expect there to be any negative impact to our bond rating that doesn't already exist. Um, you know, our financial performance is solid, right? And while 24's audit is still pending, we are tracking a surplus. U I'll speak a little bit more to that and the impact the projected estimated impact on our fund balance uh when I present later on on the June 2025 uh financial report. Um the 24 performance um would adds to uh we're currently projecting a conservative I think it's just over a million and a half dollars being added to our unassigned fund balance from fiscal 2024 operations. uh similarly in from fiscal 2025 uh another surplus um so while you know the the town's audits have been filed late for four years running each of those years we've

demonstrated I believe each and I haven't looked back at 21 and 22 but I I believe the trend from 23 24 and 25 holds that we appropriate the you uh fund balance to help mitigate mill rate increases is um and then the financial performance is that we don't actually need that appropriated fund balance uh to supplement our revenues for the respective fiscal years. That is good news. It may be somewhat um

um conservative budgeting um but but that is a positive thing. it is much better to have excess or surplus uh revenue net revenues from operations uh as opposed to being uh uh in a deficit position where our revenues are not meeting our expenditures even with the use of the appropriated fund balance. So I I think the rating agencies while uh they do frown upon the delays in filing our financial statements, our financial performance, our government governance, our management, our operation, the the town of Bloomfield is is in a good position uh but for the delay in filing the audits, but the financial performance that's included in those audits is positive. Uh, and that trend continues with the unodudited information uh, presented previously and this evening.

Okay. Thank you. And my apologies, Council McCclary. I think you popped in just a couple minutes after we started. So, at this point, um, Council McClary, I'm sure you have some questions. I'll turn it back over to you, Mr. Chair.

Uh, yeah, just two questions. Um, question number one, Daryl. Um, it's my understanding that we get our rating from S&P, but Moody's and Cole and all the other agencies do put us on a positive watch list or not. Um, there's been some misconceptions out there that Moody's has put us on the negative outlook. Can you talk about that as it relates to our audit so I just want you to talk a little bit about it?

Sure. Um it's not really relative to the audit, it's relative to the rating. The audit is uh what uh they are interested in because they they come every year and that's what they use. They spread our financials to see how we're performing, how we're performing compared to our peers so that they can formulate their rating opinion. You know, and a rating is an opinion, right? Um and we do the best that we can to influence that opinion. You know, Moody's versus S&P. Um, we have ratings with both S&P and Moody's. Um, I understand that the Moody's rating is a bit of a legacy issue because the last issue bond issue that Moody's raided uh was a number of years ago, maybe even more than a decade ago. Uh and that was a conscious decision that the town made in the past um to not keep Moody's and S&P and I'm not even sure if it was both at the time but now it is standard and pores ratings group that is our primary rating agency who rated our bonds issued this January last January and I believe in recent years. So I say it that way to hopefully uh provide some perspective that well one there's two agencies Moody's and Standard and Pores. Um they they act differently and I I'm not going to speak you know in a a public setting too much about um how their inner workings are. Um but Moody's has asked uh for our financials and they've asked for uh draft information to be provided to them. that may be the notice that you're referring to from late June. In more recent uh communication with Moody's, um we've got a couple of weeks to provide them with those draft audited numbers uh and notes and we will be able to hit that mark largely in part because we'll have everything submitted to CLA uh next

week. Um now standard and pores uh while we've had communications with them um and they are our primary rating agency the AA plus um they've asked for our financials we've told them our schedule and uh they've said thank you when the audit's done provide it to them so that they can do their work. So you know I I understand folks you know it's it's a bit of a double-edged sword for me. I've been doing this for a long time and you know sometimes the rating agencies are used as uh not a good reason to do something or a good reason to do something. Um rating agencies provide a valuable resource to investors, right? It's it's that's who they are reporting for and to so that investors have a consistent presentation of information uh of how in our case local government's uh operations are viewed. That coupled with, you know, GAP, Gatsby, all of the various uh accounting standards creates the framework that we all have to comply with. Um, and I I think that Moody's and primarily S&P um they understand where the town is. It is not positive and I think this is at least from my opinion probably the only thing that's not positive is that we've been late for four years running. Um but with what the town has experienced relative to the audit in the p over the past four years and in the finance department and the town manager's office over the past 5 to 10 years. Uh I I think that the town is is doing well to be in the position that it's in uh to not have, you know, a financial crisis, right? You know, statemandated revaluation and property values

increasing. That's a market dynamic that the the town council, the town administration doesn't have control over, right? The markets do what the markets do, including the real estate market. Um, so, you know, from that bird's eye view looking down at Bloomfield with the rating agency lens on, um, we we've got some things that are concerning. you know, long-term liabilities, pension liabilities, unfunded oped liabilities, all those good things that everyone has that doesn't have a a a revenue dynamic where, you know, there's not too many of them across the country, but there are places in Connecticut and across the country that um you know, they pay cash for everything, right? They're they're they're growing so well. Their property values are going up. The construction uh of residential and commercial is going up and generating so much revenue for them uh that they don't even have to borrow for schools. They pay cash for $100 million schools, right? We don't have that reality about how we're managing our finances uh and including our capital program. Um you know, we've got some room for improvement, but I'm a firm believer in the very simple concept of continuous improvement. And while we are going to work very intentionally and deliberately in the coming weeks, months, and year plus uh to get the town's finances back on track with regard to uh filing our audit compliant with the statutory deadline, uh there's there's a lot of other work that that that's going on that is likely to never be seen, but to add value to the town's operations, its residents, and businesses. Thank you. Um, next question is, can you talk about the letter that we received from the state? Is it MARB or can you tell me the difference between that and are we uh at at risk of being

in trouble? Let's let's first uh correct it is not MARB. Thank you. That's what I wanted to

Municipal Accountability Review Board is the last step before state takeover. And there are some that may even suggest that MARB is uh a de facto state takeover, right? Uh Hartford with its threats for bankruptcy under Mayor Bronin. Uh uh a couple of others across the state that are in and have come out of MARB. Uh that is not the the correspondence that the town of Bloomfield received. We received a correspondence from OPM's municipal finance advisory committee. And the municipal finance advisory committee the correspondence received is questioning the status of our audit. And that is um I believe a good word would be prefuncter only because we crossed over June 30th into July. So beyond the six months of allowable extensions, that letter automatically gets generated to any any town or city across the state that hasn't filed their audit with OPM. That letter requires a response. We provided that response including where we are in the audit process and what our projected completion date is. And we will continue to provide information to MFAC municipal finance advisory committee. Um, next week once all of our submissions are provided to CLA, uh, we'll let them know that I'll be able to generate, uh, still unodudited, but from our perspective, nearfal, uh, financial performance numbers that I expect will provide, uh, the municipal finance advisory committee with maybe not comfort, but some insights as to where we are and that ultimately, you know, know this, whether it's the rating agencies or the municipal finance advisory committee or any another interested party, their concern is

whether or not there's a problem that our financials being late is hiding or not disclosing. And that is not the case, right? We've just had, you know, staffing process, procedure, you know, uh issues that have snowballed over the years that we're we're now working through and addressing. Question. in any of the last four years that um the town has been late, has the state sent that letter or this is just it for this year?

Um I I I I haven't stopped working on the 2024 audit to look for it. Um, but believe that with the the audit filing for, and don't quote me on the dates, I know all three of them by month, but I may juggle, right? 23's audit was filed with the state, I believe, on July 5th. The 22 audit was filed in October and the 21 audit was filed in August. As I reported at the As I reported at the last meeting, both the August and the October filings would suggest that in fact sent the same letter the first or second week of July to the town.

Um I I I don't I don't have any value for me to take the time to go and look and see if that happened. If it didn't happen, I'd have a question about why it didn't happen. But to me, I believe it happened just because it is something that OPM and the municipal finance advisory committee does when you cross over that June 30th threshold beyond the six months of allowable extensions and you haven't filed your audit, you receive that letter. So, with our audits being filed two of the past three years in August and October, I believe that letter did come to the town.

Yeah. And I and I reviewed their their uh minutes from their last meeting. um that committee and CLA was present. Vanessa was present because they represent a number of towns that are late in their audit and I think Vanessa articulated why some of those towns uh were late. Um and the committee asked for a few of them to you know come into the committee to articulate it. Uh it seemed like it was standard review of municipal um uh finances as you explained. So thank you for letting that be put on the record for the residents that you know Yeah. Although our audit is late, um we're working to do it. Uh it was a snow fall effect. We're working to correct it. It has been a snowfl effect. Um although I had some lofty goals of trying to get us back on track. Um not quite because, you know, the staffing issues and the turnover, finance directors, and the town manager, things just get left out. Um you were left with almost a year worth of uh unreconciled bank records. Uh, and so I appreciate how you and your team has, you know, caught up and, um, staff and are beginning to staff up and look for technology to kind of help ease the process. Uh, that's all my questions related to this.

Sure. Thank you. And uh later on when I present the June 25 and July 25 financial reports, I'll I'll speak more about um Munice and the use and you'll actually see in the report some of the benefits of the increased usage of MUNS. Um but uh thank you Mr. Chairman, Deputy Mayor and Committee. Quick question. One I sorry while you said that quick question. Um do we publish our OS um documents online, our official statements from the rating agencies online? They're publicly available. Yes. On our website. On our website? I don't believe so.

Yeah. If we can put that to our website so that um uh the residents of Bloomfield can like on the finance page can see um that report and how great some of the responses that we're doing from cyber security to our local economy, etc. This town's finances. You know, that is a statement that um they look as you said, they dive deep into our finances. is they dive deep into our practices, management practices, and if anything was concerning to them um at our last rating um in January, they would have put it in that official statement to to investors and to the community. And so, if we can just put that up there so that people know that our credit rating remains strong to this day, um I think um that would be important. Don't mean to take you away from the audit, but just if we can do that, I think that would be helpful to the public. Um so then they know that we are strong. Got a lot of work to do but our finances and our um our rating is very very very strong and true.

Thank you committee. Thank you. I defer to you, council mccclary chair. Okay, thank you. So, I'm just going to ask the committee if there's no objections because I know um attorney Moore has um some uh things to do this evening and have a conflict. Yeah, I was if there's no objections, can we move uh the new business, the tax abatement, and I don't know, Attorney Moore, if that's in in order because we're moving new business to old business up or skipping down to it. Um, if we could just jump to the tax abatement policy.

Okay. If there's no objections, attorney more, are we allowed to do that? I I do you have to suspend the rules? I think you might have to suspend the rules. Okay. Is there a motion to suspend the committee rules? Moved and seconded. All those in favor? I motion passed. Uh rules are suspended. So I now ask us to jump down to uh the discussion of possible action regarding the tax abatement policy. Attorney M. I'mma turn it over to you.

Thank you so much. Um, so I don't know if everyone has had a chance to read the current tax abatement policy and the addendum um that was recently passed, but when I'm reading it, I have a few concerns with the original policy that was written and published in 2017. My main concern is actually not substance necessarily, but clarity. Um so the way that this is written it has come up in the past uh recently in fact that the policy sets out a guideline and there seems to be confusion as to whether or not the guideline is just a suggestion or whether the council is supposed to follow that guideline to the letter. Um the fact that there is confusion on that concerns me and I also notice that if it is a guideline it doesn't set out what is possible under the maximum terms of the statute. So based on this policy alone it doesn't provide a lot of information that the council could use um to kind of fully craft terms for these agreements. I also noticed that the town council, under the way the policy is written, the town council seems to be able to set a public hearing or not as it chooses. Um, I would advise against that. I think that that opens up the council to accusations of favoritism, but the way that this is written, it allows for a public hearing, but it does not require one. So that that concerns me about the main policy itself. What I am more concerned about, however, is the addendum that was passed that sets out a specific schedule that contradicts what is permitted under the state statute. So the the actual policy itself does

include the fact that the state statute only allows the assessment to be fixed on the improvements that are a direct result of the um development and investments. But the addendum itself refers to the total amount of property taxes due and that has in two occasions recently led to a draft agreement that violates state statute. And this was only discovered after months and months and months of internal discussions and coming to an agreement. Uh when the agreement was sent to legal, that's when it was discovered. Um the addendum is not published on the town website. So that that there is my main concern. I I think what would be advisable is for the committee to recommend to town council to review and revise this policy so that it not only complies with state law, but it clarifies the process, procedure, and guidelines that the town council should use. That was a lot. So, please feel free to ask questions.

Thank you. Any questions for members of the committee? Uh, I just This is Cindy. I just want to say thank you for bringing that to our attention. Um, we've had other incidents where we've had to adjust language based on ordinances that didn't match charter and things of that nature. So, I think it's imperative that we have consistency across the board, that our policy matches our charter or is in consistent um, guidelines with the state so that everything matches up across the board. I do thank you for that review and I think um, I agree with you. We do need to ensure that everything is consistent. So, I would certainly support um yourself and the committee in making that recommendation.

Any other questions for members of the committee? Attorney Moore, do you have a draft of what you're recommending that we update the policy to? I do. Um some of it is tentative and will have to be discussed, but I I do have a draft. So, how does that I know we are not on that item, but how does that uh address or affect the proposal before us tonight?

So, because the proposal before you tonight is both in compliance with the policy as it is and state law, um and we did have to reddraft it to align it with state law. Um but it can go forward under the current policy because it is not being um agreed to under the addendum. Okay. So that's like so you're saying that you have a problem with the addendum not the entire policy or did I hear earlier you had a problem the policy some issues with the policy around transparency of or requirement of a public hearing and then the addendum violates the state statute.

Correct. So the addendum is the main problem because that contradicts state statute. The the main policy itself I do have some issues with but they are not um substantive issues that would impact this particular agreement. What's the will and pleasure of the committee?

I have nothing else. Thank you. Any questions from staff on the line going to York? I do have one follow-up question. Go ahead. Um I assume that that when this um this agreement was being discussed that the committee went through kind of line by line the policy. What policy are you referring to? Are you referring to the Arbella tax abatements? I'm referring to the Arbella tax abatement. Um, has has that been compared to every requirement in the current policy?

Did I do an a assessment or did the staff or Gman York do an assessment of it? Anyone? I just want to make sure that that was done before I definitively say that it agrees with the policy because it agrees with the policy from the perspective that I was concerned about, but I don't know whether or not, you know, a line by line assessment was done to ensure compliance with the, you know, main requirements of the policy.

I don't want to speak to for the committee, but we were hoped that the staff and legal folks would do that. Um, I know I did read the policy. I know their first abatement uh request violated the policy um because our policy said up to seven years. They were asking for 10 years. Um and that's when Gorman York said, "Oh, that's just a recommendation. That's not, you know, that's not set in stone." So, I did do a review of the policy compared to the 10-year uh proposal. Um I don't know what the proposal that they're bringing forth tonight is. I haven't seen it. Um I'm just going based off of some numbers that were presented to me. um in a meeting that I had with finance and the town manager and others Gorman New York but there was no final proposal presented to me for me to do that analysis.

Okay, understood. I don't know I don't know if other members of the committee um want to chime in. I know that um there were two uh ideas presented and that was going to be discussed uh this evening. One was was relative to a 7-year uh 17 affordable houses or units and the other being a 10year uh 20 affordable units and

yeah, but I think her question um um Mr. Mayor is that um did you read the policy and do an analysis to make sure that those two proposals if one or the other was in line with the policy? Right, Ashley? Is that your question? That is my question. Yes. Yeah. Not what the proposals are, but what did does those two proposals uh meet the standard of what the policy say we can do? I think I think the answer if I may I'll try here. Uh

I think the answer uh is that uh we go New York along with staff and the developer believe that what's been submitted is consistent with uh the policy. But between this meeting tonight and council, like a council meeting, assuming that's where it goes, you know, my suggestion would be that the uh legal council for the town be asked to just do that line by line review and make sure prior to a council vote, make sure that that is consistent.

It sounds I think I think what I heard Ashley say is that the the the what's been submitted now is consistent with state law. Mhm. Uh, so, uh, I guess the the statement that maybe John Coleman, you want to weigh in or mayor, you want to weigh in on it, but I I would guess that the council's uh, preference would be that that uh, the town the city town council's preference would be that legal council uh, be prepared to opine on that at the council meeting.

Yeah, that's that's the recommendation I made. That's what I made tonight. That's what I just said. U right question. Are you talking about the 10-year proposal submission or the one going down to seven years? Because the seven-year proposal was just me asking for them to to show a draft or analysis of what their what it would look like, their financials would look like with a seven-year. I don't know if they officially submitted a 10 the seven-year one. They officially submitted the 10-year one. So, you telling me now that they've done the work of the seven-year and they're officially submitting the seven-year to the town? uh you know I think we should let the uh staff and the developer at at whenever you decide Mr. Chairman in the meeting that you're prepared to address that subject uh the the actual proposal as it's been submitted now because there is an updated following up on your requests uh in previous meetings the uh developers submitted to the town uh responses to that. So if if you want to it's fine with us if you want to move on to talk about that proposal. U

no I I asked that question because we're still talking about the tax abatement policy and going back to Ashley's original question of have we gone by a line by line of the sevenyear and the 10ear and so in this form folks have said they submitted the sevenyear and so I know the sevenyear was just an analysis it wasn't a submission of a a request unless it's something that I don't know. So, I'm not jumping to the our Bella tax abatement. I'm just asking so that I can answer Ashley's original question of have we done a line by line analysis of the submission. So, I'm asking which one year the submission years of submission.

Yeah, I'm sorry. We we have not done that a line by line analysis. Uh I I would assume that that would be up to legal counsel to do that. Yeah, we can certainly do that, but we'll need some information because some of it, for example, um I don't know. I have I haven't seen the proposal, so I don't know if there's been a promise to start construction within 12 months, for example. Um you know, so there there's some things like that that I I might uh come to you for, Mike. Sure, that's fine. Okay, we'll get the answers from the developer if we need to.

Okay, great. Thank you. So Ashley, the motion that will be appropriate for this uh meeting is to move that the tax abatement policy be sent to council for council to determine whether we should update and amend the policy to be in line with state statute and state law. Correct? Yes. Um, and also I don't know if this would have to be in the motion technically, but just to take a broad look because it's not just a matter of correcting to align with state law, but also the little things like making sure that if one proposal needs a public hearing, all of them need a public hearing. Y

agreed. Um, and so um, and you're saying that if we do this, it won't affect we'll be violating the policy but not violating state law. remove the umbrella property tax freeze and fixing agreement a forward we wouldn't be violating state statute but we'll be violating our policy this agreement I do not believe would violate the policy okay thank you so is there a motion to send this to the full council

councelor before you act could I just ask Ashley one question I know you don't want to go to the actual proposal but there there are going to be when we get to it there going to be two options one is for seven years and one is for 10 years. Will the 10 years be in accord with the present policy? Well, so well that's what I really don't like about the present policy because under section six abatement schedule subsection A, it says the following table will be used by the Bloomfield Town Council as a guide.

But there has been a lot of confusion about what that means. Is that a maximum guide, a minimum guide, is that a suggestion? So, as it stands, I could interpret this either way. No. And because of that, I would say that the tenure does not necessarily violate this policy because I can't tell you exactly what was meant by that section.

Well, I interpret it as the chair that it does violate it because we say seven years, right? We explicitly say seven years. We don't say a guide of a minimum of seven years or up to, right? we say a guy for seven years, right? And so I would say that that limit stops at seven years. Um well, no more. We can't give no more than seven years because we explicitly outline seven years, right? As a guide. Well, the guide is five years. Well, yeah.

So, I don't know the 10 years. I would say the 10 years violates that, but we'll get to that. we get to the um actual uh request because maybe they're not asking for the that's why I asked the question earlier are we did they submit the seven years or did they submit the 10-year um proposal um so all that to say I think we need to uh move this to the the the council so that we can clarify it in the coming weeks Mr. Chair. Yep. So, we're asking to move to the full council discussion and possible action regarding the update on a tax abatement policy right now. Correct? Yes.

Okay. Cuz I'd have a hard time moving forward on a proposal from a developer if we haven't solidified that language first because they may to your point be asking for something that's in opposition to or not consistent with the policy. Yeah. So, that's why Yep. That's why I asked earlier, are we talking about the seven or we talking about the 10? Right? Because if we're talking about the seven, then it would not violate the policy. If they submitted the 10 and they can't and they are sticking with the 10, then it violates the policy and then we have to, in my opinion, table it until we update the policy. But if right

they're talking about the seven, I think we can move forward because it's in line with the current policy as it as it stands and actually would just do some uh clearing up and making sure that the policy explicitly says for transparency purposes that we do a tax uh uh we do a um public hearing and fix some other things of like taking out the word as a guideline and just securing it up. And so I think we if it's the seven years we can chew and uh walk at the same time. Okay. Thank you.

So that's why I asked for that clarity earlier. So is there is there a motion on the floor to move this? Second. Moved and second. Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. I Okay, that's going to the town council India or council clerk. Can we do that at the very next town council? Uh because there will be some time constraints I'm told.

Okay, we did that. Oh, where was that? Okay, did this. All right, we'll go back up to the discussion of possible action regarding the request for the tax abatement at Albella and Blue Hills. Who needs the floor? Mr. Chairman, you have Jeff Cement here from the developer and Mike Gorman and team from uh GMAN and York. Um I think Mr. Cementi, they have submitted in writing which was distributed a um response to your request. Um, and it it includes two options. And I'll I'll let uh Jeff give a brief presentation.

You're mute. Jeff. Okay. Can you hear me now? Yes. Affirmative. Okay. Great. Thank you. All right. Well, thank you for um for having us uh this evening uh to have this opportunity to um to speak to you. Um as um as Mike and John explained um somewhat um and also as attorney Moore had explained um we submitted

two options uh for uh abatement uh programs. Uh we had previously submitted this um uh 7-year program that it that uh included 17 units. Uh but there was a request from members of the council that could we add more affordable units. So, we looked at options for how that might work and came up with um uh an option two that would then um include 20 units and would be for a 10-year term and then tweak some of the other uh terms of how that would work which we laid out in the memo. So the way we approach this is the basic terms of the uh the memo that we submitted outlining our proposed uh abatement uh uh request. There's an option one and an option two. So the option one is the uh 17 units over seven years and and the option two is 20 units uh over 10 years. Uh we would be comfortable either way. So, um it's really to give the town uh another option for is there an opportunity to um create some additional affordable units or not. But as I said, we would be uh um fine with either of the two options, one or two. I if I may, I'll just add that the other uh request that uh we passed along was whether or not the

project could include a project labor agreement. And uh Jeff, you know, you should weigh in because this is your response, but uh the response was the project uh can't afford it financially. And uh from our perspective and as this group knows we do a lot of this sort of analysis and that's the case uh in the current market construction costs have gone up and uh you know margins have been squeezed to historically low levels and unfortunately these projects just don't have the room for an additional 15 or 20% increase in in particularly in labor costs uh along with all the increases in in construction. ction materials costs that we've seen. So Jeff, if you feel free to elaborate on that, but uh I believe that's correct. That's your answer.

Um yeah, what you said is right. Uh you know, if there is a project labor agreement going to be associated with a project and generally we see them when they're uh associated with maybe funding or grant or something, either federal or state level funding, there may be a request or requirement for a PLA. Uh but that would for us to even consider that it would have to be upfront. We would have to have incorporated that as part of the original um structuring of the project and our original negotiation and work with the general contractor. Um so where you know we're to the point where um we would be going backward to try to incorporate any kind of a PLA at this point. So it would it's just not in any way feasible at this point in time. just structurally, but also as Mike pointed out, it does add um a substantial amount. Um you know, sometimes you can um you know, a lot of the um union rates tend to be more commercially focused. Uh but over the years, um um some of the unions have have uh established residential scales or they're willing to negotiate. But even with those negotiated residential scales, it does certainly add um uh substantially to the cost of the uh of the project. So um at this point in time, it's not something that we could make part of our project.

So um committee members may have read about PLA's being used in some of the Hartford conversion projects, but uh and this I guess is sort of evidence of what Jeff was referring to a minute ago. uh in those projects. Uh the Capital Region Development Authority is using state Connecticut bond money uh to help support those projects. And the way those those projects work typically is to use some averages. It averages out about $65,000 uh per residential unit. So in this case, uh, with 160 units, it would be it would be the the the comparable, if you will, would be that the state of Connecticut would come in with about $10 million of bonding support. Uh, and that bonding support's done uh, historically has been done at around 3% on a 30-year term. And in cases like that where the state's coming in with, you know, literally millions of dollars at on a 30-year uh low interest, very low interest rate loan, then you you have read about PLIS being used uh but not in a case uh where it's simply a a reduction in in uh the property tax payments which would be made over a period of time.

Good question. just just for my myself are PLA PLA's similar to you know 2025 versus Davis Bacon in past years same wages prevail it's what's typically referred to as prevailing wage or it's essentially uh requiring the contractor to pay uh union rates uh on labor Do you plan on using contractors that have apprentichip programs? That's something I really would like to see.

I'm sorry. That have what kind of program? Apprenticeship.

You know, again, those tend to be with um you know, apprenticeship programs tend to be affiliated with unions specifically. I'm not sure that general contractors at least I'm not familiar with general contractors having their own um perhaps some do I don't know but um but right now I don't know whether uh there are you know what kind of apprenticeship programs are associated with our current contractor or any of the subcontractors that they're currently working with. Well, I I know that if you're an electrician, you got to go through apprentichip program. If you're a a tin knocker, you got to go through apprenticeship program. If uh you're uh a plumber, you got to go through apprentichip program to get your license for these uh for these type of licenses. So, I'm I'm not sure how how you don't think that these contractors should have apprenticeship programs and what type of safety program do they have set in place? What type of safety training do they have set in place?

Well, the safety programs are very rigid and very strict. Um certainly the um any general contractor's insurance uh carrier uh stipulates those guidelines and they are very well people take them very seriously. They're very strongly implemented. Generally what they'll do is they hire an outside insurance consultant that actually comes on site and you know make sure that everyone um follows all the requirements. So I I think from that perspective um uh I think there's a very strong program. Um but um in terms of I you may know more uh you may know better than I do, but in terms of how uh someone gets a a plumbing license, whether that is through um an apprenticeship program with that specific subcontractor um and they have a a program of apprenticeship um that's a little bit deeper into the construction side of it than I would typically um get into, but I could find out on that specifically, you know, what might any of the subcontractors that will be working on the project, what they may have. I could I could look into that.

I have one more question. Who do you plan on using for your uh general contractor?

Um, it's a firm that we've used on multiple projects. Um, uh, they've, um, the name of the contractor is Black Diamond Construction. um they're kind of reorganizing the the the parent company is an entity uh contractor called Trinity Construction that's based in Boston and then they also have a an office in upstate New York near where we're located and uh they're just kind of organizing splitting their kind of commercial and residential work um and focusing their residential work under this Black Diamond uh brand. Um so that's the contractor. We've done multiple projects with them. We're finishing a project with them in Alb, New York. Now, that's 222 apartments. Um, uh, so a larger project than what we're currently looking to do in, um, uh, in Bloomfield, and they've done other projects for us. So, we feel very comfortable with them as a general contractor um, uh, to to do this job, uh, here in Bloomfield.

No question. So, it's a contractor out of New York and Boston

and are they going to be putting bids out for local contractors to work? Because you tell you told me what well it is said in your proposal that 80 construction jobs and so if Black Diamond or what's the parent company Trinity Construction have contractors elsewhere in Boston and New York that gives them good rates on this thing. What's stopping them from bringing people from outside of the state into Bloomfield to do this job? and then leave. You know, my concern about the project labor agreement is that, you know, this is a $52 million job. Um, we just bonded $30 million for our libraries and we mandated a PLA. And so, if you know, if you wasn't in here asking for a tax fixing agreement, then you would be open to use whatever contractor you want because it's the private market. You're not asking for public subsidies, but you're asking for public subsidies. I do appreciate you're going up to the 12% um to match our inclusionary zoning housing, adding the additional units at 20, but I think the project labor agreement um is very crucial. And if we can't get the project labor agreement, I think it's crucial for us to make sure that we hire Bloomfield residents so that this revenue is circulated into our community and not extracted. And so can you speak to um to this committee because you're asking for a public subsidy on luxury housing, not affordable housing, on luxury senior housing. How you're going to ensure that those 80 construction jobs um are going out to Connecticut based companies, particularly Bloomfield and the greater Hartford companies, whether they're electrician companies, plumbers, uh roofers. Um, how are we going to get the building trades in involved in this?

Um, well the um well the PLA and then local labor are sort of two separate things. Um

uh so a PLA um you know is a negotiated deal with um uh the unions. Um but and in terms of where um local labor, local businesses, uh where that's a um uh a concern uh with the community as it, you know, often is the way I uh have seen that approach is because I mean we need a certain number of plumbers. I don't know how many plumbers uh live in Bloomfield. Um and there they use vendors, you know, they'll use vendors for materials and services. Um what we would um uh typically see is that the contractor or or whether it's uh responsibilities by us, the developer that we and uh ultimately on the management side when we're managing the project is we will proactively reach out into the community. Uh it's similar to what we do also even in the renting to make sure that um every per whether you're hiring a a worker or whether you're hiring a business or you're purchasing a product whoever might be interested and responding and participating that they would become aware. So, we proactively uh uh advertise um connect with organizations within the community that would have relationships with these existing people or businesses. And uh traditionally with projects I've seen um where that's a standard requirement, whether they're state, federal, or just locally um structured to to have such a requirement. That's how I would normally see a local labor, local business um requirement fulfilled or at least a

because they're generally established as goals and then you have to make efforts to try to achieve those goals because it's impossible to guarantee that you're going to hire a certain number of people or use certain number of businesses in a community because those services or skills may not be available. So, I hear that and I appreciate that response because if I remember the heirloom flats and Michael or John can tell me if I'm wrong on the heirloom flats uh development, there were goals to hit for Bloomfield residents and they had a compliance officer mandating that because they received the tax abatement. And so, um I would like to see the one in four that we did on the library. we hit it on the library and so I would at least out of the 80 um jobs would like to see at least 20 people from either the greater Harford or specifically from Bloomfield working on this project um if this tax fixing agreement uh is pushed through. Uh and so Mike, I don't know if you were around at the time when the council um developed that that that agreement with Heirloom Flats, another luxury um apartment complex that received the tax fixing agreement. um any thoughts related to um making sure that either it's apprentice 20 apprentice and I'll leave it to uh council Oliver because he's the expert in this arena but I would really really like to see that we get at least 20 people um from this area working on those job on working those jobs

honestly Mr. Sure. I I don't recall. I mean, I think that was heirloom plats was 2013, wasn't it? So, 12 12 13 years ago. I I don't recall whether it was or it wasn't. And and yes, we did uh we worked on it. Uh I think that was actually maybe the first or second project we worked on for Bloomfield and it did include an abatement. Uh but I don't recall the terms of it. Be easy enough for us. I can go, but I'm sure the town staff can pull it up when they're drafting. um we should be able to look

if this moves forward if they're drafting an agreement um to include those goals um in there and have some type of compliance around meeting those goals. Any other questions for members of the committee before I go into my questions?

Yes. Um so I was looking where you said 10% of construction work by Bloomfield based minority businesses. I think that kind of ties into the last question was a good segue. could you kind of speak more to that and how you ensure that would happen and it may be a similar answer that you just gave? Um yes it is a similar answer and that's what like I said it's um uh in and this over the years these you know requirements or goals have kind of evolved with how they're implemented to kind of deal with the realities of um are these services available at these levels in this location at you know within the budget of whatever the project needs to be successful. And so that would be the approach. um uh that we would take would be to um make sure that these proactive measures are made, these proactive steps are taken to make sure that anyone um uh that would be in the community that might be interested in providing that service is aware that there's a need for that service. So that's how we would approach it. But having strict guidelines, even if they're um 25% or something, to have those as fixed requirements at this point in time um isn't something that I think that we could commit to just because I I don't think there's any way for us to ensure that that we could fulfill it. um it especially in any kind of a re uh uh cost that would be consistent with um uh with our current budget. And that of course is the reason we're we're talking to you now is because just making it all work uh overall is is difficult. It's challenging right now. So um we're

certainly ready to um do whatever we can. um you know, this is a project that we're going to own long term, a project that we're going to manage with our own management company and um you know, hiring local people that especially on a management side, people that have lived in the community or live there now currently are ideal. Um so we're prepared to to uh establish these goals. Um, but to to agree to fixed numbers, percentages, or whatever, I just don't think it's something that we're uh practically able to commit to. And I wasn't

I'm sorry. Yeah. So, I'll just finish this. I wasn't um insinuating that you should give um a set number, but just to ask how you would attempt to meet the goals that you exercised. Um but and you can't make a guarantee, but what you can do is you can show your efforts. Right. Exactly.

And and that's accountability, right? Um and I and I think that's a good measure without having um a hardline agreement. I did want to go back to um thank you for breaking down the page six of the um presentation that you submitted going through years 1 through 7 and a percentage breakdown which was easy to follow because you're going to reduce by 5% each year whether it's 7 years starting at 75 or whether 10 years starting at 90. And um this may be a segue for councelor McLaren, but what it doesn't tell us, and I got clarification, initially you were looking at a potentially plus or minus $9 million um tax revenue based on the project, and this was before the ask of the abatement. So what I would be interested in understanding is what does those tax revenues look like now with the abatement and the percentages that you're applying and do know I understand that it's not even built. So you don't have a number of an exact value right but we can use projections we can use current values and then make projections based on that. So you can use that potential assessed value to give projections on what the 7-year tax collection rate would look like plus or minus and on the 10ear. Did you guys prepare those numbers?

So before you answer that, I want to stick on to the project labor agreement and then we can Okay, I'm sorry. No worries.

I have questions related to their cap rate and ex and exit and um their exit assumption if they do have it. Um but back to the project labor agreement. Um, you keep saying whatever you're willing to do, whatever you can. Um, in order to get my support, um, I think we must figure out a way that a PLA or otherwise that Bloomfield residents get jobs on this project, um, in order to get my support because if you were telling me that you were going to use a bloom a Connecticut based company to do the construction, I wouldn't be so adamant about this. But because this company is out of Boston and out of New York, um you have people coming from those areas and they're doing the work and they're taking the revenues back to uh to to their communities. I agree. I I'm a huge supporter of using whoever you want in a free market economy. Uh because uh you know you you're using your own uh capital stack to develop it. But when you come to ask for a tax a fixing agreement on luxury apartments and you're asking residents of Bloomfield to subsidize this cost when they're already seeing a 4% shift from commercial to residential um in this reval. I think it's very important for those residents to be able to have confidence that when they drive by that site that they're going to see people like those people uh like them who live in the community working on the job. So, um the goals I'll simply get excuses about, oh, we can't find anybody. When I know that there's the building trades, when I know there's the minority construction council, where people are looking for work, young people are looking for work who are apprentices. Um, I really would like to see some guarantees um about um you know making sure that Bloomfield based workers are hired or greater Harford area are hired on this project because in my eight nine years on this council, anytime we do a project like this, all I hear is excuses

of why they couldn't do it. Um and so I I just simply want to make sure that um that happens. And if you I appreciate you moving up to the the 12% affordable housing, but putting people to work is key, particularly because we're giving the tax fixing agreement on luxury housing and Bloomfield already seen the effects of the development in the town center when we've given tax fixing agreements to luxury apartments.

Well, um you know, I appreciate, you know, all those sentiments. Um, you know, of course, the the um significant benefits I think our project provides there is it's a blighted site that hasn't seen any development in 60 years. And there's there are reasons why it hasn't been developed. So, there certainly are challenges with the site. Certainly has challenges with there are challenges with new business. Uh that it's like $12,000 a year that the project currently pays in property taxes. will be paying whatever that amount you know ends up being in the end and paying forever going forward is is you know hugely significantly higher. So that that's definitely a benefit and certainly having the housing uh in town is is really a benefit to keep uh looking for other benefits. I understand the ask. Uh but these hard requirements

um at this point are just difficult to um to commit to uh not knowing whether we'd be able to fulfill them. I can tell you that we did look at several um significant Connecticut say local even general contractors and they ended up being um uh quite a bit higher. Um, so we definitely worked hard to work with um, uh, local general contractors. It just didn't work out that way. Um, so I I understand what you're saying, but to to realistically say at this point in time that we would make firm commitments to hire uh certain numbers of uh individuals or work with certain number of businesses, it's just I we couldn't commit to it because I don't think we could be certain that we would be able to fulfill it. Um I think the other woman was mentioning before about how do you verify it? Jeff, one second because you made a a comment and I want to uh about the the the the um and I don't want to we can talk about this offline, but I just want to make the point that if you ask any minority construction person out there right now, I can name one um uh Rick Row. Um anytime we put goals in place, it never happens, right? And I think you have a partner in the town. If we uh say that we would like to see 20 people or 20% of the construction jobs go to uh Bloomfield residents and or um uh uh to greater Harford. We have apprenticeship program. We have the minority construction council. I know the town will help you do marketing uh and recruitment. We did it on our library project. We literally just put 21 people um to work um on that new library. Um, and so I don't think, and we know they're in the community, I don't think it will be hard to find people to do the

job because we just did it. We just went through it. And so, um, it is a perfect opportunity for you to just continue, um, to build on that momentum of putting Bloomfield residents to work, particularly when you're saying that you're asking for uh, 9 that you can generate $9.3 million over uh, 10 years. Um, and you're asking the town to take on $6.2 million in losses. Otherwise, the tax collection that could be collected if we move forward with this. So, we're taking a huge loss already, right? On luxury housing. We didn't see a market study for saying that these apartments uh were needed for luxury senior housing. No one presented that to me tonight. No one presented to me tonight your IRRa. It says presented to Gorman, New York. your net profit. How do we know that it is really really hard for you based on the finances? You've submitted information to the bank, right, as a bank transaction, but you didn't submit all the financials to us. Um, and we are the uh fidicia fiduciant of the town, the town council. We have a duty to the residents of Bloomfield. And if we're going to make this work, I think Bloomfield residents should be working on the job. And we already have a model that that shows that the apprenticeship programs that we created on the library project, the 21 people that was already hired and completed that work, they all most of them came out to the grant, the ribbon cutting. Uh you can just build on that success.

Do do we know what the mod the mod rate is for Black Diamond? Um I don't know. Do you know what the mod rate is for the parent company? I don't know. Well, because those are very important questions for us. We want responsible contractors building in our town.

And Jeff, we wouldn't ask for these qu we wouldn't ask these questions if it wasn't you coming in for a tax fix and agreement, right? We just went through a revile and our residents took a a a significant uh shift 4% for commercial property to residential and in four years as I mentioned to the staff right we're currently in a phase in right and residents are talking about how expensive their property taxes are. I don't want to set up future I know I'm not running for reelection, but I don't want to set future council members up where they they're in a position where they found where I found myself this year because previous councils gave tax abatements away without making sure that the community got a benefit from it. So again, I do appreciate you putting the 12% affordable housing in there, but if we can really make sure that those construction jobs, particularly because you're using an out ofstate contractor, um is Bloomfield residents of Greater Harford, I think that's very important to me to get my support. We're almost there,

right? Well, certainly there's a huge benefit to the town in terms of this new project and taxes and the other benefits. Um but in terms of the qualifi of course the contractor you know we're selecting contractors that we feel um are going to be able to do work. They're going to be providing a completion and performance bond. So um uh they certainly hit that qualification and our lender scrutinizes them quite hard as well. Um so uh uh we we can get uh qualification um information about the general contractor for the um council to review to understand who the who the contractor is. Right.

And can we shift to um so we can't commit to making sure that the the in the if we were to move this project forward putting those uh 20 jobs for Bloomfield residents or greater Hartford area or Connecticut based contractors in there.

I just don't see that we could commit to that without knowing that we could fulfill it. Um and again it's doing it you know if it if if uh this had been at the very you know say a couple years ago when we were first planning it you know to incorporate the requirements of how we might go about doing it maybe uh have already reached out to organizations to see who's available you know what kind of qualified um uh uh vendors or or contractors or workers. Uh but at this point in time, I don't think there's any way we could say confidently that we would know that we could fulfill that request. I just don't think it would be appropriate to agree to something that we didn't know that we could do.

So that's my point, right? You can't you didn't reach out to people. You didn't do this, right? And so that's what I'm going to hear in two years when the project is completed. you're going to say, well, we wasn't able to reach have enough time to reach out to people and those 80 construction jobs doesn't happen for people of Connecticut or residents of Bloomfield or greater Hartford area. And so that's why that last statement you just made is all it's more important to make sure that in order to move this forward those 20 jobs are with Bloomfield so that you can work with the town, you can work with the minority construction council with Jennifer Little Greer, you can work with Joe Toner and the building trades to make sure that they identify local contractors so that when you do go out and you ask those people, you can even do a job fair at 3:30 Park for jobs for Bloomfield residents. We've done it before. And so that last statement that you just made, with all due respect, is it's the reason why the very reason why I'm pushing for these jobs in order to get my support to move this forward. I think that's going to be very crucial. But you can make the decision um on whether you would want those 20 jobs for Boomfield residents or the residents of Connecticut given that this company is coming out of Boston or New York. um to make sure that our residents have it, particularly when we're losing $6.2 million because we can say, you know what, no tax fixing agreement and I'm sure you'll work value engineer your project and make it happen. If not, then somebody else will come and and develop that site. There's a reason why um this property is being looked at um for housing because it's on the main thoroughfield transit oriented development in a gateway district. And yes, it's been vacant for 10 years, but I don't think it's going to be vacant for 10 more years um moving forward. And so that's why it's important for um us to have those jobs.

Yeah, it's been vacant for 60 years, but 16, 20, 30, I don't think it's 60, you know, um but anyway, so it used to be I don't know some people even uh maybe as longer, but I think the uh the drive-in movie theater closed uh I think in the 60s or 70s, but Mr. Matana, don't age me like that. I'm not 60 and I I went to plenty of driving movies. Okay. I'm just going by what what people went there with what I'm told. So, I'm just let's shift to the financials. I know uh the counselor had questions about um the finances. We can shift there because I have some too. So, if you want to answer her questions if you remember. If not, uh

I'll restate. No problem. I'm just wondering going in initially to the project there was a loose assumption of $9 million in tax revenue over 10 years if I read correctly and now that you've come back to the table with an ask of an option of a 7-year or 10-year abatement we can understand the reduction each year by 5% but how does that affect what would have been 9 million give or take over 10 years um tax revenue without an assessment. What do those numbers look like? Give or take. I don't hold you to exact numbers. I need to say that disclaimer for the public. But have you guys worked up any numbers now that you're looking for an abatement? What the adjustment on that tax collection rate would look like loosely?

Um well, Goldman and York really did that analysis. Um so there would sort of be an independent analysis. Um the um so I I think that um uh it's it's really better for Goldman and York to do that uh because there are certain assumptions in terms of uh um assessed value and mill rates um that um would be better for them to and they're in a better position to um uh to provide that. But certainly I I think between as Mike was saying earlier between now and the meeting um if if we're hopefully uh going to be um talking about this at the next council meeting um that they could they could put those numbers together. But um you know and I think as you also mentioned uh in your initial um question that um uh it would be based on whatever the assessment really works out to be and then whatever the those actual tax rates are uh at that point in time,

right? And we know that can vary year to year as far as the mill rate. Um but even just projections based on our historical perspective um will be helpful so that the public can understand um not only are we going to be gaining a beautiful property but as far as the reduction in the tax collection what does that look like? I I think everybody would love to have that information just to have a holistic um view of the project in its entirety with this request to change.

Sure. And I'll I'll make an attempt here. Unfortunately, Brad SM, who runs our analytical side, was not available to join us tonight. But I did go over some preliminary look that he and a couple of his people prepared based on the updated numbers that Jeff's group, Jeff Smatana's group provided to us. And I I think the it's fair to say at this point that whether you decide to go with a seven or 10 year or 17 or 20 uh you know as as Councilwoman McCclary set out uh maybe a week ago now uh he thought that it would be fair to increase the length of the term of the abatement if the developer was prepared to increase the number of affordable housing units. So, you know, we now have to sort of re go back in and rebuild that model a little bit based on some different assumptions, but I think it's fair to say that it it's not going to move the needle dramatically in terms of whether it's a uh or how much of a net positive fiscal impact this project would have on the town. Uh, so we'll have numbers, as Jeff mentioned a minute ago, we'll have numbers in time for the upcoming council meeting, but I don't think you're going to see much of a material difference. Uh, whether it ends up being a 10-year abatement uh, with different uh, burnoff rates and a higher number of affordable or a seven-year with a lower number of affordable, the the the result is still the same. It's a substantial uh, net fiscal positive for the town. Of course, given that there's vacant land now, uh this is all virtually all other than about $12,000. I think it's paying current taxes, it's entirely a uh a net fiscal upside despite the abatement of some portion of the taxes that Councilman McClary has referred to.

Thank you. So, I'll pick you back after you, Council McCclary.

Yeah, I hear that, Mike. Um, but I can also say that there's also a net loss to the town and there will be a shift. I guarantee you. I've already written the model. There will be a shift when they go into the next uh uh you know, and I obviously I'm making an assumption of what um the real estate market would be u based on this current trends, but we would lose somewhere near $6.2 million, right? um right because we would gain $9.3 million in positive net value over uh the 10 years but we also lose the $6.2 2 million and that's not even in including indirect uh services that the town will provide uh to these folks whether senior police fire our numbers uh I'm sorry to interrupt you finish finish what you were saying

no go ahead your numbers I was just going to say our numbers did include both they showed the the gross revenue with no abatement then the net revenue with the abatement and then we did do the calculation using sort of the accepted standard community services costs, the kinds of things that you were just describing to net that out to a net number. But I know when I I looked at a we did a quick because I thought your

your uh question in one of the previous meetings about the impact on the ground list was an interesting one. It took me a minute it took me a minute to catch up to you on it, but I got it. And uh I know we looked at I I just this is not based on the uh revised numbers that uh Jeff uh submitted just just a few days ago, but uh to your point of uh I'm not quite sure how to describe it, but to your point of the impact on the mill rate of of whether that was an abatement or not an abatement,

it when we ran our model, the the uh mill rate on the one 7-year scenario the and I'm just trying to look make sure I have the right numbers the the mill rate was 35.64 under the one scenario and with the abatement went from 35.64 64 to 35.55. So it had a 09 impact on the mill rate that abatement that you and you just referred to the number. I think it was uh what was it? It was 6 million I think something like that. $6.2 million.

$6.2 million. Yeah. You know, you're talking about a an overall grand list of uh 2.8 billion bit with a B. Yeah. But the net grand list, right, excluding all of the excluding all of the um I see director Hill, is he on excluding all of the uh what's the word I'm looking for? All of the exemptions

the exemptions, right? We're gonna we're going to exempt them up to seven years at whatever percentage is and then the remaining has to go into the green list. Correct. uh director here, which then goes into taxes, which means that residents of Bloomfield, commercial and residential, would have to pay for that. So, yeah, we're seeing about 900,000 to a million dollar a year. Well, roughly $900,000 a year. Let's say $900,000 a year over 10 years, but nobody can tell me what after the exemption the added cost that will be on the and we just have $72 million in value. So we exempt them, you know, by 20%, the rest of that goes into there and it impacts the the mill rate that people has to pay. Right. Correct.

Are you asking the C Mr. Director? Well, yeah. I mean, the numbers I gave you, sorry, the numbers I gave you were based on an adjusted net grand list. Those those 35.64 to 35.55. Now, that's not again, let me qualify that by saying that's not based on the latest numbers that Jeff submitted. That's a a previous analysis which I I think was submitted to you uh to your committee earlier. But here here's the point I think that that

you know I would say on behalf of our cl all our client towns here's the point really that to focus on is is the given project a net uh material uh fiscal uh positive impact to the town and the answer to that question here is no question absolutely no question it is

question for you um I I hear you say that. So, can I ask a question because um Gorman New York seems to have this and maybe if you don't want to answer tonight, maybe we can uh in executive session if it's proprietary. Um but what is the cap rate and the exit assumption with the tax abatement and without the tax abatement? I know I asked for that and it provided to me in the the document that um Gorman York would have that number. I asked for the IRR2 internal rate of return um which is their net profit. I would like to see that with the tax abatement and without the tax abatement because then it's going to tell me whether this project is can you give me a percentage what is the percentage of the IRRa is it industry standard is it over um what is it

Jeff how do you want to respond to that I don't want to reveal any confidential information here so uh

yeah thank you thank you for deferring uh to me Mike yeah Um I think those are um the types of questions that wouldn't be discussed in a in an open meeting. So what we've done previously I and we can uh continue to work with Kman and York uh uh on the on the different models in terms of expressing in uh uh showing what those various assumptions are and um and then uh I I think that Gman and York could discuss them uh uh with you. Uh but certainly um you know you know that it's a challenging uh development market, a challenging financing market that all kinds of uh margins are are thinner than they need to be or or thinner than we'd like them to be. Um and that uh but still at the end of the day, we have to have a project that the bank will um find acceptable in terms of um approving our construction loan. And then we need to have a project that works. So, as you said, yeah, they're consistent with market uh conditions, but we can um provide GMAN and York um uh different models and then I I think they can maybe uh discuss with you what some of those returns are, what some of those

rates are that you're you're interested in. Yeah, I'm very I'm very interested in it because, you know, we need to see the numbers as a committee and as a council uh because we want to make sure that we're not uh patting uh profit, right? We don't we're not giving a tax abatement to pad profit, right? Yeah. I hear that it may be a net positive to uh the community, but if it's a net positive and we're giving it to them and we see that, you know, it's padding profit, I think I have a a problem with it. Um, I would love to see um, you know, what you're underwriting at. Are you underwriting at a 5.5 to 6% cap rate and projecting between 15 to 20% um, IRRA are like I want to see those things so that we make sure that we're not just giving a tax abatement to pro to to Pat profit. And I think that's important for us to make a decision. Um, I don't know what other members of the committee thinks, but I think that's important for us uh to understand before I make a vote. I want to make sure it's in line with with financials because other developers have come in um with luxury apartments and we've told them that based on their financials, it did not meet the standard of uh a tax fixing agreement. And so it would be a shame of us if we don't do the right thing here and ask the same questions around the financials for this developer to make sure that the residents of Bloomfield are getting a good deal and that we're not asking them to open up their pocketbooks uh to pat profits on a developer. You know, I what I can say that may be helpful is that on a short-term uh tax abatement of seven or 10 years, uh the market prices the expiration of that tax abatement into their valuation. And we're we we're are very aware of a project right now that is uh that the developer uh is trying to sell and it has in place a uh tax abatement and the developer has been unable to sell it

because the buyer all buyers that have looked at it have said well you know as soon as that tax abatement expires which is in a few years in the real estate business seven years is a is a the equivalent of a pay for most people. But as soon as the tax abatement expires, the the reduced taxes that result from a tax abatement uh go back to full taxes, which has the impact, of course, of reducing the net income. And when you apply the capitalization rate that you're referring to, Councilman, u you know, when you apply that cap rate to the uh net income, uh once the tax abatement is expired, I mean, it's there there is no extra profit left. You know, there would be if you had a 30-year tax abatement, which there is one East Hartford is just in the middle of well actually it's finished. uh it's a 29-year tax abatement and there's no question that that will have the long-term that's a 29-year reduction in taxes and therefore uh an increase in the net operating income and if that developer decides to sell they will benefit from that higher net income in a shortterm seven or 10year that's just not happening out there. Anybody who's buying these kinds of assets is typically buying them with a 10ear with the plan to hold for 10 years. That means that their tax abatement is going to expire during that period of time. So, they price it in. You know, that's what any buyer would do. Uh so, I I don't think it's uh I I don't think we're seeing to to use your term that that it's going to pad profit for a developer in this case. The market prices it out. You know, they they know they they can do this. It's just math. So they run the NOI out until the end of the tax abatement and say well there's our net operating income that that's what we're going to use to price it and

we'll apply our cap rate to that uh you know unabated net operating income. So I would like to see the I would like to see the numbers in a percentage with it and without it.

Got it. Because again, right, with it uh with the tax abatement, we'll get 9.3 roughly not estimated $9.3 million of revenue. Without it, we're getting $15.6 million. That's a $6 million giveaway. Uh meanwhile, residential taxpayers will see higher tax bills during this period and the grand list will shift continuously. That's not fair. I think it's a valuable project but if you give us the numbers and we can justify it um just like you presented the numbers to the bank and they give you the you know your cap rate 80 probably you know 70% debt right um and 30% regular capital that you have or from investors probably from you know pension funds family funds etc or endowments I don't know how you're getting your your your you know your funding but just like you would submit to those folks and they do their due diligence. I think it's in it's imperative for the finance committee of the town of Bloomfield when we're given a tax fixing agreement out to do similar due diligence so we can get those numbers everything on that paper that was submitted to us that said provided to Gorman New York Mike if we need to ask Ashley and and um and attorney Crumby if it's appropriate for us to do um an executive session but I think it's the right thing to present it to the community. Um, I do understand that you have some concerns about putting your information out there, but I will talk with the town attorney and see uh how we can go about transparently putting this information out there um or if it will hurt the project and the funding source uh to do it in executive session so that we make sure we're not giving away um unnecessary tax fixing agreement. That's it for me tonight. I don't know if any other members of the committee has it. Um and if anybody would like to make a recommendation to the town council. Um

um I have no further questions. Uh I appreciate your questions. Council Mccclary does even a deeper dive on a breakdown on the seven and 10 year abatement. So thank you for pointing those other issues out with the cap rate and IRI. And then I would just recommend that a way for your contract or your GC to find out how we successfully got a very hefty uh Bloomfield resident workforce is to talk to the contractor the GC for the library project. I'm sure they'll be happy to help. Okay. Yes. Thank you so much.

Is u excuse me just um just to ask another question. So, if the option one that we proposed to the 7-year um abatement, if um it's understood that that's um conforms to the town's current uh policy, um would it be possible to get a vote to in understanding that in the interim between now and the the council meeting that uh some of these questions that were asked that we could furnish this information that um the committee could recommend um our option one to uh to the full council for consideration.

That's a good question because I I I really would like to see the 12% and that's why I asked the question uh of affordable units. That's why I asked the question earlier, which one are we doing the seven or the 10? because um and that's another reason why I escalated the tax payment policy upfront so that we can address those issues because I really would love to see if we're going to give a tax and fixing agreement if we go with option one we're not getting the additional units

we're not getting the project labor agreement or making sure that residents of Bloomfield are on there and we don't know the IRRa we don't know the cap rate um and so it's just not fair to the residents of Bloomfield I hear you know they say that oh it's going to a net positive over 10 years, but we also over those 10 years are leaving money on the table. And if we're leaving money on the table and it's going to add to more traffic and it's going to, you know, there's a lot of moving parts. Um, I hear you. I know there is a a potential time crunch with your with your financing and so I would leave it to John Coleman or Mike Gleman to kind of help us out because I think um the committee has some real serious questions and I don't know if we can meet within the next couple of days to get those questions answered so that we can move something really really really uh move something Um, and so with that, I see council Cooper's hand. You may have a recommendation.

Uh, Madam Chair. Uh, yep.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Um, you know, I I am interested in one fact that, uh, faction of this that you went over really was the impact to the grand list. Um, and this is more I I gather for our CFO, Mr. Hill. If if there are questions of um how the impact of other uh projects um would be on this project because they're coming um off of uh these abatements, right? And it would that would that help in any way? And that's really is what it would be to this project. It would be a help to this project. um is if that's information can be available uh as part of whatever it is that you guys uh are looking at to uh to move this package forward. Hopefully that's understood.

Council, is that a question for me? it is uh if I uh understand it correctly with existing tax abatements that are in place expiring which is positive to our tax roles um if that would be helpful to this project. I think it would beful to the town and its uh revenue generation um and uh current taxpayers having their tax liability lower uh by virtue of tax abatement agreements expiring. Um you know this project uh

you know for me particularly because it is on uh long unutilized or underutilized at best land uh is positive. Um and that positive while it does as uh the developer request for an abatement um uh uh identifies is not 100% positive. it it will be at the expiration of the tax abatement agreement. Um but the revenue generation from this proposed project would be positive and you know with it market rate with an affordable component you know I'm sure Gorman could help us uh look at the potential increase in services uh across all town departments and offices. Um but um I believe we are talking about uh I forget the number was it 9 million over the

9 million that's correct

9 million in tax receipts over the seven or 10 year abatement period right if I take that straight line and you know it's probably a gap on the front end while it's in construction um but that is hundreds of thousands of dollars annually uh to the good for the town Um, so I uh have long believed that we um what's the old maximum about the forest? Can't see the trees for the forest or the forest for the trees. Um you know, there all of the questions that council has are are valid, good, and positive for Bloomfield. But at the end of the day, uh the council is who's tasked with uh making the the final decision. And whether or not there's benefit to Bloomfield rest in their decisions. Okay, thank you so much um for your insight. Um the the last question uh because I did miss it and so uh sorry for asking and repeat not to you miss but uh to uh either the project manager or GMAN um what is the ask of the tax abatement the length I think there in your you have one um plan put forward what's the ask for the tax abatement in length

seven and 10 option one seven years option two And correct Mike and Jeff. That's right. Option one has the has the status quo of the is it 17 units. That's right. 17. And then option two has the 20. And that's why he asked for the additional three years. And I think the actual three years I think he's asking for that because that helps subsidize the construction cost for those affordable units. Is that correct Jeff? Um that's right.

So with the seven years there would be there would be 17 um affordable units. Correct. Yes. Which is the 10% and then the option two uh aligns with our new inclusionary policy percentage rate of 12%. Correct, Jeff. That's right.

Which I think is good. And I just was hoping that we would get the at least 25% of the construction jobs included in, you know, in that package for number two. And if that was the the case, I would be happy um to move forward with option two. Uh because it shows a it shows it's a community benefit agreement, right? It shows that the community is going to get a benefit. More affordable housing units to meet our current policy and our housing plan goals. And we're putting people to work while revitalizing the Blue Hills neighborhood, which hasn't seen investments in 10 to 20 years prior to this year when we did the streetscape pro project.

And you know, I I do see value in that. And I also see value in um I came in on this part where um councelor Lloyd um recommended to a um a sit down with um the folks from the library uh where the PLA was in place and and to see what um could be a possibility. So uh that's where I'm at and I thank you everyone for the information. Thanks for accommodating that and and much appreciated. So Jeff, I'm I'm I'm interested in in in in moving something forward, but it's just a matter of what uh your your your organization. Um if I'm not mistaken, it's United, is it United Group or United Plus?

Um well, uh United overall the parent company is United is the United Group of Companies. Um the SPE the special purpose entity that owns the project is a UBH senior LLC. Uh United Plus is the property manager that will be managing it. So is there any LP fund funding in your capital source in your capital uh your fundraising? Can you do any fundraising from any uh pension plans or family plans or

um endowments etc? Um, obviously there's a lot of equity that goes into these projects. Um, and we have, um, you know, ways that we raise that capital that I think are I don't know if they're necessarily, um, are relevant to the discussion, but, you know, we have to raise it to uh, to satisfy the bank and support the project costs.

Got it. And so I don't know I I said that I asked that because I don't know what you are you know you've heard members of the committee raise some questions and you know I like the option too with you know the the jobs and the additional affordable housing showing your financials and if you know United Group or wherever the parent company is ready to you know move forward with that I'm ready to make a motion to move forward with you know with that community benefit an agreement um to recommend to the council while we update our policy cuz I know you have a time crunch. So, I don't know. Yeah, we do.

Given all of the information you heard tonight, what do you want to sit back and talk with Gorman New York? Do you need to go back to talk to people? Um,

I think I think um, you know, just based on um, what attorney Moore was describing in terms of really um, quantifying the nonconforming uh, projects or whatever. I I think that uh, just given our schedule um that it uh would probably make the most sense for everyone to just consider the option one. Um since that is a conforming project, it's uh it's a um uh a structure that GMAN and York has uh has already looked at. You know, it's basically, you know, a neutral project with it. It's evolved a little bit over the past few months u but always staying consistent with what uh the original um requirements and assumptions were. So, you know, I think what we'd like to do is um just given our schedule, if the if the council could make a determination on option one, um you know, I I think that would probably serve everyone everyone's interests well and then allow us to move forward um and and fulfill some of our commitments that we need with this project. I hear that and I respect that comment and that thought, but um I'm I'm not interest I don't I in the current front cannot support um option one, but you know this is a committee. Um and so if I see council deputy mayor Lloyd has her hand up. Um I don't know if she wants to make a motion.

No, not a motion. Um I'm I'm kind of in alignment with you. it it's hard um Jeff to move forward without those numbers that we asked for. We just kind of need to see the impact to the that the tax abatement will have versus what you originally presented. I think that's fair not only to the committee but to the public. Additionally, uh yes, if we got those numbers, you found a way to speak to, for example, the library general contractor, figured out how they did the commitment for 25%. Maybe you can't get that much, but I I feel confident you can probably get close to that. you made a commitment for 10% anyway, right? So, we have that labor aspect of it. It's just hard for this committee to move forward and say send it to council when we don't have the rudimentary information on what that abatement looks like, right? So, if you can get that rather quickly, then I think that would be fair.

And we're happy to schedule a special meeting, you know, just 24hour notice to schedule that uh that that public. I know the council meeting is on um the 8th September 8th. So we have about a week right uh to do it uh Jeff and so I don't know we're going to work on the tax abatement policy uh if you know it's it's up to you and your team on how fast you can get that information to us.

Okay. Well, I think um well, of course, we've provided quite a bit of information already to uh GMAN and York. So, uh you know, I think they do have um a lot of information on um on the basic proposal. Um but again, I I think if um the council's interests are going to be to um try to um um request some of those additional items like the PLA and whatever. I just don't I just don't see us getting there just to be realistic um with every I understand it um just you know having um you know worked with similar requirements on projects over the years and and knowing all uh what's required to to to ensure it certainly a lot of work can be done to to um uh without reach as I discussed but trying to ensure outcomes is difficult and I think most of these projects even the federal and state projects have have shifted more to goals as opposed to requirements because uh over the years um you know absolute goals have just proven to be you know too difficult to to actually meet. So, um, so like I said, I I think with our with that option one, I think we furnished a lot of the financial information. Um, but if if people want to see additional information, we can do that very quickly, I think, and provided to Goldman and York. And if there's any way to be considered by the council or to discuss it further at the um I think it's September 8th meeting, um uh we would we would appreciate that um that process. I hear they do.

Okay. I'm not asking for PLA. Yeah. I understand the challenges and we understand the costs associated with that. But you guys presented that you would try to meet a goal of 10%. And we know that we have just recently met a goal of 25%. And the way it was met was through the apprenticeship

uh via the contractors that were used. So, I'm just saying confidently I think your GC can contact RGC that just did our project. You might be able to be pleasantly surprised at the ability to meet that goal, not PLA. So, I'm sorry if that was unclear. And then just I went to seven years. I want to know what the difference is. 7-year abatement is still going to look like more than 12,000 per year. We get that. We definitely get that, right? But if you can break it down, that would be helpful. And I think that is fair for the public to know at one point it was presented at $9 million tax revenue. Well, what does it look like with the abatement? It's just fair for the public to understand that. Now, your financials that council mcclary is asking for. Okay, that's another deeper dive, but I definitely want the public to know the adjustment in the taxes that will be collected so they can say, "Okay, we go from 9 down to 3.5. It's still a good return, right? Just at brass tax." So, thank you.

Yeah. So, um the just um we submitted a memo outlining um or a request letter. Um so, those employment goals and all those things, those are in our current proposal. So, you know, in terms of the 20% um permanent jobs uh of Bloomfield residents, 20% permanent jobs for minorities, and then 10% construction workers by Bloomfield-based minority businesses. So, those are already uh in our proposal. So, with that 7-year uh agreement and then the 7-year um uh program was structured in a way to basically be equivalent to what we had provided initially was a 10-year. We went from the 10-year to the seven-year and those we uh work with Goldman York to to keep those as um equivalent. So, um, but we can we can provide whatever else is needed, but I think, uh, specifically to the questions you asked, I I think we're on the same page with with what you're looking to see.

Quick question. Uh, how can you make sure that the 20 the employment goals could be permanent job? Like, how do you make sure that how can you get ensure that those goals are 20% that you like, never mind, nothing. I get it. uh 20% based on the permanent jobs delineated above at 8 is 1.4 persons. So 20% permanent jobs, Bloomfield resident, 20% permanent jobs, minorities, that's 1.4. And we would just hope that it it wouldn't make it the same person. Okay, I already did the math on it. I can do the easy stuff. So I I I think we were even though we still would like to have that, I think we were pretty settled that PLA uh possibility was was kind of off the table. But what we do want to ensure is that those numbers that you have put in there

are are there's a commitment to our Bloomfield residents and or the surrounding Harford area. Um, I saw that as as pretty positive and and if we could meet those standards,

you know, with with great effort because we already have shown this in the development of the library. So, there's already an existing uh plan to to get the word out to these contractors and to these individuals who are who have those skills. So it would be uh great if we could make that continue with this project. Possibly some of the same people, but obviously others are experienced in this area as well. Uh so we know uh from your conversation before that the PLA was was not a great possibility, but we do still want to make sure that we uh have a a a a good percentage of our resident population involved in this project.

Right. And then also, I'm sorry, just adding to that too, the um the permanent jobs are separate from a PLA. some permanent jobs there. That's just and hiring local residents is obviously in our best interest and we will look to do that. Thank you.

Thank you. So I guess we'll hold this on the table until um the staff John and and Mike the consultant for government for the town uh gets back to us and uh I don't know uh India if we have some time next week for uh a special uh finance committee meeting with this item on the agenda. Um and hopefully uh let me just check my calendar real quick. I don't know if Tuesday is good. Is Tuesday? I know there's a holiday on Monday. Jeff, we have we have a governor's meeting scheduled for Tuesday. Okay. What about Wednesday?

I can do Yes. Jeff, does that work for you? I'll make work whatever certainly. And Mike, what about team money? Sorry, that'll work. We can make that work. Wednesday at at 6. Wednesday at 6.

Yeah. Yeah. And then if we can have a a draft of the the updated of if you can ask uh the attorney Moore and attorney Crumby to have a draft of the updated um and I'm sure they'll work with Corman York on that updated uh tax abatement tax fixing agreement because it's not an abatement, it's a tax fixing agreement um for um for that to be on the agenda as well so that we can push it to town council too. Um, and if we can squeeze in option two, um, the 10 year with the 20 units and the goals of the 20% and having those formulas, I'm willing to support the option number two, um, because I think that's it provides a community benefit, more of a community benefit um, than the option number one. And so I'm I'm more leaning towards option number one, depending on what the cap rate and IRRa option number two, excuse me, depending on what the cap rate is and IRRa is with and without that option number two tax fixing agreement. So I don't know where the other members of the committee stand, but I'm I'm more interested in making sure we move up to the 20 and with the the the construction jobs

on board. So Jeff, if your team can get the data for Mike, Council Oliver, myself, and then the questions that Council Lord had, I think we could get that done uh next week and make sure that if it satisfied everyone on this committee. It's on uh it's on the agenda for Monday and I'll be happy to support that if we can meet those those community benefits. All right, no more discussion around that. Thanks everyone for a spirited and respectful conversation. Yeah, it was a great conversation. I appreciate the exchange of ideas. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. We really appreciate you and we look forward to you being a partner of the town of Bloomfield. That's the plan. We hope so. Thank you. Yeah, you got to go. Good night. Good night. Uh the next item on the agenda is the new business discussion and possible action regarding the Winter Berry Hills Golf Course financials. I see Director Molesco who oversees parks and Rex committee.

Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, thank you very much for having us. um as as well as the other committee members um um mayor and deputy mayor. Um I'm joined here this evening with um Alex McCann who is represent um um uh Toune Golf who the management company for Wintonberry Hills Golf Course as well as committee member from the golf committee John Coleman. Um the reason for us being here this evening is we've just been working uh through the committee uh with Tron Golf in Whittenbury Hills and and the committee to develop the budget for the upcoming year. And as part of that, one of the proposals would be to um increase the resident rates um at the golf course um by $5 per walker and $2 for a cart fee for a for a maximum of $7 per golfer. Um just a little bit of a background on this over here. Um Whitenberry Hills came into operation in the early 2000s. Um we have held these resident rates um basically from the inception of it. Um so approximately you know 23 24 years later um at this point in time with the rising costs of everything and the needs of the golf course for some of the major capital improvement projects that we need. Um we put together our analytics and um the team put together um they feel as if we could raise an additional $25,000 approximately $25,000 a year um in revenue to help sustain the golf course. A little bit more of the history behind the golf course and the um the budget and the way that it's managed. Um the the course was um is town owned. Everything is owned um by the town. Um it was uh you know purchased uh went to

referendum back in the the late 90s and constructed in the early 2000s. Um but since the mid u right around 2014 the operation has been fully self- sustaining. Um, so we haven't come to the town requesting funded for anything and we've been able to do that um through the hard work of Trune Golf and their management teams and the um and the quality of the golf course that we have. Um so um in addition to the fees over here, I did provide in the packet a copy of the budget um that was put together for the upcoming year. Um if there are any questions that are pertaining to the budget, Alex is here to provide any uh feedback and to any to answer any questions that you may have. Um but again, we the main reason for being here this evening is being a town owned golf course. Um that we do not want to raise the fees for residents without the approval of the council for um something like this. Excuse me.

I I have a question. Um because I don't golf and I did look at the the increase rates and I know golfing is a very enjoyable but very expensive sport. Um how do we compare on the rate increase with other local publiclyowned golf courses? How do the rate increases compare? Axe, would you be able to take that?

Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. I can I can jump on that. So, even with the proposed rate increase, we would still be for residents the most economical in in market. Um, looking around our competitive set of Keeny Park, Goodwin, Stanley, some other that are public and also municipality driven. um their their max fees um at this point in time for calendar uh for calendar year 2025, they haven't released 26 yet. Um they're at around if you look at it from an average of $60 price point. So, uh, for residents with cart. Um, so that would put us, uh, again in a in a pretty com, uh, at a lower end of the, uh, competitive set in the market, excuse me.

Okay. And, and if I may add to that as well, um, to our own tooting our own horn over here, um, it is very difficult to, uh, compare the Whitenberry Hills Golf Course to other golf courses in there. Uh Whittenberry Hills Golf Course is a top 40 public golf course in in the country. Um we we that is pride that is going through uh the um golf pass which is all put out there by users. Um so um it's a Pete die design that we're fortunate to have. Um and it's one of a kind and is a hidden gem and it's the only public golf course in New England to be on that top 50 list.

Thank you. That's my only question. Okay. Um, sorry. Sorry. I went to use the restroom. Apologize about that.

Understood. If I if I actually just not to prolong the conversation over here, but one of the other things I'd like to say is we do we really do hit our um non-residents. I don't want to say we hit them hard, but we we max it out the best that we possibly can. Um, what we do for the non-residents is we use a program called dynamic pricing so that we understand the the the the value of the tea time that's coming in here. So that the time that they're getting in there at a peak hour on a Saturday or Sunday morning for a non-resident is not going to be the same as it is on a Monday afternoon when you may not have too many golfers out there. Um, so we've been fortunate that we are able to do that for for the non for non-residents that come in and we still have uh quite a few uh users. We average over 30,000 rounds a year. So, I I just want to comment uh you know, I did go to the golf club uh last week for uh our former councilman's uh memorial service and uh very very impressive. Uh and coming here when we knew this was going to be on the docket, of course, there was a lot of conversation about the outside and then closing it. But I know we already talked about that some time ago that it's too expensive, but just to kind of keep keep it in your mindset, um it would be a wonderful addition to our community. Just just saying. But uh I I do think uh I don't golf unfortunately. But I think if we are at the lower end of that scale, then we certainly are available to make some changes, you know, so we can we can better serve you know our our community. So I'm I'm definitely uh you know in favor of of of these changes. They're modest, you know. They they are and um they're really with the lifpan where we're at right now in

the over the 20 years capital projects are are um they're right at on their doorstep as spans right now. So we are looking for bunker renovation. We have some bridge repairs that we need to do. Um cart path repair um the the bunker repairs themselves are several hundred,000 in order to do. Um we're getting close to the the end of the life cycle of the irrigation system that is a 2 million plus uh dollar um project. So all of these fees, any revenue that we can receive, it takes it so that we do not need to come back to the town, the municipality to request funding for it. Now, do I can I can I promise that that's not going to be in the future if something catastrophic were to happen? No. But that is ultimately what our goal is, user fees to support the golf course.

So this is an extra $35,000 based on the $5,000 the 5,000 resident and current residents that utilize it. Is that what I just read or something? Oh no. Oh, that's I think we valued it at $25,000,00 which is substantial. Um that's um the golf carts, the golf paths. Um we budget right around $40,000 a year for that. So that's almost half the golf golf cart um repairs um to the paths. So every little bit helps. Will you be able to take out debt alone or do you have to come to the town to take out debt? So you can't go to a bank and get funding for for

We're not We are not looking for We are not looking for that at this point in time. Um so if that comes in the in the future?

No, I'm asking like do you come for the infrastructure in the future? Do you come to the town or can you go out and borrow from a bank or a financial institution to do the construction or you have to come to the town? I'm just trying to figure out. So, so if it was a major if it was a major capital improvement and we needed town uh funding for it, we would go through the town with it and then that would ultimately be through the capital improvement process, whether it be a referendum that would come up just like any other town project since everything is owned and operated there. Um we follow the same procurement process that we do with any other uh any other department here in the town. Um, so when they when they do major purchases, like for example, they just purchased a a mower last year for um for right around $50,000. Um, we went out for three quotes for that and then we issu issue a purchase order through the finance department. It gets paid and then we come in and close it out.

Okay. I I support this because it's been almost 16 years uh 15 since you increased it which is really really reasonable compared to what golf rates are around the for you know other areas in the in the country. Um so I fully support this. Um I've heard from members of the golf committee who fully support it. I just wanted to know where the you know what you would be doing with the extra $25,000 revenue. Is it strictly for you know maintenance? Is it for you know a particular project? or is it just to go into the general operating budget to cover salaries, etc. That's all I was asking for. Um, understood.

Or were you using the extra $25,000 the $25,000 as a revenue for a bond or like towards a loan to pay down loan for infrastructure? So that's why I was asking. But so we at this point in time, we believe that we have enough money um to move forward with projects without asking the town for funding for it or without going out for bonding as well. Um so the the golf course has done well. Um so last year, you know, our our average Ebidair was just over $400,000. a year.

Well, thank you so much. Is there a motion to send this to council? So, move second by second by the mayor. All those Any discussion? We just had it. All those in favor? I I So, this will be on the next town council meeting. Thank you very much. Appreciate your time. Thank you very much. You're welcome.

Thank you. Uh the discussion next item for discussion is a possible discussion action related to the uh small business development fund. John, do you want to take this or is Denise on to talk about this? Who wants to take this? Um is this if this is the um the Elevate Bloomfield project um we have we have a signed contract with a vendor. We will be meeting with them within the next week uh to go over the um to go over their their work assignments and schedule. Um I can re I think the um the clarification that's needed is that um this is um

hard money versus soft that the project is um that the vendor contract is for all soft money. There is no hard money in the contract to provide direct grants uh or loans to small businesses. Uh it's all um data gathering and preparation of um procedures and policies and um that that's uh and outreach. Uh that's what um the contract calls for as presently approved.

And so Darl, the question is how do we get extra funding towards this for hard cost for uh microloans and grants um for this program? I know the the the um uh I know the the the town charter talks about um we have up to section 310 requires a uh a referendum for non budgeted appropriation if it's in excess of 1 and 1.5%. And so that means if we have a $17 million budget, anything that we that's unbudgeted or unappropriated under 1.75, that means would have to go to a referendum. So in this case, if we wanted to deploy some additional funding for this program, um because we need some hard cost to do micro grants and loans to Bloomfield based small businesses who've been um in different shopping plaz, how would we go about that, Director Hill?

Um uh yes, you're right in your charter reference. uh only council can appropriate. Um we have uh grants that we could pursue. Um and as we approach the fourth quarter of this year, which would allow for the con consultants that are have been engaged and meeting with uh in the near term um what's this the second month of the year? Fourth quarter is seven months away. So, it gives them six, seven months to do some work. Um, and then we could see if there's any funding available during the fourth quarter of this year. Uh, or we'll we'll be in uh budget development uh for next year.

Okay. I don't know if the question is being asked for funding to be identified now that would be used at some point months or a year from now. Um, but I think the timing of when that funding is available should dovetail well with when the consultants are approaching the end of their work and have uh clear recommendations and identified uh uses for funding. Not only what to use it for, but how much uh is just as important.

Question. Uh, is is this in any way in alignment with our previous effort to submit the CIF?

Yes. Yes. Actually, can I excuse me? Good evening, uh, Denise from Go, New York. I sent over to you today um Councilman McClary and John the program that we had done with CVS sorry CIF a number of years ago um three now I guess it is um in that it had the marketing outreach the educational program and then it had startup grants and loan funding that was called out in that it was a considerably higher ask at that time because it was a CIF ask the whole program was about $670,000. So, um, looking at what the, um, the current group is going to be working on, um, if we could ask them to expedite that grant and load program and then institute the educational pieces, you might be able to um, you know, tighten up that timeline a little and maybe ask them to do that over three months. So that then you can start um you know it'll be about six months into your fiscal year so that you can start um giving some of those grants away if you were to appropriate the money.

Thank you. Any additional questions?

No sir. I thought my understanding was that there was a small business in town that needed support and that we were asking for this so that we can support we were asking to appropriate some soft dollars to it and I think an amount of I don't know what that number was but appropriate additional funding to help support that small business and that's why this was on the agenda. So, are we saying that we're not appropriating until 6 to 7 months or are we saying let the let that consultant do the work in a holistic fashion and then that small business will be taken care of because the the need would be identified in that process.

I think you could combine the two, Ken. Um, to be honest with you, I think you can work with the the way the program is outlined that you have moving forward is in line with the town of Bloomfield small business equity fund that we had drawn up for CIF. Um, and you know, you worked on that with us. So, um, I think they could use that as a basis because that's essentially what the town was looking for with the CIF grant. um move forward with that. Um once you have that fund, how it's going to work set up, then you can add the educational pieces into it. Working with your small businesses, working on specialized programs for you know financial stability, um it whatever you know they choose to go into the programs. I think they can run simultaneously so that you would be able to give some grants to those small businesses that need it within, you know, a shorter time frame. Because otherwise, if we're looking at it the way it is now, if we're going to let them set up the fund, it's going to take up to a year to do. You're not essentially helping any businesses, you know, for 12 to 18 months out.

No. Got it. Thank you. Okay. All right. So, no action. We'll put this back on for I guess next month to get an update. Say, you have a question. But I heard No, no, I'm ready. No, thank you.

Okay. And maybe we'll get an update on after John. I don't know if that John that update with the the consultant is at the land uh the governance committee or if they need to come here. Um but hopefully we can just keep track of that. Um next item on the agenda is the discussion regarding the increase in commercial building fees. Um, I talked about this and put this on the agenda because I know we have the inclusionary zoning um um policy um and it includes a commercial commercial linkage fee and in that policy TPZ outline that a percentage of the the the commercial linkage fee will come from the um from the building fees into the housing trust fund. And I know Daryl has some assumptions in the budget for the commercial um building permit fees um in the budget. And so with that new policy on board, I put this on to make sure that the numbers that we have budgeted in our budget is not impacted by any new development that is going to impacted by the TPZ policy on the inclusionary housing. Because if a percentage of those fees need to go into the housing trust fund, if we don't have that banked in into our current budget, we would have to gross up that building permit fee to cover that so that the town's budget is not impacted. And so that's why I put this on here for John and Daryl to have the discussion or the white to have the discussion to make sure that that's not impacted.

Make sense? Well, the the fee is the way it's structured in the zoning regulations. It the 10% uh is not an add-on. It's an it's a it's a subtraction out of the collection of fees collected for commercial buildings and uh new commercial you basically non-residential development. And so that um you know the the the there will not be an increase in the fee itself but 10% of the fees collected uh would be directed towards the uh towards the trust fund.

Okay. Okay. Before that can be done, u and I'm sure Darl, the council would have to the council itself would have to adopt an ordinance. So directing u the the zoning regulations themselves cannot direct how funding is um is uh guided within within the uh within the financial structure of the town. Well, we did it in the affordable housing trust fund. So we already in that ordinance I think we already directed that it's a commercial linkage fee or whatever it's called the impact fee and that policy and so if you're saying that it's 10% if Daryl has $500,000

budgeted and I'm just throwing these numbers I don't know what the number is because I didn't look at it but hypothetically if Daryl has $500,000 for building permit fees in his in his budget and then 10% of that has to go to that's cuz that's collected has to go to the affordable housing trust fund. That's $50,000. Daryl would only get $450,000. The housing trust fund would get $50,000. Daryl had $50,000 budgeted in the budget for building the permit fees. He would be under and that would be a problem. And so that's why I put this on the agenda. I will defer to the uh to Darl.

Yeah. So, we have 1.3 million in the fiscal 2026 budget. Um and actually uh as June's report is uh next on the agenda uh last year we collected un audited uh 1.288 million 99.1% of the budget but that that wasn't um some of that is residential and that wouldn't be included. Yeah, I don't have the split. I just have one line item for building demolition permits. we'd have to give you the split.

I mean, so I think there's a variety of ways the council could go about achieving the objective. Um, they could increase the fee by some number or amount or percentage um and then have the 10% apply. um or could establish a threshold for the revenue generated and if it's crossed any amount above that threshold could go to the affordable housing trust fund and and any variety of other uh you know creative options. But the with a clear understanding of what council's objective is, we could develop some options uh to consider uh so that it's not uh burdensome for the user or uh negative for the budget overall.

So can we have that in the September meeting of finance a month from today? Sure. Thank you. I just want to make sure we're not the budget is not impacted given I'm sorry, Councilman Clar, did you say you're adding that to the next week's agenda? No, September the September regular schedule meeting. All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thanks, Daryl. Thanks, John. Next item on the agenda, Daryl, I'm turning it over to you for the June 2025 financials. This is the close in, right? The close out of that last year's budget.

Uh, yes. says, "The charter required within 60 days of the end of the fiscal year financial report for all of fiscal 2025, which should be obvious to all as it is as of the end of June 2025. Um, so it's as of the uh the last day of the fiscal year. Of course, these numbers are unuded. Uh the report uh was provided uh with the council package. Hopefully, folks have had a chance to review it. Um I do believe it is positive. Um our total revenues uh exceeded the adopted budget by 3.4%. Uh tax collections uh were higher uh at just under 1% above budget. Our investment income as uh we we like to look at that one uh was more than twice as much as budgeted. $2.3 million of investment income. Um, we just spoke to or I spoke to the next uh line which is the building demolition permits coming in at just under 1.3 million or just over 99% of the uh fiscal 2025 budget with the real estate conveyance coming in at 684,000 or 114% of budget. um these revenues all collectively we exceeded the adopted fiscal 2025 budget revenue uh by approximately $3.7 million. Um so that's on the revenue side. On the expenditure side, uh expenditures as of June 30 in Munice are at 90.7%. Uh and you'll notice the parenthetical in the memo that excludes incumbrances, right? So, as we uh flip to the second page and see that when we include our incumbrances, uh we're projecting a slight favorable variance on the expenditure side, just

under $185,000. And I'm sure everyone remembers the fourth quarter transfers and the additional appropriation that was requested and thankfully approved which provided us with uh what I believe to be appropriate breathing room given uh the prior and still growing use of uh munice. I talk about munice because it is our system of record. It is our source of truth and if information is not in munice then in my mind it does not exist. So while we developed the projection for the fourth quarter transfers and these numbers are unud audited um I'm hopeful that as we complete the 24 audit and move on to the 25 audit uh that we will continue to maintain this positive variance uh and to to wrap it all up for folks before I get into the fund balance uh portion which is the last paragraph that 3.7 million positive revenue and 95,000 uh 185,000 of positive expenditure variance would have us adding $4 million to our fund balance. Um the current information which is in the again in the next paragraph is that uh fiscal 2025 would add uh an estimated $3.5 million uh to our fund balance. So uh it's good performance uh greater confidence in our system of record um which has continued into 2026. You'll see that a little bit of that in just a moment when I move on to the July report. Um but you I know there's a lot of numbers and I I tried to lay it out this next to last paragraph in the June memo that talks about the unassigned fund balance. tried to walk through year

by year uh starting with what we know is audited the fiscal 2023 fund balance which sits at 18.8% or $19.6 million. Um it adds to that the conservative projection for fiscal 2024 performance uh of just over $1.5 million which would bring us up to 20.6% 6%. Um, and then in 2025, uh, the 3.5 million that I I just spoke to, um, uh, would bring us to 23% or 24 just under $24.7 million. Um, and then we have the fiscal 2026 uses. uh we have 3.75 million in the operating budget and the $4 million transfer from the unassigned fund balance to the committed fund balance for the benefit of the economic development trust. So our operating budget sits at that 113 million um and after those uses which let's remember my my prior remarks on whatever that agenda item was. Oh, the audits um numbers are unudited. Our year-over-year financial performance has demonstrated that we the council in its annual appropriation has kept the mill rate lower by utilizing unassigned fund balance that then our revenue generation primarily has overperformed and allowed us not to use that fund balance. Right? So, as we look at fiscal 2026's estimated or projected fund balance, it's it's actually hard to get to a percentage because uh I'm hopeful folks are familiar enough with the policy to know

that the revenue compon revenue uh the the yes, the general fund revenues are um the denominator for the calculation and it's the coming year, next year's revenues. We don't know next year's uh revenues and expenditures. We won't know that until we get through the budget cycle. So that 15.7% is utilizing uh the fiscal 2006 uh estimated budget or bud adopted budget um of

the nuance in the policy of 107 million. So it it leaves us within our policy of 15 to 20%. Um but as I walk through uh from the audited number in fiscal 23 to 24 25 and 26 24 25 and 26 of course are are going to have movement until they're audited. At that point we will uh update and

specifically with regard to fiscal 24 and the conservative approach to show only 1.5 million of operating surplus from fiscal 2024. Uh, I think if you look back at, you know, when I first started the report that was distributed to council, the actually the same one for the the full fiscal year of 2024, I think it was suggesting that there was three or four million of surplus. Um, as we've worked through the audit and you know, we're not done yet. Uh, the questions are really on the revenue side. um with some of the appropriations that council made and the uh question of whether or not those revenues uh are part of the operating budget and should fall to the bottom line. Um, we know that the fiscal 2024 budget included 195,000 of unassigned fund balance for operations, but I believe what there were other uses for fund balance for capital projects and things like that uh that are outside of the operating budget and in the capital budget. Hence my conservative approach to show the 1.5 million. Uh if it is anything uh other than that uh given where we are with fiscal 2024 I would expect it to be higher than 1.5 million. Now whether it's two or two and a half or three or something north of that uh we'll see in the coming weeks. Uh but I do believe that this is a a conservative presentation of our current fiscal 23 fund balance which is audited and the projected up until today. Um and you know with greater confidence as I approach a year as the town's director of finance um the month-to-month reports and the increased usage and proper utilization of our um system of record munice um will allow us

to not only generate the information uh more efficiently but have greater confidence uh in what it is that it's presenting and that there's not uh significant items on particular particularly on the expenditure side but also on the revenue side that aren't in Munice. Uh we are becoming closer and closer to uh my directive of standard to have information entered in Munice within 48 to 78 hours 72 hours of a transaction occurring. Um so pos positive information uh with regard to the use of Munis and fiscal 2025's uh operations. Quick question. Yes.

Yes. Quick question around fund balance for fiscal year 2024. What is the actual number? Is it 24 million uh 32,474? [Music] No. What is it?

So the uh I'll take a step back. The the audited fiscal 23 number is 19612 $612,040. 19612040 that is 18.8%. And then the conservative 2024 surplus of 1.5 million 1.544 million brings us up to 21 I'm sorry 21,156,283. That's 20.6%. Wait, so what happened in 2023 when we had a fund balance of 19 uh 612

and you add the extra $1.5 million that should get you to or we use $195,000. Did we use more than $195,000 from the assigned fund balance to balance the stabilization of the mill rate in 24? In fiscal 24, there was 195,000 of unassigned fund balance appropriated. But with our current

our current surplus of 1.5 million, that 195,000 was not used. So we don't subtract that from the 19.6 million. It stays there. So the ending balance for 23 is unchanged by 24 operations because the 195,000 of appropriated unassigned fund balance isn't used. So we just add to the fiscal 2023 balance uh fund balance unassigned fund balance of 19.612 million the 1.544 million of projected surplus for 24

but I thought we had unless it decreased I thought we had a variance of 4.615 I'm looking at my previous finance charts from previous year uh meetings. Um

yes, I think I I just referred to that when I spoke to starting uh roughly a year ago and that that report that was provided before I started did reflect a surplus of three and a half or $4.5 million. Now we know that from my reports to committee there was a significant amount of work that wasn't done primarily in Munice in 2024. So, uh, I've always been reluctant to show that number because I don't know how that number has been arrived at with roughly half of the work that should have been done in fiscal 24 not being done. So, all of my comments about the fiscal 2024 surplus being conservative is bringing that whatever the prior number was 3 and a half four and a.5 million down to 1.5 million. And if that number uh of 1 and a.5 million isn't good, I believe it to be conservative that that number will go higher.

And I know I know I'm repeating myself for things I said a few minutes ago, but I

Yeah, I know. But I'm trying I'm trying to get I'm trying to get clarity, Darl. Um I'm not meaning to have you clarify the repeat yourself, but I'm just trying to understand why we where like that's a delta of three almost $3 million. What was the drivers of not us not having that variance of 4.6 million when we I think we did this back in like April May um when I got these numbers and I know a lot changed um and a lot does change because it's fluid. I'm just trying to get a better understanding because we projected I think a the we projected having you know as close as possible that four that 4.65 65 plus the additional $1.4 million uh to roll over to kind of have like a 24.21% fund balance totaling 25 million and then we used in 252.75 million and then we had a variance of 3.75 million at the time which would have made us end the fiscal year end of the year fiscal year 25 with 26 million. We use 3.75 in this budget year and then we you put 4 million economic development trust to give us a roughly around 18.68427 which would get us at 16.5% of fund balance not 15.4. I'm just concerned that we're really really etching on that 15% level and I'm trying to get a a understanding based on the numbers that you sent us during budget season. What was the major drivers of this significant change?

Um I'm just trying to figure out what

I I hear you counselor. I think I've said it a variety of different ways. I'll say it this way this time. the the changes in fiscal 2024, right? And as I've reported out to committee for the past year, well, nine months in fairness, the first few months was trying to figure out what was going on. And uh I'm looking at my I believe first report to committee for June of fiscal 24. That is information out of Munis that suggested that there was an 8.7 million surplus. Now, there's no need for anybody to write that down because if you've listened to or watched the finance committee meetings, month after month, I've reported that half of the work that should have been done in fiscal 24 wasn't done, which is a different way of saying you can't trust those numbers.

The work hadn't been done yet. The work is done now. Great.

Now with the work done and until we get through the audit, I am comfortable saying 1.5 million is going to come out of fiscal 24 and there is the potential for that to be two or two and a half or three, right? But I do not want to with where we are now in the fiscal 24 audit to suggest that there's a $8.7 million surplus because the information with the work that should have been done during 24 being completed, some of the work that was done during 24 needing to be corrected, right? This is where we sit conservatively, right? and we are within policy at 15.7% projection. Now, in the coming weeks and month or two, we will have fiscal 24 audited and we'll know what that number is. And I I think the conservative approach is going to end up being something positive, some meaning something higher than 1.5 million and then we'll recalculate where the fund balance will be and it'll be higher than 15.7%.

Okay, perfect. Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none. Thank you, Daryl.

Um, I'll say two or three words about July, uh, which is the first period of the month. I mean, first period of the year. Um, and you know, one month into a 12-month period, there's there's there's not much uh information to really share. You know, the report was provided. Uh when the packet went out, uh the July revenue collections are solid at 52.1%. Um our tax collection, I'm sorry, that's total revenue at 52.1%. Uh which is normal with our July collections. Uh tax collections for the current levy were at 56.7% which is almost 10 11 12% higher than the prior year. Our building demolitions are sitting at 195 for the first month of the year. Um and um one thing of note both here and uh when I get to the expenditures, you may recall the July report for fiscal 2025. You'll see this is up from last year at 7200. That's an example of the MUNS issue. The revenues were in, they just weren't in the system yet, right? So, it looks really dramatic to have 195,000 uh in the system now versus 7,200 last year, right? That that's the town administration getting better at its financial affairs or accounting for its financial affairs. Um, next line revenue, I'm sorry, real estate conveyance sitting at 65,000, just under 11% of the adopted budget. Uh I heard uh today yesterday that there's actually some more good news coming uh for real estate conveyance in August. Um we'll likely be approaching about half of the budget uh in the second period of the month, but we'll wait for for that to get in the system for next month's uh finance committee report. Uh and the last thing I'll say about the first period of fiscal 2026 is

our expenditures are at 6.3% ex excluding incumbrances right and then the next is 19.3% including incumbrances right that's the second example of newness usage right we closed fiscal 25 we opened fiscal 26 and then across the town everybody started entering their purchase orders which is what should normally happen so that our $113 million operating budget we start earlier in the year seeing how much of it is encumbered. So when we go from month to month through fiscal 26, we'll have a better sense of what's been committed and what's uncommitted just by pulling information out of Munas, not having to do anything in spreadsheets or, you know, add things after the information is pulled out of Munis. Um, so I'm I'm really encouraged by that. Uh, but we'll stop there because I see we're at two hours and 50 minutes. No, no problem. I have no questions related to that. It's early in the month. I mean, in a budget year, not much to talk about. We did have a big sale of a real estate property in town and that 271 is going to be really good to that real estate conveyance. So, good news. I wish I could take it and put it towards the small business, but can't do that. Um, but uh the next thing on the agenda is public comment. Is there anyone?

Is there any hand is raised India? I don't know. Hello. Can you guys hear me?

Can I can I go ahead now? Yeah.

Uh, good evening. Uh, Rickford Curtain, 7 Hickory Lane. So in reviewing the 63025 financials and fund balance calculation, this August report for June 30th financials show unassigned fund balance for 63024 was reduced by 4.3 million from the 25.4 to now the 21.1 a major reduction of 4.3 million. Why are we learning about this now? That was my first question. Your previous financial reports also reported a 25.4 million for over 6 months as well as for the 202526 budget deliberation. You also included that the balance as recently as of June 30th, 2025 council meeting that the major variance yet you have provided no explanation for the decrease other than a bunch of percent changes. We need to know in dollars what has changed and why. This, as you know, has an impact on both the 63025 and the 63026 fund balance. The town still has no audit. So why did you change it for this report? That's another question. Would the town council have drawn down 7.75 million in the 20 2526 knowing this? Probably not. I just want to highlight some incorrect dates. Your beginning and ending dates for the estimated fund balance are incorrect for June 30th, 2025 financials. The estimated unassigned fund balance should

be June 30th, 2025, not June 30th, 2026. So for the 2425 fiscal year fiscal period, your estimated end of year should be 638 2025. The error is significant when trying to understand the beginning balance for 63026 fund balance calculation. The 63026 financials currently fiscal year fund balance. The calculation for 63026 fund balance has a beginning fund balance for 63025 of 24.6 million. However, your revised 63025 fund balance is 16.9 million. What number is it? How did you arrive at that number? Another question is what is all of this doing to our fund balance percent? The adopted budget is correctly reported at 113 million, not 117. When you factor this in with no audit for the 63124 combined with these major variances, we should be very concerned. And uh you know, I've listened to a lot of these meetings and I've heard from the finance director and about support and everything, but to be honest, just from looking in from the outside, I I'm very concerned with the flu with the back. so much.

Can I just wrap up, please? Just 30 seconds, please. Yes. I'm I'm just concerned that we don't have any faith and I keep hearing uh Mr. Hill saying that I guarantee the number is going to be this or could be higher. Those are those are Let me finish please comment. Those are assumptions and we can clearly see of everything I just outlined tonight things are all over the place with the fund balance. So, I think they need some clarification on what's going on with our numbers. Thank you, counselor, if I may.

Thank you. Uh, yes, you feel free to do what you feel you need to do to clarify the record for the public. So, I know that's public comment and there's a lot of comments made there and uh apologize to the council for uh my outburst, but take it very seriously when somebody attempts to uh put words in my mouth and suggest that a career finance professional is guaranteeing. I I never said guarantee. There is no guarantee in the financial world, right? The questions about the fund balance were just discussed at Nauseium, specifically about fiscal 24. Uh if the resident doesn't understand that, I'm happy to sit with them and walk them through how it works. Uh it seems like there is a lack of understanding about how the report changes when we cross over a fiscal year and it's projecting uh forward when we don't know next year's budget. Hence the change in the dating scheme shown at the bottom right of the revenues and expenditures page. Um you know other than that the the stop there.

I have a question for you Mr. Hill. Can you articulate the uh decrease in fund balance? Can you articulate why again just for the public record? cuz I think I asked that question that he asked before he asked the question

and you articulated it to me cuz I had the same question because I was looking at the financials too and I've been tracking it. Um and so you can articulate it again for the public I think it would be helpful. So at the time of my predecessors distributing the June 30, 2024 uh unodudited report and then two or three months later my presenting the same information based on what was in Munice. Uh I believe I referenced it when I pulled the the June 30, 2024 uh report. It was suggesting in a surplus in excess of $8 million, right? I think the revenues were four plus million over and the expenditures were four plus million under. Um, you know, those numbers I had no faith in. I've said it month after month. The information is not in Munice. And for someone to think that information that was lacking half of the fiscal year's work to be accurate, I don't know how it was generated. Right? I presented it. I held it constant until I had better information. When I had better information that I believed is reliable, I updated it. And that was done, I believe, over the last two or three months, including today's reports. And if you read the report, I think one of the last things I say in each of them is it is noteworthy that these numbers are unuded and will change. Right? That's the way the audit works. Until fiscal 2024's audit is complete, we do not know what the fund balance will be. All of these are projections and estimates. Whether it was the 8 million from a year ago or what I'm currently projecting is 1.5 million conservatively. I believe that to be fair and accurate. We can look through the financial

reports um that again June 30, 2025 is presented today, right? But we're talking about the decrease in an assumption for the fiscal 2024 ending fund balance that was made at a time when half the work hadn't been entered into our system of record. Now it has been and we're still working it, which is why I have such a conservative estimate. I'm hopeful that when I come back next month, I'll be able to demonstrate that the fiscal 2024 surplus is something higher than 1.5 million. And then I'll answer those questions about why it's higher. And I'm happy to have, you know, work sessions or whatever to further folks understanding about the way governmental finance works because it's really challenging to hear comments made by anyone that are not accurate. Right? because I I welcome folks opinions, right? But you got to be prepared, right? You you have to do your homework before you want to particularly jump out in a public space saying things that are not accurate.

So, if you could just break down just when you have time, I know you're focusing on the audit and everything and I don't want to pull you away. Trying to focus on the audit. There's a lot of other things that are competing, but not from directors of counselors, but um I apologize. No, I'm just saying because I there's a day there's a day job, right? I've got a OPM. I've got I've got a long list of things that I have to do and when I'm doing all of those things on the day job, I'm not working on the audit. But I to prepare for this meeting, I'm not working on the audit. I'm trying to do my best.

I hear you, Director Hill. But it's important when we don't have an audit, right, to try to put as much information out there as possible. What supported documentation outside of this um so that comments like you heard just before isn't made, right? Because we understand I'm not running for reelection. There are people who are running for reelection and they're going to put buzzwords out there and it's up to the staff not to get political, but it's up to the staff to put the facts out there so that people understand it as plainly and simple as possible. Um, and so if you could just

I agree with that, right? But the very first thing that anyone needs to understand is that until it's audited, they are not facts. They are estimated. They're going to change. And when they change, having a bunch of conversation about the change lacks the understanding that they're unawudited and are going to change. That's what we're talking about. We're talking about unaudited numbers, right? 24 is going to change, 25 is going to change, and we're only a month in the 26. I hear that. In the coming weeks, we will have a 24 number, and still be projecting 25.

Perfect. I hear that. Right. Uh I think the the the the the citizen was referring to previous years when we have projections we usually project very very conservative and when we see that number get close to that 15% mark we get a little nervous here in Boomfield. I think we've had the discussion offline, right? That's how um council merit and others who on the council were fiscal hawks. Well, he's not really a fiscal hawk cuz he likes to spend, but others who've been fiscal hawks. Uh and I love council merit. um have looked at where we would be projecting out with our fund balance and anytime it gets close to the 15% and I think that resident was on the council at the time when the 6.5% tax increase happened because of the fund balance was low they felt the need to uh increase taxes so that we didn't go that close to the 15% of the fund balance but that year we were given misinformation because at that point um T manager Jon was saying one thing and then two weeks later after his departure the finance team at the time said something different and then a year later we came to find out that what uh former town manager Hawthon projected was indeed the right number and so um I think he was just saying we're getting a little too close to that fund balance 15% level and wanted to understand why. Um, but is there any additional uh comments that are not addressing this, but anything that the committee has talked about tonight? I'm going to open it up one more time to council, former councelor Curtain, and let him get two minutes this time. Uh, if somebody can take time, we can elevate him and give him two minutes. But we're gonna respect the staff.

Actually, Mr. Chair, I'm gonna be brief. I'm just going to say with all due respect, uh I I'm a finance guy as well. I'm an accountant. I've been on the council for six years, so I know what I'm talking about. And these numbers, the back and forth, the change from month to month, now we're at the council basically made a decision to take a large sum over 7 million from the fund balance. I can guarantee you if these projections that you provided and there are projections correctly their decisions might have been different sir with all due respect. So the information you provided to them provided them with the assumption that they had more than enough to move that into the budget and to put $4 million into a trust fund. So all I'm saying your assumption that you provided to council and their decision was based on your numbers. So please, I prefer not to be lectured. Thank you. U Mr. Chair, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I'll just say this. Um the information that was provided to the council during the FY uh 2026 budget development was the best available information at the time. It's a legacy issue. If the town's audits were current, the town would have had current information for budget season. That's what we're working to return to. Again, it's been four years four years without current information for the budget cycle. Right? The state statutory deadline of December th 31st is intentional. Right? But we haven't had that since 2020 I believe or is it 21, right? So the best available information is an estimate is a projection until it's audited and then we know what it is like fiscal 23 and in the coming weeks or so we'll have the 24 number and we'll know

whether or not the prior projection of 8.7 million or the current at 1.5 or something in between will be more accurate. But until we have audited financials what we're talking about are estimates and the best available information. You recall I kept the fund balance information consistent for nine months because I didn't have confidence in changing it from what it was to anything else. Now I do and it's based on all the work that's been done over the past year to get fiscal 24's work done prepared for the audit. And again in coming weeks once the audit's done we'll know what the 24 number is and we'll be talking about what the 25 projection is. Thank you, uh, Director Hail, and thank you your team for all the work. Um, I do want to note that, uh, thanks to Council Merritt. Um, if we do, or the whoever is here, um, in the future, uh, funds that we want to reallocate those $4 million from the economic development trust fund. We did put a provision in to protect our asset. It's a balance sheet issue. It's still in our fund balance, but it's an assigned fund balance to the economic development trust. If we don't you shaking your head no, Mr. Director here, right? Am I correct that it's still a it's in the assigned fund balance and not the unassigned fund but balance. But if we

You're on mute. You're on mute. You're on mute. It's the committed fund balance, not committed. Assigned, committed. Similar terminology. Assigned, committed, but they're very, very different. I believe the assigned is authorized for expenditure. The committed is not. That's that's true. Thanks for the correction. So, the economic development trust has $4 million that's been committed to it, but to spend it, it has to come back to council to authorate authorize expenditures.

Yep. And if they want to remove it and put it back into the unison fund balance, they have the jurisdiction to do so. Correct. So, it's just a as I was saying, don't budget season to the former council as a balance sheet issue. It's still a part of the town's assets and it doesn't affect it didn't affect the overall budget uh because it was a balance sheet issue. So, appreciate your comments. If there's no additional comments, is there approval or minutes? for July 21st. Move. Uh I move the adoption. Is there a second? I think that conference room is on mute.

Not even sure how like that. Um I'm not sure we have enough people to vote on on the minutes. Council mccclary we don't have any. Yeah. Okay. All right. I didn't know I didn't see the room. Okay. Thank you. So, we'll push these out India to next week. All right. We'll journ. Thank you. No other business. Thank you, director.

We I want to say thank you to Director Hill. Um I I I may not be an accountant, but I understand an audited and so I thank you because you have been very redundant in using that terminology. And this is just to reiterate so the public understands uh you never made a firm commitment unodudited. I think we all get that. And so I thank you for updating the numbers that you had. I thank you for addressing questions during the comment section. And I also want to give kudos to council mccclary because as you speak to the return on investments. A lot of that is to the credit of councelor mccclary and his hard work looking at our funds and how we're investing them. And I just give a lot of credit and kudos to him for the work he's done. And I wanted that on the record before we adjourn. I thank you both very much this evening.

Thank you deputy mayor. Thank you deputy mayor.