City Council - Regular Meeting

WANT TO MOVE US TO THAT? YES.

THANK YOU. SO I'M GOING TO GIVE A SHORT REPORT ON THE BILL MOLLEAN PROGRAM, AND YOU HAVE KIND OF THE TOO LONG, DIDN'T READ VERSION IN FRONT OF YOU THERE IF YOU WANT TO SEE KIND OF OUR LITTLE EXECUTIVE SIGNING. I THINK YOU ALSO HAVE THE FULL REPORT WITH THE EXCEPTS, SO I'M GOING TO REFERENCE THOSE EXCEPTS AS WE GO THROUGH THIS. As you know, we were presented a few months back with this idea from all the person Timmy and about Bill Moline, the idea of building starter houses, setting those city financing those possibly taking even a loss on those. But the idea of really understanding that the market is not producing those and that the city should consider it. So we really took that idea, pulled out little parts of it and examined those because they are going to help us in other developments. then provide you with some recommendations of the kind of ways you could go forward with this. So as I mentioned, the first thing we want to do is really define the what is a starter analysis. So we're looking at an 1100 square foot model. Could maybe have a basement or a garage, but the examples you're going to see in here don't have that. That all kind of comes down to the specific amount of money you have, what makes the most sense, who's buying it, right? The targeted buyers, when we think about the Build Moline program, we think about starter houses. Targeted buyers are going to be a young couple looking to start a family, elderly retirees looking to downsize, or maybe second professionals. There was also the idea of building these on city-owned lots. We took a good heart and looked at city-owned lots. Roughly 70 lots that say they're owned by the city of Moline. They are owned by the city of Moline. But when it comes down to it, I would say maybe two of those are doable right now as far as like, yes, this is a lot. I did great. So the point is, you can look through that exhibit. You can see all those lots. And basically, there's a story behind every single one of them, whether it's a ravine. You think it may have been dumped on in the past.

You know, it has landfill.

Other things that maybe make it not the most ideal lot to build a house on. Of course, we did not include Case Creek in some of the city's farms. Of course, that is something to keep in mind. The city has three farms south of the airport that are basically 70 acres. So I'm going to kick it over to Charles here right now, because one of the things that Charles looked at for us, and like you said there, he was our intern this year, our abundance intern, and worked on this project. He looked at the private layer a lot. So Charles, do you want to add something online? that you were able to find on this?

Yeah, so given, depending on if you don't want to go with publicly owned locks, you want to see if privately held locks would be an option.

So we started off with a list of around 300 privately held vacant locks from Todd that he assembled using ArcGIS, and I went through a little bit more so that we could, okay, if you have a lot of locks,

work simultaneously with Galdman, in which I've done it all. In the end, we found that there's a good deal of them that would work for the program, around 80 that I would consider buildable, and within that, actually around 20 that are really buildable and pretty perfect for the program.

Now, some of them did say that I had to pay money to get them,

requiring them wouldn't necessarily be simple, but it's just something to pass it back to the person. Okay.

So, so also we looked at kind of the economics of building a house as part of this, right? There's a couple different elements to look at. One was floor plans. I know there was a desire from certain folks in the council when older person said to me, here's the idea of having housing plans that are ready to go, basically. So someone comes down to see you, here's a pre-approved plan. Talking to the building official a little bit about that, one thing I would tell you is building a house is kind of similar to a garage where we don't really need a full plan for our content. So we can certainly have these plans in file without support from the city council. They can do it. But what we do for garages, for example, is like a garage packing. You really kind of answer these questions about your garage. We can permit interest from that. Another thing we can think about is staff. It's an obvious reason why we don't have a house back, because it's not something we get a lot of requests for a lot. But we could kind of change the game and be prepared with some kind of packet to help people pre-approach the process. But I do just want to make sure everybody knows that you don't need an archetype for a house. Really, you can design it fairly simply. And the other thing is that typically, the type of app we can see for that is usually somebody who's So I think 250 square foot is a realistic price for a broken house. Obviously, certain things in categories of scale are going to differ with that. And then the top one is a public prevailing wage. We did want to look at, in case the city council doesn't want to guarantee that prevailing wage is paid for the job, now we're looking at roughly 308 square foot. How does that change the bill? Usually the plumber and the electrician are going to be getting prevailing wage anyway. So it's really going to be those others at the top that wouldn't get it. And we also show you here some of the comparisons to like Habitat for Humanity, how they build it. Obviously they've got some reduced costs in their labor and the volunteers. And so that'll bring me back down to Charlie. Charlie looked at a household contribution to the city. So another thing that all the person sent me and pointed out was you can be prepared to lose a little bit on building a house because These are new residents. They're paying for utilities. They're paying property taxes. They're going to your store. So Charles, you took a look at that. Do you want to break that down a little bit?

Yeah, just as Chris said, part of the program is intended to be basically solved individually. So seeing how we're going to repeat the money and tax revenue over time, I just started with the federal tax categories. The city ends up making money from mainly sourcing a financial report very general estimate i would pay it around 3500 uh it's based on a few things you're not counting money going to other taxing bodies like school districts or academy message just the city of melbourne uh and yeah a lot of that money is property tax obviously a lot of the sales back as you've seen though a lot of this in they end up giving out some of that is for capital instead of spending and some of that is just kind of they just regardless like the small copy replacement tax uh and then you have a lot of utilities in charge instead uh i'm sure just very uh rough estimates uh making mistakes in here but for the most part We go down to the mortgage income analysis. Obviously, we're shooting for a caterable housing unit. So we wanted to see what the market we're actually looking at is depending on the house price that we're putting at. So one of the goals was to be at around that $180,000 range based on the third quarter initial report. And we find that when we're calling up all the other expenses, assuming that it company to generally what's advised, you get around a $67,000 to $95,000 for the buyer. If you want to read the calculations for that, that's going to be neat if it's altered.

That does shed some light a little bit when you realize that somebody's got to be making an income to be able to afford that startup. are important things to know so we came we came out of this with some recommendations you know realities whatever you want to call these but i think you have some options right so one option would be hey we found a couple lots that we could build out let's just go start doing it we mentioned we got some higher wages you probably would have to pay um it doesn't end up being a three hundred thousand dollar house is that lot ideal for it, right? And so that's one of the options you could do. Another thing we realized here, we really could consider building duplexes, fixing our codes a little bit to be able to build more duplexes or something even more dense than that. We realized that a couple of these, the properties that are really most suitable for development that aren't farms are a couple that are downtown. You'd be building a different type of building. You might be building something that has a storefront possibly downtown or something like that. So you're not really building a program that's the type to be, but just something that really applies. The fourth option, and I think this has the most support probably from the working group that's been looking at some budget and really for me, is to consider a subordinate mortgage program. This is like what exhibit F is attached to your report there. This would be taking... $500,000 drop rate, so let's become the second mortgage on these. Let's have a subordinate mortgage program that we go in and we support the building of a house through like a $15,000 second mortgage. So you can kind of see, go ahead and zip it up, how that's laid out, how that possibly could work. Want to know more about it, we could have Chris even, he's got like the table in there, we could play with some of those numbers to show you how many feet those are. So it's not saying that that's the way the program has to be, showing you an idea And for example, does that second mortgage have to be something that's forgivable? So maybe the house is sold, and maybe they pay a portion on that loan, but just a small portion of it. Maybe it's something that just sits there, and 10 years, that $50,000 comes off. The city has got a new house out of it. We've got 10 years of that $3,500, so we've got maybe $35,000 of these other benefits to have in the house there. So our recommendation would be to take $500,000 have that in a special housing fund right now, right? So you could take $500,000, have a subordinate mortgage program where you really do work with the buyer, work with the bank, get the 80% first mortgage, try and get 9 to 10 houses built that way, assuming that they're not going to exceed that $50,000 cost. And then, of course, the final recommendation here was recommending partnering with nonprofits, which is something that we always look to do, but do it in a more formal way.

And then there's a final, I guess, sound of the airport, but I know that that wasn't really what was happening with this program.

This was inside of the theater. So, have you any questions on that? If you want to talk more about exhibit app? Well, if you do that, it's great to get feedback here. On page seven, when we go over builder types, I didn't notice this until tonight. You list city prevailing wage at 144 per square foot. What is that? Is that the city public works building it? This, I believe, is a renovation. I think this is the example of renovation. And a question I asked, with this loan program, is we'd have to guarantee it only for new construction. And we need to have banks and builders in line to do it. Because I think all the best programs in the world fall flat because there's no one lined up to do it. And so thoughts about that? And sorry, one thing I missed too is we have to start probably for our land making operations taking more lots. We avoid, we'll demo a lot now and not take a lot. Do we have banks? Are there builders? And frankly, by us owning lots, we're knocking the price down by $5,000 to $10,000. So that's still helping the bottom line. Assuming this machine is working. Do you want to talk, Chris, a little bit about banks you've talked to already about this kind of stuff? So, yeah.

On the builders. So we could procure

So that's that's that concept of one or two builders stable, right? And then it also helps us with, you know, you talk about the price per square foot. So they become our partner. And I don't know if we need to, on the lender side, I don't know that we need to say, here's just a program that's out there because we're making a fairly static program. We do, we've reviewed it with a couple of banks. those benefits that you need. There's different forms of this that exist.

And that's the whole point.

It has to be supported as long as we're behind the primary lender.

Our support rotation will show up behind the primary lender. It'll show up on the equity side of the lender.

So we're strengthening that homebuyer's ability to secure their primary loans. And so we lower their, lower the We also talked about being able to use that, you know, wash, you know, use it and rinse it once to then bring forward this one. We could bring it to the construction period as well. So that we are doing the same thing for construction, the builder, the end of the building, things come forward very quickly. And presented as a construction loan, it matures, that's construction period, going to firm period, it's just going to be the same price.

Is that essentially a way that people might be on the earlier side of their home development?

From the primary care standpoint, they're underwriting of that word. But there's going to be, that's where there's going to be a need for, if you go to a bank and say we've got a supportive mortgage program, it's going to be great. Sounds fantastic. Excited to see it. If we have a program for a supportive construction loan, they're still going to be highly available the risk is significant. So it's not as impactful on the construction side, except it does help lower the cost of care, the cost of construction on interest, lowers the price of the home.

Yeah, I guess I was really saying, because Chicago did this with their built southwestern, what's it called, where they have prioritized people who are not, you know, already massively done quantities in the building industry. It was like 50% Attempt to support entrepreneurship. That's what I would say. That kind of program helps a newer builder or someone that's smaller than the folks that are not. Helps them take a chance on doing that. Yes. Is this something that would be possible to stack with our other housing programs, like our first-time homebuyer assistance that we do, or would we take those separate?

So we did talk about first-time homebuyer, right? I think it's ideal. Some of the other programs, maybe not so, because it could tie to certain census tracts from low income.

It's definitely about a first-time homebuyer. I can't say it's a part of those conversations, but there's ways for any other programs in certain community. I mean, this is my ideal thing for the first time on my program. I think if you look on and sit it out, we included residents portion. So you can imagine that portion. The pre-approved plan concept Whereas I understand it might not expedite permitting, which is great to hear that it's so like, you know, here's a sketch, you know, what we're going to do. If we have pre-approved plans that the city purchased and available builders are going to come in and build the same house over and over again, they don't have to then invest the money. And that, in theory, will translate to a slightly lower cost. So that was like, this could be something that helps generations of people with a one-time investment in our

that's that's where that comes and in some ways it helps the city even though there's not form-based photographs the entire city right it does help with how how things are meant to look to blend into whatever neighborhood you're looking at right if we had pre-approved plans that sort of worked anywhere with our historic town that hasn't you can see the phases of development of the style, et cetera, to go west.

So are you saying that, I mean, the staff really does need sort of some more direction on what's the most attractive about what's left, what they've weighed in on, I think.

And it sounds like there's some say in being generated by this work at loan program, because at the very least, you are helping more people get into the house. but I don't want to speak to that.

I like it for half of the pot we have. And if it works, we can maybe, you know, what I don't like is that it's not refilling its own pot as quickly as I'd hoped. But at the end of the day, we're trying to get more housing. And so, and the reason that door built so much is because they're heavily subsidized by local and state government. So, Well, there's that. So I would say I like that for half. I still like the idea of us building on some of the loss we have. We can just do that. Just because movement is better than stagnation. I don't know. And then like the terms of the supporting program, I think we can argue about later, but that's just my, if we can build two houses, get started this year, you know, that's, That's bulldozers. Were those both the lots that we have identified and pursued for just a single family development or also for duplexes as well? Most of them, if they're zoned R2, are probably not going to work with duplexes by current code. But we have infill standards that we have on clubs that don't. The John Deere Middle School lot is an interesting one.

for me until engineering, you know, Laura took a look at it and she was like, this is why you're here.

So then it was kind of the first thing I started with, you know, like a year ago. That is weird.

So that's got the most opportunity to be provided up and get a lot of units there. That's great.

Maybe it just takes, you know, spending money on doing the geotechnical or something and just getting what's underneath there. Because I know what I'm coming at it from is I don't feel like there's a ton of opportunity are land blocks in many regards so i think if we're trying to use this we're going to like set an example housing and i think the example we're trying to set is density so if i really want to move forward with building anything i think i would be more inclined to say here's a duplex and it's new and it's nice and this is what the example should look like i prefer that than like doing a willy-nilly one or two houses

these random moments. So it's more of like an exhibit pilot project of like, here's what the city would look like with the higher density.

I think that is well aligned with the updates we just made, right? Didn't we just make some this year to make it easier to build duplexes?

For non-conforming units, we know we would envision that our comprehensive pilot is going to have some of these things, right?

Yeah.

I appreciate that perspective. I think that speed is 16 and

I have no doubt we're pursuing into new life spaces as well. I think looking at the two lots that are listed as recommended, I'm not sure those are going to be up for people. I mean, there are places where there used to be homes pretty clearly, and so putting the home back there makes a lot of sense, definitely. just regular neighborhoods with kind of that same size of home. I would love to see us moving forward with trying a few of those, right? I mean, we're putting a certain amount of risk and a certain amount of work into, and it may turn the end and say, nope, that's too much work. It's not getting us enough, like juice and sweet. But I also think that doing that on two dots is probably a great test. I think I was a little surprised, especially through the court, of talking about, like, oh, we don't have so many plots that we own that we could build on for all the right reasons. But I also appreciated that there are 80 available, 20 that were, like, ready, ready in private plots. If this program was successful in the first two months, we'd then talk about, is it worth it to go pursue buying the plots then? I mean, I don't envision this program ever getting over three, four, maybe five a year. And this is in 10 years before we get through that whole list. And more of my people know that. So I don't want us to stop. This is always going to be a small thing. And I think there's a very low risk in the way we sort of set this out to try to get you . So I'd like to suggest moving forward with some of that.

My comment was just on the duplex. I agree. Duplexes are a good idea. I guess my only question is how that would work as far as the sale of these properties and basically the property for the buyer that would have to be more occupied. So I just, I don't know how the property would, you know, work out with a duplex.

Another thing to consider along those lines, one of the Third Street A, 600 block of Third Street A, you know what it is, the Lindquist development, there's about 10 blocks

attached they probably would have two units attached together so they could be on their own line they could be set up where somebody owns one of those units but the cost becomes the scale that you choose the building could be like you're saving money so that's one option i'm not saying it has to be the option but that's one thing we learned going through this it's like oh there's 10 lots in here so that's why we also kind of said maybe it's three blocks maybe it's

I also agree with James. You said that there were two or 20 left that were available. What are we going to do right now?

20, we're just referring to five, you know, as far as one for the city right now. So I think there's maybe two that I feel really good about right now. So let's go with the office. But I think my favorite one, we don't even know yet. That's the next one that Brad's trying to do. I will say, when the story broke on this, I had a number of residents try to sell me their apartment. Because people don't know what to do with it. So they started emailing me, and I got Brad involved. Some are good candidates. There's some off of 41st Street that I think it's been an empty lot forever. They're really good for multi-year. I think if they're close to schools, they'd be really great candidates for that. I do think the multi-pronged approach is accurate. We need to approach this in multiple ways. We build some. We do the loan program for others and get builders to build because momentum creates more momentum. And I think if we can think about it like that, duplexes, I would love. Nothing but new duplexes all over. We've talked about you can condo-wise them so they can get ownership and equity. And so we don't have to sell it to someone who's got a right to that. We could sell it individually.

Sounds like I'm hearing support for exploring multiple directions here. And I'm wondering if staff could come up with basically a triage plan, right? You have a lot. You decide what its symptoms are, right? And then you put it in the right treatment plan, whether it's duplex, single family, it's multi-human. And maybe that's a symptom we already had. We just needed to more organized or orderly or think about it from some newer angles versus like big builders and certain size home and all that kind of thing so i don't think there's anything lost it sounds like that's me anyway it's a good study thank you for the time thank you mr anderson for helping with this project and you know providing some good perspective on it um so chris you heard program. Yes, multiple tracks for the multifunctional.

Yes.

I do want to say thanks to my staff too. I know Brad did a lot of work on his last pitch. I got to mention the other directors. So thanks to everyone who contributed to Paul and Charles.

Great.

So probably then the council could expect another report for the end of the year about this triage plan and how we pull it all together. Maybe It sounds to me like you've got firm ideas for banks, but there's also banks that have representation that's on that board that probably should be approached.

So Charles, we want to thank you. This was probably your last meeting with us unless you follow the progress of this next phase. Thank you so much for joining us.

Yeah, it's been great. Thanks. Thank you so much for supporting me in this opportunity. I've had a great time. Yeah, just thank you all so much.

Yep, and good luck with the upcoming semester.

Yep, thank you.

Yep. Thank you. Bye-bye. Thank you very much. Thank you. Oh, thank you also to Alex, Elias, who's here for supervising and helping to answer questions, running down information, and being part of the team.

Yeah, do you want to say something? Come here. Oh, okay. All right, bill note to our feed review then. Ms. Barnes.

All right, thank you, Heather. I've been behind the ears of city conductors with confidence in all of our charities and services to ensure that they come close to covering our challenges and that they're aligned with us. I want to make it special note that the feed reviews that we're doing are in addition to the thing that you will be looking for in the price list that we just gave you. We are not looking for any codes of operation tonight. We simply want you to share the results of your review and answer any questions that you may have. Final fee review and direction of our future adoption by the Council of the Crown People of the Tar Heels County Procedure Committee. For this year's review, our accounting intern, Lauren Smith, led the charge, working with managers in our finance department, as well as all directors and various staff around the city. This was one of the primary projects that we're all working on. We are very happy to share the final recommendations with you. Since the proposed increased revenues may go a long way in helping us balance the performance of the project, This is Roman's early tenure, working for us as an accounting intern. She's currently attending Bradley University, majoring in accounting. And she's going to be leaving us at the end of the month to study abroad. So, you can turn it over to Roman.

Thank you.

So, as Carol said, this has been one of my primary projects. My internship, I've been here since early May or mid-May. um and so we started i started this project on july 7th proposed to the directors that we would be proceeding with this plan um overall it's we've been doing this for just over a month now accumulating this presentation and then it will have to continue um so in total we were doing 180 feet within the city and our proposal saying 34 recommended for increased more structural change 29 of those fees are projected to generate $67,672 themselves. And then specifically something that we will highlight and focus on as well is five EMS fees that are projected to generate approximately $700,000, primarily paid through insurance, which we will get to prior to today. The purpose of this fee review is to ensure that our fees remain consistent with the city ordinance and our RO and the department review of what city charges we have. The methodology that we used for this fee review is Going through ordinances, cross-department collaboration, make the several fees involve four departments. And also just ensuring consistency and integrity within the fees that we are turning to our residents. And then there was a lot of cross-communication and looking through fee sheets, you will see that there are organ preferences, cost justification, as well as some fees have additional supportive commentary that might have needed further explanation for the fees. The way that I'm hoping to run this tonight will be that I will have an overview of each department, give you an idea of how many fees they have, what's being proposed for the future, and the revenue impact. And then the department heads are here to answer any questions, as well as myself. So, and then if you have any questions that come up that's for the department that's already passed, we will be answering those questions also at the end of the conversation.

So the first two departments that we have are Parks and Fire.

They are not here tonight, but this is just to touch on their fees that are approved yearly by their board, and they go out to bring assistance. So those are in the first two pages of your packet. Is the aquatics admission gone up this year or last year, or is it staying? It's staying. I do believe it's still lower than what it was. I agree. So with that, our first department is police. They have a total of seven fees, which are recommended increase of five fees, starting on each day of your package. Their total revenue impact, if all five fees are raised in the future for 2027, is $16,275. The primary of those generating the most money would be an increase in needed false funds. I think it's because of Chief's relationships and parades that I'm going to ask this question.

It's a large.

I think it's relevant here, but one of the conversations that has come up with Innovation Project mayors that is actually maybe going to be one of our future conversations in the next conference is the fact that everyone in cities across the country are having nonprofits have a very difficult time supporting any of the public parades that they used to have in the past. We know what has gone into making the parade in place with Marquardt Outdoor and i said you know that's been one of our ways of containing either the safety or the cost but is there what do we need to know so that either we as council members can communicate to non-profits or city staff is communicating that it's not just non-profits but any organization that just doesn't have this big bankroll for whatever the costs are to put on a traditional parade. Are you aware of other things besides a parade in place that communities are doing? I guess I'm asking a pretty wide open-ended question. It seems like we're talking about fees and impacts to the community. It's kind of like one of those hidden things that unless you're trying to put on an event, you don't really know how it's going to take place.

yeah so uh i guess i'll start with the expense uh and the liability related to the ratings certainly before i got here it was a little really wild class of the rating routes we had several different and many of those were really difficult to manage and so with the council's approval, of course, we've pared those down and we have routes that are now much more manageable and the costs are known. And so they have a couple of different options for those. The only one that is an outsider to that is the high school curriculum. So we generally know what that cost is.

What is that?

Depending on the route, it could be a couple thousand dollars for police protection. The more intersections, the more police we have to have. Potential impacts on public works as well, about barricades and bollards.

The city has invested a lot of money to try to reduce those expenses and improve the safety of grades.

So as you know, we've bought numerous dollars that cost well over $150,000 in previous budget years to, one, reduce the potential of an air vehicle, a bad actor, or an accident. be at those locations uh you know to tiger vehicles and stuff like that or put our own vehicles in their place the city has fronted a lot of that expense to try to make it better and safer but i think we also have to understand that parades are extremely high liability from the city they're a city function on city streets and they're they're being attacked all across the country bad actors or an accidental incident and one of those It's going to give you a liability fund of two, three, four, five million. So I think there's a balance there that we have to try to strike to protect the city, protect the spectators of those, but still provide a fun environment. I think what you're doing, I think Bass Street has been phenomenal. It's very easy to secure for us. The cost is very minimal, and it's a great festival and great location. I think we should continue to promote that. And again, I'm not the parks director, but from a safety standpoint, that is an ideal place. And I've met with Chris Vaughn over some time about future plans for the riverfront. And we've talked about building some of those features in there. to make those spaces basically self-secure themselves so we don't have to put as much. So I don't know if that's a long-winded answer to you, but I think the other option is allowing, and I think they do, those events can apply for dollars through the special events committee. So that we can tell them what it's going to cost. They only have half of that. Maybe they apply for that money through the special events committee.

Okay, so there's no fees specific to those events that are noted as going up.

Okay, well, so we bill the actual cost, no profit, the actual cost for police services. I believe the fire department does the same thing if they're required by the police. So they would go up based on labor.

Okay. Right, so if

whatever the contract is going to go up three and a half percent next year, the cost for a police officer's salary, go up three and a half percent compared to that same officer working today.

Yeah, and that's just different than a fee or service. Right. Just to clarify too, so when it says NA, it's not that, that just means that you're not recommending any change, right?

Not that we're not recommending any change. So many years ago, there was a flat fee. And every couple of years, they would raise it $5. So it was $45, $50, $55. Well, in about 2019, that fee was not keeping up anywhere close to the cost. We were losing, the city was losing or subsidizing a lot of money for everything. And even the ones that we were getting reimbursed, like Vibrant, they reimbursed us. We were only billing them $60 a month.

So just to also clarify a little dialysis in the weeds, but I just want you to understand this.

25 years ago when I started, the individuals hired themselves to pay the imposter directly for cash or maybe a check at the end of the event. Starting in East Berlin about 15 years ago and also was injured at an event. And it was an argument between the city and the private event about workers coming. So every police officer that is working in an event are on duty. They come to work, they go on duty, and they are covered by the city for liability, identification, and workers coming. They get hurt. It's on us. That officer is protected. But we we can bill them for the hourly rate that we're expending. So it's really, we're subsidizing that as well.

If we're not gonna bill them on workers' comp, the liability, the payout, or any of that stuff, we're still subsidizing them.

In addition, it's expensive to staff,

I have one.

What is the false alarm? I accidentally dialed 911 before and they came to the house. Is that that or no?

This is for a commercial. Okay. There's no alarm. There are no more questions.

So for fire, we have 22 total space. recommending an increase for eight of them for elimination. Five are EMS fees and there are three other higher fees that we'll be talking about tonight. The total revenue, in fact, for this department is $702,375. $700,000 will be for EMS and the additional $2,375 will be for the remaining fees. And your feedback is to start on page 11 through 13 will be EMS fees and the remaining increased fees on page 18. So to touch on EMS fees, which will be the largest revenue impact you will see tonight, that $700,000, which is a roughly 20% increase, and I do see all of this will be broken down in one piece. So I may have included any of those in the summer for a private summary. This is considered a modest conservative estimate as Paul Williams has risen in the past few years, although many things have happened in the past year. And then This is considered very important because we're looking at cost recovery. Currently, we are only covering 54% of our AMS leave per call. If we raise these fees, we will be covering up to 82% with no greater burden on our residents. And this is quite important, and I will talk about in a minute because of House Bill 2785 that is going into effect on January 1st. Looking at our repair mix, it's primarily that our recipients are Medicaid, and we are covering reimbursement through the GEMC program through the state. And then the rationale for this increase is that this keeps our fees aligned on the reporting standards for under GEMT and the upcoming bill that goes into effect. These remain reimbursable through GEMT for any Medicaid recipients, as well as it recovers closer to the actual cost of service without increasing burden on a resident because this will go to the insurance companies more than it will affect our residents. Deputy Chief Soto has partnered with EMS to figure out most of this and do a lot of the work on that. And it's here to answer any questions along with myself on that. And then our Marshall is going to answer any questions on . I guess, am I too early to ask questions? No. I actually have a few questions. So the recommendation to eliminate your fees for the non-resident, so is that for folks who are just like visiting if something happens or those like if we go like out of the city of Olney and we have to give service to somebody out of the city?

A little bit of both. So we actually have the current ordinance has two parts. Residents are charged less than non-residents. we go to the driver and pick up somebody, somebody in a car accident, or yes, we go to another municipality, then we would charge them at that rate.

So why would we eliminate our non-resident residents?

I mean, just a question.

Why would we eliminate them for our non-residents and then increase them for our residents? My only question is that I actually had one of my neighbors reach out because they had received about a $1,900 bill for... emergency services, they have uninsured. They have lost their Medicaid. They were uninsured. So that, I mean, they're unable to pay that. That was my question was, what about the uninsured? Because you can recover it through the state program with going to insurance companies, but how many people don't have insurance?

So when we look at our care units, we're about 55% Medicaid, 18% Medicare. So those people are not going to have their own. Of that, 9% would be considered self-pay. Of that 9%, a good portion of that would end up going to a third party, like for a mortgage class, or they had insurance, but they didn't have proof of it at the time. So there are going to be a small percentage of people that will get that bill for that $1,449 because of that reason.

you're saying what we're trying to do is digits single digits of percentage of the population here that yeah i'm just yeah no but i guess i just um with i know that medicaid people are falling off like they're changing the requirements there's work requirements people are falling and they're falling off on the scale of seeing this i guess i was concerned about about those fees and if there was a way that we could somehow work I think the one that I ended up talking to, he referred to a level of assistance. I'm not sure if that actually happened or not, but just having some kind of program to help those folks. That and other KJ programs might be, like you said, but I hear what you're saying. I don't know what else the other council members think. Why would we eliminate? Is it too hard to track down non-residents to get it paid?

No, I think it's just to simplify it. And that was one of the things that in a meeting with Barry and Bob that was talked about and decided to pursue it that way. So everybody would be paying the same amount, whether you're a resident or a non-resident. And that $1,449 per ALS call is $1,231 for a BLMS call. Got it.

Because the way I was looking at it was that there's a current fee, and then we would just take the fee.

So we're just taking away the non. Got it. Okay, thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

I guess I read it that way. But I'm still wondering why? Is it an administrative simplicity? Like, is it if we're going to subsidize someone, I want to subsidize residents? Yeah, and that's, that's something we can still keep in the ordinance. So The reason we came up with this number, the $1449.88 less and $1231.30 bailouts, is because we submit, we joined that GMT program several years ago.

So we have to justify the cost of what we do. So we submit an application every year. It covers in-person health salaries. vehicle information, all that kind of stuff, goes into a formula that we submit to the state. And they give us a number that says, this is what, it's not covering our total cost, because that's $1,700. But they're coming up with a number that says, this is what we are going to subsidize you guys. Because in the past, what would happen is, we would build it on the old fee schedule, resident, ALS wall, $965. Medicaid that, and they would send us $340. So, GEMT is the most helpful part of that gap, because they're having ambulance services that are failing, because, again, the majority of the patients are Medicaid, and they're not recouping the cost of the actual cost of running the Medicaid services. So, what they do is they subsidize it. They give us, even right now, we bill them for a resident 962 to an ALS call. They send us $1,440. Then the way that that works with the state, the state of Illinois has said that the money we receive from GMT, we give them 50%. So anything we get from GMT, the state gets 50%.

So you're saying this is an easier way to calculate and point you back to the state?

No. If you guys, we were told to take that out. That's why we're presenting it without the resident versus non-resident.

Oh, I know.

Wow.

My personal experience is very different. Unfortunately, once I got unconscious in the middle of the night and my 17-year-old son called and went. After I got there, we were like holding. I have good insurance. I was billed $700 or $1,050. I'm thankful that they agreed to take it in this format.

So this is where we're almost talking about with the new bill that's in state law that takes effect January 1st, 2007. We can no longer, what happened is your insurance says we'll cover this much, then we would bill a patient fee balance. So with this new act in Illinois, we can no longer bill the patient back for difference. So by bringing our rates up higher, the insurance companies then have to looking at what our rates are, and then we have to send it to the state. And then we'll be deciding what our rate is, the insurance that we have to pay, and that's what we would get.

To build on that as well, because it is pushing to the insurance companies, it is also continuing to protect our residents as well when this bill goes into effect because the state is in subsection defense here. They're all the way through it. Subsection B-15 also protects residents that they cannot be overcharged by an insurance company or what we are considered as a whole whole out-of-network service provider. So they are, and that's a lot of words, they are required to meet us halfway. The resident has to pay up to their deductible or whatever their plan outlines, and then the insurance is taken from them and we cannot lose out on them. And then looking to kind of go back to that, for those who cannot pay, the 9% of our average calls is being increased. Again, roughly 550, if that, depending on the year you're paying calls, that would be the number of those impacted by our increase. But on average, we are taking about 6,000 calls a year. So that is a small portion of that that are actually being affected. But across the board, this bill is protecting more people and is protecting us. So we want to increase rates.

So you said the state takes half of what we're receiving at those payments, and those payments still aren't meeting our costs, or is it after the state takes their half?

I would say after the state takes their half. Although, I think, no, I would say we're still not getting the $1,700 that it could be.

I'm sorry, that's what it was. I'm sorry.

So they're subsidizing it to give us . And it happens. So we're still emerging, which is going to help out a lot.

I think we're at around $700,000 per state last year after we . And I think it's important to call out too that my problems with this are not we are building our fee structure because we have to remain solvent my problem with this is a stupid healthcare system and saying that we're forced to push this back because we are like there is no doubt we are we are punishing the most vulnerable citizens of our country and i appreciate though that we have other methods but i also think it's very important to call out that it's not

call it finance or if the fire department that is what we have i was wondering though you said that you ran full bill was there anything in there regarding uninsured people at all Yes, as far as . It eventually goes to the elections, and if they take some time, it would be right now. So it would be . Certainly that, too.

The president was . Do we know what other area departments are doing?

As far as like what cities, I suppose. Yeah, I believe Rock Island, reading their ordinance, looks like they have differentiations between resident person and non-resident. And looking at, I had, or so I've been sharing a little while with her, colleagues that she's in a group with. And they send us their grades. And a lot of those were not . It's a majority that were not . But again, a lot of those are .

My little anecdote here. I appreciate all this. I think it's great. We obviously need to do it to help with the bottom line. One time I've ridden in an ambulance in the last couple of years, my insurance company who was billed said, well, this is part of your deduct. And so you're paying the full amount. And so the talking points that we need to be ready for, I think people that regularly need assistance, obviously it's a different scenario than someone who needs it once a year or once every 10 years. They're paying out of pocket for these rides because of our

crappy healthcare system that has a high demand. Yeah, insurance companies will spill a charge of cocaine.

To go back to the non-resident thing, something that will kind of shift that with this bill coming up, is that we are an out-of-network provider. We don't contract with insurance companies. So even if we are charging this rate to someone that is from out of town, they are still protected under this bill, regardless of whether or not we charge them more for being out-of-network or in it. So at that point, it would be consistent for insurance companies to charge again rather than charging them two different.

But they are still protected under this bill, whether or not to charge the same rent.

So I'm not quite sure. I'm hearing the counsel understand what you're saying. It feels to me like the jury may still be a tiny bit out on . I think I can address that a little bit also, because with the GEMT, HMS services, they can review what our fees are.

If we are not charging what they're giving us Medicaid, they can say, well, you guys can do it for me.

They can lower our G&T reimbursement. I don't know that that will happen, but from everything I've told, it's a possibility. So what I would recommend to not have or to keep the resident as a non-resident, I think you could raise the non-resident up to those levels, $14.49 and $12.41, and then have a $200 discount offer for president whatever it is that we whatever you guys decide um part of this thing too that i would recommend too is as the gmt rates increase our ordinance aligns with that which is a lot against how we're doing that as well it's built in there that people charge what the gmt rate is residents for that pay for your own yes it's definitely possible would you have a breakdown of

how much um the feedback can be like how much people have to be sure compared to progressives and non-residents or like what the difference in all of our what the knowledge out is so what is our next time that we'll move in this particular issue is it september or october but we'll have another chance to understand more.

And I appreciate you wanting to set the rate in the ordinance to mirror whatever the current rate is. That removes politics from this conversation, and I think it's really a good forward-thinking approach. And I guess the question is for non-resident, is it a flat fee or is it a percentage that we go over? And that's, I guess, something we can discuss in the future.

Thank you. Are there any other questions from the other committee? Those could be found on the team. All right, the next program we have is Chinese. Our total scheme we have is 14 fees with a recommended increase for two of them. It's a very small impact coming from the tribe department. It's $448. Our two fees we are recommending increase is outdoor carnivals, which we do home services, we have the Chapel One at South Park, and then secondhand dealer licenses, which is essentially a thrift store license. And in both of these, we are recommending increase for our just to keep pace with cost of wages, and because these are people to be collaborating with outside departments, so there are other wage factors in those.

Those are on patient support.

Any questions?

Yep.

Hello. The carnival is $125 plus $50 per day. Does it apply to $50 then?

The $250 is the application fee. I think it's $50 per day that they offer, right?

So, okay, but I'm having trouble with the bathroom.

Yes, I'm sorry. The second in the order is at the pawn shop, or what's the difference between the third one and the fourth one? All right, we have the clerk, and we have three toll fees for them, like one recommended increase for tobacco, They have three classes of licenses that they are recommending increase more. That would be class A to 175 and class B and C to 150. And then their total department revenue impact, if we decide to increase, would be $2,750. Something to note, when you look at that V-sheet, it's the chunks that we have from surrounding municipalities. We are either in line and or behind other departments. cities that is something to keep in mind thank you The next department is Public Works. We have a school of seven fees, recommended increase for one of their fees, and a recommendation for a new fee. And they have their total revenue impacts, and can be put forward. Both of these would be $11,110, and they are on page 45. This would be the old ways that they got paid back. Is there a plan to go back, especially since it's new?

I didn't even know you could do that.

All right, so our next experiment after that is we have one engineering but they have no They did not have any recommended increases for any of theirs. So we are going to go to CED specifically within planning. They have a total of 25 fees, which are all nicely consolidated on one page for you, so you don't have to go through them. They have no recommended increases for their fees, but they do have four new fees for flood development that they have requested. And then it is a total revenue impact of $3,940. given the amount of permits and applications that can be applied for them. What's the difference between PUD preliminary plan and PUD outline development plan?

The outline is kind of like a sketch idea that you might have, but you just want to see what the application thinks about it before you do the report.

You kind of come up with just a sketch idea of something. So if someone wanted that now, they would just get it. assess a higher fee.

We don't charge a fee for it right now. So it was just something we discovered that we don't get it happening very often.

I was wondering, I know you've had preliminary conversations about short term rental rules or capturing, you know, moving away from just an honor system to an actual like everyone will pay. I don't know if the council is aware, but we've been in a little conversation about it. I think you may have done some work on it as well, very grossly under recording, I think. So I'm wondering, was there any idea or thought given to a short-term license or fee or license of any sort that could become a guaranteed small revenue stream? I mean, we have, what was it, 40?

40. about 40 short-term rentals that we know of.

Some of them, like one just off the block from me, is absolutely a home that people could be living in, family could be living in, was living in before these people took over. So I don't have anything against people wanting to earn an income from a short-term rental, but if you're going to take that off of our goals for affordable living, then I feel that people should be paying. So I don't know if you've thought about this yet, or if the council has thoughts.

So Bill and I met about it this week. So this process is a little bit ahead of us on short-term rentals, but the easiest thing for us to do would be to have just a $1,000 short-term rental fee.

That would be one of our rental units.

That means that we've got about the whole time hotel tax because it's not really being collected basically anyway. If you get caught, maybe on the forgivable year, but next year if you get caught not recording anything, all right that's the easiest thing for us to do may not be the most refined yeah that'd be the easiest thing for us so do you think we could see that reflected in the budget by october yes i think we i think we probably could i think that would be smart way to start we discussed a couple of different ideas anything beyond the application period that was just raised we get into enforcement issues about exactly how well we would be able to enforce it.

The application, I think we have a lot better chance of getting close to, or never going to happen, but getting closer to 100% enforcement would that be as opposed to structuring it.

And then would we be assured that there is a to following up on a periodic basis, like once the know about and bringing people in line?

Well, so if we know about, that would mean they're going to be inspected and get graded. Then yes, we'd be searching like we, so right now, you know, we either get complaints or we notice things, you know, my staff would notice things and say, that looks like it might be real. So then we might find something that way too. Or you can go through the Airbnb site and just search and see what you find. So that's one thing Bill and I talk about. It's like, once you go to that website, they're kind of sold for it.

Well, I guess what I'm saying is if you're going to institute a fee, um,

That's checked on a yearly basis. It seems like we should also note how it's going to be administered within the organization, right? What's the periodic follow-up? Is it every six months staff is going to do it? I feel like maybe that's in writing to make sure we're actually doing it.

The way I was thinking, and I haven't thought about it all the way yet, but I was thinking it would be like all of our other rental units, but there might be a reason to say at least we can follow up with the Saratoga and others. Okay.

just to make this, there's going to be a differentiation machine, like the short-term rental, that is that like 30 days from here to Iran, that that is, you know, maybe they're rushing it out, because I know that sometimes they'll just have a certain number of days so that they're not considered that.

We define a vacation rental unit as less than 28 days or more of a time, right?

So you're basically, you're a rental unit, you go longer than a month, or you're less than a month if you follow through this vacation rental list as an exempt.

So we've been changing that exemption

so um i would say we should be searching the rbo everything ourselves periodically just to create a list it's going to be a boring four hours a month or four hours every six months but i think that's the most surefire way unless bill we're not the only city that wants to do this our airbnb and vrbo do they worked with municipalities to give lists? Is there a precedent for this? Not that I'm aware of.

Actually, when Chris brought this up to me, I had about zero knowledge of this particular type of regulation. We can certainly look into cooperation. But I can tell you that my experience,

more that a company functions on the internet, but less that they cooperate with law enforcement.

Just to be clear, short-term rental ordinances are being done everywhere. Yeah, yeah.

I was unaware of it, but they are. That is something that's on my mind. But with companies that engage in internet advertising, that's an area where you typically don't get a lot of cooperation.

When you're dealing with internet usage, there is a lot of protection of privacy from government.

They don't usually protect the privacy of their consumers from other corporations.

They sell their data to anyone who will buy it, but they do try to protect themselves i i can't explain it any better than just isolated okay airbnb does have a city portal so i think that they are they've been forced to comply and so i think you know david we might want to spend a little time they might have apis and we could just maybe you know i'm sure the other ones too i mean so there might be existing solutions yes there's been more discussion with the plan I would say that's the reason I ask is the zoning fees are very high. I think that's going to be interesting to hear about the municipalities, but really understanding what we heard in the language that like it's hundreds and hundreds of dollars, like the notice is paid for it.

If there's a way that we can work towards cutting that out and like meeting more like where that opens up with their views with zoning, that would be so much more development friendly if we could just like take an easy win. So if there's any, Over and around that, that's definitely a direction I would take with the zoning is if we can get a change noticing requirement, this could be a lot cheaper and a lot more enticing to get good ideas.

As a variance, they want to pursue and just get an answer to see if they can stay on their own line.

I think we should charge hundreds of dollars just to ask them.

That all brings up a good point because if you look at what other cities charge, you can see why I would not want to go. These are the same fees we've been charged for probably for 15 years.

You can see why I would not want to go higher with these. Um, and that's another great point is that newspaper notice is one of the biggest problems, right? Other than the salary.

Um, so we really tried to not have more barriers to deal with these things. And I think we're able to remove the newspaper costs. Continue.

um today with ced we are going to go on to building um they do a massive tool 55 these four with schedule changes and one note i would like to say that we got it now um there's one unhighlighted that's above page 65 so complete page 62 through 64 of that um we have one recommended decrease and four new fees uh those decreases are coming from license which Alex has provided a thorough explanation of the impact of her revenue on her licenses and the impact of her movies and why she is recommending them.

The great thing that Drake and Alex came up with, that $50 land review fee, should have had a lot of folks that want to come up and get their whole business designed by her, right? So it takes an hour of time to explain everything and then they kind of go away. That fee is refundable if they end up applying. All right, so they'll get that, they get that, the education for her to come out and find all those codes, and then they end up really going and getting their license, that 50 to not be charged here.

So I thought that was a great solution.

Okay, that's all right. And then finally, we have utilities. They have a total of 20 fees with the recommendation of three increases, two eliminations, and three extra changes. Their total apartment revenue would impact to be $22,028 starting on page 91, and your primary focus may be paid in late pre-98 and 1-0. We're looking at a combination of these structure changes for the turn-off and non-payment, turn-off payment, increases for the quarter main tap, and an elimination of the large tap. So these are worth an increase, which you can search for as well.

So similar to like the fabulous discussion of that large diameter and eliminate it's just that you've caused a small entropy.

Yeah, so we are requesting elimination because if we're lucky, we get one for a plus a year. Thank you. Further? I just have a question. listen to the group of the six here. We are hoping that those will be pleased with the new program. But many of you would have followed my K-2 in just prior to January, so before I came to the center to talk to you about our transition a month ago. We made a lot of changes since we did that. All of those are very customer-centered. A lot of this came from how to delay your request. We brought in the mailing and the printing of the wire utility bills into Illinois to get the bills to our customers faster. We also extended the period of time, that cushion that we gave them, because USPS does take a little bit longer. It used to be we just gave them three days before the utilities were on, now we give them seven days. Um, the other thing that we did was really create that new customer portal that allows them to get paperless bills. Um, we have 45% or so that participate in paperless billing. Um, one of the things we talked about too at that time is we were at 11% auto pay. Our goal was to get to at least what the values act, which was the highest in the area of 40. So we've been thrilled with the enrollment in those, um, Paying with billing in the auto pay. Really trying to give everything to our customers that they need so that they don't get the same taxes. So having done that, we're to the point now where what we'd like to do is start from mailing out a past due notice, much like what Empiric Energy does. They'll give that notice rather than us posting that food notice and charging $25 at their property. There is some cost to bailing that out, and there's some lost costs from not having the posting. So we're considering all of that when we come to this decision, to come to you and say, let's match what our surrounding discops are doing. Instead of just charging 5% on water and sewer charges every month for those that are late, let's go and do 10%. I don't know why we didn't do that on the stormwater and the trash, because if they weren't paying for that, they wouldn't have done it. So this is kind of just bringing it to the point that makes sense in what this rhyming disability means. We're not proposing being like Crystal Lake and charging 20%, but we think 10% is reasonable. And what that does too, it allows our meter crew to start focusing on replacement of those aging meters. And when we get more, accurate readings from these new meters, that is . So we really need to start .

I like the transition to new software . It happened very quickly, as I found out when my credit card didn't transfer to my new system. By the way, a lot of my system problems As we go through, do you know for sure if there's an expectation that those are more effective or less effective?

We don't know. We know that a lot of the municipalities don't post to the doors. One of the ones that Rock Island, we used them back in 2024 because they weren't, they're now moving to monthly billing, but they were doing 5% of the total bill. but they were also placing a notice on the door that they were using a third party to do that, and they were charging $35 versus our $25. So I think this is your right to stop your approach. We don't know if it's going to be as effective. But again, we always try to think of what can we do that's more customer-centric, and I think this is a good service to set that up.

I guess Matt would just ask, as we track that along, and then we suddenly see, like, oh, yes, it's working, but because we took the blue notice out, now we're getting way more late, because obviously the blue notice comes as a pretty easy way to take care of it. So that's my only concern, is that it's kind of a backstop. Some people that get $45 a lot better than I love, because they're better when it's served enough. I just have to be curious if we start to see that.

do want to see what that impact is going to be. So we're suggesting a three-month transition period where we're sending up a notice and we're continuing to post as well. And then we'll see if we're seeing those getting paid and reducing the number of new notices that we're having different. And then hopefully we're seeing a reduction in the number of water shut-offs.

And when do you think this is going to happen?

Well, it depends on you.

We'd like to start that.

I'd like to bring an ordinance back to you if

two things about this one is the new meters are great because not only are they more efficient but they can shut them off remotely uh without going in like at the street and this is really important for multi-unit because some of them share the same water surface so one person doesn't pay both people's water. So at least that's what the tech told me the other day when he came to do a reading for me. They're looking at me, Janine, like I might be wrong.

I'm not sure that we're going to be able to do that. Well, that would be great if we could.

Okay. For the future thought, as far as trying this out, I'm proposing an idea.

We do this at work when we try new things. We do A-B tests where maybe half the city gets flu medicine and half don't. Is that something we could feasibly do and then compare? Or am I being too scientific about this?

I also need to test all of this. When we were talking about the marketing functionality or product functionality, I think it's an appropriate behavior. I'm not sure I feel it is appropriate, but we'll talk about it. I do think you should test against, do we see that rate increasing? Of course. Challenging economic times and other things to play into that. Very much. All right. We have our city. So we could do it for one zone, but we will see higher, higher number of notices in certain zones.

And so it would be kind of hard to engage that.

In a randomized way. Well, this would be a tentative reconciliation.

Let's stop saturating randomly. Sure. All right. Anything further on this item? I don't think so. So we've got a couple of things to come back. We've got time for a little further discussion. And thank you, Rowan. Thank you. And the director. Yes, thank you very much, everybody. I was just doing a great job. So we'll move to item 7.3, the 2027 to 2029 Special Capital Improvement Plan. Or both. We're going to switch things. Okay. And we're going to start out with the PowerPoint. Christine, we're going to start with that.

Yeah.

All right. Excuse me. I was getting there. Hello. I'm Daniel Davies. I'm the Economic Development Program Assistant and former intern So thank you for bringing me on full time. It's nice to meet most of you. For those of you that haven't, good to see you again. So to start off that special capital improvements fund and projects, we obviously know that the riverfront is going to be a pretty big core component of that. So this is kind of just to go through some of the riverfront financial that we're expecting, analysis, and then some of our recommendations to ensure the project functions in the way that was promised by the adopted plan. So to start off, just kind of talking about how this aligns with the strategic goals and to the level that it does. So the riverfront and center plan itself directly and indirectly impacts the strategic goal across all four pillars outweighed in the strategic plan. There are 17 unique goals that I identified here. Could be more. But it does deliver renewed infrastructure and streets, adding over 250 housing units to downtown, creates new retail and commercial opportunities, and then creating that one-of-a-kind civic amenity in the new amphitheater. There really isn't another project in the City of New England that really tackles the strategic plan quite like the River Fund does. So where we are in that process currently, we've invested over $5 million to date, and restructuring the design team really reduces our initial schematic design costs by 15% and shrinks our schedule by a year. So that's something we're really excited about. Some of the things we've done so far include that for parcels, the procurement of new contractors, subcontractors, and then the creation of the master plan that you guys adopted last July. But even with all that current investment, our current funding levels are still too low to apply for grant opportunities and really start leveraging the dollars that we do have. And really increasing our funding for the riverfront is going to put the city in a position that allows us to better leverage our dollars in a really meaningful way through both public and private investments. So some of the things that have been done so far include those like ESA phase ones and twos, our geotechnical reviews, site surveys, and more. And although those aren't necessarily physical improvements, they do establish a really good and informed method for moving forward with this project and check a lot of boxes for us in the city, our different grant reviewing bodies, and private developers. So to reach a position that really allows us to take advantage of different grant opportunities, talk with private investors, More dollars are needed. But thankfully, we do have options to really get us there to move this project forward in a meaningful direction.

So starting with that, going back to Bill Moline, as we talked about earlier in the night, really create those new info development projects.

And with this team, we really are a big fan of the support and mortgages program and that $500,000 funding limit. So you can see on that right, that's an excerpt from people's exhibit F. your guys' renewal lien report that kind of walks through and visualizes how that program exactly functions, but really viewing the city as a lender that's supporting the position and procuring home building partners to deliver projects efficiently. So, and with that, it's also providing an additional $1.5 million in riverfront funding while still delivering new homes in the city, if we fund at that $500,000 level. So you can see there, as we walk through the example, $180,000 home price filtering down with a $50,000 supported mortgage gives us, and that home bill of equity of $9,000 reduces the loan to value that the bank is prior to pay to under 70%, which is something that we really like to see and the banks really like to see. It de-risks a lot for them, provides the residents with an interest rate, and also just allows that. So we're not trying to mess with you. I'm just going to switch to the computer. real quick question does this exempt them from PMI well that's a good question because like that would be a huge primary we're trying to get to the sub 74 so that would be huge as long as they see as long as they see this as equity which would be with the right term so I heard in our previous conversation

Downtown is right for multi-family stuff, right?

Like there were a couple of sites you said were downtown, but they would probably not be single-family homes. So then why are we using numbers that are single-family home numbers that we've talked about? That 180 is like the cost that we were thinking of building something.

Are we using 180 here? Yeah. It was just because that's a suggested number, just using that as an example.

But it's different building types. We're not going to build single family downtown in the riverfront.

But the two most buildable lots aren't. No, this isn't that.

Did we not just start out by talking about the riverfront project?

Budget. We're talking about budget.

This is just a discussion of the project. Yeah.

I'm crazy? I think you're jumping to a conclusion, but Yeah, could you back up with what's the training was that about how we're bringing money to the riverfront by spending money somewhere else? Yes.

Something didn't work out.

Apparently, we have $2 million allocated towards a home buyer, any good old program. We talked about the housing fund. We have $2 million sitting there relatively. Yes, ma'am.

$1 million is $1 million a year, and then $5 million is $5 million. but the adopted budget is $2.6 million.

Over the three-year period of a budget is $2 million. So this says half a million for the loan program, 1.5 for the river program.

So it's reallocation. Reallocation is $2.3 million. Taking it to bringing it to $500,000, freeing up an additional $1.5 million.

Somehow I was like, how is that?

Okay. So...

I can't even see this far. That's too much. Bottom right, the slider there. Don't use the slider, you use the question mark. So this is, now we're just jumping into the example of this. 180,000 a yellow. We can have fun with this. We can play with it. Change the cost of the house. I'll walk through it, but we'll just keep it at 180 right now. If we have a $50,000 mortgage, again, we can play with this number however we want to. And just asking the home buyer to put down a 5%. Change that to 10%, you can see how things change in requirements, but this 5%, that's $5,000 down for the home buyer. Again, maybe utilizing other programs, assistance to get to that number, adding in the $50,000. So what the buyer, through the program, brings to the table, to the bank, helps that position focus into the sub-70% on the primary regulation. Looking at this program, we did it for 10 years. But this gives you the flavor of how we can approach our justice to one, the value that it can be, and how we can use it. So looking at a 10-year program, 0% interest. So it would be a 0% interest loan that we're making. We are, in talking with banks, having plenty of institutions, I highly recommend that there's some level of repayment on the principle. Mainly because a mortgage doesn't get forgotten about and it's out of sight out of mind someone goes to sell a house and then all of a sudden the second mortgage pops up at the time of company i think that was a great issue so they went to sleep live there's something that people are paying on and it's also a form of building equity so again this is uh if we we can then do a couple things um what level of forgiveness does the city want zero percent

So it's a live supported mortgage that has to fully get paid back over time. We could leave 50% in as a forgiveness of 75%. And we play with what that looks like as we establish the program.

But what it does is, the concept is, if it's a 10-year term here, zero through six, there's no level of forgiveness. So it's always a live supported mortgage. And part of that is met.

but there's always a good concept of an anti-clippant.

So if it was just a two-year, people just wait it out and flip it.

If it's a tool that doesn't go long enough. So 0-6 will stabilize this and thus keeps it from being an anti-clippant tool.

Over that period of time, at a 50% forgiveness level, they would pay $2,500 a year, $15,000 per decade. I don't know the principal, so that's part of the equity that would be in their notes too. Then we could take the balance of we're going to forgive 50%, that means $25,000. And then year 7, 8, 9, and 10, it's a program of forgiveness of 25% of the amount we're going to control how we're going to forgive each year. So the base state there, 10 years for the forgiveness, our target of 25,000 forgiveness is realized in year 10. So any time they leave before that, it's just adjusted in C. over here after you know they're continuing they're continuing payment into it each year and whatever year uh they the things that uh leave this directly paid back this would be the balance out there on that so at the end of the day uh we have to give them the 25 000 in this example but we've also recouped the value of that person being a homeowner in the city building because we talked about a little program yeah i was going to say you have to build

but 3,600 times divided into 25K, and then all of it would be an intake for forgiving.

That can increase every year. So this is saying here it's 50,000, this is 50,000 square feet.

Yeah. So if we forgive 25,000, and you want to make that up for the city's bottom line, and they're contributing, those that move into those homes and get that forgiveness, They are contributing $3,600 a year in taxes and whatever.

So it's eight to nine houses.

It would just be on the purchase. So they would have to be a resident per set. So this isn't technically this would force something. It's not an entirely new home.

So this concept, this supporting mortgage program is a product for new construction. So this is a concept we've partnered with the home builder. This is a specific program.

That's what I'm saying.

That's my only concern is I can accept some not recouping the investment, but if you're going to do it, all of it, if we're saying we're increasing, you know what I'm saying? The impact of their of these existing means you'd have to have eight of them a year at least to have the impact on our bottom line not be zero because of the forgiveness process. Does anyone understand me? I'm doing math like this way.

No, because it's years. We are forgiving $25,000 over 10 years. $3,500 gets us over $25,000 after year seven.

so technically the zero through six forgiveness doesn't cover but it we fall short one year and that will probably work okay thank you for that you know me long enough you can do what i'm saying and and just as a comparison when we build moline and build neighborhoods everything increases uh we don't care about return on investment on roads because we understand they're economic drivers they bring people to jobs they bring deliveries so that the benefit outweighs In theory, that's the theory anyway. And I think that building homes is the same concept.

I was just concerned we weren't here. Before we were going to be like, not able to keep up.

That fund wouldn't become self-sustaining.

No.

Because that $3,500 was not allocated here. We spent away at other places. So, I mean, this does become a fund over time. Yeah.

But the overall economic impact, if it's a winner, then we can look to continue to fund.

And just to be clear, because we'll already repackaged what was happening when we first got confused, the start of this statement, you're really saying we should take out of the $2 million, keep $500K, but invest $1.5 into the program?

Yes.

Just in case anyone else said it that way, I think we're getting there.

We're getting there. For a point, I would still like us to explore buildings and units from that 2 million. As we discussed, at the very minimum, it's a pilot to figure out what's doable and what's repeatable so that we can do a multi-pronged approach. I know that might take away $400,000 from the 1.5, but that's just, you know, and here's that just just to add it said earlier that's you know this ultimate construction period leverage if you took that same 50 000 provide that as a city construction or with the builder as they as they take down their finance right they're going to take down the construction loan they're not going to take down 100 sales prices it's less than good work PROBABLY BUILT INTO IT. SO THERE ARE GOING TO BE LESS, BUT WE STILL BRING THAT SAME 50,000, WE'RE BRINGING THAT BUILDER IN A TRAFFIC EFFICIENT FOR THE PRIMARY CLEANING. ARE WE, THE MAIN GOAL IS THAT THE PERSON IN THAT CONSTRUCTION IS, SO EVEN THOUGH IT'S ALSO A FACILITATED BUILDER, THIS IS GOING TO BE ADOPTED IN THE BUILDER IN TWO MINUTES. THEY'RE ALSO GOING TO BE

This is where he did this. They have to travel through this first round. It doesn't have to at all. Either way, they're going to be partnering with us. And that's just the other piece of it, too, is that the builder, the home builder, we have to, as you're talking about it, create a relationship with their extension.

They are truly the city's home builder.

The city builds themselves.

We bring a builder inside through a selection process and to help us complete this program.

So that's the, that's the, it's not just, it's just the leverage. It's a risk, you know, it's also, we don't do the self fund back to the bank and loan from the construction. And then it's collections and billing and everything.

So this is just how it could exist and good recycling. And it just really goes from a front to social.

Yeah.

full amortization table with it, so people know once they've prepared it, they just have a glass of game.

So I'll stop. That's just more what we have.

And it's bigger, at least bigger than that.

Yeah. And to move on to our next slide, as much as we would like for that $1.5 million reallocated from the original two of building the lane, to fully fund the infrastructure that unfortunately will not get us there. So to fund that process, we are recommending the issuance of a GO bond in the amount of $10 million for the initial infrastructure and design engineering. This really does ensure that the project can move forward as planned, gives us the necessary things, and also provides us a lot of leverage and grant match opportunities and moves us to a point where we can start to the private market talk with private developers when bringing additional dollars in so i'll turn it back over to chris to kind of walk through what this funds on a more specific level um year over year um both with seeing leveraged grant dollars as part of that picture and also just looking at it from your standpoint of what is a 10 million dollar bond so um in part to read i know but uh here's the takeaway

The dark gray column, that's 2025, that is reflective of our values.

So it's pretty much before.

It's healthy to take a moment to realize we spent a lot of time on that already.

We're in all the acquisitions that have been paid. So we have allocated significant dollars that are some positive. So we're getting to the result.

is payable, is paid out of current funding.

You'll see in the CIP, special CIP, we'll walk through the current funding, 2026, 2027, 2028, in addition to attending to the fund.

So in blue, that means we already have the dollars in, or proposed in the special CIP, plus the $10 million in fund.

So,

2026, and we did this because it's also, you know, things are happening, but what are we?

So 2026, so environmental science assessment phase one, phase two, geotechnical studies survey, these things are done. We need to launch, and this will be part of the upcoming resolutions for restructuring the first design services for the architectural A&E,

and for a similar period at the schematic level. So it gets a split plane design, the infrastructure assessment, the remnant class at the existing buildings in the tower.

So that's site schematic design for that.

Amphitheater schematic design. And then the planning. Well, all those dollars in 2006 were half spent on the board design to go, but also it was $2 million, which we had budgeted for demolition. So what that is, I think in 26, it takes us to a point where we're in demolition, advanced demolition.

We're starting to get to milestones and useful things.

Then we're halfway through, well, we're all the way through the critical assessments relative to the cleanness of our site, what it takes to remediate our site.

We're de-risking this overall site for ourselves, but mainly for the private market, absolutely.

So that's what we've been doing since 26.

And those have gone fantastically. in the big picture of how we're very encouraged by as well as geotechnical. And we have a clarity on the approach we're writing to the main mission plans that we have. But the demolition will be done, then we'll have floodplain design. The remnant plans in the existing building should be in the same tower.

Parts to where it comes on the north side. We'll support the whole building that's inside of there. that through demolition are going to occur. It's a fantastic, great structure. It's great.

Again, the east end and the west end of the ship during seeding. So those buildings exist. They're there. There's interest. We already have a tenant who had to live.

Parts where it's actually 100,000 square feet, 8-4, 14-9 seedings. It's going to create a lot of problems.

It's going to be a fantastic space. It's going to be a restaurant. It's going to be a second floor to that.

parts warehouse, I'm assuming receiving 5000 square foot 35 feet into your class. So it's these are highly leasable spaces. Follow up the center of that design approach rates into your plaza surface work.

So it's very urban warehouse district. Very, very very urban. It's a very strategic way and a very forward way to repurpose those buildings and create a figure on the pulse and identity to the site.

So it's also supporting that physical support that it's a component to the power. So those are things that are highly tangible. De-risk, demolition, and advancement.

I know I've mentioned a couple of you. When I met the new director of Vibrant, I said, you've got to talk to him and we have to bring him in on the design of it because he mentioned that he's seen plenty of places to like build this thing, expecting artists to use it and, you know, an end mark associated with making work. It just doesn't work. And so then we have to plan with the people that would be.

So is that happening? Oh, yeah, and you'll see, if you look, if you go to the right of the amphitheater, as you go to DD and CD level, that's a grayed-out box, and then you keep going to the right under 29, the amphitheater construction, I think that's a grayed-out box. The amphitheater is a fantastic opportunity for us to learn, especially for you and others. It is a very, I mean, it's supposed to be a little separate activity. We have to push off, but we work with it, so... You just jogged a memory. I had someone in the community reach out and tell me that an amphitheater, that there are a dozen empty amphitheaters in the Quad Cities. Why are we adding another? And so do you have anything that you can give us to kind of respond to that other than we're going to partner with the arena for booking? I mean, like, question mark what is a good response to that if that's within school for sure um i'd like to know which does in their art because i don't think well well here here's what i said absolutely subscribe to that is uh we can hit this equally and the bolder and harder it is is i don't guess next year later so uh we in our design we came leaning towards those natural, organic, site- and place-based.

So that's one of the themes throughout the player equipment. It's natural-based discovery. It doesn't just have plastic equipment. It's more it's working in a natural-based discovery.

Same thing with the amphitheater.

A really good example, a little score point knowledge.

So it's a softer stage with all of the AV capabilities there.

It's a softer presence. The main thing is, is that they have the iteration that they're looking at.

So it should all be just a continuation of the garden. So in the sabbatical, it's still for your grass, it's for your vineyard, it's for the lawn.

That part makes sense. I think one of the best takeaways from the MBA, so we talked about PMT and what was helped with, with the Spiegel building originally was the feasibility study. So if the amputator doesn't have something like that done, we're probably missing something. Again, I don't want us to be in that boat. I do understand that make it useful in multiple ways. So it never goes empty. Like we don't want a stage of nothing happening. It's permanent. Like we see down here. But

feasibility study but we want to do that with experts and partners yeah so that would be according to this it's like in the next year right yeah so maybe we need to be active on that now that's going to inform the overall park design that's the square age and the occupancy and the attendance with the level of attendance which is going to inform parking so

And this is always hanging out in the back of my head, so I'm gonna throw it out while we're talking about this, how that impacts or plays off of fast street landing. This will also be an important part of . So, 20, you know, 27,

You're trying to get a snapshot. What's the value proposition? What do we get for this? And so it's really two things. So it's more tangible. So we're identifying things. We know what stage we can get to with that level of investment.

That's one thing. But also just facing it head on. We're meeting these additional people. We have already invested in the current product.

And right now, we are basically on the path for 20, 26 months. We'll get through 26 months first.

not additional so this is where the geocondition that's a certain way to for example i think that's the problem we should communicate so we're really not so designed um but again fantastic ways to to advance in the efficiency and what we can get to uh good stewards of 10 million dollars but 27 say environmental cleanup again necessary we need to continue to do this for projects

um and start eliminating the structure to activate that then plaza um and then also the construction design construction to make those leasable spaces so as we work our way down 2027 they're also seeing at the bottom and we're triggering private development that's coming into the site as well so just with that benefit class of just a little private investment as we compare buildings and make them feasible form gray shells. This is additional, that's what we can call it. And then I'll include floodplain, that's going to be a big part of the hardware existence. And then 28 really takes it to, you start to see it take it to the next level. The main thing being the infrastructure, the floor-to-floor infrastructure construction, level one, that gets us perimeter roads, gets us a whole accessible site, doesn't really get us to the tier. And then additional funding is going to go through, starts to open up this, dollars identified that we've identified a grant opportunities um don't explain that but this is where we also succeeded so it's a lot that we can pursue and some of them were very high high confidence on it um and then we're going to go through that so this is conservative on the league michigan france and we got to

this is like this is set up a lot of conversation no i i mean i haven't even though it requires us to be in the geo bonds at least it's 10 million not 20 right i mean that makes me happy that this sounds more like at this point where this space is more like what we did before yeah yeah and we created a very short payoff period for that so that's what we do you don't necessarily so the tables that you're using what's in gray those dollar amounts do not so you can see it's in the bond it goes along with grants and other dollars dollars are expensive that's what that's what that is the level for the group

the gateway to attract a lot of guests from Rassi, hotels, restaurants, and park garage structures to really realize things.

So that leverage, we put together kind of economic impact for that.

We should get private development dollars there. What's next?

new grant opportunities that open up on that $10 million bank. So like you're saying, it's not $20 million, but we're hoping it's 10 million that nets us 20. So what you see on the screen right now is six grants that we've identified. It's not an exhaustive list of every grant that could possibly be available for the riverfront, but they are some big ticket items that can definitely provide a substantial amount of funding. So what we've done with budgeting is take a conservative approach and look at about a 25% hit rate, success rate, on that bond to get to a number of about $12 million in leveraged grant proceeds coming to the project. So got a map here, so we can just kind of visualize where these dollars can go. And as we're looking at this, starting with kind of our higher confidence sources, that's gonna be ITEP, and it's going to be a Brownville three development home. So ITEP looking at infrastructure streets coming in there, just in the center of the site, Looking at that, trails, boardwalks, streetscapes, so those trails to the north. It also funds a lot of additional site elements that accompany trails, boardwalks, and streetscapes. That can be things like trail lighting, overlooks, viewing area, that promenade. So that's what we're looking at for some related stormwater things. Donna, is there anything you want to add on that?

No. So it does not put any roadways. So it's only for pedestrians or streetscaping. Like I said, it does fund a lot of the extra things that I go along with it, but it's a great program.

Is this then replacing, because a few weeks ago you asked us for ideas, this would be replacing any of those projects? Yes.

So we didn't get the U.S. EPA Brownfields grant that we applied for earlier this year, but in the debrief, they connected me with the Illinois EPA Brownfields person, and we've had a conversation with them, and there is some state funding that we can tap into, mainly a Brownfields group development loan which is going to be 50% forgivable at 0% interest rate. So it's kind of like half grant, half loan at 0%. Um, so that we feel this is, you know, pretty much, you know, we're going to be able to probably like 90% sure we're going to be able to get this money. Um, so that's really encouraging, um, for us and a good, um, you know, about for us to clean up. So that is something we're working on currently, assuming, you know, this special CIP budget. Yeah.

So that'll help with a lot of the remnant buildings by where that play garden is, our bridge plant building, our mediation plant. And we've got that marked at about $800,000 that we'd be looking for from that project development loan.

Moving into the really more competitive

higher ticket item grant opportunities that become available. First, we're going to talk about BRIC. That's all that resilient infrastructure, anything to reduce floodplain damage, floodplain losses. So obviously, a lot of that's going to be looking along the Mississippi River, looking at our wetlands, looking at our stormwater storage. That funding range is anywhere between $10 to $20 million with a 20% grant match on top of that. Moving back down into more roadway infrastructure, there's BUILD. implementation, not design and engineering this time.

So, you know, we applied for Build in the Past, looking at some of the more internal design and engineering. Didn't quite pan out for us, but there is a secondary implementation portion of that.

Funds anywhere between $5 and $25 million at a 20% grant match. So we'd be looking at more existing roadway infrastructure right now for that, and safety improvements there to focus on the transit-oriented stuff.

also maybe like thinking about gateway with BUILD because we're looking at that a little further out so thinking about connecting the gateway to River Drive and making those kinds of connections which seems to be more in line with what BUILD is currently funding rather than redevelopment you know their focus is really hard on roads and safety so Our internal redevelopment project is not hitting safety because we don't have any safety data. You know, we can't show that this is an unsafe space because we don't have drivers, we don't have accidents, we don't have any data. So we haven't done the debrief on that yet, but I'm sure that that's going to be kind of what they're going to say. I still think there's an opportunity for build down the road and I don't want to dismiss the opportunity. It is large money. And you know, if we can work out, you know, an implementation on that, I still think that that's feasible.

I just want to point out to the council where, you know, Brock Island applied three or four times. Five. Five? Holy cow. I think he was one of the earliest I don't know how many campaigns like, but, but so I'm not surprised. I mean, I know it's disappointing that you put so much work in.

It is. It was a hard one to swallow, but I do think it's just, it boils down to the safety and not meeting their criteria.

One of the, definitely one of the most competitive grants out there for transportation projects. Big cognizant of time to talk to the last three. two grants that we have listed fairly quickly. First is the EDA Public Works Grant. That one has a pretty broad scope. It's public infrastructure that goes towards job creation and public investment. So if you look at the map, you'll see public infrastructure that goes towards job creation and public investment. So we'll identify and narrow down a scope that we're looking to apply for in the grant. Something that's appealing to us is that it does pay for parking facilities, which would be great for our structured parking ramps. within the development. That's a huge cost that a lot of people want to take on. And then lastly, there is Auslan, parks grant, park development, park adjacent structures. So where we see the play gardens, the water feature, that's funding up to $600,000. We've looked for. Going back to you need to tell us just briefly, the match requirements for that are actually variable. And although it is unfortunate for us that this is in an economically distressed environment, for the purposes of the grant application, That actually reduces our grant advantage by a pretty significant margin from 50% down to 20%.

Yeah. Yeah, possibly.

Possibly down to 20%.

And we're looking at that one like it's a rolling application that's currently open. So we're going to start working on that one again, assuming this budget gets approved. So we haven't dove in yet, but we're ready.

And to wrap up, really, the Adopt-a-River Zone plan, as it stands, is really dependent on aligning the revenue plan that Carol will go over with soon to execute the vision properly, even with the additional geo-bonding and the additional funding from Bill Moline. Without adhering to the revenue plan as proposed, we run the risk of not being able to cover the bond interest and bond payments in a way that moves the needle enough to get us the private dollars of public investment and grant match dollars that we need to make this fund successful. So on that, Chirino, I'll turn it over to Carol.

So to summarize, and I know it's getting quite late, but I think I've wrapped it up in about 10 minutes, but you have a few more. I have a revised schedule. I'll put it out in a second. I think I'm going to walk through this very briefly, then talk to Robert, and then we'll talk about it in a minute. The very first cover letter. First of all, the revised can now friendship from everything that was just presented in the film. So this is the one way that we can do that. However, as Daniel said, to do that, we need to affirm Council's commitment to the Special CIT Project's fund in general as well as the firm's fund. And what that really does, just going down the list, And to show that commitment, we need to grow our existing revenue streams actively and see grants as well as issues. So let's walk through that a little bit in the plan. What I've done, if you don't mind, it's handwritten on a spreadsheet. Just so it's easier for you guys to kind of just see how it flows. I don't want to go on that. is our $200,000 annual increase in property taxes that is going to provide additional revenue to this fund. Last year, we took a year off. If you remember, it would be a dollar budget.

And I actually want to thank you for this. Thank you so much.

Well, it's a two-inch, so we're going to hand out number two. Thank you. You just got the information after the state your contract is out.

This is going to require some further discussion.

We're going to have this over here. We just got our statutory minimum required contribution.

For our fire pension fund, it is going up, and it's attached.

The actual copies of the statute are going to be attached. Fire is going up 25%. Police is going up 8%. The general levy for our CIP, I'm basically holding the same. Currently, it is at $724,000 to be at $26,000, rounded up to $740,000. Basically, $15,000. And then our debt levy, again, that's just me and I on those pension obligation bonds. It's up $32,000. It's just in schedule. That brings us up to 4.94%, which is just underneath our, the cap, I mean, for a public hearing, statutory cap. I will say this as part of that. I'm already working with the Parks Department of Libraries. We're going to ask them to stand down. additional living here we're going to have to look at some additional transfers just knowing going into this budget we are looking at a minimum living rate of probably 850 steps

Very consistent. I also think it's really important to look at this. We have made decisions of putting certain things into our property tax category that we know are going to be consistent and are going to be ready to eat up folks. We have the property parks, the property library, fire pension, police pension. But I think it's also important for us to look at this and realize that There's funding, funding for any of this can come from outside of property rights. So, I mean, obviously it's going to be a longer conversation about all of the changes and additions, but I mean, to say that we can only pay for these things if we do it with property, technically it's not true. You are saying that, but it's, I just want to make sure that we're knowing that's not a limitation that makes sense. That's just sort of how we have come up with the high side of this environment. So we could change that at any time, as we need to, based on the energy increases that are going into this.

And we know that as we progress through this project, we're going to put it all on the table, all of the resources, including the potential energy increases that could be reallocated. But I just want to give you a heads up. I am not recommending, because we don't have a plan, for the CIT team that's going to do this plan, number one, We are holding up on property tax increase until January 1 of 28, not 27. We come back in September at the roundtable. I hope that we have assessed values from the assessor so we would have a better figure on the growth. Right now, all I have is pitch leave and meet the requirement that's required for the pension. I'm going to fly through the rest of this. Number two is our... gas and electric franchise we talked about this as well we are currently at 50 percent in order for this plan to work we have to raise it to four percent and five percent by the year 2030 that's this plan there could be other plans i'm just saying i can make it work if we follow this plan What these mean is, is number one, I'll go back to number one, that property tax increase, going forward, that's 28. Every year we pay in people's rates. Only this portion of the taxes. For the riverfront, 200,000, it would mean 75 cents per month, or $9 a year for our residents. To do that 200,000 every year for the next 10 years. Looking at the gas and electric, we raise it to the four and then to the five. For every 1%, it does translate to $1.65 a month. So it is more than franchisees. $19.80 on an annual basis. Again, there's two hits, and then we just stay that way. 5% is our maximum. So we're going to be going through several times for the next one. I just wanted to get that out. Having these fees in place, it allows us to issue the $10 million, number three, and it's 2027. It allows us to issue $10 million in general terms. Keeping those fees in place and private taxes is a real pain in the wrist for us. Someone said that, but we have to pay for those. And we don't pay through alternative revenue sources. The county will simply assess the bond ordinances. They will tack it on to us. So I mean, we will have a plan. Number four is we'll want to continue our $215,000 transfer in from Canada. In September, I'm going to go through that. Right now, I need a little more history. But we are, it's crazy, we are in a 50% reduction in the state. It is up. Not that 70% is up, but the options are lower in their prices than the market in the 16th century. And so the state, as well as the city, we are just getting a little less in the case of the crime. It's a problem so we're all moving down. product is still simple. But I'll have more on that for the discussion.

Is there statewide legislation to get rid of like the THC alpha that's probably eating the slightly not legal or the slightly legal products that are stealing revenue share from dispensaries? Yeah, actually, I know a lot of people but know more about the industry than I do think that. And I've read quite a bit about it. Questionably legal, I think, is a good way to describe it. And that, I think, is why Congress and the Federal Assembly both passed laws to make it clearer what exactly the legal requirements are. And I think that by next year, we should start to see the effects of that. Maybe we will see a mini boom in the legal cannabis industry because of not having that particular competitor and body spread. So there might be a horizon.

Is there a world where we take control as a whole world and pass rules about like daily stuff and their presence in our town. I mean, just we balance out the competitiveness ourselves.

The difficulty that I see with us taking action that we would influence ourselves is that many of the things we would do require testing, chemical testing of the products in order to be able to prove, it would be our burden to prove that it wasn't the only that would be substantial costs if we pursued any substantial government agencies. I really like the idea, in this case, I don't usually say this, but I really like the idea of letting state government take care of it. Generally, if your plan is to let state government take care of it, you're not really planning. But this one, I think, is...

It's a little bit like licensing. and the piece that we are doing, the different, I mean, tobacco license on your part. I'd be curious to see what you'd have to say about when you get a little more detail on what are your commitments for this year, like through July, because then it will have been two years, two years, three years total that we've done it comparatively, well, not comparatively, but the other thing is, like, we just have to look at what works Monday already, but

I'm all for us taking extra steps against those questions. However, I think if the state doesn't step in, it's not going to help the financial sense. In fact, I think it will negatively impact us too much, but that's a trade-off. But if the state doesn't do it, then people are just going to drive to Rock Island or East Long Beach for their questions. So in that case, I think that is what we're, we want to make sure that it's that way.

We'll have a lot more grants in September. Right now, we're wanting to create that $215,000 in the plan year that we did on the Riverfront Establishment. We are going to continue to gain the $500,000 that we used to tax the private jets that are in. Y'all mentioned, and we are seeking out a high-tech grant. You're looking at that for 2028. That would be a $5 million grant. $1,250,000,000 sitting in the hatch. And this, I need you to look at the numbers. You follow 28 down the road. You would see $5 million in revenue. You see that for $6 million. Now follow it down. And you would see Our infrastructure, which is normally $2 million a year, is being reduced to $750,000 per day per year. $1,250,000 per day per year. Oh, I see. The extra $2 million we put in for streets and all your... Just one time, and then it goes right back. Yeah. I can understand that. You're like, please, I'm going to sit down and write it.

But it's still infrastructure. It is.

So, yeah. And that's why. But that's it. The next one is, as Don mentioned, we are seeking out that. That's number seven. And then in May of 27, we are looking at, as we've been talking about, $127 million finally for our fire station. On the expenditure side, then, those revenues, if they indeed are intact and all in place, provides equality. Number nine. It says in 2026, the current year, demolition of Bridgepoint targeted $2 million. That's going to be determined based on bids that are going to be coming in, but we think $2 million will come close to covering it. It does cover it. Also in 26, we talked about Good Moments, Wonderful Moments program. You'll see that on my sheet number 10, close to Sodom, there's your family members. We originally had talked, and we'll talk more about this in a minute as well, that potentially what we're going to do with this program is transferred out to our Revolving Loan Program and have that be kind of under that umbrella. There's also 250,000 in that Revolving Loan. So that 250,000 plus provider, that would be managed under a separate umbrella. It won't come out of our special CIP program.

Next. The Revolving Loan Fund is in tax.

So it's 50,000. So we've already started with one of the packages.

So that's kind of a well-oiled machine that's working. Let me pull up that already. Process and application.

Next is every moment. And you'll look to the side, right-hand part of it. $22 million in riverfront projects. This is what was just discussed. The $10 million funding plus the $12 million of grants. $22 million. I have buckets of money there. You'll see $4 million, $6 million, $6 million. We don't know precisely what that cash flow is going to be. But that's kind of what we line up. But Chris just presented to you. Questions on that? Next, 27. I mean, 13. In 2027 is where we have the influence facilities on the expenditure side. So you look at the bottom, close to the bottom of the page, you will see. $27 million that is going to be paid out to the fire station to build it on line 21 at the big spreadsheet, line 21, number 13.

And then in addition, we have earmarked the remodel of the city of Chambers.

I continue to be a thumbs down on that. I just, there's so much stuff. If it was the air conditioning that's a problem and other key components to this building, I personally don't understand it more, but we're functioning. It's not ideal. We're functioning. We have to get this thing done. I don't know about anybody. Sorry if I spoke too fast. Yes. I personally think we have not been heard. We did not want to move forward with stop but i'm glad and so what i believe in is i are you wanting me to remove there that half a million dollars we'll put it up it'll be out in that highlighted yellow it's going to the riverfront or whatever we're needing those are strictly for remodels that's not for like maintenance or anything like that but it's not it's strictly without remodels

I definitely agree with that piece of the puzzle. I think there were other building upgrades, and there may be others still that you have to deal with, security, help around, I mean, making the building function, but I think that's not the case. I think that would be great to say to everyone that's reducing the property tax. We'll move that better than you.

Okay, and then the very last one is we do have in there number 14, you know, right here, 850,026 and 850,077 for the design and mechanics. So if you look down to 27, that's kind of what's proposed right now. Revenues and expenditures have potentially engaged outside that theme. But as we circle back in September, we're going to talk about it a little bit more before we actually finalize that budget. or your information is very important. Yes.

I guess when we're talking about security and machine of sports, I am the only person who refuses to agree before we have the action. Like I said, no, we're not setting up on that two years out. We'll set it up in a year when it's kind of that time. When we approach this and we're trying to represent that financial readiness, I think that would be something we can, I think, get ahead of. Because we're trying to demonstrate that convenience. Because I think we did that with some of our utility funding where we were ready for certain levels and we had to do it a little further in advance. Usually I like to wait for the last minute to say yes to a meeting and build our three-year budget on it, but let's not sign off on it there. But I just think that's a different way of demonstrating our readiness for grants.

It's important.

Because we have to provide that documentation that this money is available and secure that So that's going to make her wishy-washy. I've never really confided to you. What happens if we don't do the property taxes and we don't do the franchise funds? That would be last thing. You'll see the first two yellow highlights, $740,000 between $740,000 and $727,000, everybody. Now follow it across. That would be freezing the property taxes. i'm not recommending that what if we did that then what if on the natural light number four the franchise fees we're going to freeze that too in 2028 if mid-america raises their rate it's still frozen see the 1 million 8 going across the board what does that do to us bottom right hand corner we're now 11.6 in the total which means we would have to look primarily See my hand right here. Currently, we've got $22 million allocated for our CIP infrastructure projects. We're trying to allocate $2 million a year of $3 million. We would have to reduce $12 million out of that line for a combination of the riverfront at $5.8 million. Combination of those, we would have to cut $12 million somewhere to rank this fund. fire station it's the cumulative effect that those revenue streams every year building upon each other that makes this program work if we stand down and don't do it and Mr. Carr Even though we don't know what private development numbers in your chart will be, if we're doing things well, and we can attract people, that will certainly reduce what our need is for that bottom line at all. I'm trying to present to start this way. Oh, yeah.

The economic development impact.

The economic development impact, for sure.

The other thing that matters, too, is in terms of the bonding. years, right? All of that. So right now, I'm just telling you quickly, there's a lot more discussion to come on that. The way we proposed it was for 15 years, and it's at 4.25%.

I think, just to echo what you're saying, when we did strategic planning last year, I was adamant that we increase the population by 5%. Bill Moline won't do that, but It is a piece, 10 properties is going to make a difference. But 10 properties plus 400 here plus 50 there. It's really vital that we focus on increasing population because then these numbers in five years will be very needed. Even if we're just getting back up to 1986 levels. 46,000.

I mean, 3,000 people is...

Make a big difference.

This is a path that can help you get there up into here. Anything further on our reports? None. Is there any further public comments?

None, Mr. Lee. It's business. I have none.

Thank you, Your Honor.

I went through a groundbreaking today for the YMCA with the mayor, who doesn't want to mention it. But no, it was starting on the new facility. It's a great community partnership. I'm glad that they've chosen Moline three times in their history. And I'm glad to be still here. It's a great investment. Thank you, Mark.

I'll just say, as you can see from tonight, we had a couple of top-notch interns this summer, and it's always kind of a journey with the interns and how that program will go, but I just wanted to also thank the staff for sharing your expertise with the next generation.

The other staff. None.

We need a motion to adjourn. Second.

Second. All in favor? Aye.