call. Ready to go. It is 11 o'clock. Want to call the Tuesday, November 25th, 2025 city council finance uh committee to order. The assistant clerk will please call the role. >> Councelor General, >> present. >> Councelor Pegland, >> present. Councelor Mack, >> present.
>> Announcement of open meeting recordings. The open meeting recording is uh posted on the wall there if anyone would like to read it. Is anyone here recording other than staff? >> I hear none. Um, next we have reading of prior minutes. We have uh the November
12th, 2025 um minutes here for us. >> I make a motion that we approve the minutes as presented and wave the reading. >> Second. Motion made by councelor Matt, second by councelor Heglin to wave the reading of the minutes and approve them as presented. Is there any further discussion? None. All those in favor say I.
>> I. All those opposed. Motion carries. On to section two, first time on the agenda. Item 11735, an order appropriating $95,000 from free cash to the landfill closure account. This one is a resubmission from the mayor. Um,
and what was yours, Mr. Mayor? >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, it looks like there are two similar copies of the letter. The newest letter is the one that ends uh with the uh with excuse me contains the date of the November 12th
um meeting on it uh where it explains that uh I misspoke at the last meeting uh due to crossing projects. In my mind, the additional cost from the $75,000 to the $95,000 uh is related to increased costs that are currently being incurred over at the landfill. Uh the auditor
here uh is uh with me because this came at his recommendation. Uh included in your packet is the original schedule for the appropriations that we have going forward with this. When this was originally created, it was with the $75,000 in mind with the idea that expenses would increase by 2 and 12% in a given fiscal year. And looking at the
trends that have come through the department, um the trends are trending a little higher than that 2.5% per year for that's coming from the auditor's projections from now until the end of the fiscal year. Also included in your packets, the original budget order uh for the landfill that was adopted uh as
well as the mun breakdown uh for where that account is uh to try to show where the trends are moving forward uh with that item. And I'm sure the auditor would be able to answer any of the more technical questions with that. But that was the main uh reason for the increase from $75,000 to the $95,000 uh from what
we would normally do per the schedule that we have here included in the patent. >> Go ahead. So basically it was the uh the department head at the time was doing the budget. He's the one who increased the budget that much and he has a basically when he submitted the bud
budget he had the whole breakdown of what increased and all that. Uh air pollution increased uh five $5,000. Uh ground monitoring uh $10,000. Uh utility went up I think it was $5,000.
So it's not coming from me. It's coming from the department head basically that did the uh budget. Um if you look [clears throat] that's what was approved um for the FY26 budget is just under uh $95,000. It's uh $94,310.
Um that's what was approved for the budget. So basically that's what is needed to fund >> questions. Um, so we're approving 95,000, but $94,310
is what is needed. So we best just approving the amount that is needed. >> The order I saw is for the 94 even though the letter says 95. I believe the 94300. That was going to be one of my questions. >> Yes. Yeah. So the order is what carries more than the letter
>> because I'm just going based on Yeah. >> This was for 94310. No, this is the um >> that's the budget. >> So, but you'll notice that there's a signed order in here. That's just so you can see that for your reference if it was approved for the budget. So, this 94310 is the budget order.
>> What would carry here is the order that was included above that um 95,000 even. So, I mean, if the the committee wanted to change it to that 94310, that's certainly under the committee's purview, but this is the order that would carry for that one right now for the 95,000.
>> Okay. Thank you for the clarity there. You can tell from the item number in the top corner they're different, but I understand the confusion too where it's a two-page document. >> Um, for the questions, >> I think so. How much is in the account now? Do we know?
>> Is it the 90 cuz the the chart you've given us too like the breakdown says 94,000 is in there. >> Yeah. >> Yep. Yeah. That's what was approved for the budget. So yeah, that's what that's what's in uh as far as the the budget in there, but to fund it, well, it's just
general fund is has been funding it. So that's >> because there's no revenue being produced. >> There's no revenue. Exactly. >> Exactly. >> Yep. Yep. >> And so the projections too as well that chart we have is I assume going forward needs to be updated. >> Needs to be updated. Yes.
>> No further questions for me. Um, I'll move to recommend to the full council the order be adopted. >> Second by councelor Hegman, second by councelor Mack to recommend adoption to the full order to the council. Is there further discussion? Hearing none. All
those in favor say I. >> I. Those opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. Uh item 11736, an order appropriating $15,000 from law department salary and wages account to law department expense account. uh
outside council. Mr. Mayor, excuse me, solicitor is here as well. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Uh the city solicitor and I have been uh working through a couple of the um personnel issues that have uh come up
recently um that uh we'd be looking to contract with an outside council firm. Um there is um you know attorney Dominelloo whose uh fee schedule proposal uh is in your packet is someone who we have been working on with some of those there too. Uh however the uh
budget line item that we have in the law department's uh budget right now has been expended for that use based off of the uh various different items that have come up. Uh so where the assistant study solicitor position had been vacant for actually up until very recently I want
to say 2 3 weeks ago. um looking at removing the funds that were in the assistant city solicitor position that are not going to be used by the end of the fiscal year into the outside council line item so that that could still be an on call resource for the city solicitor. >> Thank you. Any further add?
>> I would just add um we kept the assistant solicitor's position open uh uh with the mayor um and I um trying to gauge you know the the real uh volume and and uh velocity of all that work that's going on. We came to the
realization recently that we'd be better off having the assistant uh position filled because we want to keep things moving as opposed to being parked on my desk. Um and um you know though I think that's helped quite a bit, but we were able to return quite a bit of money you know last year, but I don't think we're
you know this 11,000 or $15,000 needs to be used for uh some specialized um uh personnel issues that we have. I have one one thing specifically going on right now I've never done before. So I have would much prefer having someone
that's gone down that path uh several times as opposed to someone who's not gone down that path before handle that for us. >> Questions? [clears throat] >> No for me. >> No, I just appreciate the fact that you know you find this to be necessary and
this better use of your time in trying to research some you know get involved in something >> um that you haven't experienced. And um it's important that the city is represented appropriately, especially when it comes to any type of individual or employee issues. >> Thank you both for the documentation and
outlining of what it was for and um who the services are going to be through. So thank you for that. But I would obtain a motion. >> Move to recommend to the full council the order be adopted. >> Second by councelor Hegman, second by councelor Mack to recommend to the full council that the order be adopted. Is
there discussion? >> None. All those in favor say I. >> I. All those opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh on to sub subsection three in subcommittee item 11721. An order transferring $1,000 from health
department salary and wages to health department operating expenditure account. Uh this item received further I know we've received further information surrounding the expenditures but um Mr. Mayor further to it. >> Sure thing Mr. Chairman. Uh I know the
committee requested uh the inclusion of the quotes for both the copy machine and the postage machine. So those are included here in your packet. That's really it. >> Thank you. No further further that further to add. >> Okay. Um further questions from council
>> for me. I appreciate getting the additional information. >> No and how quickly you got information and more information. So thank you so much for that. I know you have a lot of other things on your plate, but it's really helpful to have this and see the breakdown of the two costs and where the place goes. >> Thank you.
>> A motion. >> I'll make a motion that we um recommend uh the transferring of the funds to the full city council. >> Second by councelor Max, second by councelor Eglund to recommend approve the order to the full council. Is there any further discussion?
Hearing none. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed. Motion carries. Item 11723, an order appropriating $100,975 from free cash to the city stabilization account. Um, we ask for some further
information on this item as well. Um, Mr. Mayor, you want to speak to it all? Sure. >> Um, the included in your packet for the additional information is the breakdown of the deposits and interest that has grown in the stabilization account uh over the past several years. Uh, this goes back to 2019 just because that's when we took the money out for the
Watkins Field project. Uh and then it also does include the 625 that was taken out in 2024 uh for the um salt sheds project. That is the vertical chart that you see here. Um mainly because it didn't fit any other way. Um and then in
the um uh portrait uh directed chart that you have there too is a breakdown of what's been received so far in interest and through appropriation uh into the the stabilization account. uh there's a $133,238
difference in what's been appropriated versus what's been taken out of the stabilization account. But when you add the entrance to the interest to that, that's where again the line in my letter was meant to be the the amount is now the equivalent amount is now back in. But we are still working on paying that off with interest as had been previously
stated and is included in the financial policies that are there. But that is the breakdown of how the interest and the deposits have gone into the stabilization account over the last couple years. >> Thank you. questions, comments. >> I think I think I just I guess I'm curious because I appreciate that I'm
glad we're still paying it back and I like that the money is in there. I just I'm just worried that this number is still just not enough. I think if we're sticking to that goal of, you know, 3 years putting the amount in to pay this back truly. >> Yeah, I don't disagree with that, too.
>> Is it just that there's not enough extra free cash or is there a plan? There's >> I think I said this additional >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah, I think I said this at the last finance committee meeting where because of how trends went at the last fiscal year, particularly with health insurance. I'd like to be a little more
careful with our free cash this year and save a lot of our appropriations until the end of the fiscal year. Um, just so we can see where things trend now that medics rates have been set, but going into the winter with snow and ice, um, you know, we normally can expect between 2.5 to 3 million in free cash. This year
we ended up closer to $2 million. Um, and honestly, we can see where the trends all come from, too, where that happens, and we kind of were expecting that. Um, so that wasn't too much of a surprise for us, but it's just more being careful at the beginning of the fiscal year so that we have what we need at the end of the fiscal year. Um, we're different in last fiscal year and that
we're fully staffed in the fire department and we're getting um with the recruits that are currently in the pipeline or at the academy, almost fully staffed at the police department where last year we spent almost a million and a quarter, a million and a half on overtime between those two departments. Being fully staffed should make it so that we don't have to worry about that
on those ends. But we won't know that until we get to the end of the year. Um so that's why um what's really going now is just some seed funding to start until we can get to the end of the fiscal year and get a better idea of where we are. >> Appreciate that. Thank you. >> Yeah.
>> Thank you. Further questions. >> Move to recommend to the full council the order be an adopted. >> Second. >> Motion made by councelor Hegman, second by councelor Mack to recommend passage of the order to the full council. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I.
>> I. All those opposed. >> Motion carries. Item number 11727, an order appropriating $100,000 in free cash to the landfill pump repair of cap. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Uh the additional information that was requested by the committee is included
in the packet. Um about 100 pages worth of it. Uh but that's mainly from the bid document itself. So you can see the specification breakdowns. There is an email chain between the auditor and the former director of public health that does break down where the funds are coming from, the full cost of the project and everything of that nature. But that's why we wanted to include the bid
documents there too because that's where the cost estimates for the full cost of the project came from. And you can see what came in as the bids versus what we were estimating for and that's where the increased costs uh were incurred. Happy to answer any questions that you have going from there. >> And that bid price is still good and
accepted. >> Yeah. >> Other questions? for the contract that we have with the Winnie Bank because that once the contract's awarded with them, they have to stick to that or to the laws. >> Um my only question is based on an
October 1st email that um the former um board of health director said that um quick analysis the funding will be short about 100,000. We had slotted 50,000 on free cash list. Mayor and I have discussed the other 50,000 funding for this project to get done. So
>> going into this, you knew that it was going to you were going to be short. So that's why you're asking the increase. Okay. I just wanted, you know, so it was known in October. >> Thank you. >> No, I don't think I have any other questions. >> I didn't entertain a motion.
>> I make a motion that we recommend passage of the order to the full council. >> Second. Motion made by councelor Max, second by council Hegman to recommend passage of the order to full counsel. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. I I those opposed. Motion carries. Item
11728, discussions on the current state of facilities management for all municipal buildings. Um this is an ongoing discussion. Um I don't have uh further updates or comments at this time or if the committee members have any comments or
updates at this time. >> No, not at this time. No. or I think and keep this on our agenda um and keep uh working on it as the u time moves forward. So, no objection will stay on our agenda. Um item 11482,
discussions regarding the city's health insurance payments and trust fund. Um my recollection is we did get an update uh last time on this as the month hasn't ended yet. I don't know if there's any changes that updates. Thank you. um without any exception or
objections. Um keep this item on our agenda as well. And then onto our last item, item 11685, a measure declaring the land located at 13 through 17 West Line Street as defined and attached approval require ANR plan and surplus for the purpose of
disposition. Um [clears throat] we did get a um opinion letter from the law department regarding the special permit. Um that is also in front of us here as well. Um Mr. Mayor, I don't if you have anything to discuss. >> Yes. So, the city solicitor and I um actually the city solicitor would um is
going to be joining me up here for this one. Um this was sent last week inadvertently uh not sent added to the packet, but it was sent to the clerk and I uh last Thursday. Uh this is the legal opinion answering the questions that were raised at the previous um finance
committee meeting regarding how does the special permit language requirements relate to an eventual sale of the property. Um and so happy to answer the questions on behalf of what the committee may have. Thank you. >> Questions from Lament. >> I I just have having just received this.
So I'm I'm at the conclusion of your letter. >> Okay. >> Terry. So in conclusion, the special permit does not legally prevent the city from declaring the property or presses disposing it. >> But it it doesn't mean that the city has the special permit. The city still can
maintain the property. Correct. and and do they have to still abide by the the special permit as long as they own it or can the special permit be revoked? >> Um the special permit can't be revoked. Okay. Okay. So, the special permit that
I reviewed, I just want to be clear, was for the apartment complex to install 27 up to 27 uh residential units in the building in right uh adjacent to the lot. Um, in that special permit hearing, there was a finding of fact, if you
will, and that factual finding was that there was a quote unquote, I think the word was arrangement between the city and the then applicant, the owner of that building. Uh, the zoning board was satisfied with this arrangement uh compli uh that allowed that building to be in compliance with the then uh
parking requirements. What the arrangement was was a historical um license to uh use the parking lot. We say the word license, it's kind of a loaded term. So I want to unpack what that means. If we think about ownership, like we all own our houses, so we have a
complete 100% interest in that property. All the way on the other side of the scale, we have no permission to use a piece of property. And as we go from no permission to full ownership, there are degrees of interest, if you will, in in real estate. uh a lease would be maybe the next step down from somewhat of a
full ownership if you think about it that way. Maybe an easement then a lease if you can think about it that way, but not permission to use it and then simple permission to use it. That's what a license is. So the city was giving at the time the permission for that owner to put 27 uh units there, the permission
to use that license um by its um uh legal theory is revocable at the will of the license. So the city of gardener always has the right to revoke that will when the zoning board issued their special permit. I don't think that this was clearly articulated to the zoning board. So they made a factual finding
and said okay this permission exists. They didn't necessarily um maybe have the full information or understand exactly what that was. It wasn't a permanent obligation by the city to continue to allow that to happen. So, if the city was to withdraw that permission or say somebody else was to purchase
that, it would not extinguish the special permit, would it give us the right to say, "Okay, we want to make changes to that special permit." Um, the law is not 100% clear. Um, there is some case law that talks about um the person who has the special permit, if they want
to make a change to their special permit, there is some case law about that person coming back to the zoning board, say, "Hey, I want to change or alter something." There is no case law that I found that says, "Oh, the city came back to a special permit. We wanted to certainly not revoke it." The the
issue that was questioned in the treatises that I was reading was, "Can they make changes to it?" And that was not even even making changes to is not a clear answer. So, the parking situation um for that building uh could be accommodated, if you will, by other
public parking areas in the general area as well, if that's the if that's what the ultimate concern is. So that's what I see here. So say for example, hypothetically speaking, uh we um this committee makes a recommendation to allow the property to be declared
surplus and be put out to bid. Then it would go out to bid and then you have apparently when looking at this special permit, we have two options, right? One is the owner of that building is the successful bidder. Well, that option is not that, you know, uh complicated,
right? We can just see what that would the the other option is. Well, the owner of that um building is not the successful bidder. Well, then the owner of that building would do what all the other owners of all the other buildings in that area are doing, which is looking for public parking and other uh solutions to the parking problem, which
I think the mayor is addressing in constructing new public parking in that area. >> But the city minus those 27 spots that were in the permit, it's 110 spots still controls the rest of the law. Correct. Um,
so I don't think that there's 110 spots on this lot. >> Okay, >> this is a small piece of that puzzle. >> This is split between this lot and the lofts at 30 pine under deck. >> Under deck. Okay. >> And I also want to reiterate there's a
there's 27 um units in the building and not 27 parking spots. >> So this is just a piece of the parking for that building. And I think what you would be doing if we come to the scenario where the property owner is not the successful bidder is we put that
property owner on even footing with all the other property owners in the area that that they would have to make accommodations for for parking through the use of the public parking that's being expanded. I hope that answers those questions. >> No, I think that was very helpful. I really appre I haven't had a chance to
read through the whole piece yet. Um so I I think I'll ultimately maybe want more time to do that. But >> I think that would be best of course here. >> I think what I'm just curious of. So I because I was wondering about the two the 110 spaces. It sounds like it's the
platform >> and the 50 or so right behind the building. >> Um and the you know 60 or so under the platform that make that. >> Um is that a fair breakdown of 50 or so behind? 60 or so on the platform. That's the 110 spaces.
>> Yeah. Okay. Right. And so right now >> the owner has preference in those spots. Is that a fair statement? Yeah. But residents like city just [clears throat] any member of the public can also still park there or is it or if if I went and
parked behind that building would I be in violation? >> I mean so barring any other formalized agreement such as a license agreement, a lease, a sale, something like that. It is a public parking lot. >> Okay. Um, however, these the property owner who was there,
that's why this was almost I don't think attorney Fusetaryi nor I would have ever advised that this be the way that this was done that was done in 2003 2004 um or in 2009. But this makes it so that the owner of the property
does technically have a claim to say that their tenants have preference to those sites as a result of the language that was in here. But then nothing was ever formalized as a result of that after to enforce this language. So it's a kind of a eggs in a basket issue. >> Yeah. So the so the last written
permission the city has given has expired and there was no renewal of the license. And the other thing that we should just apprise you of is that um season towns often would do these license agreements because the public procurement um
criteria being what it is, coming into a local council, getting a declared surplus, putting something out for a long-term lease or sale um would be some seen as somewhat cumbersome. [snorts] And the easy fix was always seen to be these these licenses. And uh generally
speaking, government is moving away from that because there is a there's a wisdom to the public p purchasing process that requires us to have these conversations to go through these. So the mayor in this particular situation isn't just going to say, "Okay, well, let's just continue to in indefinitely continue to
license this out. It has to go out into the public uh process. So, if the ab budding building owner wants this building, they have every right to buy it and they can do that or they could find some other way to dispose it with a long-term lease or something like that.
But at the same time, um it's got to be a public process. It just can't be a deal with a special with a with with a one constituent over the other. >> Yeah. And the inspector general's been pushing back on new regulations related to license agreements. Mainly because as attorney Buset Terry just said, license
agreements are exempt from the 30B process because they're meant to be temporary. Uh but also they don't include council approval like a lease or a full surplus process, whether it be a sale or a lease would do. So it's solely in the hands of the executive for a temporary amount of
time. and it's in the hands of the executive because it's meant to be a temporary amount of time and not a long-term solution where that's kind of how this had been handled for well I mean a decade and change um is that it was just a license after license after license and so while the license had an
expiration date it was almost just resigned on the date of that expiration date so it was a deacto long-term rather than a temporary solution for it. So this is really just us trying to figure out the best way forward that actually fits into the parameters of
what should be done >> compliance with the law. >> Yeah. >> And fixing a legacy problem if you will. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> As mentioned [clears throat] as we just got this and may even have further questions about it. I >> think I can take more time on this item
and leave it on our calendar. >> I agree. It's just really hard with the lack of available land downtown to think of disposing of a piece of you know a piece of property. It's just really um tough thing because there is
not a lot of available space that time. >> So I think yeah more time is appropriate. >> More time on item uh 11685. Thank you Phil for all the information. >> If there's any questions please feel free. >> Thank you. Um I entertain a motion to
adjourn. So move >> second by councelor he seconded by councelor Mackjou. All those in favor say I. I meeting stands adjourned. Thank you everyone.