001[laughter and gasps] Uh, I'm going to call to order this uh special joint city council meeting with the board of finance and the board of education. For the record, today is Tuesday, February 3rd, 2026, and the time is 6:02 p.m. Um, I'm going to do a quick roll call of the members that we do have present. And I can't see, so if you could just stick your heads forward. I think we have everybody here from the board of finance and Mr. Anderson is on Zoom. We have everybody m Kalin, not M Kalin's on her way. Okay. For city council, I have uh Mr. Beas I have uh Miss Hannon Harrell, Mr. Monichia, Mr. Cavaniro, Mrs. Rouette are present and Mr. Oliver should be on Zoom and board of education. I think we're just missing Mr.
002Cronin >> and M is excused. >> Miss Leo is also not here. Thank you. Um if we would still um please stand to do the pledge and then we'll get the meeting started. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> So, just for the purposes of this meeting, I just want to um remind everybody the purpose of this meeting is to um adopt a resolution about the roof replacement project. um and the financing of the appropriation as well as the resolutions for school construct construction grant and recommending that approval from board of finance to city council and city council approving that to go out to referendum. Um I do ask because
003there's so many members here tonight that we do raise our hands and all questions go through me so that way everybody gets an opportunity to speak and no one's speaking over each other. Thank you. So, I'd like to open this meeting to review and discuss the approval of an appropriation of $6,612,375 and a bond authorization of 5,912,375 for the former Torington Middle School, Torington Intermediate School roof replacement project. I just need a motion and a second. >> So moved, >> Mr. and Miss Rouette. Thank you. We are open. So, I will start this off. Um, our board of fi or our finance members helped put together this um PowerPoint presentation that everybody should have in front of them and it gives a little bit of background information about the project itself. It does go all
004the way back to 2018. So, um, we'll quickly run through this. Um, Marissa, are you able to put that up so the people online can see it? Josh. Yeah, it's a PowerPoint. Thank you. You can go to the next slide. So, this just starts the background information from 2018 when the voters originally approved the $1.4 million in bonded funds for the Torington Middle School. $700,000 was allocated to replace the windows and 700,000 was allocated for the roof. Of that, the $700,000 for the roof was bonded. The $700,000 for the windows was not bonded. The board of education used other available funds to pay the window upgrades as the cost has increased. [snorts] Voters then approved to repurpose the unused $700,000 originally intended for the windows and use it towards the roof. The board of education
005is requesting to include the additional $700,000 in this round of bonding. >> [snorts] >> In June 2024, resolution 143-249 was issued authorizing the board of ed to apply for a school construction grant from the Connecticut State Department of Education with a total project cost of 4,431,152.13. In January uh January 21st, 2025, a resolution number 143259 was adopted amending the previously adopted resolution 143-249 changing the total project cost from 4,431,15213 to 5,283,720.93 due to inflation costs. All remaining provisions in resolution 143-249 were to remain in effect. March 17, 2025, council voted unanimously to adopt resolution 143-265 establishing a re- roofing project at Torington Middle School for a total project cost estimate of 5,283 72093. And this resolution revoked the previous resolutions uh before that. So, this new resolution had authorized the board of ed to apply
006for a school construction grant from the Connecticut Department of Administrative Services in the amount of 3,792 20205. [snorts] The city's cost share shall be no more than 25% of the total project cost after such construction grant reimbursement, which amount is 1,49151896 to be funded as follows. $700,000 of the already authorized bonding. the remaining balance of bonded project funds from phase one held in fund 320 and Torington Board of Education Capital Reserve Fund 313. Does anyone have any questions so far? All right. So, where we are today, um the board of education has received bids higher than anticipated. Therefore, they are now estimating the project cost to be 6,612,375 and based on the anticipated state reimbursement of 75.36% which is 4,745796 4,745,796. The balance expected to be paid by the Torington taxpayers is1,866 81,866,579 of the
0071.8 8,700,000 has already been authorized in bond funds by the voters on November 2nd, 2021. The remaining local share to be approved is 1,166,579. So, we're going to go into the proposed financing structure that um we've discussed at our last meeting. So, it was to fund the 6,612 $375 appropriation. The city would be authorized to issue up to 5,912,375 in bonds or notes after deducting grants and other funding sources. The previously previously authorized $700,000 in bonds for roof improvements would be incorporated into this project. We would allocate the remaining $286,359.98 in the funds from the first $700,000 in bonds. These funds are from the state previous state reimbursements from the original bonded amount. The BOE, the board of education to allocate $880,220 of capital funds from their capital reserve fund [snorts] 313 andor from their
0082% non-lapsing fund fund 331. The city expects to receive approximately 4,745,9796 in state reimbursement grants. This would leave a balance of zero due from the taxpayers after grants, previous bonded reimbursement funds, and the use of capital reserve funds. Um, I do just want to stress that this means there is no additional expense, but there are still expenses to the taxpayers from the $700,000 that was previously approved for the bond. Although the city would be authorized to issue the bonds, this funding structure would eliminate the need for the city to actually go out to bond pending the cost of the project remains stable. [snorts] So on the following page, any questions? No. All right. So, this next page is really just a breakdown of what I discussed, but gives you the balances um that would be
009left in all the other accounts um after allocating um $575,66 from the board of ed's 313 account. Um and this was a conversation that Superintendent Wilson and I had had recently. So this re [clears throat] brings down the remaining balance owed of $35,1532. [snorts] So the question is that has to be decided not tonight but a discussion doesn't need to be have in the future with the board of finance of where do the rest rest of the funds come from. So that would leave a balance of $417,219.16 in the board of education's capital reserve account and 1,574,453 in the BOA non-lapsing account. The other option that we have is funding from our fund balance. Um but to keep in mind that those funds would have to be restricted going forward for the next budget, which
010means they cannot be touched or used for anything else. So the following pages are the questions and answers um for the questions that were submitted um to me from our board of finance and city council members regarding this project. [snorts] So um first question is if the city determines that the non-lapsing funds should be utilized who whether the board of ed city or state is the ultimate decider of whether or not this is used for educational purposes as I fear there is conflicting information about whether or not it can be used and therefore there may not there may be a lot of push back. So this question was answered by our finance department and the language of the actual statute has not changed. What did change was how the board of education gets those funds
011and the oversight of the funds. In the past, board of eds used to have to go to their local financing boards, which in Torington was our board of finance, and request the funds to be put in a reserve account. That reserve account is also considered a non-lapsing account. They would then request to their local financing boards on how to expense those funds. Now, the board of education can automatically transfer those funds on their own without approval from the local financing board and only need the board of ed approval on how to expense the funds. Furthermore, the city has reached out to the state directly regarding the use of funds in which the state does not believe there would be concern with the funds being used towards a capital expense as long as the expense is
012educational in nature, like a repair to a school or something of that nature. The board of education has a pending request to use 477,000 of capital reserve for another project. Should they choose not to use funds in the 2% non-lapsing account for the roof, which they have stated in the question and answer they will not use, they could reallocate the 477,000 request and solely use the capital reserve to cover the 880,000 cost of the roof. [snorts] Any questions? >> Can I touch? >> Yeah, go ahead. >> Thank you, mayor. I just want to touch on a couple of the things here. Um, so, uh, on the page that you just went through, it addresses 477,000 in pending, uh, expense requests. U, on the previous page, it just it says 417. Um, those are the same
013thing and they should be the same number. Um, so it it should be the 477. Um, I I spoke with the superintendent to confirm that. Um, and just uh, you know, because it doesn't say here, I just want to tell everybody so that that project is the the chiller at Toringford School. Um, so that's an essential part of the HVAC system. Um, so that that's the only reason why we regard that as a really essential um, project. Um, everything else that we had tentatively planned to propose for that capital reserve account, uh, the board has has discussed and is more than happy to put on hold in favor of this project. Um it's just the 477,000 we regard as uh a really important u HVAC repair. Um the only other thing I wanted to touch
014on is just the the 2% um non-lapsing account. Um so there is money in there. Uh that's I think the right amount. Um the board anticipates a a low to zero budget increase from the city this year. And so um you know yes we agree that it's permissible to use that money on capital expenses um but our goal uh is to avoid major disruptions in the educational process by being able to utilize that money uh for operational expenses u in the coming fiscal year. Um you know so in in either case it's getting spent on education in a way that uh does not induce the city to have to raise additional funds from taxpayers. It's just a matter of the priority. Um and we can't we can't go to bond for educational operational expenses uh
015whereas we can go to bond uh for capital. So that's it's it's not that we're objectly refusing uh for a bad reason. It's just that we have uh things that we think are better priorities uh for those funds, but we don't intend to just sit on them. >> Thank you, Mr. Corey. >> Yes. Um just over here from the finance that 417,000 on the prior page that's funding for this project that has nothing to do with the 477. So they should not be the same. [snorts] Just just to make sure we clarify. >> Oh funding >> um in that case it should be closer. >> Mayor, if I may, I it should be closer to five. I think these numbers are just a little bit funny because uh we I believe there's $977,000 in that
016account. So, uh roughly a flat $500, uh I believe can be allocated from it. Um and then we would ask to hold the for uh the Chiller project. Um so maybe I'm misreading this. I just want to make sure that everybody is working with the same numbers. Um so that's where where we're at. that that would be our suggestion for the >> and to clarify the 575066 was a number that Superintendent Wilson had given me last week um for the funds that they would have available in that account. Um I think there was further reconciliation of that account to see what the actual balance was and it was less than um what we had thought. So that will change these numbers a little bit and what the balance is due um where we'll have to
017figure out where those funds are going to come from. So, mayor, do we do we know what the total of that account is? Then >> um yeah, sounds like our finance mayor >> sounds like our finance department has that number. >> I'm going to have uh Donna answer that question. >> Sure. Um yes, good evening everybody and welcome. If you haven't been in this um facility uh for the if this is your first time, the amount for the 313 account is $992,2851. There had been um an emergency purchase um for some communication that was previously um approved. So that is why that balance changed slightly. Thank you. Did anyone want to do that math real quick or >> Olivia? [clears throat] Yep. >> So I think the question is just so I'm understanding from the
018board of education is that um the allocation that they would put towards this project from the 313 account would be less of not the 575 it would be less. So they had a remaining balance of 477 for the chillers at Torford. >> That's the total that's just 515 2851. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> Just Yeah. Um just trying to do the quick math. So, so essentially the funding remaining in the BOE capital reserve would be the 417219 and then the funding um that we're looking for out of the non-lapsing account would be how much then >> if all of if leaving money for the chiller the 477. >> So, we're not even talking about that account. That right there is just a balance of the account. We're just talking about the
019313 and the amount that um we had originally discussed to go towards this project, >> right? But we want to look at what's fully needed to fund it. Right. >> Right. So, what we really need is the remaining balance owed if somebody wants to do that math real quick. >> Yeah, >> I have it. It's 515 285 and 51 cents. >> Right. Right. So, if we do [clears throat] I guess what I'm looking for, >> do we need such a specific amount or can we just round this to the nearest 100,000? >> We can round it if you'd like. [snorts] >> So, it's going to increase this amount about 60,000. Yes, >> is basically what we're saying. So, we're we're looking at like 365,000 >> is the remaining balance owed >> that would have to
020come from another fund. Do we have any other questions on this or can I move on? >> Right. So I I mean I would looking I I would be looking for the board of education's commitment to utilize that non-lapsing to make up that difference. >> Or what? Yeah. Or the 47 capital reserve to make up that that remaining number. So, just [clears throat] a reminder of what the agenda items are. Um, so if there are any other questions or comments on this, I'll move on to the next. >> No. All right. So the next question was, how can the short-term project be financed in-house without the need for a bonding referendum? >> Crazy. >> So in order for the state to grant the application request for reimbursement, the city needs to show that they have
021the 6.6 million fund in funds available in order to not go out to referendum. The city would need to restrict 6.6 million in the fund balance until the project is complete. Just so you know, that would put us at about $12 million of our fund balance restricted because we have five million out right now. Correct. Yeah. [snorts] The board of education is requesting that the city's capital reserve funds and the board of ed capital reserve funds potentially cover the cost. However, the city's capital reserve funds come from each city department's budget and are earmarked for specific projects throughout the city. I just want to clarify this because I think um we may have misunderstood that. I believe what they want is from the general fund balance, not from our capital account. >> I mean, I
022I think uh I wouldn't want to overstep in that it would be the city's prerogative uh to determine um how how to find those funds. Um our goal is to to sort of work together to scrge up some money based on what we've got available. >> Thank you. Um, what is the cost of the short-term borrowing and can the city board of ed cover it in their budget? [snorts] The total anticipated cost is 6.6 million for the project. The city would either have to restrict the fund balance for this or go out to referendum to appropriate the balance. Just because a city goes out to referendum, it does not mean that we would have to actually bond those funds. The board of edit is expecting to receive 4.7 million in state reimbursement grants. There is
023also 700,000 in authorized bonds that they could use, another 286,000 of remaining bond funds. [snorts] The board of ed could fund the remaining balance of 880,000 needed in their capital reserve and or our non-lapsing fund >> question. Yes. But if any any project that we've ever done before, the city is putting out the money first and then the state reimbures it and reimbures us for that money either along the way of the project or at the very end of the project. Is that correct? I'm I'm going to defer to >> sometimes also at at the end of the project when they they're determining as to whether what was um >> well well was it really allowed you know is is there something that we put the money or asked for the reimbursement and then they
024say no it wasn't in the scope of the project or some because it's it's always behind. The city has to put the money out first. So, we have to have that money to put out. Am I not >> No, you're right, Lorine. You're right. We have to pay it first and then request reimbursement. >> Okay. So, how can we do this without bonding of seven? You know, it's a $7 million project. I'm gonna ask Olivia to answer these questions. >> Yes. So, first we would use the the 286 and the 700,000 that we would have already bonded. Um and then obviously when we started this project, what we would do is create its own fund just like we did for the high school project. Um so yes, it would be a negative fund balance. Basically,
025we obviously would have to use the cash out of our actual like cash bank account, but in the meantime, until we got all those reimbursements, it would just go into negative fund balance accounting purposes. Does that make Does that make sense? >> I mean, a little bit. >> Yes. >> Does that make sense? And I think mayor, I did have that question. I don't know if anybody was able to get an answer in the contract, the payment terms for the contractor, not the payment terms from the state, but do we have a payment term um schedule of, you know, payments? Because that I I understand what Loren is saying is is we don't need $6.6 million tomorrow. So the question is if there are progress payments every month then we would need some cash upfront
026obviously to you know to pay contractors material costs things like that upfront but as the money gets reimbured from the state after hypothetically 90 days then it would just um continue to be dare I say used toward that project. So I I think that was my question. Um if we the state if we the board of ed can submit to the state to get monthly reimbursements which I understand takes time. You have to get in by a certain date they approve it so on so forth. It could be a lag time of 60 days, but what are the payment terms to the contractor? And does that fit with with this, you know, as far as trying to come up with uh quote a lag time that we need to come up with some money um
027for the project as opposed to when we start getting paid back by the state. >> Sure. Um Miss Labby, I know I sent this question to you earlier today. Were you able to put that together quick? >> Uh yes, and I'm going to let Mr. Pgola address it. >> Thank you. >> Yes. So the project is going to be done under an A101 agreement and in that agreement is um honored before the fifth of each business uh uh that that month the fifth business day of the month the contractor will submit uh the paperwork to the engineer and then to us final uh to a final version for application of payment and then once that's done um you know we pay them and the state normally on a state reimbursement is like 45 to 90
028days by the time um you know it goes through the process with, you know, the DAS paperwork and the AIA schedule values and approvals and things of that nature. >> Thank you, Miss Tro. Does that answer your question? >> Yeah. So, so, uh, when the contractor submits it by the 5th of that month, do we have a date by which we pay net 30, net 60? >> Um, yeah, I think it's, um, I don't think it's no 30 days, I think, is what you can get a payment. >> Okay. Um it just that's just food for thought for everybody because again I think the point is to have that seed money up front which we already have to utilize to pay the contractor for the first one or two uh monthly requests and then obviously
029if things are done timely and I I do totally respect that you're submitting to the state you can't control how long it takes. Um but I just timing wise um we were kind of hoping that that might be an available option. um because we do have money that we can utilize um if we decide we don't want to do the bonding route. It's just a timing issue I guess. So I I think you answered the finance question of there might be a negative balance for a while while this is happening and then it starts to catch up later. >> Well, I believe >> I think that was my question as well, Mrs. D, if if I may. Um in in the in the slides it was a little unclear. We're asking for a bonding approval,
030but also talking about using our available fund balance to frontload these costs. If the intention is to use the fund balance on the expectation that we're going to be reimbursed, then I guess my my question, maybe I'm reading this wrong, is why are we going out to bond? Have we talked to Mr. Farley about the cost of bonding and how that's going to work? If we're just frontloading this and expecting to be reimbursed, do we even need to go out to bond at all? I I I don't It's not quite lining up for me. [clears throat] >> Mr. Farley or Olivia maybe. >> Sorry. Uh the cost of bonding would be approximately $30,000 uh for our financial consultant and our our bond council. [clears throat] >> And then as far as going out to bond
031or not going out to bond. So going out to bond doesn't mean we're actually going to bond the funds. It's more of just being able to appropriate it so that they can get the state reimbursements because my understanding is that we have to show that basically we have those funds available um in order to get those reimbursements from the state. If we don't go out to bond at all, don't go out to referendum, then we would have then we would have to use the fund balance in the sense of restricting it. So if we restrict the fund balance, we also have to look at our fund balance policy, making sure we're staying in line with that. We won't be able to touch that or use that. um which can hinder us for other areas with
032um like our bond rating and stuff. Does that >> Oh, 100%. And and that's a good point to bring up and thank you for mentioning that. I was going there next with it is in this pres in in our conversations on this I I won't say that it was what was said but it was my impression of what was said is we're looking for a bond appropriation that we may or may not actually need because we may or may not just use the fund balance as it is as because it's already available and it it felt a little inconsistent. Are we using our fund balance? And I think this is what I would be looking for from all the boards. Are we going to appropriate our fund balance as it is knowing that it will
033affect our conversations for the mill rate later uh later this year or are we going to go to bond, get that approved, pay the 30,000 that Mr. Ferly quoted, and then start this project after we have financing in place? I I don't see how we can be doing both. We're not going to go out and take out a loan but then use our savings and then say, "Oh, we approved a loan that we don't need." >> Mayor, >> Mr. Bass. >> Well, I I just I I think we have to be very clear that in this in this funding structure, um we will be going to bond that money. Um, now those repayments from my understanding don't start until project completion, meaning that we're not paying any interest or uh beyond the the origination fees.
034Um, but I think it needs to be very clear that the the finance office and and the mayor has told us that um we can't put this thing on the fund balances back at this point. um and that with [clears throat] approval of this resolution um that is authorizing authorizing us to bond and I think it's the full intention of the city to um bond that amount not to am I correct in this financing structure mayor? >> Yes. >> So um I I just want to make sure that's very clear um to everybody. Um now granted of course project completion comes we get the reimbursement we have the funds that we're transferring wherever the BOE commits their funds um all is well and great the bond is paid back um it was my concern that
035I brought to the mayor and maybe some others that um you know that the timing of all this and the timely uh submissions to the state um is is going to be critical here because the more time that the project completion waits on paperwork and other things um the more it's going to cost the taxpayers and all of us an interest. So [sighs] [clears throat] I you know I just want to make it clear that this resolution does authorize the bond and I think it's the intention to bond that amount and and like I said mayor if I'm incorrect you can correct the record but >> no you are correct. >> So then mayor there's a followup for Mr. Farley. Um, is it a possibility that this could just be a one year? I mean,
036we were looking at 15 years, 30 years in the examples last time. Could this just be a 12 month like like we do with a bond anticipation note. Could it just be a short-term note? I I I won't support a 15-year bond. >> That's a great point, Wendy. Thank you. And if we're only looking at a one-year term, do we even need to pay $30,000 to borrow this money for one year? If we have the availability to use our fund balance, isn't that what it's for? >> So, if I can just interject here. Um, Olivia, is that something you think you could answer? Maybe Sandy, if she's online, could >> I'm here. >> Hi, Sandy. >> Do you want me to speak now? Right. We're bonding that 700,000, but we're not bonding anything else. >>
037We wouldn't have to because we're getting the state reimbursement. So, I guess we're I didn't think we were going We wouldn't have to go out to bond. It's a >> formality. >> It's a formality. Like, we're going out for referendum to be authorized to bond, but we're not actually bonding the whole amount. That was my understanding. >> Right. like we bonded, we were authorized to bond 8086 million for the high school. We didn't bond all of that at one time because we started being able to pay off of the um reimbursements that were coming in and that kind of thing. So, that's kind of the same process. The saying that we're going to go out to bond is really just a formality so that we can go to the state or the board of ed
038can go to the state and say the city has allocated the full amount for this project. Should we need to pay that amount because we don't have grants, state reimbursement, all of that. >> The taxpayers have said yes, we allow the city to bond those funds. But that's after you deduct the what's previously approved for bonding, which is the 700,000, the 286 for the um reimbursement. >> Um local funding, which would be capital, capital reserve, those kinds of funding. Is there something else in there? And the state reimbursement. So that 5.7 5 4.5 4.7 that they're saying they're going to get from the state would then kind of just funnel that and fund the project. So the goal at the end is that all of those things happen and everybody comes out clean and there's
039no additional cost to the taxpayers. So it's it's really just a formality at this point so that the board of ed can then go to the state and say we have a funding source. So, they're either going to have to say, "We have a funding source because we went on to referendum and we're allocated to fund or to bond the 5.9 or they're going to have to tell the state we have a funding source because the city has restricted 6.6 million in fund balance." >> So, those are the options. >> So, so it's not our intention to call to call that bond. >> Mr. Bay, if you could just hold on one minute. Sandy has her hand raised. I'd like her to jump in on this. >> Yeah. I I just wanted to back up
040and address first um the question about how can this be financed without the need for a referendum. Um under this under every circumstance, no matter where the money is coming from, the voters need to approve the appropriation for this capital project. So, even if you had a donor come forward and say, "I want to just give the city $7 million, just give it to you." You would still have to go to the voters to get the appropriation to spend the money and enter into contracts and then approve the acceptance of that donation. Um the only way you would could avoid going to referendum would be if you had it approved in your current year's operate you know budget uh and tax the taxpayers for the whole amount in that fiscal year. Um so that would
041be the only way but that's because you have a process for approving a budget in place. Um so that's the first thing I want to talk about. Second is um that even I'm a little bit unclear right now because uh when the board of ed and the city talks about using fund balances you're talking about using that permanently is my understanding not just to um to carry the cost until you wait for grants but two things have been said on this meeting. One time it was said, "Oh, no, we are going to bond for 1 point whatever four something million uh eventually because that's the city share." And in other statements it was said that no, we're going to use other funds on hand. Um which would mean that you'd never have to issue any
042bonds. So I'm not sure which is the correct path you're trying to take. Um but let's just say that you the path you are taking is uh that the temporary funds are going to be used until you go out to bond for the city share. Um then you you know you don't have to do any short-term financing. If um if that's the case and you do need short-term financing in order to wait for grants to come in, um issuance costs could be saved if the issue was timed with another issue, you know, of bonds or bond anticipation notes, right? Because it doesn't really matter how much you borrow for a note or a bond. It could be, you know, 100,000, it could be 100 million. The costs are going to be about the same of
043the consultants. Um, just, you know, for the work to be done. So, um I guess I think that maybe there's some clarification that needs to be made as to whether or not the city ultimately how will it fund the city share. Are you going to use funds you already have on hand and permanently commit them? In other in that case, you don't ever have to go out to bond or eventually are you going to use those temporarily until you bond the 1.4 something million or whatever the city share is. Well said and thank you for for clarifying that. I mean, I don't know if we're up to the point of a straw poll just yet, but I would prefer to limit the city's debt as much as possible. >> But what Sy's saying is we
044have to have a referendum one way or the other. Yes, you will have to it will have to go to referendum for an appropriation and that uh you know a financing source. So right now, >> so we will say to the voters other the way it it reads here about going um to general obligation bunds or we would change that language to say that we are um tying up uh you know for uh to use regular language um committing >> 5 million ion dollar from our fund balance. >> Yeah. So, right now the the the voters would be voting that you would issue bonds not to exceed the 5.9 million. Right. Right. And that would be reduced by any necessary grant any, excuse me, any grants you get or any other sources of fund that
045the city has for the project. Right now, we can't say, you know, we can't reduce that amount by the amount of anticipated grants because the state hasn't given you a written commitment for the grant yet. And we can't reduce it by other sources of funds because you haven't necessarily segregated those and put them into a um a fund that can't be, you know, some kind of trust account that can't be tapped except for this project. Oh, so the language of the referendum would be to go out to bond >> only for so much as that as may be needed. Uh, you know, after you get your grants and after you apply all the other sources of funds that you decide to commit, if that if that comes to zero, then you'd bond zero. Um but
046if the state, you know, were to uh >> we've always what we always have to do the the whole entire cost of the project and then >> right >> then we explain to the voters that this is what will end up coming from our pockets. >> Yes. And this is still written that same way where you're, you know, you're uh appropriating the full amount. you have bonds authorized for the full amount, but you also make the commitment that you won't bond, you know, for all of it if you get grants and you use other monies. >> I know Councilwoman Rouette had her hand up. >> I did. I'm definitely not going to ask any numbers having to do with numbers. Um, but I mean, basically our our community's um what do I want to say?
047Um, referendum fatigue at this point. We've had so many referendums over the last few years. So, I'm curious um and I don't know this answer. What is the percentage of people coming out for the referendum to vote? Is there a minimum? Do we know that? So, if only 20 people came out of our registered voters, what is the minimum number? City clerk There were 828 votes yes and 301 votes no like 5% of our voters came out for a stand >> and the others kind of varied whether it was [clears throat] >> so our charter doesn't necessarily >> determine what percentage I mean that's >> 5% less than 5%. >> Okay. >> Um Mr. Corey would like to speak. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. I just um I kind of want to bring us bring
048us home if I might or at least try on this uh everything that we just talked about. So the the relevant part and it's uh in the presentation the second page of the Q&A. It's bold and underlined. Uh, which I believe is what was also just said that just because the city goes out to referendum does not mean we'd have to actually bond those funds. Um, so my understanding of what was just presented to us was that effectively you you're authorizing up to or not to exceed this amount, but you don't have to issue any of it if you come up with alternative funds or you can issue partial based on what other alternative funds you can segregate. Um, and that's kind of why the the board of ed was willing to commit x amount
049of money because, you know, we're we're all on the same team and we want to avoid having to run up the city's debt any more than necessary like Mr. Anderson was talking about. Um, so I think we're all saying roughly the same things that, you know, we want to avoid bonding as much as we can, but that the referendum simply authorizes us to do so. Um, and for for what it's worth on referendums, you know, I I think we uh we can't control who comes out to vote. We wish that there was a 100% turnout in every referendum and and that way we got a definitive look at what the body politic is looking for, but people also have the right not to vote. Um, so, you know, I think all of the recent referendums
050have passed, to my recollection, going all the way back to when the city bonded a bunch of money for the water plant. Um, so I think if you present something to the people of the city as being important, um, and we've done our part to reduce those costs and reduce the city's, uh, you know, racking up credit, uh, broadly speaking, people in Torington have seemed to be supportive of that. Um, and I especially think, you know, for this project, to be clear, the we've talked about this before, so I'll keep it very brief, that this roof is leaking, uh, and it is decaying and it is getting worse. And I so I think people in the city know that and that they you know they're looking to us to to come up with some way
051and I think everybody agrees that if we didn't have to we wouldn't right we're not we don't want to be spending money that's not necessary but I think this is very necessary and I just kind of wanted to to bring us home on this bonding issue and and why it's important. Um and let's get it done. >> Thank you Mr. Corey. >> Mayor Mayor through you if I could ask a question. Mr. Corey. >> Yes. >> Um so Mr. Cory, would would the board of ed be willing to to to make this work, would would the board of ed fund that remaining $880,000 between whatever accounts that need to be funded. >> So, at at this time, um our initial sort of offer, if you will, although I don't like to think of this as
052a negotiation, was for that $500,000 amount. There was an alternative um that the superintendent has brought to the board's attention recently. Uh, I think it's for the insulation that would reduce the total project cost by an estimated $423,700. Uh, correct me if I'm wrong. So, that's another, you know, proverbial concession that could be made uh if we really needed to to try to further defay some costs. Um, but that that $423,000 amount is subject to the state reimbursement. So, uh, it's not reducing the contribution of all both of our parties by that amount so much as it is just reducing the total project cost. Um, but that's something that could be explored to reduce um our commitment potentially in this project. Um, but I just for the the amount that we have in our non-lapsing
053fund, again, I think the important thing is that the the operational impact of spending that down uh right now for this project would be we believe severe. um anticipating a low to zero allocation from the city knowing the city's financial condition in the upcoming budget year. So to my my point earlier I think is is a relevant one that um you can bond for capital projects. I think we would probably all agree uh that it is would be a bad idea to try to bond for operational expenses. So, our goal is to take that money and spend it on operational expenses so that we don't have to come and ask you uh for money and that we don't have to do things like laying off employees. Um, so that would that's why it's the board's
054strong preference um that the city would bond uh for this project um so that we can meet our operational commitments next year uh without you guys having to squeeze the taxpayer for a lot of extra money. >> Thank you, Mr. Corey. >> You're asking the mayor. >> One minute, Gary. Thanks. Um I appreciate you um explaining that and I appreciate the um idea to reduce this and the cost um costsaving measures are very important. Um we know the position that we're in. And um I will say Mr. Corey and I sat down last month, two months ago, I don't even know anymore. Um and he [clears throat] is well aware that the financial position that the city is in and him and I did discuss um a little bit of what budgets are going to
055look like this year. So, I do appreciate the board of education understanding that and knowing that we may have to come in at a zero budget again. So, just to keep that in mind that discussion did happen between the two of us. >> Mr. Egalo, >> just one thing that I don't think anybody's thinking of. How long has this been being held for? 60 days. Is this a 60-day term on this bid? Is it a 90-day? I mean, how long of a lag here? Because I just saw insulation prices go up 20% this week. You know, this is a and mayor, you've been thrown into this, unfortunately. But, you know, we've got price increases coming. The city needs to act in some way. We need to act. They're working together, but we we we've we've
056known this at a as a board that this problem was going to come up sooner or later, and we have the consequences that we have. Um, but we need to do something fast because if you see a 10% increase, you're talking about an extra $100,000. I had insulation 22% this month. Steel is up 11%. Um, so I don't know what kind of time frame we're talking about here, but I think people need to think about that. I mean, we've waited seven years and it's tripled in price almost. So, um, you know, think about that, mayor. I don't I don't know the answer. I know we're working hard with you. So, it's not going down. >> Thank you, >> Dean. Did you Okay. Anybody down here? Miss Trob >> Mayor and Sorry, excuse me again. And
057I appreciate the board of ed's uh concern to want to get this moved forward. I can respect it seeing as I think anybody who lives in Torington has heard middle school roof enough. Um [laughter] and again I say after this great discussion we've had about our ideas of how we can bring the financing of this project together by the means that we have um I'm not as hesitant to approve potential bonding because I think we have a lot of conversation between our illustrious finance department and through the treasur and the mayor's office everybody that I think we can make this work without bonding except for understanding the 700,000 that's already been approved is still out there. So, I mean, we still would have to bond that $700,000 to make this all work, but that's peanuts
058compared to $5 million. My concern was the concern I brought up last time and and I've had this conversation. Once the voters approve the bonding, even if we do not borrow one dime against this, the city of Torington taxpayers have now put Torington on the hook for $5.9 million in potential spending in the future. So my concern would be number one and I the answer was given to me last time that they've never heard of a bond suns setting but I would love to know if there's a way that if we do not do this bonding that this bond approval by the taxpayers could be rescended because what could happen is seven years from now once this is approved that 5.9 million spending is approved and seven years from now somebody could pull up the
059paperwork and say hey we need $6 million let's take it from this bond. We don't know what our interest rates are going to be. We don't know what the taxpayer situation is going to be, the economy, taxes, so on so forth. So, I I am not hesitant to say to get this project going, we need to let the state know we're going to approve the funds. I have no problem with that. I hope it's enough. Um, but my concern would be if this doesn't happen, is there a way to resend the bond in an X period of time or do we have to do the formality of going through this and then making some type of motion a year from now if we don't use it? >> Sure. Um, Sandy has her hand up, but
060I don't >> That's very well said. And >> Mr. Anderson, Mr. If you just give us a minute. Sandy has her hand up, so I think she's going to be able to address some of these. Thank you. If the voters approve the appropriation for the $6 million and the five I'm just rounding the $5 million bond authorization and the city enters into a contract with a vendor then you can't resend the bonding part because you've now committed to a vendor that you're going to pay them. Um, if you never do the project, if you decide, well, we're not doing this project. We're not applying for grants, um, then the city would have no way to just bond $5.9 million for some other project. One reason being is that I wouldn't be able to give an
061opinion that would allow you to just decide to use that bond money for something else. >> But did we not just change that 700,000 that was for the windows and >> the voters? the voters approved that at referendum. >> Yeah. And I'm not suggesting that once we say we've approved bonding, obviously we're going to pay the vendor, but I think our thought was we might not have to go out to bonding because we might be able to find the money with it. So that's all just thoughts. Thank you. Did anyone have any other questions or follow up to that? >> Yeah, Mr. >> Yeah, first just a technical question. Uh, regardless [clears throat] of how we finance or don't finance this, exactly I'm just a little confused. What exactly are we getting? I I I'm
062looking through some notes of past um board of ed meetings where this was discussed and there are multiple multiple types of solutions proposed, discussed, kicked around. Where did we land? Is this a total roof replacement that we're paying that we're talking about? >> Yes or no? >> This is not a total roof. >> Mr. Pgola, if you'd answer that. No, >> This is an overlay. Yeah. Uh, can somebody address what an overlay is and ex exactly what are the limits? What what describe the overlay for me, please? >> Well, at this point, I'm going to I'm going to have a design professional um break it down to detail that you're looking for. Mark is on on Zoom right there. You know, >> in layman's terms, I mean, it's not a full roof, so we're replacing
063you. You explain it to me. >> Okay. Sure. [clears throat] Sure. to pay for. >> So the existing roof that you see up there right now is a standing seam metal roof panel applied directly over structural roof perance directly over the roof framing. So when we're doing an overlay, we're going to apply additional subplands over the existing roof and a new metal uh new metal roof panel system over those subplands. So we're covering the existing roof. We are not replacing the ex existing roof. We are recovering it with a new metal panel system. >> That would be the entire roof. the entire >> the entire steep slope roof other than the low slope roof which was replaced two or three years ago under a different contract. >> Okay. Okay. And this will all be to
064code then? >> Absolutely. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. No, I I understand that. I understand that. Uh well, never mind. Does this have to be is this custom or does the original manufacturer provide this overlay? >> I don't believe it's the original manufacturer from 1996. No, but we have no record of who that is necessarily. >> You got to be kidding me. Wow. Um and and we're sure this process is used regularly to do this overlay. This is not nothing. This is standard operating procedure in a lot of environments. as a yes. >> This is one of the options that's available in this situation. Yes. >> It's used in hundreds of millions of square feet all over the country and all over the world. >> Okay. Okay. And the fasteners are very specific to this,
065I assume, like they were with the original, but in many cases not used. >> Yes, they are. >> Okay. Um uh and mayor I also how are we going to present this to the public who is still in many ways I mean look at there's whatever there are 40 people in this room now who have been studying this problem now for days weeks months years uh and we're trying to define terms and get down to specifics. We're going to ask the voters to pony up in some capacity millions of dollars for a middle school roof replacement. Yet, it's not really the middle school because they know they just ponyied up $187 million for a new middle school. And so, naturally, around town, they're asking questions. How are we going to frame this so people can
066people can understand it? >> To that end, can we call it a replacement if we're just recovering it? We're not replacing it. >> It's called a replacement roof. It is a replacement. >> So, you can call it what you want, but they are replacing the roof itself with a new roof. [clears throat] >> So, I'm just going to get us back on track here a little bit. Um, but to address Mr. Cavaniro's question, um, I I'm going to defer to the board of education on this because it is your project. So, um, how do we get that information out to the people to explain this? Is that what you're wondering? >> Yeah, I mean, people are people are hearing constantly that we're having we have fewer and fewer students. Um, and yet we seem to
067have the same number of schools and even more schools now. And people are asking, taxpayers are asking an awful lot of questions about that. >> Yep. Thank you. Um, I I think there's I think there is a lot of work that should have been done um to let the public understand exactly what the strategy is for utilizing these facilities and therefore what the real reasons are for putting this kind of money in yet a second a middle middle school an old middle school versus the new middle school that they just are paying through the nose for with taxes. So, um, we do have that obligation, this group of people around here, to address that and I would like to hear what the plan is for it. >> Sure. Um, so I would start uh the
068resolution that you're being asked to approve concludes with the council hereby authorizing the preparation and printing of explanatory text by the city clerk. Um, now we're happy to to partner with the clerk uh on anything that she feels may need to be in there. Um I'm not sure exactly what the statutory requirements are. Um now the board, we ran into this um with the project to the referendum to build this structure. The board of ed has some limitations of course on how it can influence a referendum. Um so we have to be kind of careful uh with what we put out. Now we can put out uh straight factual uh you know answers uh to questions that may be asked. um but we can't utilize the board's resources to actually campaign for it and that's
069kind of a fine line. So we would be we'd want to avoid being putting ourselves at risk. Uh now that being said um you know this project has been discussed at nauseium in public meetings. There are ample documents. Um the board and its team remain available to address questions as well. Um now in terms of sort of the the strategic plan for this building um the plan is to use it for what it is being used for which is um as an intermediate school. So we have three grades of students. Uh I believe it's just under a thousand students in the building. I'm not sure how many employees um we can get you that answer if you want. So, you know, we are using this building um relatively uh close to the amount of students
070that were in it before this structure we're in now was completed. Um so, it's not like we're underutilizing it. Um although I would say it was built for a capacity somewhat larger, but Torington had more students then. Um so, we certainly have no intention and have not discussed uh discarding this building or turning it back over, you know, in 5 years time. I mean, this this is a large facility. It's one of our newer facilities, even if it's having some problems right now. Um, so in terms of a long-term vision, uh, we we want to hold on to this building and continue to use it to educate students. Um, it's one of our least, uh, it's it's in better shape than some of our other older buildings in the inventory. Um, so we regard this
071as as something that's a good investment long term and we're happy to to communicate that as as best we can within the legal framework. >> I do have um a question, mayor, if I can through you. >> Um why why are it's it's a good question to be asked. Um why in this resolution are we still calling it the Torington Middle School and not calling at the Torington Intermediate School? >> Miss Dawson, I'll have you address that. I know you and I spoke about it. >> Yes. Um because the grant application process has already been started in the past, the state of Connecticut Department of Administrative Services would prefer to leave the name um as it is and the um Miss Labby communicated with DAS at the state of Connecticut and they that's the recommended
072name that they want for the grant applications. I mean, but it's it's inaccurate because we're sitting in the Torington Middle School. >> Well, if you do look at the referendum, I thought it was in parenthesis at one point. >> It is. Yeah. No, it's in there as parenthesis, but >> I I just I'm not sure. >> This project started so long ago. It at the time it started and at the time they applied for the grants, it was the Torington Middle School. So, as the woman in the screen said, the state does not want us to change the name of the grant because it's just going to muddy the waters. Okay. Because this project's really this roof replacement has been going on at least six, seven years. Yeah. It just has caused some questions and
073confusion already that I've gotten from taxpayers. So, um again, and I know we can there's explanatory text when people go to referendum. So, um, you know, hopefully hopefully it's clear and people pick up on on that. >> Thank you. Do we have any other questions? Do you want me to continue going through the questions that are in the PowerPoint or has everybody I think we've covered a lot of them already in discussion? >> I think Yeah, I think we're good. >> Um, it's Lorine. >> Hi, Loren. Um, this Mr. forgola that you had said that the this project is going to be done this summer, right? Is it it really can be done in one summer? >> Well, I wouldn't I wouldn't I wouldn't put it to the summer. Um it'll be going into the
074fall before you know we're hoping to get this bid out soon and as much work as we possibly can this summer, >> but with in within the the 20 26 calendar year. >> That's the anticipated finish. Okay. >> So, I just and that that doesn't because it's such a shortterm project that doesn't cause us any funding problem because it's a lot of money to go forward to put out over that short period of time. that it it's still likely that we won't have to actually bond anything for it. >> Well, you're going to have to bond the 700 plus 286. Yeah. >> Offset that even in that short period of time. >> Okay. >> But regardless, that 900 and some odd thousand, it's going to have to be >> I feel like there's like a
075side conversation going on without the mic. So, if you guys could just speak up and >> Yeah, but regardless that 900 thou the 700,000 that was already approved for bond and then the 286 that was reallocated, those are going to have to be bonded regardless to get to that number or incorrect. >> So, those are just sitting in a >> Yes. >> Yeah. The 286 is the remaining um funds from when we originally went out to bond because we got those reimbursements. So, we're able to still use that money, but we have to use that money towards the roof. Um, so the only thing that would be um at this point going out to bond would be the 700,000 that was is authorized to go out to bond already. >> Okay. >> Are there any
076other questions? Any other things we'd like to discuss about this that's relevant to the agenda? No. Mr. Ugle? knowing with the new leadership at this point, I've re we've talked about this before to Mr. Cabanero and other people, this can easily be fixed in the long term, you know, with the mayor's help. If you guys come up with a c a 10-year capital plan and you plan with our bonding people and other people how you're going to maintain our buildings, I've said this with even when the mayor was on the board of ed, we've talked about it. You you can't put patches on buildings. You know, I I I reference your house. You can't let the roof fail and then expect it to be the same prices as if you maintain it. And it's really
077a city council board of finance. You know, Mr. actually Mr. uh Beas had brought it up too a couple years ago. You really and hopefully the finance person can work with the treasurer to come up with a long-term plan so you're not going out to bond. You know, you plan out your 10 years like other cities do and you draw down based upon what your expected needs are so you can maintain your properties and not spend five times what we're spending here. you know, with new leadership. Hopefully, you know, that's one effort you guys can make to you got a lot of real estate in this town and to let it fail like the, you know, like other schools have have gone by the wayside long before we were around. You know, they're good buildings
078and they're valuable buildings, but if you let them fail and you don't take care of them, you know, it's going to cost two to three to four times as much. And as we, you know, it is what it is today. But, you know, try to come up with a 10-year capital plan and that everybody will know what's on the board, what needs to be maintained, and how much you have to budget for it through bonding probably or syncing funds. I don't know what they call them, but other cities do it and it works. Then you don't [snorts] have to fight with the taxpayers or worry about what we're going to tell the taxpayers. You know, this is a long time coming. But I'm not criticizing. I'm just saying we need something like that as a
079city to fix this problem. >> Mayor, if I could respond. >> Are you done, Mr. Egalo? Mr. cabin. >> Yeah. Uh for a long time I was on the board of education. And I dropped off the board of education after 10 years to run for city council because I wanted to try to bridge the the communication gap between those two bodies specifically because there's been a long long running um gap along a uh inability for these two bodies to meet on a regular basis to discuss their strategies and goals, strategies and tactics as relates to what they're doing in their respective boards. It's been um and as much as you can criticize the city council for not getting more involved in your capital plans, I have been begging for this to through the mayor to
080arrange for regular meetings between uh board of education leadership and the city so that we can understand what it is you're doing both in the curriculum sense but also in the infrastructure sense. You know, as a city council, we're asked, we're being asked to put up $6 million for this building in an environment where we have fewer and fewer kids. And I can tell you, no, as far as I can tell, no city council person is completely clear what we're doing with Forbes school. What is the status of that? We owe we are owed an explanation for what you on the city on the board of education are planning to do with this. um so that we can understand, look at your problems through your eyes and make our adjustments accordingly. It cuts both ways.
081Mr. Ukalo, don't pretend that it's >> I wasn't criticizing that. Hold on. That wasn't your I'm going to interject here because the point of this meeting is to discuss a referendum and I I understand the topic and I know it's something that I've discussed with Mr. Ugalo. I've discussed it with Mr. Cavaniro. was a big part of my campaign when I ran for mayor was getting these boards together to have these conversations and we will have these meetings and we will get together and we will discuss that. But just to stay on topic, we have to stick to the agenda. Um, so if we can hold this off to another meeting when we get together, I would appreciate it. Thank you. >> Thank you, mayor. I just I I just want to uh kind of
082close the discussion maybe on a more positive note that this is a really good indicator of that progress. Uh the city clerk tells me that the council has not met outside of city hall since 2009. Um so we're really happy to have you here with us at a joint meeting. We're on the verge of embarking on a a important project together. Our boards have worked together to find the money for this. I think this is really a positive step that we're all taking uh to do something worth doing uh and in the spirit of cooperation. That's why I hope that you're all about to vote yes. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Corey. Are there any other questions regarding the agenda? No. Then I'm going to move into item number two on the agenda. And
083this is going to be a roll call vote. I entertain a motion to adopt resolution number 143-284 approving an appropriation of 6 million612,375 for the Torington Middle School, Torington Intermediate School roof replacement project and the financing of said appropriation by the issuance of general obligation bonds of the city and notes in anticipation of such bonds in amount not to exceed 5,912,375. $5. Therefore, and resolutions for school construction grant and recommending approval of resolution number 143-285 to the board of councilmen. This is a roll call vote by the board of finance. So, I will start all the way down at the end. Miss Hall. >> Oh, can I get a motion first, please? >> No. >> So, moved. >> Second. >> Anybody? >> Seconded. >> Thank you. Roll call vote. Miss Hall, >> what are my
084options? >> Yes, sir. >> Uh, yay. Yes. Thank you. >> Miss Trump. Yes. >> Miss Pesky? >> Yes. >> Misso? >> Yes. >> Mr. Anderson? >> No. >> Motion passes. So, the next is for >> Yeah. So, what do we have? Five approved, one nay. I can't see everybody down there. Sorry. >> Four yes. One nay. Okay. Thank you. So, the motion passes and I will move on to item number three. And this is a roll call vote for our city council. This is a motion to accept the recommendation of the board of finance and adopt resolution number 143-285 approving the appropriation of $6,612,375 for the Torington Middle School roof replacement project and the financing of set appropriation by the issuance of general obligation bonds of the city and note in anticipation of such bonds
085in an amount not to exceed 5,912,3 $375. Therefore, and resolutions for school construction grant and to submit the bond resolution to voters of the city [clears throat] at a referendum to be held on Tuesday, March 24th, 2026 between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. for a yes or no vote on the following ballot question. Shall the city of Torington appropriate $6,612,375 for the Torington Middle School, Torington Intermediate School Roof Replacement Project, and authorize the issuance of general obligation bonds and notes in the amount not to exceed $5,912,375, provided the amount of such bonds and notes shall be reduced by grants received for for the project, which is currently expected to be $4,745 or $745,796, leaving the city's expected share to be $1,866,579 with a yes or no. So, the council would hereby authorize
086the preparation and printing of the explanatory text by the city clerk in accordance with Connecticut General Statutes 9-369A 1B, subject to Corporation Council approval. Okay, I got a motion. Counciloman Michia, Councilwoman Hannen Herrell. So, this is a roll call vote and I will start with Mr. Beas. >> Yay. >> Miss Hannenhero. >> Yes. >> Mr. Manicha. >> Yes. >> Mr. Cavanero? >> Yes. >> Mr. Rouette? >> No. >> And is Mr. Oliver on? >> Yes. Is your vote a yes or were you acknowledging you were on? >> I was acknowledging. I'll vote against it. >> Thank you. So that's four yays, two nays. Motion passes. So I will um move on to item number four and entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> Oh, excuse me. Excuse me. >> Yes, Miss Dawson. Um I think you
087still need to take the vote on authorizing explanatory text. It was it was embedded in that one motion. >> Okay. I'm sorry. >> Okay. That's okay. We condensed everything. >> All right. I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> So move. Mr. Anderson. All in favor? >> Any opposed? We're adjourned. [clears throat] Thank you.