City finance staff and the city engineer reported construction progress at the downtown stadium site and provided a September 2025 financial progress report, saying capital spending and encumbrances have substantially increased while overall spending remains within the bond-funded budget.

Josh McCutcheon, finance staff filling in for Mr. Boylan, told the Chattanooga City Board the project budget remains $115,000,000 and that the combined costs now show the capital improvement program (CIP) construction progress rising from about $26,000,000 to roughly $36,000,000. "The big change from the last report to this 1, CIP costs or your construction progress went from 26,000,000 to about 36,000,000," McCutcheon said.

McCutcheon said the city has spent a little over $42,000,000 against the stadium budget and has roughly $43,000,000 in unspent purchase orders, leaving a reported remaining cash balance of about $28,000,000; when encumbrances are included, the board has used about 75% of the stadium allocation. The presentation split the bond-related spending from the contractor cash-flow numbers and added a separate section for debt-service payments.

Bill Payne, city engineer for Chattanooga, gave a construction update and photographs dated in September showing progress on the powerhouse, roofing, storefront glass, light poles and initial concourse flat work. Payne said some allowances in the guaranteed-maximum-price (GMP) contract have not been fully used, producing a lag relative to the contractor EMJ's cash-flow estimate. "There were some things that weren't fully designed at the time that the guaranteed maximum price contract was was quoted and put together and approved by the board. So we are seeing a little bit of a little bit of lag there," Payne said. He added that the lag can be beneficial because it leaves contingency and flexibility.

The board heard a breakdown of infrastructure spending west of West 20th Sixth Street, which the presentation divided into general funds, stormwater and wastewater. The report lists a $10,000,000 budget for that site-preparation/infrastructure work; McCutcheon said about 58% of that allocation has been used and about $4,200,000 remains. Payne said stormwater work has been largely completed and more wastewater payments are expected as roadway construction begins.

Both presenters emphasized close tracking of costs. "This was a very tight budget," Payne said. "We are continuing to track, in a very tight way towards where we are, but we still feel very comfortable about where things are overall." Board members asked whether the project remains on track relative to the original cash-flow plan; McCutcheon said he did not have a detailed schedule comparison available and suggested follow-up with staff could provide that context.

No formal action was taken on the construction or budget presentations; the item was presented for information and will be part of the board meeting record. A site tour of the stadium was scheduled to follow the meeting.

The presentation named EMJ (the construction contractor) and referenced the board-authorized contingency and the GMP contract; presenters identified bond proceeds and professional soft costs as parts of the overall spending picture.